Pipefitters Local No. 195, Plumbers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 172 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pipefitters Local No. 195, United Association of
Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefit-
ting Industry of the United States and Canada and
Cleveland Wrecking Company.
Millwrights Local Union 2484 , Carpenters' District
Council of Sabine Area and Vicinity, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO and Cleveland Wrecking Company.
Cases 23-CD-329 and 23-CD-330
June 3, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
This is a consolidated proceeding under Section
10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, following separate charges filed by Cleve-
land Wrecking Company (herein called the Employ-
er) on December 6, 1974, alleging that Pipefitters
Local No. 195, United Association of Journeymen &
Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of
the United States and Canada (herein called the
Pipefitters) and Millwrights Local Union 2484,
Carpenters' District Council of Sabine Area and
Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the
Millwrights) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
by engaging in certain proscribed activities with an
object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign
certain work to employees represented by Pipefitters
and Millwrights rather than to employees represent-
ed by Laborers International Union of North
America, Local Union Nos. 870 and 853 (herein
called Laborers).'
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Willard I. Boss , on February 4, 1975,
at Beaumont, Texas. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard,2 to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. No briefs
were filed by any of the parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and fmds that they are
1 Southern Texas Laborers District Council , Laborers International
Union of North America , Local Union Nos. 870 and 853, intervened in this
matter.
2 After entering an appearance and participating in certain preliminary
stipulations, Millwrights disclaimed all interest in the disputed work and
physically withdrew from the hearing before the first witness was called.
218 NLRB No. 23
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record
in this case and hereby makes the following fmdings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we fmd, that the
Employer is a Delaware corporation with its offices
and principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The Employer is engaged in the demolition and
wrecking business and has, in the past 12 months,
performed services outside the States of Texas and
Ohio valued in excess of $50,000. Accordingly, we
find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we fmd, that Pipefitters,
Millwrights, and Laborers are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute, as described in the notice of
hearing, consists of the dismantlement and removal
of pipe, electrical conduits, and Nordel equipment
and related work at the Beaumont Works of
Dupont's Elastomer Chemicals Department near
Beaumont, Texas.
B. Background
On October 12, 1974,3 the Employer was awarded
a contract by E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company
(herein called DuPont) for the dismantlement and
removal of certain building equipment and facilities
located at the Beaumont Works of DuPont's Elas-
tomer Chemicals Department near Beaumont , Texas.
The project basically involved gutting a 50- by 150-
foot single-story brick building for ultimate use by
DuPont as a warehouse. The Employer commenced
work on this project on October 27, using a crew of
employees represented by Laborers. The dismantling
work is performed by the use of various wrecking
equipment such as cutting tools and torches to break
When the hearing was approximately half over , Pipefitters entered its
initial appearance represented by its business agent, Henry Bruce Hill, and
participated in the remainder of the hearing . Hill asserted that Pipefitters
was claiming only that portion of the disputed work involving the
dismantlement of pipes and valves.
3 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are in 1974.
PIPEFITTERS LOCAL NO. 195, PLUMBERS
up the materials, pipe, ducts, conduits, etc. for easy
removal.4
On November 27, Business Agent Hill of the
Pipefitters called Kermit Sparks, the Employer's cost
estimator,5 in Cincinnati and told him that unless
Cleveland Wrecking "signed an agreement with .. .
[the Pipefitters] immediately . . . [Cleveland Wreck-
ing] would not be allowed to continue . . . [the]
dismantlement project at DuPont." Sparks told Hill
he would shut down the job until he or the company
vice president could meet with the Pipefitters. The
Employer then stopped all of its work at the DuPont
Beaumont Works.
On December 3, 1974, Sparks, along with Employ-
er Foreman Wooley, went to Beaumont and met with
representatives of the Laborers at that union's office.
When Sparks asked what could be done to get the
job back in progress, he was told that if he signed a
contract with the Beaumont area Laborers the work
could be resumed the next morning. Accordingly,
Sparks immediately signed the contract between the
Associated General Contractors of Jefferson County,
Inc., and the Southern Texas Laborers District
Council.
