Local Union No. 11, Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 397 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

LOCAL UNION NO. 11, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 397
Local Union No. 11, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO acrd ITT Communi-
cations Equipment & Systems Division and Com-
munications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.'
Cases 21-CD-386 and 21-CD-387
ties, goods valued in excess of $50,000. Accordingly, we
fmd that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that
it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
April 15, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
This a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
separate charges filed by ITT Communications Equip-
ment & Systems Division, herein called Employer or
ITT, alleging that Local Union No. 11, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein
called IBEW, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by
engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object
of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain
-work to individuals represented by IBEW rather than
to employees represented by Communications Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, herein called CWA.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing, Officer Paul D. Flemm on January 15, 1975. All
parties, including the Employer, IBEW, and CWA,
appeared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues.' Thereafter, the Employer and CWA filed
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds they are free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following findings:
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer is a Delaware corporation engaged in the sale,
installation, and repair of private telephone systems
and related equipment. The corporation maintains
headquarters at 60 Washington Street, Hartford, Con-
necticut, and maintains other offices and facilities in
various States. Annually, the corporation ships and
receives directly across state lines, at its various facili-
Name appears as amended at the hearing
2 Although IBEW was afforded the opportunil y at the hearing to present
witnesses on its behalf, it declined to do so.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we fmd, that IBEW and
CWA are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts
Sometime prior to the relevant events herein, the
Employer. executed two separate work contracts cover-
ing the installation, repair, and maintenance of private
telephonic communications equipment and systems,
one at the offices of the F. P. Dow Company which
were under construction at the World Trade Center
office building in Los Angeles, California, and the
other at the offices of the Buchalter law firm which
were under construction at the Regency Tower office
building in Los Angeles, California. The Employer as-
signed the work in dispute at both locations to its em-
ployees who are covered by a collective-bargaining
agreement with CWA in a nationwide bargaining unit.
The contract was entered into on May 1, 1970, and was
subsequently renegotiated and became effective on Feb-
ruary 1, 1973.
On the morning of October 11, 1974, shortly after
the Employer's employees began installing the system
for Dow, IBEW began picketing the World Trade Cen-
ter jobsite, causing the construction trade employees
working at the site to walk off the job. Edward L.
Grimm, an ITT communications technician, testified
without contradiction that there were approximately
10 individuals picketing the construction employee en-
trances, carrying signs which said, "ITT being unfair to
IBEW." He further testified that the signs may have
had the word "wages" on them. Shortly after the walk-
out, the Employer's communications ,technicians per-
forming the installation work were ordered to leave the
jobsite by Larry Fisher, the project coordinator for the
World Trade Center. As one of the Employer's techni-
cians attempted to leave in a company truck, one of the
picketers ran to his car and blocked the parking lot exit
for 10 minutes. Because of the work stoppage, a repre-
sentative of the owners of the World Trade Center
informed 'a representative of the Employer that his em-
ployees would not be allowed on the World Trade Cen-
ter jobsite until the Company gave IBEW what it
wanted. On October 12, picketers were again present,
and when ITT employees arrived they were instructed
217 NLRB No. 69
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the project coordinator to leave. On October 16, the
Employer's area operations manager, Ken Dalton, con-
tacted IBEW's business agent, Ralph Norrington, and
asked if there was any way IBEW would curtail its
picketing so that the Employer could meet its contrac-
tual obligation to Dow. Dalton testified without con-
tradiction that Norrington replied that ITT was taking
work away from IBEW members who worked for elec-
trical contractors and this was causing a loss of work
to IBEW members. Norrington also stated that IBEW
had a communications local with people who were
qualified to do telephone work and that these people
were not getting their share of the interconnect work.
On October 21, 1974, the Employer began installing
a telephone system for the Buchalter law firm at the
Regency Tower building. On October 22, while the
Employer's technicians, one of whom was Grimm,
were working in the Buchalter suite, they were ap-
proached by Aubry and Muscali, employees of another
subcontractor on the site, who introduced themselves,
said they were with the IBEW, and asked if the em-
ployees were in a union. Grimm testified that Muscali
and Aubry then said, "ITT was cutting IBEW's throat
for the reason that we were taking the job, that they
were supposed to be doing, away from them," and
Aubry added that IBEW electricians should be doing
the communications work. On October 24, when
Grimm reported to work at the Regency Tower, a
picket line of five individuals was in the parking lot,
some of whom were carrying signs similar to those
carried at the World Trade Center. Muscali, who was
on the picket line, told Grimm that they were picketing
because the Employer's technicians were there. Aubry
said that the construction trade employees would not
go into the building until the communications techni-
cians were removed. Grimm began to work but was
later directed to the building manager's office where he
was instructed to pick up his equipment and leave the
building.
