Local 481, Electric Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 431 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

LOCAL 481, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 431
Local 481 , International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO and Huber, Hunt & Nichols
Incorporated and Market Square Associates and
Local 1395, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 2J-CD-154 and 25-
CD-155
January 31, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow-
ing charges filed by Huber, Hunt & Nichols
Incorporated , hereinafter referred to as Huber, and
Market Square Associates , alleging that Local 481,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Local 481,
violated Section 8(bX4XD) of the Act by engaging in
certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing
or requiring Huber and/or Market Square Associates
to assign certain work to employees represented by
Local 481 rather than to employees represented by
Local 1395 , International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Local
1395.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer John W. Gray on November 12,
1974. All parties received notice of the hearing.
Huber, Market Square Associates , and Local 481
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 , Local 481 filed a brief.
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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the basis of the brief and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The parties stipulated that during the past year,
Huber, an Indiana corporation, and Market Square
Associates, an Indiana limited partnership, had
contracts to supply goods or services valued in excess
of $50,000 to the city of Indianapolis and that the
city of Indianapolis purchased goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 from sources outside the
216 NLRB No. 83
State of Indiana . The parties further stipulated that
Ermco Electric, Inc., hereinafter referred to as
Ermco, an Indiana corporation, is an electrical
subcontractor and that during the preceding calen-
dar year it had gross revenues in excess of $50,000
from sources outside the State of Indiana. The record
further discloses that Indianapolis Power and Light
Co., hereinafter referred to as IPALCO, a public
utility licensed as a corporation by the State of
Indiana, had gross revenues during the past preced-
ing calendar year in excess of $500,000 and sold
goods and services worth in excess of $50,000 to
customers located outside the State of Indiana.
Accordingly, we find that Huber, Market Square
Associates, IPALCO, and Ermco Electric, Inc., are
engaged in businesses affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Locals 481
and 1395 are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute as described in the notice of
hearing is the installation of recessed overhead street
lights and related electrical work at the Market
Square Arena project in Indianapolis, Indiana.
B. Background
Since 1971, the city of Indianapolis has acted as
general contractor over the Market Square Arena
construction project. This project consists of two
parking garages and a top level plaza and arena
which join the two garages and span Market Street.
Huber was employed by the city as the construction
manager for the project and Huber, on behalf of the
city, engaged various contractors to perform the
various phases of work on the project. IPALCO,
whose employees are represented by Local 1395, was
thusly engaged under contract with the city to install
38 ceiling light fixtures and the conduits and junction
boxes therefor in the tunnel running under the
concrete foundation of the arena floor and a recessed
drop ceiling which leads to the outside area above
Market Street.
Ermco was the principal electrical contractor for
the project. Ermco's employees, represented by Local
481, had been performing all of the inside electrical
work on the project pursuant to a contract between
Ermco and the city.
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The question of the performance of the dispute
work first arose in June 1974 when IPALCO
employees initially began preparation for the instal-
lation of the recessed ceiling lights. At that time,
Local 481 petitioned the parent International Union
for a determination as to whether members of Local
481, representing journeyman inside wiremen, or
Local 1395, representing electrical linemen, should
perform the disputed work. After a consultation with
representatives of Local 481 and Local 1395 and an
onsite inspection, the International representative
awarded the installation of the overhead lights and
the related electrical wiring to the inside wiremen
represented by Local 481. Thereafter, Local 1395
informed IPALCO that it did not claim the work, but
IPALCO informed the International representative
that its employees would nevertheless perform the
installation of the fixtures and related- materials.
Nothing was done to resume performance of the
disputed work until October 1974. On October 16,
IPALCO employees began to bring materials for the
installation of the overhead fixtures to the jobsite and
the installation work began on October 17. On that
day, the Local 481 members employed by Ermco
picketed the jobsite with signs saying that electrical
work on the.project was not being performed by its
members. The picketing caused virtually all of the
employees of the other contractors and subcontrac-
tors on the project to walk off their jobs. Pursuant to
a settlement agreement between the Charging Parties
herein and Local 481 that a hearing would be held
before the Board for determination of the instant
dispute," the pickets were removed on October 25,
1974. Thereafter, all of the employees who had
walked off their jobs returned to work without
further incident. IPALCO's employees, who had
continued to work during the picketing, completed
the disputed work on or about November 7, 1974.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that (1) reasonable cause exists to
believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4XD) has
occurred, and (2) an agreed-upon method binding all
parties does not exist for the voluntary adjustment of
the dispute.
