International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 1072 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF FURNITURE WORKERS UNION LOCAL No. 500
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF CANOGA CREATIONS INCORPORATED
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Canoga Crea-
tions Incorporated , or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employ-
ment to use, process, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities or to perform any services, with an object of forcing
or requiring Canoga Creations Incorporated , or any other employer engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , to cease doing business with
Upholstery Supply Company.
FURNITURE WORKERS UNION LOCAL No. 500,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 312 North
Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5850.
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO [PMI Corporation ] and United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and Robert L.
Richart, Charles J. Maus, Jr., Leroy J. Smith . Case No. 38-
CD-2. November 19, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by Robert L.
Richart, Charles J. Maus, Jr., and Leroy J. Smith, alleging that Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Respondent, had induced and encouraged
employees to strike for the purpose of forcing or requiring Pi1II
Corporation, herein called PMI or the Employer, and Continental. Can
Company, Inc., herein called Continental,I to assign particular work
to members of the Respondent rather than to members of United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Carpenters. A hearing Was held before Hearing
Officer Louis J. D'Amico, on July 20 and 21, 1965. All parties who
'Continental , against whom , together with PHI who performed the work in dispute,
the picketing which gave rise to the charges herein was directed, was served with the
formal papers in the case . However, It took no position at the hearing and refused to
fully participate as a party therein.
155 NLRB No. 107.
INT'L ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, ETC. 1073
appeared at the hearing ::'ere afforded full opportunity to. be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and t0 adduce evidence. bear-
ing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing- are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The
Respondent, the Carpenters, and Continental filed briefs which have
been doss considered.2
Pursuant to the provision:s of Section 3 (b) of the Act, t-hie Nation. al
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this
case to a three-member panel [Me.mbers Panning, Brown. and
Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board snakes the following
findings:
1. The business of the companies
Continental is a New York corporation engaged in the manufacture
of tin cans and related products throughout the Uiced States. Dur-
ing the. past year, Continental sold and shipped from its Peoria,
Illinois, plant, products valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly to cus -
tomers located outside the State of Illinois.
P;I Corporation is a California corporation engaged in the fabri-
cation and installation of machinery and production-line equipment
for various concerns located throughout the United States . During
the past year, P_II received in excess of $50,000 from various con-
cerns for work performed outside the State of California.
We find that , at all times material herein , Continental and PMI
were engaged in commerce -within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(+) of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved
Respondent and the Carpenters are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
'At the hearing, Respondent moved for a continuance on the ground that its Inter-
national counsel was unable to appear at the hearing and thus it would not be adequately
represented. This motion was denied. Respondent's representative thereafter remained
throughout the proceeding but :counsel announced he would not take an active part in the
hearing. Because International counsel did not participate in the proceeding, Respondent
moves for dismissal or for a reopening of the hearing.
The record indicates that the hearing was originally scheduled for June 25, 1965.
Respondent requested and was granted three successive continuances-to July 13, 15,
and 20. There was, of course, adequate notice of hearing held and an attorney represent-
ing Respondent was present, as was an IAMI representative. At no time, even in its brief
filed by International counsel, has Respondent disputed the critical facts herein. Indeed.
Respondent does not indicate what pertinent evidence, if any, it would have. offered or
would offer at a reopened hearing. The contention made by Respondent's representative
at the hearing, and repeated in its brief, is the plainly untenable one in the circumstances
of this case that the conduct which gave rise to the charge has not been repeated so that
the matter is moot. Upon the entire-record,-we find without merit Respondent's conten-
tion that the case should be dismissed or the record reopened. See Pennington Bros., Inc.,
124 NLRB 935, footnote 2. -
1074 DECISIONS OF NATION AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The dispute
A. The wort In issue
The work in dispute is the installation of machinery and eou_p_llent
for a new production line at the Peoria, Illinois. giant of Continental.
B. The basic facts
PMI was awarded a contract to install a new beer can production
line, sometime in the spring of 1,96 5 , at the. Peoria, Illinois, plant of
Continental. This plant is approximately 3 Years old and, when first
constructed, PIII installed the two beer can production lines presently
in use. -No production employees were. employed at that time and the
installation was effected by millwrights employed by PMI who were
represented by the Carpenters. Production and maintenance employ-
ees of Continental are currently represented by Respondent. On or
about April 22, Respondent advised Continental and PIII that
employees represented by it. should be awarded the work in dispute.
Newell, a representative of PMI, asked Respondent's representative,
Vogel, where the machinists would come from since work of this type
would have to be clone by erection machinists and not by production
and maintenance employees represented by the Respondent at Con-
tinental. Vogel replied that erection machinists could be obtained
from the Chicago area and that PMI would have to pay them
subsistence. -
On or about April 15, representatives of the Respondent met with
a P_-NII representative and again claimed the work in dispute. Vogel
stated at this meeting that Respondent- would strike if the work were
awarded to the Carpenters. On April 22, representatives of the.
Respondent, the Carpenters, P_III, and Continental met: in an effort
to resolve the dispute. Representatives of both- T nions were asked
whether they would submit their dispute to the presidents of their
respective Internationals in accordance. with the terms of their juris-
dictional agreement 3 The Carpenters apparently agreed to do so but
Respondent rejected the proposal. Work commenced on April 26 and
proceeded without incident until May 3 when pickets appeared at the
east and north gates. The picket sign at the east gate, which was
reserved for construction employees, was to the effect that. PiNTI -was
unfair, guilty of a breach of agreement with Respondent. The picket
sign at the north gate was to the effect that Continental was unfair,
aiding and abetting PMI in a breach of agreement with Respondents.
