Sheetmetal Workers, Local 9

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 18, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 724 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sheetmetal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 9, AFL-CIO and Elward, Inc. and International Association of Bridge, Struc- tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 24, AFL-CIO. Case 27-CD-207 July 18, 1980 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELI.O AND TRUESDAI.E This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Elward, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging that Sheetmetal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 9, AFL-CIO, herein called Sheetmetal Workers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to its members rather than to employees rep- resented by International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 24, AFL-CIO, herein called Ironworkers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Winchel W. Reed on March 3 and 4, 1980. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding 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 af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF ]HE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em- ployer, a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado, is engaged in the sale and installation of metal products, mostly composed of metal walls, floors, and roofs for commercial construction. During the past year, the Employer purchased goods from outside the State having a value of $50,000. The parties also stipulated, and we find, that the Employer in en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 250 NLRB No. 99 11. THlEi lABOR OR(GANIZATIONS INVOI.VII) The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Sheetmetal Workers and the Ironworkers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THF DI)SPUTII A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer is a specialty contractor engaged in the construction industry. It acts as a manufac- turer's representative, furnishing and installing metal panels, including walls, floors, and roofs. The Employer employs from 20 to 50 employees during the course of a construction season. The Employer has been signatory to a collec- tive-bargaining agreement with the Ironworkers since 1960. In 1961, the Employer executed its first labor agreement with the Sheetmetal Workers. Until 1978, however, the Employer did not engage in active bargaining with either Union. Rather, its practice was simply to adopt the local "master agreements" which were negotiated periodically between the Ironworkers and the Associated Gen- eral Contractors of Colorado, Building Chapter, Inc., and between the Sheetmetal Workers and the Local Chapter of the Sheet Metal and Air Condi- tioning Contractors National Association, herein SMACNA. The Employer has been faced with conflicting jurisdictional claims by the two Unions from the time it first signed collective-bargaining contracts with them. In response to these claims, since 1970 the Employer has maintained a composite crew ar- rangement under which there have been approxi- mately nine employees represented by the Iron- workers for every one employee represented by the Sheetmetal Workers among the Employer's total onsite work force throughout Colorado. This approximate 9-to-I work assignment ratio has not been applied to any particular job, and never was incorporated into a collective-bargaining contract, but instead has been implemented pursuant to oral agreements and several letters among the parties. In 1977, the Employer-at the suggestion of the Sheetmetal Workers business manager-purchased a newly developed machine called a cot-R-cap (or Cotter Cap) machine, which essentially is a scaled- down version of metal rolling machinery otherwise located in a manufacturing plant. The cot-R-cap machine, which is on wheels, is able to bend and shape metal into panels at the jobsite. The panels produced by this machine (or secured fronm manu- facturers whom the Employer represents) are then installed by the Employer's employees. The Sheet- metal Workers in 1977 claimed all of the cot-R-cap 724 Slit--TIMIlAI. W()RK[IRS. lOCAl. 4 work performed by the Employer, but the Em- ployer refused this request and instead continued to assign work pursuant to the established approxi- mate 9-to-1 ratio. The Sheetmetal Workers dissatis- faction with the 9-to-1 practice has increased since 1977, and on numerous occasions the Sheetmetal Workers has demanded that the Employer justify' it, and adjust the ratio so that employees represent- ed by the Sheetmetal Workers will obtain a larger share of the Employer's work. The contract between the Employer and the Sheetmetal Workers was due to expire on June 30, 1978. By letter to the Employer dated June 2, 1978, the Sheetmetal Workers asserted that the 9-to-1 ratio composite arrangement was not to be applied to all of the Employer's work, but was applicable only to decking. The letter stated that only em- ployees represented by the Sheetmetal Workers were to be assigned such things as "HVAC louvers, skylights, facia, roofing, soffit, coping, etc." At a July 19, 1978, bargaining session on a suc- cessor contract with the Sheetmetal Workers, the Employer declined to sign the newly negotiated SMACNA contract on the ground that said con- tract was inapplicable to its own operations be- cause it did not contain any provisions for the as- signment of work to composite crews. On this date, the Sheetmetal Workers asked the Employer for information regarding the Employer's jobs in an attempt to garner support for its position that the 