Pipefitters' Local Union No. 522, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All motormen, derrickmen,
and floormen employed by the Employer in drilling operations, ex-
cluding all office clericals, professional employees, guards, drillers,
and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. Although the question of eligibility was at issue, neither party
has taken any position with respect to it. While the record is not
too specific on the point, it appears that the minimum time consumed
in drilling a well is approximately 10 days and that a majority of
the employees hired at the drilling site work 10 or more days a year
for the Employer.5 In these circumstances we believe that only
those employees who have worked 10 or more days during the year
preceding the eligibility date provided in this Direction of Election
have a substantial and continuing interest in conditions of employ-
ment with the Employer and that the selection of this figure will
insure a representative vote. We therefore find that in addition to
those in the unit who were employed during the payroll period im-
mediately preceding the date of the Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion, employees who have worked 10 or more days during the year
preceding the eligibility date for the election herein directed are
eligible to vote.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
e Testimony of the Employer shows that employees with lesser periods of employment
than 10 days a year are usually those who for one reason or another are found un-
qualified for the job , leave the job before its completion , or apply for work near the
completion of the job.
Pipefitters' Local Union No. 522, and Plumbers and Gas Fitters
Local No. 107, United Association of Journeymen and Appren-
tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada , AFL-CIO and Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation . Case No. 9-CD-59-1. November 20, 1962
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, following a
charge filed by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, herein
called the Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) by
Pipefitters' Local Union No. 522, United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (UA), herein called Local
522, the Pipefitters or Respondent, and by Plumbers and Gas Fitters
Local No. 107, UA,1 herein called Local 107. Pursuant to notice, a
1 Although Local No 107 was not actively engaged in this dispute , members of Local
107 do backup work for members of Pipefitters Local 522 . Locals 107 and 522 are parties
to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer . Accordingly , Local 107 appeared
at the hearing and agreed to be bound by any determination the Board might make.
139 NLRB No. 93.
PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522, ETC. 1141
hearing was held on April 17, 18, and 19, 1962, at Louisville, Kentucky,
before Charles B. Slaughter, hearing officer. All parties appeared
at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on
the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter,
briefs were filed by the Employer and by International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No. 681, herein referred to as
the IAM z or Local 681.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer is a manufacturer of cigarettes and smoking tobacco.
During the calendar year 1961 it shipped from its plant in Louisville,
Kentucky, to points outside of the State of Kentucky products valued
in excess of $1,000,000 and also caused goods valued in excess of
$1,000,000 to be brought into the State of Kentucky. We find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 522 and Local 107, UA, and Local 681, IAM, are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work at issue
The Employer and the IAM have a collective-bargaining agree-
ment covering the Employer's machinists and welders. The Em-
ployer and the Pipefitters are parties to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment covering the Employer's pipefitters. As part of its regular
maintenance and plant layout work, the Employer has been engaged
in a continuous program of erecting hand and guard rails throughout
its plant in Louisville, Kentucky, for the purpose of protecting per-
sonnel and equipment.
The Employer utilizes metal pipe and angle iron 3 for the fabrica-
tion and installation of these protective barriers. There are three
general methods for connecting metal pipe sections in the construc-
2 Lodge 641 and Local 802, IAM, although served with all formal papers , have no direct
interest in the instant proceedings since they represent units of employees at other plants
of the Employer not involved in this case.
s At the hearing, Respondent conceded the angle iron work to the IAM to whom it had
traditionally been assigned by the Employer.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of these railings: by slip joints, welded joints, or threaded joints 4
Frequently hand and guard rails have been constructed by a combina-
tion of welded and slip joint construction. Welded joints are more
durable, but more expensive than slip joints. In welded joint con-
struction where the pipe rail to be installed requires a sharp angle
bend, a burning torch will be employed to cut a notch in a straight
piece of pipe, which is bent around so that the notched edges meet.
