United Assn. Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1070 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizational or union activities and our officials will not use vituperative
language to employees with respect to their self-organizational or union activi-
ties to interfere with, restrain or coerce them in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing to rein-
state any of our employees, or in any manner discriminate in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement with backpay to Earl David Fisher
and Janie Edmonds to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights to join, form, or assist United Textile Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
All our employees are free to join or assist United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from doing so.
BERNHARD CONRAD EMBROIDERY COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Earl David Fisher and Janie Edmonds if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston- Salem , North Carolina, Telephone
No. 723-2381.
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada , Local No. 573, AFL-CIO; Clatsop and Tillamook
Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-
CIO and Northwest Natural Gas Company and International
Chemical Workers Union , Local 133 . Case No. 36-CD-36. Jan-
uary 19, 1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Northwest Natural Gas
Company, herein called the Company, alleging that United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Plumbers, and Clatsop and Tillamook Counties Building and Con-
struction Trades Council, herein called the Council, violated Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Arthur J. Hedges on October 21 and 25, 1965. All parties appeared
156 NLRB No. 101.
UNITED ASSN. PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY 1071
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. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter,
the Company filed a brief and the Plumbers and Council filed a joint
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Company
The Company is an Oregon corporation engaged in the distribution
and sale of natural gas in the States of Oregon and Washington.
During the past fiscal year, it purchased in excess of $1 million worth
of natural gas which originated from points outside these States.
During the same period, its sales exceeded $1 million. The Company
operates as a public utility under the supervision of the public regula-
tory bodies of Oregon and Washington. We find that the Company
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and(7)
of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved
The Plumbers, the Council, and International Chemical Workers
Union, Local 133, herein called the Chemical Workers, are labor orga-
nizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The dispute
a. The work in issue; background facts
The disputed work which gave rise to this proceeding is the new
construction of gas mains and lines in Astoria, Oregon, including
service lines to customers, prior to the introduction of gas into these
mains and lines. The mains are pipes laid under a street or road, and
the service lines are underground pipes leading from a main to a
customer's gasmeter. This work is performed by the Company's own
employees, who are classified as welders, pipemen-welders, pipemen,
and helpers, and who are represented by the Chemical Workers. The
Plumbers and the Council in behalf of the Plumbers and various other
unspecified unions affiliated with the Council, claim that their respec-
tive members are entitled to the disputed work.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company employs approximately 550 employees in its 5 operat-
ing departments who work throughout its 11 geographical districts in
Oregon and a portion of Washington. Of these departments, the
distribution department is concerned with the distribution of gas from
the point of supply to the customer's premises; the customer service
department does work on the premises of a customer; the gas dispatch
and measuring department is responsible for the flow of gas into and
through the system; the general services department manages prop-
erty, tools, and other equipment; and the stores and purchasing depart-
ment makes available the equipment necessary for the Company's
operations. The distribution department, which has about 400 employ-
ees, is composed of work crews of from 2 to 4 employees. In addition
to installing new mains and service lines, they maintain and repair
existing pipelines, including the servicing of breaks and leaks, and
handle other emergencies.
For many years prior to 1958, the Company manufactured its own
gas. Since then, it has purchased the natural gas which is distributed
by its own pipe lines throughout the various geographical districts.
Except for the period between August 1946 and June 1948, during
which time the Company used members of Building and Construction
Trades Council of Portland and Vicinity, the Company has used its
own employees for new construction or has contracted out such work
to other firms, depending upon the availability of its manpower and
equipment. Since 1934 the Company has had a contractual bargain-
ing relationship with the Chemical Workers and its predecessor cover-
ing all employees in the various operating departments, including
those engaged in the disputed work, in a companywide unit. The col-
lective-bargaining agreements between the Company and the Chemi-
cal Workers require mutual discussion prior to the subcontracting of
new construction and provide that no employee should be laid off as a
result of subcontracting.
In Astoria, where the Company is engaged in new construction and
where the instant dispute arose, the installation of mains and service
lines is being performed by two crews of the Company's employees and
by six crews of employees of subcontractors, who employ members of
the Plumbers and other unspecified unions affiliated with the Council.
On August 5, 1965, Cecil T. Odenborg, the Plumbers' business repre-
sentative, telephoned Ray Dreeszen, the Company's district manager,
and complained that employees of the Company, rather than members
of the Plumbers, were installing pipes. A meeting was held later in
the day attended by Odenborg, Eugene Koch, business representative of
the Council, Dreeszen, and two other company officials. At this meet-
ing, Koch stated that the work of "ditch digging and laying of pipe
and so forth" belongs to employees who are members of the union
UNITED ASSN. PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY 1073
affiliated with the Council. After a company representative explained
that the assignment of the disputed work was in accord with its agree-
ment with the Chemical Workers and that members of the Council
were performing a major share of this work for subcontractors, Koch
threatened to picket 1 and to place the Company on an unfair list if
the Company did not cease using its own employees. On August 13,
1965, the Company's office in Astoria was picketed with a sign which
read : "Northwest Gas UNFAIR to Organized Labor Sub Standard
Wages and Working Conditions Clatsop and Tillamook Building &
Trades Council." The picketing ceased after 1 hour, on the same date
as the Company filed the charge herein. At the hearing, neither the
Plumbers nor the Council would give an assurance against the resump-
tion of picketing.
