Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 79 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

SHEET METAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 28
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local
Union No. 28, AFL-CIO, and Diesel Construction,
a division of Carl A. Morse, Inc., and Associated
Brick Mason Contractors of New York , Inc.,' and
Bricklayers Union No. 34, New York, affiliated with
the New York Executive Committee for Bricklay-
ers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of
America, AFL-CIO? Case 2-CD-425
November 9, 1971
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
the filing of charges by Associated Brick Mason
Contractors of New York, Inc.,3 alleging violations by
the Sheet Metal Workers of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Mary
W. Taylor on June 21 and 30, and July 8, 1971. All
parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing upon the issues.4 At the hearing the
Sheet Metal Workers filed a motion to quash, which
was opposed by the ABMC and the Bricklayers.
Thereafter, the Sheet Metal Workers and the Brick-
layers filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Briefs of the parties were duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following findings:
I. THE EMPLOYERS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that La Sala
Mason Corporation and Diesel Construction, a
division of Carl A. Morse, Inc., are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
1 The name of the Charging Party appears as corrected at the hearing.
z The name of this Union appears as corrected at the hearing
3 Herein referred to as ABMC. The other parties are referred to
respectively as the Sheet Metal Workers; the Employers or Diesel, Falk,
Federal, and La Sala; and the Bricklayers.
4 Although served with the notice of hearing and afforded the
opportunity to be present and to be represented by counsel, Diesel, Falk,
Federal, and La Sala did not enter an appearance
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
79
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Respondent, Sheet Metal Workers, and the Bricklay-
ers are labor organizations within the meaning of the
Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts
The present dispute arose over the construction of
walls or enclosures surrounding air-conditioning fans
and other unit components to be installed in a 35-
story office building being erected at 22 Courtlandt
Street, New York, New York. These walls or
enclosures are referred to in the construction industry
as casings or plenums.5 Diesel, the general contractor,
subcontracted this work to La Sala, pursuant to
specifications and plans of the building's architects,
engineers, and owners calling for the use of masonry
materials in the construction of casings and plenums
throughout the building, along with all other masonry
and brickwork to be done in the building. La Sala's
employees are members of or represented by the
Bricklayers, which has collective-bargaining agree-
ments with ABMC, of which La Sala is a member.
Sometime prior to November 1970, La Sala's employ-
ees began constructing the masonry walls that
eventually would surround the air-conditioning units
to be installed in the sub-basement of the building.
In December 1970, air-conditioning fans were
delivered to the jobsite. Because of their large size,
these fans had to be installed before the walls
surrounding them could be completed. Federal Sheet
Metal Co., whose employees are members of or
represented by the Sheet Metal Workers, was to
install the fans and erect air-conditioning equipment
and ducts in the building, under subcontract from J.
T. Falk and Co. Falk had been engaged by Diesel as
the mechanical contractor for the installation of
heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems.
The terms of Falk's contract with Diesel specifically
excluded the work of constructing masonry shafts,
casings, and plenums. Diesel had no collective-bar-
gaining agreements with the Sheet Metal Workers or
Bricklayers. The record is silent in this regard as to
Falk.
As of the latter part of January 1970, the fans had
not been installed. On inquiry, Diesel's construction
5 The Sheet Metal Workers contends strongly that in the air-
conditioning trade casings are the was and partitions enclosing the air-
conditioning units while plenums are air chambers through which air is
drawn and fed such units, And that the significance of the distinction rests
in the respective function each is required to perform. Citing examples
where the terms casings and plenums have been used interchangeably, the
Bricklayers contends that the only distinction of note is one of semantics.
