Plumbers, Local 208

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 633 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

PLUMBERS , LOCAL 208 633
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, Local Union No. 208,
and United Association of Journeymen Plumbers
and Gas Fitters Local Union No . 3 and Colorado
Pipe Lines, Inc. and Colorado Laborers District
Council, Local 720, affiliated with Laborers ' Inter-
national Union of North America , AFL-CIO. Case
27-CD-118
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing, and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the briefs of the
parties and the entire record in this case, and hereby
makes the following findings:
April 7, 1971
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
the filing of charges by Hensel Phelps Construction
Company, herein called Phelps, alleging that United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local Union No. 208, herein
called Pipefitters, and United Association of Journey-
men Plumbers and Gas Fitters Local Union No. 3,
herein called Plumbers, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
theAct by engaging in certain proscribed activity with
an object of forcing or requiring Colorado Pipe Lines,
Inc., herein called Colorado Pipe Lines or the
Employer, to assign certain work to the Plumbers and
Pipefitters, herein jointly referred to as United
Association, rather than to employees represented by
the Colorado Laborers District Council, Local 720,
affiliated with Laborers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Laborers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Robert L. McCabe on September 22,
1970. 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, a joint brief was
filed by Colorado Pipe Lines, Phelps, and the
Laborers. A joint brief was also filed by the Plumbers
and Pipefitters. The Pipefitters and Plumbers also
filed a motion to add the General Counsel's Denial of
Appeal in Case 27-CC-367 to the instant record,' and
moved that an award concerning the work involved
herein, rendered on October 2, 1970, by the National
Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes,
be made part of the record.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
1 The motion was granted on December 18, 1970.
2 The motion was granted on December 26, 1970.
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Colorado
Pipe Lines, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We further
find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the
parties, that the Laborers, Plumbers, and Pipefitters
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Facts
In August 1969, Colorado Pipe Lines learned from
Phelps, the general contractor at the Eastman Kodak
facility at Windsor, Colorado, that Phelps had
accepted Colorado Pipe Lines bid for the construction
at the Windsor site of certain underground water
piping; i.e., a storm sewer , a sanitary and industrial
sewer, a service water system, a fire protection system,
and a yard sprinkling system. Thereafter, Colorado
Pipe Lines tentatively assigned all of this work to the
Laborers, with which it has had a long- standing
bargaining relationship, by letter dated September 29,
1969. A few days after this assignment, Phelps and
Colorado Pipe Lines formally executed a contract
covering the aforementioned underground piping.
At a meeting on October 6, 1969, attended by
representatives of Phelps, Colorado Pipe Lines, and
the two Respondents, the latter claimed the right to
perform all of the work assigned by Colorado Pipe
Lines to the Laborers. By letter dated October 10,
1969, Roy Nylander, the business -manager of the
Pipefitters, wrote to Phelps, advising, inter alia, "We
would like to bring to your attention that Pipefitters
Local No. 208 and Plumbers Local No. 3 of Denver,
Colorado, have the jurisdiction of the work at the
Eastman Kodak Plant, Windsor, Colorado." In
response, Phelps informed Nylander by letter date
October 31, 1969, that it was not certain what specific
189 NLRB No. 86
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work Nylander was claiming, but that if the claim
referred to the underground piping mentioned above,
Colorado Pipe Lines had already assigned this work
to the Laborers.
On November 3, 1969, a prejob conference covering
the Windsor jobsite was held. Just prior to the
meeting, representatives of the Plumbers and Pipefit-
ters spoke to Tointon, a Phelps vice president,
expressing concern over the fact that the aforemen-
tioned work had been assigned to the Laborers.
According to Tointon, Nylander stated that the
assignment was the "most serious thing he had
encountered in his years as business agent, and if they
couldn't get this work, they just weren't going to man
the rest of the complex." During the prejob confer-
ence which immediately followed this conversation,
the Plumbers and Pipefitters reiterated their claim
that the work should not have been assigned to the
Laborers.
