Millwrights Machinery Erectors Local 720

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 613 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

MILLWRIGHTS MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 720 613
Millwrights Machinery Erectors Local Union No.
720, AFL-CIO, a/w United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and H.
B. Fowler & Company , Inc. and Chauncey Con-
struction Company , Inc. and International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers , Local 582,
AFL-CIO and International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
Local 623 , AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CD-131,
15-CD-133, and 15-CD-137
July 24, 1970
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTES
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
This is a consolidated proceeding pursuant to
Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , following the filing of separate
charges, as follows: In Case 15-CD-131, by H. B.
Fowler & Company, Inc., herein called Fowler, on
July 25, 1969; in Case 15-CD-133, by Fowler on
August 14, 1969; and in Case 15-CD-137, jointly
by Fowler and Chauncey Construction Company,
Inc., herein called Chauncey, on October 16, 1969.
The charges allege jurisdictional strikes by Mill-
wrights Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 720,
AFL-CIO, a/w United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Millwrights , in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing Of-
ficer Harry L. Hopkins on January 12, 14, and 15,
1970. International Association of Bridge, Struc-
tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 623,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Iron Workers, and In-
ternational Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers,
Local 582, AFL-CIO, herein called the Boiler-
makers, appeared as Parties in Interest . Industrial
Contractors Association of Baton Rouge & Vicini-
ty, herein called BRICA, of which the Employers
are members, appeared as an Intervenor, but ad-
duced no evidence at the hearing.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.[
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The parties stipulated as follows: Fowler is a
Delaware corporation with its principal office and
place of business at Harvey, Louisiana, and is en-
gaged in industrial construction; it is presently en-
gaged as a contractor on the construction of a
chemical plant for Stauffer Chemical Company at
St. Gabriel, Louisiana; and in the course and con-
duct of its business it annually purchases and
receives goods and materials directly from outside
the State of Louisiana valued in excess of $50,000.
Chauncey is a Delaware corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place of business at Dobbs Ferry,
New York, and is engaged in the business of indus-
trial construction ; it is presently engaged as a con-
tractor on the construction of the Stauffer Chemi-
cal plant at St. Gabriel, Louisiana, and in the
course and conduct of its business it annually
purchases and receives goods and materials directly
from outside the State of Louisiana valued in excess
of $50,000. Fowler and Chauncey are engaged in,
commerce within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act and meet its jurisdictional
standards. We find that both Employers herein are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find , that the Mill-
wrights, the Boilermakers , and the Iron Workers
are labor organizations within the meaning of the
Act.
III. THE DISPUTES
A. The Work in Dispute
In Case 15-CD-131, at Fowler's Stauffer Chemi-
cal Company construction jobsite at St. Gabriel,
Louisiana, the first dispute exists between the Mill-
wrights and the Iron Workers as to the rigging of
jackscrews, used for leveling mercury cells, from
the point of their arrival in transportainers to the
point of their storage in the cell assembly building.
A second dispute exists between the Millwrights
and the Boilermakers as to the attachment of cell
brackets to mercury cell bottoms in the cell as-
, In view of our Decision herein , we deem it unnecessary to dispose of
the Millwrights continuing objections to the Hearing Officer 's rulings per-
mitting the intervention of BRICA and the presentation of evidence as to
future work disputes , which allegedly extends the scope of the hearing
beyond the scope of the order contained in the notice of hearing
184 NLRB No. 65
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sembly building . In Case 15-CD-133, at Fowler's
Wyandotte Chemical Company jobsite at Geismar,
Louisiana , a dispute exists between the Millwrights
and the Iron Workers as to the rigging of pump
bases between their point of installation and service
areas . In Case 15-CD-137, at Chauncey 's Stauffer
Chemical Company jobsite at St. Gabriel , a dispute
exists between the Millwrights and Chauncey as to
the operation of a tilting level and rod for the pur-
pose of leveling mercury cells.
B. Background and Facts of the Disputes
1. Case 15-CD-131
Shortly prior to June 27, 1969, a dozen transpor-
tainers were delivered to the Stauffer jobsite by rail
after shipment from Germany and were deposited
on open ground , 80 to 100 feet from the chlorine
cell assembly building . The transportainers,
described as metal shipping containers , measuring 8
by 8 by 25 feet , enclosed smaller wooden boxes of
parts for mercury cell construction.