Picketing commenced about 6:30 a.m. and ceased about 4 hours 'Later.
There has been no resumption of the picketing.
3 P_MII is not a party to this agreement.
INT'L ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, ETC. 1075
C. Contentions
The positions taken by Respondent and Continental in this case
have alrea&7 been noted.
P -MI asserts, without contradiction, that millwrights represented by
the Carpenters are used on all of its installation work; that Carpenters
were used on the initial installation of the plant in question; that
P I is presently using Carpenters for similar work at certain Con-
tinental plants on the east and west coasts; that if the disputed work
were awarded to Respondent, it would no t, be performed b y machinists
employed by Continental but by erection machinists from the Chicago
area and that the employment of machinists from Chicago would
materially increase the cost of performing the contract because the
Company would have to pay subsistence and other charges.
Carpenters adopted the contentions of PMi and introduced evi-
dence. showing that carpenters and millwrights have performed the
same. kind of work in installing conveyor and production lines in the
Peoria area.
D. Applicability of the statute
Charges herein allege a violation of Section 8'b) (4) (D) of the. Act.
The record shows, and Respondent. does not deny, that, on or about
Aiay 3. 19.0.5. after demanding the work in dispute for its members,
Respondent picketed the plant for about 4 hours with signs stating
that PMI was unfair purportedly because of a breach of agreement
with Respondent and that Continental was unfair in aiding and
abetting PMI in this purported breach of agreement. We, find that
there is reasonable cause to believe- that a violation of Section
8(b) ; A) (D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Jlerits 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 asserted in support. of the
respective claims of the parties herein:
1. Collective-bray dining agreem.enn is : Respondent has a collective-
bargaining agreement with Continental covering the production and
maintenance employees of the Peoria plant, who are not. directly
involved in this proceeding. It was not contemplated that any of
them should perform any part of the work in dispute. The contract
between Respondent and Continental specifically excludes from its
coverage. "persons temporarily working in plants covered by this
agreement where work is duly connected with new construction , expan-
sion or in connection with other work requiring specialized employees."
212-809-66-col. 1 5 5-69
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carpenters has a collective-bargaining agreement with PMI cover-
ing the millwrights assigned to the disputed work.
^.. Company, area, and 'industry 1Jract ce: Although both disputants
represent employees who specialize in the installation of machinery,
the record does not disclose the extent to which erection machinists
engage in such work either locally or elsewhere, since Respondent did
not offer any e:>ide _ce. Since Respondent proposed, however, to bring
in erection machinists from Chicago if it were assigned the disputed
work, it appears that machinists do not perform such work in the
Peoria area. It further appears that Pl f does not employ machinists
but performs all its installation work with millwrights represented by
the Carpenters. It presently is. engaged in similar work for Continen-
tal on both the east and vast coasts and it performed the initial instal-
lation at the plant involved in this proceeding.
3. E,zcieney and ejonom.y of operation: It is not contended that.
either carpenters or erection machinists lack the skills or ability to
perform the work in dispute. Assignment of machinists to the dis-
puted work, however, would necessitate the recruitment of employees
in another part of the State and the payment of subsistence to them.
Millwriglits, on the other hand, are available locally and have had
experience in operations identical to those being performed for Con-
tinental. The Employer's assignment of the disputed work to mill-
wrights is therefore consistent with efficiency and economy of
operation.
F. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors appearing in the entire.
record, we shall assign the work in dispute to the millwrights. They
are killed in the performance of the, work and have performed it to
the satisfaction of the Employer, who desires to retain them on the. job.
The present assignment of the disputed work to the Carpenters is con-
sistent with their collective-bargaining agreement with PAIL it con-
forms to pass practice, and it results in economy and efficiency of
operation. All this demonstrates the superior claim of the. Carpenters
to the disputed work. l Ve conclude that the Employer's assignment
of _ the wok to the Carpenters should not be disturbed. We shall,
accordingly. determilie the existing jurisdictional dispute by deciding
that the millwrighhts, rather than machinists, are entitled to the work
in dispute. In making this determination, we are assigning the dis-
puted work to the employees of the Employer who are represented by
the Carpenters but not to that Union or its members.4
4 Our present determination is limited to the facts which gave rise to this proceeding.
POTTER AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION 1077
DE T ER iiINATION 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. M- illwrights employed by P.-:ill Corporation who are represented
by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
f''' P t Z r. l stal iz,_ machinery andCIO. are ent.it_ed to perform the ^:o^'^ of ; i.g r,^- ana
equipment for a beer can production line in the Peoria, Illinois, plant
of Co ti ental Can Company, Inc.
2. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by. Section 8 (b) (4) (D)
of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the work
described above to machinists.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Ofcer-in-Charge of Subregion
38, in writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring the.
Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign.
the work in dispute to machinists rather millwrights.
Potter Aeronautical Corporation and District No. 47, interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-
CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 22-RC-.887. November 22, 196.
DECISION ON REVIEW
On June 18, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 22 issued a Deci-
sion and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in a
unit co :fined to machine shop employees at. the Employer's Anion.
Nev. Jerse; , plant. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8,
as amended, the Er_Zplover filed a. timely request. for review of the
Decision, alleging that the unit found appropriate by the. Regional
Director was too narrow in scope. The Board, by telegraphic order
T
dated Duly 15, 1965, granted the request for review and stayed the
election pending its decision on review. Thereafter. the Employer
filed a. brief in support of its position.
Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing.
155 NLRB No. 86.