Iron Workers Local No. 155

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 17, 1965

156 N.L.R.B. 173 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

IRON WORKERS LOCAL NO. 155 173
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form, join,
or assist United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor orga-
nization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such right may be affected by the provisions of
Section ( a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
HARVARD COATED PRODUCTS Co., DIVISION OF COLONIAL TANNING
COMPANY, INC., SUBSIDIARY OF ALLIED KID COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated--------------- ---- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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 question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Boston Five
Cents Savings Bank Building , 24 School Street, Boston , Massachusetts , Telephone
No. 523-8100.
Iron Workers Local No . 155, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO and Val-
ley Foundry & Machine Works , Inc. and District Lodge 87,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, AFL-CIO . Cases Nos. 20-CD-151 and 2O-CD-171. Decein-
ber 17, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , following the filing of charges in Case No.
20-CD-154, on November 4, 1964, by Valley Foundry & Machine
Works, Inc., herein called Valley Foundry or the Employer. There-
after, charges in Case No . 20-CD-171 were filed by the Employer on
June 25, 1965, and subsequently amended on September 2 and 23,
1965. The charges as amended allege that Iron Workers Local No.
155, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Iron Workers, and Car-
penters Local Union No. 701, International Association of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO ,1 violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and
(ii) (D) of the Act. On September 3, 1965, the Acting Regional
Director for Region 20 issued a notice of hearing, which was later
amended on September 22 and October 8, 1905. The hearing was held
in Fresno , California , before Hearing Officer John B. Salazar on Octo-
1On October 28, 1965, after the hearing herein, the Regional Director for Region 20,
approved an informal settlement agreement signed by Carpenters Local 701 and Valley
Foundry. Accordingly , this leaves for consideration a dispute which concerns Iron
Workers Local No. 155 alone. However, the evidence adduced at the hearing which in-
volves the Carpenters Is hereinafter set forth in order to present a more complete picture
of the dispute before us.
156 NLRB No. 26.
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ber 18, 1965.2 The Employer and the IAM participated in the hear-
ing 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 are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. A brief filed by the Employer has been duly
considered.
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 the case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Employer
Valley Foundry & Machine . Works, Inc., is a California corpora-
tion, with its principal office in Fresno , California . It is engaged in
the manufacture , sale, and installation of machinery , including wine-
making machinery , food-processing machinery , and custom equip-
ment for specialized industries . In the 12 months preceding the hear-
ing, the Employer purchased in excess of $50,000 worth of materials
directly from suppliers located outside the State of California. 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 pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.3
2. The labor organizations involved
The evidence reveals, and we find , that the Machinists and Iron
Workers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. The dispute
a. Work in issue
The work in issue is the assembly, erection, installation, and modifi-
cation of machinery manufactured by the Employer, including ele-
vators, belts, and chain conveyors for material handling, and other
related equipment.
b. Backgrownd
In October 1964 Valley Nitrogen Producers contracted with Valley
Foundry to manufacture and install conveyor equipment at Valley
Nitrogen's construction site in Helm, California.. After Valley Foun-
2 District Lodge 87, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Machinists , or IAM, a party in interest , was duly served
with formal papers and fully participated at the hearing . Although each of the charged
parties was duly served with a notice of hearing , none entered an appearance at the
hearing or otherwise participated in these proceedings.
3 Siemon8 Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
IRON WORKERS LOCAL NO. 155 175
dry's employees, who have been represented by the Machinists for
many years, began the installation in October, picketing commenced
at the jobsite. The legend on the picket sign read : "Valley Foundry
Machine Works, Inc. Employees are working below the Building
Trades Prevailing Conditions in the area pertinent to Carpenters
Work." On October 29, 1964, William Clemens, a representative of
the Employer,4 discussed the picketing with Manuel Lopez, secretary
of the Fresno, Madera, Kings & Tulare Counties Building and Con-
struction Trades Council, hereinafter called Building Trades Council.