On June 27, Chauncey , a wholly owned subsidia-
ry of Stauffer and the primary contractor at the
Stauffer jobsite, commenced unloading the trans-
portainers , one of which contained , inter alia, a
wooden box , 1-1/2 by 2 by 4 feet , containing 250 to
400 5 -inch jackscrews , and weighing several hun-
dred pounds . According to Ted Anthos , Stauffer's
resident engineer , there was an understanding that
the Iron Workers would rig the box and move it
from the transportainer to the cell assembly build-
ing, at which point the Millwrights would unpack,
clean , and store the jackscrews . However, as the
Iron Workers rigged the box from the transpor-
tainer , Millwrights employees moved up a dolly and
ordered the Iron Workers employees to place the
box on the dolly for removal to the cell assembly
building . A dispute ensued , whereupon the Iron
Workers agreed to place the box on the ground,
pending settlement thereof . Later that day, Anthos
met with Loy McCrory, the Millwrights business
agent , and worked out an agreement whereby the
Iron Workers would rig the box and move it into
the cell assembly building and the Millwrights
would handle the box and its contents from that
point on. McCrory , however, laid claim to all future
rigging and moving work regarding the approxi-
mately 100 transportainers yet to be handled.
Anthos telephoned BRICA to arrange a meeting for
June 27 to discuss the transportainer dispute.
McCrory did not show up at the BRICA meeting,
and on June 30, Millwrights employees who had
been assigned to work on an agitator sat down in
front of the cell assembly building and refused to
perform the work assigned to them . Anthos, at
BRICA headquarters , telephoned McCrory , who in-
formed him that he wanted Anthos to allow the
Millwrights to begin cleaning the jackscrews in the
cell assembly building . Anthos replied that he
would assign them that work as soon as the clean-
ing materials arrived , and he urged McCrory to
send the men back to their regular work assign-
ments in the meantime . McCrory refused and told
Anthos that the latter 's only recourse was to fire
them . Anthos replied that he did not want to do so,
but agreed that he had no other choice . On July 1
and 2, the Millwrights picketed the Stauffer jobsite,
and employees of all contractors at the jobsite
refused to cross the picket line.
On July 2, Stauffer decided to discontinue
further millwright work by Chauncey and to reas-
sign the work to Fowler, which already had con-
tracts for other millwright work at the jobsite.
Anthos telephoned D. O. Spears , the Millwrights
International representative , who voiced no objec-
tions . On July 3, Anthos met with ' McCrory and
Spears, who stated that they wanted Stauffer to
cancel Fowler 's contract , so that Anthos , the Mill-
wrights, and the Iron Workers could sit down and
work out their rigging problems . McCrory repeated
this request on July 7 . Stauffer refused to cancel
the Fowler contract and so advised the Millwrights.
Between July 2 and 10 , King Woolf, Fowler's
vice president , made repeated appeals to McCrory
for at least 9 or 10 millwrights , but received only 2
men, notwithstanding that for the previous 12 years
Fowler had used the Millwrights as its exclusive
source of millwright work and had apparently en-
joyed amicable relations with the Millwrights dur-
ing that period . McCrory replied that he had a
problem with the Iron Workers and Chauncey on
that job and would not refer men to Fowler until
that matter was straightened out. On July 14, the
Millwrights referred 10 men to the job , but when
Woolf, in reply to McCrory 's question as to
whether Fowler would use Iron Workers in con-
junction with Millwrights , stated that the job was
new and that he, Woolf, did not know what his
responsibilities were, McCrory again replied that he
had a problem with the Iron Workers. At noon that
same day, the millwrights walked off the job.
Despite further appeals for Millwrights, none
returned until July 18.
On July 17, at Spears ' request, BRICA held a
meeting of its membership, comprising local indus-
trial contractors , at which he announced that he
had unilaterally abrogated all previous local area
working agreements among BRICA members, the
Millwrights , and the Iron Workers , covering rigging
MILLWRIGHTS MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 720
work.2 The Iron Workers took the position that
those agreements were still in effect, and that, even
if they had been unilaterally abrogated, the working
rules they enunciated continued to constitute area
practice, and that the Iron Workers would expect
the BRICA contractors to continue to follow these
rules.