9-to-1 ratio did not reflect fairly the changed nature of the Employer's work. At the next bar- gaining meeting, held on August 31, 1978, the Em- ployer furnished the Sheetmetal Workers with an estimate of its percentage distribution of work by product. The Sheetmetal Workers expressed doubt about the accuracy of some of the percentages, and requested more detailed information. The Employ- er agreed to supply more specific data "within a couple months," but failed to do so. The last collective-bargaining meeting between the Employer and the Sheetmetal Workers oc- curred on September 5, 1978, and, to date, they have not signed an agreement to replace the con- tract which expired in June 1978. The Employer and the Sheetmetal Workers, however, had agreed at the July 1978 bargaining session that the wages and fringe benefits contained in the SMACNA contract were acceptable. Accordingly, the Em- ployer paid those wages and benefits to employees represented by the Sheetmetal Workers whom it employed until late December 1979, when the Sheetmetal Workers informed the Employer that its members would refuse to accept fringe benefits. In the meantime, the Employer has continued to operate under its contract with the Ironworkers. More than 1 year after the last bargaining ses- sion, on Friday, December 14, and Monday, De- cember 17, 1979, the Sheetmetal Workers picketed the Employer at a construction site at the Western Federal Savings and Loan Association Building in Denver. As a subcontractor on that project, the Employer had been installing curtain wall alumi- num framing and certain roofing and paneling pro- duced by the cot-R-cap machine, which was on the job. At the time the picketing commenced, the Em- ployer's work crew on the project consisted of three employees represented by the Ironworkers engaged in putting on roof siding and soffit-type on several parapet and entranceway areas. The picket sign stated that Elward, Inc., did not have a contract with Sheetmetal Workers Interna- tional No. 9. All work on the project shut down during the picketing. Upon being formally notified that the Employer had been pulled off the job, the Sheetmetal Workers ceased its picketing on De- cember 17. On December 18, 1979, the Employer decided to award all of its subsequent work throughout Colorado to employees represented by the Ironworkers. At a meeting on that day, the Employer made, and the Ironworkers accepted, a formal assignment to its members of all of the Em- ployer's onsite construction work. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves the handling and installation of louvers, skylights, facia, roofing, soffit, coping, and other similar work at the Em- ployer's jobsites in Colorado. ' C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that its work has become integrated to the point that it is no longer economically feasible to separate crafts and juris- dictional lines, and inasmuch as the Sheetmetal Workers will not agree to a continuation of the ap- proximate 9-to-I ratio governing composite crews, it is more efficient to assign all of its work, includ- ing the work in dispute, to employees represented by the Ironworkers. It is the Employer's position that the type of construction in which it engages is not the type of work traditionally within the Sheetmetal Workers jurisdiction, and that ironworkers are capable of performing all of the Employer's work. The Em- ployer requests that the Board not limit its award ' Although the dispute that gaec ris l I ihti procceding tccurrcd at the e'sitern Salvilgs anid I oa.ll A-.so,,.i.iio nl ,- rutilon prelet fr rca ,o1n, dicutlscd ImrtIa. \%c fiind that Ihe dixpute is, not limited io that loa- I lOl 725 7)DCISI()N. ()F NATI()NAL I.ABI)R REIAlTIO()NS IJO()ARD) to the Western Federal Savings anid Loan Associ- ation project, but instead award to employees rep- resented by the Ironworkers all of the future work of the Employer, at least within the geographical jurisdiction of the Sheetmetal Workers. In this con- nection, the Employer asserts that the Sheetmetal Workers has expressed the intent to picket Elward, Inc., wherever it can be found to be engaged in what is allegedly sheetmetal workers' work. The Ironworkers position, as reflected in the record, is that the work in dispute rightfully be- longs to its members. It asserts that, despite the ap- proximate 9-to-I composite crew practice, it and the Sheetmetal Workers never were able to resolve their conflicting claims to the bulk of the Employ- er's work. The Ironworkers states that it claimed all for its members of the Employer's work begin- ning on December 17, 1979 (even prior to the Em- ployer's assignment to that effect on December 18), and continues that claim to date. The Sheetmetal Workers contends that the De- cember 1979 picketing was conducted in a lawful manner and with the permissible object of publiciz- ing the Employer's refusal to enter into a new con- tract. The Sheetmetal Workers argues that, con- trary to the Ironworkers assertion, at the time it engaged in conduct allegedly violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act there was no dispute between it and the Ironworkers regarding the assignment of particular work by the Employer. Rather, the Sheetmetal Workers maintains the picketing in question stemmed from the Employer's refusal to bargain on a new contract. In this regard, the Union states that the Employer persis- tently has refused to sign the current SMACNA contract solely because that contract does not pro- vide for composite crews. The Sheetmetal Workers contends that the major issue during negotiations was whether the approxi- mate 9-to-I ratio should be