Laborer's International Union of North America, Local 265 (AMS Constructions, Inc.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 2010

356 N.L.R.B. 306 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 306
Laborers’ District Council of Ohio, Local 265 and
AMS Construction, Inc. and International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local 18. Case 9–CD–
500
December 28, 2010
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS BECKER, PEARCE, AND HAYES
This is a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Sec-
tion 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
AMS Construction, Inc. (the Employer) filed a charge on
March 11, 2010, alleging that Laborers’ District Council
of Ohio, Local 265 (Laborers) violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening to engage in pro-
scribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to
assign certain work to employees represented by Labor-
ers rather than to employees represented by International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 (Operating En-
gineers). The hearing was held on April 30, 2010, before
Hearing Officer Naima R. Clarke. After the hearing,
Operating Engineers filed a motion to remand to the Re-
gional Director for the taking of additional evidence,
accompanied by a supporting memorandum, and the
Employer and Laborers each filed a memorandum in
opposition to Operating Engineers’ motion to remand.
The Employer, Laborers, and Operating Engineers also
filed posthearing briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire rec-
ord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The parties stipulated that the Employer, a corporation
with its principal place of business in Ohio, is engaged in
the business of underground utility work. They also
stipulated that during the 12-month period preceding the
hearing, a representative period, the Employer derived
gross revenues in excess of $50,000, and purchased and
received at its Maineville, Ohio facility goods and mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers
located outside the State of Ohio. The parties further
stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act and that Laborers and Operating Engineers are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer specializes in underground utility con-
struction. The project at issue involves the construction
and maintenance of gas pipelines for Duke Energy Cor-
poration utilizing the directional boring method. Utiliz-
ing that method, a crew consisting of two employees—
one operating a directional drill and the other operating a
locator box—bore underground holes for utility piping.
Directional boring allows for underground utility con-
struction that limits environmental impact. The direc-
tional drill machine’s main component is a drill that digs
through the ground in a horizontal direction. The drill
head contains a beacon that communicates with a locator
box by radio signal. The employee operating the locator
traces the underground movement of the drill, and, by
radio, guides the drill operator. The locator ensures that
the drill is following the correct path through the ground
and also prevents its contact with obstacles, such as other
pipes.
The Employer has had collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Laborers since 1991. It also has had a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Operating Engineers
since 2001. From about 1999, when the Employer first
began using the directional drill, until 2004, the Employ-
er assigned the directional drill machine work to employ-
ees represented by Laborers. In 2004, the Operating En-
gineers filed a grievance against the Employer, alleging
that the assignment of the work violated the Operating
Engineers’ collective-bargaining agreement. At the time,
the Employer employed three two-worker crews com-
prised entirely of Laborers-represented employees. The
Employer resolved the grievance by converting three of
its six Laborers-represented employees into Operating
Engineers-represented employees, and it executed sepa-
rate assignment letters with each union covering the di-
rectional boring work.1 Subsequently, the directional
boring work was performed by a crew of Laborers-
represented employees, a crew of Operating Engineers-
represented employees, or a mixed crew.
The Employer’s most recent collective-bargaining
agreement with Laborers Locals 265 and 534, effective
August 7, 2006 to August 1, 2010, covers “all phases of
the installation of any pipe including directional boring,
horizontal drilling, locating of pipe, . . . [and] lining up of
1 At the time of the hearing, due to personnel changes over the last
several years, the Employer’s crews no longer consisted of three La-
borers and three Operating Engineers. Instead, the Employer’s crews
comprised three Laborers, two Operating Engineers, and one unaffiliat-
ed employee.
356 NLRB No. 57

LABORERS LOCAL 265 (AMS CONSTRUCTION) 307
the pipe.” The agreement specifically includes the use of
“directional boring machines.”
The Employer’s collective-bargaining agreement with
Operating Engineers, effective June 1, 2007 to May 31,
2010, covers “installation . . . of distribution pipeline
(including work in conjunction with total energy plans)
which transport natural gas, liquid gas or vapors . . . in-
cluding portions of the work with private property
boundaries or public streets, from the first metering sta-
tion or connection at the main transmission line (con-
sistent with this definition in the Mainline Pipeline
Agreement) to the Consumer or User.”
