Carpenters Local 2265 (Detroit Floor Co.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 1082 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1082
313 NLRB No. 183
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Resilient Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL–CIO and Detroit Floor Com-
pany and Tile, Marble and Terrazzo Local No.
32, affiliated with the International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, AFL–CIO.
Case 7–CD–524
April 14, 1994
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND
BROWNING
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed September 27, 1993, by Detroit Floor Company,
the Employer, alleging that the Respondent, Resilient
Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265, United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL–
CIO (Carpenters Local 2265), violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by en-
gaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing
or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to
employees it represents rather than to employees rep-
resented by Tile, Marble and Terrazzo Local No. 32,
affiliated with the International Union of Bricklayers
and Allied Craftsmen, AFL–CIO (Bricklayers Local
32). The hearing was held on October 19, 1993, before
Hearing Officer Mary Strang. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer, Carpenters Local 2265, and Bricklayers Local
32 filed briefs.
The National Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The National Labor Relations Board affirms the
hearing officer’s rulings, finding them free from preju-
dicial error. On the entire record, the Board makes the
following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer is a Michigan corporation with an of-
fice and place of business in Livonia, Michigan, where
it is engaged in the business of installing floor cover-
ings. During the 12-month period ending August 31,
1993, the Employer, in the course and conduct of its
business, purchased goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 from points located outside the State
of Michigan and caused said goods to be shipped di-
rectly to its Michigan facility. The parties stipulated,
and we find, that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act and that Carpenters Local 2265 and Brick-
layers Local 32 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer installs several types of flooring ma-
terial, including ceramic tile. The Employer bids its
jobs on a ‘‘package’’ basis, giving its customers one
price for the various types of flooring materials to be
furnished and installed on the job. The Employer rare-
ly installs only one type of floor covering on a job. On
a typical job the same employees are responsible for
installing all the floor coverings.
The Employer has 12 to 15 full-time regular em-
ployees working as installers. The Employer volun-
tarily recognized Carpenters Local 2265 after a major-
ity of its installers demonstrated their desire to be rep-
resented by the Union. These parties have had a col-
lective-bargaining relationship for the last 6 to 7 years.
The Employer is a signatory to a 1992–993 and 1993–
994 Industry Agreement between Carpenters Local
2265 and the Floor Covering Industry Association,
which includes, inter alia, jurisdiction over ceramic tile
work.
The Employer performs one to two floor installation
jobs, including ceramic tile, per week, and has always,
with one exception, assigned the work to employees
represented by Carpenters Local 2265. This exception
occurred in September 1992 when employees rep-
resented by Bricklayers Local 32 installed marble for
the Employer at a large shopping mall project. Pres-
ently, the Employer is a signatory to a 1992–1995 In-
dustry Agreement with Bricklayers Local 32, which in-
cludes jurisdiction over ceramic tile work.
In August 1993, the Employer assigned the ceramic
tile work at the Cellular One job located at 28117
Telegraph Road, Southfield, Michigan, to employees
represented by Carpenters Local 2265. In August 1993,
Bricklayers Local 32 Assistant Business Manager John
Mason visited the general contractor for the Cellular
One job and inquired about the identity of the com-
pany scheduled to install the ceramic tile at the Cel-
lular One job location. The general contractor’s rep-
resentative, Gary Ness, told Mason that the work was
being assigned to the Detroit Floor Company. Mason
then told Ness that there ‘‘would be a problem’’ if the
Detroit Floor Company did not assign the ceramic tile
installation work to Bricklayers Local 32-represented
employees.
On September 22, 1993, after learning that Brick-
layers Local 32 was raising questions about the Cel-
lular One job assignment, Carpenters Local 2265 wrote
the Employer a letter and threatened it with ‘‘whatever
action it deems necessary, including a job shutdown, to
enforce its work jurisdiction claims.’’
1083CARPENTERS LOCAL 2265 (DETROIT FLOOR CO.)
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the installation of ceramic
tile by Detroit Floor Company at the Cellular One job
located at 28117 Telegraph Road, Southfield, Michi-
gan.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that there is reasonable
cause to believe Carpenters Local 2265 violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) and that the proceeding is properly be-
fore the Board for determination of the dispute. The
Employer has expressed its preference that the Board
award the disputed work to its employees represented
by Carpenters Local 2265. The Employer further con-
tends that the factors of relative skills, history of col-
lective bargaining, economy and efficiency of oper-
ations, past practice, and area and industry practice
favor an award of the disputed work to these employ-
ees.
Carpenters Local 2265 takes the position that the
factors of relative skills, economy and efficiency of the
operation, and employer past practice and preference
favor an award of the disputed work to employees rep-
resented by it. It further contends that the language of
its collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer
favors an award of this work to employees it rep-
resents.
