NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 33 (New England Finish Systems)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 2018

366 NLRB No. 24 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 24
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
New England Regional Council of Carpenters, Local
33 and New England Finish Systems, LLC and
International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades, District Council 35, Party in Inter-
est/Intervenor
New England Regional Council of Carpenters, Local
33 and Colonial Systems, Inc. and International
Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District
Council 35, Party in Interest/Intervenor. Cases
01–CD–183789 and 01–CD–183838
February 27, 2018
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN KAPLAN AND MEMBERS MCFERRAN
AND EMANUEL
This is a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Sec-
tion 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act. New
England Finish Systems, LLC (NEFS) and Colonial Sys-
tems, Inc. (Colonial) (collectively Employers) each filed
a charge on September 7, 2016,1 alleging that New Eng-
land Regional Council of Carpenters, Local 33 (the Car-
penters) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engag-
ing in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the
Employers to assign certain work to employees it repre-
sents rather than to employees represented by Interna-
tional Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District
Council 35 (DC 35). A hearing was held on October 11
and continued on November 28, December 1, 8, 9, and
12 before Hearing Officer Gene Switzer. Thereafter, the
Employers jointly filed a posthearing brief, and the Car-
penters and DC 35 each filed posthearing briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire rec-
ord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The parties stipulated that NEFS, a New Hampshire
limited liability company, is engaged in the construction
business installing metal studs, drywall, furnishings, and
other interior systems and has performed services valued
in excess of $50,000 annually in states other than New
Hampshire. The parties also stipulated that Colonial, a
Massachusetts corporation, is engaged in the business of
office furniture installation and has performed services

1 All dates are in 2016 unless otherwise indicated.
valued in excess of $50,000 annually in states other than
Massachusetts. The parties further stipulated, and we
find, that the Employers are engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that
the Carpenters and DC 35 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTES
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute in
Case 01–CD–183789
NEFS is located at One Delaware Drive, Salem, New
Hampshire, and has been in business since 1985. NEFS
started as a drywall installation company performing
interior finish work using metal studs and drywall.
NEFS has historically employed individuals represented
by the Carpenters (Carpenters or Carpenters-represented
employees) to do this work and is signatory to a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters, the most
recent of which is effective September 1, 2015, to Au-
gust 31, 2019 (Carpenters’ Agreement). In the past,
NEFS has also employed tapers for drywall finishing; the
tapers are represented by DC 35. As a result of its prior
employment of the tapers, NEFS signed a collective-
bargaining agreement with DC 35, the most recent of
which is effective July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2017 (DC 35
Agreement).
The president of NEFS, Ray Houle, also serves as the
president of Specialty Services of New England, LLC
(Specialty Services), and a supplier of materials. Spe-
cialty Services does not have any employees and is a not
a signatory to any collective-bargaining agreement.
When Specialty Services is awarded installation work, it
subcontracts to NEFS if it needs carpenters and to Paint
Systems of New England, LLC (Paint Systems), a signa-
tory to the DC 35 Agreement, if it needs painters or gla-
ziers, which DC 35 also represents.2
1. Shower door installation at the Parcels B and C
seaport project
a. Background
In March 2015, Specialty Services subcontracted to
NEFS to install glass shower doors and mirrors on two
projects located in Boston, Massachusetts (Avalon I and
Avalon II). This was the first time either Specialty Ser-
vices or NEFS had installed shower door enclosures and
mirrors. NEFS assigned Carpenters to perform the work
at Avalon I. Once DC 35 learned that NEFS was per-
forming the work with Carpenters-represented employ-
ees, it asked NEFS to cease and desist all work and to

2 There is no dispute that NEFS and Colonial, described below, are
the responsible employers for purposes of resolving the jurisdictional
disputes here.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
comply with the DC 35 Agreement, which it claimed was
being violated. At the time that NEFS and DC 35 met to
discuss the dispute, half of the work at Avalon I had al-
ready been completed. The parties agreed that a compo-
site crew would complete the rest of the work on a “one-
to-one” basis—e.g., an equal number of DC 35 glaziers
and Carpenters would be used.
Work on the Avalon II project began with only DC 35-
represented glaziers. Five or 6 weeks into the project,
one of the glaziers noticed a discrepancy in the size of
the shower doors that they had been installing. After the
developer, Avalon Bay, investigated the discrepancy and
determined that all the shower doors that had already
been installed had to be removed, NEFS assigned two
Carpenters to work alongside the glaziers to remove the
shower doors. DC 35 protested the assignment of Car-
penters to the project and filed a grievance against NEFS
with the New England Painting, Finishing and Glazing
Industries District Council 35 Joint Trade Board (DC 35
Joint Trade Board). The Carpenters also refused to re-
linquish the work, and NEFS filed a charge with the
NLRB.3 Both the grievance and the Board charge were
withdrawn as part of a nonprecedential settlement by
which the parties agreed to have the work performed by a
composite crew of NEFS employees represented by the
Carpenters and Paint Systems glaziers represented by DC
35.
b. The instant dispute
On about August 12, Specialty Services contracted
with NEFS to perform work at the Parcels B and C pro-
ject in the Seaport District in Boston, Massachusetts.
