Installation of. In the matter of the petition of the Enterprise Association of Steamfitters, Local No. 638, because of a dispute with Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. ▇▇-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. The committee finds that the weathermaster, as it is now being installed on the job at ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, does not come under Decision 227b. -Decision of Executive Committee, October 31, 1949. Sheet Metal Workers vs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇ -▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Building. The manufacture and erection of chutes of the type referred to in the complaint is work that has been in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, July 15, 1914. Carpenters vs. Sheet Metal Workem -60th St. and Broadway. The applying of sheet metal work in connection with store fronts, other than the metal provided for holding glass, is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, April 29, 1915. The intent of the decision is that the sheet metal holding the glass includes all of the sheet metal frame or sash and that where the sheet metal work in connection with the store front is not sufficient to provide employment to a sheet metal worker for more than one day, it may be applied by a ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. -Executive Committee. Carpenters for Mil1wrights vs. Sheet Metal Workers -Borough Hall Annex, Brooklyn. The complaint of the mil1wrights is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, December 10, 1915. Sheet Metal Workers, Local 28, vs. Millwrights, -Holland Tubes, Washington and Canal Sts. The work of installing blowers is covered by Decision No. 230 in the Handbook of the Building Trades Employers’ Association as being in the possession of the sheet metal workers, but as the work On this particular job has progressed to such an extent, the Committee recommends that no change be made in the labor at present employed. -Decision of Joint Committee representing the Building Trades Council and the Building Trades Employers’ Association, February 8, 1927. Carpenters’ District Council vs. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 -Metropolitan Life Building, Fourth Avenue and 25th Street, New York, N.Y. The Committee finds that the work in question is not in the possession of a trade. Decision of Executive Committee, March 8, 1932. Disputes between the Joint Trade Board of Sheet Metal Workers, local No. 28, and the Heating and Piping Contractors’ Association. -Job at ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇. The work being installed for ventilating purposes must of necessity be in such a completed condition before it can be operated that it is questionable that a maintenance man is required, and upon the evidence submitted, the Executive Committee finds that where maintenance work has been done it is not in the possession of any one trade. -Decision of Executive Committee, May 8, 1928. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Carpenters -▇▇▇▇▇▇ Construction Co.’s job, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Ave., Long Island City. The Committee finds that the work in question has been heretofore recognized to be in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, January 31, 1916. Iron Workers vs. ▇▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Sheet Metal Workers-23rd St., East of Sixth Ave. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, November 10, 1916. Sheet Metal Workers vs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Bros. and Iron Workers. -67th St., between Eighth and Columbus Aves. The work of manufacturing and erecting range hoods is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, March 6, 1917. Electrical Workers Local Union #3 (Award and Opinion) In accordance with the New York Plan an arbitration hearing was held on April 7th, 2008 between the above named Unions on the question of which is entitled to the work on Range Hoods at a job site at ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. The Arbitration Board consisted of the Undersigned as Chairman, and Messrs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. Representatives of both Unions appeared and were afforded full opportunity to offer evidence and argument and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The disputed work involves the handling and installation of range hoods, of two types – center island and wall mounted. These parties were expressly advised that material to a decision are (1) relevant Green Book Decisions; (2) relevant International or National Union Agreements; and (3) the industry practices in the New York Metropolitan geographic area. Local 28, the claimant, relies in significant part on a Green Book Decision, namely Decision #233 which reads: Local 28 also submitted evidence from various contractors, attesting to the use of sheet metal workers for the handling and installation of range hoods. Local 3 disputes the applicability of a 1917 Green Book Decision. It asserts that that decision was primarily directed to the manufacturer of commercial range hoods (and not residential as is the case here) and of a wholly different type than the hoods here in dispute which were not invented until 46 years later. It also submitted evidence of practices by various contractors, using Local 3member on the type of work involved in this case. However, the significant difference between the parties