Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 141

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 310 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local
Union No. 141, AFL-CIO and Fred B. DeBra Com-
pany, Inc. and Pipefitters Union Local 329, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. and
Canada, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CD-360
September 25, 1979
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, fol-
lowing a charge filed by Fred B. DeBra Company,
Inc., herein called the Employer or DeBra, alleging
that Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
Local Union No. 141, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Charged Party or the Sheet Metal Workers, had vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in
certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing
or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to
its members rather than to employees represented by
Pipefitters Union Local 392, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. and Canada, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Pipefitters.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer Raymond D. Neusch on May 2, 4, and 8,
1979, in Cincinnati, Ohio. All parties appeared and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, briefs were
filed by the Sheet Metal Workers, the Pipefitters, and
the Employer.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, an Ohio corporation with its principal place of
business in Cincinnati, Ohio, is engaged in the busi-
ness of mechanical contracting. During the 12 months
preceding the hearing, a representative period, the
Employer purchased goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located out-
side the State of Ohio, which goods and materials it
caused to be shipped in interstate commerce directly
from points outside the State of Ohio to its Cincin-
nati, Ohio, location. During the same representative
period the Employer had a gross volume of business
in excess of $500,000. Accordingly, we find, as the
parties have stipulated, that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) cf the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVO()LVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Pipefit-
ters and the Sheet Metal Workers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
As set forth in the notice of hearing the work in
dispute consists of "the handling and installation of
fluid type solar collector panels at the Montgomery
Ward project in Sharonville, Ohio." However, at the
hearing the parties entered into a stipulation concern-
ing the work in dispute, and on the basis of this stipu-
lation we find that the work in dispute consists of the
handling and installation of a hydronics heating sys-
tem using fluid type solar collector panels at the
Montgomery Ward project in Sharonville, Ohio.
In June 19781 DeBra was awarded a subcontract
by W. E. O'Neil Construction Company (hereinafter
called O'Neil) to perform the heating, ventilating, and
air-conditioning work on the Montgomery Ward
Midwestern Distribution Center construction project.
for which O'Neil is the general contractor. At that
time the only labor organization with which DeBra
had a collective-bargaining relationship was the Pipe-
fitters.2 In August DeBra subcontracted the sheet
metal work portion of its subcontract with O'Neil to
Glenway Sheet Metal Company, which was party to
a collective-bargaining agreement with the Sheet
Metal Workers.
When DeBra was awarded the subcontract for me-
chanical work, it did not involve the work in dispute
here. Subsequently, however, the owner of the project
decided to install a solar heating system in addition to
the boiler system for which DeBra had orginally sub-
contracted. DeBra successfully bid on the solar work
I All dates hereinafter are 1978, unless otherwise indicated.
2 On March 15, 1979, the Sheet Metal Workers was certified to represent
certain employees in a division of DeBra called Air Master Heating & Cool-
ing. None of these employees worked for DeBra n the Montgomery Ward
project.
245 NLRB No. 43
10o
SHEET METAI. WORKERS LOC. UNION NO. 141
and began working on the installation of the solar
heating system in September, assigning all the work
under both subcontracts, including the work in dis-
pute, to its employees represented by the Pipefitters.
The initial work on the solar system consisted primar-
ily of installation of the interior piping and of the
framework upon which the solar collector panels are
placed. There is no dispute as to either of these phases
of the solar system installation.
The work in dispute herein involves certain aspects
of the installation of the solar panels on the roof
framework which is performed by crews consisting of
four employees each. The panels are unloaded from
the truck, which delivers them to the jobsite, and
hoisted directly to the roof, and then immediately dis-
tributed to designated places on the roof. Each panel
has four piping connections, which are inspected and
prepared when the panel is located in the appropriate
place on the framework. While one panel in a row is
being installed, other crewmembers prepare the next
panel for installation, and once it is in place it is con-
nected to the first panel with a length of pipe, the
panels are bolted to the framework, and the piping
connections are soldered together.
A meeting between the Pipefitters and the Sheet
Metal Workers representatives was held in the fall of
19783 at the construction site. At that meeting, the
Sheet Metal Workers representatives argued that a
June 23, 1976, interim agreement4 required that com-
posite crews of members of Sheet Metal Workers and
Pipefitters should perform the work here in dispute.5
However, the United Association representative re-
fused to acquiesce in the Sheet Metal Workers Inter-
national's position, and the dispute over the assign-
ment of the solar panel work remained unresolved.6
The first load of solar panels arrived by truck at the
jobsite during the early morning of March 21, 1979.
