Local Union No. 1

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 4, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 924 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

924 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of the
aforesaid Companies in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the National Labor-Relations Act, as amended, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8 (a), (3) ,6f the'Act. -
WE WILL cease giving any effect to, performing; or enforcing the collective-
bargaining , agreements entered into with the aforesaid Employers in 1953,
or any extensions, renewals, or modifications of said agreements, unless and
until the Union shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the bargaining representative of the employees covered by said contracts.
WE WILL cease the practice of requiring employees of the aforesaid Em-
.,_,ployers, as a condition of employment, to•be members of Detroit Window
Cleaners Union, Local No. 139, Building Service Employees International
Union, AFL , except to the extent that membership in such organization may
be required as a condition of employment by a valid agreement, as authorized
'in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL discontinue the practice of requiring the aforesaid Employers to
give preference to members of Detroit Window Cleaners Union, Local No. 139,
Building Service Employees International Union, AFL, when hiring employees.
WE WILL make Michael Elinsky whole for any loss of earnings suffered
because of the discrimination against him.
DETROIT WINDOW CLEANERS UNION, LOCAL No. 139, BUILDING
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated---------------- By---------------------- ------------------------
(T,noMAS MARTIN% Business Agent)
This-notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Local Union No. 1, Sheet Metal Workers International Associa-
tion, AFL, and _ John Stables, Business Representative and
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association of
the Peoria Area
Pipe Trades Council No. 34, Local Union No. 353 of United As-
sociation of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the, 'United States and Canada, AFL,
and William J. Galvin, Business Representative, and Harold E.
Messmer, Assistant Business Representative and Meyer Fur-
nace Company. Cases Nos. 13-CD-36 and 13-CD-37. November
4,1955
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING
This proceeding arises,under Section 10 (k) of the, Act, which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor, practice within" the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of
Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter-
mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen. ..."
114 NLRB No. 140.
LOCAL UNION NO. 1 925
On January 17, 1955, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Con-
tractors Association of the Peoria Area, herein called the Association,
filed with the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region a charge
against Local Union No. 1, Sheet Metal Workers International Asso-
ciation, AFL, hereinafter called the Sheet Metal Workers, and John
Stables, business representative of the Sheet Metal Workers, alleging
that they had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. The charge
alleged in substance that the Sheet Metal Workers and Stables had
induced and encouraged employees of various employers to engage in
a strike or concerted refusal to work in the course of their employment
with an" object of forcing or requiring the Association's members to
assign particular work to employees who are members of the Sheet
Metal Workers rather than to employees who are members of various
locals of the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL, hereinafter called the Pipefitters. _
On February 7, 1955, the Meyer Furnace Company, herein called
Meyer, filed with the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region a
charge against Pipe Trades District Council No. 34 and Local Union
No. 353 of the Pipefitters; William J. Galvin, business representative
of the Pipefitters; and Harold E. Messmer, assistant business repre-
sentative of the Pipefitters, alleging that they had engaged in and were
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)
(4) (D),of the Act. The charge alleged, in substance, that the Pipe-
fitters had induced and encouraged employees of Meyer and of the
Peoria Piping Equipment Company, herein called Peoria Piping, to
engage in a strike or a concerted refusal to work in the course of their
employment with an object of forcing or requiring Meyer to assign
particular work to employees who are members of the Pipefitters
rather than to employees who are members of the Sheet Metal Workers
nr other unions.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections
92.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
+Jirector investigated the charges and provided for a consolidated
hearing upon due notice to all the parties. The consolidated hearing
was held before John P. von Rohr, hearing officer, on March 23, 24, 25,
and 31, and April 1, 1955, at Peoria, Illinois. At the hearing, Meyer,
the Association, the Pipefitters, the Sheet Metal Workers, and Carpen-
ters Local Union No. 183, AFL, herein called the Carpenters, appeared
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 officer made at the hearings are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Both the Pipefitters and the
Sheet Metal Workers filed briefs with the Board.
