Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Standard Drywall, Inc.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 2006

346 N.L.R.B. 478 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
346 NLRB No. 48
478
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America and Standard Drywall, Inc. and Opera-
tive Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ Interna-
tional Association, Local No. 200, AFL–CIO.
Case 21–CD–657
January 31, 2006
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
This is a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Sec-
tion 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
The charges in this proceeding were filed by Standard
Drywall, Inc. (the Employer) on February 2, 2005, as
amended on April 1 and May 4, 2005,1 alleging that
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of American
(Carpenters) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by
engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing
the Employer to assign certain work to employees repre-
sented by Carpenters rather than to employees repre-
sented by Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’
International Association, Local No. 200, AFL–CIO
(Plasterers).
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire re-
cord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The parties stipulated that the Employer is a California
corporation, with its principal place of business in River-
side County and offices located in Arizona, Wyoming,
and Utah, where it is engaged as a contractor and/or sub-
contractor in the drywall construction industry. They
also stipulated that the Employer annually purchases
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which
goods and materials are manufactured outside the State
of California and shipped directly to the Employer’s
California project involved in this proceeding. The par-
ties further stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. Finally, the parties stipulated, and we
find, that Carpenters and Plasterers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

1 All dates are 2005, unless otherwise specified.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer’s California drywall employees are
covered by a memorandum agreement with Carpenters
effective by its terms from January 1, 2005, to June 30,
2006.2 This memorandum incorporates the current
Southern California Drywall/Lathing Master Agreement
which is effective for the same term. The Employer’s
and Carpenters’ bargaining relationship dates back at
least 10 years. The Employer has never had a bargaining
relationship with Plasterers.
In March 2004, the Employer entered into a subcon-
tracting agreement with Hensel Phelps Construction Co.
(Phelps), to perform plastering work on the Fine Arts
project located at the California State University campus
in Fullerton, California (CSF Fine Arts Project). Phelps
has a collective-bargaining agreement with the Cement
Masons Local 500, which is not a party to this proceed-
ing.3
In about December 2004, the Employer began work on
the CSF Fine Arts Project, utilizing approximately 10 of
its employees, all covered by the Carpenters’ agreement.
Thereafter, in December or January 2005, Plasterers Rep-
resentative Russ Nicholson came to the CSF Fine Arts
Project jobsite and told the Employer’s superintendent,
David Corona, that he would “like to have the guys come
back and sign with [Plasterers] Local 200.” The Em-
ployer did not do so.
In about April 2005, Plasterers Business Agent Russ
Nicholson went to the CSF Fine Arts Project and spoke
with Superintendent David Corona. Nicholson spoke
negatively about Carpenters and allegedly told Corona
that he would like the Employer to sign with Plasterers.
Corona testified that Nicholson further stated that the
Employer’s employees were performing Local 200 work.
Nicholson denied making this statement.4
About April 28, Carpenters sent the Employer and the
general contractor Hensel-Phelps a letter, stating: “We
have been informed that [Plasterers] is demanding that
our members be removed from performing the plastering
work and be replaced by members of [Plasterers]. [Plas-
terers] has filed a grievance against Hensel Phelps in

2 This agreement is termed the Southern California Conference of
Carpenters Drywall/Lathing Memorandum Agreement.
3 Although there was some evidence introduced into the record as to
a purported claim by Cement Masons Local 500 for the disputed work,
and a Carpenters threat to “protect their interests” in the work, the
Region determined that there was insufficient evidence that Local 500
claimed the work, and these issues are not before us.
4 There is also contradictory testimony in the record as to whether
Nicholson’s request that the Employer sign with Plasterers was specific
to the CSF Fine Arts Project or was more general.
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS (STANDARD DRYWALL, INC.) 479
furtherance of its demands.” Carpenters’ letter further
stated that if the plastering work on the project were re-
assigned to the employees represented by Plasterers,
“Carpenters will immediately establish a picket line at
the project to protect the interests [sic] and its jurisdic-
tion over the plastering work.”
