Teamsters Local 282 (General Constractors Assn. of New York)

LOCAL 282, TEAMSTERS Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca and General Contractors Association of New York, Inc., on behalf of all its members. Case 2- CD-538 November 16, 1977 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by General Contractors Associa- tion of New York, Inc., herein called GCA, on behalf of all its members, alleging that Local 282, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, herein called Teamsters Local 282, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the GCA employer-members to assign certain work to mem- bers of Teamsters Local 282 rather than to employ- ees represented by Local 731, Building, Concrete, Excavating and Common Laborers Union of Greater New York, Long Island Vicinity, AFL-CIO, herein called Laborers Local 731, or to employees repre- sented by Local 813, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called Teamsters Local 813. The investigation disclosed that Local 15-15A, Interna- tional Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein called Operating Engineers Local 15, also has an interest in this proceeding. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Mary W. Taylor on July 8 and 25 and August 23, 1977. All parties, except Teamsters Local 813, appeared and were afforded full opportu- nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that GCA is a multiemployer association with its principal place of 233 NLRB No. 71 business in the State of New York, whose members are engaged in the building and construction industry in many States of the United States. During the past year, the employer-members of GCA purchased materials from outside the State having a value of $50,000. The parties also stipulated, and we find, that the employer-members of the GCA are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Teamsters Local 282, Teamsters Local 813, Operating Engineers Local 15, and Laborers Local 731 are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute GCA is a trade association of heavy construction contractors operating in the New York metropolitan area. It is the collective-bargaining agent for its member firms with regard to approximately a dozen local unions. The employer-members of GCA are signatory to two collective-bargaining agreements with Teamsters Local 282. The first, Heavy Con- struction and Excavating, 1975-78, covers the use of teamsters who transport construction debris and excavation materials from construction sites. The second, Ready-Mix Concrete, Sand, Gravel, Asphalt, and Bulk Cement, 1975-78, covers the use of teamsters who transport those materials. The GCA members are signatory to a contract with Laborers Local 731 covering the use of laborers engaged in excavation and foundation work for buildings, landscaping, and/or heavy construction work, and are also signatory to a contract with Operating Engineers Local 15 covering the use of operating engineers on heavy construction, excavation, and building foundation work. The present dispute involves the method for removing debris and excavation materials from two subway construction sites in New York City, one in Manhattan and one in Queens. The general contrac- tors at these sites are, respectively, Schiavone Construction Corp. and Slattery Associates, Inc., both of whom are members of GCA. Teamsters Local 282 challenged the procedure of removing excavation materials in refuse containers rather than in dump trucks at these two sites as well as other sites where GCA members were performing services, because it believed that Teamsters Local 282 mem- bers were being deprived of work which traditionally had been performed by them. The record reveals 521 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that, at the time of the dispute, the standard operating procedure for the removal of debris' and excavation materials2 from the subway tunnels at both sites was as follows: the debris and excavation materials were brought to the surface from a depth of 60 feet. Upon reaching the surface, the materials were loaded into either dump trucks or refuse containers, the latter being a dump truck body that is brought to the construction site on a truck tractor operated by an independent carting company, lowered to the ground, and picked up at a latter date when the container is full. This excavation operation involves four different unions. Teamsters Local 282 supplies drivers for the dump trucks. Teamsters Local 813 and other unions supply drivers for the refuse container trucks. Laborers Local 731 supplies laborers who load the dump trucks and refuse containers by hand. Operating Engineers Local 15 supplies the operating engineers who load the dump trucks and containers by machine. On the morning of April 1, 1977.3 Theodore King, the assistant director for labor relations for GCA, received a telephone call from Robert Sasso, secre- tary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 282, and was told by Sasso that Teamsters Local 282 was going to strike the Slattery and Schiavone construction sites unless a Teamsters Local 282 man was given the job of "standing-by" the refuse containers on those sites. On that same morning, Edward McFarland, business agent for Teamsters Local 282, appeared at the Slattery jobsite and informed Donald O'Hare, job superintendent, that he would shut down that job if O'Hare loaded the refuse containers on the site. O'Hare turned the matter over to William Hartigan, equipment superintendent of Slattery, who was also informed by McFarland that there would be a strike if the refuse containers were loaded, and that it was the work of a Teamsters Local 282 man to "stand- by" the container during its loading. Howard Mattson, counsel to GCA, also received a telephone call on April I from John Cody, president of Teamsters Local 282, in which Cody stated