First, NEFS President Houle contacted DC 35 repre-
sentative Paul Canning and Carpenters representative
John Murphy to advise them that he expected to have a
composite crew work on the project, which included
shower door installation work similar to the Avalon pro-
jects. Murphy told Houle that he had no issues with a
composite crew. Paul Kelly, DC 35’s attorney, however,
advised Houle that DC 35 was claiming all of the work
associated with the installation of the shower doors, op-
posed assignment of the work to a composite crew, and
would protest by all legal means any efforts to compro-
mise its jurisdiction. After Houle informed Murphy
about DC 35’s claim, Murphy responded that there
would be a job action if all of the work was assigned to
DC 35.
At the time of the hearing, the installation of the show-
er doors at the Parcels B and C Seaport project was on-

3 New England Council of Carpenters, Local 33 (New England Fin-
ish Systems), Case 01–CD–180180.
going and being performed by a composite crew of Car-
penters- and DC 35-represented employees.
2. The demountable glass partitions at 125 High Street
NEFS has been installing the Infinium Wall brand of
glass demountable wall systems for about a year and a
half. The glass panels that are used in this system are
either “unitized” or “unclad.” A unitized glass panel
comes from the manufacturer with the glass already clad
or framed; an unclad or “raw” glass panel is simply a
plane of glass. In the Infinium Wall systems, both types
of glass panels are affixed to the ceiling and/or floor in a
track. All of the work that NEFS performs in installing
systems using unitized panels is assigned to Carpenters-
represented employees. By contrast, where the wall sys-
tem being installed involves handling unclad or raw
glass, NEFS generally subcontracts the work to Paint
Systems, which assigns the work to DC 35 glaziers.
However, if there are only a limited number of unclad or
“raw” glass panes to install, NEFS assigns the entire in-
stallation to Carpenters-represented employees.
In the summer of 2016, NEFS was awarded a contract
to install interior demountable glass walls manufactured
by Infinium Walls at a project located at 125 High Street
in Boston. NEFS assigned Carpenters-represented em-
ployees to affix the ceiling channels and install the unit-
ized glass panel walls. NEFS also assigned the installa-
tion of the unclad doors to Carpenters-represented em-
ployees because, according to Houle, there would only
be two or three doors to install at a time and it would not
have been productive to subcontract such limited work.
On about August 9, DC 35 filed a grievance against
NEFS with the DC 35 Joint Trade Board for using Car-
penters to complete this work. DC 35 claimed that the
work was covered by its agreement and that it should
have been assigned to DC 35-represented glaziers. On
about September 7, Houle spoke to Carpenters repre-
sentative Murphy about DC 35’s claim, and Murphy re-
sponded that there would be a job action if any of the
work was given to DC 35 glaziers. By the time of the
hearing, the work had been completed.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute in
Case 01–CD–183838
Colonial is an office furniture installation company
that contracts with office furniture dealerships, furniture
suppliers, general contractors, and business owners. It
installs walls, doors, cubicles, conference rooms, file
cabinets, desks, and seating. Colonial, a signatory to
agreements with both the Carpenters and DC 35, em-
ploys a core group of Carpenters-represented employees
who are assigned exclusively to install all aspects of a
unitized demountable glass wall system—including the
NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 33 (NEW ENGLAND FINISH SYSTEMS) 3
tracks that hold the walls in place, the doors, and all as-
sociated hardware. Colonial also installs a second type
of wall system called a stick built system. In this system,
a structure is built, and tiles that form the basis of the
wall are then affixed to the structure. These tiles are
made up of a variety of materials, including unclad or
raw glass. When working on stick built systems, Coloni-
al assigns Carpenters to build the structure and assigns
DC 35-represented glaziers to affix the unclad or raw
glass panels into that frame. If there are only a few raw
glass panels or tiles, Colonial also assigns that limited
work to Carpenters. When Colonial needs glaziers, it
calls DC 35 for a referral.
The dispute centers on Colonial’s installation of interi-
or demountable glass walls on projects located at 1 Fed-
eral Street, 8th Floor, Boston; the Boston Public Li-
brary’s Career Planning Center; Microsoft at One Memo-
rial Drive, Cambridge; 200 Berkley Street, Floors 9-12,
Boston; and Partners Healthcare, Assembly Row, Som-
erville. The interior demountable glass wall systems
installed in these projects are premanufactured modular
systems including both the unitized system and the stick
built system. Colonial assigned the structural installation
to Carpenters-represented employees and the handling
and installation of the raw glass to DC 35 glaziers.
In August, DC 35 filed multiple grievances with the
DC 35 Joint Trade Board against Colonial alleging, in
part, that Colonial breached the trade jurisdiction provi-
sion of the DC 35 contract by assigning work at these
five projects to Carpenters. At the time these grievances
were filed, all of the projects had been completed except
for the Partners Healthcare project.
On September 7, Colonial’s vice president of opera-
tions Matthew McKenna told Carpenters representative
Murphy that Colonial had to go before the DC 35 Joint
Trade Board because of the grievances filed against it.