The notched edges are then welded together. The bending may be
accomplished manually using a vise to hold the pipe. It is the work
of burning, welding, and bending of metal pipe and metal pipe joints
for hand and guard rails which is in dispute herein.
Incidental to its production processes, the Employer also installs
various types of gauges and recorders for the purpose of recording
and controlling air conditioning, steam systems, humidity, etc. These
recorders normally fall into one of two classes, those which are di-
rectly bolted or screwed to a permanent surface, such as the humidity
recorders, and those which are first affixed to a panel. Such a panel is
fabricated by cutting out component parts from heavy gauge steel,
welding the parts together into a square or circular frame or bracket,
cutting a panel board from a piece of thin boilerplate (which is
welded to the bracket), and then attaching the panel and bracket to a
piece of strap iron which in turn is mounted upon a wall or column.
The fabrication of the metal bracket and panel boards, the mounting
of recorders on such panels and affixing the entire installation to a
supporting structure, such as a wall or column, are work operations
also in dispute here.' Where the recorder is used to measure the flow
of gas or liquids through tubes or pipes, the work of leading them
onto the panel concededly belongs to Respondent's members.'
B. Evidence of conduct violative of Section 8(b) (4) (D)
During the winter of 1961-62 Respondent held a number of meet-
ings with the Employer and the IAM to process Respondent's griev-
ances concerning the Employer's work assignments, including the
two kinds of work in dispute. On or about March 7, 1962, during
one such meeting, Robert T. Woodden, shop steward for Respondent,
advised the Employer that unless it "straightened out" the work
assignment dispute, "there would be a strike in 2 weeks." In a letter
4 There is no dispute as to installations using slip joints, which work has regularly been
done by machinists, nor as to guard rail assembly by means of threaded joints which, it
is conceded, is the work of pipefitters.
B There is no dispute as to the fabrication of wooden panels. There is likewise no issue
respecting the assignment of attaching small recording devices, such as humidity recorders,
directly to a permanent surface, where there is no need to fabricate a panel. Attachment
of these smaller devices has normally been assigned to Respondent's members
e At the hearing there was also some evidence of a dispute over checking of vacuum
lines, but it appears that this dispute has been resolved and it was not made an issue
in this proceeding.
PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522, ETC. 1143
dated March 13, 1962, received by the Employer shortly thereafter,
Moore, Respondent's business agent, confirmed the prior statement
of Woodden that, unless Respondent received greater cooperation
from the Employer in the handling and disposition of its grievances,
it would strike the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, plant on March
21, 1962.' Moore testified that, as business agent for the Respondent,
he represents it in collective bargaining, negotiates conditions of
employment, and processes grievances.
C. Contentions of the parties
No party contests the existence of a jurisdictional dispute.
Respondent rests its claims to the disputed work on a number of
grounds. It argues that article VII of its contract with the Employer
which contains the same language as that incorporated in prior con-
tracts with the Employer over a number of years, clearly assigns it
the guard and hand rail work. It urges that the constitution of
the UA and a delimitations agreement approved by the presidents of
the IAM (International) and the UA also place this work in its
jurisdiction. It contends that any contrary historical assignments
by the Employer have been in derogation of the latter agreement
,and are inconsistent with jurisdictional awards made by the AFL in
1911 and 1912. Respondent asserts that welding and burning, tradi-
tionally, are functions of the pipefitter trade. It also contends that
where a pipefitting system is installed by pipefitters, they should
also be assigned the work of fabricating and installing any recorders
to be used on that system, and it states that its members have in-
stalled the majority of the recording devices. Lastly, Respondent
urges that, inasmuch as the Employer has since 1934 regularly ob-
tained plumbers and pipefitters from the R. J. Meyers Company,
a local plumbing contractor, the Employer is bound by local construc-
tion industry pipefitting practices in the assignment of pipefitting
work to its own employees.