In 2010,2 the Employer began work on a gas pipeline
project for Duke Energy Company at the Hyde Park
module in Cincinnati, Ohio.3 The Employer utilized the
directional boring method with employees represented by
Laborers. The Employer’s superintendent, John Weber,
testified that Foreman Russell Osborne informed him
that, in January and February, business agents of Operat-
ing Engineers visited the Hyde Park jobsite. According
to Osborne, upon learning that employees represented by
Laborers were assigned the directional boring work, the
Operating Engineers’ representatives told workers at the
site that this work should be assigned to employees rep-
resented by Operating Engineers, not Laborers. Addi-
tionally, Operating Engineers filed two pay-in-lieu griev-
ances against the Employer, each for a different part of
the Hyde Park area, seeking wages and fringe benefits
for all hours worked on the project. The grievances
claimed that the Employer was using “someone other
than Operating Engineers to operate directional drill and
locator on” the Hyde Park site. Weber testified that he
and the Employer’s owner, John Stephenson, met with
Operating Engineers representatives Gary Marsh and
Nate Brice to discuss resolution of the grievances. Dur-
ing that meeting, the Operating Engineers representatives
maintained that the Employer had to remove all Labor-
ers-represented employees from directional drilling as-
signments. Operating Engineers also demanded that any
newly hired directional crew members come from the
Operating Engineers’ hiring hall. Further, Operating
Engineers indicated that it wanted all of the directional
boring work for employees it represents. The parties met
on several occasions, but could not resolve the grievanc-
es.
While those grievances were pending, Laborers
learned that the Employer might reassign the work to
2 All dates refer to 2010 unless otherwise indicated.
3 Modules are geographic areas identified by Duke Energy as targets
for underground utility line installation.
Operating Engineers. As a result, Laborers sent a letter
to the Employer dated February 9. The letter stated:

It has come to our attention that your company has as-
signed or may assign directional boring, min-
excavating [sic] and related tasks to employees repre-
sented by the International Union of Operating Engi-
neers. This work falls within our agreement and has
been traditionally assigned to Laborers’. Accordingly,
Local 265 will take any and all action necessary to pre-
serve our work, including but not limited to picketing
and work stoppages on the Project.4

Superintendent Weber testified that after the Employer re-
ceived the letter, he spoke with Laborers representatives
Tony Brice and John Phillips to resolve the issue. Laborers
made it clear that it would not compromise on the assign-
ment of work.
B. Work in Dispute
The parties did not stipulate to the work in dispute.
The notice of hearing described the disputed work as
“[t]he operation of the directional bore machine and the
locator.” The Employer, Laborers, and Operating Engi-
neers dispute this description, and the Employer and La-
borers offered alternative descriptions. The Employer
described the work as the operation of the directional
bore machine and the locator on distribution pipeline
construction. Laborers proposed that the work in dispute
be described as the installation of any pipe, including
directional boring, horizontal drilling, and locating of
pipe on all distribution pipeline construction. We find,
based on the record, that the work in dispute is as fol-
lows: The operation of the directional drill machine and
locator for the construction of gas pipelines for Duke
Energy Corporation at the Hyde Park module, Cincin-
nati, Ohio jobsite.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Operating Engineers contends that the notice of hear-
ing should be dismissed because it has not claimed the
disputed work. Relying on Laborers (Capitol Drilling
Supplies), 318 NLRB 809 (1995) (union’s action through
grievance procedure to enforce claim against general
contractor does not constitute claim against subcontractor
for work in dispute), Operating Engineers argues that it
has pursued only contractual grievances against the Em-
ployer for breaches of its collective-bargaining agree-
4 As noted above, Laborers Local 534 is also signatory to the Labor-
ers’ contract with the Employer. Local 534 sent a letter similar to that
of Laborers Local 265 to the Employer. The Employer did not file a
charge against Local 534, and no party contends that Local 534 is oth-
erwise involved in the dispute.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 308
ment. Operating Engineers also contends that Laborers’
letter could not constitute a real or actual threat because
Laborers’ collective-bargaining agreement prohibits
strikes or work stoppages. Finally, Operating Engineers
contends that Laborers’ threat was a “paper threat,” con-
trived to create a jurisdictional dispute under Section
10(k) and obtain the work assignment preferred by the
Employer.5
The Employer and Laborers contend that there is rea-
sonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated because of the Laborers’ letter. They further
contend that there are competing claims to the disputed
work, and therefore the notice of hearing should not be
dismissed. In particular, they contend that representa-
tives of Operating Engineers made multiple visits to the
Employer’s worksite and told Laborers employed on the
project that they were performing Operating Engineers’
work. Additionally, Laborers argues that Operating En-
gineers claimed the work by filing two pay-in-lieu griev-
ances seeking wages and benefits paid on the Hyde Park
project.