In May 2005, Plasterers representatives told the Em-
ployer that if it would sign an agreement assigning Plas-
terers the disputed work, they would try to secure the
dismissal of a lawsuit that Plasterers Business Manager
Robert Pullen and Business Agent David Fritchel, as
individuals, had filed in October 2004, claiming that the
Employer had violated state prevailing wage laws at pub-
lic works projects in Southern California).5 However,
the Superior Court of California later ruled that these two
persons lacked standing.
On August 9, an amended complaint in this same law-
suit was filed in which Plasterers was added as a plain-
tiff. The complaint added, inter alia, that the Employer
was required to use Plasterers’ apprenticeship program to
obtain employees to perform plastering work “on public
works projects in Southern California.” The lawsuit
sought injunctive relief and compensatory damages to
remedy the Employer’s failure to use the apprenticeship
program and its alleged breach of prevailing wage law.
About August 16, while its prevailing wage suit was
pending, Plasterers Business Manager Robert Pullen sent
a letter to the Employer disclaiming any interest in repre-
senting employees performing work at the CSF Fine Arts
Project.
About August 28, the Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection issued a Certificate of Occupancy, which
stated that “the facility may be occupied for the intended
use.” Plasterers asserts that this certificate is evidence
that the project is complete and, therefore, the jurisdic-
tional dispute is moot.
Finally, during the September 9 hearing, Gordon
Hubel, contract administrator for the Carpenters, testified
that the Carpenters would picket any job in the 12 South-
ern California counties where the Employer reassigned
plastering work to employees represented by Plasterers.
B. Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated that the work in dispute is:
Plastering work at the California State University
Fullerton, Fine Arts Project. Plastering work is de-
fined as follows:
A. Corner beads when stuck on.

5 Plasterers Business Manager Robert Pullen testified, “In regards to
all the violations with the state, we made reference that we could not
make them go away, all we could do was talk to the state about it.”
B. All interior or exterior plastering using gyp-
sum, Portland Cement plaster (excepting cement
bases 6 inches (6”) or lower, stucco, radian heat fill
material, marble-crete, imitation brick or masonry,
embedding of chips and stones, the finishing of same
and mortars applied by the normal methods used by
plasterers.
C. The waterproofing of plaster including such
materials as Thoroseal and Ironite.
D. The bonding and scratching of all ceilings and
walls to receive terrazzo and tile; and bonding,
scratching and browning to receive thin set tile.
E. The sticking, nailing and screwing on of all
plaster caps and ornaments.
F. The application of bond coat okasters, bond
dash coats and bonding agents to which plaster is to
be applied regardless of tools used, method of appli-
cation, color of material or type of base to which it is
applied.
G. The application of materials used for contract
fireproofing, fireproofing, acoustical finish, or deco-
rative finish.
H. All moldings run in place. The making of all
templates and the horsing of molds for interior and
exterior work. The sticking in place of all staff work
and plaster enrichments.
I. The initial cleaning of areas immediately adja-
cent to the plastering and concurrent with the plas-
tering operation.
J. Plasterers shall have the autonomy governing
the mixing and applying of all materials used for
plaster patching.
K. The installation of Exterior Insulation Finish
Systems (EIFS), starting with the foam.
L. The carving or texturing of “positive” rock
and other theme work created from gypsum, Port-
land cement, or acrylic plaster.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Plasterers contends that the notice of the 10(k) hearing
should be quashed because it never made a claim for the
work at the CSF Fine Arts Project. Plasterers asserts that
its prevailing wage lawsuit is not a claim for the work or
relevant to this jurisdictional dispute. Plasterers contends
that the lawsuit merely states that prevailing wages are to
be paid to the Employer’s plasterers and that any plas-
terer hired by the Employer should be from an approved
apprenticeship program. Plasterers further contends that
even though the Region mistakenly believed that it
claimed the work, Plasterers addressed the Region’s con-
cerns when, in its August 16 letter to the Employer, it
effectively disclaimed all interest in the work. Plasterers
additionally asserts that because the work has been com-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD480
pleted on the CSF Fine Arts Project, this 10(k) proceed-
ing is moot. Finally, on the merits, Plasterers takes no
position as to which employees should be awarded the
work in dispute.