In support of its own claims to the disputed work, the IAM con-
tends that : The Employer has historically assigned to its members
all the types of work in dispute; such an assignment is not inconsistent
with industry practice; the Respondent's contract is ambiguous; the
UA constitution does not govern the assignments of the work; the
UA-IAM agreement was terminated by the IAM in 1960; all welders
have historically been represented under the IAM's contract with the
Employer; and Respondent over many years of bargaining negotia-
tions with the Employer has never asserted any right to bargain for
this work. The IAM further contends that, if Respondent were truly
entitled to this work under the terms of its constitution and the UA-
IAM agreement effective from 1954 to 1960, Respondent should have
7 Moore also authorized the prior statement by Woodden.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
established its claim during that period pursuant to the agreement,
an action Respondent failed to take.
The Employer, which asserts that the TAM is entitled to the dis-
puted work, advances a number of the same arguments as the IAM.
Primarily, however, the Employer relies upon its past practice of
assigning the various types of disputed work to the LAM. It further
argues that the tools and skills required to perform the work are
those of machinists or welders, who are part of the machinist unit,
and not the tools or skills of pipefitters.
D. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute pur-
suant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated.
The record shows that Respondent's shop steward, Woodden, after
authorization by Respondent's business agent, Moore, threatened the
Employer on or about March 7, 1962, that a strike would occur in
2 weeks unless the Employer "straightened out" the work assignments
in dispute herein by assigning this work to pipefitters represented by
the Respondent rather than to machinists and welders represented by
the IAM. Moore himself repeated this threat to the Employer in
a letter dated March 13, 1962. We find that Moore and Woodden
are agents of Respondent and that Respondent is responsible for their
actions.8 We find that the foregoing conduct establishes that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Respondent, through its agents, has
violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) and that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
E. The merits
1. Contract provisions
The relevant provision of Respondent's current contract, which has
appeared in prior contracts since 1948, states : "All repairs and main-
tenance on pipe work and new work shall be performed only by mem-
bers of the United Association."
The record indicates that metal pipe is used at the Employer's Louis-
ville plant for plumbing systems, for slip joint, threaded, and welded
guard rails, in the construction of fences and in the fabrication of
ladders and roller conveyors. While Respondent's members have been
assigned all plumbing system work and the installation of threaded
pipe rails and although it claims the welded guard rail work, Re-
spondent does not claim any right to work on or to install pipe which
8 See Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Picker X-Ray Corpora-
tion ), 128 NLRB 561, 564; Local 'Union No. 751, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners, etc . (The Mengel Company), 123 NLRB 1321, 1329.
PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522, ETC. 1145
is to be used in slip joint railings, ladders, fences, or roller conveyors,
nor is there any indication that its members have installed pipe for
any of these purposes. In the light of these concessions by Respondent
and the Employer's work assignment practices, it cannot be said that
the terms "pipe work" and "new (pipe) work" have been understood
by the parties to have a precise or all-inclusive meaning. Hence, we
do not view the foregoing contractual assignment as dispositive of
the work in issue.9
While the contract between the Employer and the IAM does not
contain any language precisely bearing on the disputed work, it is
clear that the IAM represents the machinists who have usually been
assigned the nonwelding parts of the disputed work and the welders
who have always done the welding work. Respondent's current col-
lective-bargaining agreement does not include a welder classification.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Respondent's collective-bargaining
agreement did precisely cover the disputed hand and guard rail work,
Respondent has acquiesced in the assignment of most of this work to
machinists and welders and has thereby waived its right to claim such
work under its contract.'°
2. Custom of the Employer
(a) Hand and guard rails
Respondent and the IAM each claims that the Employer has as-
signed the disputed work to its members for a substantial period of
time. The record reflects that the Employer has had contractual
relations with both Unions for approximately 20 years. Up until
1949 a machinist (usually Arthur Sauer) was assigned the work of
erecting rails made of pipe (but not requiring the use of threaded
joints). By letter dated February 23, 1949, Respondent's then busi-
ness representative wrote the Company calling its attention to the fact
that this work had not been assigned to Respondent's members and
requesting that it be so assigned in the future. A number of con-
ferences between representatives of the Employer and the Respond-
ent ensued. Another letter dated January 20, 1950, to the Employer
from the same business representative made reference to these interven-
ing conferences and repeated Respondent's work claim. There is no
indication, however, that the Employer changed its pertinent work as-
signments at that time and the matter was apparently dropped by the
Respondent until 1960. Meanwhile Sauer or other machinists con-
tinued to do this work. In 1960 Respondent again began making de-
mands for any hand and guard rail work which required bending or
9LocaZ 28 , International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO ( Capitol Electrotype Company, Inc.), 137 NLRB 1467.