continued or modified to reflect the current nature of the Employer's work, which the Sheetmetal Workers submits has changed significantly over the years from a heavy emphasis on decking and siding to new product lines concerning which the Sheetmetal Workers has a legitimate claim, such as cot-R-cap roofing. According to the Sheetmetal Workers, the purpose of its picketing was to protest the Employer's fail- ure to provide it with more accurate and complete information about the allocation of its work. Fur- ther, the Sheetmetal Workers contends that it is evidert that there was no jurisdictional dispute be- tween it and the Ironworkers over the work in question, since that work was not assigned exclu- sively to employees represented by either of the Unions until the Employer awarded it to employ- ees represented by the Ironworkers on December 18, 1979-after the pickets had been removed. If, however, the Board determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that the picketing vio- lated Section 8(b)(4)(D), the Sheetmetal Workers contends that its members are entitled to be award- ed the disputed work, at least on a composite basis. The Union argues that the record clearly estab- lishes that the work in dispute falls within its craft jurisdiction, but adds that it does not object to the continuation of a composite crew arrangement, provided the Employer equitably distributes its work. While acknowledging that composite crews may be the most appropriate way to assign work that is connected to the metal walls and curtain windows in which the Employer specializes, the Sheetmetal Workers asserts that the evidence demonstrates that the installation of cot-R-cap roofing, facia, and soffits is exclusively within its work jurisdiction. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of the 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 and that the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis- pute. The record establishes that the Sheetmetal Workers picketed the Employer on December 14 and 17, 1979, at a jobsite on which the Employer was performing work and utilizing a machine (the cot-R-cap) over which the Sheetmetal Workers as- serts jurisdiction. The Sheetmetal Workers contends, however, that the picketing was solely for the purpose of ob- taining a collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer. Besides the fact that this contention is belied by the lapse of more than a year between the termination of negotiations and the picketing, we find that sufficient evidence exists to give rea- sonable cause to believe that an object of the pick- eting was to cause the assignment of certain of the Employer's work to employees represented by the Sheetmetal Workers. Thus, at the hearing in this proceeding, the Sheetmetal Workers business manager, Mr. Guidry, stated that the Union would not have picketed if the Employer had changed its operation to the point where it no longer performed work involving louvers, skylights, flashing, soffit, and coping. This clearly indicates that its claim to various types of work, and not the Employer's failure to enter into a new contract, motivated the Sheetmetal Workers picketing. 720 Stl-t TI 1 AAI W\()RKE"RS. ILOCAI. q Further. Mr. Frisk, a field superintendent for the Employer, testified that, in September or October 1979. he suggested to a Sheetmetal Workers busi- ness agent, Mr. Gauthier, that the Employer and the Union agree to a composite crew arrangement regarding cot-R-cap work, just as the parties had on other types of work. According to Frisk, Gauthier rejected such an arrangement, and told him that cot-R-cap work was "one place we [Sheetmetal Workers] won't budge, " and that cot- R-cap work would be 100 percent Sheetmetal Workers work. Gauthier denies making such a statement to Frisk.2 It is uncontradicted that on December 13, 1979, the day before the picketing commenced, Mr. Frazer, an Ironworkers member employed by the Employer at the Western Federal Savings and Loan project, was approached by Mr. Stevens, a Sheetmetal Workers business agent. Stevens asked Frazer if Charlie Smith were working on the job and who the other Elward employees on the proj- ect were. Smith at that time was the only Sheetme- tal Workers member employed by the Employer. Mr. Braun, the Ironworkers business manager, tes- tified that on that same day, December 13, 1979, the Sheetmetal Workers business manager, Guidry, informed him that the Sheetmetal Workers was going to set up a picket against the Employer at the Cherry Creek shopping center the following morning. (The Western Federal Savings and Loan project is located in the Cherry Creek shopping center area.) When Braun asked Guidry what the problem was, the Sheetmetal Workers business manager replied that there was a cot-R-cap job there with no sheetmetal workers on it. Guidry denies telling Braun that he was going to picket the project because it was a cot-R-cap job. In addition, Mr. Anderson, the job superintend- ent for the general contractor at the Western Fed- eral project, testified that after picketing began on December 14, 1979, he telephoned a Sheetmetal Workers representative (whose name he could not recall) to ask why the picket was at the site. An- derson testified that the Sheetmetal Workers agent told him that the picket was at the job because the Employer was installing materials produced by cot- R-cap. Guidry admitted talking to Anderson on December 14, 1979, but denied that he had made such a statement to Anderson. Charlie Smith, the Sheetmetal Workers member referred to earlier, testified that on December 28, 1979, the Sheetmetal Workers business agent, Ste- 2 While the evidence on thi. and other malter. i. conflicling. for the purr',.e of finding rcalonahle c.au to helict e that Sec 8(h)144)(D ha, been 'iolalcd Ac nced 1nol conclutlvcly rcsolve connict', nl I¢.timlno , In- ternalioInal Brotthert o, / h ' r F'' l Wi'orkl er. Ixal 103 *J G(;rcoir Broon (Muki Electrical. Inc/¢.. 