Int'l Brotherh'd of Electrical Workers, Local 781

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 581 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

INT'L BROTHERH'D OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 781 581
organizations , to join or assist the above -named or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
TUCSON RAMADA CATERERS, INC.,
Employer.
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 employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1015
Tijeras Street, NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico , Telephone No. 247-2520, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 781, AFL-CIO i and Georgia Pacific Corporation , Tissue
Products Division? Case No. 3-CD-134. August 18, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of charges by Georgia
Pacific alleging that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (b) (4)
(D) of the Act by engaging in conduct to force Georgia Pacific to
assign certain work to members of the IBEW rather than to its em-
ployees who are represented by International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, and its MacDonough Local No.
387, AFL-CIO.' A hearing was held before Hearing Officer,
Thomas J. Sheridan, on April 15, 22, and 23, 1965. All parties
appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. Briefs were filed by Georgia Pacific, IBEW, and Paper
Mill Workers and have been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Brown and Jenkins].
IHerein called IBEW or Respondent . The name of this Union was amended at the
hearing.
2 Herein called Georgia Pacific or Employer.
8 Herein called Paper Mill Workers. The name of this Union was amended at the
hearing.
154 NLRB No. 43.
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Georgia Pacific is a Georgia corporation with plants located in
various States of the United States. It is engaged in the manufac-
ture of household tissue paper at its plant located in Plattsburgh,
New York. During the past 12 months it shipped goods and mate-
rials valued in excess of $500,000 from points located within the
State of New York to points outside the State of New York. We
find that Georgia Pacific is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 781, AFL-CIO, and
International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill
Workers, and its MacDonough Local No. 387, AFL-CIO, are labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The basic facts
This dispute arises out of the renovation, conversion, and certain
additional construction of a pulpmill and pulpwood handling facil-
ity at the Plattsburgh, New York, plant of Georgia Pacific." On or
about September 29, 1964, Northeast Constructors, Inc., was awarded
the contract by Georgia Pacific for all of the work, except electrical
work necessary in the modification of existing facilities. It is this
work which is in dispute .5 The disputed work involves the installa-
tion and relocation of electrical equipment, switch gear, and lines to
support the operation of the pulpmill and digester room. It includes
the installation of fans, motors, control panels, switches, light fix-
tures, a prebuilt 750 KVA substation, and conduits necessary to con-
nect the various equipment. Georgia Pacific awarded this disputed
work to its electrical department employees under the supervision of
4 Specifically , the work involved the establishment of log handling and log chipping
operation , woodchip storage areas, refining area , liquor preparing area, sulphur storage
area, and the construction of a digester building. The purpose of the construction and
modification is to replace an operation using wastepaper with one using woodpulp in the
manufacture of tissue paper products.
S The Hearing Officer properly denied Georgia Pacific's motion to amend the descrip-
tion of the disputed work to "installation and relocation of electrical equipment, switch
gear, and lines and all work done by electrical employees employed by Georgia Pacific
Corporation at the Tissue Products Division, Paper Mill , Georgia Pacific plant in Platts-
burgh , New York...:'
INT'L BROTHERH'D OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 781 583
its Project Engineer Cluff. The electrical department employees are
a part of the Employer's production and maintenance unit.
Paper Mill Workers has represented these production and main-
tenance employees under a collective-bargaining agreement with
Georgia Pacific since 1963 when the latter purchased the plant in-
volved from Vanity Fair, and before that time under contracts with
the former owners. Paper Mill Workers has never been certified by
the Board as representative of the employees in this unit.
Northeast Constructors commenced work on the project in Novem-
ber 1964. In January 1965, IBEW Business Agent Wray called on
Georgia Pacific Engineer Cluff and advised him that IBEW was
interested in the electrical construction work at the pulpmill. Cluff
told Wray that there was as yet no final decision as to the scope of
the electrical work to be performed on the job, that Georgia Pacific
planned to use its own employees for most of the work, but that the
delivery schedule of the electrical equipment might make it necessary
for Georgia Pacific to subcontract part of the electrical work. Wray
told Cluff, in effect, that this was their work and they (IBEW)
intended to do it. Cluff promised to notify Wray during the follow-
ing week of Georgia Pacific's decision on the electrical work. The
following week Wray called Cluff. Cluff told him that the decision
on the electrical work had not been finalized as the equipment
delivery dates were not yet firm, but that Georgia Pacific would use
its own employees as long as they were capable before subcontracting
any of the electrical work.
