Reinforced Iron Workers Local No. 426

REINFORCED IRON WORKERS LOCAL NO. 426 Reinforced Iron Workers rLocal No. 426, International Association of Bridge, Structural sand Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO Wnd(Jasinski Builders, Inc. and Laborers Local '. 1098, Laborers' International 'Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Carpenters District Council of Saginaw County, United Broth- erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL- CIO,and Carpenters Local 334, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CD-243 January 27, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING' NOTICE OF HEARING BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN Following the filing of charges by Thomas A. Basil, personnel consultant,' on July 22, 1970, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, was held before Hearing Officer L. W. Tucker on September 25, 1970. The Charging Party, the Employer, and the Carpenters appeared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues.' Laborer's Local 1098 filed a motion to quash. The Respondent has filed a motion to quash and a brief in support thereof. 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 powers in connection with this case 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. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. The record shows, and we find, that Jasinski Builders, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Re- spondent, the Laborers, and the Carpenters are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. The dispute. Jasinski Builders, Inc., began construction of a store, office building, and warehouse complex for S & i The other parties herein are referred to respectively as the Ironworkers or the Respondent, the Employer, the Laborers, and the Carpenters. 2 Due to a misunderstanding, the Respondent and Laborers failed to ap- pear at the hearing, but have had an opportunity to review the record made at the hearing. The Respondent has indicated that it is satisfied with the record, and has stated its position in its brief. 177 H Distributing Company at Morley's Industrial, Park in, Saginaw, Michigan, in early 'May 1970. The Em- ployer had assigned the work of placement and fitting of ferrous reinforcing rods in' the foundation wall and footings, and the placement and fitting of ferrous reinforcing wire mesh on the floor prior to the pouring of concrete and the positioning thereof during the pouring of concrete, to its employees represented by the Laborers and Carpenters. At that time the Em- ployer did not have signed contracts with any labor organizations, but abided by the wage rates and fringe benefits of the Laborers and Carpenters agreements in the area. Subsequently, on June 11, 1970, the,Em- ployer signed an interim contract with the Carpenters "for the purpose of allowing the men to work during a strike" by which the Employer agreed to "the terms and conditions of the present contract in respect to Fringe Benefits, requirements and working condi- tions." The contract thus referred- to was the then recently expired agreement between the Carpenters International and the Associated General Contrac- tors of America. One of the requirements and working conditions of that contract, which was adopted and extended by the interim agreement, was a provision that the parties would "agree to abide by the rules and regulations established by the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes." Late in July Respondent Union claimed the above- described work for employees represented by it, al- though such employees were not employed by the Employer. On July 17 through 24, 1970, Respondent Union picketed the S & H jobsite for the purpose of obtaining a work assignment of the disputed work to employees who are members of Respondent. An in- junction against such picketing issued on August 25. On September 18, 1970, 3 all parties to the work dispute met but were unable to resolve their disagree- ment over assignment of the disputed work. Subse- quently, representatives of the Carpenters, Laborers, and Ironworkers met and reached a "gentlemen's agreement," the terms of which were that the work in dispute was properly within the jurisdiction of the Ironworkers and that the Carpenters and Laborers would not claim that work. The Carpenters claims that the work dispute has been settled since the contesting unions have dis- claimed the work in favor of the Ironworkers. The Respondent Ironworkers adopts the Carpenters claim, and further moves to quash the notice of hear- ing since the dispute has been resolved locally among the contending labor organizations .4 The Employer 3 In early September 1970 the Employer signed a contract with the Labor- ers which also contained a provision for National Joint Board settlement of jurisdictional disputes. In view ofour ultimate determination, we do not need to consider the Employer's claim that it was not intended that this contract aptly retroactively. Although it is unnecessary, in view of our ultimate decision , to consider Continued 188 NLRB No. 30 178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD first claims it has not agreed to any method for volun- tary adjustment, and further contends that its assign- ment of the disputed work to the Laborers and Carpenters was proper because of a number of factors usually considered by the Board in making awards favor the Employer's assignment here. We have not considered the Employer's, latter contentions since we find the evidence does not support its initial claim. Section 10(k) of the Act directs the Board to hear and determine disputes out of which Section 8(b)(4)(D) charges have arisen. However, if all the parties to a dispute have agreed upon a method for the adjustment of the dispute, the Board is barred from making such a determination.' There is evidence in the record that all the contest- ing unions were bound to observe the procedures for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes in the build- ing and construction industry, and that pursuant to the rules and regulations of the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, repre- sentatives of the unions met in an attempt to resolve the dispute at a local level. The evidence further re- veals that the Employer is similarly bound to resolve jurisdictional disputes through the National Joint Board procedures by virtue of signing the interim Car- penters contract, effective for 1 year, incorporating the terms of the expired Carpenters contract which included a provision for referring jurisdictional dis- putes to the National Joint Board.' Therefore, as the evidence in this case establishes, and we accordingly find, that all parties have agreed upon a method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute, we shall quash the notice of hearing issued herein? ORDER It is hereby ordered that the Notice of Hearing issued in this proceeding be, and it hereby is, quashed. 5 International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, Local 28 (Paul Jensen, Inc, et at), 186 NLRB No 20. the RFspondent's arguments which rely on the decision of the Court of 6 For the reason stated in Paul Jensen, Inc, supra, the Employer's obhga- Appeals for the District of Columbia in Plasterers Local 79 v. N.L R B, 440 tion to the Joint Board is independent of the AGC's membership status with F 2d 174, we note that the Board has expressed its disagreement with the respect to that Board court's views gs stated therein See Lathers Local 104 (Associated General See International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Contractors), 186 NLRB No. 70. Ironworkers, Local 75, AFL-CIO (Stearns-Roger Corp), 184 NLRB No. 30.