The Employer contends that Plasterers made several
demands for the work in dispute and cites in support the
conversations between the Employer’s superintendent,
Corona, and Plasterers Business Agent Nicholson. In
addition, the Employer contends that Plasterers’ prevail-
ing wage lawsuit demonstrates a continued demand for
the work. Further, the Employer contends that the dis-
claimer of interest by Plasterers is ineffective in light of
the prevailing wage lawsuit.
The Employer contends that there is no substantive
evidence that the work in dispute has in fact been com-
pleted,6 and further contends that even if the work has
been completed, the 10(k) hearing is not moot because a
possibility exists that the same issue will arise in the fu-
ture.
Finally, the Employer contends that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) was violated,
based on Carpenters’ oral and written threats of picketing
made to Phelps and the Employer, which threat Carpen-
ters repeated at the hearing.
On the merits, the Employer argues that the disputed
work should be awarded to the employees represented by
Carpenters based on the factors of certifications and col-
lective-bargaining agreements, employer preference and
past practice, area and industry practice, relative skills,
and economy and efficiency of operations.
Carpenters does not take a position on Plasterers’ mo-
tion to quash, and generally asserts that the work should
be assigned to the employees it represents.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with determining a dis-
pute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, there must be
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
been violated. This standard requires that there is rea-
sonable cause to believe that there are competing claims
for the disputed work among rival groups of employees
and that a party has used proscribed means to enforce its
claim to the work in dispute. E.g., Electrical Workers
Local 3 (Slattery Skanska), 342 NLRB 173, 175 (2004).
Additionally, the Board will not proceed under Section
10(k) unless the parties have no agreed-upon method for

6 The Employer’s vice president, Caya, testified at the September 9,
2005 hearing that the work was not finished, that there was work being
done on punch list items since at least August 18, 2005. He described
the punch list as final tasks that need to be done on a project and that
this would include plastering work.
the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Id. On this re-
cord, we find that this standard has been met.
1. Competing claims for work
The evidence establishes that Carpenters claims the
disputed work. Such claim is shown by the fact that em-
ployees it represents perform the work. Longshoremen
Local 14 (Sierra Pacific Industries), 314 NLRB 834, 836
(1994). In addition, Carpenters’ April 28 threat to Phelps
and the Employer that it would picket if the disputed
work were reassigned constitutes a clear claim to the
work.
As noted above, Plasterers argues that it never claimed
the work and, for this reason, the notice of the 10(k)
hearing should be quashed. In support of its argument,
Plasterers asserts that the testimony of its representative,
Nicholson, should be credited that he never requested the
Employer’s project work or claimed that Carpenters were
performing Plasterers work. Plasterers further asserts
that its prevailing wage lawsuit, originally filed in Octo-
ber 2004 prior to the Employer’s beginning work on the
CSF Fine Arts Project, does not constitute a claim for
work and is irrelevant to the issue of a jurisdictional dis-
pute. Plasterers contends that the lawsuit merely states
that prevailing wages are to be paid to the Employer’s
plasterers and that any plasterer hired by the Employer
should be from an approved apprenticeship program.
We reject these arguments for the following reasons.
First, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe
that Plasterers did claim the work in dispute. There is
testimony that on two occasions, first in December 2004
or January 2005, and again in April 2005, Plasterers’
representative, Nicholson, told Superintendent Corona
that he would like the Employer “to come back and sign
with Local 200 (Plasterers).”7 Further, in May 2005,
Plasterers Business Manager Pullen admitted that he of-
fered to try to secure the dismissal of the lawsuit in re-
turn for obtaining the work in dispute from the Em-
ployer.
Next, we find Plasterers’ purported disclaimer of inter-
est in the disputed work is ineffective. The disclaimer
was not made until August 16, 2005, approximately 8
months after the Employer commenced work on the pro-
ject, and shortly before commencement of the September
9 hearing in this matter.8 Further, the disclaimer was

7 Although Nicholson denied making these statements, his denial
does not prevent determination of the dispute because the Board need
not rule on the credibility of conflicting testimony in order to proceed
under Sec. 10(k). E.g., Slattery Skanska, supra at 175.
