Plumbers Local 598 (Mechanical Contractors)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 487 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

PLUMBERS LOCAL 598 (MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS)
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No 598,
United Association of Journeymen and Appren
tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry
of the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO
(Mechanical Contractors Association of Wash
ington) and Lloyd C O'Quinn Case 19-CB-
5060
24 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
Upon a charge filed 2 February 1984 and an
amended charge filed 9 April 1984, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Acting Regional Director for Region 19, issued
a complaint and notice of hearing 28 March 1984
An amendment to complaint was issued 4 June
1984 The complaint and amendment to complaint
allege that Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union
No 598, United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus
try of the United States and Canada AFL-CIO
(the Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act by the manner in which it operated
its hiring hall
On 27 August 1984 the General Counsel, the Re
spondent, and the Charging Party entered into a
stipulation of facts and motion to transfer proceed
ing to the Board The parties agree that the stipula
tion, formal papers, and the documents identified as
joint exhibits constitute the entire record in this
case, and that no oral testimony is necessary or de
sired by any party The parties waived a hearing
and the issuance of a decision by an administrative
law judge and submitted the case directly to the
Board for findings of facts and conclusions of law
On 18 October 1984 the Board issued an order
approving the stipulation and transferring the pro
ceeding to the Board Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed briefs i
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
On the entire record and the briefs, the Board
makes the following findings
I JURISDICTION
The Mechanical Contractors Association (MCA)
is a multiemployer group representing employers in
the plumbing and pipefitting industry, including,
inter alia, contractors doing business in Central
Washington and Northeastern Oregon MCA
' Respondents motion to strike the General Counsels brief is denied
as la„ king in merit
487
member firms, during the 12 months preceding 28
March 1984, in the course and conduct of their
business operations purchased and caused to be de
livered to their facilities within the State of Wash
mgton goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from sources outside the State, or
from suppliers within the State which in turn ob
tained such goods and materials directly from
sources outside the State We find that MCA is an
employer association whose members are engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2)
(6) and (7) of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No 598,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada , AFL-CIO is a labor or
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Stipulated Facts
The Respondent and MCA have been parties to
a series of collective bargaining agreements Each
agreement, including the most recent 1982-1984
agreement, has provided for the utilization of an
exclusive hiring hall for dispatch of work appli
cants The hiring hall has always prioritized dis
patches based on experience in the industry
The 1982-1984 contract provides
Article 33 Section 1 Separate A, B and C lists
will be maintained for pipefitters, welders and
plumbers Eligibility for registration is not de
pendent upon or affected by any aspect of
Union membership except that applicants who
are not in compliance with the Union security
requirements of this Agreement will not be
dispatched
Article 33 Section 2 The A lists (a) All jour
neymen who have resided for four (4) consec
utive years within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Agreement immediately preceding regis
tration on the out of work list, and who have
worked four (4) or more years at the trade
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Agree
ment The B List All journeymen who have
resided for four (4) consecutive years within
the States of Washington Oregon or Idaho im
mediately preceding registration on the out-of
work list and who have worked four (4) or
more years at the trade within the States of
Washington Oregon or Idaho The C list all
other journeymen The D List applicants who
276 NLRB No 64
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have two years construction experience as
pipefitters plumbers or welders
Article 37 Section 2 The term 'year' refers
to 1500 hours of work at the trade within a
calendar year School (after grade 12) directly
related to the trade will be recognized The
1500 hour requirement shall be effective pro-
spectively Work as a nuclear metal trades
man[,] plumber , pipefitter or welder shall con
stitute work at the trade
Article 37 Section 3 The term journeymen'
refers to a person who has worked for four or
more consecutive years in the construction in
