Local 3, Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 27, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 888 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Western Electric Company , Incorpo- rated . Case No. 2-CD-240. March 27, 1963 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, follow- ing a charge filed by Western Electric Company, Incorporated, herein called-Western, alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) by Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, herein called Local 3. Pursuant to notice, hearings were held on various dates between June 19 and August 2, 1962, before Anthony A. Ambrosio and Donald R. Klenk, hearing officers. 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 on the. issues. The rulings of the hearing officers made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, briefs were filed by Western and New York Telephone Company (herein referred to as Telco) jointly, by Local 3, and by the Com- munications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as CWA. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following findings : I. T. FIE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANIES Western and Telco are subsidiaries of American Telephone & Tele- graph Corporation . Western is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of communications equipment and during the year preced- ing the hearing sold and distributed goods valued in excess of $500,- 000 of which goods valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped across State lines . Telco provides local and long-distance telephone service as part of a nationwide communications system. It has gross annual revenues in excess of $1,000,000 . Diesel Construction Company, Inc., is engaged in the general construction business and purchased build- ing materials during the year preceding the hearing of which more than $50,000 worth was transported to its construction sites in New York from other States. Fischbach &, Moore, Inc., is an electrical con- tractor with its principal offices in New York City. It purchased elec- trical equipment valued in excess of $50,000 which was transported to its jobsites in New York from outside that State . The parties stipulated and we find that Western, Telco , Diesel, and Fischbach are each engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 141 NLRB No. 75. LOCAL 3, INT 'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 889 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 3 and CWA are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background Western is the manufacturing arm of the Bell System and Telco provides telephone service in New York State and part of Con- necticut as part of the same nationwide telephone system. Telephone calls by one subscriber to another , both local and long distance , must be switched through a telephone company central of- fice. In New York City, where the events described here occurred, Telco operates about 400 central offices, almost all of which are located in its own buildings . The surge in office building construction in New York City , with its attendant increase in telephone subscribers, has necessitated . expansion of Telco's central office facilities . Because of the rise in land prices , a structure utilized exclusively as a central office is uneconomical , and Telco is now locating some of its most modern central offices in floor space leased in high density office buildings now under construction . One of these is to be located in the Pan- American building at 200 Park Avenue , New York City , now under construction. A recent technical advancement in central office equipment combines the regular function of switching calls between subscribers with the function of switching intraoffice calls between individual extensions of a multiphone user, which was formerly done through the subscriber's private branch exchange ( P.B.X) located on his own premises. This additional function for a central office is called centrex. When central offices were located on premises used exclusively by Telco, the installation of such equipment had always been sub- contracted by Telco to Western, which did both the preparatory work and the actual installation . The Western installers are represented by CWA. In areas within Local 3's jurisdiction , the installation of P.B.X's alone , when done during new construction or major altera- tions of the subscriber 's premises was, under a practice going back to 1917, divided between Telco 's plant department employees and Local 3 members , employed by electrical contractors to whom Telco subcontracted such work. Installation of a P .B.X which was not done during new construction or major alteration was performed by Telco's plant department employees exclusively . For the past few years they have been represented by CWA, but they were previously represented by an independent union, United Telephone Organization. It is the conjunction of the following elements which gives rise 890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the controversy here : (1) the incorporation of intraoffice switch- ing through P.B.X's, in the installation of which Local 3 has certain historical claims, with the traditional central office function of switching calls between different subscribers in which Local 3 has not been engaged ; and (2) the fact that installation of centrex equip- ment (a combination of central office and P.B.X functions) is now taking place in office buildings being constructed or undergoing major alteration. B. The work in issue