On the merits, the Employer and Laborers assert that
the work in dispute should be awarded to employees rep-
resented by Laborers based on the factors of collective-
bargaining agreements, employer preference, current
assignment and past practice, area and industry practice,
relative skills, and economy and efficiency of opera-
tions.6 The Employer further contends that a broad
award is warranted because the issue of its assignment of
work on the directional drill machine and locator will
arise on future projects.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with determining a dis-
pute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, there must be
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
been violated. This standard requires finding that there is
reasonable cause to believe that: (1) there are competing
claims for the disputed work among rival groups of em-
5 At the hearing, the Operating Engineers excepted to the hearing of-
ficer’s ruling that prohibited repetitive questioning of John Phillips,
Laborers’ business manager, regarding whether Laborers’ motive in
sending the February 9 letter to the Employer was to precipitate a 10(k)
hearing. Operating Engineers renewed this exception in its motion to
remand for the taking of additional evidence. Operating Engineers
argues that the hearing officer erroneously sustained the Laborers’
objection, and therefore Operating Engineers should be allowed a prop-
er and adequate opportunity to develop its theory that the Laborers’
threat to the Employer in its February 9 letter was a sham. As dis-
cussed below, we deny the motion.
6 In its posthearing brief, Operating Engineers did not set forth any
contentions regarding the merits of the dispute. Operating Engineers
did, however, introduce some evidence relevant to the merits, and that
evidence is considered below. See U.S. Utility Contractor Co., 355
NLRB 345 at fn. 3 (2010).
ployees; (2) a party has used proscribed means to enforce
its claim to the work in dispute; and (3) the parties have
not agreed on a method of voluntary adjustment of the
dispute. On this record, we find that this standard has
been met.
1. Competing claims for the work
We find that there are competing claims for the work
in dispute. Laborers has at all times claimed the work in
dispute for the employees it represents, and those em-
ployees have been performing the work. Further, Labor-
ers’ February 9 letter claimed the work in dispute for
employees represented by Laborers. Operating Engi-
neers’ claim to the disputed work is demonstrated by its
filing of two pay-in-lieu grievances with the Employer,
each effectively claiming the directional boring work.
See Carpenters Los Angeles Council (Swinerton & Wal-
berg), 298 NLRB 412, 414 (1990) (pay-in-lieu grievance
may constitute a competing claim for work). See also
Local 30, United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers v.
NLRB, 1 F.3d 1419, 1427 (3d Cir. 1993) (attempted dis-
tinction “between seeking the work and seeking pay for
the work is ephemeral”). Additionally, to resolve these
grievances, representatives from Operating Engineers
met with the Employer on several occasions to discuss
whether the disputed work should be assigned to Operat-
ing Engineers’ represented employees, further evidenc-
ing Operating Engineers’ claim to the disputed work.
Finally, as set forth above, witnesses for the Employer
and Laborers testified that representatives from Operat-
ing Engineers made several visits to the worksite, and
each time these representatives claimed the disputed
work on behalf of Operating Engineers. Although Oper-
ating Engineers disputes the validity of this testimony,
we find that it is sufficient to establish reasonable cause
to believe that the Operating Engineers made a claim for
the disputed work. See U. S. Utility Contractor, supra,
355 NLRB 346; J. P. Patti Co., 332 NLRB 830, 832
(2000).7
7 The Board need not rule on the validity of testimony in order to
proceed to the determination of a 10(k) dispute because the Board need
only find reasonable cause to believe that the statute has been violated.
