Local 1, Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 119 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

LOCAL 1, BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS, ETC. 119
affecting commerce , to cease doing business with Mercury, the Respondents have
violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii ) (A) and (B) of the Act.22
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
'-'I shall specifically name these "persons" in my Recommended Order. The complaint
named certain additional persons but these were not identified at the hearing and, there-
fore, are not specifically listed in the Recommended Order.
Local 1 , Bricklayers , Masons and Plasterers International Union
of America, AFL-CIO ; Cement Masons Local 43, United Ce-
ment, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO; Local 28, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO; Local 37, International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO; Local 16, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO;
Local 48, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO; Local 122, International Asso-
ciation of Sheet Metal Workers , AFL-CIO; Local 29, Inter-
national Association of Marble, Slate and Stone Polishers,
Rubbers and Sawyers , Tile and Marble Setters Helpers and
Marble Mosaic and Terrazzo Workers Helpers, AFL-CIO;
Steamfitters Local 438, United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; Baltimore Building and
Construction Trades Council , AFL-CIO and Consolidated En-
gineering Co., Inc. Cases Nos. 5-CD-53 through 5-CD-63. March
4, 1963
DECISION, DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE, AND
ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act following
charges filed by Consolidated Engineering Co., Inc., herein called
Consolidated, alleging that Baltimore Building and Construction
Trades Council, AFL-CIO, herein called the Council, and a number of
local unions affiliated with it, had induced or encouraged employees to
strike for the purpose of forcing Chevrolet Division of General
Motors Corporation, herein called Chevrolet or the Company, to
assign particular work to members of these local unions, rather than
to General Motors' direct employees, who are represented by Local
No. 678, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, herein called the UAW or
Local 678. A duly scheduled hearing was held before Joseph I. Nach-
141 NLRB No. 8.
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man, hearing officer, on various dates from June 15 through July 20,
1961. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the UAW, the Council and Local 48, United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing,and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called
Plumbers Local 48, filed briefs which have been duly considered by
the Board.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The parties stipulated and we find that General Motors and
Consolidated are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The parties also stipulated and we find that the Council and
each of the nine local unions affiliated with it and named as Respond-
ents in the charge are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act?
3. The dispute.
A. The work in dispute
The work dispute which gave rise to this proceeding occurred at
Baltimore, Maryland, where the Company, in order to expand its
facilities, is having a large building constructed as an addition to
its automobile assembly plant. A general contract was awarded to
Consolidated to erect this structure in three phases, at a cost of ap-
proximately $16 million. Consolidated subcontracted various seg-
ments of the overall job to a number of specialized construction con-
tractors, each of whom traditionally uses journeymen craftsmen who
are represented by certain locals of AFL-CIO International unions.
Certain plumbing and pipefitting work was subcontracted to Lloyd E.
Mitchell, Inc., whose employees are represented by Plumbers Local
48, and Steamfitters Local 438, herein called Local 438, both affiliated
with the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
1 The UAW's request for oral argument is denied, as in our opinion , the record and the
briefs adequately present the positions of the parties.
2 Local 1 , Bricklayers , Masons and Plasterers International Union of America, AFL-
CIO ; Cement Masons Local 43, United Cement , Lime and Gypsum Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO ; Local 28, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO ;
Local 37, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO ; Local 16 , International
Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO ; Local 48,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL -CIO ; Local 122, International Associa-
tion of Sheet Metal Workers , AFL-CIO ; Local 29, International Association of Marble,
Slate and Stone Polishers , Rubbers and Sawyers , Tile and Marble Setters Helpers and
Marble Mosaic and Terrazzo Workers Helpers , AFL-CIO; Steamfitters Local 438 , United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry
of the United Stales and Canada , AFL-CIO.
LOCAL 1, BRICKLAYERS , MASONS AND PLASTERERS , ETC. 121
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO, and both named Respondents as members of the Council.