In July 1960 Telco rented part of the 20th and 21st floors of the Pan-Am Building for use as a central office with centrex. The tech- nical name for the equipment to be installed here is a No. 5 crossbar central office with centrex features. Telco contracted to Western the work of installing this equipment. The following specific work assignments, roughly 25 percent of the entire process of installing this equipment, are in dispute here : (a) drilling holes in the floor to secure the equipment in place; (b) erection of equipment frames and equipment superstructure, includ- ing rod supports for the ceiling; (c) putting up cross-connecting frames and mounting terminal blocks; (d) installing the powerplant; (e) running the connection between the powerplant and the equip- ment; and (f) installation of the bay and aisle lighting appended to the superstructure for illumination of the frame aisles. C. Evidence of conduct violative of Section 8(b) (4) (D) The record indicates that at all relevant times herein employees of Fischbach , represented by Local 3, were performing electrical work at the Pan -Am Building . Diesel was the general contractor. On the morning of March 1, 1962,-,t crew of Western employees , represented by CWA, arrived at the jobsite and commenced preliminary work for the installation of a No. 5 crossbar central telephone exchange on the 20th and 21st floors. There is a conflict in the testimony concerning the facts which gave rise to this proceeding . A composite of the testimony of Finger and Cariello, supervisors for Western , Stackhouse, a Western employee, and Artley , supervisor for Diesel , is that on March 1 and 2, and on April 3 and 4, Breitman , shop steward of Local 3, and Fischbach foremen Feidner and Remielus , also members of Local 3 , claimed that the work being done by the Western crew belonged to Local 3; threat- ened Artley that, if the Western crew did not leave the premises, the lights and power on the 20th and 21st floors would be turned off, or the Local 3 members would engage in a work stoppage ; and attempted to induce Western installers to leave their work. These witnesses also gave testimony that the lights and power were turned off as LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 891 threatened on March 2, and again on April 4 and 5, and that the Western crew did not work from March 2 until April 3, and from April 6 to April 23, because of two telegrams which Diesel sent Western noting the existence of "jurisdictional problems" between Local 3 members and the Western employees, and requesting that the Western crew be removed from the site. CWA filed a complaint against Local 3 and Local 3 filed a cross- complaint against CWA, under the provisions of the AFL-CIO constitution, each charging the other with invasion of its work juris- diction. Pursuant to these complaints a hearing was held on March 19, before David Cole, impartial umpire. At this hearing, Cole allegedly advised both parties that he would accept as fact any charges made by one side and not denied by the other. CWA made charges respecting Local 3's responsibility for the power cutoff at the Pan-Am Building on March 2. There is no indication that Local 3 denied these charges. In a decision issued on March 29, Cole found that Local 3 protested against the performance by Western installers of work it claimed belonged to its members, cut off light and power, and threatened to remove its members from the project. Cole did not resolve the dispute, however, because he felt he had no authority to make an award in this type of dispute under the terms of the AFL-CIO constitution. Breitman, Feidner, and Remielus denied that they spoke with the above witnesses on the dates involved or had made the threats or inducements as alleged. They also denied that they directed light and power to be turned off or that the power cutoffs which did occur were related to the work in dispute. Subsequent to the execution of a stipulation between the General Counsel and Local 3 on April 24, 1962, entered into after the General Counsel had sought an injunction against Local 3 pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act, the Western crew resumed the work in dispute. D. Contentions of the parties Local 3 contends that if a dispute exists here, it is between subcon- tractors and not between competing groups of employees, and is there- fore not within the scope of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. Local 3 also contends that there is no credible evidence of inducement or coer- cion within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act; that, even if there were, there is no proof that the individuals who allegedly engaged in such conduct were agents of Local 3 or that Local 3 is responsible for the alleged conduct; and that, if the Board takes jurisdiction of this matter, any award should be confined to the Pan- Am job. Lastly, Local 3 contends that if an award is to made it should be to "electrical contractors and their employees" because 892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.. the work in dispute is similar to that which the latter have performed for 30 years in buildings under construction. . Western and Telco contend that there is reasonable cause to believe that there exists a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (D) and 10(k) of the Act. They also. argue that the Board should award all the work in dispute to Western's employees repre- sented by CWA. CWA advances essentially the same arguments as Western and Telco except that it also requests that the