General Superintendent Richard Tessmer, for Northeast testified
that on Friday, February 19, he was told by his job engineer,
Robinson, that there would be a picket on the job the following
Monday morning. Tessmer immediately telephoned this information
to Cluff. On Monday Tessmer contacted Wray and asked if North-
east could get a contract with IBEW. Wray told him that the
chances were nil for this. Shortly thereafter Cluff asked Tessmer
if Northeast had the capabilities for doing the electrical work on
the job if Georgia Pacific had to contract it out. Tessmer stated that
Northeast could not because it could not get a contract with IBEW.
After this conversation Tessmer again asked Wray and was told
that Northeast could not get a contract with IBEW.
On Tuesday, February 23, there were two pickets on the jobsite
from about 7:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. with signs that read :
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
PREVAILING WAGE RATES FOR ELECTRICAL
CONSTRUCTION WORK ARE NOT BEING PAID
ON THIS JOB
LOCAL UNION 781 I.B.E.W.
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the day picketing began, and each day thereafter until the
picketing ended, all crafts employed by Northeast except the iron-
workers refused to cross the picket line. The ironworkers, the only
craft which worked that day, continued working each day until the
afternoon of February 25, when they also walked off the job.
Georgia Pacific's employees, however, continued working during the
picketing.
On February 23, Georgia Pacific's Personnel Manager Barr called
Wray to protest the picketing. He told Wray that Georgia Pacific
had a bargaining agreement with the Paper Mill Workers represent-
ing Georgia Pacific's employees and that the Georgia Pacific elec-
tricians were capable of doing the electrical work. Wray replied
that he was sorry about the work stoppage, but referring Barr
to the wording of the picket sign, asserted that the picketing was
informational.
On February 24, Cluff, Barr, Wray, Tessmer, Paper Mill Workers
Representative Scarselletta, IBEW Local President Long, and Car-
penters Union Business Agent Turbide met at the office of Georgia
Pacific's Plant Manager Wardwell. Barr explained Georgia
Pacific's position, its contract with Paper Mill workers, and the
adequacy of its electrical department to perform the disputed work.
Wray stated IBEW's claim to this work. The following week Wray
telephoned Cluff and explained the benefits of hiring IBEW em-
ployees for such work. Cluff countered with the justification for
utilizing their own employees. Wray said he regretted the difficulty
caused by the informational picket and Cluff replied that Georgia
Pacific was taking this to the National Labor Relations Board.
B. Contentions of the parties
Georgia Pacific contends that the work herein, which is essentially
electrical work performed in connection with the modification and
renovation of existing facilities, should be performed by its electrical
department employees who are represented by Paper Mill Workers.
The Employer asserts that it has always assigned such work to its
employees in the past; that such assignment is more efficient and
economical; that these employees possess the skills required to per-
form the work; and, that by performing this work these employees
will gain knowledge and experience helpful to them in subsequent
maintenance of this electrical equipment. The Employer further
contends that its employees are familiar with the specific tasks in-
volved because they have performed similar work in the past; that
hiring IBEW employees would require preparation of detailed
INT'L BROTHERH 'D OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS ,- LOCAL - 781 585,
drawings and specifications and additional supervisors , and that it.
would be. necessary to lay off some of its present electrical department
employees. -
IBEW contends. that the disputed work should be performed by,
IBEW members. It points to.the area practice that electrical,con-
struction work is performed by IBEW members and asserts that most
of the work covered by the contract between the Employer and North-
east is new construction work. IBEW declined to take a position
concerning whether the IBEW picketing violated 8 (b) (4) (D).
Paper Mill Workers does not actively claim the work in dispute
and takes no position on the alleged 8(b) (4) (D) violation. It
asserts, however, that it has accepted the Employer's work assign-
ment in this instance . It further asserts that its members have
always performed such work in the past and that they possess the
skills necessary to do the work. -
C. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination of 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) of the Act
has been violated.
The evidence shows that in January 1965, after Northeast had
commenced work at the Georgia Pacific plant, Wray asserted
IBEW's claim to the work in dispute and told Clufi that IBEW
intended to do this work. The Employer refused to assign the work
to IBEW members. Thereafter, on February 23, IBEW posted
pickets at the plant. As set forth above, this picketing caused an
immediate work stoppage by all crafts employed by the general con-
tractor Northeast except the ironworkers who worked only for 3 days
after picketing started. We therefore find that there is reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) has occurred.