Carl Reidel, a job superintendent of DeBra at the
Montgomery Ward project, testified that at 7:30 a.m.
DeBra employees represented by the Pipefitters be-
gan unloading the panels and, at 9:30 a.m., two mem-
bers of the Sheet Metal Workers employed by Glen-
3 The exact date of this meeting does not appear in the record. but the
Sheet Metal Workers, in its brief, states that it occurred on October 12
4 This document was signed by the respective jurisdictional officers of the
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (herein Sheet Metal Workers
International) and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada.
AFL-CIO (herein United Association).
I The pertinent section of the agreement provides: "1. Solar Collectors or
panels having tubing and/or piping. for liquid flow as well as all supports for
same, and any ngging in connection therewith shall be handled and erected
by a composite crew equal in number of members of the respective Unions"
sOn April 25, 1979. Mack Roberts, director of trade jurisdiction for the
United Association. wrote to James Crump, chief International representa-
tive of the Sheet Metal Workers International. "requesting that the Interim
Understanding [the June 23, 1976. agreement) on solar collectors and sup-
ports be abrogated."
way came over to the truck, slammed its door shut,
and discussed the dispute with the workers on the
truck. According to Reidel. a Glenway foreman
caused the sheet metal workers to stop interfering
with the unloading work, and the solar panels were
unloaded, hoisted to the root: and distributed to ap-
propriate places on the roof' by DeBra employees rep-
resented by the Pipefitters. On March 22 the Sheet
Metal Workers established a picket line at the job-
site.7 and picketing continued until April 4. 1979. The
picket signs bore the legend; "We protest UA Refusal
to Abide By Jurisdictional Agreement. Sheet Metal
Workers Local 141." Throughout the duration of the
picketing no employees of Glenway worked on the
Montgomery Ward project.
On April 3, 1979, Glenway submitted the dispute
to the Impartial Jurisdictional Dispute Board, herein-
after referred to as IJDB. On April 18, 1979, the
IJDB refused to hear the dispute on grounds that
Glenway was not the contractor for the work and
therefore the dispute was not properly before the
IJDB.
On March 27, 1979, DeBra filed the instant charge.
alleging that the Sheet Metal Workers had violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by the aforementioned
picketing in order to force DeBra to assign the work
in dispute to employees represented by the Sheet
Metal Workers.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The Sheet Metal Workers contends that the charge
should be dismissed and the notice of hearing
quashed because no reasonable cause exists to show
that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated.
In support of this contention the Sheet Metal Work-
ers asserts that its picket line was for informational
purposes only and was directed at the Pipefitters and
not at any employers, and that it was therefore not
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D). Alternatively. the
Sheet Metal Workers contends that there exists an
agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustme.it of
the dispute.
As to the merits of the dispute, the Sheet Metal
Workers does not claim jurisdiction over work which
it concedes is uniquely pipefitters' work, such as the
opening or swedging of the panel pipe connections.
the connection of pipe between panels, or the solder-
ing of pipe connections. However, the Sheet Metal
Workers contends that, by virtue of the 1976 interim
agreement described above, and on the basis of the
industrial practice to abide by this agreement. the un-
loading, distribution, and bolting of the panels to
7 Roessler. business manager of the Sheet Metal Workers. testihed hat he
was informed on March 21. 1979. of the aIrrlsal of the panel, that das and
directed that a picket line be estabhlished he nest day
31 1
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
frames should be performed by composite crews of
employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers and
those represented by Pipefitters.
