Local 1, Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 968 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
William Behrens, plant superintendent, testified that in addition to,
the November 25 incident, Carlson refused to perform lineup work on
three other occasions. On the third such occasion, Carlson allegedly
told Behrens : "Unless we get all the preparatory work we can't get
the lineup." However, no adequate foundation was established as
to when this remark was made or the circumstances surrounding its
utterance. Accordingly, we find that this one. isolated remark allegedly
made by Carlson falls short of establishing an unlawful union
objective.
On balance, and after consideration of all the relevant evidence,
we find that the threat and the refusal to perform the, required lineup
work can be attributed to considerations other than the jurisdictional
dispute here involved. Moreover, whatever doubt may have arisen
regarding the motive for the conduct here in question appears to have
been dispelled by subsequent events. On January 4,1965, the Respond-
ent Union formally instructed its members to perform whatever
lineup work is occasionally required by the Conmpany, and, by Febru-
ary 1965, the grievance over lineup work was entirely resolved. While
the Respondent Union persists in its claim with respect to "stripping"
and platemaking, no threat or work stoppage is thereafter alleged to
have occurred. ITnder• these circumstances, we deem the record evi-
dence too vague and insubstantial to support the necessary finding
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section
8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act has occurred. We therefore conclude that the
Board is without authority to determine this dispute. Accordingly,
we shall quash the notice of hearing issued herein.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
Local 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO and Sundermeyer Painting Co ., Inc.' Case No.14-CD-190.
1ovember 16, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under. Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a. charge filed by Sinndermeyer
Painting Co., Inc., herein called Sundermeyer, on January 7, 1965,
and amended. on Februa.i } 5, 1965, allegro t:ha.t; Local 1; International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Respondent Local, has violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by
engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
' The name of the Company appears in the caption as amended at the bearing.
155 NLRB No. 97.
LOCAL 1, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 969
requiring the assignment of certain work involved in the installation
of a radiant heating system to individuals who are represented by the
Respondent Local, rather than to the employees of Sundermeyer who
are represented by Carpenters District Council of St. Louis and Vicin-
ity, herein called Carpenters District Council. A hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Thomas W. Seeler beginning February 25 and
ending March 23, 1965. Moellering Construction Co., herein called
Moellering, and Carpenters District Council, were allowed to inter-
vene as parties in interest to the dispute. 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 upon the
issues.2 The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs were filed
by Sundermeyer, Carpenters District Council, and the Respondent
Local, and have been duly considred.
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 Fanning and Jenkins.]
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings:
1. The business involved
Moellering is en gaged in the construction of apartment buildings
and private dwellings in the State of Missouri. Sundermeyer is
engaged in the painting and drywall contracting business in the
Greater St. Louis area. The parties stipulated that in 1964 Moellering
and Sundermeyer each purchased goods valued at more than $50,000
within the State of Missouri which originated outside the State.
Accordingly, we find that both Moellering and Sundermeyer are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
?. The labor organizations involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Carpenters District Coun-
cil and the Respondent Local are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of the Act.
3. The dispute
A. Background
The work in dispute involves the cutting and nailing up of heating
panels and the construction of recesses through which wiring is con-
nected to the panels used in the heating system of a Moellering apart-
ment building under construction in Bridgeton, Missouri . Moellering
9 Moellering appeared only on the first 2 days of the hearing and took no active part
in the proceeding.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subcontract ed t 1 as work to Sundermeyer. The panels, which contain
a heating element applied to one side of half-inch plasterboard, are
secured to ceiling joists in the same manner as ordinary plasterboard
by means of insulated nails developed for this purpose. Sundermeyer
assigned the work to its own employees who are represented by Car-
penters District Council.
The Respondent Local claimed the disputed work for electricians.
protested its assiglnnent to Sundermeyer's drywall specialty men, and
threatened to picket the job. When Sundermeyer's employees began
doing the work in question, the Respondent Local picketed the jobsite
causing a delay in the performance of the disputed work.