Between July 18 and 21, several millwrights re-
ported to work. On July 21, Fowler instructed three
or four millwrights to clean the jackscrews and
threads in the cell assembly building and prepare
them for installation on the mercury cell brackets.
The entire millwright crew, against orders, went
into the cell building and not only began cleaning
the screws and bracket threads, but also began to
install the brackets on the cell bottoms, against su-
pervisory orders. Fowler thereupon discharged the
Millwrights steward and foreman for failure to
comply with instructions. When apprised of this
McCrory stated "that's our work. I got 600 mem-
bers in my local. I got to buy 600 ax handles to get
my work, I will do it." Woolf who had checked the
prejob conference list of assignments, told McCrory
that the brackets work was Boilermakers work. Mc-
Crory told Woolf he would pull his men off the job
and did so. The Boilermakers steward indicated
that if the Millwrights continued to perform this
work he would be forced to stop the job.
At a BRICA meeting on July 22, the Millwrights
continued to claim the bracket work. That same
day, the BRICA members issued a joint letter
agreement stating their intention to continue the
area practice evidenced by the area agreements
until the Millwrights and the Iron Workers worked
out their rigging differences. McCrory, upon read-
ing the letter told Woolf that the Millwrights would
not refer men to any of the contractors who had
signed the joint letter. On August 5, Woolf per-
sonally delivered to McCrory a letter containing a
detailed list of all of Fowler's jurisdictional assign-
ments on the Stauffer job and a continuing request
that the Millwrights refer men to the Stauffer job.
The millwrights crew stayed out until September
17, following the issuance of a temporary injunc-
tion secured by the Regional Director for Region
15 in the United States District Court for the East-
ern District of Louisiana.
2. Case 15-CD-133
In addition to its work at the Stauffer jobsite,
Fowler was also performing work at the Wyandotte
Chemicals Corporation plant at Geismar, Louisiana,
5 miles distant, where it employed members of
615
Millwrights, Iron Workers, and several other crafts.
The work in dispute at Wyandotte concerned the
removal of a pump base from its foundation to a
shop for modifications and its return to the base.
The pump base was basically a piece of sheet steel
held on top of the concrete foundation by anchor
bolts. Before the modification, to permit conversion
of the pump from electric to stem operation, the
pump base weighed 150 pounds; following modifi-
cation, it weighed 250 pounds.
On July 30, apparently without Fowler's
knowledge, the Millwrights removed the pump base
to the shop where it was modified. On July 31,
several employees lifted the base by hand and
placed it on the back of a truck for return to the
base. Nelson Owens, Fowler's superintendent, gave
the Iron Workers permission to power rig the pump
base back on the foundation. A Mr. Almond, the
Millwrights steward, objected. Thereupon, Owens
had a Teamsters member back up the truck to the
foundation in such a manner as to cause the pump
base to slide onto the foundation. Woolf advised
Owens that in accord with past area practice, as
prescribed in the BRICA letter of July 22, the
disputed work belonged to the Iron Workers. When
Almond informed Woolf that he had a letter prov-
ing that it was Millwrights work, Owens had the
men do other work, pending receipt of the letter
the following day. Almond, however, failed to
produce the letter the following day, whereupon
Owens informed him that he would make the as-
signment to the Iron Workers. The millwright em-
ployees thereupon walked off the job. Later that
day, Owens first learned that the millwrights had
removed the base plate to the shop for modification
without his permission. He informed McCrory that
he still considered the pump base rigging to be Iron
Workers work, whereupon McCrory replied that "if
King Woolf and I were going to continue to be hard
headed about this thing, and wanted trouble, that
he was going to give us trouble."
No millwrights appeared for work on August 4 or
5. When Owens called McCrory for Millwrights
help and advised him that the pump base rigging
was Iron Workers work, McCrory replied: "Well, as
long as you maintain that attitude, we are not going
to build anything or tear anything down in this
area ." He then advised Owens, through the use of
an obscenity, as to how the BRICA contractors
could dispose of their joint letter agreement of July
22.
