Carpenters Local 275

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 3, 2001

334 N.L.R.B. 422 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 422
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 275, AFL–CIO and Lymo Con-
struction Co., Inc. Case 1–CD–1011
July 3, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND TRUESDALE
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed
on January 20, 2000, and an amended charge was filed
on February 16, 2000, by Lymo Construction Co., Inc.
(the Employer or Lymo). The charge, as amended, al-
leges that United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Local 275, AFL–CIO (the Carpenters) vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations
Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of
forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employ-
ees the Carpenters represent rather than to employees
represented by Sheet Metal Workers, Local 17 (Local
17). The hearing was held on May 3, 2000, before Hear-
ing Officer Laura A. Sacks. Thereafter, the Employer
and Local 17 filed briefs in support of their positions.
Local 17 additionally filed a motion to quash the Section
10(k) notice of hearing.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire re-
cord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
Lymo is a New Hampshire corporation with a princi-
pal place of business located in Manchester, New Hamp-
shire. It is engaged in the business of installing metal
roofing, decking, and siding. Annually, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, Lymo purchases and
receives goods, materials, and supplies valued in excess
of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the
State of New Hampshire. We find that Lymo is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
At the hearing the parties stipulated, and we find, that
the Carpenters and Local 17 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts
In early 1999,1 Lymo was awarded the metal roofing
and siding work on the Astra project in Waltham, Massa-
chusetts, by Turner Construction. Lymo began perform-
ing roofing work on that project in late spring or early
summer 1999, using its core group of employees. These
employees were represented by Local 17. Lymo and
Local 17 are signatory to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment effective through June 30, 2001.

