United Brotherhood of Carpenters

186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, District Council for Kansas City and Vicinity and Local 311, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO' and Prestressed Casting Company and Hod Carriers and General Laborers Local 319 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Local 584, and Kenneth Halpain, Its Agent and Prestressed Casting Com- pany and Hod Carriers and General Laborers Local 319. Cases 17-CD- 180 and 17-CD-181. November 29, 1974 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Upon the entire record in this case, including the brief, the Board makes the following findings: I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer is a Missouri corporation engaged in the manufacture, delivery, and installation of pres- tressed and precast concrete products from its Spring- field, Missouri, plant facility to various construction jobsites in the States of Missouri , Kansas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, and annually sells more than $50,000 in goods and services directly to customers located out- side the State of Missouri. The parties stipulated,' and we find, that the Em- ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectu- ate the purposes and policies of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Prestressed Casting Company, herein called Employer, alleging that United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Dis- trict Council for Kansas City and Vicinity and Local 311, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, District Council for Kansas City and Vicinity and Local 311, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Carpenters, and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Lo- cal 584, and Kenneth Halpain, its agent, herein called Iron Workers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, by seeking to force the Employer to assign the work in dispute described herein to employees repre- sented by the Iron Workers rather than to employees represented by Hod Carriers and General Laborers Lo- cal 319, herein called Laborers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Joplin, Missouri, on August 13 and 14, 1974, before Hearing Officer Edward D. Pribble. All parties 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. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief in support of its position. 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 Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Carpen- ters, Iron Workers, and Laborers are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute The work at the Joplin County Courts Building con- sists of job preparation, the actual setting, and the patch or repair of the product after setting. The job preparation consists of assisting the crane operator and oiler in assembling the crane and miscellaneous general labor. The actual setting process requires the skills of signaling the crane operator, leveling and aligning the product as it is put in place, plumbing with a plumb line, welding the connections between the product pieces once they are in place, and the general cleanup afterward. Patching or repair work generally is neces- sary on all jobs. The Employer assigned the work described above to a crew equally comprised of laborers and carpenters, and informed the two Unions of its decision. On July 1, 1974, the actual installation began. Yet, beginning about July 2 or 3, the Carpenters failed to provide its 50-percent share of the crew. B. The Work in Dispute The disputed work concerns the assignment of the following work tasks: installation, including erection or "setting" of prestressed and precast concrete products and related patching or repairing work, at the Joplin County Courts Building, Joplin, Missouri. The Iron Names appear as amended and corrected at hearing 2 The Carpenters refused to enter into a stipulation in this regard 215 NLRB No. 37 UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS Workers has disclaimed all of the "related patching or repairing work" and also the "grouting" which is in- cluded in the installation work.' C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the work does not re- quire much skill, that its past practice has been to use a crew comprised equally of laborers and carpenters, that the two crews are highly efficient, and that the laborers' wage scale is more economical. The Iron Workers contends that the work requires a high degree of skill and notes the extensive training of ironworkers dealing with iron products. In particu- lar, they note the apprentice school and training which apparently included precast concrete work. In addi- tion, they contend that ironworkers would be more efficient than laborers. The Laborers contends that skilled work is not in- volved and that their apprentice schools and training included similar training with precast concrete pro- ducts. The Laborers also contends that the assignment of laborers is at least as efficient and more economical than the assignment of ironworkers. The Carpenters contends that the work in dispute is between the Laborers and Iron Workers. The fact that carpenters will comprise 50 percent of the setting crew is not in dispute. D. Applicability of the Statute On July 1, the Carpenters and Iron Workers business agents told Billy Grantham, the Employer's setting foreman, that the Employer could finish the prepara- tion work for the installation of the prestressed and precast concrete, but could not set any into place. Later the same day, the Laborers claimed its portion of the installation crew work. Still later the same day, Ed Maddux, the Carpenters business agent, had a conver- sation with William Johnson, president of the Em- ployer. During the conversation, Maddux told Johnson that only carpenters and ironworkers could set the pre- cast concrete according to a recent oral agreement be- tween the two Unions. Maddux added, "there was go- ing to be trouble," if the Employer persisted with its original assignment . At a later conversation on July 2, with business representatives from the Carpenters, La- borers, and Iron Workers present, Iron Workers busi- ness representative said if the Employer decided to per- form the installation without the ironworkers they then would picket the jobsite. Accordingly, we find reasona- ble cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dispute is prop- 3 The Iron Workers disclaimed this work on the grounds that it was not within its traditional work 187 erly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after taking into account the evidence supporting the claims of the par- ties and balancing all relevant factors.' We shall set forth below those factors which we find relevant in determining the dispute herein.' 