On August 6, McCrory told Ray Burgins,
Fowler's vice president , that he was not going to
send his men out on the Fowler job until the July
r These agreements include the Smith -Laing Agreement , of 1963,
discussed infra, and its predecessor , the Poole -Laing Agreement , of 1958,
covering the Baton Rouge area
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
22 letter was repudiated . Burgins called Bill West,
business agent of the Iron Workers , about the
dispute, and West advised that he continued to
claim the rigging work . Burgins called McCrory
about West 's position , and McCrory replied that
Burgins might just as well turn the contract back to
Wyandotte , that he was not going to man the job,
and that "until the letter was repudiated there was
just nothing going to be going around here." The
millwrights never returned , and Wyandotte can-
celed Fowler 's contract for this particular work.
3. Case 15-CD-137
The tilting level work here in dispute is per-
formed in connection with the construction, at
Chauncey 's Stauffer jobsite at St. Gabriel , of mer-
cury chlorine cells, which are basically shallow vats
about 7 feet wide , 45 feet long , and 10 inches deep.
The bottom of the cell is a machined metal plate 2
inches thick and weighing about 8 tons . For the cell
to work properly, the cell bottom must be
"leveled " by setting it at a slight and very precise
slope to a tolerance in the neighborhood of 4/1000
of an inch . Each of the 52 cells rests on 18
jackscrews , the turning of which adjusts the slope
of the cell bottom. Two currently unrepresented
field engineers employed by Chauncey, one of
whom operates an optical instrument known as a
tilting level, more fully described below, and the
other , a sighting rod, and working in rotation,
determine the precise slope of the cell bottom and
convey leveling instructions by hand signals to mill-
wrights, who adjust the slope of the cell bottom by
turning the jackscrews with hand wrenches.
The work of leveling the cell bottoms began Sep-
tember 22, 1969, and continued daily without inter-
ruption until October 4, 1969 . During this period
the Millwrights laid no claim to the tilting level
work. In July 1969, at a BRICA meeting, McCrory
told Anthos he claimed the tilting level work.
Anthos, who had been in the Baton Rouge area
only 6 months , made no decision in that regard, but
replied that if this was Millwrights work in the area,
then he would have to have an engineer assigned to
stand by and check all of the Millwrights work
because of the critical nature of the leveling work.
On October 9, McCrory and James Olah, the
Millwrights steward on the Stauffer job, went to
Anthos' office and asked that Stauffer drop a civil
lawsuit filed against the Millwrights . McCrory told
Anthos that the job was not finished yet, and that
pursuant to court order he "had to send people to
the job," and that "nobody could guarantee" that
the people would stay on the job. He further said
that he had 200 people on the bench and that if his
men left the job he would have to refer additional
men under the court order . He further told Anthos
that "nobody could force people to stay on the job
and they will leave your job," that Anthos would
"be a very unhappy man," and that there would be
further trouble . Shortly thereafter , Olah told
Anthos that the Millwrights was claiming the tilting
level work . Anthos replied that he would have to
contact BRICA to check the area practice in that
regard.
On October 10, Robert Field , Chauncey 's labor
relations manager , told Olah that Chauncey was
going to continue its assignment of the tilting level
to the field engineers , and that this was in accord
with area practice . On October 13, McCrory com-
plained to Anthos that he, Anthos , was not giving
McCrory the tilting level work and he told Anthos
to "remember I have a very good memory" and
that Anthos was forcing him to "change my people
into rats ." He asked Anthos to check on area prac-
tice regarding tilting level work.
Shortly before October 14, McCrory called
together all Millwrights on the Chauncey job to the
union hall , told them he was claiming the tilting
level work because he had been instructed by his
general office that this was Millwrights work, and
remarked that "any local union should fight for
their jurisdiction ." He further said, that, in view of
the Federal court order , the matter was out of his
hands , that if the Union walked off as a union it
would be in contempt of court , and that if the men
quit the job, the Union would, in accord with the
restraining order , have to replace them . He added,
however, that whether or not they wished to work
was their own individual decision , that he could not
force them to stay on the job , that if they left the
job, he would have to replace them, and that "they
did not have to work on anyone's job , yes, sir."
On October 14, 8 of the 23 millwrights on the job
quit. Five of them , who worked outside the cell as-
sembly building, quit first thing in the morning.-
Olah advised Owens of this fact about 8 a.m.