On the next day, Pfeifer, the business manager of
the Plumbers, wrote Phelps, stating, inter alia. "We
therefore feel this work rightfully belongs to the
United Association and should come under the
jurisdiction of Plumbers Local Union No. 3 and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 208." By letter dated
November 6, 1969, Phelps informed Pfeifer that since
Phelps had subcontracted the underground work to
Colorado Pipe Lines, which in turn had assigned the
work to the Laborers, it would be impossible to
change the work assignment.
On November 19, 1969, approximately 150 plumb-
ers and pipefitters, employed by various employers
throughout northern Colorado, converged at the
Windsor jobsite. At that time, Nylander entered the
site , asked the employees employed by Colorado Pipe
Lines if they were members of the United Association,
and stated that he was there to object to the fact that
the work had not been assigned to employees
represented by the United Association. At the
hearing, when asked what role he had played in
staging the demonstration, Nylander admitted that he
had "helped instigate it." Five days later, on Novem-
ber 24, 1969, the Plumbers picketed the Windsor site
with signs and handbills indicating that the purpose of
the picketing was to protest Colorado Pipe Lines
substandard working conditions. The picketing lasted
for 2 days. At the time of the picketing, work on all of
the underground utilities mentioned above, other
than the yard sprinkling system, had started.
By letter dated January 6, 1970, the National Joint
Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes,
Building and Construction Industry, notified Phelps
and Colorado Pipe lines that it had been advised of
the jurisdictional dispute between the United Associ-
ation and the Laborers `over the `Underground
Utilities Package,' which consists of storm sewers,
sanitary sewers, industrial sewers, fire protection
system, service water system, a lawn sprinkling system
and gas piping system ...." In reply, Colorado Pipe
Lines advised the Joint Board that it had a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Laborers, that, pur-
suant to the agreement, it had assigned the disputed
work to the Laborers, and that its agreement with the
Laborers, that, pursuant to the agreement, it had
assigned the disputed work to the Laborers, and that
its agreement with the Laborers did not recognize the
Joint Board's jurisdiction.
Following this exchange of letters, neither Phelps
nor Colorado Pipe Lines heard anything further
about the matter until the Plumbers notified them by
letter dated June 29, 1970, that it might once again
picket the Windsor jobsite, assertedly for the sole
purpose of protesting the working conditions of
Colorado Pipe Lines employees.
On July 9, 1970, the plumbers and pipefitters
employed by various plumbing subcontractors at the
Windsor jobsite left their jobs. During the day (it is
not clear whether the walkout had already com-
menced), Pipefitters Representative Nylander spoke
to the Pipefitters shop steward on the telephone, at
which time Nylander told the steward, "that there
were people other than UA people that were doing
work that belongs to the UA and we have a problem
as UA people."
At the time of the walkout, Colorado Pipe Lines had
completed approximately 98 percent of the total
subcontract, including nearly all of the yard sprinkler
system. With respect to the latter, almost all of the
ductile pipe used in the system had been laid. The
remaining work on the sprinkler system had not been
completed, however, because of Kodak's request that
it be held off to a later date. As to the other
underground facilities , work still had to be performed
in cleaning up, installing cast iron and clay pipe tie-ins
to the building sub-ins, and fixing industrial sewer
manholes.
By the next day, the walkoff had spread to
numerous other crafts employed on the premises. As a
result, approximately 250 employees either left the job
or refused to report for work. The charge herein was
filed on July 10, 1970.
On or about July 11, a meeting was held in the
Denver offices of the Laborers between Kniss, the
business agent for the Laborers, and Pfeifer of the
Plumbers. Although the testimony concerning the
meeting is somewhat conflicting , it is clear from
Pfeifer's testimony that, at least , the propriety of
Colorado Pipe Lines assignment of the sprinkler work
to the Laborers was discussed between the two union
representatives.