Murphy replied that if Colonial changed the way that it
assigned labor, the Carpenters would file a grievance
against Colonial for assigning Carpenters’ work to glazi-
ers and would engage in job actions at Colonial jobsites.
He repeated the threat on September 11.
III. WORK IN DISPUTE
The work in dispute in Case 01–CD–183789, as set
forth in the Notice of Hearing, and as further clarified in
the Notice Rescheduling Hearing and Clarifying Disput-
ed Work, involves the installation of glass shower doors
at the project known as Parcels B and C in the Seaport
District of Boston, Massachusetts, and the installation of
interior demountable glass walls, including all of the
glass/glazing, frames, tracks, glass door hardware and
rollers, glass partitions of any size, associated with the
installation of those walls, at 125 High Street, Boston,
Massachusetts.
The work in dispute in Case 01–CD–183838, as set
forth in the Notice of Hearing, and as further clarified in
the Notice Rescheduling Hearing and Clarifying Disput-
ed Work, is the work related to the installation of interior
demountable glass walls, including all of the frames,
tracks, glass door hardware and rollers, glass partitions of
any size, and/or demountable partitions of any size, but
excluding the handling and installation of raw glass tiles
or panels,4 at the five locations in the Boston area de-
scribed above.
We find, based on the record that the work in dispute
is as described above.
IV. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Employers NEFS and Colonial both contend that there
is reasonable cause to believe that the Carpenters violat-
ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
In Case 01–CD–183789, NEFS and the Carpenters
contend in their briefs that the work associated with the
installation of shower doors at the Parcels B and C Sea-
port project—based on the Carpenters’ Agreement, com-
pany preference, past practice, area and industry practice,
and economy and efficiency of operations—should be
assigned to employees represented by the Carpenters.
With respect to the installation of the interior de-
mountable glass walls at 125 High Street, NEFS and the
Carpenters contend that Carpenters should be assigned
that work. They agree that the handling and installation
of raw glass in these systems should ordinarily be as-
signed to glaziers represented by DC 35. Nonetheless,
because of the limited amount of raw glass being in-
stalled on this project, NEFS contends that the work was
properly assigned to Carpenters on the basis of the Car-
penters’ Agreement, economy and efficiency of opera-
tions, company preference, past practice, area and indus-
try practice, and skill and training.
DC 35 contends that all of the work in dispute at the
Parcels B and C Seaport project and at 125 High Street
should be assigned to DC 35-represented glaziers based
on the DC 35 Agreement, economy and efficiency, skill
and training, and area and industry practice with employ-
ers other than NEFS and Paint Systems.
In Case 01–CD–183838, Colonial and the Carpenters
contend that all of the work associated with the installa-
tion of the interior demountable glass walls on the five
projects at issue, with the exception of the handling and

4 This is in contrast to Case 01–CD–183789, in which the Carpen-
ters is disputing the assignment of the work involved in the handling
and installation of the apparently minimal amount of raw glass tiles or
panels involved.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
installation of raw glass tiles or panels, is properly as-
signed to Carpenters-represented employees on the basis
of the Carpenters’ Agreement, company preference, past
practice, area and industry practice, skill and training,
and economy and efficiency of operations. DC 35 con-
tends that all of the work on those projects is properly
assigned to DC 35 glaziers based on the DC 35 Agree-
ment, economy and efficiency, skill and training, and
area and industry practice with employers other than Co-
lonial.
V. APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
The Board may proceed with a determination of a dis-
pute under Section 10(k) of the Act only if there is rea-
sonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated. Operating Engineers Local 150 (R&D Thiel),
345 NLRB 1137, 1139 (2005). This standard is met if
there is reasonable cause to believe that there are compet-
ing claims for the disputed work between rival groups of
employees, and that a party has used proscribed means to
enforce its claim to that work. Id. Additionally, there
must be a finding that the parties have not agreed on a
method of voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Id. On
this record, we find that these requirements have been
met.
1. Competing claims for work
We find reasonable cause to believe—and it is not dis-
puted—that the Carpenters and DC 35 have claimed the
work in dispute for the employees they respectively rep-
resent.
a. Case 01–CD–183789
The performance of the disputed work at Parcels B and
C by a composite crew of Carpenters- and DC 35-
represented employees establishes both unions’ separate
claims to that work. Laborers Local 310 (KMU Trucking
& Excavating), 361 NLRB 381, 383 (2014). Further, DC
35 expressly claimed the work, asking NEFS to cease
and desist assigning the work to the Carpenters, and, in
turn, the Carpenters’ threat of a job action if any of the
work was given to DC 35 establishes the Carpenters’
claim to the work. Similarly, the performance of the
disputed work at 125 High Street by Carpenters-
represented employees and the Carpenters’ threat of a job
action both establish the Carpenters’ claim to that work,
and DC 35 claimed the work by filing a grievance
against NEFS with the DC 35 Joint Trade Board alleging
that the work at 125 High Street should have been as-
signed to DC 35 glaziers pursuant to the trade jurisdic-
tion provision of the DC 35 Agreement. See, e.g., Oper-
ating Engineers Local 18 (Donley’s, Inc.), 360 NLRB
903, 906 (2014) (citing, e.g., Laborers Local 265 (AMS
Construction, Inc.), 356 NLRB 306, 308 (2010), and
cases cited therein) (grievances alleging that work was
assigned in violation of a collective bargaining agree-
ment constitute demands for the disputed work); Labor-
ers (Esbach Bros., LP), 344 NLRB 201, 202 (2005)
(same).