1 All dates are in 1999, unless otherwise noted.
Around July, representatives from Turner Construction
notified Daniel Lynch (Lynch), owner and president of
Lymo, that Turner Construction had a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Carpenters and that the
Carpenters were claiming the metal siding portion of
Lymo’s work on the Astra project. Turner Construction
insisted that Lymo use employees represented by the
Carpenters to perform this work. Lynch notified Local
17 of Turner’s concerns and urged Local 17 to make a
deal with the Carpenters over the work in dispute.
Thereafter, both unions continued to claim the metal sid-
ing work. Lynch testified that, as a result of his ongoing
discussions with the Carpenters, and Turner’s demand
that employees represented by the Carpenters perform
the metal siding work, Lymo executed a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Carpenters on August 3.
About mid-August, Lymo began metal siding work on
the Astra project using a composite crew of Local 17 and
Carpenters-represented employees. Lynch testified that,
as a result of Local 17’s inability to supply sufficient
manpower, the composite crew was composed more
heavily of employees represented by the Carpenters.
Lynch further testified that although Lymo continued to
use a composite crew until the job was completed
(around March or April 2000, following Lymo’s execu-
tion of a collective-bargaining agreement with the Car-
penters), the Employer’s core employees gradually tran-
sitioned their membership from Local 17 to the Carpen-
ters. Lynch testified that, as of the May 3, 2000 hearing
date, all of Lymo’s core employees had become members
of the Carpenters and ceased being members of Local 17.
By letter dated August 30, Local 17 filed a grievance
over, inter alia, Lymo’s assignment of metal siding work
to employees represented by the Carpenters. Local 17
sought in its grievance an amount of money equal to lost
wages and benefits due to the assignment of metal siding
work to Carpenters-represented employees.
Lynch testified that when the siding work commenced
(in mid-August) Carpenters Representative Wallace told
Lynch that if a full crew of Local 17 employees was used
to install the metal siding on the Astra project the Car-
penters would strike. Lynch further testified that, on
about January 24, 2000, Wallace told Lynch not to pull
the Carpenters-represented employees from the Astra
project and replace them with Local 17 employees. Wal-
lace said that if Lynch did so, the Carpenters would
strike the project.
334 NLRB No. 67
CARPENTERS LOCAL 275 423
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the installation of exte-
rior metal siding at the Employer’s Astra project in
Waltham, Massachusetts, and at future sites in Massa-
chusetts.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
Local 17 contends that the notice of hearing should be
quashed. It argues that the present controversy is not a
jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of Section
10(k) of the Act because the dispute does not involve
competing claims for work. Local 17 argues that in or-
der for there to be a jurisdictional dispute there must be a
dispute between two groups of employees over which
group should perform the challenged work. Here, Local
17 contends that there is only one core group of Lymo
employees who perform the disputed work and that the
Carpenters have replaced Local 17 in representing those
core employees. Local 17 further argues that it has dis-
claimed all interest in the work. Next, Local 17 contends
that there is no reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated because the Carpenters’
strike threat was not genuine. Finally, Local 17 contends
that if the Board should find that a bona fide jurisdic-
tional dispute exists the work should be awarded to those
employees who are represented by Local 17 based on,
e.g., collective-bargaining agreements, area and industry
practice, and relative skills.
Lymo contends that a jurisdictional dispute exists and
that there is no agreed-upon method to resolve the dis-
pute. Lymo asserts that in late spring and early summer
of 1999, assignment of its metal siding work on the Astra
job was being disputed by competing demands of both
the Carpenters and Local 17. Following its assignment
of that metal siding work to a composite crew of em-
ployees, some of whom were represented by the Carpen-
ters and others by Local 17, the latter filed a grievance
against Lymo. In this grievance, Local 17 contends that
Lymo violated the contract’s no-subcontracting clause.
As argued by Local 17, its complaint with Lymo is that
Lymo sought to replace Local 17 as its employees’ bar-
gaining representative by negotiating a contract with the
Carpenters and, thereafter, by creating a working envi-
ronment that encouraged Lymo employees to join the
Carpenters and drop out of Local 17. As stated by Local
17 on brief, its dispute with Lymo is over which union
should represent Lymo employees, not that different em-
ployees should perform the work.
Lymo argues that Local 17’s grievance-filing and the
Carpenters’ threat to strike if Lymo changed the assign-
ment constitute 8(b)(4)(D) violations and require the
Board to enter a Section 10(k) award. On the merits of
the work assignment, Lymo asserts that the factors of
certification and collective-bargaining agreements, em-
ployer preference and past practice, relative skills and
safety, industry practice, and economy and efficiency
favor an award of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by the Carpenters.
D. Applicability of the Statue
Before the Board may proceed with a determination of
a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be
satisfied that: (1) there are competing claims for the
work; (2) there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated; and (3) the parties have not
agreed on a method for the voluntary adjustment of the
dispute.2
On the record before us, we are not satisfied that there
are competing claims for the work.3 Although the Em-
ployer has framed the issues in terms of a work assign-
ment dispute, it is clear that the dispute is not over the
assignment of metal siding work to one group of em-
ployees instead of a different group, within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(4)(D). Rather, as argued by Local 17, the
dispute is over which union will represent the single
group of employees currently performing that work.
None of the parties have objected to the performance of
the metal siding work by the Employer’s current em-
ployees. On the contrary, the Employer would like to
retain its current employees, but prefers that the Carpen-
ters represent them. Lymo, Local 17 and the Carpenters
are in dispute only over which union should represent the
employees currently performing the metal siding work at
the Astra project. For this reason, we find that this dis-
pute “is representational in nature, and is not the type of
dispute Section 10(k) was designed to address.” Glass &
Pottery Workers Local 421 (A-CMI Michigan Casting
Center), 324 NLRB 670, 674 (1997).
It is well established that a dispute within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(4)(D) requires a choice between two
competing groups. In this regard, the Board has stated:

There must, in short, be either an attempt to take a work
assignment away from another group, or to obtain the
assignment rather than have it given to the other
group.4

2 Teamsters Local 259 (Globe Newspaper Co.), 327 NLRB 619, 622
(1999); Laborers Local 113 (Super Excavators), 327 NLRB 113, 114
(1998); Laborers’ District Council of West Virginia, 325 NLRB 1058,
1059 (1998).
3 Laborers Local 1 (DEL Construction), 285 NLRB 593 (1987).
4 Commercial Workers Local 1222 (FedMart Stores), 262 NLRB
817, 819 (1982), quoting Communications Workers (Mountain States
Telephone), 118 NLRB 1104, 1107–1108 (1957).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 424
Sections 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k) were not intended to cover
situations such as this one where the dispute is concern
whichs of two local union will represent the Employer’s
current employees.5 Thus, we conclude that this matter is

5 Carpenters Local 1307 (J&P Building Maintenance), 331 NLRB 245
(2000); Teamsters Local 222 (Jelco, Inc.), 206 NLRB 809 (1973).
not a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of Section
10(k). Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of hearing.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the notice of hearing issued in
this case is quashed.