10 Id.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
welding pipe . The record indicates a few instances where the Em-
ployer acceded to Respondent 's demands in order to avoid a dispute.
In at least one instance Respondent made a specific demand for the
work, but it was nonetheless done by Sauer. Even when the instal-
lation was assigned to Respondent 's members it appears that the weld-
ing was done by a welder from the machinists unit. Hence, during
a period of about 10 years prior to 1949 and , to the present, the Em-
ployer has , with a few exceptions , continued to make regular assign-
ments of the fabrication and installation of nonthreaded hand and
guard rails to machinists , usually to Sauer. In all instances , whether
it was Sauer, another machinist , or a pipefitter who performed the
installation , a welder from the mechanists unit has done the welding.
(b) Gauges and recorders
The record indicates that most of the gauges and recorders, re-
quiring the fabrication of a steel frame and panel, which have been
installed at the Employer 's Louisville plant by its own employees,"
have been erected by machinists.'a
3. Customs in the industry
There is no indication in the record that the Employer' s normal
assignments to machinists of the disputed hand and guard rail work
and the disputed installation of recorders, which require the fabri-
cation of a metal bracket and panel, are contrary to any custom or
practice in the industry.
4. Customs in the immediate geographical area
The Respondent attempted to show that the Employer' s assign-
ments of the disputed work are contrary to custom and practice of
other employers in the Louisville area.
Although the Employer employs its own plumbers and pipefitters,
it has, since 1934, regularly obtained the services of additional pipe-
fitters from the R. J. Meyers Company, a plumbing contractor in
Louisville, Kentucky. The Meyers pipefitters are brought to the
Louisville plant to handle the installation of new equipment which
n On a number of occasions , the Employer has purchased new equipment from a ma-
chinery contractor and has, as part of the purchase agreement , utilized the services of
the seller's employees in the installation of the equipment and any necessary recording
devices. Employees of these outside contractors who have erected recorders were mem-
bers of the IAM or of the Sheet Metal Workers.
12 At the hearing , in support of its claim to the work of constructing steel brackets and
panels and attaching recorders thereto, Respondent adduced testimony that its members
have been assigned the work of installing some 30 or 40 small recording devices, pri-
marily humidity recorders . However, as these smaller recorders are attached by bolts
directly to a supporting structure and do not require the fabrication of a metal bracket
and panel , we do not believe the assignment of such small recorder installations to Re-
spondent's members is a relevant consideration to our determination here.
PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522 , ETC. 1147
is not set up by the equipment contractor. Their services have not
been utilized in the erection of hand and guard rails, and it does not
appear that they have ever installed recorders. Meyers is a member
of a multiemployer bargaining association of plumbing contractors
in the Louisville area which has a contract with the Respondent and
Plumbers Local 107. This agreement defines the jurisdiction of Re-
spondent and Plumbers Local 107 to include, inter alia:
13. All piping for railing work and racks of every description,
whether screwed or welded... .
22. The setting, erecting and piping of instruments or measur-
ing devices, thermostatic controls, gauge boards, and other con-
trols used in connection with power heating, refrigerating, air
conditioning, manufacturing, mining, and industrial work....