b. Case 01–CD–183838
The performance of the disputed work at the five pro-
jects by Carpenters-represented employees establishes
the Carpenters’ claim to that work. In addition, the Car-
penters’ repeated threats of a grievance and job actions if
Colonial gave any of the disputed work to DC 35 glaziers
also constituted a claim to the work. DC 35 claimed the
work by filing a charge against Colonial with the DC 35
Joint Trade Board alleging that the work should have
been assigned to DC 35 glaziers pursuant to the trade
jurisdiction provision of the DC 35 Agreement.
2. Use of proscribed means
We find reasonable cause to believe that the Carpen-
ters used means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) to en-
force its claim to the work in dispute. In August, Car-
penters representative Murphy threatened NEFS Presi-
dent Houle that there would be a job action if any of the
work at the parcels B and C project was assigned to DC
35. On about September 7, Murphy threatened Houle
that there would be a job action if any of the work at 125
High Street was given to DC 35 glaziers. As for the dis-
puted work at the five projects in the Boston area, Mur-
phy twice told Colonial’s vice president that if Colonial
changed the way that it was assigning the work—i.e., if it
reassigned any of the work that had been assigned to the
Carpenters to DC 35—the Carpenters would engage in
job actions at Colonial’s jobsites. These threats of job
actions constitute proscribed means to enforce a claim to
disputed work. Laborers Local 310 (KMU Trucking &
Excavating), above, 361 NLRB at 383; Operating Engi-
neers Local 150 (Patten Industries), 348 NLRB 672, 674
(2006); Operating Engineers Local 150 (R&D Thiel),
above, 345 NLRB at 1140.
3. No voluntary method for adjustment of dispute
We further find that there is no agreed-upon method
for voluntary adjustment of the dispute to which all par-
ties are bound. On the first day of the hearing, the parties
stipulated that there was no agreed-upon method for re-
solving the matters in dispute that was binding on all
parties. On the second day of the hearing, however, DC
35 withdrew from the stipulation. It argued that Article 2
(Jurisdictional Procedure) of the Carpenters’ Agreement
includes a method for resolving the disputes, and that it
was willing to participate and be bound by that proce-
dure.
NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 33 (NEW ENGLAND FINISH SYSTEMS) 5
Article 2 states in relevant part:
In the event a jurisdictional dispute arises, the disputing
unions shall request the other union or unions involved
to send representatives to meet with representatives of
the Union and Employer to settle the dispute. If the
above procedure or any other mutually agreed upon
procedure fails to resolve the problem, then the Em-
ployer, at the request of the Union, agrees to participate
in a tripartite arbitration with all the disputing parties.
Decisions rendered by any of the above procedures
shall be final, binding, and conclusive on the Employer
and the Union parties to this agreement.
The capitalized “Union” is a defined term in the Car-
penters’ Agreement and refers to the Carpenters. The
Carpenters has not invoked article 2 by requesting that
the Employer participate in arbitration.
The Board has long held that “[t]o constitute an
agreed-upon method for settlement, a procedure must
bind all parties to the dispute.” Teamsters Local 952
(Westside Building Material Corp.), 275 NLRB 1001,
1004 (1985). DC 35 acknowledges that it is not a party
to the agreement. It also acknowledges numerous Board
decisions holding that an agreement between an employ-
er and a union to submit a jurisdictional dispute to an
agreed-upon method is not a voluntary method of ad-
justment for the second union to the dispute if that union
is not contractually bound to that procedure. See, e.g.,
Plumbers Local 393 (Therma Corp.), 303 NLRB 678,
680 (1991) (no agreed-upon method for resolving dispute
where Plumbers union was not a signatory to the contract
between employer and Laborers, which contained a ju-
risdictional dispute resolution mechanism); Iron Work-
ers Local 197 (Del Guidice Enterprises), 291 NLRB 1, 3
(1988) (no voluntary method of resolving dispute where
contract between Iron Workers local and the employer
contained an arbitration clause, but no such agreement
bound the Mason Tenders Union, which also claimed the
work). Nonetheless, DC 35 argues that the precedent is
distinguishable because, unlike here, the nonsignatory
unions in the cited cases were unwilling to participate in
the rival unions’ contractual dispute resolution methods.
That argument is meritless. As these and numerous other
cases establish, the Board’s determination that a proce-
dure constitutes an agreed-upon method for settlement
hinges not on the parties’ willingness to participate in the
procedure but on whether the parties are legally bound to
it, if not by their labor contracts then as signatories to
broader industry or trade agreements.5 As indicated
above, DC 35 is not a party to, and is not bound by, the
Carpenters’ Agreement and its arbitration procedures,
and there is no evidence of any relevant industry-wide
agreement binding both unions.6
For the foregoing reasons, we find that there are com-
peting claims for the work in dispute, there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violat-
ed, and there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary
adjustment of the dispute. We accordingly find that the
dispute is properly before the Board for determination.
VI. MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirma-
tive award of disputed work after considering various
factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212,
364 U.S. 573, 577–579 (1961). The Board’s determina-
tion in a jurisdictional dispute is “an act of judgment
based on common sense and experience,” reached by
balancing the factors involved in a particular case. Ma-

5 Compare Operating Engineers Local 4 (Massachusetts Building-
Wreckers and Environmental Remediation Assoc.), 363 NLRB No. 17
(2015) (finding agreed-upon method for dispute resolution where dis-
puting Operating Engineers’ and Laborers’ unions were contractually
bound to submit disputes to the same “Plan for the Settlement of Juris-
dictional Disputes in the Construction Industry,” to which the employer
was also bound); Plumbers Local 447 (Capitol Air Conditioning, Inc.),
224 NLRB 985, 986–987 (1976) (agreed-upon method of dispute reso-
lution where disputing unions were members of the building trades
department of the AFL–CIO and therefore bound by same jurisdictional
dispute resolution procedure, to which employer was bound by its
membership in relevant contractors’ association); with Operating Engi-
neers Local 3 (Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co.), 297 NLRB
953, 955 (1990) (no agreed-upon method where disputing unions’
respective contracts lacked “explicit reference to a plan found to be
binding on all parties”).
DC 35’s reliance on a 1973 General Counsel Memorandum, GC 73–
82 (available on the Board website at http://www.nlrb.gov/reports-
guidance/general-counsel-memos), which provided guidance to the
Regions on processing Section 8(b)(4)(D) and Section 10(1) cases, is
also unavailing. That non-binding memorandum raised the possibility
that if the unions involved agree to participate in grievance proceedings
under a contract between the employer and one of the unions, “such an
ad hoc procedure” might qualify as an agreed-upon dispute method,
and then ordered that any such cases be referred to the General Counsel
for advice. GC Memo at 10–11. Subsequent Board decisions, howev-
er, as discussed above, clearly establish that all parties must be contrac-
tually bound to a procedure for it to constitute an agreed-upon method
for settlement under Sec. 10(k). E.g., Teamsters Local 952 (Westside
Building Material Corp.), above.
6 In this respect, the Employers and Carpenters argue that art. 2 is
only applicable to unions who are signatories to collective-bargaining
agreements with the same employer association, citing the plain lan-
guage of the contract and testimony by the Carpenters’ Director of
Contractor Relations.
In light of our findings above, we find it unnecessary to pass on the
Employers’ additional arguments that DC 35’s claim is time barred
under Sec. 10(k) and that they are only required to participate in the
tripartite arbitration upon the Carpenters' request.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
chinists Lodge 1743 (J.A. Jones Construction Co.), 135
NLRB 1402, 1410–1411 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of this dispute.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements
The parties stipulated that the work in dispute is not di-
rectly covered by any Board orders or certifications. As
mentioned above, Colonial and NEFS are signatories to a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters, the
most recent of which is effective September 1, 2015, to
August 31, 2019, and with DC 35, the most recent of
which is effective July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2017.7
The Carpenters contends that its Agreement covers all
the individual elements of the work involved in the in-
stallation of demountable glass partition systems. Spe-
cifically, the Carpenters’ Agreement defines a carpen-
ter’s work as including “[t]he erecting of structural parts
of a house, building, or structure made of wood or any
substitute, such as plastics or composition materials”;
“[e]rection of all wood, metal, plastic, and composition
partitions”; “fastening on of all wooden, plastic, or com-
position cleats to iron work or on other material”; “[t]he
hanging, setting and installation of wood, metal or plastic
doors, sash, jambs, bucks, casings, putting on of all
hardware”; “[f]itting, installation and fastening of stops,
beads and molding in doors and windows”; “the installa-
tion of all moldings made of wood, metal, plastic or
composition”; “setting and hanging of all sash, doors,
inside and outside blinds, windows, and other frames”;
“putting on weather strips and caulking”; “[p]artitions,
pre-cut and pre-fit trim and doors [. . .] sash, doors, trim,
molding, screen and storm sash and doors”; and “assem-
bling, handling of or the manufacturing of all wood, met-
al or plastic materials or products, also including the as-
sembling, putting together of work after same has been
machined, hand worked, or shaped.” The Carpenters
also identified the Infinium demountable system used by
NEFS at 125 High Street as an acoustical partition and
point out that the Carpenters’ Agreement expressly co-
vers “acoustical systems.”
DC 35 also contends that its Agreement places the
work in dispute within its traditional and historical juris-
diction. Specifically, its agreement defines its trade ju-
risdiction as including “window panels,” “store front
panels,” “tempered and laminated glass,” and “all interior
glazing systems.” Its Agreement also asserts jurisdiction
over “all interior glazing systems including aluminum

7 Although NEFS President Houle told DC 35 in July that NEFS
wished to repudiate the DC 35 Agreement, he subsequently told DC 35
about the Parcels B and C Seaport project and said that he was expect-
ing to have the work performed with a composite crew.
storefront or office front metal fabricated by metal fabri-
cators or glass workers, partitions and demountable glaz-
ing systems, including those in any or all of the buildings
related to store front and window wall.”