U. S. Utility Contractor, 355 NLRB 346 at 3 fn. 9. In any event, we
note that Operating Engineers’ second grievance, dated February 9,
states that its business representative Brice spoke with Laborers-
represented employee Mark Hedges, who was operating the equipment,
to try to resolve the grievance.
Contrary to the Operating Engineers’ contention, we find the
Board’s decision in Laborers (Capitol Drilling Supplies), 318 NLRB
809 (1995), to be distinguishable. Capitol Drilling involved a union’s
grievance against a general contractor, alone, for subcontracting work
in breach of a lawful union signatory clause. Id. at 810. Absent a
direct claim against the subcontractor, the Board found no competing
claims for the work and quashed the notice of 10(k) hearing. Id. at
810–812. Here, there is no subcontractor involved and both the Labor-

LABORERS LOCAL 265 (AMS CONSTRUCTION) 309
In sum, we find that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that there are competing claims to the disputed
work between rival groups of employees.
2. Use of proscribed means
We also find that there is reasonable cause to believe
that Laborers used means proscribed under Section
8(b)(4)(D) to enforce its claim. Laborers’ February 9
letter to the Employer, threatening it with picketing and
work stoppages if it reassigned any of the disputed work
to members of Operating Engineers, constituted a threat
to take proscribed coercive action in furtherance of a
claim to the work in dispute. Further, Laborers testified
that it was planning to follow through on the threats
made in this letter. Although Operating Engineers urges
the Board to find that this threat was a sham in order to
obtain the work assignment in this 10(k) proceeding and
that Laborers’ collective-bargaining agreement prohibits
strikes or work stoppages, it offers no evidence that the
threat was not genuine or that Laborers colluded with the
Employer in this matter.8 See Operating Engineers Lo-
cal 150 (R&D Thiel), 345 NLRB 1137, 1140 (2005) (“In
the absence of affirmative evidence that a threat to take
proscribed action was a sham or the product of collusion,
the Board will find reasonable cause to believe that the
statute has been violated.”). Moreover, the Board has
rejected the argument that a strike threat was a sham
simply because it would have violated a no-strike clause.
See Lancaster Typographical Union 70 (C.J.S. Lancas-
ter), 325 NLRB 449, 451 (1998) (“The existence of a no-
strike clause in a union’s collective-bargaining agree-
ment does not provide a basis for a finding that a threat
by that union is a sham.”). We therefore find reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violat-
ed.
3. No voluntary method for adjustment of dispute
The Employer and Laborers contend that there is no
method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute to which
ers and the Operating Engineers have made competing claims to the
Employer for the work. See Laborers’ District Council of West Virgin-
ia, 325 NLRB 1058, 1059 fn. 2 (1998).
8 As mentioned above, at the hearing, Operating Engineers ques-
tioned Phillips about the Laborers’ motivation for sending the letter,
and received Phillips’ answers. When Operating Engineers began to
repeat the same questions, the Laborers objected on the grounds that the
questions had been asked and answered. The hearing officer sustained
the objection. Based on the foregoing, we find that the hearing officer
did not prohibit Operating Engineers from developing its case, but
simply prevented repetitive questioning. Therefore, we find that the
Operating Engineers was afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, including Phillips, and to adduce
evidence bearing on the issues in this case. Accordingly, we deny the
Operating Engineers’ motion to remand for the taking of additional
evidence.
all parties are bound. Operating Engineers asserts in-
stead that article 17 of the Laborers’ collective-
bargaining agreement, which requires that Laborers at-
tempt to seek settlement of disputes, constitutes a method
for voluntary adjustment of the dispute. The dispute res-
olution mechanism in article 17, however, does not bind
Operating Engineers, a party to this dispute. In order for
an agreement to constitute an agreed-upon method for
voluntary adjustment, all parties to the dispute must be
bound to that agreement. Operating Engineers Local
150 (Nickelson Industrial Service), 342 NLRB 954, 955
(2004). Thus, because not all the parties to the dispute
are bound by article 17 or any other mechanism, we find
that there is no voluntary method for adjustment of this
dispute.