8 Chairman Battista and Member Schaumber additionally rely on the
continuation of the lawsuit as a basis for finding the Plasterers’ dis-
claimer ineffective. See Iron Workers Local 118 (Clark & Sullivan),
305 NLRB 395 (1991) (no effective disclaimer of union interest in
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS (STANDARD DRYWALL, INC.) 481
made after the majority of the project work was com-
pleted.9 “Although it is well settled that an effective re-
nunciation of work in dispute resolves a jurisdictional
dispute, the Board will refuse to give effect to ‘hollow
disclaimers’ interposed for the purpose of avoiding an
authoritative decision on the merits.” Laborers Local 81
(Kenny Construction Co.), 338 NLRB 977, 978 (2003),
quoting Mine Workers (Conn-Serv, Inc.), 299 NLRB
865, 868 (1990) (disclaimer of future work offered at the
start of the hearing when 90 percent of disputed work
was complete found ineffective).
In addition, although the parties dispute whether the
work has in fact been completed, resolution of this issue
is not necessary. “[T]he mere fact that disputed work has
been completed does not render a jurisdictional dispute
moot where nothing indicates that similar disputes are
unlikely to recur.” See Millwright Local 1906 (Chicago
Steel), 310 NLRB 646, 648 fn. 8 (1993), citing Operat-
ing Engineers Local 150 (Martin Cement), 284 NLRB
858, 860 fn. 4 (1987). See also Iron Workers California
District Council (Madison Industries), 307 NLRB 405
(1992).
We therefore find that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that there are competing claims for the work.
2. Use of proscribed means
As discussed above, Carpenters threatened Phelps and
the Employer on April 28 that it would picket the CSF
Fine Arts Project if the disputed work was reassigned.
Carpenters repeated this threat at the September hearing,
stating that it would picket any job in the 12 Southern
California counties where the Employer reassigned plas-
tering work to employees represented by Plasterers.

disputed work where union’s prevailing wage lawsuit alleged that work
was within the union’s jurisdiction and sought compensatory damages
for the loss of work). The lawsuit claimed that the Employer was le-
gally obligated to use apprentices to perform the disputed work who
were trained by an apprenticeship program approved by the state to
provide training in the plastering craft and that the Plasterers’ program
was the only program so approved. In remedy the lawsuit sought an
injunction requiring the Employer to use apprentices from the Plaster-
ers’ apprenticeship program and compensatory damages for those ap-
prentices’ loss of work. It follows that the lawsuit had a jurisdictional
objective because in effect it both claimed Plasterers’ jurisdiction over
the disputed work and sought relief that would force the Employer to
assign the disputed work to Plasterers-represented employees. Chair-
man Battista and Member Schaumber additionally observe that the
jurisdictional objective of the lawsuit is shown by Plasterers’ offer to
seek its dismissal in return for the Employer’s agreement to assign its
members the disputed work.
9 Although the Employer disputes the Plasterers’ claim that the pro-
ject work was completed on August 18, 2 days after the purported
disclaimer, it admits that, as of August 18, the remaining work was
‘punch list’ items which are undertaken at the end of a project.
On this basis, we find that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Carpenters used proscribed means to enforce
its claim to the work in dispute.
3. No voluntary method for adjustment of dispute
The parties stipulated at the hearing, and there is no
evidence to the contrary, that there is no agreed-on
method for voluntary adjustment of the work in dispute.
Based on the forgoing, we find that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been vio-
lated, and that there is no agreed-on method for voluntary
adjustment of the work in dispute. We therefore find
that the dispute is properly before the Board for determi-
nation and deny Plasterers’ motion to quash.10
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirma-
tive award of disputed work after considering various
factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1212 (Co-
lumbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The Board
has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute
is an act of judgment based on common sense and ex-
perience, reached by balancing the factors involved in a
particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones
Construction), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410–1411 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of this dispute.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements
The parties stipulated that there are no Board orders or
certifications determining the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees performing the work in dis-
pute.