As to the existence of reasonable cause, the
evidence discloses that Local 481 members walked
off their jobs and picketed the Market Square Arena
jobsite with signs indicating that electrical work on
the project was not being performed by its members.
I See Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers (High Point
Sprinkler Company ofAltanta, 191 NLRB 603 (1971); Laborers ' Internation-
al
Union
of North America, Local 935, AFL-CIO (Campbell Construction Co.,
Inc.), 194 NLRB 367 (1971).
This picketing constituted a demand to reassign the
disputed work from employees of IPALCO, who
were represented by Local 1395, to Local 481
members employed by Ermco. The fact that Local
1395 disclaimed the disputed work does not prevent
the Board from making an award of the work
because Local 1395 members did, in fact, perform
and complete the disputed work subsequent to the
disclaimer.' Accordingly, we find reasonable cause
to believe that a violation of Section 8(bX4)(D)2 has
occurred.
The record contains no evidence of an agreed-upon
method for resolving the dispute herein that would
be binding on all parties. Accordingly, the dispute is
properly before the Board for determination under
Section 10(k) of the Act.
D. Contentions of the Parties
Local 481 contends that the award of the disputed
work to employees represented by it is supported by
industry and area practice, the superior skills and
experience of Local 481 members in performing the
work, increased efficiency, and safety attendent upon
their performing the disputed work, the existence of
an apprenticeship training program operated by
Local 481 for preparing its members to perform the
disputed work, and the International Union's award
of the work in dispute to Local 481 members.
As indicated, Local 1395 does not now claim the
work. The Charging Parties took no position on the
awarding of the work in dispute to either Local.
E. Merits of the Dispute
As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction
Company,3 we shall determine the appropriate
assignment of the disputed work in each case
presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the
Act only after taking into account and balancing all
relevant factors, including the following:
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
contracts
Neither Local .481 nor Local 1395 has been
certified by the Board as bargaining representative of
Ermco's and IPALCO's employees, respectively, for
the work in dispute. In addition, although each Local
has a written collective-bargaining contract with its
respective Employer, neither contract specifically
covers the work in dispute. Under these circum-
stances , we are unable to conclude that this factor
2 See Local 595, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornametal Iron Workers, AFL (Bethel Corporation), 108 NLRB 823 (1954).
s International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J.
A. Jones Construction Company) 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
LOCAL 481, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 433
favors awarding the work in dispute either to Local
481 or to Local 1395.
2. The Employer' s assignment and area and
industry practice
The city of Indianapolis contracted with IPALCO
for the performance of the disputed work. However,
at the hearing, neither Huber, the general contractor,
nor Market Square Associates, the general operator
of the project, took any position as to the assignment
of work and the city of Indianapolis chose not to
appear. Nonetheless, this factor somewhat favors
awarding of the work in dispute to employees
represented by Local 1395.
The record shows that Local 1395 members
perform outside line work for IPALCO and perform
inside electrical wiring only in buildings and struc-
tures owned by IPALCO. On all other buildings and
structures, it has been IPALCO's common practice
to subcontract inside wiring to firms whose employ-
ees are represented by Local 481. In addition, the
record shows that Local 1395 members have never in
the past installed lighting fixtures which required the
type of work, i.e., installation of contacts to control
panels and disconnects, as was involved in the work
in dispute.
On the other hand, the record shows that in
Indianapolis and Marion Counties , Indiana, recessed
lighting fixtures such as those installed in the drop
ceiling at the Market Square Arena project are the
type of lighting fixtures commonly installed by
electrical contractors whose employees are represent-
ed by Local 481. In addition, the record establishes
that Local 481 members performed all of the other
inside electrical wiring work at the Market Square
Arena Project. Accordingly, on the basis of the
evidence before us, we find that the area and
industry practice favors awarding the work in dispute
to employees represented by Local 481.
3. Skills, ability, and training
Local 1395 members are electrical linemen who
usually do the work of running high tension lines
outdoors from generating stations to substations and
from utility poles or feeders to buildings or struc-
tures.
On the other hand, Local 481 members are
journeyman inside wiremen who are trained and
skilled to perform installation of electrical service
after the linemen run the electrical lines to a building.
Inside wiremen run the electrical service to the
distribution panels for power and/or lighting and
install conduits and feeders to take the current from
the main panels or subpanels to the final point of
utilization, essentially the type of work in dispute
herein.
In addition, there was uncontroverted testimony
that the training requirements for inside wiremen,
such as those represented by Local 481, differ from
the training requirements for apprentice linemen
such as those represented by Local 1395. Thus, the
training of linemen is primarily concerned with
rigging and is given through correspondence-type
education. On the other hand, Local 481 operates an
apprentice educational and training program for
journeyman wiremen which includes a minimum of
150 hours of course and class training in the
municipal electrical code, blueprint reading, electri-
cal theory, motor controls, circuits, power factors,
lighting circuits, and other problem areas in electrical
circuitry. They also study such areas as welding, knot
tying, and rigging. In addition to the classroom
instruction, the apprentice wireman receives exten-
sive on-the-job training under the supervision of
experienced journeyman wiremen. Accordingly,
based on the record evidence, we find that Local 481
members' superior skills, ability, and training in the
installation of inside wiring favor awarding the work
in dispute to employees represented by Local 481.
4. Efficiency, economy of operation, and
safety
The disputed work was performed by Local 1395
members between October 16, 1974, and November
7, 1974, an approximately 3-week period. The record
shows that IPALCO used one or two crews of men,
which included eight linemen and two supervisors, to
perform the work . In contrast , Ermco's president
testified that the installation of the 38 light fixtures in
question and the related electrical work by its
employees would require only approximately 180
hours of work over a 2-week period, utilizing three or
four journeyman inside wiremen . Thus, Ermco,
whose employees are represented by Local 481, could
have completed the work in dispute in approximately
one-half the time with one-half the employees that
were required by IPALCO employees represented by
Local 1395. Accordingly, in view of the uncontradict-
ed evidence as to the overall efficiency and cost
savings which would have been realized had Local
481 members performed the work in dispute, we fmd
that the factors of efficiency and economy of
operations favor awarding the work in dispute to
employees represented by Local 481.
The record also indicates that all electrical installa-
tion work performed by Local 481 members em-
ployed by Ermco at the Market Square Arena jobsite
was inspected for the safety of installation by city
inspectors pursuant to the municipal electrical code.
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the other hand , there is no requirement in the
municipal code that electrical work performed by
employees of IPALCO be inspected by city officials.
Accordingly , we are unable to make a judgment on
the safety factor on the basis of the evidence
contained in the record other than to conclude that
assignment of the work in dispute to employees
represented by Local 481 would result in the work
being performed in a safe manner.
5. Award by the International Union
In June 1974, Local 481 petitioned the parent
International Union for a determination as to
whether Local 481 members or Local 1395 members
should perform the work in dispute . As mentioned
previously , the International representative awarded
the work to Local 481 but , inasmuch as the award
was not binding on all parties , IPALCO ordered its
employees to perform the work notwithstanding the
award by the International Union . Nevertheless,
because the International Union specifically award-
ed the work to Local 481, and in respect of the fact
that the Charging Parties have taken no position, we
find that this factor favors awarding the work in
dispute to employees represented by Local 481.
Conclusion
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after
full consideration of all relevant factors, especially
the factors of area and industry practice; the superior
skills, abilities , and training of Local 481 members;
the efficiency and economy of operations which
would have resulted had Local 481 members per-
formed the work in dispute; and the award of the
work in dispute to Local 481 by the International
Union, we conclude that Ermco's employees repre-
sented by Local 481 are entitled to the work in
dispute , and we shall determine the dispute in their
favor. We do not, however, award the work to Local
481 or to its members.
DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act , upon the basis
of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the Board hereby makes the following
Determination of Dispute:
Employees of Ermco Electric, Inc., who are
currently represented by Local 481, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, are
entitled to perform the installation of recessed
overhead street lights and related electrical work at
the Market Square Arena project in Indianapolis,
Indiana.