Iron Workers Local 380

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 353 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

IRON WORKERS LOCAL 380 353
International Association of Bridge , Structural and Or-
namental Iron Workers, Local Union No. 380 and
Skoog Construction Company and United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
No. 44. Case 38-CD-88
June 21, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We further
find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
We find that Iron Workers and Carpenters are la-
bor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
a charge filed by Skoog Construction Company, here-
in called the Employer, alleging that International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local Union No. 380, herein called
Iron Workers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed
activity with an object of forcing or requiring the
Employer to assign certain work to members of Iron
Workers rather than to employees of the Employer
represented by United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Local No. 44, herein called
Carpenters. A duly scheduled hearing was held on
October 19, 1972, at Champaign, Illinois, before
Hearing Officer Michael B. Ryan. All parties ap-
peared at the hearing and were afforded a full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to adduce evidence on the issues.
Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employer, Iron
Workers, and Carpenters.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings hereby are
affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record
in this proceeding, including the briefs, and hereby
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer is a general contracting firm which
operates primarily in central Illinois where it is en-
gaged in the building construction business. During
the past year, it received within the State of Illinois
goods valued in excess of $50,000 which it purchased
from suppliers located outside the State of Illinois.
Accordingly, we find, as the parties have stipulated,
III THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute as described in the instant
charge concerns "the installation of aluminum plank
stadium seats at Memorial Stadium , University of Illi-
nois , Urbana Campus ." The dispute arose when the
Employer assigned the work to its employees repre-
sented by Carpenters rather than to members of Iron
Workers . The work commenced in July 1972 and was
completed by members of Carpenters a few months
later.
B. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must
be satisfied that the parties have not agreed upon
methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
For the reasons stated below, we find it unnecessary
to pass upon the merits with respect to a proper award
of the disputed work because it appears from the re-
cord that all of the parties involved in this proceeding
agreed to be bound by a determination of the Nation-
al Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional
Disputes of the Building and Construction Industry,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Joint Board.
Prior to the Employer's assignment of the disputed
work to members of Carpenters in the latter part of
July 1972, Iron Workers requested assignment thereof
to its members. Upon learning that the work had been
assigned to carpenters, Iron Workers submitted its
claim for the work to the Joint Board pursuant to
section 11 W of its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer, which provides that "The parties
to this agreement shall abide by the procedural rules
and regulations of the National Joint Board for the
settlement of jurisdictional disputes in the Building
and Construction Industry, as amended." On August
17, 1972, the Joint Board awarded the work to Iron
Workers.
The Employer argues, in substance, that its con-
tract with Iron Workers, wherein these parties agreed
204 NLRB No. 74
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be bound by the Joint Board , is not binding upon
Carpenters because Carpenters was not a party there-
to. Premised on the rule that an adjustment procedure
is valid and binding only when agreed to by all of the
parties involved in the dispute , both the Employer
and Carpenters argue, in substance , that inasmuch as
Carpenters is an essential party to the dispute, and
since its contract with the Employer neither provides
that it shall be bound to the Joint Board nor, in fact,
contains any provision relating to the settlement of
jurisdictional disputes , Carpenters is not bound to the
Joint Board whose award of the work to Iron Work-
ers, moreover, is improper. These parties further argue
that because "The Carpenters were found to be in
noncompliance by the Joint Board in April of 1971
and consequently did not participate in the Joint
Board preceeding . . . Carpenters could not have
been awarded the work . . . regardless of the merits
of their position , and [the Employer's] participation in
[Joint Board proceedings ] would have been futile
since any award made would not have bound the
Carpenters ." Therefore , they argue , they were pre-
cluded from obtaining a "fair and impartial decision
from that Board ." We find no merit in any of these
contentions.
The facts clearly show that the dispute involves the
Employer, Iron Workers, and Carpenters , and that
the Employer and Iron Workers have agreed to be
bound to the Joint Board . While Carpenters may not
be signatory to that agreement , and while its contract
with the Employer may be silent in that regard, the
fact remains that the Carpenters Union is formally
affiliated with Building and Construction Trades De-
partment , AFL-CIO, a signatory to the April 3, 1970,
agreement reconstituting the Joint Board and, by vir-
tue of that agreement, has agreed to be bound by Joint
Board determinations. We find, therefore, that in
these circumstances, the absence of specific language
in the agreement between Carpenters and the Em-
ployer reiterating their prior and currently effective
agreements to be bound to the Joint Board is imma-
terial. Moreover, for the reasons stated in Local 423,
Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-
CIO (V & C Brick Cleaning Company), 199 NLRB No.
48, we reject the contention that the parties are not
bound to submit the dispute to the Joint Board be-
cause Carpenters are in a "noncompliance" status
with the Joint Board.'
We find, therefore, that all parties to the dispute
have agreed with the other necessary parties to be
bound to the Joint Board, and, consequently, have
agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment
of the dispute Accordingly, we shall quash the notice
of hearing issued herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing issued
in this proceeding be, and it hereby is, quashed.
i Sec E 1(c) of the Joint Board's Procedural Rules and Regulations pro-
vides that "When the Joint Board has declared an International Union to be
in noncompliance , the Joint Board shall continue to examine cases involving
such trade. Job decisions which otherwise would be decided against such
trade shall continue to be issued However, no job decision in any case
decided in favor of a trade declared to be in noncompliance shall be issued
finding compliance " In view of agreements by both Carpenters and the
Employer to abide by this provision, we find no merit in the Employer's
argument to the effect that Carpenters noncompliance status precluded
either Carpenters or its Employer from obtaining a "fair and impartial" Joint
Board decision