Teamsters Local Union No. 170

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 8, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 649 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 170 649 Teamsters Local Union No. 170, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and The Henley-Lundgren Co. and Massachusetts La- borers' District Council Massachusetts Laborers' District Council and Stan- dard Sign & Signal Co., Inc. and Teamsters Local Union No. 170, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs. Warehouse- men and Helpers of America. Cases I CD 557 and I-CD-558 February 8, 1979 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JNKINS AND MI RPIIY This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by the Labor Relations Division of Construction Industries of Massachusetts on behalf of its member Standard Sign & Signal Co., Inc.. herein called Standard or the Employer, alleging in Case I-CD558., that the Massachusetts Laborers' District Council. herein called Laborers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in pro- scribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to its members rather than employees represented by Teamsters 1.o- cal Union No. 170, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America. herein called Local 170. and on behalf of its member The Henley-Lund- gren Co., alleging in Case I CD-557. that ocal 170 had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engag- ing in certain proscribed activity with an object of requiring the Employer to assign that same work to its members rather than to employees represented by the Laborers. Pursuant to notice. a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Francis X. McDonough on November 27, 1978.' All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard. to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on this issue. 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 rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free 411 daie, hercina.fter are 1978 unless oherrie specified 240 NLRB No. 91 from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding. the Board makes the following findings: I lli BtSINESS OF THE E[MPIOY-R The parties stipulated, and we find, that The Hen- ley-Lundgren Co. is a Massachusetts corporation en- gaged in the business of general contracting, includ- ing highway construction. It annually purchases from sources outside the Commonwealth of Massa- chusetts goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000. The parties further stipulated that the Em- plover. Standard Sign & Signal Co.. Inc.. and its affil- iate Lancaster Engineering Co., a common employer for purposes of this proceeding, are both Massachu- setts corporations who, jointly and severally, annual- ly purchase from sources outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts goods and supplies valued in excess of $50.000. The parties also stipulated, and we so find, that the above Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. 1i Mil l BOR ORGA.NIZA\TIONS 1No(l \ ) The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local 170 and the Laborers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1ll. Fill DISPt Tt: A. Backgrolnid and Facts f 11t Dis/pute The Henley-Lundgren Co. is engaged in the con- struction of Route 52 in Oxford. Massachusetts. Henley is signatory to the statewide heavy and high- wav construction trade agreements with the Labor- ers. including the Massachusetts Laborers' District Council. as well as with the Teamsters. including Lo- cal 170. The purpose of this highway project is to link two existing interstate highways, Route 52 in Connecticut and Route 190 in Massachusetts. Part of the con- struction On this project involves work related to the installation of safety turnoff, and other directional signs. these being roadside signs and large overhead signs. Henley subcontracted this work to the Em- ployer. a specialty contractor performing work of this nature on highway construction projects. Standard is signatory to the Laborers statewide agreement, but has no agreement with the Teamsters. At the commencement of a job. the Employer 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sends a supervisor 2 and a laborer to the project site to survey the elevation. Pickup or service trucks are used for transportation to and from the jobsite and for carrying the necessary survey rods and transits. The trucks remain parked while the survey work is performed. After the survey has been completed, the Employer's construction crews, along with their tools and equipment. are transported to the site in the pickup trucks to perform the excavation, trenching,. concrete pours, pole and sign erection, and related work at the site. The trucks are driven by supervisors or laborers. When these trucks arrive at the construc- tion site they remain parked, unless it is necessary to move to another location on the job for another sign installation. On October 12, George Valery,. the business agent of Local 170. told a Henley representative that lien- ley had a subcontractor on its Route 52 job improp- erly using