Bricklayers Local 32 contends that the language in
its collective-bargaining agreement, economy and effi-
ciency of operations, and area and industry practice
favor the award of the disputed work to employees it
represents.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of dispute under 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 par-
ties have not agreed on a method for the voluntary ad-
justment of the dispute.
As set forth above, upon learning that Bricklayers
Local 32 had questioned the assignment of ceramic tile
work at the Cellular One job to employees represented
by Carpenters Local 2256, the latter sent a letter
threatening the Employer that if it reconsidered this
work assignment, Carpenters Local 2256 would take
‘‘whatever action it deems necessary, including a job
shutdown, to enforce its work jurisdiction claims.’’
We find that the foregoing facts establish reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
has occurred and, as there is no claim that an agreed-
upon method of voluntary adjustment exists, we find
that the dispute is properly before the Board for deter-
mination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirm-
ative 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 balancing the factors in-
volved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743
(J. A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of the dispute.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
Neither of the Unions has been shown to have been
certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the Employer’s employees.
As noted above, the Employer is party to current
collective-bargaining agreements with both Carpenters
Local 2265 and Bricklayers Local 32. Each of the col-
lective-bargaining agreements arguably cover the work
in dispute. Accordingly, we find the factor of collec-
tive-bargaining agreements does not favor an award of
work to employees represented by either Union.
2. Employer past practice and preference
As noted above, for the past several years, with one
exception, the Employer has assigned all of its floor
installation work to its own employees, who are rep-
resented by Carpenters Local 2265.
The Employer has assigned the work in dispute to
employees represented by Carpenters Local 2265. The
Employer has stated its preference that the installation
of ceramic tile at the Cellular One job be performed
by these employees. Accordingly, we find that the fac-
tors of employer past practice, assignment, and pref-
erence favor the award of the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by Carpenters Local 2265.
3. Area and industry practice
There appear to be some employers in the Detroit
area who utilize employees represented by Bricklayers
Local 32 to install ceramic tile. There are also a num-
ber of employers who install ceramic tile using em-
ployees represented by Carpenters Local 2265. Accord-
ingly, we find the evidence inconclusive to establish an
area or industry practice in favor of either group of
employees.
4. Relative skills
The record shows that the Employer trained its em-
ployees represented by Carpenters Local 2265 in all
phases of flooring installation, including ceramic tile
work. Bricklayers Local 32 tilesetters participate in a
training program run by the Union, which, inter alia,
1084 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
includes on-the-job training. Accordingly, the factor of
relative skills does not favor an award of the work to
employees represented by either Union.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer’s work generally consists of package
jobs in which its employees install multiple types of
floor coverings. The Employer assigns only one crew
to a given job and this crew is responsible for install-
ing the various floor coverings ordered by the cus-
tomers, including carpet, vinyl tile, wood flooring, and
ceramic tile. The Employer presented testimony that it
is more efficient and cost effective to have its workers
cross-trained in the various types of flooring installa-
tions, to assign them to do all the installations on a
given job, and to use a single crew to perform both ce-
ramic tile work and other floor covering work. Car-
penters Local 2265-represented employees are quali-
fied to install all the various floor coverings used by
the Employer on its jobs. Employees represented by
Bricklayers Local 32 do not have the skills to install
carpet or vinyl tile. Accordingly, we find that the fac-
tor of economy and efficiency of operations favors an
award of the disputed work to employees represented
by Carpenters Local 2265.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we con-
clude that employees represented by Carpenters Local
2265 are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We
reach this conclusion relying on the factors of Em-
ployer past practice and preference, and efficiency and
economy of operations. In making this determination,
we are awarding the work to employees represented by
Carpenters Local 2265, not to that Union or its mem-
bers.
Scope of the Award
The Employer contends that the determination
should encompass work at all the Employer’s jobsites
in the Detroit metropolitan area. The Board has cus-
tomarily declined to grant an areawide award in cases
such as this in which the charged party represents the
employees to whom the work is awarded and to whom
the employer contemplates continuing to assign the
work. See Laborers (Paul H. Schwendener, Inc.), 304
NLRB 623, 625 (1991). Accordingly, in the cir-
cumstances of this case we find a broad award is un-
warranted. Therefore, the present determination is lim-
ited to the particular controversy that gave rise to this
proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the fol-
lowing Determination of Dispute.
Employees of Detroit Floor Company, represented
by Resilient Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL–CIO, are entitled to perform the work
of installing ceramic tile at the Employer’s Cellular
One job located at 28117 Telegraph Road, Southfield,
Michigan.