Iron Workers, Local 3

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 48 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-CIO and
Neville Cement Products Corporation and Labor-
ers' International Union of North America, Local
No. 373, AFL-CIO ' and Bricklayers, Masons and
Plasterers' International Union of America, Local
No. 2, AFL-CIO.2 Case 6-CD-558
May 29, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Neville Cement Products
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Neville or the
Employer), alleging that International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
Local 3, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as Iron
Workers), violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by
engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object
of forcing or requiring the assignment of certain
work to employees represented by that labor organi-
zation rather than to employees represented by other
labor organizations,
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Thomas M. Cloherty at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, on March 6, 1975. All parties ap-
peared and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to present evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter,
briefs were filed by all parties except Laborers Local
373.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record
in this proceeding and makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Neville, a Penngsylvania corporation with its princi-
pal office in Clinton, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the
construction of an apartment building and apart-
ment garage complex at the Lysle Boulevard and
Sinclair Street, McKeesport, Pennsylvania, project.
During the last 12-month period, Neville purchased
goods and materials valued in excess of $500,000
1 Hereinafter called Laborers Local 373 or Laborers.
218 NLRB No. 14
from directly outside the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania fof use within the Commonwealth. The parties
stipulated, and we find, that Neville 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.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find that Iron
Workers, Laborers, and Bricklayers are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of the Act.
M. THE DISPUTE
A. Background
The Employer, a contractor in the building and
construction industry, is a party to contracts with
National Development Corporation calling for the
construction of an apartment and garage complex at
Lysle Boulevard and Sinclair Street in McKeesport,
Pennsylvania. The particular type of construction
involves the erection and installation of certain
precast, prestressed columns and beams and floors.
The precast, prestressed columns and beams are
known as the Dyna-frame system which has been
employed by Neville since approximately 1969. Since
it first began to use the Dyna-frame system, Neville
has assigned the installation and erection of the
system to composite crews consisting of employees
represented by Laborers and Bricklayers.
Since 1960 Neville has recognized the Laborers as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative for
certain of its employees. Since 1963, it has also
recognized the Bricklayers as exclusive collective-
bargaining representative for certain other of its
employees. Neville currently has collective-bargain-
ing agreements with the said labor organizations. It
was pursuant to this past practice and present
contractual arrangement that Neville assigned the
work presently in dispute to a composite crew
consisting of laborers and bricklayers.
In August. 1974, the Iron Workers, through its
business representative, William Sullivan, demanded
that Neville assign the work of the erection and
installation of the precast, prestressed columns and
beams to employees represented by that organiza-
tion. Neville refused the demand and, when work
commenced on November 25, 1974, assigned the
work to a crew of bricklayers and laborers.
Subsequently, by ' letter dated January 10, 1975,
Sullivan informed Neville that, if the disputed work
were not assigned to employees represented by Iron
Workers, the jobsite would be picketed. Neville
refused to comply with Iron Workers demand and on
2 Hereinafter called Bricklayers Local 2 or Bncklayers.
IRON WORKERS , LOCAL 3
January 22, 1975, members of the Iron Workers
began to picket the project. Such picketing resulted
in a shutdown of the job for approximately 6 working
days. On the same day on which the picketing
commenced, Neville filed the instant charge which
gave rise to this proceeding.
B. The Work in Dispute
The dispute concerns the assignment of the
erection of precast, prestressed concrete columns and
beams at Neville's jobsite located at Lysle Boulevard
and Sinclair Street in McKeesport, Pennsylvania.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Iron Workers takes the initial position that no
jurisdictional dispute exists. In this regard it contends
that, at the time of the picketing, no other labor
organization was claiming the disputed work. More-
over, it asserts that the main and sole purpose for
picketing was recognitional. Accordingly, it argues,
the Board should grant the motion to quash.
Alternatively, however, it contends that, if a dispute
does exist, area practice and area standards favor an
award to Iron Workers.
The Employer takes the position that a jurisdic-
tional dispute exists and that there exists no
voluntary method for adjustment of the dispute. It
contends that, on the basis of the factors relevant in
jurisdictional dispute proceedings, the work should
properly be assigned to a composite crew of Neville
employees who are represented by Bricklayers, 3 and
Laborers.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause for
believing that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated,
and that the parties have not agreed upon a method
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
The record shows that Neville is engaged in the
manufacture and installation of precast cement
roofing and flooring systems and precast and
prestressed concrete columns and beams. In its
operations, it has for more than 10 years utilized
crews consisting of members of the Laborers,
Bricklayers, and Operating Engineers .4 The Employ-
er has had, and currently has, labor agreements with
Bricklayers Local 2 and Laborers Local 373, pur-
suant to which it has made its assignments of the
disputed work. The Employer has not had, and does
not currently have, any labor agreement with Iron
3 In its brief, the Bricklayers clamvs the disputed work but does not differ
otherwise with the Employer's position
49
Workers. Nor has the Employer used employees
represented by Iron Workers to perform the disputed
work.