Lopez stated that the construction unions were seeking to reclaim work
in the area which they contended was within their jurisdiction and,
during this conversation, added that he had the power to call off the
picketing.5 At a subsequent meeting held on October 30, Lopez stated
that the picketing could end if the Employer would sign the standard
agreement with the appropriate members of the Building Trades
Council. That afternoon, Lopez and Clemens inspected the disputed
work at Valley Nitrogen, at which time Lopez pointed out work which
allegedly was traditionally that of both the Iron Workers and Car-
penters and which, he stated, both Unions were claiming for their
members. On November 2 Lopez informed Clemens that, commencing
the following day, the Iron Workers would picket at the jobsite.
Thereafter, charges were filed by the Employer against the Carpenters,
the Iron Workers, and the Building Trades Council which resulted in
a settlement agreement executed by all parties in January 1965. The
Iron Workers therein agreed it would not unlawfully force Valley
Foundry to assign certain erection and installation work to its mem-
bers rather than to Valley Foundry's own employees represented by
the Machinists.
c. The present dispute
In April 1965 Valley Nitrogen Producers again contracted with the
Employer to have similar erection and installation work performed
at the same jobsite. On June 18, 1965, after Valley Foundry began
installing a conveyor system, two of its employees were approached at
the jobsite and told by Muncy, who appears to be the shop steward for
the Carpenters, that if they did not stop working, employees of other
employers at the site would walk off the job. The two employees then
left the project, phoned Valley Foundry for. instructions, and were
told not to return to the job. Thereafter, on June 21, Iron Workers'
Business Agent Davis telephoned Sulliger, Valley Nitrogen's plant
manager. Davis stated that he assumed that Valley Nitrogen would
contract its installation work only to employers whose employees were
* Clemens was a staff member of the Valley Employers Association , a group of employers
organized for the purpose of conducting labor relations on behalf of its members. The
Employer was a member of the Association.
5 The Iron Workers and the Carpenters are members of the Building Trades Council.
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members of a union affiliated with the Building Trades Council, and
that Valley Foundry did not fall in this category. Sulliger reminded
him of the prior settlement agreement, but Davis responded that it
was effective only for 60 days. Davis also told Sulliger that he was
not threatening him but that Valley Nitrogen should recall that "there
was trouble over this before."
Late in the afternoon of June 22, a picket line was established by the
Iron Workers at Valley Nitrogen's j obsite. The legend on the sign
read : "Iron Workers Work Performed Below Standard Established
By Local 155." As a result of the picketing by the Iron Workers,
employees of other employers at Valley Nitrogen's plant refused to
work. Thereafter Sulliger, on June 23, called Davis to inform him
that Valley Nitrogen had canceled that part of its contract with the
Employer which required installation of the conveyor system at the
jobsite. Davis did not assure Sulliger that this step would result in
the removal of the pickets but demanded a letter from Valley Nitrogen
confirming the fact of the contract cancellation with the Employer and
promising that Valley Nitorgen would contract the work only to
firms employing members of the Building Trades Council. Sulliger
agreed to do this and also advised all other contractors at the j obsite of
the cancellation in order to persuade their employees to return to work.
On June 24, the picketing ceased.
4. Applicability of the statute
We are satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that, in June
1965, the Iron Workers was engaging in conduct violative of Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Thus, there is evidence of picketing by the
Iron Workers at the Valley Nitrogen jobsite in June 1965 which suc-
ceeded in inducing a work stoppage among employees on the project.
The uncontradicted testimony is also sufficient to show that an object
of the picketing was to compel Valley Nitrogen to assign portions of
the installation work on the project to certain employees other than
those of the Employer who are represented by the Machinists. The
use, of picketing to force this reassignment of work falls precisely
within the proscription of Section 8 (b) (4) (D). Thus, a work dispute
is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k)
of the Act.
5. Contentions of the parties
The Iron Workers, although duly notified, failed to appear at the
hearing or file a brief before the Board. The Employer, Valley Foun-
dry, contends that the past practice of the Employer and of the indus-
try, economy and efficiency of operations and safety, and the Employ-
er's desire to continue its long history of collective bargaining with
the IAM as representative of its employees, justifies an award of the.
IRON WORKERS LOCAL NO. 155 177
work to the Machinists. _ The IAM's position is based on the grounds
that a collective-bargaining agreement between it and Valley Foundry
covers the disputed work, provisions in the IAM constitution and.
bylaws show that the work is traditionally within its jurisdiction, a
prior Board certification includes such work, the skills required are
those of machinists, and custom in the industry favors an award to
the IAM.
