Local 1191, Laborers' International Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 310 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 1191 , Laborers' International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO and Reinforcing Iron Workers
Local Union No. 426 , International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO and The Morrison Company. Cases
7-CD-286 and 7-CD-287
February 28, 1974
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTES
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
business and at jobsites located in the State of
Michigan goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points located outside the State
of Michigan. We find that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that
it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Laborers
and Iron Workers are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by the Morrison Company, herein-
after called the Employer, alleging that Local 1191,
Laborers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Laborers, and Rein-
forcing Iron Workers Local No. 426, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Iron
Workers, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Charles
F. Morris on December 18, 1973. Laborers, Iron
Workers, the Employer, and Markward-Karafilis-
Blount Brothers, party in interest and the general
contractor, hereinafter referred to as Markward,
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. Thereafter, the Employer and Mark-
ward filed briefs.
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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer is a
Michigan corporation engaged in the business of
road construction and other related construction
work, with its principal office in Trenton, Michigan.
During the fiscal year ending February 28, 1973, the
Employer, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, had a gross revenue in excess of $1
million and purchased and received at its place of
I The disputed work does not include the placement and fitting of
reinforcing rods.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer is a subcontractor of Markward for
the installation of reinforced concrete roads, drive-
ways, and parking areas at the United States Post
Office Bulk Handling Facility located at Allen Park,
Michigan. To perform this type of construction, the
Employer performed excavation, rough grading,
setting forms, pouring concrete, installing reinforcing
wire mesh in the fresh concrete, and finishing
concrete. In the normal course of business, the
Employer assigned such work to employees repre-
sented by Laborers.
On September 10, 1973, the Employer, in the
presence of representatives of both Laborers and
Iron Workers, assigned the work necessary to
perform its subcontract to employees represented by
Laborers. Shortly thereafter, a representative of Iron
Workers advised Employer's president that if the
work in dispute was not assigned to ironworkers, he
would "not only threaten to give [the Employer]
trouble . . . he would promise [the Employer]
trouble." Later, on the same day, representatives of
Laborers informed Employer's president that the
work in dispute belonged to them, and that it was
their •intention to resist any attempt to reassign the
work. In a letter dated October 12, 1973, Laborers
advised the Employer that, if the work in dispute
were assigned to employees represented by any other
craft, the Union would invoke "procedures to close
down [the] job ...."
B. The Work in Dispute
The parties agree that the work in dispute involves
the work of unloading reinforcing wire mesh and
supports, placing said mesh and supports adjacent to
concrete pouring forms, and placing and fitting said
mesh and supports into concrete pouring forms.'
209 NLRB No. 49
LOCAL 1191, LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION
C. Contentions of the Parties
1. Employer : The Employer prefers that the work
in dispute be assigned to its own employees , who are
represented by Laborers . It rests its position on its
collective-bargaining agreement with Laborers, com-
pany and area practices , economy and efficiency of
operations , the Board's Decision in Reinforced Iron
Workers Local No. 426, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO (G. A. Morrison Company), 189 NLRB 187
(1971), and the claim that the unique skills of the
Iron Workers members are not necessary.
2. Iron Workers and Laborers : Counsel for the
labor organizations involved agreed that the instant
case involved the same issues as considered by the
Board in G. A. Morrison , supra . However, neither
labor organization withdrew its claim to the work in
dispute.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of 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 and
that there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary
settlement of the dispute.
The record shows, and neither Iron Workers nor
Laborers denies, that the labor organizations in-
volved demanded the assignment of the disputed
work on September 10, 1973. The record also shows
that representatives of these two unions threatened to
impede the Employer's performance of its subcon-
tract. Notably, the record shows that Iron Workers
threatened to cause "trouble," which, in light of Iron
Workers having caused a cessation of the Employer's
performing the same type of work on another job.2
left little doubt as to what kind of "trouble" would
follow if the Employer failed to accede to that
union's demand.3 Moreover, the record shows that
Laborers, by letter dated October 12,'1973, threat-
ened to close down the job if the work in dispute
were reassigned. On the basis of the preceding, we
conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe
that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
The record further shows that the Employer is not
a party to an agreed-upon method for the voluntary
adjustment of jurisdictional disputes. Accordingly,
2 G A Morrison, supra at 188-189.
3 Local 388, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United .States (Associated Under-
ground Contractors, Inc), 175 NLRB 540, 542 (1969), Local 189, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Prpcftting
Industry of the United States (Kahoc Air Balance Co ), 197 NLRB 159 (1972).
5 See International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, Local Union No 3, A1•L-CIO (Dickerson Structural Concrete
Corporation), 195 NLRE 575 (1972)
311
since the Employer is not so bound, it is unnecessary
to consider whether Laborers or Iron Workers is
bound by similar procedures.4
It is thus clear, and we find, from the foregoing that
at the time of the instant dispute there did not exist
any agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjust-
ment of the dispute to which all parties herein were
bound. Accordingly, the matter is properly before
the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of
the Act.5
E. Merits of the Disputes
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.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Employer has no employees represented by
Iron Workers. Nor does the Employer have a
collective-bargaining agreement with Iron Workers.
On the other hand, the Employer has had a series of
collective-bargaining agreements with Laborers cov-
ering the work in dispute.
2. Company and area practice
The Employer's consistent practice has been to
assign the disputed work to Laborers. There is
insufficient record evidence as to what the area
practice has been with respect to the disputed work.
3. Relative skills, economy, and efficiency of
operations
The record shows that the employees presently
employed by the Employer now possess sufficient
skills to satisfactorily perform the work in dispute,
and that the Employer is fully satisfied with the
productivity and efficiency of its employees and
desires to continue assigning such work to them. The
record further shows that only a small fraction of the
daily work performed consists of the performance of
the work in dispute, and that it does not require skills
unique to Iron Workers members. Finally, the record
shows that if Iron Workers members were assigned
the disputed work the productivity and efficiency of
the Employer's operations would be impaired since
the Employer's regular work force would still be
required to perform preliminary tasks not claimed by
5 At the hearing, counsel for Iron Workers asserted that that labor
organization was prejudiced "by the lack of some sort of specification, or
bill of particulars by the Board such as would normally be contained in a
complaint " A 10(k) proceeding is not an unfair labor practice complaint
proceeding, and, the notice of hearing issued herein contains a statement of
the issues involved in the disputes in compliance with Sec 102.90 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations See National Union of Marine Cooks and
Stewards (Irvin-Lyons Lumber Company), 83 NLRB 341 (1949).
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Iron Workers, and, hence, the integrated perform-
ance of its work would be fragmented.
4. Prior Board decision
should cover not only the specific site where the
instant disputes arose, but also all similar sites within
the geographic jurisdiction of Iron Workers.
Counsel for the labor organizations involved
agreed that the instant case is not significantly
different from the Board's decision in G. A. Morrison
Company, supra.6 Both of the local unions involved
herein and Morrison were parties in that case. In that
prior decision, the Board awarded the same type of
disputed work to Laborers, notwithstanding a con-
flicting claim by Iron Workers. While the prior
decision is not considered to be determinative, it is to
be given significant weight in the consideration of the
instant case.
CONCLUSION
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and
after full consideration of all the relevant factors, in
particular the contractual relationship between the
Employer and Laborers, the Employer's practice,
and the Board's prior decision with respect to such
disputed work, we conclude that employees of the
Employer who are represented by Laborers are
entitled to the work in dispute, and we shall
determine the dispute in their favor. We do not,
however, award the work to Laborers or its members.
F. Scope of Determination
In its brief, the Employer urged that the Board
issue an award whose scope would encompass all
future sites within Iron Workers geographic jurisdic-
tion at which the Employer would perform the work
in dispute. There is precedent for an award whose
scope is broader than that of the specific site
involved.? On the basis of that precedent, and in light
of our prior decision in G. A. Morrison Company,
supra, we hold that the determination in this case
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES
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 Disputes:
1. Employees of The Morrison Company who are
currently represented by Local 1191, Laborers'
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
are entitled to perform the work of unloading
reinforcing wire mesh and supports, placing said
mesh and supports adjacent to concrete pouring
forms, and placing and fitting said mesh and
supports into concrete pouring forms at the U. S.
Post Office Bulk Handling Facility, Allen Park,
Michigan, and at other locations within the geo-
graphic jurisdiction of Reinforcing Iron Workers
Local No. 426, International Association of Bridge.
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO.
2. Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union No.
426, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is not
entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act to force or require the Morrison Company
to assign such work to ironworkers who are repre-
sented by that labor organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Disputes, Reinforcing Iron
Workers Local No. 426, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 7, 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 to ironworkers represented by it.
6 The differences between these cases are not si gnificant In that case , the T Local No 7, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
employer was called the G. A Morrison Company, the work in dispute was Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Meade-McGrath Fence Co, Inc), 195
subcontracted by it to Century Cement Company, and the site of the NLRB 1077.1079 (1972)
dispute was in Brownstone Township, Wayne County. Michigan.