Shortly thereafter , Olah told Owens that three addi-
tional men had quit . Owens reported the situation
to Woolf and then interviewed Louis Duffy, the
Millwrights general foreman in charge of the cell
assembly building, who told him that each time one
of the men was assigned to work with the engineers
operating the tilting level he would quit. Duffy
forthwith stopped assigning Millwrights to work
with the engineers in order not to run out of Mill-
wrights . That same day, Fowler applied for more
Millwrights to operate the jackscrews , but two
more Millwrights quit the next day, and no addi-
tional Millwrights appeared.
On October 16, eight Millwrights reported for
work at the cell assembly building , including the six
employees who had quit on October 14. Fowler as-
MILLWRIGHTS MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 720
signed the two new men to work with the engineer
on the jackscrews, but they quit. Later that day,
McCrory agreed with Owens to send two additional
men.
On November 25, following Fowler's filing of the
Charge in Case 15-CD-137 and the Regional
Director's filing of a 10(1) petition which resulted
in a show cause court order setting a hearing for
December 2, Anthos and McCrory worked out a
temporary resolution of the tilting level dispute,
pending resolution thereof in the instant proceed-
ing. The agreement provided that the engineering
department would continue to operate the tilting
level, that the Millwrights would work on the
jackscrews, and that one of the engineers would
secure a temporary permit from the Millwrights.
On November 26, a dispute arose over the han-
dling of the tilting level rod, which McCrory
claimed. A similar temporary arrangement in that
regard was made, so that the tilting level work
could proceed.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Millwrights moves to dismiss the instant
proceeding on the ground that there are no jurisdic-
tional disputes cognizable under Section 10(k) of
the Act, and that in any event there was available a
voluntary private method of settling the disputes, if
they existed, through reactivation of the National
Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional
Disputes.3 Should the Board find the existence of
disputes herein, the Millwrights contends that it
should be awarded all of the disputed work here in
issue.
The Iron Workers, the Boilermakers, and the Em-
ployers agree that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that the Millwrights, in seeking to establish its
claim to the work here in dispute, engaged in con-
duct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
The Iron Workers contends that it should be
awarded all of the rigging work here in dispute, and
the Boilermakers contends that it should be
awarded the mercury cell bracket attachment work.
The Employers take no position as to awards of the
rigging or bracket attachment work, but contend
that the tilting level work should be awarded to
Chauncey's unrepresented field engineers who cur-
rently perform that work. BRICA generally
requests Board settlement of rigging disputes
between the Iron Workers and the Millwrights.
D. Applicability of the Statue
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of the dispute herein pursuant to Section 10(k)
J In view of our findings herein below set forth , we deny the Millwrights
motions to dismiss the instant proceeding , based on these contentions.
617
of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasona-
ble cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
been violated. Cogent evidence clearly shows, in
our opinion, that in all three cases involved in this
proceeding the Millwrights engaged in work stop-
pages at Fowler's and Chauncey's jobsites in order
to require the assignment of the disputed work to
employees represented by the Millwrights, thus
clearly establishing a prima facie case supporting
the alleged violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D).
Accordingly, we find that there is a reasonable
cause to believe that violations of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act have occurred in all of the
cases involved in this proceeding, and that the in-
stant disputes are therefore properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
E. Merits of the Disputes
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
makes an affirmative award of the disputed work
after giving due consideration to all relevant fac-
tors. In International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No. 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction Co.),4
the Board set forth the following criteria to be con-
sidered in the making of an affirmative award in a
10(k) proceeding:
The Board will consider all relevant factors in
determining who is entitled to the work in
dispute, e.g., the skills and work involved, cer-
tification by the Board, company and industry
practice, agreements between unions and
between employers and unions, awards of ar-
bitrators, joint boards, and the AFL-CIO in the
same or related cases, the assignment made by
the employer, and the efficient operation of
the employer's business.5
1. Work and skills involved
In Cases 15-CD-131 and 15-CD-133, both the
Millwrights and the Iron Workers concede that em-
ployees represented by both Unions perform sub-
stantial amounts of rigging work such as is called
for by the work in dispute in these cases. The
question of relative skills therefore appears not to
be a substantial issue in this proceeding. However,
each Union contends that the assignment of the
disputed rigging work to the employees it
represents would produce greater safety in the per-
formance of the work. Thus, for example, the Mill-
wrights contends that, were the rigging of unassem-
bled machinery parts onto the point of installation
awarded to employees represented by the Iron
' 135 NLRB 1402
1 Id at 1410-11
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Workers, employees represented by the Mill-
wrights, who alone are responsible for machinery
assembly , might be subject to danger attendant
upon receipt of possibly confusing or erroneous
rigging signals from Iron Workers employees un-
familiar with the problems of machinery assembly,
For its part, the Iron Workers emphasizes its long
and exclusive experience in major rigging work, as
evidence by area practice , as well as its ability to
handle all types of rigging problems . Each Union
stresses its apprenticeship program providing for
lengthy training in rigging operations . As to the
disputed bracket attachment work the facts of rela-
tive skills or safety appear to be of minor im-
portance.