pickup trucks and service trucks without Teamsters drivers. Later that day the business agent visited the Route 52 project and again protested to Henley and asserted that five vehicles of Standard were not being driven by Teamsters members. The business agent stated that unless Standard either as- signed the work to employees represented by ocal 170 or left the project, Local 170 would picket the project and members of Local 170 employed by len- ley on its dump trucks working at or delivering to the site would honor that picket line. On October 13, Valery again returned to the site and reiterated that threat to Henley. As a result of this conversation. Henley's vice president, Stephen Kelleher, asked two men driving a Standard truck to leave the jobsite. Standard remained off the job for 2 weeks but thereafter returned to the site and continued its work at the project with its own employees. B. The Wlork in Disutlce The work in dispute involves the operation by the Employer of the pickup trucks and service trucks used in the transportation of personnel, tools, and equipment to and from the jobsite along the 3-mile section of Massachusetts Route 52. between the towns of Oxford and Auburn. lo the extent hat these trucks are operated h the .lltlploe ' r s super'l- sor emplo ees. wilhin the ineanlling of Sec. 2(11 of the ctl. thlt operaionl muav not be made the subhect ,f a i work ;aignimentl dispute See Bitldtn, ttaterital & Dumln in t* l)rivers loFal 42' Internatwtla Broherhodo l , lean tc'ri. ( hauflfeur. [I arihouet n and hlw/pers ,f 4newrmia (411 A ,ear n .4Aphalt. In ) 238 NLRB 934 1978). and 1.d 2al 26 attihlatcid *hith t Inteur natinal BrotherhoIl of eatr,. ( haufl"ur", It trchoutecn ari nd /t,,/I f A-im'rta (it axlon (itmln t ruIttn ( hmnpatL i 194 N IRB 594 ( 197 1 ). C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that a jurisdictional dis- pute exists and that there is reasonable cause to be- lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.3 It further contends that the work in dispute should be awarded to its employees who are represented by the laborers. Laborers position, as expressed at the hear- ing. is in accord with that of the Employer. At the hearing, Local 170 took the position that there was an agreed-upon method for the resolution of the dis- pute, but that in the alternative the work in dispute should be assigned to its members. D. Applicabilitv of' the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion 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 and that the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. The record establishes that, on October 12 and 13, Local 170 threatened to picket the jobsite of Henley and that the stated object of such picketing was to force assignment of the work in dispute to members of Local 170. In these circumstances, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated. The only evidence offered that an agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of this dispute existed was the grievance and arbitration provision in the Teamsters agreement with Henlev. Since nei- ther Standard nor the Laborers is signatory to that agreement. there is no agreed-upon method for the resolution of this dispute binding upon all parties to the dispute.4 On the basis of the entire record, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that this dispute is properly before the Board for determination. Although a charge as filed against the Massachusetts Laborers' Dis- trlcl Council. nio evidence was elicited on the record that there had been ans picketing or threats of picketing hb the Laborers or its agents. For this reasonl. ie shall quash the nlotice insofar as it relates to the Massachusetts I ahorets' District Council in (Case I (CDI) 558. 4See \ 1 R . . Plilterer Lorr l l niton V', 7'9 Operaill PlttitererC and teul At ..ltl tl' lte laliontttl Asociatin,.AFL (10 /levar State File & l'r-ar- ( 404 S 116 1971). and 1..~alt Unon ¥so 2 of the United - ot ia,{ ,, f Pt'h>o ubr er n, (o tit'rt: (. 1 If hiltu ( onraactin, ( o IHenri ( owinri lon I)iiwon). 215 NI.RB 363 365 (1974. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 170 051 F. i1criti. of ie Diputrc Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award f disputed work after giving due consideration to various factors. The following factors are relevant in miaking the determination of the dispute before us: 1. conomi and efficienc A laborer in the construction crew operates the pickup or service truck when it is driven fronl the Employer's ard to the construction j.obsite. In addi- tion to this function, a labhorer is trained bh the tIm- plover in the skills necessarx to perform the sure, excavating. tamping. shoring, concrete form setting, rod setting. concrete pouring. concrete form strip- ping. and pole erection in carr ing out the mplo - ers work in highwa sign erection. Thus. a lahborer leaves the parked vehicle and returns to ork as a productive member of the L:mployer's constructionl crew. he teamsters are not seeking the work per- formed hb laborers in erecting signs. but onl\ the driving of the pickup or service truck done