The evidence shows that the Employer has a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Carpenters for the term
of 2002 to 2006, which includes a master agreement, a
memorandum agreement, an amendment to the memo-
randum agreement, and a second amendment to the
memorandum agreement. The agreement includes the 12
southern California counties, with the master agreement
and the amendment covering plastering work. A second
amendment, signed on June 29, 2002, states that Carpen-
ters has provided evidence to the Employer that a major-
ity of the employees covered by the agreement has des-
ignated Carpenters as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, and that based on this evidence the Employer
has extended recognition to Carpenters as the 9(a) repre-
sentative of the employees covered by the agreement.
At the hearing, the Employer’s vice president, Blaine
Caya, testified that the Employer has never recognized

10 We, therefore, find it unnecessary to pass on the Employer’s re-
quest to reopen the record to take evidence regarding the Cement Ma-
sons Local 500 grievance.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD482
Plasterers as the collective-bargaining representative of
any of its employees and has never had a collective-
bargaining agreement with it.
We find that the factor of collective-bargaining agree-
ments favors awarding the work in dispute to employees
represented by Carpenters.
2. Employer preference and past practice
Employer Vice President Caya testified that the Em-
ployer prefers to have employees represented by Carpen-
ters do the plastering work. Caya also testified that since
2002 it has been the Employer’s practice to assign plas-
tering work in the 12 southern California counties to em-
ployees represented by Carpenters.
We find that this factor favors awarding the work in
dispute to the employees represented by Carpenters.
3. Area and industry practice
Carpenters Contract Administrator Gordon Hubel testi-
fied that in Southern California approximately 50 percent
of plastering work is not unionized, and about 30 to 40
percent of the lathe and plastering work has been as-
signed to employees represented by Carpenters. In addi-
tion, Caya named in his testimony several major com-
petitors who assign plastering work to employees repre-
sented by Carpenters.
Plasterers Business Manager Robert Pullen testified
that about 14 percent of the area plastering work is as-
signed to employees represented by Plasterers. Hubel
testified that Carpenters has between 35,000 to 40,000
members in this area, and Pullen testified that Plasterers
has about 1100 to 1200 members in the area, of whom
about 100 are active (that is, working) members.
We find from the above evidence that this factor favors
awarding the work in dispute to employees represented
by Carpenters.
4. Relative skills
Caya testified that the Employer has employed em-
ployees represented by Carpenters for its plastering work
and has been satisfied with the training those employees
have received. The Employer considers Carpenters’
training program to be state-of-the-art. Caya testified that
Carpenters’ training included “all the aspects of the con-
struction field, not just the plastering, but drywall hand-
ing, drywall framing, blueprint reading.” The Em-
ployer’s superintendent, David Corona, expressed a simi-
lar view of Carpenters’ training program. He testified
that “[t]he more these people know, the more valuable
they are to us . . . [t]he guys that work for us are really
well rounded and have knowledge, in other things, be-
sides just plaster.” Corona also testified that Plasterers’
training program is “teaching stuff that is outdated a lot
of times.”
Plasterers presented a document stating that its training
program meets the requirements for individuals seeking
EIFS11 certification. Plasterers presented no other evi-
dence of the skill level of its members.
We find that the record establishes that Carpenters
members are highly trained and skilled, and that the lim-
ited evidence presented by Plasterers fails to establish
that its members have a comparable level of training and
skills necessary to perform the work in dispute. We thus
find that this factor favors awarding the work in dispute
to employees represented by Carpenters.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer presented evidence that it pays its Car-
penters-represented employees the carpenter journey-
man’s rate, which is about $5 an hour higher than the rate
paid to the employees represented by Plasterers. The
Employer asserts that, despite this fact, it finds it more
efficient to assign its plastering work to the employees
represented by Carpenters. Caya testified that “dealing
with one union has cut my overhead . . . because I only
have to send one reporting form. I only have to call one
union, to get people dispatched . . . So, economically it
has helped me there.” Caya further testified that because
friction between competing labor organizations has been
eliminated, productivity in the field has increased by 25
to 30 percent, “which has actually made me able to pay a
higher rate and still be competitive.” In addition, Caya
testified that he believes that the workers’ compensation
program the Employer has with Carpenters saves the
Employer money, and that it is his understanding that no
other union is eligible to participate in this program.
