Local 445, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 149 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

LOCAL 445, TEAMSTERS 149
Local 445 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca and Blount Brothers Corporation and Local 38,
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association,
AFL-CIO and Road Local 669, United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO
Local 445 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca and Blount Brothers Corporation and Local 38,
Sheet Metal Workers ' International Association,
AFL-CIO and Local 201, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada , AFL-CIO and Local 1000, Laborers
International Union of North America , AFL-CIO
Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
and Blount Brothers Corporation and International
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local Union No. 203 , AFL-CIO and Local38, Sheet
Metal Workers' International Association,
AFL-CIO and Local 201, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO. Cases 3-CD-30l-I,-2,-3,-4;
3-CD-303 and 3-CD-343-1,- 2
September 16, 1971
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTES
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , following
charges filed by Blount Brothers Corporation , herein
called Blount , alleging that Local 445, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , hereinafter called
Teamsters , had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
A hearing was held pursuant to notice at Kingston,
New York , on October 22, November 4, 5, 16, 17, 19,
and 20, and December 14, 1970, and January 20, 21,
and 22 and February 10, 1971, before Hearing Officer
Bertram T . Kupsinel. Blount , Teamsters , Local 38,
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association,
AFL-CIO, herein called Sheet Metal Workers; Road
Local 669 , United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO,
herein called Plumbers Local 699 ; Local 201 , United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called Plumb-
ers Local 201 ; and Local 1000 , Laborers International
Union of North America , AFL-CIO, herein called
Laborers , 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 . Blount , Teamsters , Sheet Metal Work-
ers, Plumbers Local 669 and Local 201 have filed
briefs, and Laborers filed a letter in lieu of a 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 these cases 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 these cases , the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE EMPLOYER
Blount, a Delaware Corporation with its principal
offices located in Montgomery, Alabama, is engaged
in the construction industry as a general contractor.
Blount, pursuant to contracts valued in excess of $18
million with International Business Machines Corpo-
ration, herein called IBM, is engaged in construction
of a building in East Fishkill, New York, herein called
Building 330-C, and a building in Poughkeepsie, New
York, herein called Building 707.1 We find that in the
performance of these contracts Blount received, or
caused to be received, materials and supplies valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of
New York. The parties agree, and we find, that Blount
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. We find that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Teamsters,
Sheet Metal Workers, Plumbers Local 669, Plumbers
Local 201, Laborers, and International Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union
No. 203, AFL-CIO, herein called Carpenters, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
I Both jobsites are located in Dutchess County, New York
193 NLRB No. 25
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Blount and IBM entered into a contract dated
August 7, 1969, whereby Blount was to be the general
contractor for the construction of Building 707.
Under this contract, Blount was to furnish all of the
labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services
required to perform all of the construction work on
the building.
In performance of its contractual obligations to
IBM, Blount entered into 28 subcontracts with other
employers who were to perform work on certain
portions of the project. Some, but not all, of these
subcontracts specifically involved the disputed work,
infra. Thus, The Sheris Company, whose subcontract
is representative, was to perform work on the
installation of kitchen equipment for Building 707.
The contract price for this subcontract included, inter
alia:
All labor, material and equipment required to
receive, unload and install all kitchen equipment.
[Emphasis supplied.]
All of these subcontracts, however, provided that the
subcontractor is to supply the "labor, material,
equipment . . . necessary to complete the work."
On February 3, 1969, Blount entered into a contract
with IBM concerning Building 330-C. Included in
Blount's obligations under this contract is what is
commonly known as fit-up work as well as the actual
construction work on the building. Fit-up means
receiving and installing into completed parts of the
structure equipment furnished by IBM so that the
various portions of the building can be occupied by
IBM employees. In addition, certain parts of the
structure were to be "accepted" by IBM even before
the entire building was completed.
IBM assigned to Blount several separate contracts it
(IBM) had earlier entered into with suppliers for
equipment to be installed in the building. Thus,
Blount assumed responsibility for the
off loading, storage, safeguarding, installation,
check-out, and start up of the Equipment
and for the faithful performance of the Suppliers'
obligations for the Equipment and services
furnished under such Separate Contracts.
[Emphasis supplied.]
Blount entered into 17 subcontracts with other
employers who were to perform work on the Building
330-C project. Some of these subcontracts covered
work to be performed in the construction of the
building. Others covered work to be performed under
the fit-up portion of Blount's contract with IBM.
As was the case with subcontracts for Building 707,
not all subcontracts for Bu-ldmg 330-C specifically
involved the disputed work. Of those subcontracts
mentioning this work, representative are the two
subcontracts of the Frank A. McBride Company.
These subcontracts stated that McBride was to:
Schedule delivery, coordinate, receive, unload . . .
the prepurchased mechanical equipment in ac-
cordance with the requirements of the specifica-
tions. [Emphasis supplied.]
