Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Etc., Local Union 327

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 170 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Cuyahoga, Lake, Geauga and Ashtabula Counties District
Council and Locals 11, 182, 105, 404, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region, in writing, whether or not it will re-
frain from forcing or requiring Berti, by means proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to carpenters rather
than to lathers.
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local Union
No. 327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
and S & W Construction Company of Tenn ., Inc. and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local
Union No. 429 ( George D. Edwards Electric Company, Inc.
and Purvis Electric Company , a Joint Venture). Case No.
26-CD-11. April 22, 1963
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, following the filing of charges under Section 8(b) (4) (D)
of the Act. A hearing was held before Roger B. Holmes, hearing
officer, on February 5 and 6, 1963. All parties who appeared at the
hearing were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon the
issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.r Briefs were filed by
all parties and have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board 2 makes the following
findings :
1. S & W Construction Company of Tennessee, Inc., herein called
S & W, is a Tennessee corporation engaged in building construction
as a general contractor. George D. Edwards Electric Company, Inc.,
herein called Edwards, is a Tennessee corporation engaged in con-
struction work as an electrical subcontractor. Harry Purvis, individu-
ally, and d/b/a Purvis Electric Company, herein called Purvis, is also
engaged in construction work as an electrical subcontractor. During
the past 12 months each of the foregoing companies purchased and
'At the close of the hearing, the Teamsters moved "to dismiss this hearing" on the
grounds that there is no showing that a jurisdictional dispute exists , there is no showing
of a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D), and there Is no evidence that the Teamsters induced
a work stoppage In connection with the unloading of "ramming paste. " For reasons stated
infra the motion Is denied.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board-bas delegated Its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel :[Chairman McCulloch and
Members Rodgers and' Leedoml.
142 NLRB No. 19.
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 327 171
received materials valued in excess of $50,000 from sources outside the
State of Tennessee.
We find that each of the companies 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. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers Local Union
No. 327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called
Teamsters, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 429, herein called IBEW, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The dispute.
A. Facts
Consolidated Aluminum Corporation is constructing a plant for the
manufacture of aluminum at New Johnsonville, Tennessee. S & W
has the contract for the installation of furnaces at the project. On
November 28, 1962, S & W subcontracted certain electrical work to
Edwards and Purvis as a joint venture. The subcontract specifically
provides that the work is to include "unloading from rail cars and
installing carbon blocks, collector bars, asbestos sleeves on collector
bars and ramming paste." About December 20, 1962, a carload of
"ramming paste" was delivered to the construction site to be used by
the electrical subcontractors in their work on the furnaces. The "ram-
ming paste" was delivered in sacks weighing from 150 to 200 pounds.
Edwards and Purvis assigned electricians to unload the sacks by hand
from the railroad car, to transport it by forklift truck from the siding
to a nearby shed or warehouse, and to unload the sacks from the fork-
lift truck. On learning of this work being performed by electricians,
a representative of the Teamsters demanded the work of S & W as be-
longing to warehousemen who were members of the Teamsters. At a
meeting of all interested parties held on January 10, 1963, representa-
tives of the Teamsters and IBEW each asserted that members of his
organization were entitled to perform the work of unloading "ramming
paste" and other electrical materials. However, the IBEW repre-
sentative offered to share this work with the Teamsters. The latter
refused. On January 11, 1963, the Teamsters began picketing the
project with a sign reading:
S & W Construction Company and Subcontractors Edwards and
Purvis refuse to assign work in accordance with contract and
jurisdictional decisions with Teamsters Local 327.
On January 14, 1963, the sign was changed to delete the words "Sub-
contractors Edwards and Purvis" The picketing continued until
January 21, 1963, on which date the parties agreed to submit the dis-
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pute to the Board. While the picketing continued, employees other
than electricians refused to cross the picket line and most work ceased.
B. Contention of the parties
S & W, Edwards, Purvis, and IBEW each contend that the disputed
work was assigned to electricians in accordance with the practice of
the companies and of other electrical contractors in the area. The
Teamsters asserts that its members are entitled to the work under the
terms of a collective-bargaining contract with S & W, and rulings
made by the AFL-CIO and the National Joint Board for the Settle-
ment of Jurisdictional Disputes.
C. Applicability of the statute
We find upon the basis of the foregoing that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated. Accord-
ingly, we further find that the dispute is properly before the Board
for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
D. Merits of the dispute
The evidence is overwhelming that it is long-established industry
practice within the area of New Johnsonville, Tennessee, for elec-
tricians to unload materials which they are expected to use in con-
struction. There is also evidence by employer representatives that it
is more efficient and convenient for electrical contractors to employ
electricians to do the unloading and storing of materials they are later
to use.
The Teamsters claim that S & W is bound by a collective-bargaining
agreement between the Teamsters and the Nashville Chapter of the
Associated General Contractors which allegedly assigns the disputed
work to warehousemen. The agreement states that it is binding on
subcontractors. The agreement purports to cover drivers of various
types of vehicles, but also has a wage rate for warehousemen and a
description as follows :
Warehouseman-Jurisdiction as defined in agreements between
Teamster International Union and other International Union.
Use of warehouseman will not be required unless sufficient work
is involved to furnish steady employment to a man or men work-
ing under this classification for a reasonable length of time.
The Teamsters admits that S & W did not sign this contract, but as-
serts that S & W orally agreed to abide by its terms. The S & W rep-
resentative testified that he was asked, but refused, to sign the agree-
ment, but did say after leafing through the document that he would
adhere to its working rules on the job. However, no discussion took
place as to unloading work or the Teamsters' claim as to work
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 327 173
jurisdiction of warehousemen. It thus appears that S & W did not
sign the Nashville agreement and that agreement itself is vague as
to the work jurisdiction of warehousemen. There is no evidence of any
agreement between the Teamsters and the IBEW internationals rela-
tive to the jurisdiction of warehousemen. Accordingly, the con-
tract could not under any posture be a defense to this proceeding
because it is not clear and unambiguous.'
Although the Teamsters asserts that there are numerous decisions
of the AFL-CIO and the Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdic-
tional Disputes assigning the work of loading and unloading vehicles
to the Teamsters, there is in evidence no decision bearing upon the par-
ticular dispute involved in the present case. On the contrary, the
"Green Book" published by the Building and Construction Trades
Department of the AFL-CIO as a guide for the settlement of jurisdic-
tional disputes contains a memorandum of understanding between the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Inter-
national Hod Carriers' Building and Common Laborers Union which
acknowledges IBEW jurisdiction "over handling of all electrical
material, beginning with the unloading at the first point of delivery
on the job, and continuing through its ultimate use or disposal."
This is precisely the kind of work claimed by the IBEW in this case.
Although this agreement is not with the Teamsters, its publication in
the "Green Book" would seem to reflect an understanding by AFL-
CIO officials that this unloading and handling work belongs to elec-
tricians. In any event, the evidence is indisputable that for many
years it has been the practice in the area where the dispute arose
for electricians to unload materials which they are going to use in con-
struction. Furthermore, as the materials are delivered intermittently,
it is more efficient to use the electricians who are on the jobsite to do
the work in question rather than hire teamsters each time such work
is available.
In view of the foregoing, particularly the evidence as to practice, we
shall determine the jurisdictional dispute by awarding the disputed
work to electricans. The present determination is limited to the par-
ticular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. The Board is
assigning this work to electricians, who are represented by the IBEW,
and not to the IBEW or its members.
We find that the Teamsters is not and was not entitled by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require S &
W, Edwards, or Purvis to assign the disputed work to warehousemen
rather than to electricians.4
S Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO (Northern metal
Company), 137 NLRB 1451 ; Local 553, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, at al. ( Schiavone cE Sons, Inc., and Schiavone . Terminals, Inc.), 136' NLRB 993.
' After the elo8se of the hearing, Bricklayers , Masons, and Plasterers International Union
of America moved to intervene to protect its asserted right to install pot linings. The
present decision deals only with a dispute as to the handling of materials on a particular
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act:
1. Electricians employed by George D. Edwards Electric Company,
Inc., and Purvis Electric Company, a joint venture, who are rep-
resented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, Local Union No. 429, are entitled to perform the work of un-
loading "ramming paste" and other materials to be used by electricians
in their construction work at the Consolidated Aluminum Corpora-
tion project in New Johnsonville, Tennessee.
2. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers Local Union
No. 327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is not, and has
not been, lawfully entitled to force or require S & W Construction
Company of Tennessee, Inc., and George D. Edwards Electric Com-
pany, Inc., and Purvis Electric Company, a joint venture, to assign
the disputed work to warehousemen.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers Lo-
cal Union No. 327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, shall
notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, in writ-
ing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring S & W
Construction Company of Tennessee, Inc., and George D. Edwards
Electric Company, Inc., and Purvis Electric Company, a joint ven-
ture, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign the work
in dispute to warehousemen, who are its members, rather than to
electricians, who are represented by International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 429.
job. There is no dispute , and therefore no Board determination , as to Installation of this
material . Inasmuch as the present decision cannot in any way prejudice the Bricklayers,
the motion to intervene is hereby denied.
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America , AFL-CIO, Its Division 1230
and Their Agent Mario Zoccolante and Plymouth and Brock-
ton Street Railway Company . Case No. 1-CB-791. April 23,
1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 7, 1963, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent Division 1230 and its agent, Mario Zoccolante, had en-
142 NLRB No. 24.