Stage Employees IATSE Local 41 (Greyhound Exhibitgroup)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 369 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

STAGE EMPLOYEES IATSE LOCAL 41 (GREYHOUND EXHIBITGROUP)
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employ-
ees, Local #41 and Greyhound Exhibitgroup,
Inc. and Carpenters District Council of Atlanta'
and Vicinity, Carpenters Local Union #2281.
Case 10-CD-303
30 April 1984
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed 10 November 1983 by the Employer, alleging
that the Respondent, International Alliance of The-
atrical Stage Employees, Local #41 (IATSE), vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with
an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain
work to employees it represents rather than to em-
ployees represented by the Carpenters. The hearing
was held 4 and 5 January 1984 before Hearing Of-
ficer Stephen T. Constan.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings,
finding them free from prejudicial error. On the
entire record, the Board makes the following find-
ings.
I. JURISDICTION
The parties stipulated that the Company, an Illi-
nois corporation, is engaged in the business of
building exhibits for trade shows at its facility in
Atlanta, Georgia, where it annually receives goods,
products, and materials valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points located outside the State of
Georgia. We find that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and that IATSE and the Carpenters
are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
1. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer began constructing and installing
trade show exhibits in the Atlanta, Georgia area in
January 1981 when it purchased the assets of an-
other exhibit building company, Matrix. Prior to
the purchase Matrix had entered into collective-
bargaining agreements with both IATSE and the
Carpenters. The Employer became a party to both
agreements following its purchase of Matrix's
I The name of this Union appears as amended at the hearing.
270 NLRB No. 68
assets. The Employer's primary business consists of
constructing custom designed exhibits for trade
shows, which it does at shops located in Atlanta
and other cities. At all times material to the present
proceeding, the Employer's Atlanta shop employ-
ees have been represented by the Carpenters.
There is no dispute over the assignment of the in-
shop construction work to employees represented
by the Carpenters. Ancillary to its exhibit construc-
tion business, the Employer installs, maintains, and
dismantles the previously constructed exhibits at
trade shows. At the time when the Employer pur-
chased the assets of Matrix, the installation, mainte-
nance, and dismantling work was performed pri-
marily by employees represented by IATSE. In
July 1982, however, the Carpenters notified the
Employer that failure to assign such work to em-
ployees represented by the Carpenters was a viola-
tion of its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer. Thereafter, the Employer began assign-
ing a portion of the installation and dismantling
work to employees represented by the Carpenters,
i.e., its own shop employees. Since 1982 the Em-
ployer has assigned some of this work to employ-
ees represented by each Union. In October and
again in November 1983 an IATSE official threat-
ened to strike the Employer if the Employer con-
tinued to assign the exhibit installation, mainte-
nance, and dismantling work to employees repre-
sented by the Carpenters. He later confirmed this
threat in a letter to the Board's Regional Office.
On 10 November 1983 the Employer filed a charge
alleging that IATSE had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by making the threats to
strike.
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the unpacking, as-
sembling, maintaining, and repacking of prefabri-
cated itinerant exhibits and/or displays for trade
shows in the metropolitan Atlanta area. 2
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the disputed work
should be awarded to its employees represented by
the Carpenters on the basis of their superior skills
and training, economy and efficiency of operations,
the respective collective-bargaining agreements, job
impact, and the Employer's preference. The Car-
penters takes a position consistent with that of the
Employer.
2 It is clear from the record that the work in dispute consists of un-
packing, assembling, maintaining, disassembling, and repacking trade
show exhibits previously constructed by the Employer irrespective of
whether the exhibits are "itinerant" in the sense of moving from one
show to another.
369
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IATSE contends that the disputed work should
be assigned to employees whom it represents on
the basis of industry and area practice, the Employ-
er's past practice, and job imphct. IATSE further
disputes the Employer's contentions concerning
economy and efficiency of operations and the rela-
tive skills of employees represented by the two
Unions.
