Carpenters, Local Union No. 1759

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 647 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

CARPENTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 1759 647
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Floor Coverers and Decorators Local
Union No. 1759, AFL-CIO (AMG Sign Co.) and
Associated Trades and Crafts International Union,
Local 1 . Case 6-CD-518
May 16, 1974
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find, the ATC and
Carpenters are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , based on
a charge filed by Associated Trades and Crafts
International Union, Local 1, herein called ATC.
The charge alleges that the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , Floor Coverers
and Decorators Local Union No. 1759, AFL-CIO,
herein called Carpenters , violated Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act by engaging in certain activity in order to
force AMG Sign Co., herein called Employer, to
assign certain work to individuals represented by the
Carpenters rather than to employees of the Employer
represented by ATC.
A duly scheduled hearing was held on February 5,
1974, before Hearing Officer Sandra Beck Levine.
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 issue.
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 , the Board
makes the following findings:
1. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer is a sole proprietorship engaged in
the manufacture and installation, wholesale and
retail , of electric signs and in general construction
work . During the preceding 12-month period, the
Employer purchased goods valued in excess of
$50,000 from points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania , for use within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania . We find, as the parties have stipulated,
that the Employer is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act. We further find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The parties have stipulated that the dispute
concerns the assignment of the following work tasks:
Installation of wall covering fabric at the Green-
tree Cedar Construction site of Cinemette Corpo-
ration in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
ATC members are engaged in all crafts in the
construction trade. The Employer is a member of the
United Contractors' Association, and ATC repre-
sents employees employed by members of the
Association pursuant to a contract which extends
from January 1, 1973, to December 31, 1974. That
contract provides for a sole and exclusive referral
system through which ATC supplies needed employ-
ees for member employers. The two employees hired
by the Employer to do the work in dispute, a
carpenter and helper, were hired through this referral
system. Such work was begun in January 1974 and
completed that same month; however, the record
indicates that the Employer intends to perform
similar work in the future if it becomes available.
On January 16, 1974, according to Gerson, owner
of the Employer, Poplowski, business agent for the
Carpenters, threatened to picket the jobsite because
ATC members were doing the work and Poplowski
believed Carpenters should have that work. Accord-
ing to Poplowski, however, he merely confirmed a
belief that members of ATC were working for
substantially lower wage rates than those paid to
Carpenter members and then informed Gerson that
he would have to put up informational pickets
protesting the lowering of area standards. No
picketing took place.
C. Contentions of the Parties
ATC contends that a jurisdictional dispute exists
and that there is reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated because Po-
plowski threatened to picket for the purpose of
obtaining the disputed work. It argues that the
disputed work should be awarded to employees
210 NLRB No. 83
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represented by it on the basis of its collective-
bargaining agreement with the Employer , the Em-
ployer's assignment of the work to ATC members,
and the past practice favoring those employees. The
Employer appears to be in substantial agreement
with this position.
The Carpenters contends that no jurisdictional
dispute exists which is cognizable under Section
10(k) of the Act because the evidence does not
support a reasonable belief that it violated Section
8(b)(4)(D). Its position is that Poplowski was merely
protesting the undercutting of area wages and that it
is not claiming the work in dispute.
D., Applicability of the Statute
2. Employer's assignment , preference, and
experience
The Employer 's preference for ATC is evidenced
by its assignment of the work to employees who were
members of that Union . The Employer's testimony
indicates complete satisfaction with work done by
these employees.
3. Employer and area practice
The Employer's past practice has been to use
carpenters and helpers referred by ATC for work
similar to that in dispute . It appears that the area
practice is also to use carpenters for work similar to
that in dispute.
The charge, duly investigated by the Regional
Director, alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(4XD) of
the Act. In disposing of this case, we are not required
to find that the Carpenters in fact engaged in
unlawful conduct as alleged. All we need determine
in this proceeding is that there is reasonable cause to
believe that the Carpenters engaged in such conduct.
We are satisfied that the record warrants such a
conclusion. For, as already explained, it contains the
testimony by Gerson that Poplowski threatened
picketing because Carpenter members were not
performing the work in dispute. While Poplowski's
version of his conversation with Gerson differs
materially, we need not resolve any conflicts in
testimony in this proceeding.' Accordingly, we find
that the dispute is properly before the Board for
determination 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 all relevant factors
involved. The following factors are relevant in
making a determination of the dispute before us:
1. Collective-bargaining agreement
The Employer is a member of the United Contrac-
tors' Association and ATC is the bargaining repre-
sentative under a contract with the Association
which runs from January 1, 1973, to December 31,
1974. The employees engaged in the disputed work
for the Employer were hired pursuant to the referral
provisions of the contract. The Carpenters has not
had a contract with the Employer.
Conclusions
Upon the record as a whole , and after full
consideration of all relevant facts involved, we
conclude that the employees of the Employer who
are represented by ATC are entitled to the work in
question . The collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Employer and ATC, the Employer's
preference and assignment of the work to ATC, and
the Employer's past practice of having such members
of ATC do similar work support this conclusion on
the instant record.
In making this determination , we are assigning the
disputed work to the employees of the Employer who
are currently represented by ATC, but not to that
Union or its members.
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
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of AMG Sign Co., who are current-
ly represented by Associated Trades and Crafts
International Union, Local 1, are entitled to do the
work of installating wall covering fabric at Greentree
Cedar Construction site of Cinemette Corporation in
Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Floor Coverers and Decorators Local
Union No. 1759, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force
or require AMG Sign Co . to assign such disputed
work to employees represented by that labor organi-
zation.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
1 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Western Electric Company, Incorporated), 141 NLRB
Workers, Local 34$ AFL-CIO (Dick Tile and Marble Company, Inc.), 193 888.
NLRB 769; Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
CARPENTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 1759 649
and Determination of Dispute , United Brotherhood requiring AMG Sign Co ., by means proscribed in
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Floor Cover- Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work to its
ers and Decorators Local Union No. 1759, AFL-CIO; members rather than to employees represented by
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in Associated Trades and Crafts International Union,
writing , whether or not it will refrain from forcing or Local 1.