Sheet Metal Workers Intl. Assn. Local 18

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 470 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local
Union No . 18 and Circle T Construction, Inc. and
Carpenters District Council of North Central
Texas of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, Representing
Carpenter Local Unions No . 198, 1526 and 1822.
Case 16-CD-109
March 7, 1974
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by Circle T Construction, Inc.,
herein called Employer, alleging a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by Sheet Metal
Workers International Association, Local Union No.
18, herein called Sheet Metal Workers. Pursuant to a
notice, a hearing was held on June 21, July 30 and
31, and August 1, 1973, in Fort Worth, Texas, before
Hearing Officer Evert P. Rhea. The Employer, the
Sheet Metal Workers, and Carpenters District
Council of North Central Texas of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, representing Carpenters Local Unions
No. 198, 1526 and 1822, herein called Carpenters,
appeared at the hearing and were all afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the basis of the entire record I in this case,
the Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS ON THE COMPANY
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer, a Texas corporation engaged in the
business of acoustical and drywall ceiling work
i The postheanng request of Sheet Metal Workers to admit evidence of
the August 16. 1973, decision of the Appeals Board of the Plan for
Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes Building and Construction industry is
hereby granted and the decision is hereby made part of the record herein.
2 Commencing with November 1972, the Employer performed over
$500,000 worth of business per year in the construction industry and
annually purchased in excess of $50,000 worth of goods and materials from
across state lines
3 The Sheet Metal Workers contends that a prior settlement of a dispute
generally described as wall and ceiling construction,
is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act.2
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Sheet
Metal Workers and the Carpenters are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The site of the instant dispute is the Dallas-Fort
Worth Airport which is presently under construction.
The Employer is performing the ceiling installation
work on Terminal 2W under a subcontract with the
Mayes Company. Mayes is the prime contractor for
the completion of work on Terminal 2W according
to the specifications of Braniff International, which
will occupy this terminal.
The Employer is a member of the North Texas
Contractors Association, which has a contract with
the Carpenters. Fifty carpenters have been employed
on Terminal 2W and the Employer has assigned the
disputed work to the Carpenters , as is its usual
practice. There are three other terminals where metal
pan ceilings are presently being installed. At two of
these terminals employees represented by the Car-
penters are performing this work, while work on the
third is being performed by sheetmetal workers.
There is no agreed-upon method for settling
jurisdictional disputes by which all parties are
bound3 and there are no outstanding Board certifica-
tions which apply to any of the work involved herein.
B. The Work in Dispute
This dispute concerns the assignment of the work
involved in the installation of metal pan ceilings. The
work involves attachment of T bars to channels
which are hung by hangers from the concrete ceiling.
The T bars are attached by means of a metal clip.
The work also involves the sizing and insertion of the
metal pans into the T bars.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Carpenters and the Sheet Metal Workers filed
briefs in this case, while the Employer submitted
over similar work at the same terminal between it and Acoustics By Boggs,
another ceiling subcontractor, is applicable and controlling of this dispute
As we find the record herein insufficient to establish any relationship
between the Employer and Boggs, we find the prior settlement inapplicable
to this dispute . Furthermore , the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Employer and the Carpenters provides that all jurisdictional disputes
"shall be decided by the Employer filing a petition with the National Labor
Relations Board and the Employer seeking a determination pursuant to
Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended."
209 NLRB No. 75
SHEET METAL WORKERS INTL. ASSN. LOCAL 18
final argument at the hearing in lieu of a brief in
which it adopted primarily the claims made by the
Carpenters.
The Employer assigned the work in dispute to
employees represented by the Carpenters and favors
that assignment rather than one to members of the
Sheet Metal Workers. The Employer submitted
testimony that it considers the carpenters more
efficient and skillful in the performance of the
disputed work and that it believes that assignment of
this work to sheetmetal workers would complicate its
performance of its contract with Mayes.
The Carpenters claims that the Employer's assign-
ment of the disputed work to employees which it
represents is a proper assignment and that the
Carpenters can provide a sufficient number of skilled
craftsmen in the Dallas-Fort Worth area for this
installation work, whereas Sheet Metal Workers does
not have this capability. The Carpenters further
contends that factors such as skill, economy of
operation, and past practice, as well as its collective-
bargaining agreement with the Employer, favor
assignment of the disputed work to employees which
it represents.
Besides claiming the disputed work by virtue of its
prior dispute and settlement with Acoustics By
Boggs,4 Sheet Metal Workers also contends that
factors such as several awards by the National Joint
Board for the Adjustment of Jurisdictional Disputes,
area practice, and its constitution favor awarding the
disputed work to employees which it represents.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The record herein shows that, in May 1973, then
business agent for the Sheet Metal Workers, Gorden
Price, made a telephone request of the Mayes
Company for the disputed work. An executive of
Mayes told him that his craft would not be able to
obtain the work. Price knew, in January 1973, that
the Employer was low bidder with Mayes and that it
would use carpenters to do the work. Price respond-
ed by asking where the pickets should be placed if
the Carpenters was given the work.
Picketing was commenced by the Sheet Metal
Workers on June 4, 1973. The picketing was directed
at Circle T Construction Company, Inc. The reason
given was that the Company did not have a contract
with the Sheet Metal Workers. The charges herein
were filed on June 4, 1973, and the picketing ceased 3
days thereafter. The picketing was honored by
members of the Plumbers and Electricians working
on the construction project.
4 See In. 3, supra.
e N L R B v Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFl-CIO [Columbia
471
We find, therefore, based on the above that there is
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dispute
is properly before the Board for determination under
Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after taking
into account the evidence supporting the claims of
the parties and balancing all relevant factors.5
We shall set forth below those factors which we
find relevant in determining the dispute herein.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Employer entered into a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Carpenters on March 5, 1973,
which explicitly provides that the Carpenters work
jurisdiction includes "the installation of all types of
metal ceilings."
The Employer has no collective-bargaining agree-
ments with the Sheet Metal Workers and the record
does not support the contention of the Sheet Metal
Workers that the Employer's agreement with the
Carpenters was improperly entered into.
We thus find this factor favors awarding the
disputed work to employees represented by the
Carpenters.
2. Skill and training
While the record shows that both groups of
employees have performed the work in dispute in the
past, it also shows that the Carpenters has both an
on-the-job training program for this work and a 4-
year classroom training program wherein its mem-
bers receive specific training in the installation of all
types of ceilings including metal pan. The Sheet
Metal Workers provides only on-the-job training.
The record also contains testimony that on occasions
in the past other contractors have run into extraordi-
nary cost overruns installing metal pan ceilings due
to the inefficiency of sheetmetal workers' perform-
ance of the work in dispute.
We find therefore that factors of skill and training
militate in favor of awarding the disputed work to
employees represented by the Carpenters.
3. Employer's past practice
Although the Sheet Metal Workers correctly points
out that the Employer has never installed metal pan
ceilings prior to this job, it has always employed
Broadcasting System], 364 U.S. 573; International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB
1402.1410-11.
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
carpenters in the past to perform its other types of
ceiling work. .
We find therefore that this factor favors awarding
the disputed work to employees represented by the
Carpenters.
4. Area practice
The record contains evidence that both crafts have
done the disputed work in the relevant area. In fact,
both are currently involved in performing the
disputed work at different terminals of this same
airport.
We find therefore that this factor favors neither the
Carpenters nor the Sheet Metal Workers.
5. Awards of Joint Boards
Sheet Metal Workers has submitted several awards
from the National Joint Board granting work in
similar situations to employees it represents. The
Carpenters has challenged the validity of the awards
from the Joint Board, on grounds that those awards
were based on its being in noncompliance and not on
any relevant factors insofar as this Board's determi-
nation is concerned. As noted supra, the only award,
involving somewhat similar work, from the new
Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board for the
Construction Industry has been decided on appeal in
favor of the Sheet Metal Workers after the Disputes
Board had first awarded the work to the Carpenters.
We thus find this factor favors awarding the
disputed work to employees represented by the Sheet
Metal Workers, but do not find it controlling.
6. Extent of award
The Carpenters and the Employer are seeking a
broad order extending the award to future buildings
at the airport jobsite. The Sheet Metal Workers
opposes such an award.
Inasmuch as none of the witnesses for the Employ-
er or any other interested party were able to testify
that they might be involved in providing the same
work on additional terminals, we will limit the award
herein to the dispute over the work at Terminal 2W.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the
entire record, we conclude that the work in dispute
involves the installation of metal pan ceilings for
Terminal 2W of the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, and
such work should be assigned to the employees
represented by the Carpenters rather than those
represented by the Sheet Metal Workers. We reach
the conclusion relying on the Employer's assignment,
the collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the Carpenters, and the Employer's
past practice, as well as the skill and training of the
employees involved.
Accordingly, we shall award the disputed work to
those employees who are represented by the Carpen-
ters, but not to that Union or its members. Our
present determination is limited to the particular
dispute which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the foregoing
findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the
National Labor Relations Board makes the following
determination of dispute:
1. Employees of Circle T Construction, Inc.,
Dallas, Texas, currently represented by Carpenters
District Council of North Central Texas of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, representing Carpenter Local
Unions No. 198, 1526 and 1822, are entitled to
perform the work of installing the metal pan ceilings
on Terminal 2W of the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.
2. Sheet Metal Workers International Associa-
tion, Local Union No. 18, is not entitled , by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force
or require Circle T Construction, Inc., to assign the
above work to sheetmetal workers represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, Local Union No. 18, shall
notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring Circle T Construction, Inc., by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign
the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the
above determination.