All of these subcontracts provided that the subcon-
tractor was to supply the labor, material, equipment,
etc., necessary to complete the work.
Blount is a party to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Teamsters. This agreement states in
pertinent part:
General Conditions . . .
30. The Employer agrees to respect the jurisdic-
tional rules of the Union and shall not direct or
require their [sic] employees or persons other than
the employees in the bargaining unit here in-
volved, to perform work which is recognized as
work of the employees in the Teamsters jurisdic-
tion. All work heretofore recognized as being
within the jurisdiction of the Union shall continue
to be the jurisdiction of the Union notwithstand-
ing any inconsistent provisions contained in other
Agreements executed by the Employer or Employ-
er Association(s).
Neither this collective-bargaining agreement nor any
other document introduced at the hearing specifies
what work the Teamsters claim to be within its
jurisdiction.
In addition to Leo Clark, Teamsters coordinator for
Building 707, and Michael Tierney, Teamsters coordi-
nator for Building 303-C, Blount employed other
nonsupervisory employees on the IBM projects. Thus,
Blount is a party to a collective-bargaining agreement
with Carpenters (the Local) and to a national
agreement with the United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
herein called Plumbers.
The collective-bargaining agreement between
Blount and Carpenters states in pertinent part:
Article XV
The Trade Autonomy of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America consists of
the handling, fashioning .. . also the handling of
materials delivered to the job and the loading and
unloading of finished materials. [Emphasis
supplied.]
The national collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Blount and Plumbers states in pertinent part:
Article II
Trade or Work Jurisdiction
This agreement covers the rates of pay, hours and
working conditions of all journeymen and appren-
tices engaged in the installation of all plumbing
LOCAL 445, TEAMSTERS 151
.. . including . . . unloading, distributing, reload-
ing, tying-on, and hoisting of all piping materials.
... [Emphasis supplied. ]
Many of Blount's subcontractors were also parties
to collective-bargaining agreements with the various
labor organizations involved herein. Thus, the agree-
ments between Plumbers Local 669 and Mid-Hudson
Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc., and Automatic Sprink-
ler Corporation of America provided:
Article X
Materials and Equipment and Fabrication
The Union shall accept all materials and equip-
ment as delivered by or for the Employer and the
unloading, handling and installing of such material
and equipment shall be performed by employees
covered by this collective-bargaining agreement.
Article XV
Jurisdiction of Work
The work of the sprinkler fitter and/or apprentice
shall consist of the installation of all fire protection
and fire control systems including the unloading,
handling by hand.. . . [Emphasis supplied.]
The agreements between Plumbers Local 201, Sheet
Metal Workers, and Blount's subcontractors did not
specifically cover the work found herein to be in
dispute.
There are four ways in which construction and other
materials arrived at the IBM jobsites: (1) By trucks
owned by individual subcontractors and driven by
their employees; (2) by trucks owned by general
commodity trucking companies, referred to herein as
common carriers; (3) by moving vans owned by
moving companies delivering IBM-owned material to
Building 330-C to be installed in portions of the
building still under Blount's supervision under the fit-
up portion of its contract with IBM; and (4) by
moving vans owned by moving companies delivering
IBM-owned material to Building 330-C to be in-
stalled in portions of the building "accepted," or
occupied, by IBM and thus under IBM's, and not
Blount's, supervision.
The first delivery of material to Building 330-C by
moving van under the fit-up portion of Blount's
contract with IBM for that building was made by
Neptune World Wide Moving Company on March
11, 1970. Included in the material delivered was IBM-
owned temporary cafeteria equipment. Blount had
previously arranged with Frank A. McBride Compa-
ny, the subcontractor who had the responsibility of
installing this equipment, to have its employees move
such equipment from the loading dock of the building
to the place of installation. Employees of Neptune,
who are members of Teamsters, were to move into the
building the remaining equipment that did not require
any installation work.
A dispute arose between plumbers and sheet metal
workers employed by McBride and teamsters em-
ployed by Neptune when the teamsters attempted to
move all the cafeteria equipment into the building.
The details of this dispute are not clear from the
record. As a result of the dispute, however, this
cafeteria equipment was left on the loading dock until
some agreement could be reached resolving the
dispute.
A few days following this incident, Fred Neu,
project manager for Blount, met with representatives
of IBM for the purpose of discussing which employees
were to move from the Building 330-C loading dock
into unaccepted areas of the building the IBM-owned
equipment delivered in moving vans. As a result of
this meeting, IBM sent to Blount a letter dated March
17, 1970, which stated the following:
1. All equipment will be moved to the IBM
330-C loading dock and off-loaded by IBM
employed union movers.2
2. Equipment which requires electrical or me-
chanical installation will be claimed at the dock by
those trades who will be involved in the installa-
tion and will be moved from the dock to the
approximate location within the building.
5. Furniture and other equipment which does
not involve electrical or mechanical hook-up, will
be moved into the proper location by the IBM
employed union movers.