Two days later, on July 13, 1970, a picket line
authorized by Pfeifer was set up at the Windsor site.
PLUMBERS , LOCAL 208 635
The pickets used signs and handbills similar to those
which had been used during the November 1969
picketing. With the exception of the work being
performed by the laborers for Colorado Pipe Lines,
the picketing resulted in the complete shutdown of the
job. The picketing lasted until July 16 when Pfeifer
ordered his men to return to work.
About July 15, representatives of various unions,
including all the Unions involved herein, attended a
meeting held at the offices of the Northern Building
Trades Council, where they discussed the status of the
picketing at the Windsor jobsite. Pfeifer testified that
he told the group the picketing was "informational";
that he stated to the group that the Laborers had
earlier disclaimed jurisdiction over the installation of
the lawn sprinkling system; and, in addition to
specifically talking about the lawn sprinkling system,
that he discussed with the Laborers at least some of
the other utility work involved in this proceeding.
On October 2, 1970, the National Joint Board for
Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes issued an award
to "plumbers and steamfitters" in resolving a dispute
described as one "between the United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry and the Laborers' International
Union of North America over installation of a lawn
sprinkler system consisting of valves, fittings, sprink-
ler heads and other appurtenances making a complete
lawn sprinkler system, Eastman Kodak project,
Windsor, Colorado, Colorado Pipe Line Company
Inc. contractor." While this award would appear to be
the culmination of the dispute presented to the Joint
Board in January 1970, supra, the record does not
indicate why the award is confined to the lawn
sprinkler system rather than to all of the work
assigned to the Laborers by Colorado Pipe Lines,
which the Joint Board's letters to Phelps and
Colorado Pipe Lines in January described as the work
in issue.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The Plumbers and the Pipefitters assert that the
inquiry herein is limited to determining whether a
jurisdictional dispute exists over the lawn sprinkling
system only, and that, therefore, it is improper to
consider whether there is a jurisdictional dispute with
respect to any of the other underground facilities.
Accordingly, neither the Plumbers nor the Pipefitters
sought to adduce evidence about the remaining
underground piping, even though both Respondents
3 At one point in the hearing , the Pipefitters disclaimed jurisdiction over
any of the disputed work , but later took a position that it might properly
have jurisdiction over an undetermined portion of the work.
4 Although arguing that the National Joint Board award of October 2,
1970, is dispositive of the issue, the Plumbers and Pipefitters make no
explicit claim that the Employer is bound to the National Joint Board's
claimed at the hearing that such properly belongs to
employees whom they represent.3 The Respondents
also argue that the notice of hearing should be
quashed on the ground that the record fails to
establish that either union engaged in any conduct
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act during the
6 months immediately preceding the filing of the
instant charges on July 10, 1970, as requred by Section
10(b) of the Act. If, however, the Board finds a
jurisdictional dispute, the Plumbers and the Pipefit-
ters alternatively argue that the work on the lawn
sprinkler system, excluding the pipe bedding, should
be awarded to the Plumbers by virtue of area practice,
the superior skills of the plumbers, the fact that
plumbers have traditionally performed the work in
question, and National Joint Board determinations
awarding lawn sprinkling work to the Plumbers.4
Phelps, Colorado Pipe Lines, and the Laborers
maintain that the notice of hearing, taken as a whole,
encompassed all of the outside facilities assigned to
the Laborers; that a jurisdictional dispute exists as to
all these facilities; and that, based on the usual criteria
used by the Board in determining which group of
competing employees is entitled to the disputed work,
the work should be awarded to employees represented
by the Laborers. It is also urged that, inasmuch as the
instant dispute is part of a broader jurisdictional
controversy between the Laborers and Plumbers, the
Board should issue a broad award. In support of this
latter request, the parties point to several prior
controversies involving the Laborers and Plumbers;
the Plumbers and Pipefitters contention at the hearing
that their members have jurisdiction over all of the
disputed work, and not just the lawn sprinkling
system; and the fact that Colorado Pipe Lines expects
to perform similar work in the future for Phelps at the
Windsor jobsite.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determination
of a 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.