In view of the evidence above, we find reasonable
cause to believe that there are competing claims for the
disputed work and that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
has occurred. We further find that no voluntary method
exists for the adjustment of the dispute. Accordingly, we
find that this dispute is properly before the Board for
determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirma-
tive award of disputed work after considering various
factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212
(Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The
Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional
dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense
and experience, reached by balancing the factors in-
volved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (J.A.
Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410–1411
(1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of this dispute.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements
There is no evidence of any Board certifications con-
cerning the employees involved in this dispute.
The Employer and Laborers are parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement, effective from August 7, 2006 to
August 1, 2010. Article 2 of that agreement, entitled,
“Scope,” provides at paragraph 3:

The work coming under the jurisdiction of the UNION
and covered by terms of this Agreement includes, but is
not limited to, all phases of the installation of any pipe
including directional boring, horizontal drilling, locat-
ing of pipe, preparation of the pipe for joining, lining
up of the pipe, handling of the clamps, joining of the
pipes and cleanup after the pipe has been installed.
This agreement also includes the use of pipe bending

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 310
machines, directional boring machines power winches,
mini excavators, restoration tractors, skid steer loaders
and all walk behind equipment. This Agreement ex-
cludes the joining of steel pipe.

We find, based on the above-quoted provision, that the
work in dispute is explicitly covered by the Employer’s
collective-bargaining agreement with Laborers.
The Employer and Operating Engineers are parties to a
collective-bargaining agreement effective from June 1,
2007 to May 31, 2010. Article I, paragraph A of that
agreement, entitled, “Coverage,” provides:

[W]ork coming under this Agreement is defined as fol-
lows:
The construction, installation, treating, repair and/or re-
conditioning of distribution pipeline (including work in
conjunction with total energy plants) which transport
natural gas, liquid gas or vapors, crude oil, petroleum
products or other fuels, including portions of the work
with private property boundaries or public streets, from
the first metering station or connection at the main
transmission line (consistent with this definition in the
Mainline Pipeline Agreement) to the Consumer or Us-
er.

Additionally, the contract’s “working rules” state that
Operating Engineers are to maintain and repair equip-
ment under its jurisdiction, and will be assigned “all op-
erating configurations to the horizontal directional drill
machine.”
“In interpreting collective-bargaining agreements, the
specific is favored over the general.” Laborers Local
1184 (Golden State Boring & Pipejacking), 337 NLRB
157, 159 (2001) (operation of directional drilling ma-
chine awarded to employees represented by Laborers, not
Operating Engineers), quoting Steelworkers Local 392
(BP Minerals), 293 NLRB 913, 914–915 (1989). Here,
the Laborers’ contract specifically refers to the disputed
directional drilling work and related work (locating the
pipe) and equipment (directional boring machine); the
Operating Engineers’ contract is worded in more general
terms. The factor of collective-bargaining agreements
accordingly slightly favors an award of the disputed
work to employees represented by Laborers.
2. Employer preference and current assignment
The Employer currently has assigned the disputed
work to employees represented by Laborers, and it pre-
fers to have the disputed work performed by employees
represented by Laborers. Although the Employer stated
that the Laborers-represented employees’ superior rela-
tive skills and training was the reason for its preference,
the Board does not generally examine the reasons for an
employer’s preference unless there is evidence that the
employer was coerced. See, e.g., Laborers Local 829
(Mississippi Lime Co.), 335 NLRB 1358, 1360 fn. 5
(2001). There is no evidence of coercion here, and thus
the Employer’s preference is a valid factor. Further, it is
well established that the fact of employer preference is
entitled to “substantial weight.” See, e.g., Iron Workers
Local 1 (Goebel Forming), 340 NLRB 1158, 1163
(2003). Accordingly, we find this factor favors an award
of the disputed work to employees represented by Labor-
ers.
3. Past practice
On projects previous to the Hyde Park Project, the
Employer assigned the directional drilling and related
work to crews consisting either solely of Laborers, solely
of Operating Engineers, or composite crews of employ-
ees represented by both unions. This practice has been in
place since 2004, when the Employer executed letters of
assignment assigning the directional drilling work to
employees represented by both unions. Because the Em-
ployer’s past practice was to assign directional drilling
and related work to both Laborers-represented employees
and Operating Engineers-represented employees, we find
that this factor does not favor awarding the work in dis-
pute to either group of employees.