6. 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 common sense
and experience in balancing such factors.6
a. Collective-bargaining agreement
The Employer has a lengthy history of bargaining with the Machin-
ists and its employees represented by the Machinists have traditionally
performed the work in dispute. The contracts between the parties for
the last 10 years have contained provisions covering outside construc-
tion work of the kind at issue herein.
b. Company, area, and industry practice
The record discloses that, for 30 years, work of the type in dispute
has been assigned by the Employer to its employees represented by the
IAM. Other employers engaged in similar work in the area also have
their own employees perform the work, and it appears that these
employees either were members of the Machinists, were not members
of any labor organization,. or were affiliated with unions not associated
with the building trades. The record does not reveal any instances
where the Iron Workers did the type of work in dispute.
c. E fciency and economy of operations and employer preference
The Employer stated that its employees who installed the machinery
at the construction site also are experienced in fabricating the machin-
ery at the Employer's plant. Accordingly, these employees are famil-
iar with the close tolerances used in the manufacturing of the parts
and are thereby better able to properly install the equipment. In the
few instances where Valley Foundry subcontracted the installation
work to other employers, it was necessary for Valley Foundry later to
make adjustments with its own employees in order to have the equip-
ment operate properly. No evidence appears to indicate the skills of
9 International Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Con-
struction Company), 135 NLRB 1402.
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees to whom the Iron Workers sought assignment of the dis-
puted work. As already noted, the Employer desires to continue using
its employees for the type of work in dispute.
d. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute
Weighing all the relevant factors, we believe that the employees
represented by the Machinists are entitled to the work in dispute. We
rely primarily on the fact that the Employer has with rare exception
assigned such work to its own employees; its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Machinists for those employees specifically covers
the work; its employees are sufficiently skilled to perform the work
and have performed it to the satisfaction of the Employer who desires
to continue using them; and the use of the Machinists makes for .an
efficient operation. Accordingly, we shall determine the jurisdictional
dispute by deciding that employees represented by the Machinists are
entitled to the work in dispute. In making this determination, we are
assigning the disputed work to the employees of Valley Foundry who
are represented by the Machinists, but not to that Union or its members.
e. Scope of the determination
It appears that the work here in issue had been completed at the time
of the hearing. Valley Foundry seeks a determination beyond the
worksite involved which would be applicable to all similar work by
Valley Foundry in which it uses its own work crew, asserting that the
dispute is of a type that may arise again. However, the dispute
between the parties has thus far been confined to the Valley Nitrogen
site, and we believe it appropriate to limit our award to the work con-
troversy between the parties at that location.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in the case, the
Board makes the following Determination of Dispute pursuant to
Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Employees of Valley Foundry & Machine Works, Inc., currently
represented by District Lodge 8, International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the
following work :
Assembly, erection, installation, and modification of elevators,
belts, and chain conveyors for material handling, including related
equipment, supports, rigging, machinery, catwalks, and stairways
at Valley Nitrogen Producers' construction site in Helm,
Csdifornia.
2. Iron Workers Local No. 155, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled,
CONOMOS PAINTING COMPANY 179
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D ) of the Act , to force or
require the Employer to assign the above work to ironworkers who are
represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute , Iron Workers Local No. 155 , International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, shall
notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , whether it will
refrain from forcing or requiring Valley Foundry & Machine Works,
Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D ), to assign the work
in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination.
Conomos Painting Company and Gary Nichols, Kenneth
Yahrmatter
Painters Local Union No. 8, Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators
and Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO and Gary Nichols.
Cases Nos. 25-CA-2131 and 25-CB-591. December 930, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 1, 1965, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents
had not engaged in any unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as
set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief,
and the Respondents filed answering briefs in support of the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
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].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision," the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
'We hereby note and correct the following inadvertent errors in the Trial Examiner's
Decision : Under his finding of facts in section 4, substitute "senior to W. Lambert" for
"junior to W. Lambert," and "senior to Heiman and Tsankaris " for "junior to Heiman and
Tsankaris."
156 NLRB No. 24.
217-919-66-vol. 156-13