Sheet Metal Wkrs. Intl. Assoc., Local 11Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 13, 1970181 N.L.R.B. 154 (N.L.R.B. 1970) Copy Citation 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 11 and Corrugated Asbestos Contractors , Inc. and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No. 58 , AFL-CIO. Case 15-CD-127 February 13, 1970 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge by Corrugated Asbestos Contractors , Inc., herein called the Company, alleging that Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 11, herein called Local 11, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Company to assign certain work to employees represented by it, rather than to employees of the Company represented by International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO, herein called Iron Workers . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Edward A. Champagne on August 14, September 8, and October 7, 1969. All parties appeared at the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues . Thereafter , the Company, Local 11 , and Iron Workers filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error . Accordingly, they are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The parties stipulated, and we find, that Corrugated Asbestos Contractors, Inc. is a Louisiana corporation with its principal office located in New Orleans, Louisiana. It is engaged in the business of engineering, finishing, fabricating, and installing industrial sheeting and accessories. During the past year, the Company has purchased and received goods and material valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to it from points outside the State of Louisiana. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local I I and Iron Workers are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act 111. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Company, from 1953 to May 31, 1969, had collective-bargaining agreements with Local 11 covering a unit of its employees, and since 1958 has maintained collective-bargaining agreements with Iron Workers covering a different unit. In 1967, the Company was the successful bidder for the erection of sheet metal siding at the Hawthorne Power Station in Kansas City, Missouri, and assigned the work to employees in the Iron Workers unit . The work involved siding with corrugations more than 5 inches apart. Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 2, herein called Local 2, demanded that the Company assign the work to its members. The Company refused. Local 2 then filed a grievance with the Kansas City Joint Adjustment Board for the Sheet Metal Industry, which issued a determination that the Company had violated its contract by awarding the work to Iron Workers instead of to members of Local 2. It assessed damages in the amount of $12,733.20, and further decided that if the Company failed to comply with the award, its contract with Local 11 should be canceled. The Company appealed to the National Joint Adjustment Board for the Sheet Metal Industry, herein called National Sheet Metal Board, which includes representatives of Sheet Metal Workers International Association. National Sheet Metal Board reduced the damages to $2,000, but in addition to affirming the award appealed from, also awarded all such work in the future, where the corrugations were more than 5 inches apart and wherever the work was located, to Sheet Metal Workers International Association, or its appropriate Local on pain of having the contract with Local 11 canceled. The Company refused to abide by the award, and on May 8, 1969, Local 11 accordingly advised the Company that it would not sign any renewal contract, and its members were told by Business Manager LeBlanc that they could not work without a contract. At a subsequent meeting attended by Sheet Metal Workers International Association representative Edward Carlough, Jr., the Company and other sheet metal contractors in the New Orleans area were advised that the Sheet Metal Workers International meant business in connection with assignments of the type of work described above, and that "there 181 NLRB No. 27 SHEET METAL WKRS . INTL . ASSOC ., LOCAL I I was one representative present whose contract had been cancelled." This clearly referred to the Company, Corrugated Asbestos, and indicated that contract cancellation and refusal to continue supplying Sheet Metal Workers for any purpose were to be used as a means of requiring the Company in the future to assign the disputed work to employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers. It thus appears that Local 11 made common cause with the International in the aim to get the disputed work assignments for the Sheet Metal Workers. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute is the Company's erection of installations of Reynolds V-beam sheeting or siding with corrugations in excess of 5 inches apart. C. Contentions of the Parties The Company does work throughout the United States. It contends that whenever it performs a job involving hanging metal sheeting, it uses Iron Workers, irrespective of the distance between corrugations, and that it employes approximately 35 Iron Workers who are specially trained in the hanging of metal sheeting. The Company further contends that it assigned the work to Iron Workers by virtue of a 1923 decision of the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, which awarded the disputed work to Iron Workers. Iron Workers agrees with the Company that the controlling factor is the 1923 decision of the Joint Board; that members of Iron Workers possess the requisite abilities and training to perform the work in dispute; and that the practice is to assign the work in dispute to members of Iron Workers. Local 11 contends that it has no jurisdictional dispute of its own with the Company; that it was instructed by its International, pursuant to the award of the National Sheet Metal Board under the grievance procedure of the contract between itself and the Company, to refuse to renew the contract because of the Company's refusal to comply with said award; that Iron Workers have no special skills over and above those of the Sheet