United Association of Journeymen, Local 262

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 48 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, Local 262, AFL-
CIO and Dyad Construction, Inc. and Laborers'
International Union of North America, Local
942, AFL-CIO. Case 19-CD-361
September 9, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Dyad Construction, Inc.,
herein called the Employer, alleging that United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local 262, AFL-CIO, herein
called Local 262, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activi-
ty with an object of forcing or requiring the Em-
ployer to assign certain work to its members rather
than to employees represented by Laborers' Inter-
national Union of North America, Local 942,
AFL-CIO, herein called Local 942.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Barbara A. Laners on June 17,
1980. All parties appeared and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues. No briefs were filed by any of the
parties.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, a State of Washington corporation with its
principal place of business in Woodinville, Wash-
ington, is engaged in the business of general con-
tracting. During the past calendar year, a repre-
sentative period, the Employer realized a gross
revenue in excess of $500,000 and performed serv-
ices outside the State of Washington valued in
excess of $50,000.
We find that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce 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.
II1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local
262 and Local 942 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer contracted to install sewer line
pipes for the city of Ketchikan, Alaska. The parties
stipulated that in late February or early March
19801 Local 262 demanded that the Employer
assign this work to employees whom it represents
rather than to employees represented by Local 942.
The Employer assigned the work to Local 942 on
March 24, but on April 10 Local 262 reiterated its
request for the assignment and indicated that it
would picket the jobsite if such an assignment were
not made. On April 16, Local 262 began picketing
the jobsite, and the Employer filed the instant
charge alleging that Local 262 had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The picketing ceased on
April 18 pending resolution of this dispute.
B. The Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated that the dispute concerns
the assignment of work tasks associated with the
laying of sewer line pipes for the city of Ketchikan,
Alaska.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contended at the hearing that its
work assignment should be upheld, based upon
considerations of skill, safety, area and industrial
practice, efficiency, economics, and its own prefer-
ence and past practice. Local 942 did not make an
appearance at the hearing and did not file a brief.
At the hearing Local 262 contended that all of
the relevant factors except employer preference in-
dicate that the work should be awarded to employ-
ees whom it represents. However, on July 3, Local
262 notified the Board and all of the parties that it
disclaimed any interest in representing the employ-
ees who are engaged in the disputed work. Local
262 also indicated that it will not picket the Em-
ployer concerning the work and requested that the
proceedings be dismissed. None of the other parties
has filed any response to Local 262's disclaimer.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act, which directs the
Board to hear and determine disputes out of which
8(b)(4)(D) charges have arisen, limits the Board's
authority in this respect to situations in which an
I Unless otherwise specified, all dates herein refer to 1980.
252 NLRB No. 10
48
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, LOCAL 262
employer's assignment of work is in dispute. The
Board has held, with Supreme Court approval, that
a jurisdictional dispute no longer exists where one
of the competing unions or parties effectively re-
nounces its claim to the work.2 In light of the fact
2 N.LR.B. v. Plasterers Local Union No. 79 Operatrive Plasterersand
Cement Masons' Internationa! Association. AFL-CIO (Texas State Tile
Terrazzo Co., et al.) 404 U.S. 116, 134 (1971); Local Union No. 215. Con-
struction and General Laborers' Union, AFL-CIO (J. L Turner Co., Inc.),
235 NLRB 754, 755-756 (1978); Newspaper Guild of New York Local 3.
AFL-CIO. CLC (The New York Times Company). 218 NLRB 234 (1975);
Local 56 Amalgamated Food and Allied Workers Union. affiliated with
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
that Local 262 has unequivocally disclaimed inter-
est in the disputed work, we find that there no
longer exists a jurisdictional dispute within the
meaning of the Act. We shall therefore quash the
notice of hearing issued herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.
AFL-CIO (The Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Company. Inc.), 207 NLRB
1065 (1973).
49