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute herein is the installation of com-
munications equipment and systems at the offices of F.
P. Dow Company in the World Trade Center in Los
Angeles, California, and at the offices of the Buchalter
law firm in the Regency Tower in Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that there is reasonable
cause to believe that IBEW has violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act, and that the record
supports its assignment of the work in dispute to its
employees represented by CWA. The Employer cites
considerations of area, company, and industry practice,
efficiency and economy of operations, skills, and its
collective-bargaining agreement with CWA in support
of its assignment. In addition, the Employer urges that
the Board's order in this proceeding encompass more
than the immediate projects. On the merits, CWA's
position is essentially the same as that of the Employer.
IBEW contends that there is no jurisdictional dis-
pute since it does not now have, and did not have at the
time of the picketing, any object to secure the work in
question from the employees of the Employer repre-
sented by CWA, but it does not assert any other object
of its picketing. IBEW asserts further that it does not
intend to disclaim the work in dispute because to do so
assumes that it at one time claimed the work. There-
fore, at the hearing it urged the Board to assign the
work to CWA and presented no testimony, and it
subsequently filed no briefs.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must
be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8 (b)(4)(D) has been violated.
As set forth above, the record shows that IBEW-
picketed the jobsites and interfered with the completion
of the disputed work because the Employer refused to
assign the work in dispute to its members. IBEW's
position, as stated at the time of the picketing , was that
ITT was taking work away from IBEW members who
work for electrical contractors , and that IBEW mem-
bers should be doing the communications systems in-
stallation work . Counsel for IBEW declined to disclaim
the disputed work because he asserted that there never
was a jurisdictional dispute since IBEW never claimed
that work . Based on the foregoing undisputed facts and
the record as a whole , we find that an object of the
IBEW members ' picketing was to force or require the
-Employer to assign the disputed work to individuals
represented by IBEW . Accordingly , we find that rea-
sonable cause exists to believe that IBEW violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The Board held in General
Building Laborers' Local Union No. 66 of the Laborers'
International Union ofNorth America (Georgia-Pacific
Corporation), 209 NLRB 611 (1974), and Local Union
No. 55, Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
AFL-CIO (Gilbert L. Phillips, Inc.), 213 NLRB No. 76
(1974), that an effective renunciation of the work in
dispute dissolves the jurisdictional dispute . The Board,
in those cases, ordered that the notice of hearing be
quashed upon finding an effective disclaimer of the
work at the situs where the dispute arose and upon
finding no evidence from which it could reasonably be
inferred that respondent intended to secure the dis-
LOCAL UNION NO. 11, ELECTRICAL WORKERS
puted work by unlawful means at future jobsites. We'
find the above cases inapposite.' In the first place, we
are not satisfied that IBEW's position at the time of
hearing was in fact a disclaimer of the disputed work
let alone an effective one. Thus, counsel for IBEW
declined to disclaim the disputed work;' and although
this was based on his assertion that IBEW never sought
said work, as stated above, the record is to the contrary
and clearly establishes that, in October 1974; IBEW
picketed the World Trade Center and the Regency
Tower with the object of forcing or requiring the Em-
ployer to assign the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by IBEW.' Secondly, over the last several
years, these same International Unions, although dif-
ferent locals thereof, have appeared before the Board in
dispute over the same type of work at other jobsites of
this Employer,' demonstrating a policy on the part of
the IBEW's parent International which indicates a con-
tinuing dispute. In view of the facts that these same
International Unions have previously appeared in dis-
putes over the same work at other jobsites of this Em-
ployer, that the Employer has an expectation of future
work commitments in the southern California area,
and that IBEW took no position as to whether it would
claim such work in the future, we believe that there is
a reasonable likelihood that the dispute will recur.'