194 NLRB No. 18
80 DECISIONS OF-NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
superintendent was advised by Federal's foreman,
who was a member of the Sheet Metal Workers, and
again a day or so later by the shop steward of the
Sheet Metal Workers on the job, that Federal's
employees had refused to install the fans because the
walls enclosing them were to be made of masonry. It
appears in this connection that a member of the Sheet
Metal Workers at the jobsite had complained to the
foreman in October 1970 that Federal's plans for the
walls to be constructed of masonry violated the Sheet
Metal Workers collective-bargaining agreement with
the Sheet Metal Contractors Association of New York
City, Inc., of which Federal was a member. The
foreman had promptly informed the Sheet Metal
Workers of this complaint. The Union investigated
and advised the complainant in October 1970 that the
contract was, in fact, violated.6
In February 1971, Gus Pasquinucci, a business
agent of the Sheet Metal Workers, demanded of
Diesel that the above walls be made of sheet metal,
otherwise, its members would not install the fans.?
Subsequently, on or about March 23 or 24, 1971,
Diesel attended a meeting of the Sheet Metal
Contractors Association at the invitation of the Sheet
Metal Workers. During the course of the meeting the
Sheet Metal Workers offered to permit Diesel to erect
the walls with a combination of sheet metal and
masonry, if Diesel agreed that on all other of its, jobs
similar walls would be erected entirely of sheet metal.
When Diesel refused, the Sheet Metal Workers
replied it was worried about a slowdown if the matter
were adjudicated (specifically mentioning the NLRB)
and resulted in a decision unfavorable to them.8 On
March 24, 1971, Diesel sent La Sala a letter instruct-
ing it to stop construction of the walls in view of the
Sheet Metal Workers refusal to work on the fans
unless Diesel's plans were changed to replace mason-
ry with sheet metal.
On April 26, 1971, whilea hearing on the 10(1)
petition seeking an injunction against the Sheet Metal
Workers in this case was in progress before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Federal's employees walked off the job at the
Courtlandt Street building. The walkout by these
employees ended 3 days later upon the issuance by the
court of a temporary injunction against their union.9
B. Contentions of the Parties
The Sheet Metal Workers claims that the notice of
6 While there is no direct evidence in the record that other members
employed by Federal were then advised of the asserted contract violation,
there is uncontradicted evidence that a formal report of contract violation
was filed with the Sheet Metal Workers 4 or 5 months later and that Union
filed a grievance under its contract with the Sheet Metal Contractors
Association alleging a contract violation by Federal. This grievance had
not been resolved at the time of the hearing in the instant case.
7 This is the testimony of Miller, Diesel's president. Pasquinucci
hearing encompassing "the assignment of work
involved in the construction of walls or other
enclosures surrounding air-conditioning fans on all
construction projects within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Sheet Metal Workers . . . which walls or
enclosures are commonly referred to as plenums or
casings," should be quashed for two reasons: (1)
There is no jurisdictional dispute between it and the
Bricklayers because it does not claim the masonry
work and the Bricklayers does not claim sheet metal
work. Its sole dispute is with Diesel and its subcon-
tractors over the choice of masonry rather than sheet
metal construction and with Federal over its accept-
ance of a contract which in effect excluded the use of
sheet metal in the construction of casings and
plenums. Thus it asserts there is no evidence that there
are competing unions contesting for particular work.
(2) There is no probable cause for finding that an
8(b)(4)(D) violation exists as all that occurred was the
action of Federal's employees, themselves , deciding
not to work because of the use of masonry casings.
Sheet Metal Workers argues, however, that in the
event the Board decides otherwise, the work in
dispute should be awarded them based upon (1) their
superior skills, experience, and knowledge in the air-
conditioning field; (2) the work involves casings and
not plenums; (3) company and industry practice; (4)
the efficiency and economy of sheet metal over
masonry in the construction of casings; (5) the breach
of contract by Federal in making the decision to use
masonry instead of sheet metal; and (6) the lack of a
binding arbitration agreement or award on all the
parties, such as Diesel, and the fact that a past
arbitration between the Bricklayers and Sheet Metal
Workers that is in evidence relates solely to plenums
and does not assign the work of either trade to the
other.