The electrical work under Consolidated 's contract was awarded to
Blumenthal-Kahn Electric Company, whose employees are represented
by Local 28, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO , herein called IBEW Local 28, and also a Respondent in
this proceeding.
Consolidated 's contract with the Company provides for the installa-
tion of main product lines which carry paint, oil, antifreeze, and other
materials from source tanks to certain locations within the new plant;
it further provides for the placing of T-valves at certain points in these
product lines. These valves are the termination points of the general
plumbing, steamfitting, or pipefitting work to be performed under
Consolidated's contract. As to electrical work, the contract provides
for the installation of principal or central electrical wires, which ter-
minate at certain stops or outlets.
Once the T-valves were installed, the Company began to use its own
pipefitter maintenance employees, from the maintenance department,
to extend the pipes by installing 1-inch pipe, or "drop lines," from the
T-valves to the assembly room floor. Rubber adaptor hose was then
attached to the drop lines, so as to make them ready for use on auto-
mobiles as they passed through the assembly lines. In the same
fashion, after the electrical outlets had been placed by subcontractors'
employees, the Company utilized its own electrical maintenance de-
partment employees to run conduits or wiring from the outlets to
the machines or equipment requiring electricity.
At this auto assembly plant collective bargaining for the employees
has long been predicated on the basis of an industrial unit, with UAW
Local 678 representing an overall unit of production and maintenance
employees . Included in the single unit are all the employees in the
maintenance department. As the electricians, pipefitters, and plumb-
ers working for the construction subcontractors completed their as-
signed work , as described above, and the maintenance department em-
ployees started to extend pipes beyond the T-valves and wiring beyond
the electrical outlets, a question arose as to whether the employees of
the construction contractors should carry the piping and electrical
work further , so as to perform also the lesser work being done by
the inside employees. The Company took the position that the latter
group had a right to do that work because it had not been awarded to
Consolidated Engineering in the general contract but instead reserved
by Chevrolet to its regular employees. The work in dispute in this
entire proceeding is, therefore, only the installation of the "drop lines"
from the overhead T-valves down to the assembly line locations, and
the necessary wiring from the larger cutoffs to the machines or equip-
ment requiring electricity. This work is claimed by the Council on
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
behalf of journeymen craftsmen represented by UA Locals 48 and
438, and by IBEW Local 28; no specific claim for work is advanced
on behalf of any other category of craftsmen.
B. Evidence of illegal conduct by the Respondents
The charge names as Respondents the Baltimore Building & Con-
struction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and nine of its constituent local
unions, each a chartered local of an AFIr-CIO International union.
On or about April 10, 1961, while construction of the new facility
was in progress, and after the Company had assigned certain of its
maintenance employees to perform the disputed work, the Council
established a picket line at the premises and the employees of all the
construction subcontractors ceased work. It is conceded that the
picketing was authorized by the Council, that eight of the charged lo-
cal unions participated in the picketing, and that the object of the
picketing was to force the Company or Consolidated, or both of these
Employers, to assign the disputed work to members of the appropriate
craft local union of the Council rather than to employees of the Com-
pany's maintenance department.
Local 29, International Association of Marble, Slate and Stone
Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters Helpers and
Marble Mosaic and Terrazzo Workers Helpers, AFL-CIO, did not
participate in the picketing. By agreement of the parties, the picket-
ing ceased on about April 20 and work was resumed.
C. Contentions of the parties
The Council contends that the work in question must be assigned to
its pipefitters and its electricians because it is part and parcel of
"new" construction , as distinguished from any comparable pipe-
fitting and electrical work that might be performed by employees
engaged in the production process or running maintenance of any
processing or manufacturing plant. It draws a line of demarcation
separating the new building construction industry from all other
work, and argues that craftsmen traditionally engaged in such oc-
cupation are entitled to continue in its performance to the exclusion
of all other workmen. In justification of this broad claim, the Coun-
cil relies upon an asserted past practice of this Company and through-
out the area generally. More particularly , the Council points to the
"Miami Agreement," discussed below, as conclusive evidence that the
UAW, which represents the Company 's production and maintenance
complement to which it chose to assign the work, has agreed to cede
jurisdiction over "new building construction " to craft unions, and
that the work in dispute is "new" construction under the terms of the
Miami agreement.