6. There will be some equipment requiring
electrical and mechanical installation which is
delicate in nature and should therefore be moved
into position and set by the professional movers.
7. All IBM data processing equipment will be
moved into position by the IBM employed union
movers and will be hooked up by IBM Customer
Engineers.
The above procedure was successful and fol-
lowed during the occupancy of the 320 Buildings
and is in accordance with a precedence which has
been established on this site.
On March 31, 1970, Frank J. O'Neil, labor relations
manager for Blount, held a meeting attended by
representatives of the various labor organizations
involved in these cases. During this meeting, O'Neil
explained the procedure (outlined in the IBM letter of
March 17 above) that would be followed regarding
the delivery of material to Building 330-C by moving
vans. Representatives of Teamsters protested by
2 This refers to Teamsters members employed by Neptune and other
moving companies
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stating that different procedures had been followed in
the earlier construction and fit-up on IBM Building
320 and that teamsters employed by moving compa-
nies had moved in all material that they delivered to
that building. O'Neil promised to investigate the facts
surrounding the Teamsters statement.
On April 1, 1970, Blount sent to Teamsters and to
all of the other labor organizations involved herein a
letter which stated as follows:
After the meeting of March 31, 1970 at our Field
Office, at the IBM Facility, Fishkill, New York we,
as promised, made an investigation and examined
the records dealing with the moving of equipment
into Building # 320 at the same site . Regular IBM
Movers (Roe, Kennedy, Arnoff, etc.) moved
furniture and equipment, from existing location to
truck, hauled to Building #320 and off loaded on
the dock.
The following techniques were used from that
point:
1. Furniture: Desks, chairs, book cases, files and
anything that could be plugged in (lamps, electric
typewriters, etc.) were moved from the dock to
location by the regular IBM movers.
2. Hoods, sinks, consoles, Manufacturing Equip-
ment, etc., as follows:
If the Equipment had Integral Hoods: Sheet
Metal workers did the moving from the dock
to the point of Installation.
If the Equipment required Electrical: Electri-
cal workers did the moving from the dock to
point of Installation.
If the Equipment involved Plumbing:
Plumbers/Pipe Fitters did the moving from
the dock to point of Installation.
If the equipment involved any combination
of the above: The Sheet Metal Workers,
Electricians, Plumbers/Pipe Fitters as a
composite crew did the moving from the
dock to point of Installation.
3. Computers and computer type test equip-
ment: Regular IBM Movers moved from the dock
to point of Installation.
4. Sophisticated electronic equipment, delicate
furnaces , device manufacturing equipment (I.E.)
Epitaxy Equipment, Manufacturing Research
Equipment, etc.: Were moved by the regular IBM
Movers.
Based on these precedents the items of equip-
ment, furniture, computers, etc., that are to be
installed in Building #330-C will be delivered to
the Building # 330-C Shipping and Receiving
Room. The items requiring Sheet Metal Workers,
Electricians or Plumber/Pipe Fitters will be
designated on the Bills of Lading to be shipped to
Building #330-C Shipping and Receiving Room.
The furniture , computers and equipment in items
1, 3, and 4 will be designated on the Bills of Lading
to be moved to point of installation.
We have advised our Subcontractors of the way
the equipment was handled in Building # 320 and
the way the equipment will be shipped to Building
# 330-C.
After Blount sent the above letter, O'Neil contacted
Capone, a representative of the Eastern Conference of
Teamsters who suggested a meeting with O'Neil on
April 12. During this meeting , which was attended by
inter alios O'Neil, Capone, and Theodore Daley,
secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 445, Daley
said that the work of taking equipment from moving
vans and delivering it into a building was traditionally
the work of teamsters and if teamsters did not receive
this work, he (Daley) would shut the job down.
The next day, April 13, a truck owned by Roe
Moving, Inc., carrying IBM-owned hoods and sinks,
which plumbers were to install, arrived at Building
330-C. Chet Davis , vice president of Teamsters, asked
O'Neil if teamsters were to unload the truck. O'Neil
replied in the negative. During the day Daley called
O'Neil on three occasions and stated that if anyone
other than Teamsters members unload the Roe truck,
the job would be shut down. This truck finally left the
jobsite without being unloaded.
Again on April 13, a truck belonging to Spiromatic
Corp., a common carrier, arrived at Building 330-C
with a load of building material consigned to A. Ricci
& Bros ., Inc., a subcontractor of Blount , who employs
sheet metal workers . While these employees were
unloading this truck , Teamsters official Daley arrived
and stated that sheet metal workers could not go on to
the bed of the truck and directed the driver of the
truck to leave the dock . The truck returned sometime
later and was unloaded by teamsters.
On April 14, O'Neil had another conversation with
Daley in which Daley stated that Blount had to build
a warehouse and unload everything delivered to the
IBM jobsites using teamsters.
