Electrical Workers, Local Union #122

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 538 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union #122, and its Agents Russell Williams and W.
A. Christman and The Anaconda ; Company and
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship-
builders, Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers , Local Un-
ion #602 . Case 19-CD-155
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Electri-
cians and the Boilermakers are labor organizations within
the meaning of the Act.
May 19, 1970
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
the filing of charges by The Anaconda Company (herein-
after called the Employer), alleging that International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union #122,
and its Agents Russell Williams and W. A. Christman
(hereinafter called Electricians), violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The charge alleges, in substance,
that the Electricians threatened and coerced the Employ-
er with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer
to assign certain work to its members rather than to
members of International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
Local Union #602 (hereinafter called Boilermakers).
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Robert F. Stange on February 4, 1970. All
parties were represented 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 the Electricians and the Boilermak-
ers filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case 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. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that The Anaconda Company
is a Montana corporation with its principal place of
business in Anaconda, Montana, with a refinery in Great
Falls, Montana. It is engaged in the mining and produc-
tion of metals, and produces, fabricates, ships, and
sells in. interstate, commerce products and materials val-
ued in excess of $1 million annually. The parties further
stipulated, and we find, that The Anaconda Company
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Anaconda Company operates cranes or hoists
used for stripping zinc in its refinery in Great Falls,
Montana. The hoists were converted from hand-operated
to electric-powered in approximately 1951 or 1952. At
that time, it was necessary to install cable trays to
support electric cables that feed the electric power to
the hoists in the zinc room of the refinery. When these
cable trays were originally installed in approximately
1951 or 1952, they were fabricated and installed by
employees represented by the Boilermakers. From 1952
until 1959, maintenance work on the cable trays was
performed by the Boilermakers.
In 1959, it became necessary to make some repairs
on the cable trays. At that time, a decision was made
by the Employer regarding the assignment of future
work on the trays. The fabricating of the baskets and
the installations of a major nature would be done by
the Boilermakers. However, the replacing of a section
of the tray would be considered normal maintenance,
and the Electricians would be allowed to do this. The
decision was communicated to both the Electricians
and the Boilermakers. As a result, in 1959, the units
were installed by the Boilermakers, and the Electricians
put in and connected the electrical cable. From 1959
to 1969, normal maintenance was performed by the
Electricians.
In the summer of 1969, the Employer decided to
replace the cable trays, which had become worn and
corroded. Employees represented by the Boilermakers
were assigned and performed the work of cutting and
removing with a torch the framework and the cable
trays. On or about July 14, 1969, the Employer assigned
a composite crew of Boilermakers and Electricians to
perform the work of installing the new cable trays.
The Boilermakers were putting in the support beams,
called I-beams, raising the trays, and welding them
into place, and the Electricians were putting in the
electrical cable. The installation of the trays required
extensive welding and burning work.
The Electricians objected to any of the basket or
cable tray work being performed by the Boilermakers.
Following the Electricians' objections, the Employer
changed the work assignment so that the Boilermakers
continued to put in the heavy supporting structures,
but the Electricians started to lift the trays into position,
as well as install the cables. The Boilermakers then
protested, and the Employer reverted to its original
work assignment.
Following the reassignment , the installation of cable
trays covering one quarter of the building was completed
within 2 or 3 weeks. Thereafter, the Electricians threat-
182 NLRB No. 84,
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION #122
ened to remove its members from the plant if any
future installation of cable trays was assigned to any
craft other than the Electricians. The installation of
the trays for the remaining three quarters of the building
came to a halt and now awaits the determination of
this dispute
B. The Work in Dispute
The work which gave rise to this proceeding is the
installation of certain cable trays in the zinc tank room,
at the Employer's Great Falls, Montana refinery. The
cable trays are made up of two, 3-inch channels, approxi-
mately 2 feet apart, inside of which are located 4 x
4 mesh 316th inch wire. The trays are set up between
trolleys which support the hoists used in stripping zinc,
and they are attached by angle to the support beams.
The cable trays are used solely to support electric cable
carrying power to electrical motors that operate the
hoists in the zinc tank room. The work of 'installing
the cable trays requires extensive welding and burning.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
It is the position of the Employer that it had properly
assigned the work to the Boilermakers on the basis
of past assignments and its obligation under the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
The Electricians contend that the only purpose and
function of the cable trays is to carry electrical cables,
and therefore the work is within its jurisdiction. Further-
more, as the Electricians have been responsible for
the maintenance and repair work on these trays, the
Electricians contend that the collective-bargaining agree-
ment requires that the two youngest electrical workers
be assigned to perform this type of work. On the other
hand, the Electricians do not claim the work of installing
the heavy support beams.
The Boilermakers contend that the installation of the
cable trays belongs exclusively within its jurisdiction,
basing this contention on the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement and the historical assignment of
the work by the Employer. In addition, the Boilermakers
contend that they alone are qualified to perform the
work, which requires extensive welding and burning.