LOCAL 1, BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS , ETC. 123
U AW Local 678 contends that the Company has long assigned
work of this type to employees in its maintenance department; that
it is only one aspect of the maintenance department's repetitive and
long-standing duties ; that the work is expressly covered by the
collective-bargaining agreement between UAW Local 678 and the
Company ; and that for these reasons the Board should award the
work in keeping with the assignment already made by the Company.
The Company was duly served in advance of the hearing with a
notice of hearing and a copy of the charge, in which it was specifically
named as the Employer involved, as well as with several notices of
adjournment of the hearing, but did not appear. Its choice of assign-
ment in the matter, however, is affirmatively indicated by the fact that
it assigned the work to the maintenance employees in the first instance,
and that, despite the picketing and the consequent strike which delayed
work on the addition to its plant, it does not appear to have altered
is initial assignment or otherwise changed position?
D. Applicability of the statute
The record shows clearly, and the Council and its constituent
locals concede, that these Unions picketed the jobsite, and thereby
succeeded in inducing a work stoppage by their members, for the
purpose of forcing the Company or Consolidated Engineering, or
both, to assign the work in dispute to one group of pipefitters and
electricians instead of to the Company's maintenance department em-
ployees performing the work. We therefore find that there is reason-
able 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).
Local 29, International Association of Marble, Slate and Stone
Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters Helpers and
Marble Mosaic and Terrazzo Workers Helpers, AFL-CIO, is a member
of the Baltimore Council, and, apparently, was for this reason named
a Respondent in the charge. There is no evidence that this Union, or
any person acting on its behalf, either participated in the decision of
the Council to picket the construction project, or took part in any way
in the picketing which occurred. Absent any evidence pointing to any
illegal conduct by Local 29, we find that there is not reasonable cause
to believe that this Union engaged in conduct violative of Section
a We find no merit in the Respondents ' contention that because the Company and the
UAW were not formally designated " parties" to this proceeding the hearing must be set
aside and a new one held Both the Company and the UAW were served with and
acknowledged receipt of the notice of hearing , the UAW appeared and participated fully
in the hearing. On or about July 18, while the hearing was in progress , the Company
was again advised by telegram that it could participate ; it did not appear. The purposes
intended in hearings under Section 10 (k) of the Act are adequately served when all parties
to the dispute aie nerved with notice of hearing and afforded opportunity to participate
and to introduce evidence We hereby deny the Respondents ' motion for a new hearing.
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8(b) (4) (D ). We shall therefore quash the notice of hearing with
respect to Local 29.
E. Merits of the dispute
A clear understanding of the nature of the quarrel over work pre-
sented for resolution in this case requires at the outset some comment
concerning those factors or considerations to which the Board, in keep-
ing with the principles set out in the Supreme Court's CBS decision,
has accorded considerable weight in making affirmative work assign-
ments under Section 10 (k) 4 In terms of the training , skill, or experi-
ence required to perform the disputed work in this instance , neither
of the rival claiming groups has advanced any persuasive evidence
that the other is less qualified to perform it. Concededly the work
demanded by the construction industry pipefitters is pipefitting in
character, such as ordinarily falls within the responsibilities of jour-
neymen pipefiters or plumbers ; similarly , the electrical wiring work
sought on behalf of the electricians normally employed by Consoli-
dated's subcontractor , is clearly included in what electricians do
throughout American industry . The employees to whom the Respond-
ents would have us award the work are, without question , pipefitters
and electricians ; in turn, the maintenance department employees to
whom the Company has assigned the work, are also classified as
pipefitters , with their helpers and leaders, and as electricians, with
their helpers and leaders . The testimony of Henry Holt , super-
intendent of plant engineering , and Lewis Jefferies , Local 678 shop
chairman , shows that the Company 's maintenance department consists
of skilled groups, such as carpenters and millwrights , as well as
electricians . These specifically trained employees are the subject
of special and individual reference within the current TJAW contract
with the Company. They are separately listed in the agreement under
"Skilled Classifications ," with varying wage rates depending upon
their classification as journeymen, helpers, or leaders. Thus the
dispute is not one which sets one classification or craft category of
employees against a different and unrelated type of workman. It
presents instead two groups of electricians who advance conflicting
claims to perform the electrical work in dispute , and two groups of
pipefitters, or plumbers , each of whom claims exclusive right to do
the straight pipefitting work involved.