The Respondent urges that, inasmuch as this agreement covers the
disputed work, the Employer's assignment of such work to machinists
is contrary to local industry practice. We disagree. The Employer
is a cigarette manufacturer, whereas Meyers and its fellow plumb-
ing contractors are in the construction industry. We are unable to
attach any substantial significance to a pattern of work assignments
in a different industry although in this geographical area . The record
is silent as to whether any other cigarette manufacturer or any manu-
facturer in the Louisville area recognizes the aforementioned work
jurisdiction of Respondent. Moreover, as stated, it does not appear
that the Meyers pipefitters have been used for any of the disputed
work.
5. Agreement between UA and IAM
The agreement relied upon by the Respondent between the UA
and the IAM was entered into on April 29, 1954. Under the terms
of this agreement the UA was recognized as having :
... jurisdiction over the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry in
its entirety as in keeping with its Jurisdiction of Work granted
to it by the American Federation of Labor and subsequent deci-
sions as granted and decided by the Atlanta and Rochester Con-
vention action of the AFL in the years 1911 and 1912 respectively.
SECTION B. The Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry shall and
does embrace the unloading, handling, installing, servicing, rig-
ging, laying out, fabricating, welding and testing of all pipe
work, self-contained pumps and compressors, self-contained
units and appurtenances that are an integral part of a Plu,,,ibing
or Pipefitting system regardless as to the mode or method of
making the joints or connections or dismantling thereof [with
exceptions not relevant hereto.] .. .
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SECTION F. Appurtenances mentioned in Section B shall mean
the installation and servicing of such equipment that becomes an
accessory, attachment, extension or supplement to any of the
various Plumbing and Pipefitting systems installed by members
of the United Association, for example, gauges, temperature con-
trol devices, recording instruments and flow meters in connection
with plumbing and piping sections, damper controls for boilers,
heating and air conditioning systems, oil burners and underfed
stokers except stokers used on locomotives.
There was some dispute in the record as to the current status of
this agreement. The IAM placed in evidence a telegram dated Octo-
ber 6, 1960, from its president to the president of the UA, canceling
the agreement. Respondent, on the other hand, asserted that this
telegram should be disregarded because there was no provision in the
agreement for unilateral rescission. Under any circumstance, it seems
clear that the LAM refuses to be bound by the agreement, and the
Employer has not incorporated the terms of the agreement into its
collective-bargaining contracts with Respondent or the IAM. In
view of these factors we are unable to accord this agreement any sub-
stantial weight in our determination. In any event, it is not clear
whether it was intended to apply to protective guard or hand rails
which, although made of pipe, do not conduct or transmit substances
as do ordinary plumbing systems. Moreover, it does not appear that
Respondent made any claim to the disputed guard and hand rail work
or the disputed recorder work on the basis of this agreement or on
any other ground between 1954 and 1960.
6. Union constitution
The only constitution placed in evidence was that of the UA, as
revised and amended August 7 to 11, 1961. The jurisdictional claims
of the UA, as set forth in this document, appear to cover both areas
of the disputed work.13 However, Respondent's contract with the
Employer does not incorporate the jurisdictional claims of its inter-
national constitution. It specifies only "all repairs and maintenance
on pipe work and new work." There is likewise no reflection in the
record of any attempt by Respondent to bargain for the full scope of
its jurisdiction, as outlined in its constitution.
13 The jurisdictional claims include:
13. All piping for railing work and racks of every description whether screwed or
welded . . . .
s : • a s $ s
22. The setting, erecting and piping of instruments, measuring devices, thermo-
static controls, gauge boards, and other controls used in connection with power, heat-
ing, refrigerating, air conditioning, manufacturing, mining, and industrial work.
PIPEFITTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 522, ETC. 1149
7. Jurisdictional grants and awards of the AFL
There is a conflict in the evidence concerning historical internal
jurisdictional awards made by the AFL with respect to the disputed
hand and guard rail work. Respondent contends that it has received
a broad grant of jurisdiction over all pipefitting work, based on pro-
ceedings of the AFL at its conventions in 1911 and 1912, wherein it
was "declared that both for harmony and practicability the pipefitting
trade should be represented in the American Federation of Labor,
also in the Building Trades Department by one general association of
the pipefitting industry, namely the [UA]...." The IAM, on the
other hand, read into the record certain excerpts from the so-called
"Green Book" 14 of "Decisions Rendered by the National Board for
Jurisdictional Awards in the Building Industry" (of the Building and
Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO), which appear
to place the disputed guard and hand rail work outside the jurisdiction
of the UA. In view of this conflict, we are not persuaded that the
broad, nonspecific jurisdictional grants of the 1911 and 1912 conven-
tions are material to our present determination.
8. The nature of the work
In further support of its claim to the disputed hand and guard rail
work Respondent urges that the welding and bending of pipe should
be awarded to it because welding is an essential element of the pipe-
fitting trade. Welding is used in all the metal trades as a process
of joining metals together, i.e., in ironworking, machinist work, and
boilermaking as well as pipefitting. This Board, as well as the AFL-
C10, has long recognized that welding used in the performance of
a basic craft skill is included in the basic craft unit and that welders
are represented by the union having jurisdiction over that craft.15
Thus welding is a subsidiary skill, used in all metal trade crafts. It
is not peculiar to pipefitting, and welders may appropriately be part
of a machinist unit.
Respondent also argues that its members should be entitled to per-
form the disputed recorder installations where they have been given
the work of erecting the plumbing and pipefitting system whose func-
14The excerpt reads as follows:
Decision rendered March 11, 1920. Pipe railing consisting of standard size cut
and threaded pipe not used in connection with structural or ornamental iron work
is awarded to the plumbers and steamfitters. Interpretation rendered September 15,
1920. Iron pipe railing consisting of a preponderance of slip joints made rigid with
or without set screws, pinions, rivets supported by a threaded joint and flange at
base or wall is the work of the ironworkers. Where, however, the preponderance of
joint is of standard size cut and threaded iron pipe it belongs to the plumbers and
steamfitters.
15 C. F. Braun & Co, 120 NLRB 282, 284-288, pa8sine . Whether welding may also be
an independent craft skill is not in issue here.
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions are to be recorded. There is little merit in this argument. The
installation of a plumbing system may call for the use of a pipe-
threading and pipe-bending machine, pipecutters, stillson wrenches,
etc. (all typical pipefitter's tools), as well as all the skills of a plumber
or pipefitter. Recorders, on the other hand, may be installed on
panels which have been fabricated by bending and cutting piece's of
plate steel and welding them together. Installation of a piping sys-
tem is typical plumber's work. Installation of recorders, which re-
quire the fabrication of a steel frame and panel, on the other hand,
calls for the skills of welders and metal workers who have been
traditionally represented as part of the Employer's machinist unit.
CONCLUSION
As we stated in the J. A. Jones case,16 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 taking into account and balancing all
relevant factors.
On the entire record, we believe that machinists are entitled to the
work in dispute. Respondent's claims to the hand and guard rail
work, based on its contract, are not well founded. Not only is the
language of the contract ambiguous, but Respondent's acquiescence,
for 15 or 20 years prior to 1960, in the assignment of this work to
machinists and welders represented by the IAM indicates that it
waived whatever rights it had in this regard. Even assuming the
continued vitality of the UA-IAM agreement of 1954, the same infer-
ence also arises from Respondent's failure to claim either category
of the disputed work prior to 1960, when the IAM withdrew from its
commitment thereunder. In view of Respondent's consistent failure
to claim or attempt to bargain for the full area of its jurisdiction as
outlined in its constitution, we are unable to accord much weight to
that document.