4. Area and industry practice
No party introduced any evidence with respect to in-
dustry practice.
The Employer’s foreman Russ Osborne testified that
employees represented by Laborers have performed work
of the kind in dispute in the past for the Brewer Compa-
ny, one of the Employer’s competitors. Additionally, the
Brewer Company is a signatory, along with the Employ-
er and RLA Investments, Inc., to the collective-
bargaining agreement with Laborers. Further, Laborers
Business Manager Phillips testified that Laborers have
performed work of the kind in dispute since 1992.
Operating Engineers also offered evidence that its
members have performed work of the kind in dispute.
Operating Engineers introduced assignment letters for
directional drilling work from dozens of area contractors,
spanning from 2000 to 2006.
Based on the above, we find that this factor does not
favor an award of the work in dispute to either group of
employees.
4. Relative skills and training
The Employer and Laborers presented testimony that
that Laborers’ members possess the requisite skills and
training to perform the disputed work and that they are
experienced in doing so. Specifically, Foreman Osborne
LABORERS LOCAL 265 (AMS CONSTRUCTION) 311
testified that Laborers-represented employees have the
requisite skills and training to perform the work in dis-
pute. He testified that every single worker performing
the disputed work for the Employer was originally
trained as a Laborer, including Operating Engineers who
have previously been assigned this work. Employer Su-
perintendent John Weber testified that Laborers-
represented employees have the proper skills and training
to perform the work, and can do so in a safe manner.
Laborers presented evidence that Laborers-represented
employees must participate in training that includes
classroom work and on-the-job training.
The record establishes that employees represented by
Operating Engineers had been performing the work for a
substantial period of time, and there is no evidence that
the Employer considered unsatisfactory any of the work
in dispute performed by these employees. Accordingly,
we find that this factor favors neither group of employ-
ees.9
6. Economy and efficiency of operations
Weber, the Employer’s superintendent, testified that it
is more efficient to have employees represented by La-
borers perform the disputed work. He explained that
Laborers are more capable of performing additional work
that is associated with directional drill and locator work,
such as digging holes or moving equipment. Weber fur-
ther testified that Operating Engineers do not always
complete tasks and are not always properly trained. For
these reasons, the Employer testified that Laborers-
represented employees deliver better work product than
Operating Engineers-represented employees. Operating
Engineers did not present evidence with respect to this
factor. Laborers-represented employees are thus better
equipped to perform the necessary work that stems from
directional drilling at Hyde Park than Operating Engi-
neers-represented employees. Accordingly, the factor of
economy and efficiency of operations favors an award of
9 Electrical Workers IBEW Local 486 (New England Power), 311
NLRB 1162, 1164 (1993).
the work in dispute to employees represented by Labor-
ers. See, e.g., Operating Engineers Local 825 (Walters
& Lambert), 309 NLRB 142, 145 (1992) (factor of econ-
omy and efficiency of operations favored Laborers over
Operating Engineers where evidence showed that, when
not performing disputed work, Laborers possessed
knowledge and skills necessary to perform additional
craft work).
Conclusion
After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude
that employees represented by Laborers are entitled to
perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion
relying on factors of collective-bargaining agreement,
employer preference, employer current assignment, and
economy and efficiency of operations. In making this
determination, we are awarding the disputed work to
employees represented by Laborers, not to that labor
organization or its members.
F. Scope of the Award
The Employer requests a broad, areawide award cover-
ing the work in dispute. The Board customarily does not
grant an areawide award in cases where the charged party
represents the employees to whom the work is awarded
and to whom the employer contemplates continuing to
assign the work. See, e.g., Laborers Local 243 (A. Amo-
rello & Sons), 314 NLRB 501, 503 (1994). Accordingly,
we shall limit the present determination to the particular
controversy that gives rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute.
Employees of AMS Construction, Inc., represented by
Laborers’ District Council of Ohio, Local 265, are enti-
tled to perform the operation of the directional drill ma-
chine and locator for the construction of gas pipelines for
Duke Energy Corporation at the Hyde Park modules,
Cincinnati, Ohio jobsite.