Caya testified that the Employer’s retention of em-
ployees has gone up tenfold since it began employing
members of Carpenters because the Employer can keep
these employees busy 52 weeks a year, inasmuch as
these employees do work other than plastering (for in-
stance, lathing and trim work). Caya further testified that
assigning all drywall tasks to one union makes for more
work continuity. Caya testified, “We are not pulling one
group out and bringing another one in.” Caya also testi-
fied to the Employer’s ability to transfer these employees
to its operations outside of California, where Carpenters
also represents employees doing plastering work.
Plasterers did not present any evidence showing how
the assignment of the work in dispute to employees it
represents would affect the economy and efficiency of
the Employer’s operations.

11 This refers to “Exterior Insulation and Finish System,” as de-
scribed in the parties’ stipulation of the work in dispute.
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS (STANDARD DRYWALL, INC.) 483
Although employees represented by Plasterers are paid
$5 per hour less than the employees represented by Car-
penters, this fact is not significant. “[I]t is the Board’s
practice not to rely on the differing rate of pay of em-
ployees in determining a jurisdictional dispute.” Paint-
ers Local 91 (Frank M. Burson, Inc.) 265 NLRB 1685,
1686 (1982); Carpenters District Council of Milwaukee
County (Pabst Brewing Co.), 255 NLRB 413, 416 fn. 9
(1981). On the other hand, the above record evidence
shows that it is both economical and efficient to assign
the work in dispute to employees represented by the Car-
penters, and we make this finding accordingly.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude
that employees represented by Carpenters are entitled to
perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion
relying on all the relevant factors—collective-bargaining
agreements, employer preference and past practice, area
and industry practice, relative skill, and economy and
efficiency of operations. In making this determination,
we are awarding the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by Carpenters, not to that labor organization or its
members.
F. Scope of the Award
The Employer requests a broad award covering all its
future work in the 12 southern California counties.
The Board customarily declines to grant a broad, area-
wide award in cases where the charged party represents
the employees to whom the work is awarded and to
whom the employer contemplates continuing to assign
the work. See Pipefitters Local 562 (Systemaire, Inc.),
321 NLRB 428, 431 (1996); Laborers Local 243 (A.
Amorello & Sons), 314 NLRB 501, 503 (1994). Here,
Carpenters is the charged party, and the Employer con-
templates continuing to assign them the work. Accord-
ingly, the conduct of Carpenters does not warrant a broad
award.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute:
Employees of Standard Drywall, Inc. represented by
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters are entitled to
perform the work in dispute:
Plastering work at the California State University
Fullerton, Fine Arts Project. Plastering work is de-
fined as follows:
A. Corner beads when stuck on.
B. All interior or exterior plastering using gyp-
sum, Portland Cement plaster (excepting cement
bases 6 inches (6”) or lower, stucco, radian heat fill
material, marble-crete, imitation brick or masonry,
embedding of chips and stones, the finishing of same
and mortars applied by the normal methods used by
plasterers.
C. The waterproofing of plaster including such
materials as Thoroseal and Ironite.
D. The bonding and scratching of all ceilings and
walls to receive terrazzo and tile; and bonding,
scratching and browning to receive thin set tile.
E. The sticking, nailing and screwing on of all
plaster caps and ornaments.
F. The application of bond coat okasters, bond
dash coats and bonding agents to which plaster is to
be applied regardless of tools used, method of appli-
cation, color of material or type of base to which it is
applied.
G. The application of materials used for contract
fireproofing, fireproofing, acoustical finish, or deco-
rative finish.
H. All moldings run in place. The making of all
templates and the horsing of molds for interior and
exterior work. The sticking in place of all staff work
and plaster enrichments.
I. The initial cleaning of areas immediately adja-
cent to the plastering and concurrent with the plas-
tering operation.
J. Plasterers shall have the autonomy governing
the mixing and applying of all materials used for
plaster patching.
K. The installation of Exterior Insulation Finish
Systems (EIFS), starting with the foam.
L. The carving or texturing of “positive” rock
and other theme work created from gypsum, Port-
land cement, or acrylic plaster.