Bricklayers, in opposing the motion to quash,
contends that a jurisdictional dispute exists by virtue
of the demands of the Sheet Metal Workers that sheet
metal be substituted for masonry in the construction
of casings and plenums in the Courtlandt Street
building since this would cause La Sala and its
employees represented by the Bricklayers to be
replaced by Federal and its employees represented by
the Sheet Metal Workers. In claiming the disputed
work, Bricklayers has taken the position that (1) the
architect, engineer, and owner of the building decided
on the use of masonry for efficiency and economy of
admitted that Miller called him in February or March, but denied that
their conversation pertained to the instant jobsite at 22 Courtlandt Street.
a This is the testimony of Miller as to what was said by Farrell, the
president of the Sheet Metal Workers. Farrell denied that he made any
work demands or mentioned a slowdown
9Ivan C McLeod, Regional Director v. Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, Local Union 28, AFL-CIO, 334 F.Supp. 1098.
SHEET METAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 28
operation; (2) custom, practice, and skill require
bricklayers to construct walls surrounding air-condi-
tioning fans and equipment whenever masonry
material is specified; (3) the local Building Trades
Employers Association so decided in an arbitration
between Bricklayers and Sheet Metal Workers; (4)
Federal never had the work contracted to it; and (5)
the terms casings and plenums are interchangeable
and meaningless in determining which union should
be awarded the work.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant 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. We
so find and, accordingly, deny the Sheet Metal
Workers motion to quash for the following reasons.
While the Sheet Metal Workers disclaims masonry
work and the Bricklayers disclaims sheet metal work,
we find that both Unions claim the work in dispute as
described in the above notice of hearing. Thus,
although the Sheet Metal Workers disclaims any
interest in masonry work, and while it is true that the
Sheet Metal Workers only demanded of the general
contractor that the work specifications and materials
be changed, the effect of its demands that the
masonry work be replaced by sheet metal work would
be to replace work done by members of the Bricklay-
ers with work performed by its own members.
Although the Bricklayers disclaims sheet metal work,
it claims the masonry work performed by its mem-
bers. Thus there are competing claims for work by two
contesting unions. 10
That the Sheet Metal Workers action stems from its
objections to the use of masonry rather than sheet
metal casings or plenums does not detract from the
jurisdictional nature of the dispute nor make the
dispute any less a dispute between two competing
groups of employees. In analagous situations the
Board has held that the scope of 8(b)(4)(D) is not
limited to competing groups of employees working for
the same employer, but also extends to efforts to force
the indirect assignment of work from employees of
one employer to employees of another.'1 In the
instant matter, the same elements are present (Federal
substituted for La Sala, Sheet Metal Workers for
Bricklayers) with only the added factor that the
method and materials to be used in the construction
10 N L R.B v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212
[Columbia Broadcasting System], 364 U S 573.
11 International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union Local 19, et
al. (American Mail Line, Ltd), 144 NLRB 1432, 1439-40. Local Union No.
3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Western
Electric, Inc.), 141 NLRB 888, 894 ; and International Longshoremen's
Association (Motor Transport Labor Relations, Inc.), 127 NLRB 35, 38, fn. 2.
12 Ibid
81
of casings and plenums would also be different.
Accordingly, we find that a jurisdictional dispute
exists.12
We also find without merit the Sheet Metal Workers
claim that there is no jurisdictional dispute here
because it was merely protesting Federal's purported
violation of its collective-bargaining agreement which
the Union interprets as prohibiting acceptance by
Federal of air-conditioning work which does not
include sheet metal casings. On its face the agreement
only prohibits the subcontracting of sheet metal work.
Nevertheless, we do not find it necessary to rule on the
reasonableness of the Sheet Metal Workers interpre-
tation of the agreement since the existence of an
alleged breach of contract by Federal does not alter
the nature of the present dispute, which, in fact,
centers on the demand of the Sheet Metal Workers
that the work of constructing casings or plenums be
assigned to its members using sheet metal materials.13
Nor do we find any substance to the Sheet Metal
Workers contention that it was seeking to preserve
work for its members by compelling Federal's
compliance to the collective-bargaining agreement in
question since it is clear that Federal was never
assigned the work of constructing the casings or
plenums around the air-conditioning units, and thus,
never had that work to contract out.