that unless each container on GCA jobsites was manned by a Teamsters Local 282 member or, in the alternative, all containers were removed and dump trucks used, there would be a strike of that employer- member not only with regard to the job where that container was being used, but with regard to all jobs of that employer-member. No strike occurred on that day. On April Il, William Finneran, Jr., attorney and general manager of GCA, along with representatives of Slattery and Schiavone, met with Sasso and other I "Debris" has been defined in the record as "unusable lumber." "spillage of concrete," "broken brick," "wrapping around pipes," "empty waterproofing cans." and "anything that can't be salvaged." Teamsters Local 282 officials to discuss the events of April 1. Sasso threatened to strike unless Teamsters Local 282 delivered and removed refuse containers from jobsites, and demanded that if a container was on the jobsite an employee represented by Teamsters Local 282 must man it. At a further meeting on April 15, the same demands were made by Teamsters Local 282, and its president, John Cody, threatened to strike every contractor in the industry if the containers were not manned or else removed. Teamsters Local 282 also demanded that the dispute be resolved through the arbitration process of its collective-bargaining agreement with GCA, but the GCA refused to arbitrate. On June 21, the day before the first session of hearings in this case, Teamsters Local 282 again threatened to strike all GCA members if they did not accede to the original demands and if GCA proceed- ed with the hearing. On June 22, the first day of hearings, Teamsters Local 282 struck several mem- bers of GCA. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves the delivery, dropoff, pickup, and removal of refuse containers from construction sites where GCA members are perform- ing services, specifically at Archer Avenue in Jamaica, Queens, New York, run by Slattery Asso- ciates, Inc., and at 63d Street and Lexington Avenue in Manhattan, run by Schiavone Construction Corp. C. The Contentions of the Parties GCA contends that Teamsters Local 282 has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) by seeking to compel the assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by Teamsters Local 282, and that the Board should award the work in dispute to the employees who are represented by unions having collective-bargaining agreements with carting com- panies which deliver and remove refuse containers on construction sites. In making this award, the Board should rely on such factors as the current collective-bargaining agreements between GCA and Teamsters Local 282, Laborers Local 731, and Operating Engineers Local 15; GCA's past practice and preference; area and industry practice; and economy and efficiency of operation. GCA also contends that a jurisdictional work dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act is involved herein, because the collective-bargaining agreement between Teamsters Local 282 and GCA does not attempt to assign any work regarding refuse contain- 2 "Excavation materials" have been defined in the record as "dirt" and "muck," the latter being a combination ofdirt and rock. 3 All dates herein are 1977 unless otherwise indicated. 522 LOCAL 282, TEAMSTERS ers to employees represented by Teamsters Local 282, nor does it assign the removal of excavation materials solely to those employees. It is the position of Teamsters Local 282 that no jurisdictional work dispute exists herein, but rather that there is a contractual dispute between Teamsters Local 282 and GCA arising under their collective- bargaining agreement. Teamsters Local 282 asserts that it never made a demand to load the refuse containers either by hand or by machine, since that work has traditionally been performed by employees represented by Laborers Local 731 and Operating Engineers Local 15. It also asserts that it has no dispute with Teamsters Local 813. In support of its assertion that no jurisdictional work dispute exists, Teamsters Local 282 presented the following argu- ment: Traditionally, refuse containers have been utilized on construction sites in the metropolitan area solely for the purpose of removing debris or garbage. It (Teamsters Local 282) has never had any objection to the utilization of containers for that purpose. The present dispute exists because prior to April I dump trucks driven by Teamsters Local 282 members were traditionally the suitable means for removing excava- tion materials from construction sites, with certain exceptions for safety reasons. As of April 1, accord- ing to Teamsters Local 282, the employer-members of GCA substituted refuse containers in lieu of dump trucks for the removal of excavation materials. As a result, dump trucks were no longer being utilized, putting many employees represented by Teamsters Local 282 out of work. Therefore, Teamsters Local 282 demanded that, if refuse containers were going to be used in lieu of dump trucks for the removal of excavation materials, an employee represented by Teamsters Local 282 should be "employed," not in place of somebody else, but simply "employed" as he had been in the past. According to Teamsters Local 282, its demand was made pursuant to its collective- bargaining agreement with GCA, and it has sought to arbitrate the grievance pursuant to that agreement. It is the position of Operating Engineers Local 15 that no jurisdictional dispute exists herein, as there has been no claim by Teamsters Local 282 to any work performed by employees represented by Oper- ating Engineers Local 15. Laborers Local 731 takes no position in this case. Teamsters Local 813 did not appear and thus takes no position in this case. I A "work claim" arises when an employee discovers that work which is rightfully his to perform has been performed by another employee. The