Ironworkers, Local Union No. 395

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 443 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

IRONWORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 395
International Association of Bridge, Structural, and
Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, Local
Union No. 395 and Morse Electric Co., Inc.
and Laborers' International Union of North
America, Local No. 81. Case 25-CD-201
January 14, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, TRUESDALE, AND
ZIMMERMAN
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Morse Electric Co., Inc. (the
Employer), alleging that International Association
of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Ironworkers,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 395 (Ironworkers),
had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by en-
gaging in certain proscribed activity with an object
of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign cer-
tain work to employees represented by Iron-
workers rather than to employees represented by
Laborers' International Union of North America,
Local No. 81 (Laborers).
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer M. Julia McKenzie on August 21,
1980. All parties appeared and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing all
parties waived their rights to oral argument and to
file briefs.
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 Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
We find that the Employer, an Indiana corpora-
tion with its principal place of business in South
Bend, Indiana, is engaged as a contractor in the
building and construction industry. During the past
year, a representative period, the Employer pur-
chased goods and materials from outside the State
of Indiana having a value in excess of $50,000. We
also find that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
254 NLRB No. 49
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Iron-
workers and Laborers are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
On June 16, 1980,1 the Employer entered into an
agreement with H. G. Christman Construction Co.,
Inc., a general contractor, to furnish all labor, ma-
terial, and equipment necessary to perform electri-
cal and fencing work at the Westville Correctional
Center Institution, herein called Westville. The
Employer assigned the work of erecting a chain
link fence at Westville to employees represented by
Laborers.
Bruce McDougal, the Employer's supervisor at
the Westville project, testified that in early July
Ironworkers Representative D. L. Chidester told
him that the Employer had to hire an employee
represented by Ironworkers to help in erecting the
chain link fence. 2 McDougal testified that he re-
fused to do so because the Employer had assigned
the work to laborers pursuant to the terms of its
collective-bargaining agreement with Laborers.
Thereafter, on July 29, McDougal again refused
Chidester's demand that an employee represented
by Ironworkers be hired to work on the erection of
the fence. McDougal testified that Chidester then
threatened to "shut the job down and picket the
job or both." McDougal also testified that when
Chidester telephoned him on the morning of July
30 and he (McDougal) reiterated that he would not
use an employee represented by Ironworkers for
the fence work, Chidester stated that he "was
going to shut the job down and we will see if you
put an Ironworker on there." McDougal testified
that thereafter the employees represented by Iron-
workers left the jobsite.
Chidester testified that he did not recall telling
McDougal that he would picket the jobsite. How-
ever, he did testify that he told McDougal that if
the latter could not assign an employee represented
by Ironworkers to the fence work, he was not sure
that he wanted any employees represented by Iron-
workers to work at the Westville project. Chides-
ter further testified that the employees represented
by Ironworkers did not walk off the job on July 30
at his direction.
Robert Agee, Jr., an official of one of the con-
tractors that employed employees represented by
' All dates hereinafter refer to 1980.
2 Employees represented by Ironworkers were employed by other
contractors at the Westville project
443
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ironworkers at the Westville jobsite, testified that
it was his understanding that on July 30 the em-
ployees left the jobsite because of inclement weath-
er which rendered their duties of operating steel
equipment hazardous. Agee also testified that on
July 30 Chidester had assured him that employees
represented by Ironworkers would not engage in a
walkout. Further, Agee testified that the employees
represented by Ironworkers returned to the jobsite
and resumed their normal duties as soon as weather
conditions permitted.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the erection of a
chain link fence at the Westville Correctional
Center Institution, Westville, Indiana.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
During the hearing, the Employer contended
that its employees represented by Laborers were
entitled to perform the disputed work based on its
collective-bargaining agreement with Laborers, its
past practice and industry practice, economy and
efficiency of operations, and certain jurisdictional
agreements between the Unions involved. The Em-
ployer further expressed its preference that its em-
ployees represented by Laborers be awarded the
work in dispute.
Laborers agreed with the Employer's position
that the disputed work was properly assigned to
employees it represents. Laborers further contend-
ed that statewide practice favors an award of the
work in dispute to employees it represents.
At the hearing, the representative for Iron-
workers stated that it had no interest in the work
at issue. While Laborers was satisfied with Iron-
workers disclaimer, the Employer refused to accept
it because Ironworkers would not reduce the dis-
claimer to writing.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act directs the Board to
hear and determine disputes which have given rise
to charges under Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
Under this section, however, the Board's authority
is limited to the resolution of actual disputes be-
tween competing groups of employees. It is settled
law that a jurisdictional dispute no longer exists
when one of the competing unions or groups of
employees effectively renounces its claim to the
work. In this regard, we have held that the func-
tion of a 10(k) proceeding evaporates when one of
the unions renounces the work.3
As indicated above, the representative for Iron-
workers disclaimed any interest by Ironworkers in
the work at issue. There is no evidence that Iron-
workers has engaged in conduct inconsistent with
its disclaimer. Contrary to the Employer, we con-
clude that in making this oral disclaimer, Iron-
workers effectively has renounced its claim to the
work involved in this proceeding. 4 We, therefore,
find that there are currently no competing claims
to the disputed work within the meaning of Sec-
tions 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly,
we shall quash the notice of hearing.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.
:' Local 1396. International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades.
AFL-CIO (C. L. Wolff and Sons Painting Company). 246 NLRB No. 65
(1979), and cases cited therein.
4 Ibid.
444