With regard to the contention of the Sheet Metal
Workers that it was not responsible for the conduct of
its members who are Federal's employees in refusing
to install the fans and in walking off the job, the Board
is not charged with finding in a jurisdictional dispute
context that a violation did in fact occur; only
reasonable cause to believe that there has been a
violation is needed.14 Without ruling on any of the
credibility issues arising from the denials of the Sheet
Metal Workers witnesses, we find that such reasona-
ble cause exists based on the evidence that the Sheet
Metal Workers threatened Diesel on one occasion not
to install the fans unless its demands were met and on
another to engage in a work slowdown. We also find
in view of all the circumstances, including Sheet
Metal Workers claim that it is entitled to the disputed
work and our finding above that its agents threatened
certain action unless it obtained such work, that the
entire sequence of events may reasonably be inter-
preted as establishing that Sheet Metal Workers
transmitted advice to Federal's employees at the
Courtlandt Street building that the use of masonry in
13 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No.
753, AFL-CIO (Blount Bros. Corporation), 175 NLRB 496 . International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 520, AFL-CIO (Home Building
Contractors, Inc.), 168 NLRB 256, 257; and Local 110, Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, AFL-CIO (Brown and Williamson Tobacco
Corporation), 143 NLRB 947, 951
14 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO
(Wendnagel & Company), 116 NLRB 1063, 1066.
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the walls surrounding the air-conditioning fans
violated the contract Federal had with that Union,
thus inducing them to refuse to install the fans and to
subsequently engage in a strike.15 Accordingly, the
dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion under Section 10(k) of the Act.
D. The Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work after
giving due consideration to various relevant factors.
As the Board has stated, its determination in a
jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based
upon commonsense and experience in the weighing of
these factors. In this connection, we consider the
following factors:
1. Industry and area practice
Sheet Metal Workers contends industry and area
practice favor an assignment of the work to sheet
metal workers because casings were made of sheet
metal exclusively for the past 25 to 30 years, except for
three jobs in the New York City area, including the
present job. Bricklayers contends that such practice is
limited to instances where architects' specifications
call for sheet metal rather than masonry, that where
they call for masonry such work has been performed
satisfactorily by bricklayers. The record shows that
plenums, as defined by the Sheet Metal Workers, have
been made of either sheet metal or masonry in a
substantial number of instances over the years, but
that the practice of using masonry casings surround-
ing high pressure outflow of air is an innovation in the
local area in question, sheet metal having been the
traditional material used in constructing such casings.
However, an arbitration award in evidence 16 provides
that all "plenums" made out of masonry will be
erected by bricklayers, and those to be made out of
sheet metal, will be built by sheet metal workers. The
effect of this arbitration would seem to allow general
contractors such as Diesel to choose the kind of
material to be used in accordance with architects'
specifications and plans of building owners. Diesel
has in the past exercised the right to make this choice
and has subcontracted the erection of walls to
masonry subcontractors such as La Sala, whose
employees, represented by the Bricklayers, have
15 Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
(New York Telephone Company), 152 NLRB 723.
16 Decision of -Building Trades Employers ' Executive Committee in
Sheet Metal Workers Local No 28 v Bricklayers Local No 54, August 12,
1970. Although the Sheet Metal Workers is correct in stating that Diesel
was not a party to this arbitration, and thus not bound by it, we note that
the decision recognizes that either type material may be used in
constructing "plenums." There is also evidence in the record that although
the term plenum was used, the work involved the construction of walls
performed the work in the local area. Thus industry
and area practice appear to be inconclusive.