D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to a determination of a dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Teamsters Local 282 contends that the dispute herein is not a jurisdictional work dispute, but rather it is a contractual disagreement between itself and GCA as to the traditional method for removing excavation materials from construction sites in the New York metropolitan area. To support this contention, Teamsters Local 282 relied on the testimony of several witnesses to attempt to prove that prior to April I GCA had used refuse containers solely for the removal of debris and dump trucks mainly for the removal of excavation materials. On April 1, according to that testimony, GCA used refuse containers for the removal of both debris and excavation materials for the very first time. Since such a change in the Employer's operations, if in fact such a change did occur, might constitute a violation of its collective-bargaining agreement with GCA, Teamsters Local 282 would have us deny the existence of a jurisdictional work dispute and leave the parties to resolve their dispute through arbitra- tion. Based upon the record in this case, we are unable to deny the existence of a jurisdictional work dispute. As to the use of refuse containers prior to and after April 1, Teamsters Local 282 relied on the testimony of Frank Greico, assistant shop steward on the Slattery project; William Moran, Teamsters Local 282's foreman on the Schiavone project; and Edward McFarland, business agent for Teamsters Local 282. Greico testified that on April 2 containers were used for excavation materials for the first time ever. Moran similarly testified that containers were used exclusively for garbage rather than excavation materials prior to April 1, but he also pointed out that, when safety conditions require it, containers are used for excavation materials as well. Moran then contradicted himself by testifying that it was unsafe to use containers for excavation materials under any circumstances, because they are too light and not constructed for such purposes. Greico and Moran also testified as to "work claims" 4 they had filed with GCA which were honored under circumstances similar to those in the present case. This would of course directly contradict their testimony that prior to April I excavation materials were never removed in refuse containers. Union and Employer then hold a panel hearing on the claim to determine whether it is meritonous. 523 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD When pressed as to the nature of these "work claims," they both admitted that they dealt with the movement of materials on the jobsite itself by employees using other equipment, such as payloaders and cranes, in lieu of dump trucks. Greico also identified a number of photographs which he had taken at the Slattery jobsite. He identified the contents of several refuse containers as being excavation materials. But when pressed as to when he took those photographs, he stated "intermittently through April. March. All the way down the line .... " McFarland testified that on April I Slattery began to use containers in place of dump trucks for the removal of excavation materials, and that prior to April I there were no containers at all on that jobsite. When pressed further, he admitted that there may have been one container on the site for garbage, but that it could not have been used for excavation materials simply because, if it had been used in such a manner, he would have been called to the jobsite on an earlier occasion than April 1.5 He also testified that containers could not have been used for excavation materials prior to April I because there were too many dump trucks being used to economi- cally justify the use of containers for excavation materials. However, on April 1, according to McFar- land, no dump trucks were being used at Slattery's jobsite, thus requiring that containers be used in their place. This testimony is directly contradicted by the fact that Slattery used a total of six containers in March, and that, beginning in February and lasting until June, dump trucks were not being used as much as before because excavation work had slowed considerably. Laborers Local 731, an interested yet impartial participant in these proceedings, presented one witness who directly contradicted the testimony of Teamsters Local 282's witnesses. Mario Campanella, field representative for Laborers Local 731, testified that both refuse containers and dump trucks have been used for the removal of "muck" (excavation materials) since the subway construction began, although dump trucks were clearly the primary method of removing "muck." He also testified that Teamsters Local 282 has never had anything to do with containers on the jobsite, nor has it ever done any loading of containers. GCA presented several witnesses to support its assertion that a jurisdictional work dispute exists. Donald O'Hare, Slattery's project superintendent, testified that refuse containers are used primarily for the removal of debris, but that the frequency of their I McFarland testified that as business agent for Teamsters Local 282 he visits at least once a week each worksite at which Teamsters Local 282 members are employed. 6 This is indicated by two factors. One, that it was the understanding of use is determined by "economics and the availability of having it there all the time as the material develops." In other words, as the materials are brought to the surface from 60 feet below the ground, it is not economical to have a dump truck ready at all times unless heavy excavation work is being per- formed. But a container can be brought to the construction site, dropped off, filled as the job progresses, and picked up again when it is full, at a much lower cost to the Employer. William Finneran, Jr., who is general manager, director of labor relations, and general counsel to GCA, testified that disputes concerning the use of refuse containers on construction sites have arisen continuously since 1967. Prior to the 1975 collective- bargaining negotiations, from September 1974 until May 1975, the containers were the subject of many grievances with Teamsters Local 282, wherein Team- sters Local 282 was demanding that whenever containers are used on a jobsite they must have a Teamsters Local 282 driver assigned to it. Those grievances were heard and denied. Finneran also testified that a similar dispute arose prior to the 1972 collective-bargaining negotiations. Based on the testimony outlined above, we are unable to conclude that on April I the employer- members of GCA instituted a drastic change in operations by suddenly using refuse containers for the removal of excavation materials. In addition, the Heavy Construction and Excavating Contract, 1975- 78, between the Teamsters Local 282 and GCA, does not appear to cover the claims made by Teamsters Local 282. The only applicable clause reads as follows: "The Employer shall not hire outside trucks or equipment unless all his available suitable trucks and equipment are in use." (Sec. 6, par. c.) There appears to be nothing in this clause prohibiting the Employer from using refuse containers for excava- tion materials, nor requiring the manning of every container with a Teamsters Local 282 man. Therefore, Teamsters Local 282's demands of April 1, I , and 15 must be examined to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. It is undisputed that Teamsters Local 282's primary demand was that one employee represented by Teamsters Local 282 be assigned to "stand-by" or "man" every container which is placed on a construction site. It is also undisputed that, at the time of its threats to strike, it was not demanding that its members do the actual loading of refuse containers. 6 Thus, the only possible work dispute was between Teamsters Local 282 and all parties and witnesses that the Teamsters Local 282 man assigned to "stand-by" the containers would do absolutely nothing. and, two, that the threat to strike if the containers were "loaded" was In reference to what types of materials were loaded into the containers, rather than the method of 524 LOCAL 282, TEAMSTERS the union representing drivers who are employed by the carting companies which deliver, drop off, pick up, and remove refuse containers from construction sites. 7 In this regard, it is the uncontradicted and undenied testimony of William Finneran, corrobo- rated by Howard H. Mattson, cocounsel to the GCA, that at the April 11 and 15 meetings between Teamsters Local 282 and GCA, Teamsters Local 282 demanded "the right to deliver and remove contain- ers." Based on this evidence, there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, since Teamsters Local 282 was forcing Slattery and Schiavone, as well as all members of GCA, to assign to Teamsters Local 282 members the work of delivering, dropping off, picking up, and removing refuse containers, rather than assigning such work to employees represented by unions having collective-bargaining agreements with the independent carting companies. On the basis of the entire record, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. In addition, since the arbitration procedure in question is binding only on Teamsters Local 282 and GCA, we conclude that there exists no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act." Accordingly, we find that this dispute is properly before the Board for determination. E. Merits of the Disputes Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due consideration to various factors.9 The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on commonsense and experience reached by balancing those factors involved in a particular case.' 0 The following factors are relevant in making the determination of the dispute before us: such loading. At the hearing, though, both Greico and Moran testified that what Teamsters Local 282 was really objecting to was the manner in which refuse containers were being loaded. According to Greico, their objection was that excavation materials and debris were being moved from different areas or locations on the job to the refuse containers by equipment other than dump trucks. Such testimony suggests the possibility that there is also a jurisdictional dispute between Teamsters Local 282 and the Operating Engineers Local 15 regarding the actual loading of containers. We cannot find such a dispute based solely upon that testimony, as it was confusing. contradictory, and highly improbable. Thus, based upon the record as a whole, it is clear that Teamsters Local 282 never claimed the right to actually place materials. eithe; manually or by machine, into refuse containers. 7 As of April I. Slattery Associates was using the services of the Swift Carting Company to deliver and remove containers on the Slattery worksite 1. Collective-bargaining agreements The employer-members of GCA are signatory to 3- year collective-bargaining agreements with Team- sters Local 282, Laborers Local 731, and Operating Engineers Local 15. The agreement with Teamsters Local 282 appears to contemplate generally the task of driving trucks, although it makes no specific reference to the work in dispute. The agreement with Laborers Local 731 contemplates the employment of laborers engaged in the traditional work which laborers perform on heavy construction and engi- neering projects, specifically including subway and tunnel work. The agreement with Operating Engi- neers Local 15 contemplates the employment of operating engineers engaged in their traditional tasks on heavy construction projects, including the con- struction of engineering structures and building foundations. GCA is not signatory to any agreements with Teamsters Local 813, because the refuse containers are rented from independent carting companies which employ their own drivers who, according to the record, are represented by Team- sters Local 813 or Teamsters Local 282. Since there appears to be nothing in these agree- ments which favors the assignment of the work in dispute either to Teamsters Local 282 or to the employee-drivers who are represented by unions having collective-bargaining agreements with carting companies which deliver, drop off, pick up, and remove refuse containers at construction sites, we find that this factor does not aid us in the determination of the present dispute. 