International Assn. of Bridge Workers, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 1233 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

INTERNATIONAL ASSN. OF BRIDGE WORKERS, ETC. 1233
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that.
WE WILL upon request bargain collectively with Westfield Etchers and Lithog-
raphers of Metal Printing Workers Union, No. 487, I.P.P. and A.U. of N.A.,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described below by furnishing that union with a list of the names of employ-
ees to whom wage increases had been granted subsequent to the execution of
the current collective-bargaining agreement, the effective date of the increase,
and the amount of said increase:
All production employees, employed at the employers Westfield plant,
including shipping clerks, shipping helpers, and assistant foremen, who
work more than 20 percent of their time on production work, but exclusive
of all foremen, maintenance employees, firemen, watchmen and guards,
clerical help, executive and supervisory employees, and employees of the
art department.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the efforts of the
above-named union to negotiate for or represent all employees in the afore-
described unit as their exclusive bargaining representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
ANDERSON & SONS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Tele-
phone No. 523-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-CIO [Brayman Construction
Company] and Constructors ' Association of Western Pennsyl-
vania and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 2274, AFL-CIO. Case No. 6-CD-168. March
26, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed on September 15,
1964, by Constructors' Association of Western Pennsylvania, herein
called the Association, alleging that International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-
CIO, herein called Iron Workers or Respondent, had violated Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Donald A. Romano, on October 22, 1964.
151 NLRB No. 120.
783-133-66-vol. 151-79
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Association, the Iron Workers, and the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2274, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Carpenters, appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.' The rulings of the
Hearing Officer-made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. THE BUSINESS OF TILE EMPLOYER
Brayman Construction Company is a Pennsylvania corporation
engaged as a general contractor in the heavy construction industry.
It has been a member of the Association since 1958. During the past
12 months Brayman received goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 from outside the State of Pennsylvania for use in that
State. We find that Brayman is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find, that the Iron Workers and the
Carpenters are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work at issue
The disputed work which gave rise to this proceeding is the instal-
lation of stay-in-place decking on a bridge construction project.
Stay-in-place decking consists of corrugated steel sheets which are
used as forms for pouring the concrete floor of the bridge. The deck-
ing is installed by welding angles to each side of the top flange of
the longitudinal structural steel beams, placing and aligning the
steel sheets between the angles, and then welding the sheets fast.
I After entering its appearance at the bearing and stipulating to the formal matters,
the Iron Workers refused to participate further when the Hearing Officer denied its
request for an adjournment of the hearing pending a scheduled meeting between officials
of the Unions Involved The Association and the Carpenters both objected to adjourn-
ment of the hearing. The Iron Workers does not claim that it was prejudiced by its
failure to present a defense , nor would we find such a claim justified if it had been made
INTERNATIONAL ASSN. OF BRIDGE WORKERS, ETC. 1235
B. The background facts
The Association has been signatory since 1941 to a joint collective-
bargaining agreement with four unions in the heavy construction
industry in Western Pennsylvania : Carpenters, Operating Engi-
neers, Teamsters, and Laborers. Neither the Association nor Bray-
man has a contract with the Iron Workers. The current contract
between the Association and the Unions which are parties thereto
covers work defined as "Highway Construction." Included in the
definition is "all work included in highway construction contracts,
bridges (excluding steel superstructures), sewer and street
grading ...."
Brayman was awarded a contract by the Pennsylvania Highway
Department for construction of a bridge near Butler, Pennsylvania.
It subcontracted the structural work to American Bridge Division of
United States Steel Corporation, which employs members of Iron
Workers for the erection of bridge superstructures. Work on the
project began in March 1964, and the anticipated completion date is
August 1965.
The use of corrugated steel sheets as a replacement for wooden
forms in pouring concrete on bridge construction projects is a fairly
recent innovation. It is now competitive in price with previous
methods of installing forms for concrete decking besides having the
additional advantages of being prefabricated and permanent. Unlike
wooden forms, stay-in-place decking does not have to be stripped, or
removed, after the concrete has hardened. It is left as part of the
bridge floor even though it has no structural function.
Even before the substitution of stay-in-place decking for wooden
forms, other materials such as heavy paper, aluminum, and steel had
been used as forms for elements of bridges other than decking.
