Sheet Metal Wkrs. Intl. Assoc., Local 11

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 154 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
Local Union No. 11 and Corrugated Asbestos
Contractors , Inc. and International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO and International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local
Union No. 58 , AFL-CIO. Case 15-CD-127
February 13, 1970
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following a charge by Corrugated Asbestos
Contractors , Inc., herein called the Company,
alleging that Sheet Metal Workers International
Association, Local Union No. 11, herein called
Local 11, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act
by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an
object of forcing or requiring the Company to assign
certain work to employees represented by it, rather
than to employees of the Company represented by
International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO, herein called
Iron Workers . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Edward A. Champagne
on August 14, September 8, and October 7, 1969.
All parties appeared at the hearing, and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine
and cross-examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues . Thereafter , the Company,
Local 11 , and Iron Workers filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three- member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error . Accordingly,
they are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The parties stipulated, and we find, that
Corrugated Asbestos Contractors, Inc. is a
Louisiana corporation with its principal office
located in New Orleans, Louisiana. It is engaged in
the business of engineering, finishing, fabricating,
and installing industrial sheeting and accessories.
During the past year, the Company has purchased
and received goods and material valued in excess of
$50,000 which were shipped directly to it from
points outside the State of Louisiana. We find that
the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local I I
and Iron Workers are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act
111. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Company, from 1953 to May 31, 1969, had
collective-bargaining agreements with Local 11
covering a unit of its employees, and since 1958 has
maintained collective-bargaining agreements with
Iron Workers covering a different unit.
In 1967, the Company was the successful bidder
for the erection of sheet metal siding at the
Hawthorne Power Station in Kansas City, Missouri,
and assigned the work to employees in the Iron
Workers unit . The work involved siding with
corrugations more than 5 inches apart. Sheet Metal
Workers International Association, Local Union
No. 2, herein called Local 2, demanded that the
Company assign the work to its members. The
Company refused. Local 2 then filed a grievance
with the Kansas City Joint Adjustment Board for
the Sheet Metal Industry, which issued a
determination that the Company had violated its
contract by awarding the work to Iron Workers
instead of to members of Local 2. It assessed
damages in the amount of $12,733.20, and further
decided that if the Company failed to comply with
the award, its contract with Local 11 should be
canceled.
The Company appealed to the National Joint
Adjustment Board for the Sheet Metal Industry,
herein called National Sheet Metal Board, which
includes representatives of Sheet Metal Workers
International Association. National Sheet Metal
Board reduced the damages to $2,000, but in
addition to affirming the award appealed from, also
awarded all such work in the future, where the
corrugations were more than 5 inches apart and
wherever the work was located, to Sheet Metal
Workers International Association, or its
appropriate Local on pain of having the contract
with Local 11 canceled. The Company refused to
abide by the award, and on May 8, 1969, Local 11
accordingly advised the Company that it would not
sign any renewal contract, and its members were
told by Business Manager LeBlanc that they could
not work without a contract.
At a subsequent meeting attended by Sheet Metal
Workers International Association representative
Edward Carlough, Jr., the Company and other sheet
metal contractors in the New Orleans area were
advised that the Sheet Metal Workers International
meant business in connection with assignments of
the type of work described above, and that "there
181 NLRB No. 27
SHEET METAL WKRS . INTL . ASSOC ., LOCAL I I
was one representative present whose contract had
been cancelled." This clearly referred to the
Company, Corrugated Asbestos, and indicated that
contract cancellation and refusal to continue
supplying Sheet Metal Workers for any purpose
were to be used as a means of requiring the
Company in the future to assign the disputed work
to employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers.
It thus appears that Local 11 made common cause
with the International in the aim to get the disputed
work assignments for the Sheet Metal Workers.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the Company's erection of
installations of Reynolds V-beam sheeting or siding
with corrugations in excess of 5 inches apart.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Company does work throughout the United
States. It contends that whenever it performs a job
involving hanging metal sheeting, it uses Iron
Workers, irrespective of the distance between
corrugations, and that it employes approximately 35
Iron Workers who are specially trained in the
hanging of metal sheeting. The Company further
contends that it assigned the work to Iron Workers
by virtue of a 1923 decision of the National Joint
Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes,
which awarded the disputed work to Iron Workers.
Iron Workers agrees with the Company that the
controlling factor is the 1923 decision of the Joint
Board; that members of Iron Workers possess the
requisite abilities and training to perform the work
in dispute; and that the practice is to assign the
work in dispute to members of Iron Workers.