The extensive assembly plant operation carried on by Chevrolet
at this location is without question comparable in mechanical com-
plexity and diversification of work functions to other such plants in
the automobile industry and to like large manufacturing processes in
other industries generally. That the maintenance department elec-
' N.L R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers ' Union, Local 2 12 (Columbia
Broadcasting System ), 346 U. S. 573; J. A. Jones Construction Company, 135 NLRB 1402.
LOCAL 1, BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS, ETC. 125
tricians and pipefitters are not substantially distinguishable, with re-
spect to their journeymen craft status, from their counterparts on
whose behalf the Respondents claim, is persuasively indicated by the
fact that in other manufacturing assembly plants in this industry
maintenance electricians and maintenance pipefitters are members of
and are represented in collective bargaining by the same International
unions which caused this proceeding to come to the Board 5 And of
course, electricians and pipefitters of this kind are represented by these
International unions throughout industry as evidenced by Board cer-
tifications without number.
The primary grounds urged by the Respondents as a reasonable
basis for this Board to award the disputed work to one group of pipe-
fitters and electricians instead of to another is the difference between
"new" construction and what they refer to as maintenance or opera-
tional work. As to why the Board, should deem this difference suffi-
cient, the Respondents rest primarily upon an assertion that the
UAW, which represents the maintenance employees, has agreed to
such a division of work. We are asked to consider the Miami agree-
ment, together with whatever opinion may have been expressed by a
two-man team operating pursuant to that agreement, as proof of this
underlying factual assertion.
The Miami agreement was made in 1958 between the presidents of
the Building & Construction Trades Department, and the Industrial
Union Department, subordinate groups within the AFL-CIO, in
which the Respondents and the UAW are respective members. Its
purpose was to achieve harmonious and, peaceful reconciliation of a
longstanding disagreement as to which AFL-CIO International
unions or which of their constituent locals should represent workmen
in the building and construction industry, as distinguished from em-
ployees occupied in operation or maintenance of production plants.
This agreement consists of a letter of understanding, in pertinent part
reading as follows :
There are two areas in which the jurisdictional lines between the
building trades craft unions and the industrial unions are clear.
New building construction, on the one hand, should be the work of
the workers represented by the building trades craft unions; pro-
duction and running maintenance work, on the other hand, should
be the work of the workers represented by industrial unions. Be-
tween the two clear areas set forth above there is a doubtful area.
6 There have been numerous cases wherein locals of these same craft international unions
have sought units of either maintenance electricians or maintenance pipefitters, and the
Board has directed elections in such units For example, see General Motors Corporation,
Delco Remy Division, 53 NLRB 110 ; General Motors Corporation, Harrison Radiator
Division, 71 NLRB 757; Cadillac Motor Car Division, Cleveland Tank Plant, General
Motors Corporation, 94 NLRB 217; Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engine Division, 96
NLRB 1075; Ford Motor Company, 100 NLRB 813; Buick Motor Division, General Motors
Corporation Jet Plant, Willow Springs, 105 NLRB 488.
126 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In this doubtful area, decisions should be made on the basis of
established past practices on a plant, area or industry basis.
