Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers Int'l Union, Local 328

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 598 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing finding, and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Lathers employed by O. R. Karst, who are represented by Local
88, Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
perform the work of installing Jackson bars or other nailing bars used
in construction of the suspended ceilings on the Saint Rose Hospital
project at Hayward, California.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, Local 1622, is not, and has not been, lawfully entitled to force
or require O. R. Karst to assign the above work to carpenters.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, Local 1622, shall notify the Regional Director
for the Twentieth Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain
from forcing or requiring O. R. Karst, by means proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to carpenters, who are
its members, rather than to lathers employed by O. R. Karst, who are
represented by Local 88, Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers Union,
AFL-CIO.
Wood , Wire & Metal Lathers International Union, Local No. 328,
AFL-CIO and Acoustics & Specialties , Inc. and United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local Union No.
1340, AFL-CIO. Case No. 27-CD-32. October 29, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act following
charges filed by Acoustics & Specialties, Inc., herein called Acoustics,
alleging that Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers International Union,
Local No. 328, AFL-CIO, herein called Lathers Union, had threat-
ened , coerced, or restrained Acoustics, with an object of forcing or
requiring Acoustics to assign certain work to members of the Lathers
Union rather than to Acoustics' own employees who are members of
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
Union No. 1340, AFL-CIO, herein called Carpenters Union. A duly
scheduled hearing was held before Alvin Lieberman, hearing officer,
on November 16, 1961. All parties appeared 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
139 NLRB No. 44.
WOOD, WIRE & METAL LATHERS INT'L UNION, LOCAL 328 599
error and are hereby affirmed. Acoustics and the Lathers Union filed
briefs which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record, the Board makes the following findings:'
1. As stipulated by the parties, Acoustics is a Colorado corpora-
tion engaged as a contractor in the installation of acoustic materials.
It annually receives supplies and materials directly from suppliers
and materialmen located outside the State of Colorado valued at
more than $50,000. We find that Acoustics is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Lathers Union and the Carpenters Union are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The dispute :
A. The facts
Hensel Phelps Construction Company, hereinafter called Phelps,
was the general contractor for the construction of the Student Center
Building erected on the campus of Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado. Phelps subcontracted the installation of acoustical
ceilings to Acoustics. Included in Acoustics' subcontract was the
installation of 11/2-inch black iron channel, which is used to hang
the frame holding the ceiling acoustical material.
Some 2 weeks prior to August 25, 1961, the date when Acoustics
began installing the iron channels, the business agent of the Lathers
Union contacted Acoustics to inquire whether the work of installing
the channel would be assigned to members of the Lathers Union.
Acoustics asked what rate of pay the Lathers would want and was
told that since the job was some 50 miles from Cheyenne, Wyoming,
the home of the nearest Lathers Union local, Acoustics would have
to pay 2 hours travel time per day in addition to the regular hourly
rate for lathers. When Acoustics indicated that, although it was
willing to employ lathers, it did not wish to pay for travel time and
would only pay for actual hours worked, the talks broke down.
Thereafter Acoustics asked the Carpenters Union to furnish men to
install the channel. These men were furnished; however, the Car-
penters Union never claimed that its members were entitled to do
the work.
On August 29, 1961, the Lathers Union business agent requested
the assistance of the prime contractor, Phelps, in obtaining the work
in dispute for lathers. When Phelps' intervention did not produce the
desired result, members of the Lathers Union began picketing the
project with signs reading : "Acoustics & Specialties, Inc., Unfair to
Lathers Local 328, Sub-Standard Wages." As a result of this picket-
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Brown].
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing there was a general work stoppage on the project. Picketing termi-
nated the same day when Phelps assured the Lathers Union that,
pending settlement of the dispute, it would write Acoustics a letter
instructing Acoustics to remove employees represented by the Car-
penters Union who were performing the disputed work.
Acoustics complied with this instruction from Phelps until Septem-
ber 5, 1961, when employees represented by the Carpenters Union
resumed their preformance of the disputed work. However, no fur-
ther picketing of Acoustics resulted.
B. Contentions of the parties
Acoustics contends that under the facts of this case, it is the Em-
ployer's right to make an assignment of the disputed work and that
so long as that assignment is reasonable, it must be respected.
The Carpenters Union takes no position as to the merits of the
dispute, contending merely that, without claiming the right for its
members to do the disputed work, it furnished men to perform such
work when asked to do so by Acoustics.
The Lathers Union contends that there is no jurisdictional dis-
pute. Rather, it states, in effect, that since there are not two competing
employee groups claiming the work, the dispute was purely economic :
whether travel time would be paid to men performing the work of
installing the iron channels.
C. Applicability of the statute
We are of the opinion that the record in its entirety does not evidence
a jurisdictional dispute between competing groups of employees claim-
ing the right to perform the work in dispute and that, therefore,
there is no dispute cognizable under Section 10(k) of the Act.
There is no real or substantial evidence that two competing groups
of employees are contending for the work of installing 11/2-inch
black iron channels. Rather, the Carpenters Union, through its at-
torney at the hearing, indicated that it does not claim that the work
of installing such channels is within the jurisdiction of the Carpen-
ters Unions, and that at no time did it request that such work be
assigned to its members. This is recognized by Acoustics in its brief
wherein it is stated :
The dispute in the present case is not a dispute between the
lathers union and the carpenters union as to which one is en-
titled to do a specific job. It is a dispute between an employer
and an uncertified union, which does not represent any of the em-
ployees of that employer, as to whether or not the employer can
be forced to hire the union's members to perform a specific type
of work.
AMERICAN METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 601
The Board has noted on previous occasions 2 that implicit in the
thrust of the Supreme Court's decision in the CBS case 3 is the pro-
position that Sections 8 (b) (4) (D) and 10 (k) were designed to resolve
competing claims between rival groups of employees, and not to
arbitrate a dispute between a union and an employer when no such
competing claims are involved. Here there are no such competing
claims . Accordingly, we find, on the entire record, that the facts herein
do not present a jurisdictional dispute within the purview of Sections
8(b) (4) (D) and 10(k) of the Act. We shall therefore quash the no-
tice of hearing.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]!
3 Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers , Local 107, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent ('Safeway Stores,
Incorporated ), 134 NLRB 1320; Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers,
Local 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America , Ind. (Hills Transportation Co.), 136 NLRB 1086; Sheet Metal Workers
International Association , Local Union No. 272; Sheet Metal Workers International Asso-
ciation, AFL-CIO (Valley Sheet Metal Company ), 136 NLRB 1402.
3 N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local 1212, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia Broadcasting System ), 364 U.S.
573.
American Metal Products Company and International Union,
United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO and its Local No. 1198.1
Case No. 26-RM-134. October 29, 1962
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John E. Cienki, hearing offi-
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board finds :
1. The Petitioner is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer .3
i The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing.
2 As the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties,
the Union 's request for oral argument is denied.
3 During the hearing, the Union refused to stipulate that it is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act. Inasmuch as in 1952 the Union was certified as bargain-
ing agent for the Petitioner 's employees in a production and maintenance unit and has
engaged in a continuous contractual relationship with the Petitioner until October 1961,
we find that the Union constitutes a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act . The Union also refused to stipulate that it is claiming to be recognized
as bargaining agent for the Petitioner's employees on the ground that the Board possesses
no jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case to direct an election at this time. We
find from , the record that during relevant times the Union claims to be recognized as
bargaining agent for the Petitioner 's production and maintenance employees.
139 NLRB No. 60.