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Meyer Furnace Company is an Illinois corporation with all
of its facilities located in that State. It is engaged in the sale and
installation of warm air heating and air-conditioning equipment at
Peoria, Illinois. During the 12 months prior to the hearing, its out-
of-State purchases were in excess of $500,000 and direct outflow ex-
ceeded $700,000. The Association is a nonprofit Illinois corporation
whose members made out-of-State purchases during the same period
of about $750,000 and whose members had direct out-of-State sales
valued at about $1,000,000. On these facts, we find that Meyer and the
Association are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Pipefitters, the Sheet Metal Workers, and the Carpenters
are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute :
Case No. 13-CD-36
The Association's members are contractors engaged in piping work
in the construction industry in greater Peoria, Illinois. On five spe-
cific projects, Association members were prime contractors for installa-
tion of air-conditioning systems. The Association member at each
project assigned all piping work to its own employees who were mem-
bers of the Pipefitters, and subcontracted all sheet metal work to a con-
tractor who employed and assigned to the job members of the Sheet
Metal Workers. At each of the five projects, there occurred interrup-
tions in the sheet metal work as a consequence of a dispute between the
Pipefitters and the Sheet Metal Workers over which union should in-
stall certain air-conditioning units.
Contentions of the Parties
In its charge, the Association alleges that the interruptions in
sheet metal work at each of the five projects resulted from a strike by
the Sheet Metal Workers in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of
the Act. Section8 (b) (4) (D) provides:
(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization
or its agents-
(4) to engage in, or to induce or to encourage employees of any
employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course
of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof
is :
* * * * * * *
LOCAL UNION NO. 1 927
(D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular
work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a
particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in an-
other labor organization, or in another trade, craft, or class, un-
less such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification
of the Board determining the bargaining representative for em-
ployees performing such work. .. .
The Sheet Metal Workers contends that there was no strike or
concerted refusal and no inducement or encouragement of employees
to engage in a strike or concerted refusal, within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (4).
Applicability of the Statute
Section 10 (k) of the Act empowers and directs the Board to hear
and determine disputes out of which Section 8 (b) (4) (D) charges
have arisen. However, before determination of the dispute in Section
10 (k) proceedings, the Board is required to find that there is reason-
able cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated.
In order to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that 8 (b)
(4) (D) has been violated there must be some evidence showing a
strike or concerted refusal or an inducement or encouragement of em-
ployees to engage in a strike or concerted refusal.
On this point, we find that there is insufficient evidence to support
the conclusion that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Sheet
Metal Workers used unlawful methods in connection with the work
interruptions at these five projects. The record shows to the contrary
that the method used was inducement of the employers to discontinue
sheet metal work until resolution of the dispute. Thus, sheet metal
contractor Wagener, who was prime contractor for air-conditioning
work at 3 of the 5 projects, testified in effect that it is his policy to
honor all of the Sheet Metal Workers' requests to cease work and
that it is the usual practice in carrying out this policy for his foremen
to stop all work as soon as the foremen learn of the Union's attitude.
Before work began on the Peoria Journal job, Wagener was twice told
that. sheet metal work thereon must not commence until settlement of
the dispute. The sheet metal work on the Carson's Jewelry and Cot-
ton Shop projects ceased in accordance with Wagener's policy when
his engineer, Montgomery, was informed of the Sheet Metal Workers'
position by its business agent. There is no evidence that employees at
these three projects were asked directly by the Union to cease work
or that they were asked by Wagener or his supervisory employees to
return to work. With respect to the First Peoples incident, sheet
metal contractor Fritch testified that the Union had informed him,
that ". . . we should not do anymore work until the decision was
reached as to who was going to set the units." No testimony was
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
adduced as to whether or not Fritch tried to get his sheet metal em-
ployees to do the job or merely acceded to the Sheet Metal Workers'
demands. The piping contractor on the Tobias job testified that he
asked the Sheet Metal Workers' business agent, Stables, why Stables
had "pulled the men off the job . . ." and that Stables replied that
" . . he had pulled the men off because the men from our shop [pipe-
fitters] had set the equipment and as far as he was concerned .. .
sheet metal men would not go back to work until such time as we tore
the machine out and let the Sheet Metal Workers reset the machine."