bh the laborers. On the limited occasions when it is neces- sary to move the pickup or service trucks from one point to another on the johsitel a laborer is avail;thle to operate the truck. Thus. in light of the t\pc of work in which the pickup or service trucks are en- gaged. it is apparent that driving is merel, incidental to the primary function of a laborer. Since a laborer. as a member of the Employer's construction crewa. can and has operated pickup and service trucks as part of the regular assignment in that crew,. and as the assignment to employees represented hbv local 170 would result in an extra. unneeded. alnd unpro- ductive employee. it is clear that the work in dispute is done more economically if it is performed b em- plovees represented b the l.aborers rather than em- ployees represented b Local 170.6 Accordingl . we find that factors of economy and efficiency favor the assignment of the work in ispute to employees rep- resented by the aborers. 2. Employer practice and preference For the reasons stated above, the Lmplo er finds it Ihe record Indtcates thil.,t il Ilo. t.e drp ling tlllme e we ted ,r f, lah Tr tIn the lbh u,ould he approxilmltcl 311 to 4'' ro trll e ,l da1. [)ilril III, retlltralill g little. '.uh e hicle rmlalii parked l unud rc.l ed In inulair ontec\l. in Bulrding rateerrIA i ltr.n Im L 1,,,-)t I- t 42'( Itl 4tmeertin 4.,h,t. Ilt, r 238 NI RB No 1132 the HBxird .lied [(,nlph ance itih l the l ea.eitxle l deillalld tha1 . tcallrlct (j i,c 11C creC trutk ouldrqi r equirC le I rillpieCl t lie tl .Illtilil l.l t lllrpill ec loir hITmI it urlid hai.e l i tlced uhitoc r falld fill li Itrllr1t Irl 1 ol the d (hc iEndpller uld prohah Hnid ro .k i ill preferable to assign the work in dispute to emlplo)ees represented hb the laborers. and the record estab- lishes that the Employer is satisfied with the results of that assignment. Mloreover. the record sho\s that in the Emnploer's 28 ears of operation it has as- signed the operation of its pickup and service trucks for its construction crex s to laborers and prefers that such a ignilenit be conltiinued. Accordinel . we find that these factors tend to fa- vor ;a\a.rd of the wolrk in dispute to cnplo)ces repre- sented hb the La borers. ( 'Olclusion ' pon the record as a whole, and after full consid- eration of all rele \ant factors in olved.' we conclude that emplo ees who are represented bx the Laborers are entitled to perform the work in dispute. In mak- ig this determination, wke are awardting the work in question to) emnpl)ees who are represented b the l.aborers, but not to that nion or its meimbers/2 The present determination is limited to the particular cont !rovers \ hich gave rise to this proceedinl. I)I ERMINATION O01: )ISfi l-l Pur suanlt to Section 10(k) of the National ahbor Relations Act, as amenided. and upon the hasis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro- ceeding, the National [Iabor Relations Board makes the follo ing D[etermination of D)ispute: . mniplosees of Standard Sign & Signal ().. Inc.. who are represented b\ \Massachusetts Laborers' I)is- triet (Council are entitled to perform the operation of Ipickupl trucks and service trucks involved in the erec- tion of highway signs along the 3-mile section of (ormiionwolealth of Massachusetts Route 52. between the towkns of Oxford and Auburn. 2. Teamsters Local Union No. 170. affiliated ith the In ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters. (Chauf- feurs. WVarehiousemen and Helpers of America, is not entitled bh means proscribed b Section 8(bh(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Standard Sign & Signal \IlIcnlc \"IWIIIp xOld te 1lh tt tihe iL erTIrC C b.argd ll ll'. ; ¢crte l[ heirccl the i Illpol.icr t i I Ieh la.h lClA oe , 1I h, It, Clill ci\ Cr thI dlpiillcd c lI k I tld tir l I lii.xcr hi.As R1 cirrCtlrc it l i th til e i C,ii tltcls Celtlf.itiott fiv r nellh lr roLp t rtII pice Sltltliarl. Akil I troi t [.iLt11 fIlr illl eitler troup illie drille .a truL k i,. , kill vhilh plo , \ cc ofI hbtilt iroi p eti p al tIo 1 I 'e' See tl'ril t erl hi /'l t rr Itt oi t t if htrl.n I -(r' V, 1 il / (1 () .1i 1 . tt ,Itt t ( .l[rttL Il Ni RB 14i. 1411 1 I 1 1t,21 1ll 1ih11 rular dTl tII l L I: Jioard',s dec rnl lrliltnorlh ti 1 l (i i i , c h [13il Ali'l . t'I^ l ldllttO F it tIl te'rt .tn t ltt *x. " ri'. c l I uIr \lr.MrUP, C.Ie.rLce irll 1t lie/t.'il ii l t Tlt Ihe, e I.ll ill d1ti't il Tllli n Itit dtlspilC ()1ll .t ,1il ri t .Ilol]lh th ilc k k it lki, cd ; lilh 11111C1' til1 CikLip l ll[C. 1C Milk r opt .ltp, h Hrtl ltalduAs vIll, ,ic a tltllior\ \wp Cl 10I1 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Co., Inc., to assign the disputed work to employees represented by that labor organization. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Teamsters Local Union No. 170, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, shall notify the Re- gional Director for Region 1, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Em- ployer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. I IS HEREBY FURlHER ORDERED that the notice in C'ase I-CD-558 be, and it hereby is, quashed.