In Case 15-CD-137, the disputed work involves
the precise leveling, on a slant , to a tolerance of
4/1000 of an inch, of mercury cell bottoms by
means of a tilting level costing approximately
$1,100, as compared with an ordinary level costing
in the neighborhood of $150. The sighting rod is
likewise a precision instrument costing about $500
and comes equipped with a vernier scale for mak-
ing precise readings . The field engineers who
operate the tilting level and rod have had con-
siderable experience in their work . The more ex-
perienced of these men was hired especially for
leveling mercury cell bottoms , has done this work
for other firms over a period of 3 years, has
designed a special rod for use in mercury cell work,
and performs=a'considerable amount of the mathe-
matical calculations required for the cell leveling
process . Considerable care must be taken with the
tilting level to counteract temperature changes, to
precisely level the instrument , and to stabilize it.
The work involves geometry and trigonometry and
requires a preparation which includes a course of
several weeks ' duration in the study of tilting level
operation , together with a considerable amount of
on-the-job training.
2. Efficiency of operations
Insofar as the disputed rigging and bracket at-
tachment work in Cases 15-CD-131 and
15-CD-133 are concerned, efficiency of operations
appears to be of relatively minor importance, ex-
cept insofar as it may be indirectly affected by the
factor of area practice, discussed below, to which
the parties attach great weight. As to the disputed
tilting level work in Case 15-CD-137, McCrory
conceded the use of optical instruments -is neither
an historical or a traditional function of the Mill-
wrights , and that tilting level work was unknown to
him prior to 1967, notwithstanding that it has been
in existence since World War II. In 1968, he or-
ganized a school for optical instrumentation train-
ing, at which no mathematics was taught. Of 350
Millwrights members actively engaged in construc-
tion work, 32 enrolled in the training school, and 8
completed it. McCrory conceded that currently
only three Millwrights members are qualified to
operate optical equipment. Of these, only one
works out of the union hall . None of them has ever
performed tilting level work for leveling mercury
chlorine cells or performed leveling on a slope. One
has had no tilting level experience whatever, and
the experience of the other two appears to have
been limited to considerably less demanding work
on leveling small sole plates for paper machinery.
Furthermore when, as noted above, Anthos and
McCrory sought to work out a temporary solution
of the tilting level dispute , pending resolution of the
instant proceeding , McCrory conceded that he had
no employee available at the union hall who was
qualified to operate a tilting level.
The Millwrights contends that the tilting level
operation is merely an extension of its traditional
leveling and aligning functions , formerly performed
with the hand level and piano wire . However, tilting
level operations have been devoted entirely to
leveling of machinery , principally in papermills, a
less critical operation.
In these circumstances , it would appear that inef-
ficiencies could arise, were the tilting level work
awarded to employees represented by the Mill-
wrights, inasmuch as the work is neither traditional
nor historical Millwrights work; Millwrights em-
ployees are inexperienced in highly critical mercury
cell leveling work , and, by the Millwrights own ad-
mission , they lack readily available qualified per-
sonnel for the work. An award to employees
represented by the Millwrights could therefore
result in added costs, inconvenience, and work
slowdowns arising from the lack of trained person-
nel for the job and the need for training them.