D. Applicability of the Statute
As noted above, an IATSE representive twice
threatened to strike the Employer if the Employer
continued to assign any of the disputed work to
employees represented by the Carpenters. We find
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists
no agreed method for voluntary adjustment of the
dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the
Act. Accordingly, we find that the dispute is prop-
erly before the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an af-
firmative 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 bal-
ancing the factors involved in a particular case.
Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction),
135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of this dispute.
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
In 1979, before the Employer purchased the
assets of Matrix, the Carpenters were certified by
the Board as the exclusive representative of Ma-
trix's "shop employees." IATSE has never been
certified by the Board as the exclusive representa-
tive of any of the employees of the Employer or
Matrix. Because the certification of the Carpenters
neither clearly includes nor clearly excludes em-
ployees who perform the disputed work and there
is no relevant IATSE certification, we find that the
factor of certification does not favor an award of
the disputed work to employees represented by
either Union.
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the Carpenters covers the Employ-
er's "shop employees" and further provides that
the jobs covered include "set-up, installation and
dismantling of exhibits and exhibit materials." The
current agreement between the Employer and the
Carpenters is effective July 1982 through Novem-
ber 1984.
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and IATSE covers employees who
"unpack, assemble, maintain and repack pre-fabri-
cated itinerant exhibits and/or displays for trade
shows." The most recent IATSE agreement was
entered into by Matrix in February 1979, before
the Employer purchased the assets of Matrix. That
agreement expired 1 January 1984.
Both collective-bargaining agreements arguably
cover the work in dispute. However, where there
are two collective-bargaining agreements both of
which arguably cover disputed work, and one is in
effect while the other has expired, the Board has
found that this factor favors an award of the work
to employees represented by the union which has
the currently effective agreement with the employ-
er.3 Accordingly, we find that the factor of collec-
tive-bargaining agreements favors an award of the
disputed work to employees represented by the
Carpenters.
2. Company preference and past practice
The past practice of the Employer in assigning
the disputed work is mixed. In January 1981 when
the Employer purchased the assets of Matrix, ini-
tially it continued the practice of that company in
assigning the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by IATSE. However, beginning in the latter
half of 1982 the Employer began assigning such
work to employees represented by the Carpenters.
As of the time of the hearing the Employer was as-
signing approximately 75 percent of the disputed
work to employees represented by the Carpenters
and the remainder to employees represented by
IATSE. In view of the fact that for a substantial
period of time the Employer has assigned the dis-
puted work to employees represented by each
Union, the factor of past practice does not favor an
award to either group.
At the hearing and in its brief the Employer ex-
pressed its preference that the work in dispute be
performed by employees represented by the Car-
penters. Accordingly, although we do not give it
controlling weight, the factor of employer prefer-
ence favors an award of the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by the Carpenters.
3. Relative skills
Uncontroverted evidence adduced at the hearing
establishes that employees represented by the Car-
penters have the skills required to perform the dis-
: Longshoremen ILWU Local 54 (Hugo Neu Sales). 248 NLRB 775, 777
(198(0)
370
STAGE EMPLOYEES IATSE LOCAL 41 (GREYHOUND EXHIBITGROUP)
puted work. The Employer's custom-built exhibits
often require finishing or adaptation work, as well
as repairs, when they are being installed and main-
tained on a trade show floor. The skills required to
perform this work frequently include blueprint
reading, woodcutting, pipefitting, and electrical
work. These are skills which are also required of
the employees represented by the Carpenters in
their in-shop construction work. Further, since in
many cases the employees represented by the Car-
penters have themselves constructed exhibits which
are then installed at a trade show, they have a
working familiarity with the exhibits that other em-
ployees lack.