The Boilermakers do not claim any electrical work.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of the 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.
The record establishes that on September 22, 1969,
the business manager for the Electricians sent a letter
to the Employer, such letter containing a threat of
a strike, with an object of forcing or requiring the
reassignment of the installation of the cable trays to
employees represented by the Electricians rather than
to employees represented by the Boilermakers; none
of these Unions have been certified by the Board. An
539
actual strike is unnecessary to establish a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D); threats of a strike are enough if,
as here, they are made for a purpose of unlawfully
forcing the reassignment of work.'
A&cordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause
to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
occurred, and that the dispute is properly before us
for determination pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the' disputed work after
giving due consideration to various relevant factors.
As the Board has stated, its determination in a jurisdic-
tional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon
common sense and experience in the weighing of these
factors.' The following factors are relevant in making
determination of the dispute before us.
1. The collective-bargaining agreements
The Employer is bound by a multiunion agreement
between it and the many craft unions representing its
employees. Both the Boilermakers and the Electricians
are parties to this agreement. The agreement contains
no specific jurisdictional provisions which are significant
in determining this dispute. However, article 7, section
1, of the agreement provides as follows:
Section 1. Local rules and regulations covering
working practices and conditions of labor or
employees which have been established by custom
or local agreement and were in effect January 1,
1944, shall not be changed during the life of this
agreement without mutual consent. Such future
changes in local rules and regulations shall be
reduced to writing. . . .
The Boilermakers introduced evidence that prior to
January 1, 1944, the Boilermakers performed the welding
and cutting operations for the Employer, and that they
had not released this jurisdiction to any large extent.
In addition, it appears that an agreement between the
Employer and the Boilermakers dated October 2, 1962,
was introduced. This agreement provided only for the
very limited use of the oxy-acetylene torch by the other
crafts. The Electricians were to use the heating tip
only for such work as bus bar soldering and electric
motor repair work confined to stripping motors.
The Electricians, on the other hand, contend that
a paragraph in a bilateral agreement, which provides
that "the two youngest journeymen will work in the
Zinc Tank Room except in cases where the younger
men have special training or abilities, such as linemen,
which are required in other areas," is evidence favoring
assignment to the Electricians.
Upon consideration of the various provisions, we
find that the foregoing agreements favor an award to
IUOE, No 428, etc (Ets-Hokin Corporation), 153 NLRB 572
' Ipternational Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-
CIO (J A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Boilermakers The 1962 agreement between the
Employer and the Boilermakers, implying jurisdiction
to Boilermakers over torch work, appears to cover the
work in dispute, and the provision noted above, on
which the Electricians rely does not specify this work,
but merely states that the two youngest journeymen
will work in the Zinc Tank Room," presumably to
perform such electrician's work as may exist at that
location
2 Company and area practice
It is clear that when major installations of cable
trays were undertaken in 1951 or 1952, and the repair
of same was performed in 1959, the installation work
was performed solely by Boilermakers The Electricians
have performed only maintenance work on the trays
since 1959
The installation work of a capital nature, however,
has always been awarded by the Employer to the Boiler
makers No evidence was introduced regarding area
practice Employer practice, therefore, favors an award
to the Boilermakers
3 Relative skills
As noted earlier, the installation of the cable trays
requires extensive torch burning and welding The Boiler-
makers are especially skilled in this work, and perform
all the welding and burning for the Employer at its
Great Falls plant, with minor exceptions Electricians
do some welding but it is limited to work on electric
motors While testimony was adduced to the effect
that Electricians are learning welding in the apprentice-
ship program, the Boilermakers appear to be more qual-
ified for the welding work involved The degree of
skills is a significant factor favoring an award to the
Boilermakers
4 Employer' s preference
The Employer favors an award to the Boilermakers
The Employer's preference is another factor which sup-
ports an assignment to the Boilermakers
Conclusions
Based upon the entire record , and after full consider-
ation of all relevant factors, we conclude that the employ-
ees represented by International Brotherhood of Boiler
makers, Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and
Helpers, Local Union #602 are entitled to the work
in dispute Our present determination , to award the
work to the employees who are represented by the
Boilermakers , but not to that Union or its members,
is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise
to this proceeding
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the forego-
ing findings and the entire record in this proceeding,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the
following Determination of Dispute
I Employees of The Anaconda Company, who are
represented by International Brotherhood of Boilermak-
ers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Help-
ers, Local Union #602 are entitled to perform the work
of installing basket or cable trays, which support electri
cal cable, at the Employer's Great Falls refinery, when
such installation is in the nature of capital work as
opposed to routine maintenance work necessary for
the continued operation of the system
2 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union #122, is not entitled, by means proscribed
by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to force or require The Anaconda
Company to assign the above-described work to electri
clans represented by it
3 Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local Union #122, shall notify
the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, whether
or not it will refrain from forcing The Anaconda Compa-
ny, by means proscribed in Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign
the work in dispute to employees represented by it
rather than to employees represented by International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Black
smiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Union #602