dustry as a pipefitter plumber or welder or as
a nuclear metal tradesman, plumber , pipefitter
or welder
The contract also refers to a separate Joint Ap-
prenticeship Training Council (JATC) composed
equally of representatives of management and
labor, which was created to develop and adminis
ter an apprenticeship program The JATC operates
the apprenticeship program according to appren
ticeship standards that the Washington State
Bureau of Apprenticeship Training reviews and ap-
proves and the JATC (subject to state approval)
sets the apprenticeship programs curriculum The
application qualifications for the apprenticeship
program are high school graduation or equivalent
and age limitations The JATC administers an ob-
jective examination to determine which applicants
enter the program Neither the Respondent nor the
MCA can control the process or influence the
result Union membership is not required to enter
or graduate The JATC determines when an mdi
vidual has successfully completed the apprentice
ship program and becomes a journeyman The ap-
prenticeship program which is generally complet
ed in 4 years is an 8000 hour program The 8000
hours can consist of on the job training, classroom
instruction workshop instruction , homework, and
public interest projects to benefit the community
and broaden the skills of the apprentice The col
lective bargaining agreement provides for the em-
ployment, rates of pay, and supervision of mdivid
uals participating in the apprenticeship program
When an individual graduates from the appren
ticeship program, he becomes a journeyman The
Respondent has automatically placed graduates of
the apprenticeship program on the contractually es
tablished A" list since at least 1976 Before plac
ring a graduate on the `A" list, the Respondent
makes no actual count of the graduate 's work,
study workshop , community service, or homework
hours In September 1983 a substantial number of
apprentices graduated as journeymen The Re
spondent placed them on the "A" hiring hall list,
consistent with its practice in each of the preceding
8 years
B Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that the Respond
ent has unlawfully operated its hiring hall in a
manner different from that provided in its negotiat
ed and published hiring hall rules The General
Counsel argues alternatively that placing JATC
graduates on the A list without independently
verifying their credentials discriminates against
other hiring hall users
The Respondent contends the long time practice
of granting A list status to JATC graduates is
not discriminatory and does not deviate from its
hiring hall rules 2
C Analysis
We find that the General Counsel failed to estab-
lish the violations alleged in the complaint Initial
ly, the General Counsel does not distinguish be
tween deviation from clear and unambiguous re
quirements that have to be met before an individual
is placed on the A" list and the method that is
used to determine whether those requirements have
in fact been met The parties' contract does not
specify a method to determine whether an individ-
ual meets the A ' list requirements Because there
are no contractual rules regarding the method for
determining whether an individual satisfies the re
quirements for placement on the A' list, the Re
spondent has not departed from the established
hiring hall procedures by equating JATC s consid
erable graduation requirements with fulfillment of
the "A" list criteria The stipulation of facts pro
vides no basis for finding that the method coin
plained of is unlawfully discriminatory , or inherent
ly destructive of the Section 7 rights of the non-
JATC graduates There is also no record evidence
to show that the Respondent denied a position on
the A' list to any non JATC graduate who met
the contractually established criteria for placement
on the A list Thus , the General Counsel's argu
meat that the Respondent unlawfully deviated
from its clear and unambiguous hiring hall rules
and thereby provided advantages for one identifia-
ble group of applicants over another equally quali
fled group is simply not supported by the record 3
' In view of our disposition of this case, we find it unnecessary to ad
dress the Respondents contention that the charge is barred by Sec 10(b)
of the Act
' Although the General Counsel alleged that the Respondent placed
JATC graduates on the A list knowing that in some, or even many
cases, they were not qualified the record contains no evidence to prove
that allegation
PLUMBERS LOCAL 598 (MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS) 489
The General Counsel also argues that the Re find that the Respondent did not violate Section
spondent s practice of automatically placing the 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act Accordingly, we
JATC graduates on the 4 ' referral list was mote shall dismiss the complaint
vated by arbitrary and invidious considerations
The General Counsel 's arguments are highly specu ORDER
lative and are not supported by any evidence The complaint is dismissed
Having concluded that the General Counsel
failed to prove the allegations of the complaint, we