As to the mechanics for implementing this understanding, the two
groups also provided as follows:
The AFL-CIO will place on its staff three (3) persons sug-
gested by the Industrial Union Department and three (3) persons
suggested by the Building and Construction Trades Department.
These six (6) persons will be divided, into three teams of two
men-one from the Building and Construction Trades Depart-
ment and one from the Industrial Union Department on each
team.
These teams will work under the direction of the President of
the AFL-CIO and will devote their full time to adjusting dis-
putes between building trades unions and industrial unions in
keeping with the policy stated above.
Disputes that are not settled by the two-man teams will then
be referred to a Committee consisting of the President of the
Building Trades Department, the Director of the Industrial
Union Department and one person representing the President of
the AFL-CIO. In the event this three-man Committee cannot
settle the dispute, it will then be referred to the Special Com-
mittee established by the AFL-CIO Executive Council.
At the request of the United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, the machinery of the Miami agreement
was invoked when Chevrolet started to assign the disputed work to its
maintenance department employees. A two-man team, consisting of
James C. Gildea of the industrial union department, and Anthony J.
Smith, of the building and construction trades department, was sent
to Baltimore. They met with the interested parties on February 2,
1961, at the UAW local office, where the disagreement was aired. The
two-man team was unable to persuade local representatives of the
Respondents and of the UAW to settle their differences and reported
back to the president of the AFL-CIO on February 7. Kirkwood,
the president's executive assistant, testified that the dispute was then
submitted for second-step consideration in accordance with the pro-
cedure set out in the Miami agreement, and that a supplementary re-
port was requested from the two-man team. This report, prepared by
Smith but unsigned, reads in part as follows : "The team has no doubt
that the work involved is within the new construction provision of the
Miami Agreement."
Clearly, the Miami agreement does not represent a firm contract for
arbitration that would be binding upon the participating parties. It
does provide a significant forum for discussion among disputants and
LOCAL 1, BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS, ETC. 127
a conciliation or settlement procedure rising to the top level of the
organization, but with no promise by any party to abide by any con-
clusion that might be reached between the members of the initial on-
the-spot investigating team of two men, or even by the AFL-CIO
executive council itself. Therefore, the council's insistence in its brief
that this dispute was "settled" within the procedures set out in the
Miami agreement, misconceives both the arrangement, and its intended
objective. Had the ultimate and the salutary goal of that agreement
been reached in this instance, the contending labor organizations would
be in "agreement" now, and, presumably, the dispute having thus been
settled would not be before this Board for consideration.
Notwithstanding this clear purport of the Miami agreement, the
council insists that the two-man team agreed with its contention that
the work in dispute belonged to building craft employees and that
therefore this Board must award the work accordingly. SeN eral wit-
nesses, called by the Respondents, testified that Gildea, of the indus-
trial union department, voiced the opinion at the February 2 confer-
ence that the work belonged to the local craft minions. The council
then argues that this opinion was also reflected in the March 15 sup-
plementary report. However, Gildea, also a witness, denied having
made such a statement, and in support, correctly pointed to the fact
that under the Miami agreement his function was limited to advising
and attempting to induce the disputants to reach their own amicable
agreement. In any event, the opinion of one team member, even as-
suming it was expressed, cannot in these circumstances supplant the
statutory duty resting upon this Board to make the affirmative aNv ard.
In our opinion, the record as a whole leaves no doubt that, as Kirk-
wood himself testified, this dispute has not been settled by the com-
peting groups, either within or apart from the framework of the
Miannn agreement. The UAW never yielded iii its position that the
disputed work is not "new" construction; as a constituent Member
of the industrial union department it n cold necessarily have c'anceded
this point if in fact the objectives of the Miami agreement had been
achieved.6
The council and its affiliated local unions further contend that Impart
from the Miami agreement, the Board should award the disputed
cork to the craft locals on the ground that the craft unions have pre-
viously performed it, both at the Chevrolet plant here involved and
in the Baltimore area generally. Extensive portions of the record
are devoted to the testimony of members of both Pipe Fitters Local
438 and Plumbers Local 48, as well as of Local 28, IBEW, in support
of this assertion. There is also, however, ofFsetting testimony of other
Cf Tri-County Building and Countsuctson Tsodes Council of l b on and V .anstsi, IFL-
C10 (The John G Rulslsn Construct , on Company), 137 \LRL' 1444
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
witnesses clearly establishing that plant maintenance employees have
also been used for the same or comparable duties.
Alfred Christopher and Alfred Biel, journeymen pipefitters and
foremen, testified that during the reconversion of the Chevrolet plant
in 1945-46, trunk lines and drop lines were installed by outside build-
ing tradesmen rather than by the Company's maintenance employees.
Again in 1950, according to Robert Waggoner, Local 438 journeyman
steamfitter, installation of powerglide fluid trunk lines and drop lines
was done by building tradesmen. Biel also testified that during a
plant expansion program in 1958 practically all the piping work was
performed by members of the craft unions.
As to area practice, Vincent Bonadio, business agent of Local 438,
testified that at the Davison Chemical Company in Baltimore, product
lines for steam, water, and other products were installed by building
tradesmen. The evidence also shows that outside construction trades-
men installed similar piping at the Glidden Paint Company and at
Westinghouse Electric Company in Baltimore, where air, gas, and
water lines were erected. The testimony of Thomas Cobb, another
journeyman pipefitter, further indicates that similar piping work
was performed at the Potomac-Edison Company. Other testimony
shows that similar plumbing work by craft union journeymen was
performed at the Glen L. Martin Company, Inc., and the Bendix
Corporation, both in the Baltimore area.
Paul Ziegler, journeyman electrician and shop steward of Local 28,
testified that at the Westinghouse expansion project in 1951, all new
wiring, lights, feeders, and similar electrical installations were put
in place by craft union electricians. Charles Burkhart, another
journeyman craft electrician, stated that at Westinghouse Electric
in 1956 craft union electricians installed all the feeders, lights, and
other electrical wiring rather than that company's maintenance elec-
tricians. Joseph Beckhardt, business manager of Local 28, added
that at the Revere Brass and Copper Company craft union employees
ran wire and installed lights and additional runs as well as different
types of electrical equipment.
Against the foregoing, a number of UAW, Local 678, members, em-
ployees of Chevrolet, testified that during the course of the year, when
automobile models are changed in the regular course of business, or
when other changes in the assembly process require relocation of drop
lines, they are called upon, and often do install additional drop lines
and move existing ones to new places in the production areas. There
is similar direct evidence that during both the post war conversion
of the plant and during the 1958 expansion of the facilities, part of
the drop line installation was reserved to the maintenance department
employees and in fact performed by them. There is other substantial
LOCAL 1, BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS, ETC. 129
supporting testimony by Michael J. Christ, a maintenance electrician,
that electrical work, of the kind here in dispute, has been performed
both in relocation of Chevrolet plant machinery and in the installa-
tion of new equipment.
The foregoing is but a sampling of the detailed testimony set out
in the extended record, which, in its totality, leads only to the conclu-
sion that the type of work in di'pute has been performed, as a matter
of past practice, by both groups of employees now claiming it. There-
fore, the Council's claim that its employees are entitled to it now be-
cause of persuasive precedent is not adequately supported in fact.
On this pertinent factor of practice we deem it particularly significant
that the maintenance department craftsmen perform the disputed
work as a routine portion of their regular duties in the normal oper-
ation of the plant and that presumably they will continue to do it
in the future.
On the basis of the record as a whole, and on appraisal of all the
relevant considerations, we believe that the maintenance department
employees are entitled to continue performing the work in dispute
in keeping with the Company's assignment. The skill and training
requisite for proper performance of the work has not been shown
to differ between the two claiming groups of workmen.' The con-
struction contract awarding the work to Consolidated, and, of course,
the igreer_ient subcontrac Ong part of such work to the pipefitter and
electrical subcontractors, do not cover the work in dispute. The agree-
ment with UAW Local 678 recognizes the craft categories, with
appropriate wage scales provided, of the maintenance department
employees to whom the specially skilled work was assigned. And
finally, evidence of past practice reveals a mixed experience instead
of a consistent pattern in favor of the outside workmen such as to
warrant a departure now from the assignment which the Company
wishes to continue.