On April 15, a truck belonging to Old Colonial
Trucking Co., a common carrier , arrived at Building
330-C with a load of pipe consigned to Automatic
Sprinkler Corporation of America, a subcontractor of
Blount. Michael Tierney , Blount 's Teamsters coordi-
nator , refused to let the driver of this truck back up to
the loading dock while Automatic Sprinkler's fore-
man was present. When Automatic's foreman left the
dock to arrange for members of Plumbers Local 669
to unload the truck , teamsters unloaded the truck by
throwing the pipe on the dock . This resulted in
bundles of pipe being broken and their threads being
bent and damaged.
On April 17, a common carrier delivered to Building
707 a shipment of forms consigned to J. P . Primiano &
LOCAL 445, TEAMSTERS 153
Sons, Inc., a subcontractor on the job . Leo Clark,
Blount 's Teamsters coordinator for Building 707,
refused to allow laborers employed by Primiano to
unload the truck . At or around the same time, Clark
told Charles Vann , Blount ' s project manager for
Building 707 , that unloading of all material was
teamster work and that Blount would have to employ
additional teamsters to do the unloading of all
material delivered to the job.
When the president of Primiano protested this
action to Clark , Clark stated that teamsters were
going to do the unloading on the job or nobody was
and that , if any other employees attempted unloading,
he would shut the job down.
On April 18 , Jerry Ahik , Blount's mechanical and
electrical coordinator for Building 330-C, met with
Davis and Daley to discuss the current difficulties in
unloading trucks. Daley again said that in the
unloading and handling of equipment delivered to the
jobsite he would require Blount to build a separate
warehouse to receive its equipment and that, if
teamsters were not given the work of unloading, the
job would be halted.
On April 20 , Davis spoke to Vann , Blount's
Building 707 project manager , and stated that
teamsters were to unload all material that arrived on
the job no matter to whom the material was
consigned . Vann stated that members of the other
labor organizations involved herein had been unload-
ing construction material consigned to their employ-
ers in the past and that this is the way unloading
would be handled in the future.
On April 20, Mechanical Construction Corp ., one of
Blount's subcontractors , delivered material to Build-
ing 707 in one of its own pickup trucks. While
Mechanical Construction 's employees were unload-
ing this truck, Teamsters Coordinator Clark told
Mechanical 's foreman that teamsters were claiming
the work of unloading the construction material
delivered in subcontractors' trucks as well as that
delivered by common carriers.
There were four shipments to Building 707 by
common carrier on April 21 which upon arrival
forthwith left the jobsite unloaded due to the actions
of Teamsters Coordinator Clark. One of these
shipments was a hot water heater consigned to
Mechanical Construction Corp. Clark refused to
allow members of Plumbers Local 201 to get on the
bed of the truck and told the truckdriver not to let
anyone other than teamsters help in the unloading.
Another shipment involved pipe consigned to Me-
chanical . Clark stepped up to the driver of this truck,
spoke to the driver a short while , and the truck then
left the dock unloaded . Similarly, sheet metal workers
were not allowed to unload a shipment of fans. The
final shipment involved scaffolding consigned to
Modern Scaffolding Company. Clark told Vann that
he (Clark) would not allow these scaffolds to be
unloaded unless the work was performed by team-
sters.
On May 1, a Petition for Injunction against
Teamsters under Section 10(1) of the Act was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. An Order Granting Temporary
Injunction issued on May 20.
On June 30, Jerry Ahik , Mechanical and Electrical
coordinator for Blount on Building 330-C, held a
meeting attended by representatives of Carpenters,
Plumbers Local 201, and Sheet Metal Workers to
discuss the subject of which labor organization's
members were to move from the loading dock to the
point of installation certain IBM -owned material
being delivered to the jobsite by moving van. Ahik
stated that IBM had designated certain items of
equipment as being delicate in nature and that these
items were to be moved from the dock to the point of
installation by members of Teamsters employed by
various moving companies , in spite of the fact that
members of some of the other labor organizations
involved in this matter would ultimately perform
some work on this equipment . Regarding other
equipment which Ahik listed as being nondelicate,
this equipment was to be picked up from the loading
dock by members of those labor organizations who
would perform connecting and other work on the
equipment before it was ready for use.
In implementing the above-described work assign-
ments, William Purcell, Blount's project manager for
Building 330-C, was physically present at the loading
dock when moving companies delivered IBM-owned
equipment to be installed in the building under the fit-
up portion of Blount 's contract with IBM. Purcell,
having general knowledge of which equipment was
considered delicate by IBM, and which equipment
was not considered delicate and required connecting
and other work by members of labor organizations
other than Teamsters , directed members of Teamsters
employed by moving companies to leave this nondeli-
cate equipment on the dock so that it could later be
moved inside the building by members of the other
labor organizations.