b. Applicability of the statute
In a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act, the Board is only
required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b) (4) (D) has been violated before making a determination of the
dispute out of which the alleged unfair labor practices have arisen.2
As shown above, there is testimony that the Plumbers and the Council
claimed the work in dispute for their respective members and threat-
ened the Company with picketing if it did not accede to their demand.
Although the Plumbers and the Council admit responsibility for the
picketing, they deny the threat to picket and contend that the only
object of the picketing was to protest substandard working conditions.
Without resolving the conflicts in testimony, we find that there is rea-
sonable cause to believe that the Plumbers and the Council threatened
to picket and picketed the Company with an object of forcing the
Company to reassign the disputed work. Accordingly, the dispute is
properly before the Board for determination.
c. 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 rele-
vant factors. The Board has held that its determination in jurisdic-
tional dispute cases is an act of judgment based upon commonsense
and experience in balancing such factors .3
Collective-bargaining agreements: The Company has a long history
of bargaining agreements with the Chemical Workers covering the
i Koch used the phrase "to put a banner " on the Company , but the record is clear that
this is a threat of picketing.
2International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 66, AFL-CIO (Frank P. Bodalato
& Son), 135 NLRB 1892; Local Union No. 3 , International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO ( Western Electric Company, Inc ), 141 NLRB 888, 893.
$International Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Con-
etructson Company), 1&i5 NLRB 1402, 1410.
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disputed work. The Plumbers and Council have had no contracts with
the Company, but have agreements with firms to whom the Company
has subcontracted new construction.
Company, area, and industry practice: As noted, the Company has
assigned new construction work to its own employees and has also used
subcontractors for new construction in its companywide operations,
including the Astoria district. There are approximately 30 utility
companies in the United States and Canada which use their own
employees, who are represented by other locals of the Chemical Work-
ers in employerwide bargaining units, to perform work of the type
in dispute. It appears that another local of the Plumbers represents
all employees of one utility company, including the employees engaged
in new construction work.
Skills of the employees : The Plumbers and Council point to their
representation of employees used by subcontractors of the Company
and the latter's apparent satisfaction with their skills and experience
in performing the work in question. The Company's employees also
possess the required skills for the performance of the work in dispute.
Efficiency and economy of operations : The Company's employees
perform new construction work during seasonal periods, when weather
conditions are more suitable for such work. During other periods, in
view of their versatile experience, these employees are used in other
departments of the Company. As the Company's employees are also
trained to work on mains and lines which carry live gas, they are
readily available, while engaged in new construction, to handle emer-
gency repairs on other existing equipment. Members of the Plumbers
or Council do not have training for such versatility. During the past
5 years, the Company has been able to furnish employment for its new
construction employees without any layoffs.
Having considered all the relevant factors, we believe that the
employees represented by the Chemical Workers are entitled to the
work in dispute. We rely primarily on the long bargaining history
between the Company and the Chemical Workers covering the employ-
ees now engaged in new construction; these employees are sufficiently
skilled to perform the work and have done so to the satisfaction of the
Company, which desires to continue to utilize them; and the use of the
Company's employees provides an efficient and economical operation.
The assignment of more of the disputed work to nonemployees of the
Company would necessitate a layoff of company employees. Accord-
ingly, we shall determine the jurisdictional dispute by deciding that
employees represented by the Chemical Workers are entitled to the
work in dispute. In making this determination, we are assigning the
disputed work to the employees of the Company, who are represented
F. H. SNOW CANNING COMPANY 1075
by the Chemical Workers, but not to that Union or its members. Our
determination is limited to the particular controversy that gave rise
to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Employees of Northwest Natural Gas Company, who are repre-
sented by International Chemical Workers Union, Local 133, are enti-
tled to perform the work of new construction of gas mains and lines in
Astoria, Oregon, including service lines to customers.
2. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local
No. 573, AFL-CIO, and Clatsop and Tillamook Counties Building and
Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, are not entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the
Company to assign the above work to employees who are represented
by them.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination,
the Plumbers and the Council shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 36, in writing, whether they will refrain from forcing or requir-
ing the Company, 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.
F. H. Snow Canning Company, a Division of the Borden Company
and National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 4-RC-6489. January 19,1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Alexander T. Graham, Jr. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Fol-
lowing the hearing and, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Pro-
cedure, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 4, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision. Briefs have been filed by the Employer and the
Petitioner.
156 NLRB No. 95.
217-919-66-vol. 15 6-6 9