Board's award apply to all Telco central office installations, in addition to the disputed installation at the Pan-Am Building which gave rise to this proceeding. There is no contention that the parties have agreed upon any volun- tary method for the adjustment of the dispute or that Telco or Western, in assigning the disputed work to Western installers, are failing to con- form to any Board order or certification determining the bargaining representative of employees performing the work. E. Applicability of the statute Before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reason- able cause to believe that Setcion 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated. The record contains testimony as to instances of threats or acts of inducements by Local 3's job steward, Breitman, and by Feidner, gen- eral foreman of Fischbach, who was also a member of Local 3. Finger, a Western supervisor, testified that on March 1, 1962, Breitman laid claim to the work being performed by the Western installers and threatened Chilton, the Telco contact man for this installation, that the Western employees should be removed because he, Breitman, would "hate to see" the Local 3 people "walk off the job." Artley, a Diesel supervisor at the Pan-Am job, testified that on March 2, Feidner threatened him that if the Western installers remained on the job, the light and power switch for the area in which they were working would be pulled. On the same date, according to Artley, Breitman also threatened him that if the Western installers did not leave, Local 3 members would walk off the job. Artley testified that on April 3, Breit- man threatened a power cutoff if the Western installers continued to work on the 20th and 21st floors. He also testified that on March 2, Feidner told an unidentified Western installer that if he did not leave the premises, the power switch would be pulled. Stack'house testified that on April 3, Remielus, the Fischbach subforeman and a.Local 3 member, encouraged him as one of the Western installers to leave the premises because it was up to the unions and not Western, to determine who should work on that job. Breitman, Feidner, and Remielus all denied that they spoke with any of the above witnesses on these occasions or that they made the threats or inducements testi- LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 893 fled to. A careful examination of their testimony, particularly that of Feidner and Breitman, indicates some vagueness and implausibility in their accounts of their activities and events on the dates involved herein. We also note that they changed their testimony in certain material aspects on cross-examination .' The testimony of Finger, Artley, and Stackhouse was in many particulars mutually corrobora- tive. However, in a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, the Board is only required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) had been violated before making a determi- nation of the dispute out of which the alleged unfair labor practice has arisen . In so finding, we need not conclusively resolve conflicts in testimony? Accordingly, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that Breitman, Feidner, and Remielus made the threats and inducements as alleged, with an object of forcing Western or Telco to assign to Local 3 members the work in dispute? We reject Local 3's contention that, assuming the threats and in- ducements were made, it was not responsible for these acts because Breitman, Feidner, and Remielus were not its agents. Breitman was the Local 3 steward at the Pan-Am site. He testified that one of his functions in that capacity was to protect the jurisdiction of his union. Feidner and Remielus, although foreman for Fischbach, were also members of Local 3 and, as such, were enjoined by Section 9 of Ar- ticle XIV of its bylaws not ". . . to give away work coming under the jurisdiction of this Local, or to allow any other tradesmen to do work coming under the Local's jurisdiction without being subject to such penalty as decided upon by the Executive Board." Accordingly, we find that Breitman,4 Feidner, and Remielus were acting in Local 3's behalf to protect its jurisdiction and that Local 3 is responsible for their actions.' 1 Thus Breitman testified that, although he was aware of, and objected to, CWA mem- bers performing the work in question on the day they began, March 1, and although he was responsible to Local 3 to protect its claimed jurisdiction and report any violation of it, he did not report this matter to Local 3 . Later, on cross-examination , he admitted he called Local 3 headquarters to advise that the CWA workers had started on the 20th floor. Feidner stated that the lights and power went out on March 2, because the electricians were hooking up the main switchboard . Later, on cross -examination , he first testified that the lights might have gone out because no one told him the Western Electric em- ployees were working late ( thereby admitting his control over the lights at least on that date ) and then, that lie didn't know whether the lights had gone out. 2 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, et at. (Wend- nagel & Company ), 116 NLRB 1063, 1066. s In so finding we also rely upon the failure of Local 3 to deny a number of these same allegations , particularly respecting its responsibility for turning off the electric power on March 2, at the Cole hearing , although warned by Cole that any charges made by one side would be accepted as fact if not refuted or denied by the other. I In arguing that it is not responsible for the acts of Breitman , Local 3 urges that its bylaws specifically prohibit a steward from causing a work stoppage. We note, however, that it is not alleged that Breitman caused a work stoppage, but only that he made threats. 5 See Local 84, International Association of Bridge. Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers ( South Texas Building Company ), 129 NLRB 971 ; Sheet Metal Workers Inter- national Association, et at . ( The Burt Manufacturing Company ), 127 NLRB 1629, 1648, enfd . 293 F. 2d 141 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 368 U.S. 896; United Brotherhood of Car- 894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 3 also contends that the dispute, if any, is outside the scope of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, because it only involves a dispute be- tween subcontractors rather than between competing unions or com- peting groups of employees. In support of this contention, Local 3 asks the Board to note that it does not claim to represent any Western or Telco employees and, that members of Local 3 have not sought em- ployment with Western or Telco in connection with work at the Pan- Am Building. We reject these contentions also. The Board has held that the applicability of Section 8 (b) (4) (d) is not limited to compet- ing groups of employees working for the same employer, but also ex- tends to an attempt, as here, to force the indirect assignment of work from employees of one employer (Western) to employees of another (Fischbach or another electrical contractor)." For the reasons stated above, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Local 3, through its agents, has induced or encouraged employees of Western to engage in a work stoppage and has threat- ened, coerced, and restrained Telco, Western, Fischbach, and Diesel with an object of forcing or requiring Telco or Western to change its work assignments, in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (D) of the Act. The Merits The equipment, part of whose installation is in dispute here, com- bines the functions of a telephone central office and a P.B.X. Each phone served by a No. 5 crossbar central office equipment with centres features has direct access to the central office. The equipment also serves other buildings, offering to each subscriber who would other- wise need a P.B.X, the advantage of intraoffice direct dialing as well as direct outside calls. The work in dispute relates to preliminary construction steps in the installation of this equipment, such as drilling holes in the floor, erect- ing frames and superstructure, putting up cross-connecting frames, penters, et at, (Endicott Church Furniture , Inc.), 125 NLRB 853, 860 , 861, enfd. In part 286 F. 2d 533 (C.A.D.C.) ; Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Picker X-Ray Corporation ), 128 NLRB 561, 564; Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( New York Telephone Company ), 140 NLRB 729. As Members Leedom and Brown agree that in view of Local 3's clear responsibility for I'reitman's conduct there is reasonable cause to believe that Local 3 violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, they deem it unnecessary to and therefore do not express an opinion as to, Local 3's alleged responsibility for Feidner's and Remielus ' conduct. International Longshoremen 's Association , et at. (Motor Transport Labor Relations. Inc.), 127 NLRB 35, 38 ( footnote 2 and cases cited therein). We likewise reject Local 3's contention , based on the Board's Decision in Highway Truckdrivers & Helpers Local 107, etc. (Safeway Stores, Incorporated ), 134 NLRB 1320 (Members Rodgers and Leedom dis- senting), that Section 10(k) of the Act is inapplicable to this proceeding because there is no dispute between competing groups of employees . Here , unlike the situation in Safeway. there are, and have been, two adversaries competing for the work in issue , CWA and Local 3. There is evidence that Local 3 made claims upon this work at the Pan-Am Build- ing and the CWA installers refused to abandon It ; CVVA and Local 3 filed a complaint and cross -complaint , respectively, under the AFL-CIO constitution seeking an award of the work ; and , lastly, each of these labor organizations claims in its brief to the Board that the work in dispute should be awarded to employees whom it represents. LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 89t etc.,' but not, in large part, to the usual aspects of the electrician's trade. Some of the electrical work in the installation of the equipment here, such as mounting crossbar switching, running connecting cables on the crossbar equipment, running jumpers on the cross-connecting frame, and performing tests in conjunction with Telco employees, con- cededly belongs to the Western installers. In urging that "electrical contractors and their employees" are en- titled to the work, Local 3 advances essentially four arguments that : (a) the disputed work is very similar to that required in the installa- tion of a P.B.X; (b) for 30 years, electrical contractors have installed P.B.X's in new construction or major alterations in New York City, pursuant to Telco practices;' (c) even assuming that there are dif- ferences between a P.B.X and the equipment here, there is no evidence of any installation by Western of this equipment or any other type of Telco central office in a new building; and, (d) the only such installa- tion in a new building was the recent installation at 60 Broad Street where the disputed work was performed not by Western or Telco, but by an electrical subcontractor for Telco employing members of Local 3. As to (a) and (b) the record indicates, as described above, that the equipment involved here is essentially a central office which has been designed to eliminate the necessity for P.B.X's. Hence, the similarity in installation, and the custom in assigning P.B.X work, is not persua- sive since there is a contrary history of assignment of central office telephone equipment. It is clear that the No. 5 crossbar is an ad- vanced type of central office equipment, and it is undisputed that cen- tral office equipment has always been installed by Western employees, represented since 1944 by CWA or its predecessor. As to (c) and (d), although central offices have been installed in existing structures, there is evidence, contrary to Local 3's assertions, that they have also been installed in a number of instances in new buildings or in buildings undergoing major repairs, by Western installers while other trades were still on the permises. In any event, the only instance where Local 3 performed any work in the installation of a central office either in a building under construction or in an existing building was at 60 Broad Street in 1961. As to that installation, Telco was under a tight schedule to install the equipment and, in order to prevent the pos- sibility of a time-consuming jurisdictional dispute, the work in issue here was subconstracted by Telco to an electrical contractor whose 7 A Local 3 witness , Salerno, an employee of an electrical contractor, in describing past P.B.X installation assignments to Local 3 members , testified that the experience of the Local 3 electricians in these instances was limited to the "iron work" or "physical work" preliminary to the installation of a P . B.X. He further testified that Local 3 did not per- form any of the work involved in the assembly , manufacturing , or fabricating of the apparatus itself. 8It appears from the record that Local 3 electricians do not perform the entire P.B.X installation even in new construction . Moreover , as noted previously , P.B.X installations in existing structures have traditionally been done exclusively by Telco employees repre- sented by OWA. 896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees were represented by Local 3, rather than to Western. The Board has held in the past that an isolated assignment, par; titularly under such circumstances, will not be deemed to have any material weight, if it is contrary to an employer's normal practice.' In contending that the disputed work should be awarded to Western employees, Western, Telco, and CWA urge that : there is a long-stand- ing practice in the New York City area favoring such an award; it is the most practical and efficient assignment for accomplishing the work; and the Western installers have skills and training which par- ticularly qualify them for the continuance of this assignment. West- ern and Telco further contend that assignment to the Western install- ers is more economical than assignment to electricians employed by electrical contractors and, lastly, that Western has assigned the work in issue to its own installers. It is clear that installations of central offices, with the exception of 60 Broad Street, have historically been assigned to Western employees without regard to whether the installation was in a new or existing building. Western has developed efficient standard operating proce- dures for central office installations. It gives its employees specialized training to qualify them in doing a complete installation. This gives its crews additional flexibility, so that each member of a crew may as- sist in each operation. The record further indicates that Bell Labora- tories is engaged in continuous research and engineering which result in improvements and modifications in telephone equipment, and con- sequently, of installation methods. Western keeps its installers ap- prised of these changes by the use of training manuals. It also trains its employees in the use of patented tools which are developed to fa- cilitate its installations. Evidence was also introduced at the hearing indicating that it would have cost Telco only abuot 50 to 60 percent of the actual price it paid at 60 Broad Street if the disputed work had been performed by Western installers rather than by electrical contractors employing electricians represented by Local 3. Based on the assumption that an electrical contractor would have charged the same rate for the Pan- Am job, Western would have done the work in dispute at Pan-Am at a price 43 percent less than the electrical contractor's rate. The dif- ference in cost at 60 Broad Street was attributed to a number of fac- tors including the salary expense of the Telco supervision needed there to assist the electricians in phases of the work with which they were unfamiliar, but which Western installers perform regularly. It also appears that the differential in cost at the two installations would have been ever larger, except for the fact.that the figures introduced at the hearing assumed that the Western installers would take the same e International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 66 , AFL-CIO ( Frank P. Badolato c6 Son), 135 NLRB 1392, 1399; Newspaper and Afail Deliverers ' Union of New York and Vicinity . Independent ( The New York Times Company), 137 NLRB 1435. LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 897 period of time to accomplish the work as did the Local 3 electricians, an assumption which did not take into account the proficiency of the Western installers who specialize in this work. Conclusion As we stated in the J. A. Jones case,10 we will, pursuant to the Supreme Court's CBS decision," determine in each case presented for resolution under Section 10 (k) of the Act, the appropriate assignment of disputed work only after fully considering all revelant factors. On the entire record, we believe that the Western installers are entitled to the work in dispute. The installation of the equipment which is involved here is essentially a telephone central office, certain features of which eliminate the need for P.B.X's. Local 3's claim to this work on behalf of "electrical contractors and their employees" based on 30 years of assignment of some steps of P.B.X installations in new construction, are outweighed by an even longer history of assignment of central office installations to Western installers. Some steps in the actual assembly of P.B.X's have not been performed by electricians even in new construction. The work in dispute is mainly work which is preliminary to installation of equipment. It does not require the specialized skills of an electrician since it involves pri- marily the erection of frames and housings for the equipment to be installed. Hence, the mechanical skills of assembling and erecting are more relevant here than the skills of an electrician. These in- stallation skills are the stock in trade of the Western installers and they are carefully and continuously trained to accomplish the disputed installation tasks as well as all other procedures, not in dispute here, for the complete installation of a central office. Their experience and versatility are better suited to accomplish the entire installation as a single project. It likewise appears, for a number of reasons, that performance of the disputed work employing the Western installers, is more economical than is the utilization of Local 3 electricians employed by electrical contractors. Based on the foregoing, we shall determine the dispute by assigning the disputed work preliminary to installation of telephone No. 5 cross- bar central office equipment including centrex features to installers employed by Western. Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.la In mak- l°International Association of Machinists , et al. (J . A. Jones ), 135 NLRB 1402. 11 N.L.R.B. v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, et al. ( Columbia Broad- casting System ), 340 U . S. 573. 1. We reject CWA's contention that we must now make a determination broad enough to include all central office installations of Telco. To make such a determination, we would be required to examine and consider customs and practices for such installations in all geographical areas served by Telco as well as the jurisdictional claims of any other labor organizations whose members are employed by electrical and/or building contractors in these areas. In this proceeding we do not have other labor organizations before us, nor do we have evidence as to the customs and practices in these geographical areas. Our determination does, however , cover assignment of the work in issue here in any area 898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing our determination herein , we are assigning the disputed work to installers represented by CWA and not to CWA or its members. In view of the above, we find that Local 3 was not, and is not, en- titled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to force or require Telco and/or Western to assign the disputed procedures in the in- stallation of a central office with centres features to its members, rather than to employees represented by CWA. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act. 1. Employees of Western Electric Company, Incorporated, engaged as installers, currently represented by the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the following pro- cedures in the installation of a No. 5 crossbar central office with cent- trex features when such work is performed by Western : (1) to drill holes in the floor that are necessary for securing the equipment in place; (2) to erect equipment frames and put up equipment super- structure, including rod supports for the ceiling; (3) to put up cross- connecting frames and mount terminal blocks; (4) to install a power- plant ; (5) to run the connection from the powerplant to the equip- ment previously mentioned; and (6) to install bay and aisle lighting which hangs from the superstructure and illuminates the aisles that are made by the frames when they are in position. 2. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) to force or require New York Telephone Company and/or Western Electric Company, Incorporated, to assign to employees engaged as electricians who are represented by Local 3, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, those procedures in the in- stallation of a No. 5 crossbar central office with centrex features, which procedures are detailed in paragraph 1, supra, of this Determination of Dispute. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring New York Telephone Company and/or Western Electric Company, Incorporated, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) to assign the above-described disputed work in the installation of a No. 5 cross- bar central office with centrex features to electricians rather than to installers. served by Telco, where the geographical jurisdiction of CWA and Local 3 coincide. See International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 66, AFL-CIO (Frank P. Badolato 6 Son), supra, 1401.