On November 12, during a move of IBM-owned
equipment by Neptune into Building 330-C , Purcell,
who was on the loading dock, directed Neptune's
employees to leave a sink on the dock so that
plumbers could move it into the building. Ed Nee,
foreman for Neptune, said that his orders were to
move all equipment into the building and leave
nothing on the dock. When questioned by Purcell as
to why Neptune was changing the way in which these
moves had been handled, Nee said that the decision
had been made by higher authorities of Neptune.
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Later during November 12, Purcell spoke to Jack
Trotta, Nee's superior. Trotta said that all of
Neptune's employees are members of Teamsters
Local 445 and that he had his orders from Teamsters
Local 445 not to leave any of the equipment on the
dock. Tierney, Teamsters coordinator, was present
during this conversation and said nothing to dispute
Trotta's remarks.
On November 27, during a move of IBM-owned
equipment by Roe, Purcell told Steve Trocan, driver
for Roe, to leave certain equipment on the dock so
that members of other labor organizations could
move it into the building. Trocan told Purcell that he
would not leave the equipment on the dock, that
teamsters would either move it all into the building or
the material would be returned unloaded. Members of
Teamsters moved a portion of the shipment into
Building 330-C but that equipment which Purcell
insisted be left on the dock was placed in the moving
van and returned to its origin.
On December 7, a truck belonging to Virginia Metal
Products Company, a subcontractor of Blount, made
a delivery to Building 707. When this truck arrived at
the loading dock, Teamsters Coordinator Clark told
Virginia Metal Products' superintendent that the
truck was not going to be unloaded unless teamsters
did the work. At the same time, there was a truck
belonging to a common carrier parked at the dock.
When Virginia Metal Products' superintendent got on
this common carrier truck, Clark told him to get off
and said that he (Clark) could not stop members of
Carpenters from unloading Virginia Metal Products'
truck but that he was going to stop them from
unloading common carriers.
A short time after this incident, Virginia Metal
Products' superintendent spoke to Teamsters Official
Davis and said that the unloading of these common
carrier trucks was carpenters' work. Davis replied that
carpenters would unload these trucks over his (Davis')
dead body.
On December 8, a shipment of kitchen equipment
was delivered to Building 707 by common carrier. A
member of Sheet Metal Workers employed by The
Sheris Company, a subcontractor of Blount, informed
Vann, Blount's project manager, that the driver of the
truck was having trouble unloading. Vann asked
Teamsters Coordinator Clark if the reason he would
not allow the truck to back up to the dock was because
the driver was not current in his obligations to
Teamsters. Clark replied that this was none of Vann's
business. Vann said that members of Sheet Metal
Workers and Plumbers Local 201 were going to
unload the truck. Thereupon Clark said that nobody
but teamsters were going to perform this work.
3 During the hearing, Laborers and Teamsters agreed to a method of
resolving their differences regarding the disputed work herein Blount
The next day, December 9, another load of material
consigned to The Sheris Company arrived at Building
707 by common carrier. Clark refused to allow the
driver of this truck to back up to the loading dock.
Vann showed Clark a copy of the temporary injunc-
tion that had previously issued in this matter. Clark
said that that injunction didn't mean a thing. Vann
stated that Clark was subject to imprisonment and a
fine if he didn't follow the injunction. Clark replied
that if Vann touched the truck or laid a hand on it, he
(Vann) would not get back to Alabama alive. The
truck left the jobsite fully loaded.
On January 18, 1971, a load of metal partitions
consigned to Blount was delivered to Building 707 in a
truck belonging to Virginia Metal Products. Clark
asked Vann if he was going to use members of
Teamsters to unload this equipment. Vann replied
that members of Carpenters would unload the truck
as they had done in the past. Clark said that Blount
was not going to get the material unloaded if it did not
use teamsters. Later during the day, this truck left the
jobsite without being unloaded.
B. The Work in Dispute
This proceeding pertains to the assignment of the
following work: 3
(1) At both IBM Buildings 330-C and 707 jobsites,
the unloading from the truck to the ground or the
dock of all materials and equipment delivered to the
jobsites by trucks owned by common carriers or by
individual subcontractors.
(2) At the IBM Building 330-Cjobsite, the handling
and distribution to the point of installation inside the
unaccepted portions of the building of all nondelicate
equipment, delivered to the jobsite by moving vans,
which ultimately required installation by members of
labor organizations other than Teamsters.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
Teamsters contends that it should be awarded the
work of unloading and distributing to the point of
installation inside Building 330-C of all equipment
and material delivered to the jobsite by moving vans
regardless of whether or not members of other labor
organizations will ultimately perform installation
work on the equipment. Teamsters also contends that
it should be awarded the work of unloading and
handling from the tailgate of the truck to the dock or
to the ground of all equipment and materials
delivered to both Buildings 707 and 330-C in trucks
belonging both to common carriers and to individual
subcontractors.
agreed to be bound by this arrangement Consequently , we shall make no
assignment in this matter relating to Laborers.