Local 11 contends that it has no jurisdictional
dispute of its own with the Company; that it was
instructed by its International, pursuant to the
award of the National Sheet Metal Board under the
grievance procedure of the contract between itself
and the Company, to refuse to renew the contract
because of the Company's refusal to comply with
said award; that Iron Workers have no special skills
over and above those of the Sheet Metal Workers;
that the assignment of the work in dispute is
covered in the 1952 and 1965 agreements between
its International and Iron Workers which granted
the installation of V-beam sheeting with
corrugations over 5 inches apart to Sheet Metal
Workers; and that the industry practice is to award
such work to Sheet Metal Workers.
D. The Applicability of the Statute
The charge alleges a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. We are satisfied upon the
basis of the record that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Local 11 has engaged in proscribed
action with an object of forcing the Company to
155
assign work to employees who are members of or
represented by Sheet Metal Workers International
Association or its Locals, rather than to Iron
Workers. On the basis of the entire record, we find
that the dispute is properly before us for
determination.
E. The Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
only after giving due consideration to various
relevant factors .' In this case, we consider the
following factors to be determinative of the issues
here involved:
1. Certification and bargaining agreements
The evidence indicates that there is no Board
certification relative to the disputed work, and that
the Company has no bargaining agreement assigning
work to Sheet Metal Workers International
Association or any of its Locals.
As there Is no certification or
collective-bargaining agreement covering the
disputed work, neither Local 11 nor Iron Workers is
favored by these factors.
2. Alleged interunion agreement
Local 11, relying on the Board's reasoning in
Local Union No 68, Wood, Wire and Metal
Lathers International Union (Acoustics &
Specialties, Inc. ),2 contends that the Board should
give weight to what is asserted to be an agreement
between the two Internationals assigning to Sheet
Metal Workers the installation of siding with
corrugations more than 5 inches apart. We view the
asserted agreement as substantially distinguishable
from the one in the Acoustics & Specialties case.
Here, an agreement to this effect was signed by the
respective international presidents of Sheet Metal
Workers and Iron Workers on October 30, 1965,
but it was repudiated by Iron Workers on
November 22, 1965. That the October 1965
agreement is not being honored by Iron Workers is
further evidenced by a letter of March 20, 1968,
from the President of Iron Workers to the
Company, stating that there was no agreement in
existence between the two International Unions on
jurisdiction of the work in dispute. Thus it appears
from the record that the alleged interunion
agreement was not in existence at the time of the
present dispute.
IN L R B v Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local
1212. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( Columbia
Broadcasting Svstem) . 364 U S 573
2I42 NLRB 1073
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Company and industry practice
Since 1960, the Company has been installing
metal sheeting with corrugations both less and more
than 5 inches apart, and has consistently assigned
both types of work to its employees in the unit
represented by Iron Workers.
As for the industry practice apart from the
Company's own practice, the evidence shows,
contrary to the claim of Local 11, that there is no
clear practice in the industry, either in the area or
nationwide , of assigning the disputed work to Sheet
Metal Workers. Consequently, the alleged practice,
upon which Local 11 relies, is not a significant
factor in determining the assignment of the work in
dispute.
In the absence of evidence of any relevant area or
industry practice favoring Sheet Metal Workers, the
established practice of the Company in assigning
Iron Workers to perform the work and the failure
of Local 11 to object to the assignments until May
1969 are factors favoring the continued assignment
of the disputed work to employees represented by
Iron Workers.
4. Efficiency of operation
In the years that the Company has been installing
metal sheeting, Iron Workers have demonstrated to
the satisfaction of the Company that the employees
in its unit possess the knowledge and skill necessary
to do the work. These employees have been trained
by the Company and serve as leadmen on the
jobsites. While it appears that Local 11 members
may also possess the necessary skills to install the
sheeting, their work assignments have been limited
to fabricating the metal for gutters and downspouts.
We find that these factors favor the assignment of
the work in dispute to employees represented by
Iron Workers.
F. Conclusion as to the Merits of the Dispute
In view of the foregoing, on the basis of the
record as a whole, and upon appraisal of all relevant
considerations, we believe that the work in dispute
should be awarded to employees represented by Iron
Workers. The fact that the Company' s assignment is
consistent with its own past practice, the further fact
that Iron Workers employed by the Company have
the requisite skill and are familiar with all facets of
the work, and the attendant efficiency and economy
of the established operations, lead us to conclude
that the Company' s assignment of the work is a
proper one. Therefore, we shall determine the
dispute by assigning the work in question to the
employees represented by Iron Workers.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of
the foregoing findings and the entire record in this
case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute:
1. Company employees who are represented by
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, are entitled
to the work of installing Reynolds V-beam siding
having 5 inches or more between corrugations.
2. Sheet Metal Workers International
Association, Local Union No. 11, is not entitled, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act,
to force or require Corrugated Asbestos
Contractors, Inc., to assign the work described
above to members or employees represented by
Sheet Metal Workers International Association or
any Local thereof.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, Local Union No. 11,
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing
or requiring Corrugated Asbestos Contractors, Inc.,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign
the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with
the above determination.