Against this background of Respondent's acquiescence in the Em-
ployer's assignments of the work in dispute, we have the Employer's
unqualified assignment of all welding to welders represented by the
IAM. The Employer has also assigned the nonwelding work on
pipe hand and guard rail installation for over 20 years to machinists
represented by the IAM, except in a number of instances where it
sought to avoid a dispute. Although local custom and practice in a
different industry are somewhat at variance with the Employer's
assignments of this work, there is no indication in the record that
'° International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones
Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402.
37 N L.R B v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers anion, at al. (Columbia Broad-
casting System), 364 U.S. 573.
PIPEFITTERS ' LOCAL UNION NO. 522 , ETC. 1151
this assignment is contrary to any practice in the tobacco or cigarette
industry, of which the Employer is a part.
As to the disputed installation of recorders, which requires the
fabrication and welding of a steel panel, this work seems to us to
call upon the skills of the Employer's machinist unit, particularly
the skills of a welder. In most instances the Employer has assigned
this work to that unit.
Accordingly, we shall determine the jurisdictional dispute as to
the welded pipe hand and guard rail work by deciding that machinists
and welders, rather than pipefitters, are entitled to perform its in-
stallation as well as all bending, cutting, burning, and welding of
pipe required therefor. We shall determine the dispute as to the
recording devices which require a fabricated metal panel by deciding
that machinists and welders are entitled to fabricate the necessary
metal panels and brackets, attach recording devices thereto, and
affix the entire installation to a supporting surface. Our present
determinations are limited to the particular controversy which gave
rise to these proceedings. In making these determinations with re-
spect to the railings and the recorders requiring a metal panel, we
are assigning these categories of disputed work to machinists and
welders represented by the IAM and not to the IAM or its members.
In view of the above, we find that Respondent was not and is not
entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to force or re-
quire the Employer to assign the work of installing welded pipe
guard and hand rails or the work of installing recording devices,
requiring the fabrication of a metal panel, to its members rather than
to employees represented by the IAM.
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 :
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
1. Employees engaged as machinists and welders, currently rep-
resented by Local Lodge No. 681, International Association of Ma-
chinists, AFL-CIO, are entitled to install welded pipe hand and
guard rails and to perform any bending, cutting, burning, and weld-
ing necessary therefor and are also entitled to install recording devices
requiring the fabrication of a metal panel, to fabricate such panels,
and to affix the entire installation to a supporting structure, at the
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation plant in Louisville,
Kentucky.
2. Pipefitters' Local Union No. 522, United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to force or require Brown & Wil-
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
liamson Tobacco Corporation to assign to employees engaged as pipe-
fitters, who are currently represented by Pipefitters Local Union
No. 522, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO, the following work :
(a) Installing welded pipe hand and guard rails and performing
all burning, cutting, bending, and welding necessary thereto.
(b) Installing recording devices on a fabricated metal bracket and
panel, fabricating such brackets and panels, and attaching the entire
installation to a supporting structure.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Pipefitters Local Union No. 522, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting In-
dustry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, shall notify the
Regional Director for the Ninth Region, in writing, whether or not
it will refrain from forcing or requiring Brown & Williamson To-
bacco Corporation by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) to
assign the disputed pipe rail work and the disputed recorder work
(involving the fabrication of a metal panel) to pipefitters rather than
to machinists and welders.
Local 991, International Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO ;
Local 1406, International Longshoremen 's Association, AFL-
CIO; South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District International
Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO and Union Carbide
Chemicals Company, Division of Union Carbide Corporation.
Case No. 23-CD-46. November 21, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed on May 16, 1961, and amended May 23, 1961,
by Union Carbide Chemicals Company, Division of Union Carbide
Corporation, hereinafter called Carbide or the Company, the General
Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-third
Region, issued a complaint dated July 13, 1962, against Local 991,
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO ; Local 1406,
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO; and South
Atlantic and Gulf Coast District International Longshoremen's As-
sociation, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondents or the ILA, al-
leging that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b) (4) (D) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of
139 NLRB No. 94.