We find that the Carpenters and DC 35 both have lan-
guage in their agreements arguably covering the work in
dispute involving the installation of interior demountable
glass walls and glass shower doors. We therefore find
that this factor is neutral.
2. Employer preference and past practice
As to demountable glass wall systems, representatives
of both Employers testified that they prefer to use Car-
penters-represented employees to perform the disputed
work, that they currently assign this work to Carpenters,
and that they have assigned these installations to the
Carpenters for years. Specifically, Colonial’s representa-
tives testified that Colonial has had a consistent practice
over the last 10 years of using Carpenters for all de-
mountable wall systems, regardless of the materials used,
including the glass demountable wall systems that started
replacing cubicles in the early 2000s. While Colonial
has a practice of hiring DC 35 glaziers to install raw
glass when there is a substantial amount of raw glass to
install as part of the demountable wall system, it contin-
ues to use Carpenters to install raw glass when there are
only a few panels to install. Colonial asserts that its
practices are evidenced by the fact that it employs 60 to
90 full-time Carpenters but no full-time DC 35-
represented glaziers.
NEFS has also been installing demountable wall sys-
tems since the late 1980s and has consistently used its
Carpenters-represented employees for that work. It only
subcontracts to employers employing DC 35 glaziers for
the installation of raw, unclad glass that may be part of
the systems. NEFS also noted the inefficiency of sub-
contracting work that its own employees could perform.
DC 35 concedes that both Employers have expressed a
preference to assign the disputed work to Carpenters.
Based on the above, we find that this factor favors
awarding the work involving interior demountable glass
walls to Carpenters-represented employees.
With regard to the disputed work involving glass
shower door installation at the Parcels B and C Seaport
project, NEFS has only done two such projects. It con-
tends, however, that it immediately established a practice
of using a composite crew, and that DC 35 agreed to this
practice. DC 35, for its part, argues that an employer
should not to be permitted to rely on a past “practice”
that was developed by violating another union’s contract,
which DC 35 claims occurred here. DC 35 also argues
that the disputed shower installation work has not tradi-
tionally been performed by composite crews.
NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 33 (NEW ENGLAND FINISH SYSTEMS) 7
The record shows that NEFS assigned its first shower
door installation project (Avalon I) to its Carpenters-
represented employees in March 2015. DC 35 claimed
that the assignment was contrary to the DC 35 Agree-
ment and asked NEFS to cease and desist from perform-
ing the work. It was only after NEFS and DC 35 met
that it was agreed that the work would be completed with
a composite crew.
Moreover, the second shower-door installation project,
Avalon II, was not initially assigned to the Carpenters or
to a composite crew. Rather, DC 35 glaziers were initial-
ly assigned that work and performed it for 5 to 6 weeks
before an employee noticed problems in the size of the
shower doors. Carpenters-represented employees were
then assigned to help the glaziers remove the shower
doors that had just been installed. When the Carpenters
refused to relinquish the rest of the installation and DC
35 protested, the parties entered into a non-precedential
agreement to have a composite crew finish the installa-
tion.
Thus, we find that the evidence does not support
NEFS’s contention that it has established a past practice
of assigning shower door installations to Carpenters-
represented employees or to a composite crew, as it has
not customarily performed such work. See, e.g., Carpen-
ters Local 171 (Knowlton Construction Co.), 207 NLRB
406, 408 (1973) (record did not support employer’s con-
tention that its assignment of disputed work was con-
sistent with past practice when the employer had not cus-
tomarily performed such work in the area). In addition,
we place little weight on the fact that NEFS’s previous
shower door installation projects and the work in dispute
were completed by composite crews. As described
above, those arrangements were compelled by the Car-
penters’ refusal to relinquish disputed work, and not by
relevant considerations. Longshoremen ILWU Local 19
(Seattle Tunnel Partners), 361 NLRB 1031, 1035–1036,
1036 fn. 12 (2014) (employer’s proposal for a composite
crew given little weight where employer made the pro-
posal to accommodate its client’s desire to have another
union participate in the project), citing Laborers Local 4
(The Cleveland Marble Mosaic Co.), 285 NLRB 230,
232 (1987) (employer’s preference for a composite crew
of laborers and stone setters, rather than a crew of labor-
ers alone, was not “freely made” and thus not entitled to
much weight where the employer had changed its prefer-
ence because of concerns about a work stoppage); Long-
shoremen ILWU Local 50 (Brady-Hamilton Stevedore
Co.), 223 NLRB 1034, 1037 (1976), reconsideration
granted and decision rescinded on other grounds, 244
NLRB 275 (1979) (employers’ post-work stoppage as-
sertions of preference may not be representative of a free
choice given that employers changed their original pref-
erence after a work stoppage “forced” them to reassign
disputed work).
We find more persuasive NEFS’s assertion that the
work flexibility of Carpenters-represented employees
makes it more efficient and less expensive to use them
because its contracts frequently include work in addition
to shower door installations, such as installing window
treatments and medicine cabinets that Carpenters can
perform. In light of this cited efficiency and greater cost-
effectiveness, we find that the factor of employer prefer-
ence favors awarding the disputed work related to show-
er door installation to employees represented by the Car-
penters. Machinists IAM District No. 15(Hudson Gen-
eral Corp.), 326 NLRB 62, 67–68 (1998) (great weight
placed on employer preference where preference is sup-
ported by traditional factors relevant to making an award
in a jurisdictional dispute).
3. Area and industry practice
The Employers and the Carpenters presented evidence
that the area practice is to assign installation of demount-
able glass wall systems to Carpenters. Like other area
employers, Colonial and NEFS contract directly with the
manufacturers of the systems at issue here and must be
certified by these manufacturers in order to install their
products. Accordingly, the Employers’ key employees—
who are Carpenters—complete the required training and
obtain these certifications. Further, area contractors had
been using Carpenters to install demountable wall sys-
tems prior to the widespread use of the glass systems at
issue here. After manufacturers started producing de-
mountable glass wall systems, these contractors contin-
ued to use Carpenters for the installations. At one point
in 2003, in an early demountable glass wall system pro-
ject, the Carpenters and DC 35 agreed that the Carpenters
would install the demountable glass wall system except
for the handling of raw glass on that job. It was at the
request of the Carpenters that many furniture contractors,
including Colonial, signed collective-bargaining agree-
ments with DC 35 so that glaziers could handle any raw
glass that may have been part of these systems.
DC 35 did present testimony from several of its signa-
tory contractors stating that they assign work involving
interior glass walls to DC 35 glaziers. But these witness-
es testified that the glass wall systems they installed—
unlike the demountable systems here—were customized
and fabricated in their shops and, as such, required han-
dling of raw glass from fabrication of the glass wall sys-
tems to their installation. Thus, those were not the sort
of premanufactured wall systems involved in the instant
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
case, which require far less glazing or handling of raw
glass.8 Accordingly, we find that the factor of area prac-
tice favors an award of the disputed work involving de-
mountable glass walls to employees represented by the
Carpenters. See Elevator Constructors Local 2 (Kone,
Inc.), 349 NLRB 1207, 1210 (2007) (where representa-
tives of three large elevator companies testified that they
had only used employees represented by Elevator Con-
structors to perform the disputed work, area and industry
practice favored award of the work to Elevator Construc-
tors).
With regard to the installation of glass shower doors,
the factor of area practice favors DC 35’s glaziers. The
hearing testimony indicated that one signatory to both the
Carpenters and the DC 35 agreements has used compo-
site crews on 10 shower door installations from 2006 to
2016, and that two other firms that are signatories to both
agreements assign shower door installation to DC 35
glaziers. Representatives from five area companies spe-
cializing in glass or shower door installation and that are
not signatories to both Unions’ agreements testified that
they have always assigned all installation of shower
doors to DC 35 glaziers. No testimony indicated an area
practice of assigning this work only to Carpenters-
represented employees. Accordingly, we find that the
factor of area practice favors an award of the disputed
work involving shower door installation to DC 35-
represented employees.
4. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employers and the Carpenters presented evidence
that the work flexibility of Carpenters-represented em-
ployees made it more efficient and less expensive to use
them, rather than DC 35 glaziers, for the disputed work
involving both demountable glass wall systems and glass
shower doors. The Employers point out that a carpenter
can shift between normal carpentry work on the jobsite
and the disputed work depending on the employer’s
needs, while the glaziers can only perform the limited
tasks of handling and installing raw glass because of ju-
risdictional parameters. The Employers contend that the
ability to move workers to different tasks is invaluable
where the Employers’ contracts usually cover more than
just demountable wall systems or shower doors and when
work on the jobsite is often delayed by circumstances
such as late delivery of materials or the completion of
preparatory work by other trades. Worker flexibility is
also essential when projects and tasks are rescheduled
because of access issues in a construction site, such as

8 As noted above, to the extent that raw glass is handled in the dis-
puted wall installations here, the Carpenters does not claim that aspect
of the work for the five locations at issue in Case 01–CD–183838.
when an elevator needed for transporting materials is
being used for other ongoing projects.
Although DC 35 argues that the Employers did not
present evidence that DC 35 glaziers lacked the skill set
necessary for such flexibility, there was no evidence that
they have been as flexible on jobsites as the Carpenters
or that the other work is within DC 35’s jurisdiction.
Finally, the actual hours spent by Carpenters-represented
employees installing demountable glass wall systems is
substantially less than DC 35’s estimates of the hours its
glaziers would need to complete the work.
Based on the above, we find that this factor favors an
award of the disputed work involving both demountable
wall systems and glass shower doors to employees repre-
sented by the Carpenters. Glaziers District Council 16
(MALV, Inc. d/b/a Service West), 356 NLRB 760, 763–
764 (2011) (more efficient to use carpenters to install
demountable floor-to-ceiling partitions because they
were faster and could perform other work on site, and
subcontracting to glaziers to perform just one aspect of
the work caused delay).
5. Relative skills and training
Although both the Carpenters and DC 35 presented ev-
idence that the employees they represent have the neces-
sary skills and training for the installation of demounta-
ble glass wall systems, several witnesses testified that
Carpenters have additional relevant training and certifi-
cation that DC 35 glaziers lack. The Carpenters and DC
35 both provide formal training for their members to be
able to install demountable glass wall systems (through
New England Carpenters Training Center for the Carpen-
ters and the Finishing Institute of New England for DC
35). Significantly, however, Carpenters-represented em-
ployees are the only employees who have received the
manufacturers’ trainings and certifications, or on-the-job
training from employees who have been trained and cer-
tified by the manufacturer. The record indicates that DC
35 signatory contractors do not have business relation-
ships and certifications from manufacturers of the de-
mountable glass wall systems that are being used at the
projects in dispute. Further, the Carpenters have more
experience installing these systems as the record indi-
cates that they have been doing so for decades both prior
to and after the widespread use of the glass wall systems,
unlike DC 35 glaziers. Thus, based on the above, we
find that this factor favors an award of the disputed work
involving demountable glass wall systems to employees
represented by the Carpenters.
As for the disputed work involving shower door instal-
lation, several witnesses testified that the Carpenters and
DC 35 both provide formal training for their members to
install shower doors. DC 35 appears to have more expe-
NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 33 (NEW ENGLAND FINISH SYSTEMS) 9
rience installing shower doors, based on the testimony of
several contractors that they always assign such work to
glaziers. But the record also shows that in the case of at
least one company, Carpenters have installed shower
doors as a part of a composite crew for the last ten years.
Because the evidence suggests that employees represent-
ed by both the Carpenters and DC 35 have skills and
training for the shower door installation, and there is no
indication that the shower doors installed here required
specialized training and certification from the manufac-
turer, we conclude that this factor does not favor an
award of the work in dispute to either employee group.
Miscellaneous Drivers Local 610 (Valley Plate Glass
Co.), 196 NLRB 1140, 1142 (1972) (factor of skill did
not favor either union where Glaziers-represented em-
ployees participated in 150 hours of classroom training to
enable them to perform the disputed work, and the
Teamsters-represented employees had no similar training
but had performed identical work for at least one compa-
ny).
VII. CONCLUSION
After considering all of the relevant factors, we con-
clude that employees represented by the Carpenters are
entitled to perform the work in dispute involving installa-
tion of interior demountable glass wall systems at 125
High Street, Boston; 1 Federal Street, 8th Floor, Boston;
the College Planning Center, Boston Public Library,
Boston; Microsoft, One Memorial Drive, Cambridge;
200 Berkley Street Floors 9-12, Boston; and Partners
Healthcare, Assembly Row, Somerville. We reach this
conclusion based on the factors of employer preference
and past practice, area and industry practice, economy
and efficiency of operations, and relative skills and train-
ing.
We also conclude that employees represented by the
Carpenters are entitled to perform the work in dispute
involving installation of glass shower doors at the project
known as Parcels B and C in the Seaport District in Bos-
ton. We reach this conclusion based on the factors of
employer preference and economy and efficiency of op-
erations.
In making these determinations, we award the work to
employees represented by the Carpenters, not to that la-
bor organization or its members.
VIII. SCOPE OF AWARD
The Employers have requested that our award encom-
pass the entire geographic area where the jurisdiction of
the Carpenters and DC 35 overlap. The Board customar-
ily does not grant an award of the work in dispute be-
yond the specific jobsites involved where the charged
party represents the employees to whom the work is
awarded and to whom the employer contemplates con-
tinuing to assign the work. Laborers Local 243 (A. Amo-
rello & Sons), 314 NLRB 501, 503 (1994). Accordingly,
we shall limit the present determination to the particular
controversies that gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute.
Employees of New England Finish Systems, who are
represented by the New England Regional Council of
Carpenters, Local 33 are entitled to do the work in dis-
pute in Case 01–CD–183789 involving the installation
of glass shower doors at the project known as Parcels B
and C in the Seaport District of Boston; and the installa-
tion of interior demountable glass walls including all of
the glass/glazing, frames, tracks, glass door hardware and
rollers, and glass partitions of any size associated with
the installation of those walls at 125 High Street, Boston.
Employees of Colonial Systems, Inc., who are repre-
sented by the New England Regional Council of Carpen-
ters, Local 33, are entitled to do the work in dispute in
Case 01–CD–183838 involving the installation of interi-
or demountable glass walls, including all of the frames,
tracks, glass door hardware and rollers, glass partitions of
any size, and/or demountable partitions of any size, but
excluding the handling and installation of raw glass tiles
or panels, at 1 Federal Street, 8th Floor, Boston; the
Boston Public Library, College Planning Center; Mi-
crosoft, One Memorial Drive, Cambridge; 200 Berkley
Street Floors 9-12, Boston; and Partners Healthcare, As-
sembly Row, Somerville.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 27, 2018
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Chairman
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD