Int'l Brotherhood Boilermakers, Etc., Local 101

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1965

156 N.L.R.B. 418 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No.
101 and Metropolitan -Gill-Tecon , a Joint Venture' and Colo-
rado Laborers ' District Council , affiliated with the Interna-
tional Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers ' Union of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 27-CD-67. December 28,1965
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 by Metropolitan-
Gill-Tecon, hereinafter called the Company or Employer, alleging
that International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 101,
hereinafter called the Respondent, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D)
of the Act by inducing or encouraging employees of the Company to
assign the work in dispute to employees who are members of the
Respondent rather than to employees who are represented by Colorado
Laborers' District Council, affiliated with the International Hod
Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, AFL-
CIO, hereinafter called the Laborers. A hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Allison E. Nutt on September 21, 1965. All parties
appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, Respondent filed a brief, and
the Company and the Laborers filed a joint brief. Upon the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board 2 makes the
following findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a joint venture composed of Metropolitan Paving
Co., Inc., and Gill Construction Co., both of Oklahoma City, Okla-
homa, and Tecon Corporation of Dallas, Texas, is engaged in the
business of heavy construction at Buena Vista, Colorado. In the
operation of its business in Colorado during the past 12 months,
it received goods and materials valued at more than $50,000 directly
from points outside the State of Colorado. We find that the Employer
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Jenkins].
156 NLRB No. 45.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD BOILERMAKERS, ETC., LOCAL 101 419
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent and the Laborers are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work in issue
The work in dispute is the unloading , handling, fitting, and welding
of steel pipe which is an integral part of the installation of a pipe-
line to carry water to the cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs,
Colorado.
B. The basic facts
The Company was formed to construct a water transmission line for
the cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs, Colorado, which construc-
tion is known as the Homestake project. The pipeline to be con-
structed by the Company is approximately 50 miles long, of which
some 43 miles is concrete pipe and 7 miles steel pipe. The latter is to
be laid in 12 intermittent segments which vary in length from approxi-
mately 100 feet to several miles. The sections of concrete and steel
pipe to be used in the project are manufactured for installation at
specific locations and cannot be interchanged.
During the summer of 1964, following its receipt of a work order for
construction of the pipeline, the Company held a series of meetings
with representatives of the Laborers, Teamsters, Operating Engineers,
and Carpenters Unions for the purpose of executing a statewide form
of Heavy and Highway Agreement which would cover work on the
Homestake project. It was agreed that all work on the project would
be performed by those four unions. Originally, the Laborers was to
perform all rigging, handling, and fitting of steel pipe, while the
welding of steel pipe was to be performed by the Operating Engineers.
Subsequently, the Operating Engineers withdrew its claim for the
welding, and that work was then reassigned to the Laborers. In
October 1964, Respondent's International Representative Johnson
indicated in a letter to the Company that his union claimed the dis-
puted work. Following the Company's refusal to discuss assign-
ment of the work, Respondent referred the dispute to the National
Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the
Building and Construction Industry. Thereafter, the Company
notified the Joint Board that neither it nor the Laborers recognized
the Joint Board and that neither would abide by any decision it issued.
On January 7, 1965, the Joint Board awarded the disputed work to
Respondent.
217-919-66-vol. 156-28
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD ,
Following several unsuccessful attempts by the parties to resolve
the dispute, Respondent picketed the jobsite on July 26 and 27 and
again on August 17 and 18. On both occasions, the picketing caused
a shutdown of the project. The picket signs stated as follows:
Notice to Public: MGT refuses to comply with National Joint
Board decision , Boilermakers Local 101.
C. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of a dispute
pursuant 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
violated . As previously described , the record demonstrates that
Respondent picketed the jobsite on two separate occasions , thereby
successfully inducing work stoppages , for the purpose of forcing
the Company to assign the work in dispute to Respondent instead of to
the Laborers . Accordingly, we find , on the entire record, that there
is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D)
has occurred , and that the work dispute is properly before the Board
for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
D. Contentions of the parties
In support of its claim to the disputed work, Respondent relies upon
the decision of the National Joint Board, and upon State and national
practice showing that it has performed similar work in the past.
The Employer and Laborers contend that the assignment of work
to the latter is supported by the contract between those parties, as
supplemented by the mutual understanding between the Company and
the four contracting unions on the project, efficiency and economy of
operations , and the sufficient skills of laborers to perform the work.
They further contend that there is no relevant practice of any kind
supporting the claim of Respondent.
