Carpenters Local (Five Brothers)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 910 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
344 NLRB No. 116
910
Local 7, Empire State Regional Council of Carpen-
ters, UBC and Five Brothers, Inc. and Local 46,
Metallic Lathers Union and Reinforcing Iron-
workers of New York City and Vicinity. Case
29–CD–575
June 28, 2005
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed
on February 9, 2005, by Five Brothers, Inc. (the Em-
ployer). It alleges that the Respondent, Local 7, Empire
State Regional Council of Carpenters, UBC (the Carpen-
ters) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor
Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an
object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to
employees it represents rather than to employees repre-
sented by Local 46, Metallic Lathers Union and Rein-
forcing Ironworkers of New York City and Vicinity (the
Lathers or Local 46). A hearing was held on April 7,
2005, before Hearing Officer Peter Pepper. Thereafter,
the Employer, the Carpenters, and the Lathers filed briefs
in support of their positions.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire re-
cord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The parties stipulated that the Employer is a Delaware
corporation engaged in the business of commercial build-
ing fabrication and integrated systems, and that it sells
goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 from its
facility located at 5021 Industrial Road, Farmingdale,
New Jersey 07727, to customers located outside the
State of New Jersey. Accordingly, on the basis of the
parties’ stipulation, we find that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act. The parties also stipulated, and we find, that
the Carpenters and the Lathers are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
This dispute involves the installation of wire mesh on
the Q-deck1 in preparation for the spraying of fireproof-
ing in connection with the construction of a Stop and
Shop supermarket at Sills and Station Roads in Medford,
New York.

1 The Q-deck, over which roofing materials are placed, is a metal
deck that sits on top of steel bar joists. The bottom of the Q-deck is the
underside of the roof.
The Employer is engaged in commercial carpentry
work involving framing and sheetrocking walls and in-
stalling ceilings, and the Employer employs employees
represented by the Carpenters to perform that work. The
Employer is not engaged in installing fireproofing. In
October 2004, the Employer contracted with J. Petrocelli
Contracting, a general contractor, to perform work in
connection with the construction of a Stop and Shop su-
permarket in Medford, New York. The work involved
framing and sheetrocking the walls and installing acous-
tical ceilings and standing C roofs. In late December
2004 or early January 2005, while still in the course of
construction, Petrocelli requested that the Employer in-
stall wire mesh on the bottom of the Q-deck in prepara-
tion for fireproofing that the Town of Medford required.2
Although this work was not originally included in the
contract between the Employer and Petrocelli, the work
was required because the decking had come in primed or
painted, and there was a concern that the fireproofing
material would not adhere to it. The wire mesh was to be
installed in order to support the fireproofing material.
The work involved using snips to cut the wire mesh, tape
measures to measure it, and power screw drivers to at-
tach the wire mesh to the Q-deck. The Employer antici-
pated that it would take 6 to 8 men 3 to 4 weeks to install
the estimated 65,000 to 70,000 square feet of wire mesh.
The Employer assigned the installation of the wire mesh
to its employees represented by the Carpenters, who
were already performing other work at the site.
In early January 2005, after the wire mesh installation
had begun, Kevin Kelly, a business representative of the
Lathers, visited the jobsite and told Geoffrey James, a
Carpenters council representative, that he believed the
Employer had violated the Lathers’ collective-bargaining
agreement by not assigning the wire mesh installation
work to employees represented by the Lathers. Kelly
also called Richard Avon, the Employer’s vice president
and principal, and stated that he was claiming that the
wire mesh installation work was Lathers’ work.3 Avon
informed Kelly that the Carpenters had claimed it was
their work. Kelly subsequently called back and repeated

2 It was originally believed that the Town of Medford would not re-
quire the building to be fireproofed.