3. Company and industry practice
Over the past several years in the Baton Rouge
area, jurisdictional understandings between the
Millwrights and the Iron Workers have developed
into an area practice governing jurisdictional as-
signments of various types of rigging work between
these two Unions . In attempts to reduce jurisdic-
tional disputes which continued despite such un-
derstandings , BRICA, the Millwrights , and the Iron
Workers have in the past sought to codify the area
practice into binding agreements , as exemplified by
the Smith-Poole Agreement of 1958 and its succes-
sor, the Smith-Laing Agreement of 1960, the per-
tinent sections of which read as follows:
1. The unloading and moving to point of in-
stallation on softeners or to point adjacent
MILLWRIGHTS MACHINERY ERECTORS LOCAL 720 619
thereto, shall be the work of the Iron Workers.
The point adjacent thereto shall be defined as
the point selected by the employer from which
he can most conveniently execute his work in
the most economical manner. The unloading
and moving to point of installation or to point
adjacent thereto of component parts shall be
the work of the Iron Workers. All handling
described above shall be considered a continu-
ous rigging operation regardless of method or
equipment applied, or intermediate steps, for
any reason necessary for the economic
prosecution of the work.
2. In the event foundations are not ready when
the machinery is moved to a point adjacent
thereto, and the method necessary to move
equipment and machinery is considered a
"rigging operation " as it is known in the indus-
try, it shall be performed by the Iron Workers.
Lifts of a minor nature in this operation shall
be performed by Millwrights regardless of the
method of equipment used.
3. Handling and assembling of component
parts of machinery which have been brought to
the point of installation , or immediately ad-
jacent thereto shall be performed by Mill-
wrights, regardless of the method of equipment
used. The exception to this Section shall be
when job conditions require, or when com-
ponent parts are in themselves of such a size or
conformity to be considered by the employer
as a major lift, thereby becoming a major
rigging operation , in which event the work
shall be performed by the Iron Workers. All
leveling and aligning shall be performed by
Millwrights.
The Agreements have not appreciably lessened
jurisdictional rigging disputes in the Baton Rouge
area between the Millwrights and the Iron Workers,
partially in view of the Millwrights expressed desire
in the future to seek a larger share of rigging work,
which it claims has heretofore been predominately
within the jurisdiction of the Iron Workers, as
evidence by current area practice. As matters now
stand, the Employers herein and the other members
of BRICA, together with the Iron Workers, take the
position that Smith-Laing is currently binding on
the parties herein, or if it is not, as the Millwrights
contends, its principles, comprising area practice of
5 years' duration, remain in effect. The Millwrights
takes the position that it unilaterally abrogated
Smith-Laing in 1968, although it does continue to
adhere to some, but not all, of the rules therein set
forth.
With reference to the jackscrews rigging dispute
herein, the Millwrights concedes that under tradi-
tional area practice enunciated in Smith-Laing, the
Iron Workers is entitled to move machinery and
components to a storage area or to a so-called point
adjacent to its place of installation. It also concedes
that traditionally, and currently, the Iron Workers
is entitled to the rigging of machinery and com-
ponents to the point of installation, even though the
process be interrupted by storage. As a point of de-
parture from traditional and current area practice
as enunciated by Smith-Laing, the Millwrights con-
tends that it should be awarded the rigging of
machinery and components to or from storage,
whenever it is required to do any work thereon in
the storage area preparatory to installation, such as
cleaning, deburring, turning, or assembly work. The
other parties herein contend, apparently correctly,
that this new rigging claim of the Millwrights does
not accord with area practice.
As to the Wyandotte pump base dispute, the
Millwrights merely contends that inasmuch as the
pump base removal could be accomplished by only
two men by hand, it would be more efficient for
Millwrights to perform, inasmuch as the Iron Work-
ers primarily engages in power rigging. The Iron
Workers contends that it is clearly entitled to such
work, inasmuch as its pump base removal work is
simply the reverse of its function of rigging the
same to the point of installation in accord with area
practice.
With regard to the brackets attachment dispute,
the work of attaching of structural extensions such
as the brackets herein to structural members such
as the mercury cell bottoms appears to be tradi-
tional Boilermakers work . In contrast , the attaching
of nonstructural items such as shipping hardware to
structural members, which is not in dispute , is con-
cededly Millwrights work.