LOCAL 445, TEAMSTERS 155
In support of the above contentions, Teamsters
argues that:
1. The collective-bargaining agreements between
it and both Neptune and Roe require that the
disputed work in (2) above be assigned to teamsters.
2. IBM granted to Neptune and Roe the right to
assign to their employees the disputed work in (2)
above and such assignments were in fact made.
3. Teamsters possess the necessary skills and
training to perform the disputed work in both
paragraphs (1) and (2) above.
4. Neptune and Roe are satisfied with the work of
teamsters in performing the disputed work in (2)
above.
5. Industry and area practice, as well as the
practice on the two projects involved herein, has been
to assign to teamsters the disputed work in both (1)
and(2)above.
6. Assignment of the disputed work in (1) and (2)
above to teamsters rather than to employees repre-
sented by the other labor organizations involved
herein is necessary for efficiency and economy of
operations.
7. Assignment of the disputed work in (2) above to
employees represented by labor organizations other
than Teamsters would result in members of Teamsters
losing employment.
8. None of the other labor organizations involved
herein have been certified by the Board as the
bargaining representative for employees performing
the disputed work in (2) above, nor has the Board
issued an order directing Neptune, Roe, or IBM to
bargain with these labor organizations.
9. The supporting Board decision in Local 895,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters, AFL-CIO (George
A. Fuller Company, Inc., et al.) 4 is indistinguishable
from the instant proceeding.
Blount contends that it is the employer for the
purposes of assigning the disputed work herein.
Blount argues that this contention is supported by the
contracts concerning Buildings 707 and 330-C to
which it is a party with IBM, as well as by IBM's letter
to Blount of March 17, supra. Accordingly, Blount
states that it assigned some phases of the disputed
work to its own employees who are members of labor
organizations other than Teamsters and that, similar-
ly, Blount's subcontractors, who were delegated such
authority through their subcontracts, assigned other
phases of the disputed work to their nonteamster
employees.
Blount contends that the above assignment made by
it was in accordance with collective-bargaining
agreements between it and labor organizations other
than Teamsters and that the assignments made by
Blount's subcontractors were likewise in accordance
with agreements between them and representatives of
their nonteamster employees.
Blount argues that these assignments are in accord-
ance with the past practice on IBM projects as well as
with the past practice in the area. In addition, Blount
contends that considerations of efficiency and eco-
nomy of operations require assignment of the disput-
ed work to employees represented by labor organiza-
tions other than Teamsters, and that such employees
possess the necessary skills and are given training
which makes them particularly suited to perform this
work.
Blount states that it is satisfied with the work
assignments it and its subcontractors have made and
that the George A. Fuller case, supra, is factually
distinguishable from the instant matters.
Both Plumbers Local 201 and Local 669 contend
that Blount was the employer for the purpose of
assigning the disputed work, that Blount was made
the employer for making such assignments by its
contracts with IBM and by IBM's letter to Blount of
March 17, and that Blount, in turn, delegated
authority to its subcontractors to assign the disputed
work to their employees. They contend that as a result
of these assignments, employees they represent have
been performing the disputed work on both IBM
projects and that the performance of this work by
them is consistent with past practice in the area
generally and on IBM projects specifically.
Both Plumbers locals argue that this assignment was
in accordance with collective-bargaining agreements
with the employers on the IBM jobs, including Blount
and its subcontractors. They point out that Blount is
satisfied with their members' performance of the
disputed work, that they possess the necessary skill
and training to do the work, and that assignment of
this work to them is in the interests of efficiency and
economy.
Plumbers Local 699 contends that the fact that it is
certified by the Board as collective-bargaining repre-
sentative for all sprinkler fitters and apprentices
employed by members of the National Automatic
Sprinkler and Fire Control Association favors it in the
assignment of the disputed work. Automatic Sprinkler
Corporation of America and Mid-Hudson Automatic
Sprinkler Company, both of whom are subcontractors
of Blount, are members of this association.
Like Blount, both Plumbers locals argue that the
Fuller case is inapposite to the instant situation.
Unlike Blount, however, Plumbers Local 201 con-
tends that employees it represents also are capable of
moving delicate equipment into Building 330-C that
has been delivered by moving companies. Thus, it
4 186 NLRB No. 29
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
argues that employees it represents should be assigned
the work of moving this delicate equipment upon
which they will perform connecting work. However,
Plumbers Local 201 engaged in no proscribed actions
in support of this claim.
Sheet Metal Workers also contends that Blount is
the employer for the purpose of assigning the disputed
work and that in making such assignments to sheet
metal workers, Blount was following past practice in
the area. Moreover, Sheet Metal Workers contends
that employees it represents possess the necessary
skills and training to perform the work and that
assignment to them will promote efficiency and
economy of operations.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to 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 indicated above, on April 12, 13, and 18
Teamsters Secretary-Treasurer Daley threatened a
work stoppage if teamsters were not assigned the work
in dispute. Davis, Teamsters vice president, threat-
ened physical violence on December 7.