3 Kelly also sent a fax, dated January 4, 2005, to Joe Oliveri of the
Association of Wall-Ceiling and Carpentry Industries of New York,
Inc. (the Association), of which the Employer is a member, claiming
that the Employer’s assignment of the wire mesh installation to Carpen-
ters-represented employees was a violation of the Lathers’ collective-
bargaining agreement, and requesting that a Trade Board meeting be
convened as soon as possible. As a result of that request, a Trade
Board proceeding was held on January 14, 2005. The Trade Board
deadlocked on the contract violation issue, and an arbitration hearing
between the Employer and the Lathers was scheduled for June 21,
2005. The Carpenters is not a party to that arbitration.
CARPENTERS LOCAL 7 (FIVE BROS., INC.) 911
his claim, stating that the Employer “was signed with
him.” Avon told Kelly that he was also “signed with”
the Carpenters. Avon also spoke with William Weitz-
man, regional director of the Carpenters, and told him
that the Lathers was “laying claim to the work.” In re-
sponse, Weitzman stated, “no, it’s carpenters’ work.”
When Avon suggested a discussion between the two un-
ions, Weitzman replied that there was “no talking, it was
carpenters’ work.” Weitzman also informed Avon that if
Avon “took the carpenters off the wire mesh, that he
would take the carpenters off the rest of the job.” Irwin
Popkin, counsel to the Association, testified that Weitz-
man told him that “any attempt to remove him would
result in . . . a sit down on the job.”4 Based on these al-
leged threats, the Employer filed the unfair labor practice
charge against the Carpenters.
B. Work in Dispute
The notice of hearing states that the work in dispute is
the installation of wire mesh on the Q-deck in prepara-
tion for the spraying of fireproofing in connection with
the construction of a Stop and Shop at Sills and Station
Roads in Medford, New York.5
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer argues that this dispute is properly be-
fore the Board for determination because there are com-
peting claims to the work, there is reasonable cause to
believe that the Carpenters violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act, and there is no agreed-upon method for the vol-
untary resolution of this dispute. It further argues that
the disputed work should be awarded to employees rep-
resented by the Carpenters based on the Employer’s cur-
rent assignment of the work, employer preference, and
economy and efficiency of operations. The Employer
also contends that the employees represented by the Car-
penters have the relevant skill and ability to perform the
disputed work.
The Carpenters contends that there is no agreed-upon
method for the voluntary resolution of the dispute and
that the work was properly and appropriately assigned by
the Employer to employees represented by the Carpen-
ters who were already performing other work at the site.
The Carpenters urges the Board to uphold the assignment
based on the Employer’s preference, practice, and current
assignment, economy and efficiency of operations, area
and industry practice, the collective-bargaining agree-

4 Weitzman denied threatening a “sit down.”
5 At the hearing there was disagreement as to whether the work in-
volved the installation of wire mesh or wire lath. In their briefs, how-
ever, the parties all refer to the disputed work as wire mesh, as set forth
in the notice of hearing.
ment with the Carpenters covering the work, and relative
skills and training.
The Lathers contends that there is no reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and
that therefore the notice of hearing should be quashed.
The Lathers further argues that if the Board determines
that a 10(k) determination is warranted, the work should
be awarded to employees represented by the Lathers
based on its collective-bargaining agreement, area and
industry practice, relative skills and training, and interun-
ion agreements, jurisdictional agreements, and AFL–CIO
decisions.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination of
a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be
established that reasonable cause exists to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. This requires a
finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that there
are competing claims to disputed work between rival
groups of employees and that a party has used proscribed
means to enforce its claim. In addition, the Board must
find that no method for voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute has been agreed upon. Bricklayers (Cretex Con-
struction Services), 343 NLRB No. 110 (2004).
Reasonable Cause to Believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D)
has been Violated
Avon’s testimony that both Kelly and Weitzman
claimed the work for employees represented by their
respective Unions is sufficient to establish that there are
competing claims to the disputed work between rival
groups of employees. Moreover, the assignment of the
work to employees represented by the Carpenters estab-
lishes their claim to the work. Laborers Local 662
(McCarthy Bros.), 268 NLRB 926, 927 (1984).
Avon’s testimony that Weitzman stated that if Avon
“took the carpenters off the wire mesh, that he would
take the carpenters off the rest of the job” and Popkin’s
testimony that Weitzman said that “any attempt to re-
move him would result in . . . a sit down on the job” pro-
vide reasonable cause to believe that the Carpenters has
used proscribed means to enforce its claim to the work.
Although Weitzman refuted Popkin’s testimony that he
threatened a “sit down,” this conflict does not prevent the
Board from reaching the merits of the dispute. In a 10(k)
proceeding, the Board is not charged with finding that a
violation did, in fact, occur, but only that reasonable
cause exists for finding such a violation. See Bricklayers
Local 15 (Fusco Corp.), 278 NLRB 967, 968 (1986)
(Board not required to resolve conflicts in testimony to
proceed under Sec. 10(k)). Contrary to the argument of
the Lathers that Weitzman’s alleged conduct “hardly
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD912
amounts to ‘proscribed means’ to enforce a claim to the
work,”6 testimony concerning a threat to take employees
off of the job or to engage in a sit-down strike if the work
assignment is changed is sufficient to establish reason-
able cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated. Plumbers Local 24 (E. L. & S. Contracting
Co.), 231 NLRB 158, 159 (1977) (threat to “take his men
off the job” establishes reasonable cause to believe Sec.
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated).
No Agreed-Upon Method for Voluntary Adjustment
of the Dispute
Finally, we also find that there is no agreed-upon
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute to
which all parties are bound. At the hearing, counsel for
the Lathers refused to stipulate that there was no agreed-
upon method for the voluntary resolution of this dispute
that would bind all the parties. However, in its brief, the
Lathers now concedes that “there may have been . . . no
voluntary means to adjust the dispute that would include
all parties.” (Lathers Br. p. 9.) There is no evidence
establishing that the Carpenters is bound to any dispute
resolution procedure of the AFL–CIO or its Building
Trades Council. In addition, the Carpenters is not a
member of the New York Plan for the resolution of juris-
dictional disputes. Although an arbitration between the
Employer and the Lathers is scheduled as a result of the
deadlock at the Trade Board (supra fn. 3), the Carpenters
is not bound to participate in the arbitration. Accord-
ingly, there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary
resolution of this dispute that binds all the parties.
We therefore find reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. Accord-
ingly, we find that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination, and we deny the Lathers’ re-
quest to quash the notice of hearing.
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 Local 1212 (Co-
lumbia 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 ex-
perience, reached by balancing 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 de-
termination of this dispute.

6 Lathers Br. p. 9.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements
There is no evidence that either Union has been certi-
fied to represent employees who are performing the dis-
puted work. However, the Association, of which the
Employer is a member, has collective-bargaining agree-
ments with both Unions that arguably cover the disputed
work.
Article XX, Trade Autonomy (Jt. Exh. 2, p. 29) of the
Carpenters’ agreement with the Association covers the
“installation of stran steel or similar material; cutting and
hanging all lumber or other materials between girders
and joists for fireproofing.” Geoffrey James, a Carpen-
ters council representative, testified that the wire mesh
installed on the Q-deck in preparation for the spraying of
fireproofing is affixed between the joists supporting the
Q-deck.7 Article III of the Lathers’ collective-bargaining
agreement with the Association covers “the laying and
setting of iron and steel and mesh used in fireproof con-
struction, on the cutting and bending of all iron and steel
and metal and wire lath or mesh. . . .”8 Because both
contracts arguably cover the disputed work, this factor
does not favor awarding the disputed work to employees
represented by either Union.
2. Employer preference and assignment
The Employer prefers to assign, and has assigned, the
disputed work to employees represented by the Carpen-
ters. This factor favors awarding the disputed work to
employees represented by the Carpenters.
3. Employer past practice
The Employer does not employ Lathers-represented
employees. The Employer has always used Carpenters-
represented employees to install wire mesh, albeit for
purposes other than fireproofing.9 The Employer’s past
practice with respect to work similar to the disputed
work favors an award of the disputed work to Carpen-
ters-represented employees.

7 In addition, the Carpenters notes that art. XX also covers “fire-
proofing of beams and columns, fireproofing of chase, sound and ther-
mal insulation materials, fixture attachments including all layout work,
preparation of all openings for lighting, air vents or other purposes and
all other necessary or related work in connection therewith” regardless
of their material composition or method or manner of their installation,
attachment, or connections. (Jt. Exh. 2, pp. 27–28.)
8 Jt. Exh. 1, pp. 3–4. The Carpenters argues that although the Em-
ployer agreed to be bound by the Lathers’ contract by virtue of its
membership in the Association, the agreement would not be enforce-
able against the Employer because the Employer does not employ any
employees covered by that agreement.
9 Avon and Weitzman testified that the installation of wire mesh on a
Q-deck to accept fireproofing is “out of the ordinary” and an “unusual
application in the construction industry.” Avon testified that he has
seen it performed only once before in 18 years.
CARPENTERS LOCAL 7 (FIVE BROS., INC.) 913
4. Industry practice
The Employer and the Carpenters argue that nation-
wide, including all areas in New York State outside the
jurisdiction of Lathers Local 46, the industry practice
since 1979 has been that the installation of wire mesh is
performed by employees represented by unions affiliated
with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America (UBC). The record shows that prior to 1979,
Local 46 and other Lathers locals were affiliated with the
Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers’ International Union. In
1979, all the local unions affiliated with the former
Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers’ International Union,
other than Local 46, became affiliated with the UBC.10
Therefore, since 1979, the installation of wire mesh, tra-
ditionally performed by employees represented by the
Lathers locals formerly affiliated with the Wood, Wire
and Metal Lathers’ International Union, has been pre-
dominantly (with the exception of the counties within the
jurisdiction of Local 4611) performed by employees rep-
resented by those same local unions now affiliated with
the UBC.
In sum, the current industry practice appears to favor
employees represented by the Carpenters. However,
because this industry practice resulted from a change in
affiliation at the International level, and not from tradi-
tional trade jurisdiction, we find that this factor does not
support an award of the disputed work to employees rep-
resented by either Union.
5. Area practice
As set forth above, Local 46 did not affiliate with UBC
and accordingly, it retained jurisdiction over installation
of wire mesh in its geographical area where the disputed
work is located. Robert Ledwith, business manager of
Local 46, testified that over the last 25 years, contractors
within Local 46’s geographical jurisdiction have as-
signed the installation of wire lath or wire mesh to re-
ceive fireproofing to employees represented by Local 46.
He testified that it is a trade practice in the area.
The Lathers also introduced a letter from the Building
and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York
dated April 5, 2005, and a letter from the Building and
Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk
Counties dated April 6, 2005, in which the presidents of
those organizations stated that the installation of metal
lath for plastering and hand-applied/spray-on fireproof-
ing has always been the jurisdiction of employees repre-
sented by Local 46. Similarly, the Lathers introduced a

10 Local 46 became affiliated with the International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers.
11 This includes southern Rockland, Westchester, Nassau, and Suf-
folk counties, and the five boroughs of New York City.
series of letters from various employers stating that they
have used employees represented by Local 46 to perform
wire lath work. Several of the letters specifically state
that Local 46-represented employees have been used to
install wire lath for fireproofing.
The Employer and the Carpenters objected to the ad-
mission of these letters on the ground that they were un-
supported, conclusory, unsworn hearsay by individuals
who were not shown to be unavailable to testify. They
urge the Board to reject the letters. In response, the
Lathers submits that the letters are admissible to show
area practice, relying on Ironworkers Local 380 (Stobeck
Masonry), 267 NLRB 284, 286 (1983).
“Courts have long recognized that hearsay evidence is
admissible before administrative agencies, if rationally
probative in force and if corroborated by something more
than the slightest amount of other evidence.” RJR Com-
munications, Inc., 248 NLRB 920, 921 (1980). In Sto-
beck, supra, in which contractor letters were admitted as
evidence of area practice, the Board also relied on testi-
mony from other contractors that corroborated the writ-
ten statements. Stobeck, supra at 286. Here, the asser-
tions in the letters concerning area practice were corrobo-
rated by the testimony of Ledwith, who stated that this
type of work has been performed by Lathers-represented
employees within the geographical jurisdiction of Local
46 for the past 25 years and that it is a trade practice in
the area. Accordingly, we find that the letters from the
Building and Trades Council presidents and the contrac-
tors that do business within the geographic jurisdiction of
Local 46 constitute admissible evidence of area practice.
We also find that the Lathers’ evidence of area practice
was not effectively contradicted by any evidence pre-
sented by the Carpenters. Accordingly, we conclude that
the factor of area practice favors awarding the disputed
work to employees represented by the Lathers.
6. Relative skills and training
The disputed work involves measuring, cutting, and
screwing the mesh into place. The record shows that
employees represented by both Unions have the neces-
sary skills and training to perform the disputed work.
Accordingly, this factor does not favor awarding the dis-
puted work to employees represented by either Union.
7. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer presented evidence that assignment of
the disputed work to employees represented by the Car-
penters is more efficient because they are already on the
site doing other work. The general contractor needed the
disputed work done expeditiously, and the Employer
determined that using employees already on the site
would be more efficient. Although the Lathers presented
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD914
testimony that there were employees represented by the
Lathers working at the site for another subcontractor,
those employees were not employed by the Employer.
Because the Carpenters-represented employees were
already on the site and available to perform other work
for the Employer in addition to the disputed work, we
find that this factor supports awarding the disputed work
to employees represented by the Carpenters. See, e.g.,
Laborers (Eshbach Brothers, LP), 344 NLRB No. 4, slip
op. at 4 (2005) (“because the Laborers are performing
other work on the project, aside from the disputed work,
the factor of economy and efficiency of operations favors
an award to those employees”).12
8. Interunion agreements and awards
The Lathers presented documents purporting to show
the existence of interunion agreements addressing the
assignment of the disputed work. Specifically, the Lath-
ers introduced a letter dated April 13, 1979, from UBC
President William Sidell, in which the Carpenters recog-
nized the independent status of Local 46 and agreed that
Local 46 would become affiliated with the International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers. In that letter it was agreed that Local 46 “shall
retain and keep its full geographical and trade jurisdic-
tion. . . . Said trade jurisdiction shall include work tradi-
tionally performed by members of Local Union 46.”
This was reiterated in another letter dated May 4, 1979,
in which it was stated that “[t]raditional trade jurisdiction
which includes decisions of the New York Plan, the Na-
tional Hearings Panel Award on ceiling systems, and any
decision pertaining to veneer ceiling systems rendered
shall be performed by Lathers.” In a letter dated Febru-
ary 18, 1981 from UBC President Konyha, the Carpen-
ters again stated that it recognized Local 46’s jurisdiction
as described by Sidell’s 1979 letters. The 1981 letter
refers to “work in connection with concrete construction
that it has traditionally had, work awarded to Lathers by
decisions of the New York Plan, the National Hearings
Panel Award on Ceiling Systems and the installation of
traditional wire lath and rock lath and gypsum lath to
receive plaster in accordance with the above.” The Lath-
ers also presented letters from Carpenters President Lu-

12 The Employer and the Carpenters also argue that it is more eco-
nomical to use Carpenters-represented employees to perform the dis-
puted work because the hourly labor costs for Lathers-represented
employees are higher than for Carpenters-represented employees. The
Board does not, however, consider wage differentials as a basis for
awarding disputed work. Automotive Trades District Lodge 190 (Sea-
Land Service), 322 NLRB 830, 835 (1997), citing Longshoremen ILA
Local 1242 (Rail Distribution Center), 310 NLRB 1, 5 fn. 4 (1993).
Therefore, we do not rely on wage differentials in finding that this
factor favors awarding the disputed work to employees represented by
the Carpenters.
cassen dated February 4, 1994, and April 24, 1995, reit-
erating that all jurisdictional agreements concerning Lo-
cal 46 would be honored.
None of the letters introduced by the Lathers specifi-
cally refers to the installation of wire mesh to receive
fireproofing on a Q-deck, which, according to record
testimony, is work out of the ordinary in the construction
industry. Accordingly, we find that these letters are in-
sufficient to show that the Unions involved agreed that
Local 46 had jurisdiction over the particular work in-
volved in this dispute.
The Lathers also introduced a Hearings Panel decision
on the Installation of Ceiling Systems dated August 24,
1966 and a subsequent corresponding “Green Book”13
decision dated January 15, 1968, concerning “jurisdic-
tional disputes of work assignments in controversy be-
tween lathers and carpenters involved in the installation
of ceiling systems.”14 The Employer and the Carpenters
argue that this decision is not applicable to the work in
dispute because a Q-deck is not a ceiling system ad-
dressed by the decision.15 We find that the Hearings
Panel decision does not specifically refer to the work in
dispute, and the evidence is insufficient to establish
whether the disputed work falls within paragraph 3 of
that decision as contended by the Lathers. Accordingly,
we cannot find that the Hearings Panel decision favors an
award of the disputed work to employees represented by
either Union.
The Lathers introduced a copy of the “Green Book”
dated June 1984, and Local 46 representative Ledwith
testified that he believed that the agreements and deci-
sions set forth on pages 40, 41, 45, 46, 99, 114, and 171
of that book were applicable to the work in dispute.16

13 The “Green Book” refers to the “Plan for the Settlement of Juris-
dictional Disputes in the Construction Industry” dated June 1984.
14 Par. 2 states that the “installation of gypsum wallboard and other
types of panels fastened directly to ceiling joists shall be performed by
carpenters.” Par. 3 states that the “installation of light iron work in
ceiling systems with gypsum, Portland cement, acoustical or other
plasters sprayed-on or trowel-applied over lath or directly to structural
members shall be performed by lathers.” Par. 4 relates to “Direct Hung
Suspension Systems; Attached Concealed System without Backing
Board; Furring Bar Attached System; Furring Bar Suspension System,
Indirect Hung Suspension System or similar systems.” At the hearing,
the Lathers argued that par. 3 applies to the disputed work.
15 Carpenters representative James testified that the Q-deck is not
part of the ceiling, but rather is the underside of the roof. Lathers rep-
resentative Ledwith testified that the Q-deck is not a ceiling, but is a
sub-ceiling, which he defined as a “ceiling above the finished ceiling.”
16 Pages 40 and 41 set forth a 1926 agreement between the Lathers
and the Sheet Metal Workers relating to the “installation of products
manufactured by the Knapp Brothers’ Manufacturing Company of
Chicago Ill., and similar products.” Ledwith testified that p. 41 refers
to metal nose beads and metal corner beads, which are “appurtenances
to wire lath, or mesh.”
CARPENTERS LOCAL 7 (FIVE BROS., INC.) 915
None of those agreements or decisions, however, specifi-
cally refers to the installation of wire mesh for fireproof-
ing on a Q-deck, and their applicability to the awarding
of the disputed work is inconclusive.17 Therefore, we are
unable to rely on them in awarding the disputed work.

Page 45 is a 1903 agreement between UBC and the Wood, Wire and
Metal Lathers’ International Union in which UBC agrees “not to assert
jurisdiction over any iron work including iron or wire lathing, studding,
or any other exclusively iron work claimed by the Wood, Wire and
Metal Lathers’ International Union.”
Page 46 is a 1928 agreement between UBC and the Wood, Wire and
Metal Lathers’ International Union that Celotex Lath comes under the
jurisdiction of the Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers’ International Union.
Page 99 is a 1954 agreement by the presidents of the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers
and Helpers, and the International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers that the term “Wire Mesh” in the 1953
agreement between those two unions “is not intended and does not
apply to the erection of light iron furring or metal lath used to receive
plaster.”
Page 114 is a 1920 decision in a dispute between the International
Union of Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers and the International Associa-
tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers finding that the
“erection and installation of all light iron work, such as light iron fur-
ring, brackets, clip, hangers, steel corner guards or beads, and metallic
lathing of all descriptions belong solely to the Lathers.” In 1912, Lath-
ers was also awarded jurisdiction over Hy-rib lath. Ledwith testified
that Hi-rib lath is the “same material that was used on this job site.”
Page 171 is the January 15, 1968 Hearings Panel decision discussed
above reaffirming the Hearings Panel decision of August 24, 1966,
which had been stayed by court litigation.
17 Some of them involve unions other than Carpenters and Lathers.
Accordingly, we conclude that this factor does not fa-
vor awarding the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by either the Carpenters or the Lathers.
Conclusion
After considering all of the relevant factors, we con-
clude that employees represented by the Carpenters are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. Although the
factor of area practice favors awarding the disputed work
to Lathers-represented employees, we find that that fac-
tor is outweighed by the factors of Employer’s prefer-
ence, past practice, and current assignment, and economy
and efficiency of operations that favor awarding the dis-
puted work to employees represented by the Carpenters.
In making this determination, we are awarding the work
to employees represented by the Carpenters, not to that
Union or its members. This determination is limited to
the controversy that gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Employees of Five Brothers, Inc., represented by Lo-
cal 7, Empire State Regional Council of Carpenters,
UBC, are entitled to perform the installation of wire
mesh on the Q-deck in preparation for the spraying of
fireproofing in connection with the construction of a Stop
and Shop at Sills and Station Roads in Medford, New
York.