is a narrow one. It concerns whether the hoods have ducts or are ductless. Local 28 contends the former and Local 3, the latter. Local 3 concedes that if the hoods are attached to a duct system the instant disputed work belongs to the sheet metal workers. But that no ducts are part of the instant installation. Both sides submitted documentary evidence in the construction and operation of the hoods in question, and other types of range hoods as well. Based on all the evidence and testimony, the Board of Arbitration concluded that the type of range hoods at ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, though not connected to a duct system exiting to the outside, had within them ducts designed to dissipate the smoke and odors within the hood or within the room in which the range hood was located. Therefore the Board decided that the instant disputed hoods were not “ductless” as contended by Local 3. But that because they contained, integrally, a duct mechanism or component, the Green Book Decision #233 still obtains. And the work involved with those hoods belongs to Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers. ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Chairman DATED: April 10, 2008 Sheet Metal Workers vs. Carpenters and Win. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ & Sons. -▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Garage Building. The erection of the sheet metal toilet room partitions manufactured by the ▇. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Manufacturing Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. - Decision of Executive Committee, June 14, 1917. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Carpenters-Girls’ Commercial High School, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Avenue and Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn. The Committee recommends that the steel partitions in the shower room of the Girls’ Commercial High School, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Avenue and Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, be erected by sheet metal workers; and ftirther recommends that the question of the line of demarcation between the types of steel toilet partitions and doors be submitted to a special board of arbitration. -Recommendation Committee, October 29, 1924. Housesmiths, Local No. 52 vs. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28. -Tenth Avenue and 24th Street, New York, N.Y. The Committee finds that the work in question is not in the possession of a trade. -Decision of Executive Committee, September 3,1931. Sheet Metal Workers vs. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Taussig. -Brooklyn Navy Yard and other jobs. The Executive Committee finds that the patent pile casing and the stamped point is work that is not covered by the sheet metal workers’ trade agreement; repairing of casings and other sheet metal work must, however, be done by sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, July 24, 1917. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 vs. Plumbers, Local No. 463Madison Avenue and 73rd Street, New York, N. Y. The plumbers conceded the work in question after viewi119 samples of the material submitted, therefore, the Committee finds that the work is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. - Decision of Executive Committee, May 6, 1937. Carpenters, Union vs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Construction CO. and Workers -Brooklyn Navy Yard. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee. July 24, 1917. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Iron Workers (Housesmiths’ Finishers) and ▇▇▇▇▇ Architectural Iron Co. -St. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Church, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇. The work of setting the sheet metal f aces on the job in question is work that is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, May 7, 1918. Iron Workers (Housesmith’s Finishers) vs. Sheet Metal Workers -Naval Base, South Brooklyn. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, November 19, 1918. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Plumbers -Pennsylvania Hotel. The installing and setting of the battery of ranges in question (contract of the ▇. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Co.) is work that is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, December 20, 1918. Sheet metal Workers, Local No. 28 vs. Carpenters’ District Council -Dauphin Hotel, Broadway and 67th Street, New York, N.Y. The Committee finds that the installation of the metal lining and the cabinets for the kitchen equipment as installed on the job in question is the work of the sheet metal worker. -Decision of Executive Committee, November 13, 1933. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Iron Workers and Austin Company -Long Island City. The applying of corrugated sheet metal roofing is work that is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, July 21, 1919. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Iron Workers, -▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Air Field, Long Island. The work of installing sheet iron roofing of the type at the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Air Field is in possession of the sheet metal worker. -Decision of Executive Committee, November 29, 1929. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 vs. Iron Workers, Local No. 361 -Heinz Warehouse, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Avenue, Long Island, N. Y. The Committee finds that where the material in question is used for a floor of a building, it is work that is in possession of the iron worker, and where it is used in connection with a roof, it is work that is in the possession of the sheet metal worker. -Decision of Executive Committee, December 17, 1935. Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 28 vs. Carpenters District Council - Asphalt Green, New York City, New York. The Executive Committee finds that the installation of a metal standing seam rib roof system is the work of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 28 - Decision of the Executive Committee, April 15, 1993. Brotherhood of Carpenters vs. Sheet Metal Workers -Airport, North Beach, L.I., N.Y. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, September 30, 1930. Iron Workers vs. Sheet Metal Workers - Kent Avenue Power Station, Brooklyn, New York, and ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. Where corrugated sheet metal is applied to steel frame construction for both the roof and siding, it shall be the work of the Sheet Metal Worker; where corrugated sheet metal is applied to steel frame construction for the siding only, it shall be the work of the Iron Worker - Decision of Executive Committee, May 1, 1957. The Joint Board, on the basis of evidence and arguments presented by the two international unions at the oral appeals hearing on August 8, 1957, voted to make the following job decision: The Joint Board finds that the decision rendered by the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors of the Building Trades Employers' Association of the City of New York is contrary to the decision of record of May 26, 1923, and the Joint Board directs that the work in dispute be assigned in accordance with this decision which reads as follows: "The erection of corrugated metal sheeting on steel frames construction when the sheets are simply end and side lapped is the work of the Iron Workers, the erection of all other corrugated metal sheeting of No. 10 gauge or lighter is the work of the Sheet Metal Workers, and shall be assigned to the Iron Workers." Ornamental and Architectural Iron Workers Local Union No. 580 vs. Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 28, -Northwest Orient Airlines Terminal, Idlewild Airport, New York City. The installation of the porcelain enamelled panels forming the exterior face of the exterior closure wall fastened to the structural steel framing is the work of the Iron Worker. The balance of the metal work forming the exterior face of the exterior closure wall is the work of the Sheet Metal Worker. -Decision of the Executive Committee, May 2, 1962. Upon rehearing it is the decision of the Executive Committee that the decision of the Executive Committee 240d of May 2, 1962, is reaffirmed. -Decision of the Executive Committee, June 20, 1962. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Carpenters and H. D. Best Co.-55th St. and Second Ave., Brooklyn. We find that the setting of the sheet metal column forms in question is work that has heretofore been recognized to be and is now in the possession of the sheet metal worker.-Decision of Joint Committee representing the Building Trades Employers’ Association and the Building Trades Council (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Day), June 30, 1920. Sheet Metal Workers’ Union, Local 28 vs. New York District Council, United Brotherhood of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇. The matter in dispute between the Sheet Metal Workers and the Brotherhood of Carpenters, as submitted to the arbitrators is as follows: “Shall the sheet metal forms now being used in the Power House, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Long Island Sound, be erected by ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ or by the sheet metal workers?” The arbitrators, having failed to agree, I, as umpire, decide that as these metal forms are frequently delivered at the building in 0 unfinished condition and have to be assembled and bolted together there, and as they are sometimes cut and reshaped before they can be used again, and as they are of such light metal that they are unable to do what they were originally intended to do, and to be made available are in many instances lined with wood and also braced with wood so they may withstand the pressure of the concrete when it is poured, and they must be plumbed and trued: That, as the work necessary to make these forms complete as a finished whole requires the services of both these trades, from economic and equitable standpoints, this work should be equally divided between them (sheet metal workers and carpenters. -Decision of Umpire (▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇), August 11, 1921. Sheet Metal Workers’ Union vs. Iron Workers’ Union and the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Construction Company -Western Electric Building, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and West Houston Sts. The Committee finds that the work of erecting skylights of the type in question has been and is now in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, January 20, 1921. Iron Workers vs. Sheet Metal Workers and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Co. -Western Electric Building. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, May 6, 1921. Sheet Metal Workers vs. J. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ Co. -▇▇▇▇▇ St. Pier, Brooklyn. The work of covering the ▇▇▇▇▇ door frames with sheet metal work that has been heretofore recognized to be in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, June 8, 1921. Iron Workers vs. Sheet Metal Workers -Park Lane Building, Madison Ave. and 49th St. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision Of Executive Committee, July 12, 1923. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 vs. Housesmiths, Local ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, N. Y. The Committee finds that the erection of smoke or incinerator flues of No. 10 gauge or lighter is work that is in the possession of the sheet metal worker. -Decision of Executive Committee, April 27, 1931. Asbestos Workers, Local No. 12 vs. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 -Brooklyn College, Ocean Avenue and Avenue H, Brooklyn, N.Y. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, October 7, 1936. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Carpenters -Dorset Apartments, 54th between Fifth and Sixth Aves. The Committee finds that the work is not in the possession of a trade. -Decision of Executive Committee, September 8, 1926. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 vs. Carpenters’ District Council -Second Avenue and 22nd Street, New York, N.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Collective Bargaining Agreement
Installation of. In Plumbers Local No. 2 vs. Glaziers Local No. 1087-Interchurch Center, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. The Executive Committee finds that the matter glass shelves in question are bath and toilet room accessories and, therefore, the work of the petition Plumber. -Decision of the Enterprise Association of SteamfittersExecutive Committee, December 17, 1959. Plumbers, Local No. 638, because of a dispute with 463 vs. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 -Health Administration Building, Worth, Center, ▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ and Lafayette Streets, New York, N. Y. The Committee finds that the work in question, the setting of the brackets for the babe bath is of the same character as the case under Decision 202, rendered June 16, 1916, wherein the Committee sustained the complaint of the plumber. -Decision of Executive Committee, March 1, 1935. In the matter of a dispute between Plumbers, Local No. 463 and Carpenters’ District Council-253- ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇, ▇▇.▇. The committee finds that the weathermaster, as it is now being installed on the job at ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, does not come under Decision 227b. -Decision of Executive Committee, October 31, 1949. Sheet Metal Workers vs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇ -▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Building. The manufacture and erection of chutes of the type referred to in the complaint is work that has been in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, July 15, 1914. Carpenters vs. Sheet Metal Workem -60th St. and Broadway. The applying of sheet metal work in connection with store fronts, other than the metal provided for holding glass, is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, April 29, 1915. The intent of the decision is that the sheet metal holding the glass includes all of the sheet metal frame or sash and that where the sheet metal work in connection with the store front is not sufficient to provide employment to a sheet metal worker for more than one day, it may be applied by a ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. -Executive Committee. Carpenters for Mil1wrights vs. Sheet Metal Workers -Borough Hall Annex, Brooklyn. The complaint of the mil1wrights is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, December 10, 1915. Sheet Metal Workers, Local 28, vs. Millwrights, -Holland Tubes, Washington and Canal Sts. The work of installing blowers is covered by Decision No. 230 in the Handbook of the Building Trades Employers’ Association as being in the possession of the sheet metal workers, but as the work On this particular job has progressed to such an extent, the Committee recommends that no change be made in the labor at present employed. -Decision of Joint Committee representing the Building Trades Council and the Building Trades Employers’ Association, February 8, 1927. Carpenters’ District Council vs. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 -Metropolitan Life Building, Fourth Avenue and 25th Street, New York, N.Y. The Committee finds that on the job in question the work in question of setting cleats is not in the possession of a trade. Decision of Executive Committee, March 8, 1932. Disputes between the Joint Trade Board of Sheet Metal Workers, local No. 28, and the Heating and Piping Contractors’ Association. -Job at ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇. The work being installed for ventilating purposes must of necessity be in such a completed condition before it can be operated that it is questionable that a maintenance man is required, and upon the evidence submitted, the Executive Committee finds that where maintenance work has been done it is not in the possession of any one trade. -Decision of Executive Committee, May 8September 28, 19281936. Sheet Metal Workers Steamfitters’ Union vs. Carpenters -Plumbers and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Construction Co.’s job, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Ave., Long Island City. The Committee finds that the work in question has been heretofore recognized to be in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, January 31, 1916. Iron Workers vs. ▇▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Sheet Metal Workers-23rd St.Co.