Neither Business Agent Stables nor sheet metal contractor O'Brien
testified with respect to the Tobias work stoppage. We conclude that
the expression "pulled the men off the job," which apparently first
emanated from the piping contractor, is at best ambiguous with refer-
ence to the alleged unlawful inducement, especially as on the other
projects the Sheet Metal Workers does not appear to have procured
a work stoppage by an unlawful method. Accordingly, in the absence
of direct evidence of inducement of employees, we do not consider
Stables' unquestioned desire to effect a work interruption, nor his
use of this particular expression in conversation with the piping con-
tractors, if the piping contractor's hearsay testimony is accepted, as
sufficient evidence of such inducement. Under these circumstances,
we find that there is not reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b)
(4) (D) has been violated. Therefore, we find that the Board is with-
out authority to determine this dispute. Accordingly, we shall quash
the notice of hearing issued in Case No. 13-CD-36.
Case No. 13-CD-37
Meyer is prime contractor for installation of a central air-
conditioning and heating system in the Commercial National Bank of
Peoria, hereinafter called the Bank. Through its membership in the
Association and in a similar sheet metal contractors' group, Meyer
has collective-bargaining contracts with both the Pipefitters and the
Sheet Metal Workers. Although it regularly employs both cate-
gories of employees, Meyer assigned its own sheet metal workers to
the Bank job but subcontracted the piping work to Peoria Piping Co.
Included in Meyer's work assignment to its own sheet metal workers
was everything concerned with installation of the individual room air-
conditioning units except for the setting of coils inside air boxes and
attaching under windows the wood strips upon which the units are
hung. Setting the coils inside the air boxes was subcontracted along
with the other "piping work" to Peoria Piping. Attaching the wood-
strips was not covered by the Bank's contractual assignment of work
to Meyer. The wood strips were awarded by the Bank to a general
contractor named Jobst who was engaged in general construction and
LOCAL UNION NO. 1 929
repairs on the' project., Jobst, in turn, assigned installation of the
strips to its, employees represented by the Carpenters.
After all' wood strips, were attached and about 38 out of approxi-
mately 350 air boxes had been installed, the Pipefitters struck the
project. Strikers included all of Peoria Piping's employees on the
project and Meyer's two pipefitters who participated in picketing.
Both the Bank and Meyer's premises were picketed. Picket signs
stated that the Pipefitters were striking over Meyer's violation of the
Pipefitters' contract and certification. The Pipefitters thereafter noti-
fied Meyer and made clear at the hearing that it claims as work which
should be assigned to pipefitting employees, not merely the setting of
the coils, but also the right to attach the wood strips, to hang the air
boxes, and to set the metal cabinets over the air boxes.
On February 4, Meyer submitted the dispute to the National Joint
Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, hereinafter called the
Joint Board, and on February 7, 1955, it filed its charge herein. The
Pipefitters resumed work at the Bank pursuant to an agreement among
parties to a Section 10 (1) proceeding initiated by the Board in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on
June 27, 1955.
Contentions of the Parties
The Pipefitters contends that its certification and its contract with
Meyer entitle its members to the work. The Pipefitters further asserts
that, as its purpose in this dispute is to enforce a contract and certifica-
tion, the Joint Board agreement, to which its International is a signa-
tory, confers no jurisdiction on the Joint Board over the dispute.
The Sheet Metal Workers and Meyer contend that the Board should
not determine this dispute because the parties, through the Joint
Board, have agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the
dispute within the meaning of Section 10 (k).
Applicability of the Statute
Under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which empowers and directs the
Board to hear and determine disputes out of which Section 8 (b) (4)
(D) charges have arisen, the Board is prohibited from determining the
dispute where there is evidence that the parties have agreed upon
methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.' It has been
pointed out frequently that the Joint Board was established with the
knowledge of this Board, for the purpose of considering and deciding
jurisdictional disputes arising in the building and construction in-
3 Section 10 ( k) provides that the Board shall hear and determine the dispute " un-
less within ten days after notice that such charge has been filed , the parties to such
dispute submit to the Board satisfactory evidence that they have adjusted, or agreed upon
methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute."
