General Laborers' Local Union No. 66

GENERAL LABORERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 66 General Building Laborers' Local Union No. 66 of the Laborers' International Union of North America and Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Furniture, Floor, Grocery, Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local No. 138, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 29-CD- 159 March 13, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Georgia-Pacific Corporation, herein called Georgia-Pacific, alleging that General Building Laborers' Local Union No. 66 of the Laborers' International Union of North America, herein called Laborers, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring Georgia-Pacific to assign certain work to employees represented by Laborers rather than to Georgia-Pacific's employees who are represented by Furniture, Floor, Grocery, Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local No. 138, affiliated with the International Brotherhood o- Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, herein called Team- sters. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Office- Randall M. Kelly on July 17 and 20, 1973. All parties appearing at the hearing were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence on the issues. Thereafter, Georgia-Pacific filed a brief. The rulings of the Hearing Officer are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES The parties stipulated that: A. Glen Arms Construction Corp., herein called Glen Arms, a corporation engaged in the general contracting business, in the course of its business during the past year contracted for and caused to be transported to the construction site involved here at 31 Brewster Street, Glen Cove, New York, building construction materials and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported to the construction site in interstate , commerce directly from States other than New York State. 1 Gypsum board, also known as sheetrock, is a dried mineral slurry covered by paper that comes m sheets normally about 1/2 inch thick and in 611 B. Georgia-Pacific is a Georgia corporation, with branches in Syosset, New York, and elsewhere in the United States, and is engaged in the manufacture and wholesale distribution of building materials. During the 12 months preceding the hearing, Georgia-Pacific manufactured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped into New York State in interstate commerce directly from other States. On the basis of these stipulated facts, we find that the two companies are engaged in interstate com- merce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Laborers and Teamsters are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute Glen Arms is the general contractor at the Brewster Street site, an apartment construction project, and performs part of the work with its own employees, some of whom are represented by Laborers. Its current contract with Laborers provides that employ- ees in the Laborers unit would "unload from trucks ... when done by hand at the jobsite all Carpenter's material, and . . . distribute such material to . . . the point of installation where it shall be deposited in piles and stacks." Glen Arms subcontracted the carpentry work at the site, including the installation of gypsum board i on interior walls, to Mara Construction Corporation, herein called Mara, which has no contract with Laborers, so far as the record shows. Mara, in turn, contracted with the Syosset branch of Georgia- Pacific (hereafter, the Syosett branch) for the delivery of gypsum board to the site . The parties' understanding was that the gypsum board would be delivered by a truck equipped with a remote control hydraulic boom, and deposited insofar as possible via the boom fork through the building windows directly into the rooms in which it would be used. Each boom truck is operated by a driver and helper. Both are represented by Teamsters pursuant to a bargaining agreement with the Syosset branch. The Syosset branch has no bargaining agreement with Laborers. Georgia-Pacific delivered the first shipment of gypsum board on June 7, 1973, to the Brewster Street site without incident. The following day a delivery sizes ranging from 4 feet by 8 feet to 4 feet by 12 feet and weighing from 100 to 150 pounds. 209 NLRB No. 84 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD truck was sent, but returned without being unloaded because of a dispute at the site. On Monday, June 11, Fellinger, the Syosset branch manager, accompanied the delivery truck to the site. There he spoke to the Laborers shop steward, who informed him that the work of removing gypsum board from the boom fork was "his job" and that Georgia-Pacific employees could not do it. The steward, however, stated that he did not want any trouble and requested Fellinger to telephone the Laborers business agent, Phillip Sommese, to clarify the matter. Fellinger agreed to do so, and attempted unsuccessfully to call Sommese from the site. Afterwards, he had Georgia-Pacific's employees unload the truck. At about 2 