Accordingly, we also find that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
D. 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 asserted in support of
the claims of the parties herein :
'1. Certification; collective-bargaining contracts
Neither Paper Mill Workers nor IBEW has been certified by the
Board with respect to the employees involved in the instant proceed-
ing, although Paper Mill Workers received from the Board on or
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about December 16, 1957, authorization to enter into a union-security
contract for these employees. Paper Mill Workers has represented
employees in the production and maintenance unit at this plant,
employed by the Employer, or the plant's former owners, since about
1947. The current agreement, effective for the period October 1,
1964, to October 1, 1967, covers the electrical department employees
who have been assigned the disputed work. The Employer's assign-
ment of the disputed work is not inconsistent with this collective-
bargaining contract.
2. Company and area practice
The record shows that the Employer has never used outside elec-
tricians. Instead it has always used its own electrical department
employees to perform the electrical work on such jobs even when
utilizing outside contractors for other installation and construction.
It appears that other employers in the area customarily hire IBEW
members to perform electrical work on construction projects.
We find that the Employer's uniform longstanding practice of
assigning all electrical work to its own employees outweighs the area
practice insofar as this case is concerned and favors the Employer's
assignment of the disputed work.
3. The "Miami Agreement"
IBEW relies on the so-called Miami Agreement of 1965 under
which in-plant unions are to perform maintenance work while build-
ing trade unions are to perform construction work. However, Paper
Mill Workers is not a party to this agreement which involves only
the building trade unions. Accordingly, we are unable to give any
weight to this factor in determining the assignment of the work in
dispute herein.
4. Employer's assignment and efficiency of operation
Although it appears that the greater cost involved in engaging an
outside contractor to do the electrical work was not a determining
factor in the assignment, the Employer produced testimony that to
do so would require a layoff of electricians at the plant. The Em-
ployer claims that because its employees are already familiar with
the plant and its present electrical equipment and wiring, it is only
necessary to prepare sketches and to give verbal instructions and
these employees can perform the work, whereas outside electricians
would require detailed plans and instructions and a larger super-
visory force would be necessary. Moreover, additional efficiencies
accrue from the assignment made. Thus, the employees performing
the electrical work acquire a familiarity with the equipment and any
INT'L BROTHERH 'D OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 781 587
peculiarity in the layout during installation. Therefore they are
better able to maintain the equipment. This results in a more effi-
cient operation of the plant. The Employer's assignment of the
disputed work to its electrical department employees is therefore con-
sistent with efficiency of operation.
Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors and the entire record,
we shall assign the work in dispute to the employer's electrical
department employees represented by the Paper Mill Workers. They
are admittedly sufficiently skilled in the performance of the work
and they have performed it to the satisfaction of the Employer, who
desires that they continue on the job. This assignment conforms
to the Employer's consistent past practice, and results in more effi-
cient operation and maintenance of the electrical equipment after
its installation. We therefore conclude that the Employer's assign-
ment of the work to its electrical department employees should not
be disturbed. We shall, accordingly, determine the jurisdictional
dispute by deciding that the Employer's electrical department em-
ployees, rather than IBEW members, are entitled to the work in
dispute. In making this determination, we are assigning the dis-
puted work to the Employer's electrical department employees who
are represented by Paper Mill Workers but not to that Union or its
members. Our present determination is limited to the particular
controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
Determination of Dispute
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of
dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Employees of the electrical department of Georgia Pacific
Corporation, Tissue Paper Division, in its plant at Plattsburgh, New
York, currently represented by International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, and its MacDonough Local No.
387, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform all electrical work in con-
nection with the renovation, conversion, and construction being per-
formed at the plant site under the current contract between Georgia
Pacific and Northeast Constructors, Inc.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 781, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been entitled, by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the
Employer to assign the above work to its members.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
588 IDEChSIONS :OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS,, BOARD
Local Union. No. 781, AFL-CIO, shall; ,notify the Regional, Director
for Region 3, in writing, whether it will. or will, not refrain from
forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute ,to members. of
IBEW rather than to its electrical department employees.
Vacuum Platers, Inc. and Local Union No. 199, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Case No. 30-CA-91. August 19,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 21, 1965, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, findings that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner,2 and orders
that the Respondent, Vacuum Platers, Inc., Mauston, Wisconsin, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following
addition :
IAs the Respondent engaged in other 8(a) (1) conduct, we find it unnecessary to, and
we do not, rely upon the Trial Examiner's findings that the statements made by Super-
visors vanetta and Stoughtenger to various employees during the organizational drive
constituted violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
2 The telephone number for Region 30 , given at the bottom of the notice attached to the
Trial Examiner 's Decision , is amended to read: 272-3866.
154 NLRB No. 48.