Electrical Workers, Local 2

478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lo- cal 2, AFL-CIO and Gerstner Electric Company and Eastern Missouri Laborers District Council, Af- filiated with Laborers International Union of North American, AFL-CIO. Case 14-CD-499 September 22, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing charges filed by Eastern Missouri Laborers Dis- trict Council, affiliated with Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, on November 19, 1974, alleging that International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2, AFL-CIO, violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening officers of Gerstner Electric Company in order to force or re- quire the Company to assign work to employees rep- resented by Electricians rather than those repre- sented by Laborers. A hearing was held on June 5, 1975, before Hearing Officer Neil E. McDarby. All parties I appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. 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 are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Laborers and Electricians filed briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Gerstner, a Missouri corporation, is engaged in electrical installation for highway systems and annu- ally purchases and receives goods and materials val- ued in excess of $50,000 at its St. Louis facility, di- rectly from suppliers located outside the State of Missouri. We find that Gerstner is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act and it will effec- 1 Hoisting and Portable Engineers , Local 513, International Union of Op- erating Engineers , AFL-CIO, appeared at the hearing but did not intervene in the proceeding tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED It was stipulated and we find that Eastern Missou- ri Laborers District Council, affiliated with Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, Local 2, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations with- in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute On Thursday, November 14, 1974, the Company was to cut concrete slots with manually propelled saws for the installation of electric wire detector loops for automatic traffic signals on project 1-70- S-(98) on Interstate Highway 70, St. Louis County, Missouri. The loops, embedded in the street, detect a car passing over them and trigger a control on the traffic light which allows a car to proceed through the intersection. On that morning, Project Manager Terry Howe as- signed the work of cutting the slots-in the concrete to the employees represented by the Laborers, as the Company had done for the past 10 years. Before the work was begun, Electricians' general foreman, Billy Gene Mosier, made a claim to Howe for the work on behalf of the electricians. Howe thereupon called John Gerstner, who is the company officer responsi- ble for making assignments of work, to apprise him of the situation. Gerstner told Howe to do whatever was necessary to get the slots cut that day because the entire system had to be operational by the follow- ing Tuesday. Since two saws were to be used for the job, Howe proposed to Mosier that one laborer and one electrician be used on the job. After Mosier re- jected that compromise and reiterated his demand for the entire job, Howe reassigned the work of cut- ting the slots to employees represented by the Electri- cians. The electricians completed the work of cutting the slots on that day when there was only one laborer available and there was other work for him to do. No representative of the laborers intervened in this dis- pute on Thursday. B. The Work in Dispute At the beginning of the hearing, the parties stipu- lated that the work in dispute is the sawing of con- crete slots for electrical wire in the installation of traffic control devices at the work project I-70- 220 NLRB No. 74 ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 2 479 S-(98) on Interstate Highway 70, St. Louis County, Missouri.2 C. Contentions of the Parties Electricians take the position that the 10(k) notice should be quashed because the evidence is insuffi- cient to support a finding of reasonable cause to be- lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vio- lated and because the dispute is moot. Charging Party asserts there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) was violated because Electrician's representative threatened to strike if its members were not given the work of sawing the slots. Employer's position goes only to the merits of the dispute in that both the electricians and the laborers have satisfactorily performed the kind of work in dis- pute and the Employer has no preference as to which employees are assigned the work. 2 At the hearing the Laborers moved to amend the charge to add the epoxy work, which is another step in the process of laying the electrical wire, as part of the work in dispute . The Hearing Officer referred that motion to the Board . Since under Sec. 102 .89 and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director is charged with the responsibility of investigating and determining the merit of charges, and as the record contains no further information concerning the epoxy work or any claims or rights relating of it, we hereby remand the Charging Party's motion to the Regional Director for whatever action he deems appropriate. 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) of the Act has been violated. On the record before us, we are not satisfied that any violation has occurred in this case. On Thursday morning, November 14, Mosier merely made a claim for the work but in no way threatened to take any action against Employer if employees represented by the Electricians were not given the work, as is re- quired to establish a possible violation of the Act. After Mosier refused to accept the Company's pro- posed compromise of having one electrician and one laborer do the job, he merely restated his claim to the work, and it was reassigned. Although Laborers al- leged that there was a threat to strike, the record shows that this occurred the next day when the work of placing the epoxy was about to begin and after the sawing of the slot had been completed. Therefore, there is no reasonable cause to believe that a viola- tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of hearing. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing is- sued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.