2. Company and industry practice It is clear from the record that GCA and its members originally intended and still prefer to assign the work in dispute to the drivers of trucks who deliver and remove refuse containers, regardless of which union represents those drivers. Teamsters Local 282 has failed to prove that, on April I, Slattery and Schiavone instituted drastic changes in their operations by removing excavation materials from the worksites in refuse containers rather than Swift employs drivers who are represented by Teamsters Local 813. After the demands of April I, Slattery switched to the services of King Carting Company, which employs drivers represented by Local 282. Although it is unclear From the record, all carting companies apparently emplo5 drivers who are represented by either Teamsters Local 813 or Teamsters Local 282. 8 Accordingly, the motion by Teamsters Local 282 to dismiss the charge on the grounds that there is no jurisdictional dispute, but rather a contractual dispute which should be arbitrated between Teamsters Local 282 and GCA, is hereby denied. I N LR.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL CIO [Columbia Broadcasting System . 364 U.S. 573 (1961). o International 4ssociation of Machinists. Lodge No. 1743 .4 FL C10 (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). 525 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dump trucks. Rather, it is apparent from the record that both debris and excavation materials were removed by either dump trucks or refuse containers prior to and after April 1. Thus, Teamsters Local 282 has failed to substantiate its claim to the exclusive right to remove excavation materials by dump truck. Since company and industry practice has been to remove excavation materials and debris in containers as well as dump trucks, and the company and industry practice has been to assign the delivery and removal of containers to employee-drivers represent- ed by unions having collective-bargaining agree- ments with carting companies which deliver, drop off, pick up, and remove refuse containers at construction sites, we find that this factor favors an award to such employee-drivers. 3. Relative skills There is no difference in skills between drivers of dump trucks represented by Teamsters Local 282 and those employed by the carting companies to deliver and remove refuse containers. In fact, at least one carting company utilizes drivers represented by Teamsters Local 282. Therefore, we find that this factor does not favor the award of the work in dispute to either group of employees. 4. Economy and efficiency of operation It is clear from the record that GCA's members would suffer losses in economy and efficiency were it restricted to the use of dump trucks for the removal of excavation materials. As O'Hare testified, the option of using containers over dump trucks for excavation work saves the employer the expense of having dump trucks with a driver standing ready at all times. Instead, containers can be left on the construction site unmanned, to be filled according to the pace of the construction and excavation process. If excavation is heavy, dump trucks are more economical. If excavation is light, dump trucks become much more costly compared to the use of containers. We therefore find that this factor favors the award of the disputed work to employee-drivers represented by unions having collective-bargaining agreements with carting companies which deliver, drop off, pick up, and remove refuse containers at construction sites. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full consideration of all the relevant factors involved, we conclude that employee-drivers who are represented by unions having collective-bargaining agreements with carting companies which deliver, drop off, pick up, and remove refuse containers at construction sites where employer-members of GCA are perform- ing services are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on the specific factors of the preference and past practice of GCA's members; the industry practice; and the economy and efficiency of GCA members' opera- tions. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees who are represent- ed by unions having collective-bargaining agree- ments with carting companies which deliver, drop off, pick up, and remove refuse containers at construction sites, but not to those unions or their members. 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 proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute: I. Employee-drivers who are represented by unions having collective-bargaining agreements with carting companies are entitled to perform the work of delivering, dropping off, picking up, and removing refuse containers at construction sites where mem- bers of the General Contractors Association of New York, Inc., are performing services. 2. Local 282, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require members of the General Contractors Association of New York, Inc., to assign the disputed work to employees represented by that labor organization. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Local 282, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the employer-members of GCA, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. 526