Metal Workers; that the assignment of the work in dispute is covered in the 1952 and 1965 agreements between its International and Iron Workers which granted the installation of V-beam sheeting with corrugations over 5 inches apart to Sheet Metal Workers; and that the industry practice is to award such work to Sheet Metal Workers. D. The Applicability of the Statute The charge alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. We are satisfied upon the basis of the record that there is reasonable cause to believe that Local 11 has engaged in proscribed action with an object of forcing the Company to 155 assign work to employees who are members of or represented by Sheet Metal Workers International Association or its Locals, rather than to Iron Workers. On the basis of the entire record, we find that the dispute is properly before us for determination. E. The Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work only after giving due consideration to various relevant factors .' In this case, we consider the following factors to be determinative of the issues here involved: 1. Certification and bargaining agreements The evidence indicates that there is no Board certification relative to the disputed work, and that the Company has no bargaining agreement assigning work to Sheet Metal Workers International Association or any of its Locals. As there Is no certification or collective-bargaining agreement covering the disputed work, neither Local 11 nor Iron Workers is favored by these factors. 2. Alleged interunion agreement Local 11, relying on the Board's reasoning in Local Union No 68, Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union (Acoustics & Specialties, Inc. ),2 contends that the Board should give weight to what is asserted to be an agreement between the two Internationals assigning to Sheet Metal Workers the installation of siding with corrugations more than 5 inches apart. We view the asserted agreement as substantially distinguishable from the one in the Acoustics & Specialties case. Here, an agreement to this effect was signed by the respective international presidents of Sheet Metal Workers and Iron Workers on October 30, 1965, but it was repudiated by Iron Workers on November 22, 1965. That the October 1965 agreement is not being honored by Iron Workers is further evidenced by a letter of March 20, 1968, from the President of Iron Workers to the Company, stating that there was no agreement in existence between the two International Unions on jurisdiction of the work in dispute. Thus it appears from the record that the alleged interunion agreement was not in existence at the time of the present dispute. IN L R B v Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local 1212. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( Columbia Broadcasting Svstem) . 364 U S 573 2I42 NLRB 1073 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Company and industry practice Since 1960, the Company has been installing metal sheeting with corrugations both less and more than 5 inches apart, and has consistently assigned both types of work to its employees in the unit represented by Iron Workers. As for the industry practice apart from the Company's own practice, the evidence shows, contrary to the claim of Local 11, that there is no clear practice in the industry, either in the area or nationwide , of assigning the disputed work to Sheet Metal Workers. Consequently, the alleged practice, upon which Local 11 relies, is not a significant factor in determining the assignment of the work in dispute. In the absence of evidence of any relevant area or industry practice favoring Sheet Metal Workers, the established practice of the Company in assigning Iron Workers to perform the work and the failure of Local 11 to object to the assignments until May 1969 are factors favoring the continued assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by Iron Workers. 4. Efficiency of operation In the years that the Company has been installing metal sheeting, Iron Workers have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Company that the employees in its unit possess the knowledge and skill necessary to do the work. These employees have been trained by the Company and serve as leadmen on the jobsites. While it appears that Local 11 members may also possess the necessary skills to install the sheeting, their work assignments have been limited to fabricating the metal for gutters and downspouts. We find that these factors favor the assignment of the work in dispute to employees represented by Iron Workers. F. Conclusion as to the Merits of the Dispute In view of the foregoing, on the basis of the record as a whole, and upon appraisal of all relevant considerations, we believe that the work in dispute should be awarded to employees represented by Iron Workers. The fact that the Company' s assignment is consistent with its own past practice, the further fact that Iron Workers employed by the Company have the requisite skill and are familiar with all facets of the work, and the attendant efficiency and economy of the established operations, lead us to conclude that the Company' s assignment of the work is a proper one. Therefore, we shall determine the dispute by assigning the work in question to the employees represented by Iron Workers. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE 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 case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Company employees who are represented by International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, are entitled to the work of installing Reynolds V-beam siding having 5 inches or more between corrugations. 2. Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 11, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Corrugated Asbestos Contractors, Inc., to assign the work described above to members or employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers International Association or any Local thereof. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 11, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Corrugated Asbestos Contractors, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation