IBEW, Local 60

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 806 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 60 , AFL-CIO and Beckwith Electronic
Engineering Company . Case 23-CD-186
April 30, 1969
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following a charge filed by the Beckwith Electronic
Engineering Company, herein called Beckwith, on
September 30, 1968 , alleging that the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 60,
AFL-CIO, herein called IBEW , had violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act. Pursuant to a notice,
a hearing was held at San Antonio, Texas, on
November 13, 14, and 15, and December 12, 1968,
before Hearing Officer William E. Elliott . Beckwith,
the IBEW , and the Hallmark Electrical Contractors,
Inc., herein called Hallmark , appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The
rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed . Thereafter , Beckwith and the IBEW filed
briefs before the Board.
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.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The parties stipulated to the following facts: The
Beckwith Electronic Engineering Company, is a
Texas corporation with its principal office and place
of business in San Antonio, Texas, where it is
engaged in the business of supplying and installing
electronic communications equipment. During its
fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, a representative
period, it purchased goods directly from points
outside of the State of Texas, such goods being
valued in excess of $50,000. We find that the
Employer 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.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 60, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The parties stipulated to the following facts: On
or about September 24, 1968, the IBEW engaged in
a work stoppage for the purpose of forcing Beckwith
to assign the work of installation of television
antennae, including the jacks and splitters and
excluding the mounting of antennae; and the
installation of sound systems, including speakers,
volume controls, and the installation of switches for
television systems and intercom systems to the
IBEW.
B. The Work in Dispute
Hallmark is an electrical construction contractor.
It holds the subcontract for the electrical work
required in the construction of the Ingram
Elementary School, San Antonio, Texas. On May 6,
1968, it further subcontracted with Beckwith to
provide a public address system and a television
antenna system for that school. Beckwith agreed to
furnish all equipment, except wire or cable, conduit,
or lead boxes unless special boxes were needed, to
connect all of the equipment to wiring provided by
Hallmark, to test the completed systems, and to
assume a 1-year service guarantee on the systems.
The television system consists of antennae
designed to receive the signal which is then fed to an
amplifier from which it is then distributed by
co-axial cable to jacks (outlets) in the classrooms.
Each jack is designed to take off its proportioned
amount of the signal, leaving sufficient signal for the
remaining outlets. The PA system consists of a
console in a central location connected by wire to
speakers in the various classrooms. The console
consists of an amplifier and a number of selector
buttons which can be used to carry on a
conversation between rooms, or, by use of a master
button, to talk to all rooms. Attached to each
speaker is a transformer designed to take off the
speaker feed line the power necessary to project the
sound properly in the area where the speaker is
located.
The work in dispute, as indicated in the record
and the briefs of the parties, consists of the final
connections of the sound and television systems
excluding the console hookup, the mounting of the
television antennae, the mounting of the amplifiers,
and the checking and balancing of the system. The
running of conduit and pulling of wire is presently
being performed by members of the IBEW and is
not in dispute herein. Similarly, the final connection
of the console is presently being performed by
Beckwith employees and is not in dispute herein.
175 NLRB No. 132
IBEW , LOCAL 60
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The IBEW contends that the work in question is
electrical work, the assignment of which is
prohibited under the terms of-its agreement with the
South Texas Chapter National Electrical
Contractors Association. It points to the following
factors as establishing that the work should be
assigned to IBEW electricians: (1) the past practice
of the electrical contractors, as well as of the
industry, (2) the nature and skill of the work, (3) the
gain of job opportunities, and (4) the efficiency of
the operation.
Beckwith contends that the work in question is
electronics work. It points to the following factors
as establishing that work should be assigned to
Beckwith electronic technicians and electronic
installers: (1) the practice of the industry, (2) the
nature and skill of the work, (3) the loss of job
opportunities, and (4) the safe and efficient
performance of the disputed work. In addition,
Beckwith contends that, as the sound contractor
guarantees the system, it should be vested with
authority to control the assignment of the work.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The charge herein alleges a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The parties have stipulated
that on or about September 24, 1968, the IBEW
engaged in a work stoppage for the purpose of
forcing Beckwith to assign the disputed work to the
IBEW. We therefore conclude that there is
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that the dispute
is properly before the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
1. Collective-bargaining agreement
The only relevant collective -bargaining agreement
is the agreement between the IBEW and the NECA,
referred to above. While that agreement prohibits
the subcontracting , etc., of "electrical work ," it does
not further define electrical work . Beckwith is not a
member of the NECA and is not bound by the
agreement between the IBEW and the NECA.
2. Industry practice
The record contains a great deal of evidence
concerning industry custom and practice regarding
the work in dispute, including evidence as to who
did the work on particular projects and what those
in the industry regard as the customary practice in
the area. We conclude that, while the IBEW has
occasionally performed the work in dispute, the
prevailing practice in the area is to assign the work
to the employees of sound contractors.
3. Relative skills
807
The installation and connection of the
sophisticated electronics equipment involved herein
requires skills beyond those of the ordinary
journeyman electricians. Because of their familiarity
with the particular equipment involved, Beckwith's
employees do possess the requisite skills. Some
electricians also possess these skills. However, based
on the fact that a large number of deficiencies in
workmanship have been found,in a high percentage
of the projects where the IBEW members did the
disputed work, we conclude that the IBEW has
difficulty referring to electrical contractors a
sufficient number of properly qualified electricians
to do work of this type. We conclude that
assignment of the disputed work to Beckwith
employees would provide greater assurance that
properly qualified persons were assigned to do the
work.
4. Efficiency of operation
IBEW members are already at the site and in
possession of the blueprints showing the locations
where the equipment is to be installed. However,
this does not appear to be a particularly significant
factor as Beckwith employees arrive at the site
within a short time of when they are needed and it
is a relatively simple matter to show them where the
equipment is to be placed.
There is nothing to indicate that the disputed
work can be completed at a faster rate by one or the
other group of employees.
Beckwith employees are required to make final
connections to the sound system console and to
check and balance the entire system. By having the
party responsible for making the final connections
to the console and for checking and balancing the
system also responsible for making the other
connections, continuity of installation is established,
thereby easing the difficulty of locating installation
errors.
The proper installation of television jacks requires
the use of sophisticated testing equipment to insure
that each jack receives its proportionate share of the
total signal. If the jacks are not installed correctly,
the entire network of jacks must be disconnected
and reinstalled. The required equipment is readily
available to Beckwith employees, and is apparently
not available to IBEW electricians.
We conclude that it is more efficient to assign the
disputed work to Beckwith employees. This
conclusion is reinforced by the fact that on
numerous projects, including the project involved
herein, the work was assigned by electrical
contractors to sound contractors rather than to their
own employees, the electrical workers.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Gain or loss of jobs
The IBEW contends that assignment of the
disputed work to IBEW members will result in a
gain of job opportunities for those members.
However , as it has been the prevailing area practice
to assign the work to the employees of sound
contractors , assignment of the disputed work to the
IBEW would result in a loss of job opportunities for
Beckwith employees. Therefore, if this factor is
significant, it favors the assignment of the disputed
work to Beckwith employees.
6. The guarantee
The specifications on the Ingram Elementary
School project, and on similar projects, require that
the owner be given a 1-year guarantee on the
installed equipment involved herein . Beckwith
indicates that it has found it impractical and
uneconomical to guarantee systems where its
employees have not made all connections . There is
no indication that the electrical contractors are able
or willing to assume such a guarantee . Assigning the
work to the IBEW would result in the building
owner being deprived of a guarantee on the work in
dispute . It appears much more equitable and
practical to assign the work to the employees of the
party who is willing and able to guarantee the work.
Conclusions
Based upon the entire record and after full
consideration of all relevant factors involved, we
think that the work assignment to Beckwith's
employees is proper. We shall determine the dispute
before us by awarding the installation of the
television antenna system , including jacks and
splitters and the installation of sound systems
including speakers , volume controls , and the
installation of switches for television systems, and
intercom controls to the unrepresented employees of
Beckwith Electronic Engineering Company. This
determination is limited to the particular
controversy giving rise to this dispute.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of
the foregoing findings, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby makes the following Determination of
Dispute:
1. The unrepresented employees of Beckwith
Electronic Engineering Company are entitled to
perform the work of installing the television antenna
system , including jacks and splitters , and the
installing of sound systems including speakers,
volume controls , and switches for television systems,
and intercom systems at the Ingram Elementary
School, San Antonio, Texas.
2. The International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 60, AFL-CIO, are not and have not
been entitled, by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Beckwith
Electronic Engineering Company to assign the above
work to its members.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 60,
AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 23, in writing, whether they will or will not
refrain from forcing or requiring Beckwith, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) to assign the
work in dispute to employees represented by the
IBEW rather than Beckwith's unrepresented
employees.