1. The Employer's assignment and efficiency of operations Under the Employer's assignment, carpenters per- form the welding, do the general carpentry work, and plumb the beams. Laborers assist with this work and hook up the crane to the various products and signal the crane. The Employer considers laborer and carpen- ter crews to be highly efficient. The laborers are ex- perienced in handling the Employer's precast products and have demonstrated their capabilities over the years. In addition, the Iron Workers has disclaimed a part of the work in dispute, the "related patching or repairing work" and also the "grouting" which is included in the installation work. For these reasons, we conclude that an assignment to employees represented by the Iron Workers would have been inefficient and this factor favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by the Laborers. 2. Employer and area practice The Employer's consistent and unbroken practice for approximately 17 years has been to assign the dis- puted work to a crew equally comprised of laborers and carpenters. Laborers and carpenters are now doing two of the major precast concrete product installation jobs in the Joplin, Missouri, area. The Employer has per- formed nearly all of the past precast concrete jobs in the Joplin, Missouri, area and all of these have been per- formed with laborer and carpenter crews. In at least four instances, the Employer has assigned at least part of precast concrete work to ironworkers. However, those assignments involved work not within the juris- diction of all three labor organizations. The evidence indicated that, prior to the dispute herein, ironworkers 4 NLR B v Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Co- lumbia Broadcasting System), 364 U S 573 ( 1961), International Associa- tion of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410-11 (1962) 5 There are no collective-bargaining agreements directly involved with the work in dispute. In addition, none of the Unions has been certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining representative of employees of the Em- ployer 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had performed precast concrete work on only one pro- ject within the jurisdiction of all the unions involved herein, and their work was performed with a crew of carpenters, laborers, and ironworkers. Accordingly, company and area practice favor an award to em- ployees represented by the Laborers. 3. Relative skills The Employer contends that the work required of the laborers does not take much skill. The crane hook is inserted in an eye or cable which is embedded in and protrudes from the product at engineer-determined points, and apparently the crane is designed to handle any maneuvering that might be required for the various products used. The laborers have had about 17 to 18 years' experience with the Employer's precast concrete installation operations and have demonstrated they do very good quality work. The Employer considers car- penters in general more proficient in all of the skills required than either laborers or ironworkers, and on this basis prefers that half of the precast concrete instal- lation crew be carpenters. We therefore conclude that the factor of skills favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by the Laborers. Conclusion Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the entire record, in particular the Employer's assignment and efficiency and economy of operations, the Em- ployer's past practice, area practice, as well as the skill and training of the employees involved, we conclude that the employees of Prestressed Casting who are represented by the Laborers are entitled to the work in question and we shall determine the dispute in their favor. Accordingly, we shall award the disputed work to those employees who are represented by the Laborers, but not to that Union or its members. Scope of Award The Employer argues that the dispute between these Unions extends beyond the jobsite and the award should be coextensive with the jurisdictional areas of the three contending labor organizations, or in the al- ternative at least so far as those jurisdictions overlap within the Southwest Missouri area, namely Jasper, Newton, and McDonald Counties. There appears to be considerable merit in this alternative. The evidence is uncontroverted that the Carpenters and Iron Workers have a local verbal agreement where they will work equally comprised composite crews on all precast or prestressed concrete. Kenneth Turnbull, Iron Workers business agent, testified that the agreement is not be- tween the two Internationals, but between the Carpen- ters and Iron Workers agents with the approval of the International. The Laborers business agent testified that in the future he intended to claim his portion of the installation of precast concrete. Thus, the dispute at the Joplin is merely an incident in the basic disagreement between the parties. Unless our jurisdictional determi- nation is coextensive with the area of dispute, it is likely to recur at other jobsites of the Employer in the area. Accordingly, our determination will extend to Jasper, Newton, and McDonald Counties, the overlapping ju- risdictional areas of these three contending labor organizations.' DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of Prestressed Casting Company, Springfield, Missouri, currently represented by Hod Carriers and General Laborers Local 319, are entitled to perform the work of installation, including erection or "setting" of prestressed and precast concrete pro- ducts and related patching or repairing work at the Joplin County Courts Building, Joplin, Missouri, and any similarly disputed work performed by Prestressed Casting Company, in Jasper, Newton, and McDonald Counties. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, District Council for Kansas City and Vicinity and Local 311, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Or- namental Iron Workers Local 584, and Kenneth Hal- pain, its agent, are not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Prestressed Casting Company to assign the above work to ironworkers represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, District Council for Kansas City and Vicinity and Local 311, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and International Association of 6 Piledrivers Local No. 2416, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join- ers of America, AFL-CIO (Western-Pacific Piledriving Corp), 205 NLRB 279 (1973), Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind. (Western-Pacific Piledriving Corp), 205 NLRB 383 (1973) Member Fanning dissents from the extension of the scope of the award of work herein to the three-county area of Jasper, Newton, and McDonald Counties In the absence of evidence that the Carpenters and Iron Workers show a proclivity to violate Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act in order to imple- ment their verbal agreement, he would limit the scope of the award to the work being done at the Joplin County Courts Building in Joplin, Missouri UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 189 Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Lo- Prestressed Casting Company, by means proscribed by cal 584, and Kenneth Halpain , its agent, shall notify Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing , dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above deter- whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring mination.