B. Contentions of the parties
Both Unions advance various reasons why the disputed work should
be awarded to the employees they represent. Sundermeyer's position
is in accord with that of the Carpenters District Council. The
Respondent Local also contends, among other things, that the notice
of hearing in this case should be quashed, as there exists among the
parties involved an agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment
of the dispute herein.
C. Applicability of the statute
Section 10 (k i of the Act, which directs the Board to hear and
determine disputes out of which Section 8(b) (4) (D) charges have
arisen, limits the Board's authority in this respect to those situations
in which the parties involved have failed to submit "satisfactory evi-
dence that they have adjusted, or agreed upon methods for the volun-
tary adjustment of, the dispute."
The Respondent Local concedes, as the Board has held, that it is
bound, by virtue of its affiliation with the Building and Construction
Trades Deparu.ient, AFL-CIO, to submit jurisdictional disputes of
the kind here involved to the National Joint Board for the Settlement
of Jurisdictional Disputes, herein called the Joint Board, for deter-
mination.' The parties further concede that the Greater St. Louis
Gypsum Drywall Contractors' Association, which represents its mem-
bers, including Sundermeyer, in matters of collective bargaining,
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with Carpenters Dis-
trict Gonuwit reiiniring, among other things, that the parties thereto
submit jurisdictional disputes to the Joint Board for determination
and agree to be bound by its decisions. This agreement runs from
July 15, 1964, until May 1, 1966.
3 'Wood , Wire and .lfetal Lathers International Union and its Local Union No. 2, AFL-
1IO, et at . ( Acoustical Contractors Association of Cleveland), 119 NLRB 1345 , 1346-1347.
Accord: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of Fort Lauderdale , Florida,
Local 728, AFL-CIO (Ebaseo Services , Incorporated ), 153 NLRB 873.
LOCAL 1, INT 'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 971
Sundermeyer and Carpenters District Council assert, however, that
they are no longer bound by the above agreement as it was superseded
by a nationwide agreement, to which they adhered on November 5,
1964. The latter agreement, between United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, and Gypsum Drywall Contractors Inter-
national , was executed on January 12, 1961, and amended on Octo-
ber 27,1964 . It was made by the International,
on behalf of itself and each of its member Employees who has
authorized [it]to bargain on his behalf, or who has executed the
Addendum to this Agreement recognizes the jurisdictional claims
of the United Brotherhood, and agrees to work the hours, pay the
wages ... and observe the working conditions established or agreed
upon by the United Brotherhood and the recognized bargaining
agency of the locality in which any of its work is done,. .. except
as the same may be inconsistent with this Agreement. [Emphasis
supplied.]
The contention that this agreement supersedes the one concluded at
the local level overlooks the above-quoted language, the clear meaning
of which is to give continued effect to local agreements whenever
possible.
Contrary to the local agreement here in question, the agreement
between the United Brotherhood and the International defines and
accords recognition to certain craft or work jurisdiction. It encom-
passes the work here in dispute. Further, this agreement and the
addendum thereto limit the right of employers to assign the coveted
work. However, no reference is made therein to jurisdictional dis-
pute settlement procedure. We do not view the continuing obligation
of Sundermeyer and Carpenters District Council to settle this dispute
in accordance with the procedure established by the local agreement
as inconsistent with the aforementioned limitation on an employer's
right to assign covered work. We therefore find that both Sunder-
meyer and Carpenters District Council are bound to submit the juris-
dictional dispute here involved to the Joint Board for determination
in accordance with the aforementioned local agreement.
As we have held that all the parties to the dispute, Sundermeyer,
Carpenters District Council, and the Respondent Local, are bound to
submit the dispute to the Joint Board, we find that there exists herein
an agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute
within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. Therefore, in fur-
therance of the declared national policy of affording the parties an
opportunity to settle jurisdictional disputes among themselves with-
out Board intervention whenever possible, we shall quash the notice
of hearing in this case.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]