Teamsters Local Union 991

900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 991 and Power Piping Company and United Association,of Journeymen and Apprentices of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Plumb- ing and Pipe Fitting Contracting Division of the Construction Industry, Local Union No. 366. Case 15-CD-179 October 20, 1972 whose principal office is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is a general contractor engaged in the building and construction industry. In the course and conduct of its business in the previous year, it shipped directly from its Pittsburgh plant goods valued in excess of $50,000. Accordingly, we find, as the parties have stipulated, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by Power Piping Company, herein called the Employer, alleging that Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 991, herein called Teamsters, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees represented by Teamsters rather than to employees represented by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Plumb- ing and Pipe Fitting Contracting Division of the Construction Industry, Local Union No. 366, herein called Pipefitters. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Peyton Lacy, Jr., on June 15, 1972, in Pensa- cola, Florida. The Employer, Teamsters, Pipefitters, and Mobile Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, herein called Mobile AGC, 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.' The Em- ployer filed a posthearing brief. 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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer, a Pennsylvania corporation 1 The Hearing Officer permitted Mobile AGC to intervene because of Teamsters assertion that the Employer was bound to the contract executed between Mobile AGC and the Mobile-Pensacola Building and Construction Trades Council, which provided that the teamsters would perform the work in dispute II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS The parties stipulated, and we find, that Team- sters and Pipefitters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute consists of handling mate- rials received at the Employer's craft storeroom 2 at the Crist Steam Plant construction site, Pensacola, Florida, and the driving of two pickup trucks in con- nection with the handling of such materials within the construction site. B. Background and Facts of the Dispute Gulf Power Company is the general contractor for the construction of generator 7 at the Crist Steam Plant, Pensacola, Florida. The Employer is a subcon- tractor for installation of power piping. It began work on the project about June 1971. At that time, the Employer assigned its work to its own 80 employees, who are pipefitters represented by Pipefitters, with whom the Employer has a contract. Beginning in March 1972, Teamsters, through its secretary-treasurer, Mort Sherman, and its business agent, Charles E. Merritt, sent a series of letters to Employer claiming the work in question. On May 8, 1972, there was a conversation between Merritt and Employer's construction manager, Robert A. Patter- son. Merritt again stated Teamsters claim to the dis- puted work. Patterson answered that the work properly belonged to pipefitters. On the next day, Teamsters began to picket the jobsite. The picketing continued through May 11. On May 16, Patterson expressed to Merritt his desire that Teamsters and Pipefitters work together to settle the dispute. Merritt 2 The central warehouse is the prime contractor's general warehouse where all materials to be used on the project are first delivered From there, the materials are dispatched to the, various subcontractors who will eventually utilize these materials and are then stored in special craft warehouses or storerooms Part of the instant dispute revolves around the operations of the Employer's craft storeroom. 199 NLRB No. 149 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 991 901 responded that Teamsters would continue picketing at his discretion until the disputed work was assigned to teamsters. Thereafter, Teamsters resumed picket- ing on May 17 and 18. Since that time, however, no picketing has occurred and construction has been proceeding normally. C. Contentions of the Parties Teamsters contends that the disputed work should be assigned to it pursuant to work rules incor- porated into a contract executed by the Mobile-Pen- sacola Building and Construction Trades Council, herein called Trades Council, of which Teamsters is an affiliate, and the Mobile AGC, to which, Team- sters contends, the Employer has agreed to be bound. The Employer contends that the assignment of the work is governed solely by the contract it signed with Pipefitters, which provides that work in dispute is to be performed by employees represented by Pipe- fitters. It specifically denies that it is signatory to, or is any way bound, by, the Mobile AGC-Trades Coun- cil contract. The Employer also argues that economy and area practice dictate an assignment of the work to Pipefitters. Pipefitters position is substantially the same as the Employer's; namely, that employees represented by Pipefitters are entitled to the work, in view of its contract with the Employer, contracts it signed with other contractors, longstanding area practice, and ef- ficiency operation. The Mobile AGC contends that the Employer is not party to the Mobile AGC-Trades Council con- tract. Moreover, it claims that the work rules relied on by Teamsters as contractual authority for its jurisdic- tion were never agreed upon by the Mobile AGC and the Trades Council and hence were never incorporat- ed into the aforementioned contract. The Mobile AGC also argues that to assign to teamsters the dis- puted work would be contrary to area practice and economy and efficiency of operation. It finally con- tends that the handling of materials in the Employer's craft storeroom calls for special knowledge of the var- ious kinds of pipefitting materials that only a pipefit- ter possesses. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section (b)(4)(D) has been violated. On the basis of a stipulation by all parties that Teamsters on May 9, 10, 11, 17, and 18, 1972, picketed the Crist Steam Plant in furtherance of its request that the work in dispute be assigned to its members , we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to various relevant factors. 1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements The collective-bargaining agreement in effect 3 between the Employer and Pipefitters at the time of the picketing clearly provides for an assignment of the work in question to employees represented by Pipefit- ters. Article II, paragraph 7, of that the contract spe- cifically provides that the contract covers: the rates of pay, hours and working conditions of all journeymen and apprentices engaged in the installation of all . . . pipefitting systems .. . including ... servicing and handling, unloading, distributing . . . all piping materials, appurtenan- ces and equipment . . . [Emphasis supplied.] Although Teamsters contended that it had a contrac- tual claim to the work in dispute, the Employer and Mobile AGC deny the existence of any such contract. We need not decide that issue; for reasons set forth below the existence of that contract would not be determinative. 2. Employer and area practice The employer has built two other power units at the Crist Steam Plant in the past 15 years. It has also participated in the building of similar installations all over the country. On each of these projects, it has consistently assigned the work in dispute to pipefit- ters. The evidence as to area practice is that local electrical and mechanical contractors customarily as- sign the work of unloading, checking, and warehous- ing of specific materials and the onsite trasnport of such materials to the craftsmen who use those mate- rials in their work.4 As for Teamsters, its business agent, Charles E. Merritt, cited isolated projects in 3 The most recent contract would have expired on March 31 , 1972, a new contract was not signed until June 8, 1972. However, prior to March 31, the parties agreed to continue the old contract from day to day, until a new contract could be executed. The evidence derives chiefly from a poll of approximately 20 mechanical and electrical contractors faken by Frank Hawkins, executive secretary of the Gulf Coast Chapter of the National Electric Contracting Association and the executive secretary of the Mobile Mechanical Contractors' Association. All the firms polled operate out of the gulf coast area and do both construction and maintenance work, most of it large scale . However, very few are engaged in powerplant construction as is the Employer. 902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which teamsters were assigned the disputed work, but admitted that for the last 5-7 years the disputed work, previously assigned to teamsters, had been custom- arily assigned to other craft groups. Employer and area practice, therefore, favor the Employer's assign- ment. 3. Skills, efficiency, and economy of operation The operation of the Employer's two pickup trucks does not involve any special skill. However, the operation of the craft storeroom , insofar as it encom- passes the handing out of pipefitter materials, in- volves knowledge of the properties of various fittings and of which fittings are appropriate for specific tasks . Pipefitters possess such knowledge ; teamsters do not. With respect to efficiency and economy of opera- tions, the record discloses that the two trucks are used only rarely to haul tools and materials . Frequently the truck is used for incidental chores such as getting mail and transporting men. Very often, the trucks would remain idle, waiting to be used to take injured men to the hospital. This being the case, it would be ineffi- cient for an employee represented by Teamsters to be assigned the work, because such an employee would spend little productive time on the job. In view of the foregoing, we find that the factors of skill, efficiency, and economy of operation favor the Employer's assignment. 4. Conclusions Having considered all pertinent factors present herein, we conclude that employees who are repre- sented by Pipefitters are entitled to perform the work in dispute. This assignment is consistent with Employ- er and area practice, relative skills, and efficiency and economy of operations . In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees represented by the Pipefitters, but not to that Union or its members . The present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro- ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of the Employer who are currently represented by the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Contracting Division of the Construction Industry, Local Union No. 366, are entitled to handle materials received at the craft storeroom at the Crist Steam Plant construc- tion site, Pensacola, Florida, and to drive pickup trucks in connection with the handling of such mate- rials within the construction site. 2. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 991, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the Employer to assign the above work to its members or employees whom it represents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of the Decision and Determination of Dispute, the labor organization listed in the preceding paragraph shall notify the Re- gional Director for Region 15, in writing , whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Power Piping Company by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work awarded above in a manner inconsistent with the above deter- mination.