-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Paper Factory, East of Sixth AveStaten Island. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, November 10January 18, 19161918. Sheet Metal Workers Steamfitters; vs. Plumbers and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Bros. and Iron Workers. -67th St., between Eighth and Columbus Aves. The work of manufacturing and erecting range hoods is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, March 6, 1917. Electrical Workers Local Union #3 (Award and Opinion) In accordance with the New York Plan an arbitration hearing was held on April 7th, 2008 between the above named Unions on the question of which is entitled to the work on Range Hoods at a job site at ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-Commodore Hotel. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, October 2, 1918. Plumbers, Local No. 1 vs. Enterprise Association of Steamfitters, Local No. ▇▇▇ -▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. The Arbitration Board consisted of the Undersigned as Chairman, and Messrs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇.▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. Representatives of both Unions appeared and were afforded full opportunity to offer evidence and argument and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The disputed work involves the handling and installation of range hoods, of two types – center island and wall mounted. These parties were expressly advised that material to a decision are (1) relevant Green Book Decisions; (2) relevant International or National Union Agreements; and (3) the industry practices in the New York Metropolitan geographic area. Local 28, the claimant, relies in significant part on a Green Book Decision, namely Decision #233 which reads: Local 28 also submitted evidence from various contractors, attesting to the use of sheet metal workers for the handling and installation of range hoods. Local 3 disputes the applicability of a 1917 Green Book Decision. It asserts that that decision was primarily directed to the manufacturer of commercial range hoods (and not residential as is the case here) and of a wholly different type than the hoods here in dispute which were not invented until 46 years later. It also submitted evidence of practices by various contractors, using Local 3member on the type of work involved in this case. However, the significant difference between the parties is a narrow one. It concerns whether the hoods have ducts or are ductless. Local 28 contends the former and Local 3, the latter. Local 3 concedes that if the hoods are attached to a duct system the instant disputed work belongs to the sheet metal workers. But that no ducts are part of the instant installation. Both sides submitted documentary evidence in the construction and operation of the hoods in question, and other types of range hoods as well. Based on all the evidence and testimony, the Board of Arbitration concluded that the type of range hoods at ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, though not connected to a duct system exiting to the outside, had within them ducts designed to dissipate the smoke and odors within the hood or within the room in which the range hood was located. Therefore the Board decided that the instant disputed hoods were not “ductless” as contended by Local 3. But that because they contained, integrally, a duct mechanism or component, the Green Book Decision #233 still obtains. And the work involved with those hoods belongs to Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers. ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Chairman DATED: April 10, 2008 Sheet Metal Workers vs. Carpenters and Win. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ & Sons. -▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Garage Building. The erection of the sheet metal toilet room partitions manufactured by the ▇. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Manufacturing Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. - Decision of Executive Committee, June 14, 1917. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Carpenters-Girls’ Commercial High School, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Avenue and Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn. The Committee recommends that the steel partitions in the shower room of the Girls’ Commercial High School, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Avenue and Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, be erected by sheet metal workers; and ftirther recommends that the question of the line of demarcation between the types of steel toilet partitions and doors be submitted to a special board of arbitration. -Recommendation Committee, October 29, 1924. Housesmiths, Local No. 52 vs. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28. -Tenth Avenue and 24th Street, New York, N.Y. The Committee finds that the work in question is not in the possession of a trade. -Decision of Executive Committee, September 3,1931. Sheet Metal Workers vs. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Taussig. -Brooklyn Navy Yard and other jobs. The Executive Committee finds that the patent pile casing and the stamped point is work that is not covered by the sheet metal workers’ trade agreement; repairing of casings and other sheet metal work must, however, be done by sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, July 24, 1917. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 vs. Plumbers, Local No. 463Madison Avenue and 73rd Street, New York, N. Y. The plumbers conceded the work in question after viewi119 samples of the material submitted, therefore, the Committee finds that the work is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. - Decision of Executive Committee, May 6, 1937. Carpenters, Union vs. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Construction CO. and Workers -Brooklyn Navy Yard. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee. July 24, 1917. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Iron Workers (Housesmiths’ Finishers) and ▇▇▇▇▇ Architectural Iron Co. -St. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Church, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇. The work of setting the sheet metal f aces on the job in question is work that is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, May 7, 1918. Iron Workers (Housesmith’s Finishers) vs. Sheet Metal Workers -Naval Base, South Brooklyn. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, November 19, 1918. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Plumbers -Pennsylvania Hotel. The installing and setting of the battery of ranges in question (contract of the ▇. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Co.) is work that is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, December 20, 1918. Sheet metal Workers, Local No. 28 vs. Carpenters’ District Council -Dauphin Hotel, Broadway and 67th Street, New York, N.Y. The Committee finds that the installation of the metal lining and the cabinets for the kitchen equipment as installed on the job in question is the work of the sheet metal worker. -Decision of Executive Committee, November 13, 1933. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Iron Workers and Austin Company -Long Island City. The applying of corrugated sheet metal roofing is work that is in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, July 21, 1919. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Iron Workers, -▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Air Field, Long Island. The work of installing sheet iron roofing of the type at the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Air Field is in possession of the sheet metal worker. -Decision of Executive Committee, November 29, 1929. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 vs. Iron Workers, Local No. 361 -Heinz Warehouse, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Avenue, Long Island, N. Y. The Committee finds that where the material in question is used for a floor of a building, it is work that is in possession of the iron worker, and where it is used in connection with a roof, it is work that is in the possession of the sheet metal worker. -Decision of Executive Committee, December 17, 1935. Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 28 vs. Carpenters District Council - Asphalt Green, New York City, New York. The Executive Committee finds that the installation of a metal standing seam rib roof system is the work of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 28 - Decision of the Executive Committee, April 15, 1993. Brotherhood of Carpenters vs. Sheet Metal Workers -Airport, North Beach, L.I., N.Y. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, September 30, 1930. Iron Workers vs. Sheet Metal Workers - Kent Avenue Power Station, Brooklyn, New York, and ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. Where corrugated sheet metal is applied to steel frame construction for both the roof and siding, it shall be the work of the Sheet Metal Worker; where corrugated sheet metal is applied to steel frame construction for the siding only, it shall be the work of the Iron Worker - Decision of Executive Committee, May 1, 1957. The Joint Board, on the basis of evidence and arguments presented by the two international unions at the oral appeals hearing on August 8, 1957, voted to make the following job decision: The Joint Board finds that the decision rendered by the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors of the Building Trades Employers' Association of the City of New York is contrary to the decision of record of May 26, 1923, and the Joint Board directs that the work in dispute be assigned in accordance with this decision which reads as follows: "The erection of corrugated metal sheeting on steel frames construction when the sheets are simply end and side lapped is the work of the Iron Workers, the erection of all other corrugated metal sheeting of No. 10 gauge or lighter is the work of the Sheet Metal Workers, and shall be assigned to the Iron Workers." Ornamental and Architectural Iron Workers Local Union No. 580 vs. Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 28, -Northwest Orient Airlines Terminal, Idlewild Airport, New York City. The installation of the porcelain enamelled panels forming the exterior face of the exterior closure wall fastened to the structural steel framing is the work of the Iron Worker. The balance of the metal work forming the exterior face of the exterior closure wall is the work of the Sheet Metal Worker. -Decision of the Executive Committee, May 2, 1962. Upon rehearing it is the decision of the Executive Committee that the decision of the Executive Committee 240d of May 2, 1962, is reaffirmed. -Decision of the Executive Committee, June 20, 1962. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Carpenters and H. D. Best Co.-55th St. and Second Ave., Brooklyn. We find that the setting of the sheet metal column forms in question is work that has heretofore been recognized to be and is now in the possession of the sheet metal worker.-Decision of Joint Committee representing the Building Trades Employers’ Association and the Building Trades Council (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Day), June 30, 1920. Sheet Metal Workers’ Union, Local 28 vs. New York District Council, United Brotherhood of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇. The matter in dispute between the Sheet Metal Workers and the Brotherhood of Carpenters, as submitted to the arbitrators is as follows: “Shall the sheet metal forms now being used in the Power House, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Long Island Sound, be erected by ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ or by the sheet metal workers?” The arbitrators, having failed to agree, I, as umpire, decide that as these metal forms are frequently delivered at the building in 0 unfinished condition and have to be assembled and bolted together there, and as they are sometimes cut and reshaped before they can be used again, and as they are of such light metal that they are unable to do what they were originally intended to do, and to be made available are in many instances lined with wood and also braced with wood so they may withstand the pressure of the concrete when it is poured, and they must be plumbed and trued: That, as the work necessary to make these forms complete as a finished whole requires the services of both these trades, from economic and equitable standpoints, this work should be equally divided between them (sheet metal workers and carpenters. -Decision of Umpire (▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇), August 11, 1921. Sheet Metal Workers’ Union vs. Iron Workers’ Union and the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Construction Company -Western Electric Building, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and West Houston Sts. The Committee finds that the work of erecting skylights of the type in question has been and is now in the possession of the sheet metal workers. -Decision of Executive Committee, January 20, 1921. Iron Workers vs. Sheet Metal Workers and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Co. -Western Electric Building. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, May 69, 19211935. Sheet Metal Workers Steamfitters vs. J. Plumbers and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ Co. Construction Co.-Army Supply Base, South Brooklyn. They shall be installed by the journeymen plumbers. Decision of General President of the United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters, June 5, 1919. Plumbers vs. Steamfitters-▇▇▇▇▇ St. PierAmerican Chicle Building, BrooklynLong Island city. The work in question is definitely covered by paragraphs 1 and 17 of covering the ▇▇▇▇▇ door frames with sheet metal work that has been heretofore recognized to be agreement between the United Association and the Steamfitters, dated March 24, 1914. Duties of a Steamfitter. -Paragraph 1, second sentence, reads: The Plumber shall leave in the possession water supply piping and in the waste and sewer piping suitable outlets, at practical and convenient points, and the steamfitter shall run all necessary piping from such outlets to the apparatus erected or installed by him, and from such apparatus to such outlets. We find that the installing of the sheet metal workers6-inch line from the house pumps to the house tank is the work of the plumber. -Decision of Executive Committee, June There is an 8, 1921. Iron Workers vs. Sheet Metal Workers -Park Lane Building, Madison Ave. -inch down supply with 4-inch outlets on each floor and 49th St. The complaint is dismissed. -Decision Of Executive Committee, July 12, 1923. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 vs. Housesmiths, Local ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, N. Y. The Committee finds that the erection of smoke or incinerator flues of No. 10 gauge or lighter is work that is a 5-inch outlet in the possession basement. These 4-inch outlets will be used in the manufacture of food products. That the 5-inch connection to the basement will be used for plumbing or domestic purposes is not questioned. The running of the sheet metal worker. -Decision of Executive Committee, April 27, 1931. Asbestos Workers, Local No. 12 vs. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 -Brooklyn College, Ocean Avenue and Avenue H, Brooklyn, N.Y. The complaint 8-inch down supply from the house tank is dismissed. -Decision of Executive Committee, October 7, 1936. Sheet Metal Workers vs. Carpenters -Dorset Apartments, 54th between Fifth and Sixth Aves. The Committee finds that the work is not of the plumber, who will run to the four outlets at the designated points on each floor. He will also run to the 5-inch outlet in the possession of a trade. -Decision of Executive Committee, September 8, 1926. Sheet Metal Workers, Local No. 28 vs. Carpenters’ District Council -Second Avenue and 22nd Street, New York, N.basement.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Plumbing Work Agreement