In considering whether or not there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(d) has been
violated, we are faced at the outset with the Plumbers
and Pipefitters claim that the Board cannot consider
as background evidence any conduct which occurred
outside the 10(b) period; i.e., events which occurred
prior to January 10, 1970,6 months before the instant
determination . As we find that neither Phelps nor Colorado Pipe Lines are
bound to the National Joint Board procedures with respect to the dispute
now before us, we do not, as noted below, find controlling the fact that the
Plumbers and Pipefitters have unilaterally submitted the dispute to the
National Joint Board, and that the National Joint Board has issued an
award favorable to the Plumbers.
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charge was filed on July 10, 1970. Although Section
10(b) precludes a finding of illegality with respect to
conduct which occurred before January 10, 1970, it is
settled law that such antecedent events may be
considered in evaluating the lawfulness of conduct
committed during the 10(b) period.5 Such a review of
past events is often necessary in determining the
meaning of events which occur during the Section
10(b) period. Accordingly, we have taken into
account, as relevant background, the earlier aspects of
the Plumbers and Pipefitters conduct about which
evidence was adduced.
This background evidence establishes that both the
Plumbers and the Pipefitters, prior to the 10(b) period,
claimed jurisdiction over all of the underground
facilities which had been assigned by Colorado Pipe
Lines to the Laborers, and that a picket line was
established on the Windsor jobsite after these Unions'
jurisdictional claims had been rejected by Phelps and
Colorado Pipe Lines. Thus, as noted above, Nylander,
on behalf of the Pipefitters, advised Phelps by letter
dated October 10, 1969, that the Plumbers and
Pipefitters "have jurisdiction of the work at the
Eastman Plant, Windsor, Colorado"; the Plumbers
and Pipefitters reiterated their claim to the work
during the course of the prejob meeting in November;
and Pfeifer, on behalf of the Plumbers, wrote to
Phelps on the following day, stating, inter alia, "We
therefore feel this work rightfully belongs to the
United Association and should come under the
jurisdiction of Plumbers Local Union No. 3 and
Pipefitters Union No. 208." After Phelps refused to
accede to this latest claim, the Plumbers and Pipefit-
ters staged the above-mentioned mass demonstration
on November 19, 1970, which Nylander admitted he
"helped instigate," and the Plumbers thereafter
instituted a picket line on the jobsite on November 24
and 25, 1969.
Turning to the events occurring during the Section
10(b) period, with this background evidence in mind,
we are persuaded that the July 1970 picketing and
walkout were not limited to publicizing Colorado Pipe
Lines' purported refusal to meet area standards, but
rather sought, as a primary objective, the reassign-
ment of all of the disputed work to the Plumbers and
Pipefitters. It is true, as Respondents point out, that
neither the walkout, which Nylander admitted he may
have "indirectly" caused, nor the subsequent picket-
ing, for which Pfeifer readily claimed responsibility,
was accompanied by any overt demands on, or threats
against, either Xielps or Colorado Pipe Lines. The
record clearly indicates, however, that the attainment
of a jurisdictional objective was implicit in such
activity. Thus, the record shows that at the time of the
July picketing and walkout, Respondent Unions were
awaiting a determination by the National Joint Board
with respect to their claim that their members were
entitled to perform all the work which had been
assigned to the Laborers; that, despite Respondents'
present contention that the July picketing was for
"area standards" purposes, Pfeifer reiterated the
Plumbers claim over the lawn sprinkling work during
his conversation with Laborers Representative Kniss
in the early part of July, when Pfeifer had already
advised Phelps and Colorado Pipe Lines that the
forthcoming picketing would be limited only to a
protest of the latter' s failure to follow area standards;
and that both Respondent Unions refused to drop
their claims to the disputed work at the meeting
conducted by the Northern Building Trades Council
during the course of the picketing. In addition,
Nylander's statement to the Pipefitters job steward on
July 9, "There were people other than UA people that
were doing the work that belongs to the UA and we
have a problem as UA people," clearly shows that
Nylander was primarily interested in which group of
employees performed the disputed work, and not, as
claimed, what conditions of employment the employ-
ees enjoyed.6 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we
find there is reasonable cause to believe that Respon-
dents' conduct was motivated during the 10(b) period
by a desire to force reassignment of work, that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and that the dispute is
properly before us for determination under Section
10(k) of the Act.