The record establishes that employees represent-
ed by IATSE, on the other hand, frequently lack
some of the skills required to install and maintain
exhibits. Since the employees represented by
IATSE are not regular employees of the Employer
and do not perform in-shop work, but are referred
from a hiring hall, the skill levels of these employ-
ees vary widely. The record establishes that in
some cases employees represented by IATSE have
been unable to effectively read blueprints and per-
form exhibit repair work. Further, they are re-
quired to carry fewer and less sophisticated tools
than are employees represented by the Carpenters
and require closer supervision. Accordingly, we
find that the factor of relative skills favors an
award of the work in dispute to employees repre-
sented by the Carpenters.
4. Economy and efficiency of operations
The evidence establishes that in several respects
it is more efficient for employees represented by
the Carpenters to perform the disputed work than
for employees representd by IATSE to perform it.
Thus, the fact that employees represented by the
Carpenters are able to perform extensive repair
work on exhibits while those exhibits are at a trade
show site saves the expense of shipping damaged
exhibits back to the Employer's shop for repair.
The record also establishes that the Employer's
customers have sometimes expressed dissatisfaction
with work performed by employees represented by
IATSE, while there is no evidence of similar dis-
satisfaction with work performed by employees
represented by the Carpenters. Further, the Em-
ployer is able to reduce the unproductive time of
its regular employees by assigning them to perform
the installation, maintenance, and dismantling
work, while it achieves no similar cost savings
when it assigns that work to employees represented
by IATSE. Accordingly, we find that the factor of
economy and efficiency of operations favors an
award of the work in dispute to employees repre-
sented by the Carpenters.
5. Area and industry practice
The record establishes that, while employees rep-
resented by the Carpenters have sometimes per-
formed trade show display installation, mainte-
nance, and dismantling work in the Atlanta metro-
politan area, historically such work has been per-
formed primarily by employees represented by
IATSE. Accordingly, we find that the factor of
area practice favors an award of the work in dis-
pute to employees represented by IATSE. The
record contains no evidence as the industry prac-
tice outside the Atlanta area. Consequently, the
factor of industry practice is not helpful in deter-
mining this dispute.
6. Job impact
The Employer contends that an award of the
disputed work to employees represented by IATSE
would have a negative impact on jobs available for
employees represented by the Carpenters. Similar-
ly, IATSE contends that an award of the disputed
work to employees represented by the Carpenters
would have an adverse job impact on employees
represented by it. However, the record does not
clearly establish the effeci on jobs available with
the Employer of an award of the work to employ-
ees represented by either Union. Accordingly, we
find that the factor of job impact is not helpful in
determining this dispute.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that employees represented by the Car-
penters are entitled to perform the work in dispute.
We reach this conclusion relying on the fact that
there is a current collective-bargaining agreement
between the Employer and the Carpenters cover-
ing the work in dispute, while the agreement be-
tween the Employer and IATSE has expired; the
Employer's preference is to assign the work to em-
ployees represented by the Carpenters; the Carpen-
ters has relatively greater skills for performing the
work; and an award of the disputed work to the
Carpenters will promote economy and efficiency of
the Employer's operations.4 In making this deter-
mination, we are awarding the work to employees
represented by the Carpenters, not to that Union or
its members. The determination is limited to the
controversy that gave rise to this proceeding.
' We find that these factors, especially the scope of the work. employ-
ee skills, and economy and efficiency. distinguished this case from Car-
penters Local 1229 (Shcpard Dccoraoing), 194 NLRB 640 1971).
371
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees of Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc.,
represented by Carpenters District Council of At-
lanta and Vicinity, Carpenters Local Union #2281,
are entitled to perform the work of unpacking, as-
sembling, maintaining, and repacking of prefabri-
cated itinerant exhibits and/or displays for trade
shows in the metropolitan Atlanta area.
2. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em-
ployees, Local #41, is not entitled by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(bX4)(D) of the Act to force
Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc., to assign the disput-
ed work to employees represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from this date, International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local #41
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 10 in
writing whether it will refrain from forcing the
Employer, by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work in a manner
inconsistent with this determination.
372