United Brotherhood of Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 29, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 186 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, District Council for Kansas
City and Vicinity and Local 311 , United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO' and Prestressed Casting Company and
Hod Carriers and General Laborers Local 319
International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers Local 584 , and Kenneth
Halpain , Its Agent and Prestressed Casting Com-
pany and Hod Carriers and General Laborers Local
319. Cases 17-CD- 180 and 17-CD-181.
November 29, 1974
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
brief, the Board makes the following findings:
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer is a Missouri corporation engaged in
the manufacture , delivery, and installation of pres-
tressed and precast concrete products from its Spring-
field, Missouri, plant facility to various construction
jobsites in the States of Missouri , Kansas , Arkansas,
and Oklahoma , and annually sells more than $50,000
in goods and services directly to customers located out-
side the State of Missouri.
The parties stipulated ,' and we find , that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectu-
ate the purposes and policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a
charge filed by Prestressed Casting Company, herein
called Employer, alleging that United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Dis-
trict Council for Kansas City and Vicinity and Local
311, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, District Council for Kansas City
and Vicinity and Local 311, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein
called Carpenters, and International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Lo-
cal 584, and Kenneth Halpain, its agent, herein called
Iron Workers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act, by seeking to force the Employer to assign the
work in dispute described herein to employees repre-
sented by the Iron Workers rather than to employees
represented by Hod Carriers and General Laborers Lo-
cal 319, herein called Laborers. Pursuant to notice, a
hearing was held in Joplin, Missouri, on August 13 and
14, 1974, before Hearing Officer Edward D. Pribble.
All parties 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 filed a brief in
support of its position.
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
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Carpen-
ters, Iron Workers, and Laborers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The work at the Joplin County Courts Building con-
sists of job preparation, the actual setting, and the
patch or repair of the product after setting. The job
preparation consists of assisting the crane operator and
oiler in assembling the crane and miscellaneous general
labor. The actual setting process requires the skills of
signaling the crane operator, leveling and aligning the
product as it is put in place, plumbing with a plumb
line, welding the connections between the product
pieces once they are in place, and the general cleanup
afterward. Patching or repair work generally is neces-
sary on all jobs.
The Employer assigned the work described above to
a crew equally comprised of laborers and carpenters,
and informed the two Unions of its decision. On July
1, 1974, the actual installation began. Yet, beginning
about July 2 or 3, the Carpenters failed to provide its
50-percent share of the crew.
B. The Work in Dispute
The disputed work concerns the assignment of the
following work tasks: installation, including erection or
"setting" of prestressed and precast concrete products
and related patching or repairing work, at the Joplin
County Courts Building, Joplin, Missouri. The Iron
Names appear as amended and corrected at hearing 2 The Carpenters refused to enter into a stipulation in this regard
215 NLRB No. 37
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
Workers has disclaimed all of the "related patching or
repairing work" and also the "grouting" which is in-
cluded in the installation work.'
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the work does not re-
quire much skill, that its past practice has been to use
a crew comprised equally of laborers and carpenters,
that the two crews are highly efficient, and that the
laborers' wage scale is more economical.
The Iron Workers contends that the work requires
a high degree of skill and notes the extensive training
of ironworkers dealing with iron products. In particu-
lar, they note the apprentice school and training which
apparently included precast concrete work. In addi-
tion, they contend that ironworkers would be more
efficient than laborers.
The Laborers contends that skilled work is not in-
volved and that their apprentice schools and training
included similar training with precast concrete pro-
ducts. The Laborers also contends that the assignment
of laborers is at least as efficient and more economical
than the assignment of ironworkers.
The Carpenters contends that the work in dispute is
between the Laborers and Iron Workers. The fact that
carpenters will comprise 50 percent of the setting crew
is not in dispute.
D. Applicability of the Statute
On July 1, the Carpenters and Iron Workers business
agents told Billy Grantham, the Employer's setting
foreman, that the Employer could finish the prepara-
tion work for the installation of the prestressed and
precast concrete, but could not set any into place. Later
the same day, the Laborers claimed its portion of the
installation crew work. Still later the same day, Ed
Maddux, the Carpenters business agent, had a conver-
sation with William Johnson, president of the Em-
ployer. During the conversation, Maddux told Johnson
that only carpenters and ironworkers could set the pre-
cast concrete according to a recent oral agreement be-
tween the two Unions. Maddux added, "there was go-
ing to be trouble," if the Employer persisted with its
original assignment . At a later conversation on July 2,
with business representatives from the Carpenters, La-
borers, and Iron Workers present, Iron Workers busi-
ness representative said if the Employer decided to per-
form the installation without the ironworkers they then
would picket the jobsite. Accordingly, we find reasona-
ble cause to believe that a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dispute is prop-
3 The Iron Workers disclaimed this work on the grounds that it was not
within its traditional work
187
erly before the Board for determination under Section
10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after taking into
account the evidence supporting the claims of the par-
ties and balancing all relevant factors.'
We shall set forth below those factors which we find
relevant in determining the dispute herein.'
1. The Employer's assignment and efficiency of
operations
Under the Employer's assignment , carpenters per-
form the welding, do the general carpentry work, and
plumb the beams. Laborers assist with this work and
hook up the crane to the various products and signal
the crane. The Employer considers laborer and carpen-
ter crews to be highly efficient. The laborers are ex-
perienced in handling the Employer's precast products
and have demonstrated their capabilities over the years.
In addition, the Iron Workers has disclaimed a part of
the work in dispute, the "related patching or repairing
work" and also the "grouting" which is included in the
installation work. For these reasons, we conclude that
an assignment to employees represented by the Iron
Workers would have been inefficient and this factor
favors an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by the Laborers.
2. Employer and area practice
The Employer's consistent and unbroken practice
for approximately 17 years has been to assign the dis-
puted work to a crew equally comprised of laborers and
carpenters. Laborers and carpenters are now doing two
of the major precast concrete product installation jobs
in the Joplin, Missouri, area. The Employer has per-
formed nearly all of the past precast concrete jobs in the
Joplin, Missouri, area and all of these have been per-
formed with laborer and carpenter crews. In at least
four instances, the Employer has assigned at least part
of precast concrete work to ironworkers. However,
those assignments involved work not within the juris-
diction of all three labor organizations. The evidence
indicated that, prior to the dispute herein, ironworkers
4 NLR B v Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Co-
lumbia Broadcasting System), 364 U S 573 ( 1961), International Associa-
tion of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A Jones Construction
Company), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410-11 (1962)
5 There are no collective-bargaining agreements directly involved with the
work in dispute . In addition , none of the Unions has been certified by the
Board as the collective-bargaining representative of employees of the Em-
ployer
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had performed precast concrete work on only one pro-
ject within the jurisdiction of all the unions involved
herein, and their work was performed with a crew of
carpenters, laborers, and ironworkers. Accordingly,
company and area practice favor an award to em-
ployees represented by the Laborers.
3. Relative skills
The Employer contends that the work required of
the laborers does not take much skill. The crane hook
is inserted in an eye or cable which is embedded in and
protrudes from the product at engineer-determined
points, and apparently the crane is designed to handle
any maneuvering that might be required for the various
products used. The laborers have had about 17 to 18
years' experience with the Employer's precast concrete
installation operations and have demonstrated they do
very good quality work. The Employer considers car-
penters in general more proficient in all of the skills
required than either laborers or ironworkers, and on
this basis prefers that half of the precast concrete instal-
lation crew be carpenters. We therefore conclude that
the factor of skills favors an award of the disputed work
to employees represented by the Laborers.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the
entire record, in particular the Employer's assignment
and efficiency and economy of operations, the Em-
ployer's past practice, area practice, as well as the skill
and training of the employees involved, we conclude
that the employees of Prestressed Casting who are
represented by the Laborers are entitled to the work in
question and we shall determine the dispute in their
favor.
Accordingly, we shall award the disputed work to
those employees who are represented by the Laborers,
but not to that Union or its members.
Scope of Award
The Employer argues that the dispute between these
Unions extends beyond the jobsite and the award
should be coextensive with the jurisdictional areas of
the three contending labor organizations, or in the al-
ternative at least so far as those jurisdictions overlap
within the Southwest Missouri area, namely Jasper,
Newton, and McDonald Counties. There appears to be
considerable merit in this alternative. The evidence is
uncontroverted that the Carpenters and Iron Workers
have a local verbal agreement where they will work
equally comprised composite crews on all precast or
prestressed concrete. Kenneth Turnbull, Iron Workers
business agent, testified that the agreement is not be-
tween the two Internationals, but between the Carpen-
ters and Iron Workers agents with the approval of the
International. The Laborers business agent testified
that in the future he intended to claim his portion of the
installation of precast concrete. Thus, the dispute at the
Joplin is merely an incident in the basic disagreement
between the parties. Unless our jurisdictional determi-
nation is coextensive with the area of dispute, it is likely
to recur at other jobsites of the Employer in the area.
Accordingly, our determination will extend to Jasper,
Newton, and McDonald Counties, the overlapping ju-
risdictional areas of these three contending labor
organizations.'
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, upon the basis
of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the Board hereby makes the following
Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Prestressed Casting Company,
Springfield, Missouri, currently represented by Hod
Carriers and General Laborers Local 319, are entitled
to perform the work of installation, including erection
or "setting" of prestressed and precast concrete pro-
ducts and related patching or repairing work at the
Joplin County Courts Building, Joplin, Missouri, and
any similarly disputed work performed by Prestressed
Casting Company, in Jasper, Newton, and McDonald
Counties.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, District Council for Kansas City
and Vicinity and Local 311, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Or-
namental Iron Workers Local 584, and Kenneth Hal-
pain, its agent, are not entitled, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require
Prestressed Casting Company to assign the above
work to ironworkers represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, District
Council for Kansas City and Vicinity and Local 311,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, and International Association of
6 Piledrivers Local No. 2416, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join-
ers of America, AFL-CIO (Western-Pacific Piledriving Corp), 205 NLRB
279 (1973), Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind.
(Western-Pacific Piledriving Corp), 205 NLRB 383 (1973)
Member Fanning dissents from the extension of the scope of the award
of work herein to the three-county area of Jasper, Newton, and McDonald
Counties In the absence of evidence that the Carpenters and Iron Workers
show a proclivity to violate Section 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act in order to imple-
ment their verbal agreement, he would limit the scope of the award to the
work being done at the Joplin County Courts Building in Joplin, Missouri
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 189
Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Lo - Prestressed Casting Company, by means proscribed by
cal 584, and Kenneth Halpain , its agent , shall notify Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in
the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing , dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above deter-
whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring mination.