Teamsters Coordinator Clark threatened work
stoppages on April 17, 1970, and January 18, 1971,
and threatened physical violence on December 9 if
teamsters did not perform the disputed work.
In addition, Teamsters, through Clark, Teamsters
Coordinator Tierney, Davis, Daley, and others,
prevented the delivery of equipment to the IBM
jobsites on April 13, 15, 17, 21, November 27,
December 7, 8, 9, 1970, and January 18, 1971, because
the performance of the disputed work had been
assigned to employees represented by labor organiza-
tions other than Teamsters.
We find, therefore, that there is reasonable cause to
believe that violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D) have
occurred and that the disputes are properly before us
for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Disputes
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work after
giving due consideration to all relevant factors. In
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No.
1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Co.), 135
NLRB 1402, 1410- 11, the Board set forth the
following criteria to be considered in the making of an
affirmative award in a 10(k) proceeding:
The Board will consider all relevant factors in
determining who is entitled to the work in dispute,
e.g., the skills and work involved, certifications by
the Board , company and industry practice , agree-
ments between unions and between employers and
unions , awards of arbitrators , joint boards , and the
AFL-CIO in the same or related cases, the
assignment made by the employer , and the
efficient operation of the employer 's business.
We shall set forth below those factors which we find
relevant in determining the disputes herein.
1. The Employer for purposes of assigning
the disputed work
Teamsters contentions , including its contention that
the Fuller case is controlling in these matters, are
grounded upon its argument that moving companies
are the employers for the purpose of assigning the
disputed work in (2) above . We find that argument to
be without foundation.
An examination of Blount's contracts with IBM,
and the IBM letter of March 17, has convinced us that
Blount was the employer for the purpose of assigning
the disputed work in both ( 1) and (2) above. In
addition , Blount's subcontracts with the various
subcontractors on these two projects have persuaded
us that Blount delegated part of its authority to assign
this work to said subcontractors.
Thus, while Fuller is distinguishable on several
grounds , the fact that in the instant cases, unlike the
situation in Fuller, employers other than moving
companies had authority to assign the disputed work
is sufficient for us to conclude that Fuller does not
control here.
2. Company and industry practice
Testimony presented at the hearing differed sharply
regarding not only past practice in the area but also
the practice on the two IBM projects involved herein.
Regarding the latter, we are persuaded that the
practice on these IBM projects was as indicated in the
above portion of this Decision entitled "Background
and Facts of the Dispute." That is, when deliveries of
construction material were made to the twojobsites in
trucks owned by subcontractors, their employees
physically got onto the bed of the truck, unloaded the
material , and delivered it to the appropriate places on
the projects.
When deliveries of construction material were made
to the two jobsites in trucks owned by common
carriers , employees represented by labor organiza-
tions other than Teamsters got onto the bed of the
truck and handled it in a similar manner . The only
exception in this case was that "tailgate" delivery was
accepted of certain equipment that was small and
light enough for the teamster driver to handle.
When IBM-owned material was delivered to Build-
ing 330-C by moving van, members of labor organiza-
tions other than Teamsters moved into the building
LOCAL 445, TEAMSTERS 157
that nondelicate equipment upon which they were to
perform installation work.
We make the above findings based on the over-
whelming weight of the oral evidence as well as upon
certain documentary evidence , including contractors'
daily time records which show that Blount was billed
by subcontractors for the services performed by their
employees in moving equipment delivered by moving
vans.
Regarding the area past practice , IBM's March 17
letter to Blount , Blount ' s April 1 letter to all the labor
organizations involved herein , contractors ' daily time
records from previous jobs, and the weight of the
evidence , all convince us that the above discussed
assignments were made in accordance with the past
practice in the area.
3. Collective-bargaining agreements
The specificity of the collective-bargaining agree-
ments between Blount , Blount 's subcontractors, and
Carpenters , Plumbers, and Plumbers Local 669 favors
the claims of these labor organizations over that of
Teamsters whose agreement with Blount does not
cover the disputed work . However , as Plumbers Local
201 and Sheet Metal Workers agreements do not
appear to cover the work with any more specificity
than Teamsters agreements , this factor is not helpful
in awarding the work among these three labor
organizations.
4. Skill of the employees
With respect to the disputed work in (2) above, it
appears that employees represented by labor organi-
zations other than Teamsters are at least as skilled as
teamsters in moving into Building 330-C the nondeli-
cate equipment delivered in moving vans.
Thus, while employees represented by all the labor
organizations involved herein appear to be equally
capable of performing this work , Plumbers Local 201
has not proven to our satisfaction that its members
possess the necessary training , skill, or equipment to
move in delicate equipment such as computers. As
mentioned , this work has always been assigned to
teamsters at these IBM projects, and the moving in of
this delicate equipment is not disputed work nor a part
of the assignment herein.