The record shows that during the last few years
Iron Workers business representatives have discussed
with the Employer the possibilities of adding iron
workers to the composite crews, without success. In
August 1974, before the work on the instant project
began, Iron Workers Representative Sullivan again
contacted the Employer and requested that iron
workers be added to the composite crew. After the
Employer refused to comply with the request, a
meeting was held between representatives of the
Employer, Iron Workers Local 3, Laborers Local
373, and Bricklayers Local 2. It appears that at the
meeting Laborers District Council Representative
Peter Livolsi stated, that the Laborers did not claim
erection of the columns and beams. Also, Al Mincini,
the Bricklayers representative, stated he was uncer-
tain as to whether International agreements between
the Unions prohibited the Bricklayers from perform-
ing the disputed work. Nevertheless, the Employer
refused to change its assignment and, after the
meeting was over, members of Laborers Local 373
and Bricklayers Local 2 continued to perform the
erection of the columns and beams. We find that, by
accepting and performing this work, Bricklayers and
Laborers claimed the work for their respective
members.
On January 10, 1975, Sullivan again wrote the
Employer regarding the disputed work. When no
change was made in the Employer's assignment, the
Iron Workers began to picket on January 22. In view
of the foregoing, we are satisfied, and we find, that
there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. As there is no agreed-
upon method for voluntary adjustment of this
dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the
Act, the matter is properly before the Board for
determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after giving
consideration to various relevant factors. The follow-
ing factors are relevant in making a determination of
the dispute before us.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
Neville has no employees represented by Iron
Workers, nor does it have a collective-bargaining
agreement with that labor organization. On the other
hand, for more than a decade, Neville has had a
4 Operating Engineers Local 66 is not a party to this proceeding and the
assignment of work to them is not in issue
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective-bargaining relationship with Laborers and
Bricklayers. It has in the past assigned work similar
to that presently in question to composite crews of
laborers and bricklayers, and its present assignment
of the disputed work, to such a crew was pursuant to
its past practice and current contracts with Laborers
and Bricklayers. We therefore find that Neville's
historical contractual relationship with Laborers and
Bricklayers favors an award to a composite crew of
employees represented by those labor organizations.
2. Company, area, and industry practice
Neville's consistent practice has been to assign the
disputed work to a composite crew including
laborers and bricklayers. This factor favors the
assignment made by the Employer.
Evidence of area and industry practice is mixed
and does not favor either party as opposed to the
other.
3. Skills involved and efficiency and
economy of operation
The record shows that the laborers and bricklayers
possess the necessary skills to perform satisfactorily
the work in dispute and the Employer has been
satisfied with their productivity, efficiency, and
safety record and prefers to continue assigning such
work to them.
Conclusion
Upon the, record as a whole and after full
consideration of all relevant factors, in particular the
contractual relationship between the Employer, the
Bricklayers, and Laborers, the Employer's preference
and practice, and the efficiency of operations, we
conclude that the employees of the Employer who
are represented by Bricklayers and Laborers are
entitled to the work in question and shall determine
the dispute in their favor. In making this determina-
tion we award the work to the employees of the
Employer who are represented by Laborers and
Bricklayers but not to those unions or their members.
Our present determination is limited to the particular
controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby makes the following Deter-
mination of Dispute:
1. Employees employed by Neville Cement Prod-
ucts Corporation who are members of or represented
by Laborers' International Union of North America,
Local No. 373, AFL-CIO, and who are members of
or represented by Bricklayers, Masons and Plaster-
ers' International Union of America, Local No. 2,
AFL-CIO, working as a composite crew, are entitled
to perform the work in dispute which involves the
erection of precast, prestressed concrete columns and
beams at the Neville Cement Products Corporation's
jobsite located at Lysle Boulevard and Sinclair Street
in McKeesport, Pennsylvania.
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 Neville
Cement Products Corporation, Clinton, Pennsylvan-
ia, to assign the above work to ironworkers repre-
sented by them.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, International Associ-
ation 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 the
Employer by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act to assign the work in dispute in a manner
inconsistent with the above determination.