United Brotherhood Of Carpenters And Joiners Of America, Carpenters' District Council Of Western Pennsylvania, Afl-Cio

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 31, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 1385 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

CARPENTERS (OVERHEAD DOOR) 1385 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters ' District Council of-,West- ern Pennsylvania , AFL-CIO and Overhead Door Company of, Greater Pittsburgh .. Case 6- CD-810 31 December 1985 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND BABSON The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed 29 July 1985 by the Employer, alleging that the Respondent , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Carpenters ' District Coun- cil of Western Pennsylvania , AFL-CIO, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to the Employer's unrepresented employees. The hearing was held 16 September 1985 before Hearing Offi- cer Donald J . Burns. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board affirms the hearing officer 's rulings, finding them free from prejudicial error. On the entire record , the Board makes the following find- ings. 1. JURISDICTION Overhead Door Company of Greater Pittsburgh, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the as- sembly and nonretail sale of overhead doors. The Employer annually receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points lo- cated outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. John Deklewa and Sons, Inc., general contractor at the project at issue in this proceeding, annually purchases and receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for use within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The parties stipulate, and we fmd, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute Overhead Door Company of Greater Pittsburgh, a Division of Allied Materials, Inc. (the Employer), is engaged in the unloading , distributing, erecting, and installing of overhead, doors and grills at a con- struction project known , as,the John Deklewa and Sons, Inc., Woods Run Development Project (the project) in -Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania . John Deklewa and Sons, Inc. (Deklewa) is the general contractor on the project . About '8"or, 10 July 1985 the Em-, ployer commenced wo`ik ai the project by assign- ing the unloading and distributing of 43 doors to its unrepresented employees . As these employees com- menced the unloading of 'doors at the project, Adam Petrovich , representative of United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Car- penters' District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO (the Union), contacted Raymond Gali- cic, the project 's job superintendent , and inquired "what was going on" at the project . Galicic in- formed Petrovich that there were nonunion em- ployees at the project unloading materials. In re- sponse , Petrovich informed Galicic that this was "carpenters work" and that "well, there 's a prob- lem down there, you know , you got to get them off the job or else we ' ll all put pickets on the gate ." At the conclusion of this conversation, Gali- cic told an employee of Overhead that he should stop unloading materials but the employee declined to do so. On the second day that the Employer performed work at the project, Union Representative Petro- vich arrived at the project and informed Job Su- perintendent Galicic that there was a problem and that there would be pickets unless the job was per- formed by members of the Union . Galicic called a higher official of Deklewa and was instructed to stop the Employer 's employees from distributing doors at the project and to ask them to leave the project . Galicic then ordered the Employer's em- ployees off the project. Following the Employer 's commencement of work at the project, Petrovich informed the Em- ployer's owner Dale Lichy that the work at the project was the Union 's work and that the Union would picket the project if the Employer refused to remove its employees from the project. Deklewa also called Lichy and informed him that Deklewa did not want trouble on the project and wanted the job "to be done union ." Thereafter , Lichy re- frained from sending the Employer 's unrepresented employees to the project and instead arranged for another company to perform the work with em- ployees represented by the Union. B. Work in Dispute The disputed work involves the unloading, dis- tributing , erecting , and installing of overhead doors and grills at the John Deklewa and Sons, Inc., 277 NLRB No. 157 1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Woods Run Redevelopment Project, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. by the Union or to the Employer's unrepresented employees. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer presented evidence in support of its assignment of the work in dispute to its unrepre- sented employees . No party filed briefs or made specific contentions at the hearing regarding the issues in this case.' D. Applicability of the Statute It is undisputed that there is no agreed-on method of voluntary resolution of the dispute. Fur- ther, it is undisputed that Union Representative Pe- trovich threatened that the project would be pick- eted unless the work in dispute was performed by members of the Union rather than by the Employ- er's unrepresented employees . We find reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists no agreed method for voluntary adjustment of the dis- pute within the meaning of Section 10 (k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the dispute is prop- erly before the Board for determination. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an af- firmative award of disputed work after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense and experience, reached by bal- ancing the factors involved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge' 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). The following factors are relevant in making the determination of this dispute. 1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements There are no previous orders or certifications of the Board awarding jurisdiction of the work in dis- pute to employees represented by the Union or to the Employer's, unrepresented employees. There are no collective-bargaining agreements entered into by the parties that are contended to encompass the work in dispute. Accordingly, these factors do not favor an award either to employees represented i During its cross-examination of a witness presented by the Employer, the Union inquired into the relationship between the Employer and sev- eral other business entities and introduced into evidence a collective-bar- gaining agreement between the Union and Specialty Metal Services, Inc The Union, however, made no specific contentions at the hearing regard- ing this evidence and, as noted above, did not file a posthearing brief 2. Company preference and past practice The Employer prefers that the work in dispute be awarded to its unrepresented employees consist- ent with its previous assignment of the work to those employees. According to the uncontradicted testimony of the Employer's owner Dale Lichy, such an assignment is consistent with the Employ- er's past practice. These factors therefore favor an award to the Employer's unrepresented employees. 3. Relative Skills According to Lichy, the Employer's unrepre- sented employees are familiar with the Employer's product and with its door installation work. Lichy also testified without contradiction that there is no union available with skilled members to perform the work. Accordingly, this factor favors an award to the Employer's unrepresented employees. 4. Economy and efficiency of operations Lichy testified without contradiction, inter alia, that it is more economical and efficient for the Em- ployer to use its own unrepresented employees to perform the disputed work than to employ union- represented employees because it avoids any delay in having to call the union hall for employees and permits the Employer to perform work quicker by having its employees busy and available at the job- site. Further, as noted above, the Employee's un- represented employees are familiar with the em- ployer's product and its door installation work. Accordingly, this factor favors an award of the disputed work to the Employer's unrepresented employees. Conclusions After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that the Employer's unrepresented em- ployees are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on the Employ- er's preference, past practice, relative skills, and economy and efficiency of operations. In making this determination, we are awarding the work to the Employer's unrepresented employees. The de- termination is limited to the controversy that gave rise to this proceeding. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE The National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute. 1. The Employer's unrepresented employees are entitled to perform the work of unloading, distrib- CARPENTERS (OVERHEAD DOOR) 1387 siting, erecting, and installing of overhead doors and grills at the John Dekiewa and Sons, Inc., Woods Run Redevelopment Project, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters' District Council of West- ern Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force the Employer to assign the disputed work to employees represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from this date, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Car- penters' District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO shall notify the Regional Director for Region 6 in writing whether it will refrain from forcing the Employer , by means proscribed by Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with this determination.