D. The Work in Dispute
As noted above, the parties disagree as to what
constitutes the work in actual dispute. The Laborers,
Phelps, and Colorado Pipe Lines maintain that the
dispute involves all the underground facilities work
which has been assigned to the Laborers. The
Plumbers and the Pipefitters, on the other hand, assert
that the notice of hearing limited the present inquiry
to the question of whether a jurisdictional dispute
exists only as to the installation of the lawn sprinkling
work, and that, moreover, there is no record evidence
to establish that either Respondent claimed any work
during the Section 10(b) period.
As to the assertion that the notice of hearing
confines our inquiry to the lawn sprinkler system, the
record shows that the notice of hearing provided:
"The dispute concerns the assignment of the follow-
ing work task: installation of underground utilities,
specifically the yard sprinkling system." However, the
5 See Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, by this remark , he may have indirectly caused the July walkout, we find
AFL-CIO (Bryan Mfg. Co.) v N.L.RB., 362 U.S. 411. that the Ptpefitters was properly joined as a Respondent.
6 In light of Nylander's aforementioned remark and his admission that,
PLUMBERS , LOCAL 208 637
notice of hearing also added that "a hearing will be
conducted . . . upon the dispute alleged in the charge
attached to the Notice of Charge Filed issued in this
matter on the 10th day of July 1970." The charge
referred to in the notice of hearing stated, inter alia,
that the Respondent Unions had attempted to "force
and require [Colorado Pipe Lines] to assign installa-
tion of underground utilities" to employees represent-
ed by the Respondent Unions. Thus, although the
first-quoted excerpt made express mention of yard
sprinkling work, there was no similar indication in the
attached charge that the hearing would be so limited.
Even if there had been some question as to the scope
of the hearing, however, we noted that this issue was
immediately raised at the start of the hearing, that the
Hearing Officer ruled that he would accept evidence
on the broader dispute, and neither of the Respondent
Unions asked for an extension of time to more fully
prepare their case. Accordingly, because we believe
that the Respondents were on ample notice that the
10(k) proceeding would encompass the question of
jurisdictional rights to all of the outside facilities, we
conclude that any misleading effect of the notice of
hearing was sufficiently cured by the language of the
charge and by the Hearing Officer's designation of the
matter to be investigated.
With reference to the dispute itself, the record
establishes that the controversy involved all of the
outside facilities and was not, as claimed by the
Respondent Unions, limited only to the question of
which group of employees had jurisdiction over the
lawn sprinkling work. Thus, as noted above, both
Unions had claimed in October and November 1969
that their members were entitled to perform all of the
underground piping. Thereafter, when the controver-
sy was referred to the National Joint Board, it is clear,
as evidenced by the January 6, 1970, letter from the
National Joint Board, to Phelps and Colorado Pipe
Lines, that the National Joint Board was requested to
make an award covering all of the work assigned to
the Laborers. As to the events immediately surround-
ing the July walkout and picketing, there is no
evidence that Respondent had at that time modified
their claim-then still pending before the National
Joint Board-that their members were entitled to
install all the underground piping which had been
assigned to the Laborers. It may be argued that the
Respondents would not reasonably have reinstituted
their jurisdictional claim to all of the underground
work assigned to the Laborers at a time, as the record
shows, when 98 percent of the work had been
7 Respondents , of course , claim that their conduct in July 1970 had no
jurisdictional objective whatsoever , and was directed neither at the yard
sprinkler work nor at the rest of the Laborers work. As we have found
above, however , the record shows that the Plumbers representative did, on
two occasions in July, discuss the walkout and picketing in terms of
completed; on the other hand, it seems equally
unlikely that Respondents would have provoked a
strike over the lawn sprinkling system, a rather minor
part of Colorado Pipe Lines subcontract, at a time
when that portion of the work was also nearly
finished.? In view of the fact, established by the
record, that a great deal more construction work,
perhaps extending into the 1990's is contemplated for
the Windsor site, we infer that the conduct of the
Respondents in July 1970 was animated by the same
objective which had led to the 1969 dispute-an effort
to establish jurisdiction over all of the underground
work assigned to the Laborers. We also note in this
connection that when Respondents were specifically
asked at the hearing whether, excluding the lawn
sprinkling system, they were still claiming jurisdiction
over the remaining underground facilities, Respon-
dents' attorney stated that Respondent Unions had
not relinquished their claim to this work. Accordingly,
we find that the dispute involves all of the outside
facilities work which had been awarded to the
Laborers.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after giving
due consideration to various relevant factors. The
following factors are relevant in making a determina-
tion of the dispute before us.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
None of the labor organizations involved herein has
been certified by the Board as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of the Employer's employees.
However, the Laborers has been recognized by, and
has entered into, a bargaining agreement with
Colorado Pipe Lines, which agreement contemplates
that the employees represented by Laborers are to
perform such work as "industrial site construction."
Neither the Plumbers nor the Pipefitters has a
collective-bargaining agreement with Colorado Pipe
Lines. Based on the foregoing, we find that the
agreement between Laborers and Colorado Pipe
Lines favors the Laborers.
2. Skills and efficiency
There is no showing that any of the disputed work
requires skills not possessed by laborers. Thus,
laborers are able to quickly master the relatively few
jurisdictional claims to the yard sprinkler work . We regard these references
as admissions that the July activity had a jurisdictional objective, and we
take it that these admissions were cautiously stated in an effort to disguise
the true reach of that objective.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
skills needed for performing the work in question and
they have performed the work to the satisfaction of
the Employer.
The record further establishes that the continued
use of laborers is more efficient and economical than
would be the case if plumbers and/or pipefitters were
to perform the work in question. Because the
plumbers and the pipefitters claim only the actual
installation of the piping and do not seek to perform
other related work (such as digging , backfilling , etc.),
employment of their craftsmen could result in idle
time for them and for the laborers , as each group
might have to wait for the other to complete its
respective duties . This, of course , would be in marked
contrast to the present practice under which the
laborers have no idle worktime, but perform a wide
variety of tasks in succession and without interrup-
tion. Accordingly, we find that these factors favor an
award to employees represented by the Laborers.
3. Company and area practice
The Pipefitters and Plumbers assert that employers
within their territorial jurisdiction regularly assign
lawn sprinkling work to employees represented by
them . Because the Plumbers and Pipefitters chose not
to introduce any evidence bearing on the installation
of the other facilities-storm sewers , sanitary sewers,
industrial sewers , and fire protection system-they
make no specific claim that the company and area
practice favor the assignment of this remaining work
to employees whom they represent. Phelps, Colorado
Pipe Lines, and Laborers, on the other hand, argue
that laborers frequently install lawn sprinkler work,
along with the other types of underground facilities
involved herein, and that Colorado Pipe Lines has
consistently assigned work similar to all of that in
dispute herein to laborers over the past several years.
There is record evidence that yard sprinkling work
has been performed in Colorado by laborers, plumb-
ers, and nonunion employees. The only testimony
bearing on the remainder of the work in dispute,
which constitutes the major part of the disputed work,
is that utility contractors who receive subcontracts for
outside piping work, such as Colorado Pipe Lines,
assign such work to laborers. A Laborers representa-
tive testified that his Union has bargaining contracts
with 50-60 utility contractors in Colorado who
perform all of the types of work involved in the
present dispute . The testimony of the president of
Colorado Pipe Lines was that mechanical contractors,
who traditionally recognize the Plumbers and Pipefit-
ters, generally subcontract piping work outside the
building structure to utility contractors who, as noted,
usually perform the outside work with members of the
Laborers Union . As to this factor, therefore , although
the record establishes a mixed area practice insofar as
lawn sprinkling work is concerned , the limited
evidence taken about the rest of the disputed work
favors the Laborers . Even if the Respondents had
introduced evidence tending to show that plumbers
and pipefitters also perform work in the remaining
categories, the evidence as to area practice would be,
at best, inconclusive.
4. The National Joint Board awards
Although, as indicated, supra, it appears that the
National Joint Board's award of October 2, 1970,
pertaining to the lawn sprinkler work , is not binding
on the Employer (and may not be binding on the
Laborers), we do consider it a factor in determining
the proper assignment of work in dispute . However,
noting particularly the Joint Board's failure to set
forth the reasons for its decision, we see no persuasive
reason for holding in this case that the National Joint
Board's award should be given controlling weight.8
The same is true as to a few Joint Board determina-
tions introduced by the Respondents relating to
assignments of lawn sprinkler work by contractors in
California , Montana , and Massachusetts.
Conclusion
Having considered all pertinent factors, we con-
clude that employees represented by Laborers are
entitled to perform the work in dispute . The assign-
ment to laborers is consistent with the Employer's
past practice and with what the record shows to be the
area practice . Laborers are at least as skilled as
plumbers or pipefitters with respect to performing the
disputed work , and the Employer has been satisfied
with the quality of the laborers' work and their
efficiency . On the basis of the entire record , therefore,
we shall determine the existing jurisdictional dispute
by awarding the work in question to the employees
represented by Laborers , but not to that Union or its
members . In consequence, we also determine that the
Pipefitters and the Plumbers were not and are 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 them.
We note that the Plumbers and the Pipefitters have
indicated that they will continue to maintain their
claim that the disputed work should be assigned to
employees whom they represent . In our view the
continued existence of such a claim, along with the
fact that it appears that Colorado Pipe Lines might be
awarded similar work at the Windsor jobsite in the
8 Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No 189 (R W Wander, Inc), 176
NLRB No 129
PLUMBERS , LOCAL 208 639
future , creates a strong possibility that similar
disputes may occur in the future . Accordingly, we
hold that the determination in this case should include
not only the present job on which the dispute arose,
but also future jobs performed by Colorado Pipe
Lines at the Windsor jobsite . Cf. Local 98, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices etc. (Parks
Installation Company), 177 NLRB No. 109.
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 dispute:
1. Employees of Colorado Pipe Lines , Inc., who
are currently represented by Colorado Laborers
District Council , Local 720 , affiliated with Laborers'
International Union of North America , AFL-CIO,
are entitled to perform the work of installing and
laying mains and pipes and other work relating to
storm sewers , sanitary and industrial sewers , service
water systems , fire protection systems , and yard
sprinkling systems at the Windsor , Colorado, jobsite
of Eastman Kodak Company.
2. United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry
of the United States and Canada , Local 208, and
United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Gas
Fitters Local Union No. 3 are not entitled by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or
require Colorado Pipe Lines, Inc., to assign such work
to plumbers or pipefitters they represent.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, Local 208, and United Association of
Journeymen Plumbers and Gas Fitters Local Union
No. 3 shall notify the Regional Director for Region
27, in writing, whether or not they will refrain from
forcing or requiring Colorado Pipe Lines , Inc., by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to
assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent
with the above determination.