With respect to the disputed work in (1), above, the
skill and training possessed by employees represented
by labor organizations other than Teamsters favor
assignment to them over teamsters . Such employees
receive extensive classroom and on -the-job training in
rigging and off-loading equipment . Moreover , the fact
that these employees have experience in working with
this equipment enables them to discover shipping
damages to equipment such as fans and sprinkler
fittings that would not be apparent to the untrained
eye. If such internal damage were to go undetected, it
might necessitate costly modifications and repairs at a
later date.
5. Efficiency and economy of operations
With respect to the disputed work in (2) above,
considerations of efficiency and economy favor none
of the rival groups of employees involved herein.
With respect to the disputed work in (1) above,
efficiency and economy of operations favor assign-
ment to employees represented by labor organizations
other than Teamsters.
This is true because when deliveries are made to the
jobsites either by trucks owned by subcontractors or
by common carriers , the drivers of these trucks are not
accompanied by helpers. As many of these shipments
are too large and heavy for the driver alone to unload,
assignment to teamsters would necessitate either the
hiring of additional teamsters on a permanent basis,
whose sole function would be to wait for deliveries to
be made , or the hiring of temporary teamster help. If
it proved necessary to follow the latter course,
unloading of shipments would be delayed while
unemployed teamsters were being located, and it
would probably also be necessary to pay these
teamsters for their travel time to the jobsite and back
again.
Conclusions
Upon the record as a whole , and after full
consideration of all relevant factors involved, we
believe that employees represented by Sheet Metal
Workers, Plumbers Local 669, Plumbers Local 201,
and Carpenters rather than those represented by
Teamsters are entitled to the work in dispute . We rely
upon the facts that an assignment to such employees
is consistent with the prevailing practice both on these
IBM jobs and on similar jobs in the area, that
employees represented by these labor organizations
possess the requisite skills to perform the work, that
such an assignment will result in efficiency and
economy of operations , and that the collective-bar-
gaining agreements covering employees represented
by Carpenters , Plumbers, and Plumbers Local 669 are
more specific as respects the disputed work than is the
Teamsters agreement . Accordingly , we shall deter-
mine the dispute before us by awarding the work in
dispute (the unloading from the truck to the ground or
the dock of all materials and equipment delivered to
Buildings 707 and 330-C by trucks owned by
common carriers or by individual subcontractors, and
the handling and distribution to the point of installa-
tion inside the unaccepted portions of Building 330-C
of all nondelicate equipment which ultimately re-
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quires installation by employees represented by labor
organizations other than Teamsters ) to those employ-
ees represented by Sheet Metal Workers, Plumbers
Local 669, Plumbers Local 201, and Carpenters. In
consequence , we also find that Teamsters has not
been , and is not now , entitled , by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act, to force or require
Blount or any of its subcontractors to assign the
disputed work to employees it represents.
SCOPE OF DETERMINATION
Blount, in its brief , points to Teamsters conduct,
which allegedly constituted violations of the May 20
temporary injunction , and requests that the Board's
award be extended to all future projects throughout
Dutchess County, New York. While we agree with
Blount that violations of court -ordered injunctions, if
proven , are indeed serious and although the Board
need not restrict its award to specific jobs if there is
evidence that similar disputes on a more widespread
scale will occur in the future , 5 we conclude that the
evidence here does not warrant a finding extending to
all future projects in Dutchess County. Therefore we
will limit our award to the IBM projects presently
under consideration.
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
hereby makes the following determination of the
disputes:
1. Employees employed by Blount Brothers Cor-
poration and its subcontractors , and represented by
Local 38 , Sheet Metal Workers' International Associ-
ation , AFL-CIO; Road Local 669, United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO; Local 201, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO; and International Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local Union
No. 203, AFL-C! O, are entitled to perform the
disputed work of (1) unloading from the truck to the
ground or the dock all materials and equipment
delivered to IBM Buildings 707 and 330-C by trucks
owned by common carriers or by individual subcon-
tractors , and (2 ) handling and distributing to the point
of installation inside the unaccepted portions of
Building 330-C all nondelicate equipment which
ultimately requires installation by employees repre-
sented by labor organizations other than Local 445,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
2. Local 445, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is not entitled , by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require
Blount Brothers Corporation , or its subcontractors, to
assign the disputed work to employees who are
represented by that labor organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Disputes , Local 445, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 3, in writing , whether it
will refrain from forcing or requiring Blount Brothers
Corporation, or its subcontractors , by means pros-
cribed in Section 8 (b)(4)(D), to assign the work in
dispute to employees represented by it rather than to
employees represented by Local 38, Sheet Metal
Workers' International Association , AFL-CIO;
Road Local 669, United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO; Local 201, United Association of Jour-
neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO; or International Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America , Local Union No. 203,
AFL-CIO.
5 Building and Construction Trades Council of Las Vegas (Charles
Dorfman), 173 NLRB 1339