2. Skill and training
Sheet Metal Workers asserts that its members alone
possess the requisite skills and experience necessary to
erect casings, that is, walls enclosing air-conditioning
units, as they have been erecting air-conditioning
systems and casings for years, and as they are trained
over a 4-year period by schooling, and journeymen
often take postgraduate courses. It also asserts that
bricklayer work of cementing bricks and blocks and
setting them in position is a relatively unskilled
calling. Bricklayers contends that its members have
traditionally erected masonry enclosures, including
plenums and casings, in a skillful manner, and that a
sheet metal contractor admitted on the record that he
does not question the competency of a mason
contractor to build the disputed walls. The record
shows that both sheet metal workers and bricklayers
have performed the disputed work in a satisfactory
and competent manner, using the materials of each
one's own trade.17 In sum, we find that considerations
of skill do not favor either of the contesting groups.18
3. Assignment of work
Sheet Metal Workers claims that the decision to
fabricate the walls out of masonry was made by
Federal after it first drew and then discarded plans
using sheet metal and that these facts support the
Union's charge against that Company of breach of
contract. From this it argues that the efforts of Sheet
Metal Workers to preserve work in this case were
identical with its efforts in N.L.R.B. v. Local Union
No. 28, Sheet Metal Workers, 380 F.2d 827 (C.A. 2),
denying enforcement of 156 NLRB 804, and that the
Board should not permit contractors, at their whim, to
prescribe jurisdiction of craft unions; that these facts
should be considered by the Board in evaluating
Diesel's assignment of the work in dispute to a mason
contractor. Besides noting that the'case relied upon by
the Sheet Metal Workers does not concern itself with
alleged violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D), we find no
valid basis in the record to substantiate the claim that
Federal made the decision to use masonry or even was
in a position to make such a decision. Although
Miller, Diesel's president, at first identified Federal as
one of the parties that initially decided to use masonry
enclosing air-condrtiomng units.
17 This fact also serves to render unnecessary the resolution of the
controversy over the correct usage of the terms casings and plenums. The
only issue concerning us, whichever term is used to describe the work in
dispute, is which competing group of employees should be awarded that
work.
18 Further evidence of this is the fact that at times a combination of
sheet metal and masonry structures have been used in building the walled
enclosure.
SHEET METAL WORKERS , LOCAL NO. 28 83
construction in the disputed work, he later corrected
himself, stating that he had inadvertently said Federal
when he had meant to say Falk. Miller went on to
explain that Federal was not at all involved in the
decision which was ultimately made by the architects,
Emory Roth & Sons, and the owners of the building,
Helmsley-Spear. Careful persual of the record leads
us to conclude that Miller's initial testimony in this
regard was due to an honest mistake on his part. The
record shows that Falk was at all times the contractor
engaged by Diesel to install the heating, ventilating,
and air-conditioning systems in the building; that the
contract between Falk and Diesel expressly excluded
the disputed work; and that Falk could not subcon-
tract to Federal what it did not have to give. In light of
these circumstances, we conclude that Federal was
never assigned the work in question and hence could
not have been in the position of determining the kind
of material to be used. On the other hand, it is clear
that the assignment of the disputed work by Diesel to
La Sala and its employees was made in accordance
with the plans and specifications of the architects and
owners of the building directing that all casings,
plenums, and shaftways be constructed in masonry.
4. Efficiency and economy
Sheet Metal Workers contends that evidence in the
record shows that sheet metal is more efficient than
masonry, because it has the flexibility required to
withstand the high air pressures and velocities in units
such as the one installed in the instant case involving
at least 30,000 cubic feet per minute, whereas masonry
is inflexible, and cannot withstand such pressures
without causing escape of air and necessary repairs
due to the fact that mortar, when dry, loses its sealing
quality; that without steel in the masonry wall, the
masonry wall has no loadbearing characteristics to
withstand air pressure. It argues further that instances
have occurred where damage has resulted from such
pressures and the walls have had to be rebuilt. Thus, it
concludes, in view of the necessity for costly steel
reinforcing and repairs, masonry has no- cost advan-
tages over steel metal. Bricklayers contends that
evidence in the record shows, to the contrary, that
because the enclosures in the instant case were coated,
that they would be impervious to air pressures
generated, that masonry walls are cheaper to install
and repair, are more fire resistant, and result in
quieter operation of the air-conditioning system.