The Employer contends that there is reasonable
cause to believe that the Sheet Metal Workers vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by seeking to com-
pel, through picketing, the assignment of the disputed
work to employees represented by it. The Employer
further contends that there is no agreed-upon method
for the voluntary resolution of this dispute which is
binding upon all parties to this proceeding. On the
merits, the Employer contends that the disputed work
should be awarded to employees represented by the
Pipefitters on the basis of (I) the Employer's orginal
assignment and preference; (2) economy and effi-
ciency of the Employer's operation and because the
solar collector panel system involved here is a piping
system with no sheet metal or duct work connected to
it, and thus the work at issue is traditional pipefitter
work; (3) area practice; (4) the Employer's collective-
bargaining agreement with the Pipefitters; and (5) the
relative skills possessed by the two groups of employ-
ees. The Pipefitters takes essentially the same position
as the Employer.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that (1) there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated,
and (2) the parties have not agreed upon methods for
the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As to (1), above, it was stipulated on the record
that "on March 22, 1979, Sheet Metal Workers Local
141 caused a picket line to be placed at the Mont-
gomery Ward job site and that the pickets stayed on
the job site until April 4, 1979, to picket." As a result
of the picketing Glenway employees did not perform
services for their employer at the site. Additionally,
John MacDonald, the president of Glenway, testified
without contradiction that during the course of a
meeting held March 21, 1979, Sheet Metal Workers
Business Agent Richard Scott told him that "if they
didn't get half labor on the panels, they [Sheet Metal
Workers] were putting a picket up in the morning."
MacDonald also testified, again without contradic-
tion, that on another occasion, after the picket line
had been established, Sheet Metal Workers Business
Manager Paul Roessler admitted to him that he knew
the picketing was illegal, but that "it was the only
thing they could do to bring the thing to the head."
Although Roessler testified that the purpose of the
picket was "strictly in protest of the United Associ-
ation to refuse to abide by the jurisdictional agree-
ments," he did not deny making the statement attrib-
uted to him by MacDonald. In these circumstances,
we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated.
As to (2), above, as noted supra, Sheet Metal Work-
ers contends that all parties to the instant proceeding
are required to submit their jurisdictional disputes to
the Impartial Jurisdictional Dispute Board (IJDB) for
determination and that, therefore, the instant dispute
is not properly before the Board. However, although
it appears from the record that both the Sheet Metal
Workers and the Pipefitters are bound to abide by the
IJDB's rules and procedures for the settlement of ju-
risdictional disputes, it is clear from the record that
DeBra is not. Thus, the record establishes that DeBra
is not individually signatory to the IJDB, and the Me-
chanical Contractors Association of Cincinnati, of
which DeBra is a member and which negotiates on
behalf of DeBra and other contractors with the Pipe-
fitters, has specifically declined to bind itself and its
members to the IJDB. Furthermore, although the
Mechanical Contractors Association of Cincinnati is
affiliated with the Mechanical Contractors Associ-
ation of America, which is party to the agreement
establishing the IJDB, the Mechanical Contractors
Association of America has not stipulated that either
it or its members or affiliates would be bound by the
IJDB. Therefore, as DeBra is not bound either in-
dividually or as a member in an employer associ-
ation8 to the IJDB's procedures, not all parties to the
dispute are bound and the IJDB does not constitute
an agreed-upon method for resolving the dispute.
The Sheet metal Workers further contends that an
interim national agreement executed by the Sheet
Metal Workers International and the United Associ-
ation in 1956 settled jurisdictional issues on certain
designated work. The Sheet Metal Workers further
contends that the two International Unions also
agreed upon a procedure for resolving disputes in-
volving work not specifically covered in the agree-
ment as follows:
The first attempt to be made by the Local Union
representatives in the area, and upon failure to
resolve the disputed work in question the matter
will then be referred to an International Repre-
sentative of each organization; and upon failure
of their settling the work in question the entire
matter will be referred to the General Counsel
Officers signatory to the Interim National Agree-
ment.
i We find United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipe Ftting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union
No. 447, AFL-CIO (Capitol Air Conditioning, Inc.). 224 NLRB 985 (1976),
cited by the Sheet Metal Workers, inapposite here, inasmuch as in that case
there was a specific provision in the employer association's constitution and
bylaws binding its members to the IJDB.
312
SHEET METAL WORKERS LOC. UNION NO. 141
The Sheet Metal Workers further contends that the
Employer is bound to this 1956 agreement by the ju-
risdictional provision in its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Pipefitters. However, article IV.
section 2, merely provides that the Pipefittersjurisdic-
tion covers:
All work performed in connection with pipefit-
ting systems, industrial process piping systems.
sewage disposal plants, which is properly under
the jurisdiction of Local 392, in accordance with
the rulings and precedents of the United Associ-
ation and component parts thereof shall be per-
formed by employees covered by the terms of
this agreement. [Emphasis supplied.]
Contrary to the contentions of the Sheet Metal
Workers, we find that this language does not bind
DeBra to agreements between the United Association
and other labor organizations. The Sheet Metal
Workers cites Plumbers Local Union No. 447 (Capitol
Air Conditioning, Inc.), supra, for the proposition that
DeBra is bound to observe the 1956 interim national
agreement. In Capitol, however, unlike the instant
case, the employer's collective-bargaining agreement
with one of the unions claiming the work in dispute
specifically provided that the employer would respect
and apply all national agreements between the Sheet
Metal Workers International and other unions gov-
erning jurisdictional disputes. As there is no similar
requirement in the collective-bargaining agreement
between the Employer and the Pipefitters, we find
that DeBra is not bound by agreements executed by
the Pipefitters and other labor organizations to which
DeBra is not a party.
Therefore we find that there is no indication on the
record that an agreed-upon method exists for the vol-
untary adjustment of this dispute which is binding
upon all of the parties. Accordingly, we find that the
dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion 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 giving
due consideration to various factors.9 The Board has
held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute
is an act of judgment based on commonsense and
experience reached by balancing those factors in-
volved in a particular case.' 0
N.L .R.I. v. Radio Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A FL CIO [Columbia Broad-
casting System], 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
10 InternationalAssociation o Machinists, Lodge No 1743. 4 Fl CIO (J. A
Jones Constuction Company, 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
I. Certification and collective-hargaining agreements
The record does not indicate that the Pipefitters has
ever been certified as the representative of an) of the
Employer's employees. As noted above, on March 15.
1979, the Sheet Metal Workers was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of all of DeBra's
sheet metal workers, hut none of these emplo\ees
works at the Montgomery Ward site, and there is no
contention that the certification covers the work in
dispute at the Montgomery Ward job. Accordingkl.
we find that the certification of the Sheet Metal
Workers is not a significant factor for purposes of
determining this dispute.
DeBra did not at the time of the hearing herein or
at any other material time have a collective-bargailn-
ing agreement with the Sheet Metal Workers. How-
ever, at all material times DeBra has been part., to a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Pipefitters.
The Pipefitters contract with the Employer, in article
IV, section 2, provides in pertinent part:
All work performed in connection with pipefit-
ting systems, including fabrication, assembly,
erection, installation, dismantling, repairing, re-
conditioning, adjusting, altering, servicing and
handling, unloading, distributing and reloading.
of all piping, air conditioning and refrigeration
materials, appurtenances and equipment. hang-
ers and supports of every description ... shall be
performed by employees covered by the terms of
this agreement.
Furthermore, article IV, section 3, provides:
Related Jurisdiction. The handling of all materi-
als on the job site, the laying out and cutting of
all holes, chases and channels, the setting and
erection of bolts and inserts, stands, brackets
supports, sleeves, thimbles, hangers. conduits
and boxes used shall be done only by Employees.
as defined herein.
The solar collector panel system involved here has
only piping running through it and piping connec-
tions attached to it; there is no sheet metal or duct
work connected to the system. Thus, the work in dis-
pute is specifically covered by the jurisdictional lan-
guage in the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Employer and the Pipefitters.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer's collec-
tive-bargaining agreement wth the Pipefitters favors
award of the disputed work to employees represented
by that labor organization.
313
I[ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The 1976 agreement between the United
Association and the Sheet Metal Workers
International
As discussed above, in 1976 representatives of the
respective jurisdictional departments of the United
Association and of the Sheet Metal Workers Interna-
tional executed an "Interim Understanding" which
provided, in pertinent part, that:
Solar Collectors or panels having tubing and/or
piping, for liquid flow as well as all supports for
same, and any rigging in connection therewith
shall be handled and erected by a composite
crew equal in number of members of the respec-
tive Unions.
Although this language favors award of the work in
dispute to employees represented by the Sheet Metal
Workers, we note that the two Unions involved in
this proceeding have not agreed to abide by the in-
terim understanding and that the United Association
has abrogated the agreement. In these circumstances
we accord no weight to the interim understanding."
3. Employer and area practice
Solar heating systems represent a relatively new
technology. However, DeBra has installed solar heat-
ing systems, similar to that at the Montgomery Ward
project, in several other construction projects. DeBra
has invariably assigned all of the work involved in the
handling and installation of the solar collector panels
to employees represented by the Pipefitters, and the
Sheet Metal Workers concedes that, within its territo-
rial boundaries, members of Pipefitters have devel-
oped a practice of doing all the work involved in in-
stalling solar systems.
In these circumstances, we find that employer and
area practice favor an award of the work in dispute to
employees represented by the Pipefitters.
4. Industry practice
The Sheet Metal Workers adduced evidence that at
various construction jobs around the United States
and pursuant to the 1976 agreement between the
United Association and the Sheet Metal Workers In-
ternational work such as that in dispute here has been
performed by composite crews comprised of both em-
ployees represented by local unions of the United As-
sociation and employees represented by local unions
of the Sheet Metal Workers International. We find
| Operative Plasterer' and Cement Masons' International Association, lo-
cal No. 394, AFL CIO Warner Masonry, Inc.), 220 NLRB 1074 (1975).
that this factor, while not determinative, tends to fa-
vor award of the disputed work to such composite
crews.
5. Skills involved
The skills involved in handling and installing the
solar collector panels include the preparation of pipe
connections, the fitting of piping to the connection.
and the welding of these connections. These are skills
indisputedly possessed by and normally associated
with employees represented by the Pipefitters. The
Sheet Metal Workers concedes that employees repre-
sented by that Union have the requisite skills for only
a portion of the installation work and does not claim
any work that is uniquely pipefitters, but instead
claims, without contradiction, that its members pos-
sess the skills necessary to unload, hoist, and distrib-
ute the panels, and that therefore the installation
work should be performed by composite crews. How-
ever, the employer's project manager, Daniel Tar-
kington, testified without contradiction that a part of
the unloading and handling operation involves the in-
spection of the fittings on the panels before they are
distributed and that the specific training of the em-
ployees represented by the Pipefitters renders them
more useful for the inspection process at the truck
than the employees represented by the Sheet Metal
Workers. Fred DeBra, president of the Employer, tes-
tified without contradiction that it was important at
all stages of the installation process that the installers
be able to inspect the joints for any defects and that
only employees who are represented by the Pipefitters
would be so qualified. Therefore, it appears that the
employees represented by the Pipefitters are more
skilled to perform the disputed work. We therefore
find that this factor favors an award of the work in
dispute to employees represented by the Pipefitters.
6. Efficiency and economy
The Employer contends that a composite crew
would not be either efficient or economical. In this
regard Tarkington testified without contradiction that
the work in dispute consists of a series of interrelated
tasks. The only part of this work (aside from the ini-
tial unloading of the panels) which members of the
Sheet Metal Workers are qualified to perform is the
lifting of the solar panel on the frame and the bolting
of the panel to the frame. However, inasmuch as effi-
cient performance of the installation of the panels re-
quires that each panel be completely installed before
the one next to it is laid in the framework, perform-
ance of the installation by composite crews would re-
quire that employees represented by the Sheet Metal
Workers stand idle while crew members represented
314
SHEET METAL WORKERS LOC. UNION NO. 141
by the Pipefitters do work involving pipe connections.
However, if all the work in dispute is performed by
employees represented by the Pipefitters, all members
of the crew will work continuously. Accordingly, we
conclude that the record establishes that the factors of
efficiency and economy favor awarding the work to
employees represented by the Pipefitters.
7. Employer preference
For the reasons stated above, the Employer finds it
preferable to assign the work in dispute to employees
represented by the Pipefitters, and the record estab-
lishes that the Employer is satisfied with the results of
that assignment. Accordingly, we find that this factor,
while not determinative, favors awarding the work to
employees represented by that labor organization.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full consider-
ation of all relevant factors involved, we conclude
that employees who are represented by the Pipefitters
are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach
this conclusion relying on the skills possessed by these
employees, greater efficiency and economy of opera-
tion, the collective-bargaining agreement between the
Pipefitters and the Employer, area practice, and em-
ployer practice and preference. In making this deter-
mination, we are awarding the work in question to
employees who are represented by the Pipefitters, but
not to that Union or its members. The present deter-
mination is limited to the particular controversy
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 basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Fred B. DeBra Company. Inc..
who are represented by Pipefitters Union Local 392,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S.
and Canada, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the
work of handling and installing fluid type solar collec-
tor panels at the Montgomery Ward project in Shar-
onville. Ohio.
2. Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
Local Union No. 141, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to
force or require Fred B. DeBra Company, Inc., to
assign the disputed work to employees represented by
that labor organization.
3. Within 10 days of the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, Sheet Metal Workers In-
ternational Association, Local Union No. 141. AFL
CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 9.
in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing
or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the disputed
work in a manner inconsistent with the above deter-
mination.
315