Opinion ID: 719584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Board's Allocation of the Disputed Work

Text: 38 Local 14 also asserts that the Board erred in assigning the work to SPI's employees. In deciding section 10(k) work-assignment disputes, the Board routinely considers: 39 the skills and work involved, certifications by the Board, company and industry practice, agreements between unions and between employers and unions, awards of arbitrators, joint boards, and [unions] in the same or related cases, the assignment made by the employer, and the efficient operation of the employer's business. 40 International Ass'n of Machinists, Lodge 1743 (Jones Construction Co.), 135 N.L.R.B. 1402, 1410-11 (1962). 41 In this case, the Board considered the factors of certification and collective bargaining agreement, company preference and practice, area and industry practice, relative skills, and economy and efficiency of operations. The Board found that, although area and industry practice generally favored the Union, company preference and practice and economy and efficiency of operations favored an award to SPI's employees. The other factors did not favor either employee group. The Board concluded that, after considering all relevant factors, the work in dispute should be performed by SPI's employees. The Board's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and it does not appear that the Board overlooked any critical factors. Thus, its award to SPI's employees was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and the Union's petition for review of the award is denied.