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dustry2 As we stated in the Lee case, "where all parties to a dispute,
i. e., the disputing unions and the employer responsible for the assign-
ment of the disputed work, are bound by the agreement which estab-
lished the Joint Board and which provides for the submission of dis-
putes to it, the parties have `agreed upon methods for the voluntary
.adjustment of the dispute' within the meaning of Section 10 (k), and
that we are therefore without authority to determine the dispute." a
Meyer, the Employer responsible for the assignment of the disputed
work here, has submitted itself to the Joint Board's processes by its
submission of the dispute to that body. Under these circumstances, it
is unnecessary that Meyer be a signatory to the Joint Board agreement
in order for Meyer to be deemed to have agreed upon a method for
voluntary adjustment within the meaning of Section 10 (k) .4 It is un-
disputed that both the Pipefitters, the Respondent Union here, and the
Sheet Metal Workers, the Union assigned the disputed work, are par-
ties to an agreed-upon method for adjustment of jurisdictional dis-
putes within the intendment of Section 10 (k) by virtue of the fact
that the Internationals of both unions are signatories to the Joint
Board agreement.5
The Pipefitters contends, however, that there is no agreed-upon
method for adjustment of this particular dispute because of its posi-
tion that this is not a dispute that is cognizable by the Joint Board.
In asserting this position, the Pipefitters appears to be announcing in
advance that it will not abide by any determination of the dispute
made by the Joint Board. In the Lee case, the respondent union,
bound by its International's adherence to the Joint Board agreement,
already had refused to comply with a Joint Board finding at the time
that the hearing was held. We said that the respondent's refusal to
"abide by the determination, in derogation of its agreement, is, in our
opinion, immaterial." 6 We find, therefore, that despite the Pipefit-
ters' contention, it is party to an agreed-upon method for determining
this dispute.'
23fanhattan Construction Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 1045, petition for review dismissed
198 F 2d 230 (C A 10), and A IV Lee, Inc, 113 NLRB 947
3 A. IV Lee, Inc , supra
4 Ibtd
5 Ibid.
9 Ibid Accord, Wm. F Traylor, 97 NLRB 1003, at p 1006
7In reaching this conclusion , Members Murdock and Peterson do not pass upon the
Pipefitters' arguments based on the certification and the contract. As the Pipefitters is
bound by the Joint Board agreement , and as it engaged in a stiike for the purpose
of ". . forcing or requiring [an] employer to assign particular work to employees in a
particular labor organization ," they conclude that the certification and contract conten-
tions are relevant to the merits of dispute only, and immatei ial to the issue of whether or
not there is an agreed upon method for adjustment under Section 10 (k)
Member Leedom has considered the contract and the certification and he reaches the
same result in this case whether or not the certification and the contract are deemed
relevant to the question of the existence of an agreed-upon method for adjustment under
10 (k) Thus he finds that in any event the disputed work is not assigned to the Pipe-
fitters in either the certification or the contract The certification contains nothing ex-
SCHICK INCORPORATED 931
As we have found that, as of the time that the charge was filed in
Case No. 13-CD-37, the parties had agreed upon methods for the vol-
untary adjustment of the dispute, we find that we are without authority
to determine this dispute, and shall accordingly quash the notice of
hearing issued in this proceeding. However, with respect to the dis-
pute over the installation of the wood strips, we make no finding. In-
asmuch as neither the Bank nor Jobst was served with notice or par-
ticipated at the hearing, we find that the dispute over the wood strips
is not before us because not all of the necessary parties participated
in the proceedings. Furthermore, we make no finding with respect to
any dispute which may exist between the Pipefitters and Peoria Pip-
ing, likewise because Peoria Piping was not served with notice and
did not make an appearance at this proceeding.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
ACTING CHAIRMAN RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing.
pressly identifying employees whose duties include the disputed work and , in fact, sheet
metal workers aie expressly excluded from the unit The contract appears to contain such
a broad and unqualified assignment of work to the Pipefitters that, if taken literally, it
would cover tasks and skills admittedly not claimed by the Pipefitters, but customarily
belonging to other craft groups such as sheet metal workers , electricians , and carpenters.
For this reason, the contract at best is ambiguous and indecisive.
Schick Incorporated and District No. 98, International Association
of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-0760. Novem-
ber 4,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour X . Alsher, hearing
officer. The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prej udicial 'error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
'International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers, District Council No. 1,
CIO, herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its showing
of interest in the unit sought.
114 NLRB No. 143.
387644-56-vol 114-60