Thus, steel cylinders have been used for pouring concrete bridge
pillars. Brayman has, without exception, assigned to its carpenter
employees all work involved in the construction and installation of
forms whether made of wood or other material. It employs car-
penters who are qualified to do all the welding necessary for construc-
tion and installation of metal forms.
Brayman had previously used stay-in-place decking on three recent
bridge construction projects and had assigned the work to the
Carpenters. It made the same assignment on the Butler project,
involved here, and for the first time was presented with a claim by
the Iron Workers for at least part of the work. The Iron Workers
threatened to induce employees of Brayman and American Bridge,
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which was then engaged in work on the bridge superstructure, to
refuse to perform services unless its demands were granted, and on
September 15, 1964, it began picketing the Butler bridge project.2
The picketing was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on October 5, 1964.
C. Contentions of the parties
The Employer claims that stay-in-place decking is merely another
type of form for the pouring of concrete and, as such, is not a
structural element of a bridge. It points to the fact that members of
the Carpenters have traditionally done the work of constructing and
installing forms, and that the special skills required in handling
wooden forms are also helpful in installing steel decking. In the
course of their work with other types of metal forms, its carpenter
employees have been required to perform welding work and have
been certified as welders after passing the necessary tests. Further,
it asserts that its carpenter employees have learned the procedures
involved in the installation of steel decking on its previous projects
and have attained a high level of proficiency by working together
as a team.
In addition to agreeing with the Employer's contentions, the Car-
penters also claims that area practice and the collective-bargaining
agreement with the Association support its right to the disputed
work.
The Iron Workers offered no evidence to support its claim.
D. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a Determination of Dispute pur-
suant 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 vio-
lated. In view of the finding of the U.S. District Court, of which we
have taken official notice, that the Iron Workers picketed the jobsite
in September and October 1964 to induce Brayman to assign the
installation of stay-in-place decking to its members rather than to
members of the Carpenters, and upon the entire record, we find that
such reasonable cause exists, and that the dispute is properly before
the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
aOn December IT, 1964, after the close of the Section 10(k) hearing, the Carpenters
requested the Board to take official notice of the facts found in the injunction proceeding
entitled "Civil No. 64-1002, Grapp v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-CIO " The Carpenters' petition stated that it
wished thereby to correct the inadvertent omission from the record in this proceeding of
any evidence pertaining to the picketing by the Iron Workers. On January 7, 1965,
the Board issued a notice to show cause why it should not take official notice of the
findings of the court in support of its order granting a temporary injunction against the
picketing. As no responses to said notice have been received, we hereby grant the peti-
tion of the Carpenters and take official notice of the facts detailed above, as found by
the court.
INTERNATIONAL ASSN. OF BRIDGE WORKERS, ETC. 1237
Merits of the Dispute
As we stated in the J. A. Jones case,3 we shall determine in each
case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act, the
appropriate assignment of disputed work only after taking into
account and balancing all relevant factors. The following have been
asserted in support of the claims of the parties herein :
Bargaining agreements and the Employer's assignment: As noted
above, the Employer assigned the work in dispute to its employees
who were covered by an agreement between the Association and the
Carpenters. The agreement is applicable to all work on bridges
excluding the superstructure. Neither the pouring of concrete for
the floor of a bridge nor the installation of forms to hold the con-
crete is considered to be part of the work on the steel superstructure;
nor does the fact that the form is made of steel and is not removed
serve to transform it into a structural element of a bridge. We find
that the Employer's assignment accords with the contractual grant
of the disputed work to the Carpenters.
'Work skills: The evidence discloses that Brayman's carpenter
employees possess the necessary skills for installing steel decking,
including welding, and also have additional skills acquired through
their experience with wooden forms which aid them in placing and
aligning the steel sheets. There is no evidence that Ironworkers
possess additional or unusual skills which would better fit them for
the work of installing steel decking on bridges.