227 NL.Rti 1745. 1746 (19771 vens, asked him what jobs Smith knew of where the Employer was doing sheetmetal workers' work. They discussed those jobs of which Smith was aware, and then Stevens stated that "any work that they [Elward] were doing that was sheetmetal workers' work, they [the Sheetmetal Workers] were going to picket." Smith's testimony was unre- butted. In view of the foregoing, we find that reasonable cause exists to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated, and that since there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjust- ment of the dispute to which all parties are bound, we conclude that this dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. fMeriis of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due consideration to various factors.3 The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdic- tional dispute is an act of judgment based on com- monsense and experience reached by balancing those factors involved in a particular case. 4 The following factors are relevant in making the determination of the dispute before us: 1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements Neither the Ironworkers nor the Sheetmetal Workers has been certified by the Board as bar- gaining agent for the Employer's employees, and thus certification is not a factor favoring either group of employees. As noted above, the Employer is party to a cur- rent collective-bargaining agreement with the Iron- workers, but not with the Sheetmetal Workers. Nonetheless, the Employer was signatory to the Sheetmetal Workers national bargaining agree- ments with SMACNA between 1961 and June 30, 1978. In its agreement, the Ironworkers asserts juris- diction over a broad scope of work which encom- passes, inter alia, the items included in the work in dispute. Likewise, the description of Sheetmetal Workers jurisdiction in the SMACNA contracts covers the work in dispute. Although the fact that the Employer has an ex- isting contract with the Ironworkers covering the work in question suggests that employees repre- ' NL R B. v Rado & Television Broadcart Engiters nion,, Local 1212. Iniurnatlowl Brolherhood oJ Elhctricul Wiarlkers. AFL-CIO [Colurn- hi Rruadcioumg Svplnm], 364 U S 573 (1961)l 4 Interiational 4s(wtuiol of f.lachiit , ,dgc No. 1743. A4FL-C10 (J. .4 Jo¢tl Costructilol Cotnpunin,. 135 NLRB 140)2 (19621 727 I)-FCISI(ONS ()F NATIONAL LAB()R RELATIONS BOARD sented by the Ironworkers are entitled to be award- ed all of the Employer's work, the long contractual relationship between the Employer and the Sheet- metal Workers should be accorded weight in reaching our determination. Accordingly, we find that collective-bargaining agreements are not deter- minative of the dispute before us. 2. Company and area practice and employer preference Between 1970 and December 18, 1979, the Em- ployer generally maintained a practice of employ- ing approximately nine employees represented by the Ironworkers for every employee represented by the Sheetmetal Workers in its total work force. This established composite crew arrangement mili- tates against assigning the disputed work to em- ployees represented by either of the Unions exclu- sively, even though this particular factor does favor members of the Ironworkers to the degree reflected in the approximate 9-to-1 ratio. The evidence regarding area practice is inconclu- sive and does not favor awarding the work in dis- pute to one group of employees rather than the other. With respect to employer preference, while the Employer now prefers an assignment of the work exclusively to the employees represented by the Ironworkers, we find this is not a factor of any sig- nificance here since the Employer only took that position in response to the claims of the Sheetmetal Workers for additional work. Previously, as noted above, the Employer had assigned the work based on the 9-to-I ratio. 3. Relative skills The record indicates that over the years the Em- ployer has had little difficulty obtaining qualified workers from the hiring halls of both the Iron- workers and the Sheetmetal Workers, and the work in dispute is part of the apprenticeship train- ing programs sponsored by each Union. Apparent- ly, employees represented by the Ironworkers are more accustomed to "working in the air" on ex- posed steel beams than are employees represented by the Sheetmetal Workers, and this type of work constitutes the greatest proportion of the Employ- er's work. Nevertheless, we conclude that the factor of skills does not support awarding the disputed work exclusively either to employees represented by the Ironworkers or to those represented by the Sheet- metal Workers, but instead tends to favor continu- ation of the longstanding approximate 9-to-l com- posite crew arrangment. Employees represented by the Ironworkers and employees represented by the Sheetmetal Workers evidently have the requisite skills and knowledge to perform the work in ques- tion, as they have done for a number of years for the Employer. 4. Economy and efficiency of operation This factor is the primary reason offered by the Employer for preferring employees represented by the Ironworkers over employees represented by the Sheetmetal Workers. The record shows that it is not uncommon for the Employer to have 15 to 20 different jobs in progress at any one time, and to use several different crews numerous times during the course of any particular job. The Employer generally utilizes small crews (averaging three per- sons each) on these projects, the composition of which is changed on a regular basis. In fact, indi- vidual employees frequently are shuffled from crew to crew and project to project as many as three to four times during a given week. In view of this continual shifting of employees and crews, the Employer necessarily seeks to main- tain a stable work force. In this connection, the Employer asserts that it has had difficulty retaining employees represented by the Sheetmetal Workers and that, on the average, a sheetmetal worker em- ployed by it quits in a matter of months. In con- trast, the Employer states that the average length of employment of its employees represented by the Ironworkers is about 10 years. The Employer ac- knowledges, however, that employees represented by the Sheetmetal Workers normally left its employ as a result of layoffs, such as are common in the construction industry. The Employer's claim that it is more efficient and more economical to assign the work in dispute exclusively to employees represented by the Iron- workers is not supported by the evidence. In fact, the Employer has employed employees represented by the Sheetmetal Workers for more than 18 years in the performance of work similar to that in dis- pute. Thus, we find the matter of efficiency and economy of operation to be a neutral factor in reaching our determination. 5. Joint Board awards The Employer introduced into evidence a number of decisions of the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes which awarded work similar to that in dispute performed by other employers to employees represented by the Ironworkers, rather than to employees repre- sented by the Sheetmetal Workers. Conversely, the Sheetmetal Workers presented in evidence numerous decisions of the Impartial Juris- dictional Disputes Board for the Construction In- dustry awarding such work to employees repre- 728 SIFEETMNI'FAI WORKERS I.()CAI. ) sented by the Sheetmetal Workers rather than to employees represented by the Ironworkers. Also placed in evidence was a 1970 award of the Sheet Metal Industry Local Joint Adjustment Board which found that the Employer had violated its collective-bargaining agreement with the Sheetme- tal Workers by assigning work similar to the dis- puted work to employees represented by the Iron- workers. In view of the dissimilar and conflicting awards relied on by the parties, we find that the factor of Joint Board awards is not determinative. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- sideration of all relevant factors involved, we con- clude that employees of Elward, Inc., are entitled to be assigned the work in dispute pursuant to a composite crew arrangement whereby one employ- ee represented by the Sheetmetal Workers is to be assigned to such work for every nine employees represented by the Ironworkers so assigned. We reach this conclusion on the basis of the Employ- er's past practice of maintaining such an approxi- mate 9-to-I ratio in assigning the disputed work to employees represented by these two Unions. The evidence presented at the hearing does not justify any change from the prior established practice of assigning work on a 9-to-1 ratio. In this regard, we note that there was no evidence that the utilization of employees represented by the Sheetmetal Work- ers, especially on composite crews with employees represented by the Ironworkers, was inefficient or resulted in any unnecessary expense. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees who are repre- sented by the Ironworkers and the Sheetmetal Workers, but not to those Unions or to their mem- bers. Although we usually limit our determination of a dispute to the particular controversy which gave rise to the 10(k) proceeding, in this case the nature of the Employer's business, i.e., performing various jobs at the same time with a stable work force which is constantly interchanging, indicates that the dispute is not restricted to one jobsite. Indeed, the circumstances here, including an al- leged threat by the Sheetmetal Workers to picket the Employer wherever it is found, and whenever it is doing sheetmetal workers' work, indicate that this dispute is likely to arise again at other loca- tions in Colorado where the Employer is perform- ing work. Accordingly, the scope of our award en- compasses the area of the Employer's operations in Colorado. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE 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 of Elward, Inc., who are repre- sented by International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 24, AFL-CIO, and those who are represented by Sheetmetal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 9, AFL-CIO, are entitled to per- form the handling and installation of louvers, sky- lights, facia, roofing, soffit, coping, and other simi- lar work at the Elward, Inc., jobsites in Colorado pursuant to a composite crew arrangement. Under this composite crew arrangement, one employee represented by the Sheetmetal Workers is entitled to be assigned such handling and installation for every nine employees represented by the Iron- workers who are assigned such work. 2. Sheetmetal Workers' International Associ- ation, Local Union No. 9, AFL-CIO, is not enti- tled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Elward, Inc., to assign the disputed work to employees represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Sheetmetal Work- ers' International Association, Local Union No. 9, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. 72'