Local 700, Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 26, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 964 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 700 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC and Troy Baggs, d/b/a Baggs Electric Company. Case 26-CD-67 labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. The dispute A. The Facts January 26, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Troy Baggs, doing business as Baggs Electric Company, on October 6, 1969, and amended on October 17, 1969, alleging that Local Union 700, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, (hereinafter called Local 700) has 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 electrical work at the Universal Packing Company jobsite at Boone and High Streets, Fort Smith, Arkansas, to individuals who are represented by the Respondent rather than to the employees of Baggs Electric Company. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer A. Donald Rhoads on November 13, 1969. The parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues.' Thereafter, the Respondent filed a brief before the Board. 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 this case 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. Troy Baggs , doing business as Baggs Electric Company, is an individual proprietorship engaged in the electrical contracting business in the State of Arkansas and annually receives materials valued in excess of $50,000 indirectly from points located outside of the State of Arkansas. Accordingly, we find that Troy Baggs, doing business as Baggs Electric Company, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local 700 and the International Union of District 50 are 'international Union of District 50 signed a collect ive- bargain mg agreement with the Charging Party on September 15, 1969, but was not represented at the hearing From October 18, 1966, through August 4, 1969, Baggs was a signatory to the Respondent's agreement with other area contractors which provided, inter alia , for the use of the Respondent's hiring hall in obtaining qualified electricians. The agreement further prohibited the subcontracting of electrical work to nonunion subcontractors. On August 4, 1969, the Respondent Union cancelled the agreement with Baggs , purportedly for subcontracting electrical work to nonunion subcontractors and for his consistent refusal to utilize Respondent's hiring hall. Both before and after the existence of this contract, Baggs employed electricians who were not members of the Respondent. The Respondent commenced picketing the gate used by Baggs ' employees at the Universal Packing Company's construction site on either September 8 or 11, 1969. Although there was some dispute about the language used on the picket sign, it is clear that it advised the public that the electrical contractor on the job did not pay a prevailing wage rate. The Union claims that it removed the picket on the same day that picketing had commenced because Baggs agreed to pay the prevailing area wage rate for electricians. Baggs, however, claims that the sign was removed because he had agreed to the Union's demand to fire all of his employees and replace them with Respondent's members. The picket was reestablished on October 6, 1969, after Baggs had executed a collective- bargaining agreement with District 50. The picket sign used on this occasion again protested the substandard wages being paid by Baggs. The record also discloses that the general contractor on the Universal Packing Company construction job, Griffin Construction Company, is a member of the Associated General Contractors of America, and follows the agreement negotiated by that organization. The Respondent has a collective-bargaining agreement with a number of contractors in its jurisdiction which provides for the voluntary adjustment of jurisdictional disputes. Baggs , however, is not a member of any organization with the authority to voluntarily adjust jurisdictional disputes. The Board has not certified any labor organization to be the collective-bargaining representative of Baggs ' employees nor had Baggs been a party to any collective- bargaining agreement with the exception of the aforementioned contract with the Respondent and the current agreement with District 50. There is no substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the workmanship, efficiency, or safety record of Baggs ' employees has been different from those of the Respondent's members. 180 NLRB No. 144 LOCAL 700, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 965 B. The Contentions of the Parties The Charging Party, Baggs , asserts that a jurisdictional dispute exists within the meaning of the Act, and that Local 700 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in the aforesaid picketing for the purpose of forcing Baggs or the general contractor on the job, Griffin Construction Company, to assign the disputed work to members of Local 700. The Respondent Union, on the other hand, specifically disclaimed any desire to perform the electrical work at the Universal Packing Company jobsite. The Respondent contended that this work was not in dispute and that the picketing which its members engaged in on September 8 or l l and October 6, 1969, was instituted solely to advise the public that Baggs Electric Company was not paying the prevailing area wage rates for electricians. C. The Applicability of the Statute Aside from the testimony of Baggs himself, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the Respondent Union had any interest in acquiring the work alleged to be in dispute. In his testimony, Baggs stated that the September picket was removed only after he had agreed to discharge his employees and hire Respondent's members. Similarly, he contended that the object of the October picketing was likewise to pressure the General Contractor Griffin as well as himself into assigning the electrical work to Respondent's members. Nevertheless, Baggs admitted, at least with regard to the legend on the second picketing sign, that it did in fact protest the payment of substandard wages. His testimony regarding the first sign was vague and uncertain; he could not indicate what in fact he thought the language on the first sign contained. The union witnesses, on the other hand, testified clearly as to the legends appearing on both signs, and the testimony indicated that each sign was nothing more than a protest that Baggs was not paying wages in accordance with the prevailing area standards. In this regard it was noted that Baggs was in fact paying substandard area wages. Thus the record disclosed that a journeyman electrician who was a member of the Respondent received $5.65 per hour whereas Baggs admittedly paid his journeyman electricians only $4 per hour. Additionally, Respondent' s Business Agent Netherton, credibly testified that the September picket sign was removed immediately after Baggs agreed to pay the prevailing rate, and that the picket was reestablished in October only after it was made clear that Baggs would not live up to his prior assurance to meet area wage rates. This testimony was corroborated by several witnesses who were present during the conversations involved. Netherton's testimony is further supported by the fact that Respondent took no action to actually shut down the job in question. Thus, Respondent made it clear to the Building Trades Council that it was only going to picket the gate used by Baggs, that it had no desire to shut down the job, and that it in fact wished the other trades to continue working by making use of the other two gates. Lastly it was noted that Respondent's contention that there was no dispute is supported by the fact that Respondent had cancelled its collective-bargaining agreement with Baggs only the month before, purportedly because he would not honor the terms of the agreement regarding the employment of union electricians. Clearly, Respondent did not wish to represent Baggs' employees. On the basis of all of the foregoing considerations, we are unable to rely upon the testimony of Baggs as demonstrating that Local 700 exerted unlawful pressure for the object prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(D). We conclude, therefore, that there is insufficient evidence in the record to give reasonable cause to believe that Local 700 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Thus, the dispute herein is not a dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k). 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.