Employer and area practice: On three other projects where Bray-
man used steel decking, it assigned the installation work to employees
represented by the Carpenters. In addition, the only record evidence
as to area practice also favors the Carpenters. Its business repre-
sentative testified that the "predominance" of the disputed work in
the area covered by its jurisdiction (33 counties in Western Pennsyl-
vania) had been performed by its members. He testified as to 17 or
so bridge projects in the area, constructed in the last 5 years, where
the Carpenters had been assigned the installation of steel decking by
contractors with whom it had a bargaining relationship.
Efficiency, economy, and other factors: Members of the carpenter
crew who have been assigned to the decking-installation work are
also qualified to work on wooden forms on this project when neces-
sary. Ironworkers would lose no jobs if carpenters are awarded the
disputed work, as ironworkers have not done such work in the past.
However, an affirmative award to ironworkers would deprive car-
penters of work they are presently performing. It would also pre-
vent the Employer from interchanging employees between crews
working on metal and wooden forms.
3International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743 (J . A. Jones Construction
Company ), 135 NLRB 1402.
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusion
Upon consideration and appraisal of all the relevant factors, in-
eluding the Employer's assignment in conformity with its past
practice, the application of the bargaining agreement to the work
performed, the traditional role of carpenters in installing all types
of forms for concrete, the skills and special experience of carpenters,
and the factor of employment stability, we shall determine the exist-
ing jurisdictional dispute by awarding the work of installing stay-
in-place decking to employees represented by Carpenters, Local 2274,
rather than to employees represented by Iron Workers, Local 3.
The Scope of the Determination
As Brayman intends to use steel decking on future bridge projects
and to assign such work to employees represented by the Carpenters
in accordance with its understanding of the collective-bargaining
reiterated its demand for the work without offering any reasons
therefor, there is a strong possibility that similar disputes may occur
in the future. We shall, therefore, not restrict the scope of our
determination to the specific job dispute which gave rise to this
proceeding.4 We hold that the determination in this case applies to
all installation of stay-in-place decking performed by employees of
Brayman Construction Company in the geographic area governed by
the agreement between Carpenters, Local 2274 and the Association,
of which it is a member. In making this determination, we are
assigning the disputed work to employees represented by Carpenters,
Local 2274, but not to that union or its members.
DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in this case, the Board makes the following Determina-
tion of Dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Employees of Brayman Construction Company, currently repre-
sented by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 2274, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of installing
stay-iii-place decking for their Employer.
2. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require
Brayman Construction Company to assign the above work to its
members.
4 Teamsters Local No. 5 , et at (Hart-Cowan Foundation Co Inc), 147 NLRB 1210;
Bricklayers, etc . International Union, Local No 26 (Foa Valley General Contractors
Association), 147 NLRB 1615.
MAGNOLIA PIPE LINE COMPANY 1239
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-CIO, shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, whether or not it will
refrain from forcing or requiring Brayman Construction Company
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign
work in dispute to its members, rather than to employees represented
by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
2274, AFL-CIO.
Magnolia Pipe Line Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO.' Case No. 16-R-1130.
March 26, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION
On June 4, 1945, Oil Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, was certified as the bargaining representative
of a unit of operating and maintenance employees of the Employer's
pipelines, with certain exclusions. Among the employees included in
the unit were the dispatchers and the assistant dispatchers. On
December 12, 1950, the National Labor Relations Board issued an
order amending certification, excluding certain other classifications.
On October 5, 1964, the Employer filed a petition to clarify certifi-
cation, seeking the exclusion from the certified unit of all dispatchers
at its Dallas general office. On October 23, 1964, the Union filed an
opposition to the petition. On November 20, f964, the Board issued
an order directing hearing, referring the matter to the Regional
Director for Region 16, and directing that a hearing be held for the
purpose of taking testimony on the issues raised by the Employer's
petition and the Union's opposition thereto. A hearing was held on
December 17, 1964, before Hearing Officer T. Lowry Whittaker. The
Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman
McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
At the time of the Board's original decision in this proceeding,2
the primary duty of the dispatchers was to control and direct the
1 As amended at the hearing.
At the hearing, the Hearing Officer requested that the Employer make available to
the Board the job descriptions of dispatchers and assistant dispatchers prior to the
automation of the system . Such descriptions have been submitted (with copies to the
Union ) and are hereby admitted into evidence.
151 NLRB No. 122.