E. Merits of the dispute
Section 10 ( k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of the disputed work, after giving due consideration to various
relevant factors. The following factors are pertinent to the issue of
the work assignment in the instant case :
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
At all times material herein the Laborers and the Company were
parties to a collective -bargaining agreement covering the employees
to whom the Company assigned the work in dispute, and describing
as among the work to be performed by such employees the construction
INT'L BROTHERHOOD BOILERMAKERS, ETC., LOCAL 101 421
of "Water Supply Propects" and "Pipelines." On the other hand,
the Company has no contract with Respondent and employs no
boilermakers.
2. Works and skills involved
The record reveals that the work in dispute is primarily unskilled
and that no skills peculiar to boilermakers are involved . To the con-
trary , laborers have performed the disputed work to the satisfaction
of both the Company and the Bechtel Corporation , which is inspecting
the project for the cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs. We find,
therefore, that the Employer 's assignment of the work to laborers is
consistent with the skills involved.
3. Efficiency of operations
Although employees represented by both unions can perform the
disputed work, the integrated nature of all phases of the work on both
concrete and steel pipe requires that the various operations involved
be closely coordinated . As previously noted, laborers are presently
performing without dispute all work on concrete pipe. Respondent
claims only work on the steel pipe , the granting of which would
unduly fragmentize the work tasks on the project. Since, as noted
previously , the various sections of concrete and steehpipe are manu-
factured for installation at specific locations and -cannot be inter-
changed, the efficiency inherent in the laborers ' performance of the
disputed work lies in the fact that they, unlike boilermakers , can work
on concrete pipe sections at those locations where none of the 12
sections of steel pipe is involved , and thus function continuously on
the entire length of the construction project. Also , an award of the
work on steel pipe to Respondent may result in the necessity of hiring
a boilermaker foreman in addition to the present laborer foreman
for each crew , an arrangement which would result in unnecessary
costs to the Company and a likely division of authority within the
crews. Therefore , since the work involved can be performed more
efficiently when done as a continuous , integrated operation by a single
employee group, we find that the Company's assignment of the
disputed work to laborers is consistent with the efficiency of its
operation S.3
4. Company, area, and industry practice
The Company, having been created as a joint venture for the purpose
of constructing the pipeline involved herein, has no separate past
practice with respect to the disputed work. Although Respondent
8 See in this regard Local 690, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO
( Pipe Linings, Inc.), 150 NLRB 496.
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
introduced evidence indicating that it has performed the welding of
steel pipe for employers within the State of Colorado and elsewhere,
it was admitted that, on all such jobs, only steel pipe was involved.
The Company argues, and we agree, that it is significant that Respond-
ent has failed to show that it has performed the disputed work on
projects involving, as here, the intermittent installation of both steel
and concrete pipe. Therefore, since the evidence introduced by
Respondent does not relate to projects fully comparable to that
involved herein, the Board finds that these factors do not support
either party.
5. Joint Board award ,
Respondent relies upon the Joint Board decision of January 5, 1965,
awarding the disputed work to it, and contends that this award should
determine the dispute before us. However, the Employer was not
a party to an agreement that would bind it to accept awards of the
Joint Board, and it did not participate in the Joint Board proceeding
upon which Respondent relies. Under these circumstances, the Joint
Board award is merely one of the factors to be considered in making
our determination .4 Although we have considered the Joint Board
award as a relevant factor, we find that it sheds little light on the
determination we must make because it discloses no reasoned basis
for the conclusion it reaches.
CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors appearing in the record,
we shall assign the disputed work to the Laborers, principally on the
basis of their collective-bargaining agreement with the Company,
the efficiency with which the laborers can accomplish the integrated
work tasks involved, their ability to perform the disputed work, and
the assignment of the Employer. We shall, accordingly, determine
the instant jurisdictional dispute by deciding that laborers, rather
than boilermakers, are entitled to the work in dispute. In making
this determination, we are assigning the work to employees who are
represented by the Laborers but not to that Union or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the
entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
makes the following Determination of Dispute.
4Locai 690, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Pitting Industry , etc., supra.
TEXAS INDUSTRIES, INC. 423
1. The laborers currently employed by Metropolitan-Gill-Tecon
who are represented by Colorado Laborers' District Council, affiliated
with the International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers'
Union of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the disputed
work of unloading, handling, fitting, and welding of steel pipe being
installed by Metropolitan-Gill-Teton on the Homestake project at
Buena Vista, Colorado.
2. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 101,
is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the
Act, to force or require the Company to assign the above-described
disputed work to boilermakers.
3. Within 10 days of the date of this Decision and Determination of
Dispute, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuild-
ers, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No.
101, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing,
whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Company, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dis-
pute to boilermakers rather than laborers.
Texas Industries, Inc. and Dallas General Drivers, Warehouse-
men & Helpers , Local No . 745, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Help-
ers of America . Case No. 16-CA-2130. December 29,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 8, 1965, Trial Examiner Maurice S. Bush issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
156 NLRB No. 42.