And the Miami agreement between the Building and Construction
Trades Department and the Industrial Union Department of the AF.i -
C1O, which is urged as the Respondents' principal supporting argu-
ment, itself recognizes a gray, or "doubtful" area between outright
"new" building construction and production and running maintenance
work. That the dispute here falls within that middle area must be
conceded from the very fact that the parties to the agreement them-
'Plumbers Local 48 contends that under Maryland and Baltimore City statutes, Local
678, UAW, maintenance employees are not qualified to perform the disputed plumbing
work, and that any award to the UAW or its members would encroach upon the pre-
rogatives of State or local authorities . However , an extended discussion of this position
is not warranted in the instant case, since we are not justified in finding, on the basis
of this record , that the Company ' s employees , who are members of UAW , are not qualified
under applicable State or local law to perform the disputed work Moreover , our award is
not to the UAW or its members, but to the employees of Chevrolet who are presently
members of the UAW.
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
selves were unable to agree upon its proper allocation. Indeed, were
the officials charged with responsibility to implement the Miami agree-
ment to decide this issue, they would have no choice but to look to the
very factors which we use in making the affirmative determination
which the statute requires.
In these circumstances, we shall determine the jurisdictional dispute
by deciding that the Company's maintenance department employees
are entitled to perform the disputed work. Our present determination
is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceed-
ing. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed
work to employees represented by Local 678, UAW, but not to 678,
UAW, or to its members.
Accordingly, we find that the Council and its affiliated local mem-
bers are not and were not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require Chevrolet or Consolidated
Engineering to assign the disputed work to construction employees
represented by the Respondent Unions rather than to the Company's
own employees in the maintenance department.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Sec} ion 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Maintenance department employees of the Chevrolet Division of
the General Motors Corporation, who are represented by Local No.
678, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the
plumbing, pipefitting, and electrical work reserved to them by the
Company in the construction of the assembly plant at t'ie Company's
Chevrolet plant in Baltimore, Maryland.
2. Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-
CIO; Local 1, Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union
of America, AFL-CIO; Cement Masons Local 43, United Cement,
Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO; Local
28, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Lo-
cal 37, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO; Local
16, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO; Local 48, United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; Local 122, International
Association of Sheet Metal Workers, AFT.-CIO; Steamfitters Local
438, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-
CIO, are not and have not been lawfully entitled to force or require
OIL CITY BRASS WORKS 131
the Company, or' asiy other employer to-'assign the disputed work to
construction employees represented by these unions.
3. Within 10 days from this decision and determination of dispute
the Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO,
and each of its above-named members shall notify the Regional Direc-
tor for the Fifth Region, in writing, whether or not they will refrain
from forcing or requiring Chevrolet by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) to assign the work in dispute directly or indirectly to
construction trades workers, rather, than to Chevrolet's own= employees
in its maintenance department.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing in this case insofar as it
applies to Local 29 of the International Association of Marble, Slate,
and Stone Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters
Helpers and Marble Mosaic and Terrazzo Workers Helpers, AFL-
CIO.]
Oil City Brass Works and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Help-
ers, Local 587, AFL-CIO . Case No. 23-CA-1416. March 5,1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 29, 1962, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
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 entire rec-
ord in this case, including the Intermediate Report and the Respond-
ent's exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
1 We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent discriminatorily
laid off six employees on March 9, 1962. We do not, however, rely on the finding that
the Respondent had, during prior slack periods, followed a policy of reducing working
hours instead of laying off employees , and of considering seniority in selecting employees
141 NLRB No. 12.
708-006-64-vol. 141-10