Local 504, Transport Wkrs. Union

538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Transport Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO and Local 504, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO and Triangle Maintenance Corporation andLocal 732, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Local 32-B, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO and Port of New York Authority. Case 29-CD-82 November 10, 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 charges filed on August 11, 1969, by Triangle Maintenance Corporation, hereinafter Triangle, al- leging that the International Union, the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 504, hereinafter TWU and Local 504, respectively, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring Triangle to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by TWU and Local 504 rather than to employees represented by Local 732, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter Local 732. A duly scheduled hearing was held on November 12 and 20, 1969, before Hearing Officer Martin H. Zuckerman. All parties were served with due notice of 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, Triangle filed a brief, and TWU and Local 504 filed a joint brief.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record, the Board makes the following findings. I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Triangle, Triangle Building Cleaning Company, Inc., and International Building Maintenance Supply Co., Inc., are three corporations which are wholly 1 Neither the Port of New York Authority nor Local 32-B, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter Local 32-B, appeared at the hearing or filed briefs. 2 The Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union, Local Union owned by Ralph Fine, the president of each, and these corporations maintain a joint office at 145-119 New York Boulevard, Jamaica, New York. Triangle is engaged in the cleaning and maintenance of buildings in New York and, inter alia, has contracts with Eastern Air Lines, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, and Air France. During 1969 it received in excess of $1 million in revenue from such contracts. Triangle Building is similarly engaged in the cleaning and maintenance of buildings and likewise received in excess of $1 million in revenue during 1969. Interna- tional Building purchases supplies and sells them to the approximately 25 corporations in the Triangle family of corporations, including the two mentioned herein. During 1969 International Building purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 from outside of the State of New York. Ralph Fine controls the labor relations policies of each corporation. He negotiated and signed the collective-bargaining agreement that each corpora- tion has with the particular union representing its employees. On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the above corporations function as a single integrated enterprise and constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.2 We find further that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the operations of Triangle, Triangle Building, and International Building, the Employer herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that TWU, Local 504, and Local 732 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED DISPUTE The work which gave rise to this proceeding involves the cleaning services performed at John F. Kennedy International Airport in the International Arrivals Building and Control Tower, hereinafter referred to as IAB and CT, respectively, and jointly as IAB-CT. A. The Facts In July 1969,3 Triangle became the successful bidder for cleaning work covering the IAB and CT. For some 10 years prior to this time, TWU and/or its Local 504, had collective-bargaining agreements with each successful bidder for the above work, except for a portion of the IAB which was cleaned by employees represented by Local 32-B. Local 32-B also repre- No. 68, AFL-CIO (State Lathing Co., Inc., and Drywall Steel Erectors, Inc.), 153 NLRB 1189. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter occurred in 1969. 186 NLRB No. 71 LOCAL 504, TRANSPORT WKRS. UNION sensed under a separate contract employees of Triangle who were cleaning individual space occupied by KLM, BOAC, Swissair, and Iberia Airlines. This latter agreement, which provided for lower wages and other economic benefits than the TWU contract, was effective until November 1970. Even before Triangle was awarded the IAB-CT contract, Local 504 was aware that Triangle had been invited to bid for the work. Thus, on June 20, Local 504 wrote Triangle a letter advising of its agreement covering the employees performing the work and notifying Triangle that, should its bid be successful, it "must retain these employees, assume the obligations of Local 504's labor contract including accrued severance allowance, vacation, and sick leave." On July 24, after Triangle was awarded the contract, Local 504 sent Triangle a wire in which it requested an "immediate meeting to discuss transfer of present employees covered under T.12.U. [sic] agreement from Allied to Triangle Maintenance."4 On the next day., Local 504, directed another wire to Triangle stating that it would continue "to respect any job site covered by [Union] 32 B." Thereafter, Triangle made no offer to the former Allied employees for work under their new contract but immediately after being awarded the IAB-CT contract placed job advertisements in three major New York metropolitan newspapers and hired ap- proximately 25 to 30 new employees prior to August 1. The newly hired employees in fact worked first on a 4- day job at the Trans-Carribbean Terminal and then were instructed to report to work at the IAB-CT jobsite on August 1. On July 31, the day before Triangle was to begin work on the IAB-CT job, a meeting between representatives of Triangle, TWU, and Local 32-B was held at the office of the latter. Although Triangle sought to extend its agreement with Local 32-B to include the new work at IAB-CT, Local 32-B disclaimed any interest in representing the employees hired to perform this work. At this same meeting, TWU continued to insist that Triangle retain the former Allied employees and negotiate a new contract to replace the expiring Allied-TWU agreement. The meeting ended with no agreement being reached. On August 1, employees of Triangle began work at IAB-CT and members of TWU and/or Local 504, individuals formerly employed by Allied, began picketing of the IAB and have continued to do so sporadically to the date of the hearing. The pickets carried signs reading "Triangle Unfair to Labor" or 4 Although the original of the wire was addressed inadvertently to TWU, it was intended for Triangle and apparently so understood by Triangle 5 Several days later this agreement was revoked and a similar recognition agreement was executed substituting Tnangle Building Cleaning Corporation which was actually doing the work for Tnangle 539 "Triangle on Strike." After the picketing commenced, the new employees were organized by Local 732, International Brotherhood of Teamsters and on August 1 Triangles signed a recognition agreement with the Teamsters. B. The Contentions of the Parties TWU and Local 504 contend that the picketing was not occasioned by nor is a manifestation of a jurisdictional dispute. The Unions argue in effect that the dispute was between Triangle and the Unions over the retention of the jobs of the former Allied employees, and that the picketing was also in protest over employees doing the same work for less pay. The Unions contend further that on the first day of the picketing no other union nor group of employees aside from TWU claimed the work and that for the foregoing reasons the picketing did not violate the proscriptions of Section 8(b)(4)(D).6 Triangle contends that a jurisdictional dispute exists and appears to request the Board to award the work to employees represented by Local 732. C. The Applicability of the Act Section 10(k) of the Act provides that the Board, before it may proceed to a determination of dispute thereunder, must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. We are unable to reach such a conclusion in this case. The current dispute is in many significant respects identical to that which arose in Waterway Terminals Company, 185 NLRB No. 35, where the Board held that the picketing of Waterway "was solely for the object of preserving the carloading work for the employees who had been doing it" and that such a dispute is not the type of controversy Congress intended the Board to resolve under Section 8(b)(4)(D). Here, TWU and/or Local 504 picketed for a similar objective-to obtain reemployment of former Allied employees whom Triangle had chosen not to utilize and to compel Triangle to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement covering such em- ployees. 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. 6 In view of our disposition herein, we find it unnecessary to consider the Unions' further contention that Tnangle is not a proper charging party. r As we noted in Waterway Terminals Company, supra, at In 6, and for similar reasons, we do not imply or consider whether the conduct herein was violative of other sections of the Act