With respect to the tilting level dispute, there is,
as noted above, an area practice of at least 3 years'
duration whereby unrepresented field engineers
have exclusively performed tilting level operations
for leveling mercury cell bottoms in the Baton
Rouge area.
4. Agreements between the Companies and the
Unions
There are no contracts or agreements outstand-
ing between the Employers and the Unions herein
which define or determine the jurisdiction over any
of the work here in dispute other than the Smith-
Laing Agreement discussed above.
5. National Joint Board awards
There are no outstanding National Joint Board
awards covering the work here in dispute, nor does
it appear that any applications are pending before
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Board covering this work . Furthermore, there
appears to be no contractural agreement by any of
the parties hereto to submit any of the disputes
herein to the National Joint Board.6
Conclusions
Upon the record as a whole, and after full con-
sideration of all relevant factors involved , we shall
make the following awards of the work here in
dispute, relying as we do, on the fact that the
awards are in accord with the Employer 's assign-
ments, with its past practice , and with area prac-
tice, and the further facts that the employees to
whom the awards are made possess the requisite
skills satisfactorily to perform the disputed work
and that the awards will tend to preserve or
promote the efficiency of the Employers ' opera-
tions:
In Case 15-CD-131, at Fowler's Stauffer jobsite
at St . Gabriel , Louisiana, we shall award , to the em-
ployees represented by Iron Workers , but not to
this Union or its members, the work of unloading
jackscrews from transportainers and rigging the
same to the cell assembly building, and we shall
award the work of attaching cell brackets to mercu-
ry cell bottoms at the cell assembly building to the
employees represented by Boilermakers, but not to
that Union or its members . In Case 15-CD-133, we
shall award to the employees represented by Iron
Workers, but not to that Union or its members, at
Fowler 's Wyandotte Chemicals Company jobsite at
Geismar , Louisiana , the work of rigging pump bases
to and from service shops . In Case 15-CD-137, at
Chauncey's Stauffer jobsite at St. Gabriel, Loui-
siana, we shall award to Chauncey 's field engineers,
currently unrepresented by any labor organization,
the operation of the tilting level and rod for the
purpose of leveling mercury cells.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of
the foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following Determination of
Disputes:
1. Employees of H. B . Fowler & Company, Inc.,
who are currently represented by International As-
sociation of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, Local 623, AFL-CIO, are entitled to per-
form the work of rigging boxes of unloading
jackscrews from transportainers and rigging the
same to the cell assembly building at Fowler's
Stauffer Chemical Company construction jobsite at
St. Gabriel , Louisiana.
2. Employees of H. B . Fowler & Company, Inc.,
who are currently represented by International As-
sociation of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, Local 623, AFL-CIO, are entitled to per-
form the work of moving and rigging pump bases
and associated equipment at Fowler 's Wyandotte
Chemical Company jobsite at Geismar , Louisiana.
3. Employees of H. B . Fowler & Company, Inc.,
who are currently represented by International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers , Local 582,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of at-
taching cell brackets to mercury cell bottoms at
Fowler 's Stauffer Chemical Company construction
jobsite at St. Gabriel , Louisiana.
4. Employees of Chauncey Construction Com-
pany, Inc., known as field engineers and currently
represented by no labor organization are entitled to
perform the work of operating tilting levels and as-
sociated rods or staffs for the purpose of leveling
mercury cells at Chauncey 's Stauffer Chemical
Company construction site at St . Gabriel, Loui-
siana.
5. Millwrights Machinery Erectors Local Union
No. 720, AFL-CIO, a/w United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, is
not entitled , by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act, to force or require H. B.
Fowler & Company , Inc., or Chauncey Construc-
tion Company , Inc., to assign any of the above-
described work to individuals represented by Local
Union No. 720.
6. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Disputes , Millwrights
Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 720,
AFL-CIO , a/w United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 15, in writing,
whether or not they will refrain from forcing or
requiring the Employers herein , by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D of the Act, to as-
sign the work in dispute to individuals represented
by Local Union No. 720, rather than to the labor
organizations and employees set forth in para-
graphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, supra.
' in these circumstances , we find without merit the Millwrights objection
to the instant hearing based on its claim that a voluntary settlement of the
dispute herein should be handled by the National Joint Board.