On December 4, 1974, the Employer's work at the
DuPont Beaumont Works was resumed. That morn-
ing Mr. Hill of the Pipefitters and Mr. Egan, a
representative of the Millwrights, appeared at the
main gate and asked Sparks and Foreman Wooley if
work had been resumed. When Sparks answered
affirmatively, they said that the Employer had not
signed a contract with either Pipefitters or Mill-
wrights and indicated that they were going to return
and set up a picket line at DuPont's main gate if the
Employer did not sign a contract with their respec-
tive 'Unions.
Subsequently, a meeting involving the Employer
and eight trade union locals, including the Pipefit-
ters, Millwrights, and Laborers, was called by the
Employer in an effort to resolve the disputes After
the Employer briefly described the work it was
performing for DuPont, each party to the dispute
laid claim to at least a portion of the work in dispute.
The meeting was adjourned without resolving the
dispute. When Sparks informed a representative of
DuPont that no resolution had been reached, he was
told that the Employer would have to discontinue all
operations' until it obtained a "written release from
various trade unions" in Beaumont . Sparks expressed
4 It appears that the actual loading of the material onto a truck and
haulm; it away was subcontracted out by the Employer and was being
performed by employees represented by Operating Engineers and Team-
sters.
5 While the record is unclear as to Sparks' position in the Employer's
organizational structure , it shows that Sparks signed a contract with the
Laborers on behalf of the Employer, represented the Employer at a meeting
with eight trade union locals, and discussed dispute resolution strategy with
173
doubt that such a release could be obtained and
there is no evidence that Sparks or anyone else made
efforts to obtain such release. The Employer has
performed no work at the project since December 4.
C. Contentions of the Parties
As stated above, none of the parties filed briefs.
From the testimony at the hearing, however, it
appears that the Employer contends that its assign-
ment of the work to the Laborers should be upheld
on the basis of its contract with the Laborers, its past
practice of using laborers on similar jobs, and other
factors normally relied on by the Board in making
awards of disputed work. Thus, Sparks testified that
the Employer had assigned dismantling work to the
Laborers on two earlier DuPont projects in the
Beaumont area and that it customarily uses laborers
for its wrecking operations throughout the country.
Sparks testified that laborers have the skills to handle
the necessary tools efficiently and safely. Laborers
apparently agrees with the Employer's position.
Furthermore, Laborers counsel introduced into
evidence numerous Joint Board Decisions dating
from 1950 to 1965, in which Laborers was awarded
the work of removing and handling valves and pipes
designated for scrap. None of these decisions
involved the parties herein. Indeed, none involved
work in the Beaumont, Texas, area.
Pipefitters, on the other hand, claims only that
portion of the disputed work which involves the
handling of pipes and valves, and presented testimo-
ny that pipefitters were currently engaged in several
similar projects in the area.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that (1) there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated,
and (2) the parties do not have an agreed-upon
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
With respect to (1) above, the record reveals that
on November 27, 1974, the Pipefitters threatened to
shut down the Employer; that on December 4, 1974,
together with the Millwrights, it threatened the
Employer with picketing; and that these threats were
in support of its demand that the Employer assign
the disputed work to employees represented by it.
a representative of DuPont . Based on these facts we find that Sparks is an
agent of the Employer.
6 The record makes reference to the intervention of a Mr. Barrett of
"C.A.S.A." who suggested the December 4 meeting between the Employer
and the Locals, offered his office as a meeting place, and advised adjourning
the meeting when it became clear that a jurisdictional dispute existed. Mr.
Barrett is never further identified nor is the identity of C.A.S.A. clarified.
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we fmd that reasonable cause exists to
believe that Pipefitters and Millwrights violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
With respect to (2) above, we find, for the reasons
stated below, that all the parties to the instant dispute
are required to submit this jurisdictional dispute to
the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (herein
called IJDB) for determination.
In 1973 the Employer became signatory to an
agreement between the Sabine Area Construction
Committee and the Southern Texas Laborers District
Council and its affiliated Local Union Nos. 853 and
870. That agreement, executed on July 17, 1973, for a
term expiring on June 30, 1975, contains the
following provision with respect to the settlement of
jurisdictional disputes:
Section 2. Contractors and Union agree that any
dispute over the work jurisdiction of this Union
and all disputes concerning the interpretation and
application of these working rules are subject to
trade agreements and final decisions of the
Building and Construction Trades Department,
AFL-CIO, and the National Joint Board for the
Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes. Every
facility of the Union will be used in following the
proper procedures of the National Joint Board for
the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes or any
other agency established by law in order to
protect the jurisdiction of the Union as recog-
nized by the Building Trades Department, AFL-
CIO, and the National Joint Board.