Based on the record before us, there is at present no
agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of
the dispute. Under these circumstances, we find that it
3 Member Kennedy dissented with former Chairman Miller in both of
those cases to the quashing of the 10(k) proceedings. In their view, there
were no effective disclaimers of the work in dispute Member Kennedy
agrees in the instant case that the majority opinions in the Georgia-Pacific
and Gilbert L. Phillips cases are inapposite
4 Unlike the position taken by IBEW here, the respondents in the Georgia-
PacifIc and Gilbert cases contacted the employers prior to the hearing to
disclaim the disputed work, and the disclaimers were reiterated at the hear-
ings
5 See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 98 (Inter
Communication Services, Inc.), 207 NLRB 689 (1973) In that case, IBEW
picket signs at the worksite indicated that the purpose of the picketing was
to protest wage standards, and, consequently, IBEW's position at the hear-
ing was that it disclaimed the work because its purpose in picketing was to
protest wage standards Upon finding that , in spite of the nature of the signs,
conversations between IBEW and CWA representatives indicated that the
object of the picketing was to secure the disputed work, the Board held that
the disclaimer was not valid.
6 Local Union No. 98 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (17T-Communications Equipment and Systems Division), 199
NLRB 496 (1972), Local Union No 134, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (International Telephone & Telegraph Corpo-
ration, Communications Equipment and Systems Division ), 191 NLRB 828
(1911); Local No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, Communica-
tions Equipment & Systems Division), 197 NLRB 879 (1972). The Board has
also heard disputes involving IBEW, CWA, and other employers concerning
the performance of the same type of work disputed here. See, e g., Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 9 (Inter Communication
Services, Inc.), supra; Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO (Comtech Telephone Contractors Corporation), 202
NLRB 918 (1973); Local Union No. 474, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Teleci, Inc.), 198 NLRB 221 (1972).
7 Local 299, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO
(Metalab Equipment Company), 173 NLRB 1329, 1332 (1968).
399
will effectuate the policies underlying Sections 10(k)
and 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act for us to determine the merits
of the dispute . Accordingly, we find that this dispute is
appropriate for resolution under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving
due consideration to various relevant factors.
1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements
Neither of the labor organizations herein involved
has been certified as the collective-bargaining represen-
tative for a unit of the Employer's employees, nor is
there evidence indicating that a Board certification cov-
ers the work in dispute.
As stated above, the Employer is a party to a nation-
wide collective-bargaining agreement with CWA. That
contract provides that CWA is the "sole and exclusive
bargaining agent for employees of the Company per-
forming installation , replacement and maintenance op-
erations in the United States or its possessions." In
accordance with this agreement, the Employer has as-
signed the work in dispute to its employees represented
by CWA. The Employer is not, and never has been
party to any collective-bargaining agreement with
IBEW. We conclude, therefore, that considerations of
collective-bargaining history and agreements favor as-
signment of the work to employees represented by
CWA.
2. Employer, industry, and area practice
The record clearly establishes that it is the Em-
ployer's consistent practice to assign its own em-
ployees, who are represented by CWA, to perform all
aspects of the work in dispute on a nationwide basis.
The record also indicates that it is the practice of the
Pacific Telephone Company and -the General Tele-
phone Company, the Employer's two primary competi-
tors in the Los Angeles, California , area , to use em-
ployees represented by CWA to perform work similar
to the disputed work for which the Employer uses its
communications technicians . The record also lists a
number of other private telephone companies in the
southern California area which employ CWA-repre-
sented persons to perform telephone installation work.
There is no evidence that IBEW members perform any
such work. On the basis of the above findings, we con-
clude that the employer, industry, and area practice
favors assignment of the work in dispute to employees
represented by CWA.
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Skills and training of employees
The record clearly establishes that : (1) the Em-
ployer's communications technicians possess the neces-
sary skills to perform the work in dispute, and (2)
journeyman electricians represented by IBEW are not
sufficiently skilled to perform the disputed work. The
record also indicates that the Employer is satisfied with
the performance of the work in dispute by its communi-
cations technicians represented by CWA.
More specifically , the record shows that the work of
the Employer's communications technicians is signifi-
cantly different from the work performed by journey-
man electricians in terms of training and techniques
required . This conclusion is based , in part, on tes-
timony disclosing that a fully qualified communica-
tions technician has approximately 72 months of for-
mal instruction and on -the-job training which is
divided into seven preliminary stages! Part of the
training includes work with several pieces of communi-
cations equipment which are unique to the Employer's
operations . Communications technicians must use var-
ious pieces of sophisticated electronic testing equip-
ment . Journeyman electricians use only a few testing
devices, which are of a less sophisticated nature.
Whereas a journeyman electrician normally works with
cable containing no more than 2 pairs of wires, com-
munications technicians must work with cables con-
taining up to 900 pairs of fine wires. Accordingly, we
find that consideration of the factors of skill and special
training favors assignment of the disputed work to the
employees of the Employer who are represented by
CWA.
each customer. The Employer argues that if it were to
use the IBEW hiring hall customer's would see different
technicians who are unfamiliar with the specific tele-
phone system or previous repairs and modifications.
Testimony also indicates that the use of IBEW mem-
bers would increase the Employer's labor costs, inter
alia, because of the man-hours which would be lost
training new employees and familiarizing them with
the Employer's equipment. We find that factors of both
economy and efficiency support an award of the work
in dispute to employees represented by CWA.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full considera-
tion of all relevant factors involved, we conclude that
the Employer's employees represented by CWA are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. This assign-
ment is consistent with the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between CWA and the Employer; employer, in-
dustry, and area practice; the requisite skills and
training; and the efficiency and economy of operations.
In addition, the Employer has been satisfied with the
performance of its employees who are represented by
CWA. We conclude on the basis of the above factors
that the Employer's assignment should not be changed.
Accordingly, we shall determine the dispute before us
by awarding the work in dispute to the Employer's
employees represented by CWA, but not to that Union
or its members. In consequence, we also find that
IBEW is not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the Employer
to assign the disputed work to employees represented
by it.
4. Efficiency and economy of operations
The record indicates that an assignment of the work
in dispute to IBEW members would result in a substan-
tial loss of economy and efficiency to the Employer.
More specifically, testimony indicates that, since _ the
Employer trains its employees over periods of time in
excess of a year and such training includes the use of
its own manufactured equipment, continuity of the em-
ployee complement is important to the Employer;
therefore, the use of IBEW members, hired through the
IBEW hiring hall, would cause difficulty. The Em-
ployer's contracts with customers include providing
repair, maintenance, and modification services.. In
providing those services, a regular communications
technician develops a rapport with the customer to
whom he is assigned, and he also develops an expertise
in the peculiarities of the telephone system provided for
Scope of Determination
The Employer, in its brief, requests that the Board
determine the dispute by awarding the disputed work
to its own employees and further requests that the
Board's determination apply to the geographic jurisdic-
tion of IBEW Local Union No. It.
In the past, it has been the Board's policy to make
an award broad enough to encompass the geographic
area in which an employer does business, wherever
jurisdiction of the competing unions coincide, in cir-
cumstances where there is an indication that the dis-
pute is likely to recur.' As the Employer will continue
to seek new contracts that include performance of the
work in dispute, as IBEW did not effectively disclaim
that work and there is no assurance that disputes simi-
lar to the one herein will not recur, and in view of the
history of such claims by Local 11 and other locals
8 The record shows that approximately 60 percent of the Employer's 9 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 26,
communications technicians in the southern California area are fully quali- AFL-CIO (Taylor Woodrow Blitman Construction Corporation), 195 NLRB
fied 261, 264 (1972)
LOCAL UNION NO. 11, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 401
affiliated with the same parent International Union, we
find that the dispute is likely to recur between the
parties.10 Therefore, our determination in this case ap-
plies to all similar disputes occurring within the Los
Angeles, 'California, area whenever the jurisdiction of
IBEW Local Union No. 11 coincides with an assign-
ment of such work to the Employer's employees.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes
the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of ITT Communications Equipment &
Systems Division who are currently represented by
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, are
entitled to perform the work of installing communica-
10 See Local Union No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO (International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation,
Communications Equipment and Systems Division), 191 NLRB 828, 832
(1971).
tions equipment in the offices of the F. P. Dow Com-
pany at the World Trade Center, in the offices of the
Buchalter law firm at the, Regency Tower, and at the
facilities of any other of the Employer's customers in
the Los Angeles, California, area whenever the jurisdic-
tion of IBEW Local Union No. 11 coincides with an
assignment of such work to the Employer's employees.
2. Local Union No. 11, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or
require ITT Communications Equipment & Systems
Division to assign the above work to employees repre-
sented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, Local Union No. 11, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Re-
gion 21, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from
forcing or requiring the Employer, by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the
work in dispute to its members rather than to em-
ployees represented by Communications Workers of
America, AFL-CIO.