Where weight is no problem, as in the instant case,
because the walls rest on the subbasement floor, the
lighter weight of sheet metal is no advantage.
19 Although not in issue , it follows from this award of the disputed work
that employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers would be entitled to
perform the work if sheet metal were to be utilized.
20 Local Union No. 28 Sheet Metal Workers (Fast Pace Corp.), 183
Whatever the merits of that dispute, it is clear that
those- commissioning the building selected masonry
construction, and it is not within the province of the
Board to countermand that selection. This factor
weighs in favor of an award to employees represented
by the Bricklayers.
5. Conclusions as to the merits of the
dispute
From the foregoing , we conclude , based in particu-
lar upon the factors of efficiency and economy of
operations , and the assignment of the work which has
been satisfactorily performed by bricklayers em-
ployed by La Sala and other employers who are
members of the ABMC that the factors involved favor
these employees' performance of the disputed work,
whenever masonry materials are specified Accordingly,
we award such work to these employees who are
represented by the Bricklayers.19 In making this
determination, we award the work to the employees of
the above employers who are currently represented by
the Bricklayers , but not to this Union or its members.
6. Scope of the award
The Bricklayers requests that the Board issue a
broad work award on its behalf encompassing all
jobsites wherever the territorial jurisdiction of the
Bricklayers New York Executive Committee, i.e.,
New York City and Long Island to the Wading River,
and the Sheet Metal Workers, whose jurisdiction
encompasses New York City, coincide. Bricklayers
contends that such is necessary in order to avoid a
repetition of similar jurisdictional claims and attend-
ant work stoppages at construction sites within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Sheet Metal Workers. In
support of its request, Bricklayers introduced eviden-
ce of other incidents antedating the hearing herein
which, together with the instant dispute based on a
New York City-wide claim for work, demonstrates
that the work in dispute has been a continuous source
of controversy between it and the Sheet Metal
Workers in the New, York City area, and that similar
disputes involving La Sala and other mason contrac-
tors may occur in the future. We find that the
foregoing evidence and other cases decided by the
Board 20 demonstrate a proclivity on the part of the
Respondent to engage in further unlawful conduct
with attendant work interruptions. Accordingly, we
conclude that the issuance of a broad award is
appropriate in this case 21
NLRB No. 120; Sheet Metal International Association, Local 28, AFL-CIO
(Nu-Fiberglass Duct Corporation), 159 NLRB 1423.
21 Millwrights Local Union No. 1102 (Den Cartage Company), 160 NLRB
1061, 1082-83. See also Local 169, Carpenters, 119 NLRB 726, 732.
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
Local No. 28, AFL-CIO, coincide.
2. Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
Local Union No. 28, AFL-CIO, is not and has not
been entitled , by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the
Employers herein or any employer -member of the
ABMC of New York, Inc., to assign the above work
when performed as set forth above , to sheet metal
workers who are currently represented by such labor
organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , Sheet Metal Workers
International Association , Local Union No. 28,
AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 2 , in writing , whether it will or will not refrain
from forcing or requiring the Employers , by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign
the above work in dispute to employees represented
by Bricklayers Union No. 34, New York, affiliated
with the New York Executive Committee for Brick-
layers, Masons, and Plasterers International Union of
America, AFL-CIO.
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
makes the following determination of dispute.
1. Employees employed by La Sala Mason Corpo-
ration or any other employer-member of the Associat-
ed Brick Mason Contractors of New York, Inc., and
who are represented by Bricklayers Union No. 34,
New York, affiliated with the New York Executive
Committee for Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers
International Union of America, AFL-CIO, are
entitled to perform the work involved in the construc-
tion of walls or other enclosures surrounding air-
conditioning fans, otherwise commonly referred to as
plenums or casings, on all construction projects where
masonry construction is specified, and wherever the
territorial jurisdiction of Bricklayers Union No. 34,
New York, affiliated with the New York Executive
Committee for Bricklayers, Masons, and Plasterers
International Union of America, AFL-CIO, and of