Section 3. Should the National Joint Board for the
Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes be abol-
ished, then both parties to this agreement agree to
abide by the decisions of any substitute Board or
Agency which is approved by the Building and
Construction Trades Department of the AFL-
CIO, and signatory employer associations.
Although the foregoing agreement between the
Employer and Laborers appeared still to be in effect
at the time of the instant dispute, the record shows
that, on the morning of December 3, Sparks and
Foreman Wooley went to the Laborers office and
asked what could be done to get the men back to
work. The Laborers representative replied that the
Employer would have to sign a contract with
Laborers, which he then handed to Sparks. This
contract, which Sparks promptly signed on behalf of
the Employer, was an agreement entered into
7 This case is therefore distinguishable from Bricklayers, Masons and
Plasterers ' International Union of Amenca, Local No. ],AFL-CIO (Lembke
Construction Company of Colorado, Inc.), 194 NLRB 649, 651 (1971), where
we held that `joint boards" are not interchangeable and that a party, by
agreeing to be bound by an existing "Joint Board," does not thereby
between Laborers and the Associated General
Contractors of Jefferson County (herein called AGC)
for a term effective from July 1, 1973, to June 30,
1975. The AGC contract contained identical provi-
sions for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes as
are contained in the Sabine Area, Contractors
Committee contract, quoted above.
Inasmuch as both Laborers master contracts were
executed on or after July 1, 1973, it is clear that the
references therein to the "National Joint Board for
the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes" (herein
called NJB) was inadvertent. For the NJB was
dissolved.and expired on or about May 31, 1973, and
was replaced, without hiatus, on June 1, 1973, by the
IJDB. In light of these facts, we surely cannot impute
to the Laborers and the employer associations a
contractual intent, in July 1973, to be bound to a
defunct entity. To the contrary, the contracting
parties obviously intended to be bound by a
functioning entity. This is clearly, evidenced by the
contract provision that, in the event the NJB expires
during the contract's term, the parties agree to be
bound by whatever entity is created under auspices
of the Building and Construction Trades Department
to replace it. The IJDB, like the NJB, was of course
created by agreement between the AFL-CIO Build-
ing and Construction Trades Department and
certain employer associations. Since the IJDB was in
existence at the time the Laborers master contracts
were entered into, we find and conclude that the
reference therein to the defunct NJB was either the
result of an oversight or was in the nature of a
clerical error. In any event, we find that it refers to
the IJDB.7
The rules and regulations of the IJDB provide that
an employer may become bound to its procedures,
inter alia, by signing a collective-bargaining contract
agreeing to be so bound. As the Employer here
signed two such contracts with the Laborers, we find
that both the Employer and Laborers agreed to
resolve their jurisdictional disputes -in the manner
provided by the IJDB.
As to the Pipefitters and the Millwrights, it is well
settled that, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the Board may take administrative notice
of the fact that the Pipefitters and the Millwrights, as
members of the Building and Construction Trades
Department, AFL-CIO, are signatory to the agree-
ment creating the IJDB and are bound to abide by
automatically agree to be bound by other "Joint Boards" which might come
into being during their contract term. Member Fanning , for the reasons
stated in his dissenting opinion in that case , would in any event find that an
agreed-upon method for resolution of jurisdictional disputes existed by
virtue of the contracts between Employer and Laborers.
PIPEFITTERS LOCAL NO. 195, PLUMBERS
its rules and procedures for the settlement of
jurisdictional disputes.8 We find, therefore, that all
parties to this dispute are bound to a voluntary
method for the resolution of this dispute through the
procedures established by IJDB.9
Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of hearing
issued herein.
ORDER
175
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this proceeding be, and it hereby is,
quashed.
8 Local Union No. 70, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Cleveland), 119 NLRB 1345, 134517 ( 1958).
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (F. W. Owens and Associates, Inc), 205 9 In view of this finding, we conclude that it is unnecessary to reach or
NLRB 1171 (1973); Woo4 Wire and Metal Lathers International Union and pass on whether the Millwrights disclaimer was effective and thus it is no
its Local Union No. 2, AFL-CIO (Acoustical Contractors Association of longer involved in this dispute.