Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 767

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 200 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 767 and
Sacramento Metal & Glass Co. and Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers Union,
Local No. 11& Case 20-CD-495
February 10, 1977
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed on June 17, 1976, by Sacramento Metal
& Glass Co., herein called the Employer, alleging that
Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 767,
herein called Glaziers, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act by threatening, coercing, and restraining
the Employer with an object of forcing the Employer
to assign certain work to employees represented by
Glaziers rather than to employees represented by
Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers
Union, Local No. 118, herein called Ironworkers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was • held before
Hearing Officer John D. Meakin on September 2,
1976. 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 Employer,
Ironworkers, and the AGC filed briefs .2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the parties, the Board makes the following
findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer, a Califor-
nia corporation, is engaged in the sale and installa-
tion of glass and glazing products and that during the
most recent 12-month period it purchased and
received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from outside the State of California. Accordingly, we
find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
1 Associated General Contractors of California , herein called AGC,
appeared at the hearing and intervened on behalf of its member , Continental
Heller Corporation, the general contractor on the construction project
involved herein.
Counsel for the Ironworkers appeared and intervened at the commence-
ment of the 10(k) hearing, moved to quash the notice of hearing for the
228 NLRB No. 28
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated and we find that the Glaziers
and Ironworkers are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the installation of "window-
wall" metal perimeter framing and the metal, vertical,
and horizontal supports (called "mullions") placed
within the frame and into which window glass will be
installed.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
On or about October 7, 1975, the Employer was
awarded a contract by Continental Heller Corpora-
tion (herein called Continental) covering the work in
dispute. The contract calls for the furnishing and
installation of "all Section 8B Aluminum Balanced
Doors, Section 8C Aluminum Window Wall and
Section 8G Glass and Glazing all complete" on the
Sacramento County Administration Center, Sacra-
mento, California. The actual work covered by the
subcontract involves the taking of stock-length alumi-
num extrusion material, fabricating it to sizes for
installation as the window-wall of the administration
building, transporting the fabricated units from the
shop to the jobsite, installing them within the
concrete openings, and thereafter setting and caulk-
ing the glass within the metal frames.
On March 12, 1976, the Employer received a letter
from Fred J. Driscoll, Jr., chairman of the Impartial
Jurisdictional Disputes Board (herein called IJDB),
stating that the IJDB had voted to award the work in
dispute to the Ironworkers on the basis of trade
practice. On or about March 19, 1976, the Employer
received a letter from M.C. Sturgis, business agent of
the Ironworkers, enclosing a copy of the IJDB
decision and copies of the Ironworkers standard
contract with a request that the Employer sign and
return all copies of the contract. On or about May 21,
the Employer received a phone call from Sturgis who
discussed the Employer's assignment of the work to
the Glaziers. Shortly thereafter, the Employer re-
ceived a phone call from Cecil Mark of Continental
reason that there was a voluntary method for determining the dispute, and
did not participate further in the proceeding.
2 By letter, Glaziers stated that it would not file a brief herein , asserting
that the Employer's brief adequately states the issues and contentions of the
parties and fairly represents a summary of the evidence produced at the
hearings.
GLAZIERS AND GLASSWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 767 201
who advised the Employer that the Ironworkers was
threatening economic action against Continental and
requested that the Employer use ironworkers to
install the perimeter framing. Following this call, the
Employer received a phone call from Kendall Bart-
lett, business agent of the Glaziers, and when the
Employer advised him of the pressures from Conti-
nental to use ironworkers , Bartlett advised the
Employer that if glaziers were not assigned the work
the Glaziers would take economic action against the
Employer. At this point, the Employer told Bartlett
that if his threat were serious, to put it in writing. On
May 27, 1976, Bartlett wrote the Employer a letter,
including inter alia:
This letter is to advise that any attempts to use
Ironworkers or any other craft on this work will
subject you to any economic remedies or means at
our disposal, including if necessary, jobsite or
plantsite picketing.
On June 1, 1976, the Employer wrote the IJDB that it
was not a signatory to any agreement that bound it to
any decision of the IJDB and that it would not
participate in, or be bound by, any proceedings of
that board.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Ironworkers contends that the notice of
hearing should be quashed because there exists an
agreed-upon method for the voluntary settlement of
the dispute to which all parties are bound. In support
of this position, the Ironworkers asserts that both
Unions are bound by the IJDB decision, Continental
is bound through its membership in the AGC
association , and that the Employer is bound due to
the Ironworkers contract with Continental requiring
that all subcontractors of Continental be bound by
decisions of the IJDB. Alternatively, the Ironworkers
contends that the work should be awarded to
ironworkers by virtue of its contract with Continen-
tal.
The Employer contends that there is reasonable
cause to believe that the Glaziers violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, and that there is no voluntary
method of adjustment to which all parties have
agreed to be bound. The Employer claims it is not
bound by IJDB awards since it has not signed a
stipulation to that effect, in negotiating its contract
with Continental it specifically rejected Continental's
proposed clause requiring the Employer to be bound
by the IJDB determinations, it is not a member of a
stipulated employer association , and it is not a party
3 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 753,
AFL-CIO (Blount Bros. Corporation), 175 NLRB 496 (1969).
4 The Employer is a member of Glass Management Association of
to any collective-bargaining agreement providing for
settlement of such disputes by the IJDB. The Em-
ployer also contends that the diputed work should be
awarded to glaziers because they have performed this
work in the past, they possess the skills required to
perform this work, the contract between the Employ-
er and Glaziers awards this work to glaziers, and
economy and job efficiency dictate that the work be
performed by glaziers.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The Board is satisfied that there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
We find no merit in the Ironworkers contention that
the Glaziers letter of May 27, 1976, and the subse-
quent charge by the Employer amount to no more
than a "friendly" suit. The Glaziers contract with the
Employer calls for the assignment of the disputed
work to employees whom it represents, and there is
nothing to indicate that it was not serious in stating it
would picket or take other steps in the event the
Employer assigned the work to employees represent-
ed by the Ironworkers. We are also satisfied that there
is no agreed-upon method for voluntary settlement of
the dispute. There is no merit in the Ironworkers
claim that its contract with Continental, which
requires Continental to include the IJDB clause in its
subcontracts, is binding on the Employer. Continen-
tal's failure to include the, IJDB clause in its subcon-
tract with the Employer may give the Ironworkers a
cause of action for breach of contract against
Continental but certainly cannot give rise to any
rights against the Employer who was a stranger to the
Ironworkers contract with Continental. The Employ-
er refused to accept an IJDB clause in its subcontract
with Continental and has not stipulated to be bound
by a decision by the IJDB. Consequently, there is no
agreed-upon method for voluntary settlement of the
dispute.3
E. Merits of the Dispute
In making a determination of dispute under Section
10(k) of the Act, the Board finds the following factors
relevant:
1. The collective-bargaining agreements
The Employer has a history of collective-bargaining
with the Glaziers for several years. The Glaziers
current agreement with the Employer4 provides that
its members shall perform the disputed work. Al-
though the Ironworkers contends that its collective-
Superior, California (herein called GMA), which represents several glazing
contractors in collective bargaining with Glaziers Local 767.
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining agreement with Continental assigns the
disputed work to ironworkers, it makes no claim that
it has any contractual relationship with the Employer.
In the absence of any contractual relationship be-
tween the Ironworkers and the Employer, we con-
clude that the Glaziers contract with the Employer
favors the award of the work to the Glaziers.
2. Employer and area practice
The Employer's employees, all of whom are mem-
bers of the Glaziers, have worked for it for several
years and since 1974 have consistently been assigned
the disputed work. Prior to 1974 , as a result of a "blue
book" agreement between the Ironworkers and
Glaziers International Unions, the Employer, based
on a demand by the Ironworkers and with the
acquiescence of the Glaziers, hired ironworkers to
work with its glaziers in a composite crew . In 1974,
the "blue book" agreement was abrogated and since
that time the Employer has assigned the work in
dispute exclusively to its employees represented by
the Glaziers.
With regard to area practice, the Employer intro-
duced evidence showing that several other GMA
members in the Sacramento area engaged in similar
window-wall construction using employees represent-
ed by the Glaziers. In the absence of any evidence
indicating that the disputed work is traditionally
assigned to ironworkers in the Sacramento area, we
find that employer and area practice favors the
assignment of the disputed work to the Employer's
employees represented by the Glaziers.
3. Relative skills, economy, and efficiency
The Employer's employees have performed the
work in dispute to its satisfaction for many years.
They have the skills and experience to perform all
aspects of the required work and as part of their
apprentice training are required to complete 3,500
hours of "fabrication and setting of store fronts,
metals, metal window wall, and metal doors." The
Employer also presented evidence that its employees
work full time, spending substantial periods of time at
the Employer's shop when there is no ongoing jobsite
installation work. The hiring of ironworkers for the
disputed work would involve constant interruption in
their employment because of the substantial down-
time in the installation work accompanied by the
inherent inefficiency in the repeated hiring of iron-
5 The Employer has filed a motion to consolidate this case with Case 20-
CD-500 which involves charges filed by the Employer against the Ironwork-
ers based on the samejunsdictional dispute . Since a hearing has not yet been
held in Case 20-CD-500, consolidation would delay a determination of the
jurisdictional dispute . The Ironworkers, as noted earlier, was duly served a
notice of hearing in this proceeding , had full opportunity to appear and
workers through the hiring hall and subsequent
layoffs. In addition, the Employer' s witnesses testi-
fied that ironworkers were not as qualified as glaziers,
their work needed constant checking, and on many
occasions their work was done improperly and was
required to be redone at the Employer's additional
expense. The Employer' s witnesses also testified that
if the Employer were required to employ ironworkers
it would have to lay off several of its present glazier
employees. Because of these factors, we find that
efficiency and economy of operation also favor the
Employer's current assignment of the work in dispute
to its employees represented by the Glaziers.
Conclusion as to the Merits of the Dispute
On the basis of the foregoing and the lack of any
evidence favoring an award to the Ironworkers, we
conclude that employees represented by Glaziers are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. In reaching
this conclusion we rely on the terms of the Glaziers
collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer,
employer and area practice, the relative skills of the
glaziers and ironworkers, and efficiency and econo-
my of operation. In making this determination, we
are awarding the work in question to employees
represented by Glaziers, but not to that labor
organization or its members. The record does not
support an areawide award as requested by the
Employer. Accordingly, the present determination is
limited to work in controversy being performed by
the Employer at the Sacramento County Administra-
tion Building, Sacramento, California.5
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
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis-
pute:
Employees of Sacramento Metal & Glass Co., who
are represented by Glaziers and Glassworkers Local
Union No. 767, are entitled to perform the work of
installing metal perimeter framing and metal vertical
and horizontal supports ("mullions") placed within
the frame and into which window glass will be
installed at the Sacramento County Administration
Building, Sacramento, California.
present evidence with regard to the award of the work in dispute , and did in
fact appear at the hearing, although it limited its participation to contending
that there existed a voluntary method of adjusting the dispute. Moreover,
Case 20-CD-500 may involve issues not germane to a determination of the
jurisdictional dispute . For these reasons , we deny Employer' s motion to
consolidate.