p.m. the same afternoon, Fellinger succeeded in telephoning Sommese, and attempted to persuade him that Georgia-Pacific's employees should unload the boom fork. He explained that the employees were organized and that in a similar situation in Philadelphia the Laborers had been enjoined from taking action against Georgia-Pacific to get the work.2 Sommese replied that he didn't care, he wasn't in Philadelphia, it was the Laborers job to remove gypsum board from the boom fork, and he would be at the jobsite the following day to look into the matter. On Tuesday, June 12, another load of gypsum board was sent to the Brewster Street site. Fellinger also went there and, when he arrived, the truck was parked across the street from the site still loaded. After instructing the driver to complete the delivery, Fellinger met Sommese, who was accompanied by a group of Glen Arms' laborers. Sommese told Fellinger that offloading the boom fork was Laborers work; that if the Georgia-Pacific wanted to do some Laborers work, it could do all their work; and that Sommese would take his people off the job. Fellinger asked him whether he was going to call a strike or put up a picket. Sommese replied that Fellinger should just stand around and watch if Fellinger wanted to know what he was going to do. Sommese then went into the jobsite trailer of Glen Arms and spoke with the job superintendent, Sola. When Sommese came out, the laborers walked off the job. The laborers apparently returned to work that or the following day. There is no evidence of a further instance of work disruption caused by Laborers. On June 15 Laborers wrote Georgia-Pacific's counsel that it disclaimed the disputed work at the Brewster Street site. At the hearing, Laborers reiterated its disclaimer and moved to quash the 2 Fellinger was referring to the fact that in February 1973 Laborers Local 332 of Philadelphia and Vicinity had entered into an agreement in settlement of unfair labor practice charges filed by Georgia -Pacific pursuant to which Local 332 agreed not to seek by unlawful means the assignment of the work of delivciy and unloading of gypsum board by hydraulic boom to employees represented by Local 332 rather than to employees represented notice of hearing because of the absence of an existing work assignment dispute. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute is the unloading of gypsum board from the boom fork of delivery trucks equipped with remote control3 hydraulic booms. C. Contentions of the Parties Laborers contends that because of its disclaimer there is no existing work assignment dispute and that the notice of hearing should therefore be quashed. As to the merits, it contends that its contract with Glen Arms requires award of the work to laborers, that area practice and considerations of efficiency of operation support such an award, and that other factors normally considered by the Board in making awards of disputed work favor neither party to the dispute. Georgia-Pacific contends that Laborers disclaimer is ineffective to terminate the work assignment dispute because it was specifically limited to the Brewster Street site and Laborers stated at the hearing that the disclaimer did not apply to similar work which Georgia-Pacific would perform in the future. As to the merits, it contends that an award of the work to Teamsters is supported by considerations of efficiency and economy of operations and its own past practice, and that other factors normally considered by the Board are not pertinent here. D. Applicability of the Statute It is settled law that "a jurisdictional dispute no longer exists where . . . one of the competing unions or parties effectively renounces its claim to the work."4 The work in dispute does not mean work in the abstract sense, but it means the work at the situs where the dispute arose. If we were to determine the dispute and make an award of the work in this case, our award would be limited to the work at this particular jobsite. Here, Laborers has disclaimed that work and there is no evidence that it has acted inconsistently with the disclaimer. Its disclaimer is not rendered ineffective by its retention of the right to seek to have the work assigned to its members at future jobsites where Georgia-Pacific may perform it, since there is no by Teamsters Local 513 3 The description of the dispute is changed to reflect the specific type of truck involved here, as requested by Georgia-Pacific. h Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 935, AFL-CIO (C & S Construction Co. Inc), 206 NLRB No. 133. GENERAL LABORERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 66 evidence it will use illegal means to obtain the assignment.5 Under these circumstances, we find that there no longer exist competing claims to the disputed work within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore quash the notice of hearing herein. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed. CHAIRMAN MILLER and MEMBER KENNEDY, dissent- ing: This Board is "directed to hear and determine the dispute" which has given rise to a charge alleging a union's violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) unless the parties establish that they have "adjusted, or agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of, the dispute."6 Since this statutory mandate is premised on the existence of rival claims to the disputed work, we held in Safeway Stores7 that we may not render a decision and determination of dispute where "one of the unions claiming the work effectively renounces its claim. "8 (Emphasis supplied.) As the Supreme Court noted in approving that decision, we have taken a "narrow view . . . of the Safeway rule."9 We have done so especially in determining when an employer has been actually confronted with competing claims for work.10 The facts here clearly demonstrate that the Labor- ers Local Union has not renounced its claim to the type of work which caused the jurisdictional dispute in this case. The Laborers Local Union has only disclaimed interest at this one apartment construc- tion jobsite. Furthermore, it has affirmatively stated that it is not disclaiming the work at any other location. The Laborers stated at the 10(k) hearing that "we disclaim the work . . . that is, this particular location, we don't disclaim the work for any location at which Georgia-Pacific may be involved in the future." (Emphasis supplied.) It explained that the disclaimer did not stem from a lack of interest in performing the work in question, but "was motivated by the fact that there was so little [work] involved" at the Brewster Street site. Thus, because little was involved at this particular 5 Cf Local No 6, International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers (Spancrete Northeast, Inc), 196 NLRB 1182. 6 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, Sec 10(k) 7 Highway Truckdrivers & Helpers, Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent- (Safeway Store.; Incorporated), 134 NLRB 1320. 8 N.L.R.B. v Plasterers Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, AFL-CIO [Texas State Tile & Terrazzo Co, et all 404 U.S. 116,134 (1971) 9 Id at 136, and cases cited at 135, fn. 31. 10 E g., compare Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No 54 (The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and O.T.D Corporation), 203 NLRB No 21, with 613 construction site, the Laborers Local Union limited its "disclaimer" just to this site. This qualified "disclaimer" was made only after a strike over the assignment of the work had occurred and 3 days after the unfair labor practice charge in this case has been filed. At the time of the hearing Georgia-Pacific was bidding on contracts for delivery of gypsum board at other locations. At the hearing the Laborers Local Union made it clear that it was not disclaiming the same type of work for any other location. Thus, there still exists the underlying work dispute among these same parties as to who should perform the type of work in question and there still exists the substantial probability that this same jurisdictional dispute will arise once again among the same parties but at different locations.ll Our failure to act now to resolve the underlying dispute in this case can only lead to further jurisdictional disputes among these parties over this same type of work, more charges, and more 10(k) hearings. When so much concern has been expressed for so long about the Board's rising caseload, it would be expected that the Board would be willing to resolve this dispute now and avoid future conflicts and future cases over this issue. Quashing the 10(k) notice of hearing in this case fails to solve the problem. The C & S Construction 12 case relied on by our colleagues is distinguishable. In that case the respon- dent union made a clear, unequivocal, and unquali- fied disclaimer to "all interest in the work in dispute." There was no suggestion in that case that the disclaimer was limited to the jobsite in question. There was no affirmative statement by the respon- dent union in that case that it was not disclaiming the work for any other location at which the employer might be involved in the future. Unlike the C & S Construction case, the Respondent Union here has not made an effective disclaimer to all interest in the work, without conditions or limitations, and the Respondent here has given the clear implication that it will seek the work in the future at other locations. In these circumstances, we believe that the Board must fulfill its statutory obligations under Section 10(k) to determine this jurisdictional dispute. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind (Hills Transportation Co), 136 NLRB 1086, and Woo4 Wire & Metal Lathers International Union, Local No. 328, AFL-CIO (Acoustics & Specialities, Inc.), 138 NLRB 598 ii We note that there is evidence here of a settlement agreement concerning an earlier jurisdictional dispute over this type of work involving another Laborers Local Union in Philadelphia, another Teamsters Local, and Georgia-Pacific, which also occurred in 1973. i2 Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 935, AFL-CIO (C & S Construction Co, Inc.), 206 NLRB No. 133