Building Laborers' Local Union No. 310 (KMU Trucking & Excavating, Inc.)

LABORERS LOCAL 310 (KMU TRUCKING & EXCAVATING) 381 Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 310 and KMU Trucking & Excavating, Schirmer Construction Co., Platform Cement, Inc., 21st Century Concrete Construction, Inc., Independence Excavating, Inc., Donley’s Inc. and International Union of Operating Engi- neers, Local 18, AFL–CIO. Cases 08–CD– 109665, 08–CD–109666, 08–CD–109671, 08–CD– 109683, 08–CD–109709, and 08–CD–114937 September 3, 2014 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA AND JOHNSON This is a consolidated jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of charges in Case 08– CD–109665 on July 23, 20131 by KMU Trucking & Ex- cavating (KMU). Additional charges were filed on July 23 in Case 08–CD–109666 by Schirmer Construction Co. (Schirmer); on July 23 in Case 08–CD–109671 by Platform Cement, Inc. (Platform); on July 23 in Case 08– CD–109683 by 21st Century Concrete Construction, Inc. (21st Century); on July 23 in Case 08–CD–109709 by Independence Excavating, Inc. (Independence); and on October 18 in Case 08–CD–114937 by Donley’s Inc. (Donley’s).2 The Employers3 allege that Laborers’ In- ternational Union of North America, Local 310 (Labor- ers) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the Em- ployers to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 (Operating En- gineers). An order consolidating cases and notice of hearing issued September 30, 2013, a second order con- solidating cases and notice of hearing issued December 13, 2013, and a hearing was held on January 13 and Jan- uary 14, 2014, before Hearing Officer Melanie R. Bor- delois.4 Thereafter, the Employers, Operating Engineers, 1 All dates are in 2013 unless otherwise indicated. 2 We note that the hearing officer inadvertently stated in her report that these dates were in 2012. 3 KMU, Schirmer, Platform, 21st Century, Independence, and Donley’s will be referred to as “the Employers.” 4 In two recent related cases, Laborer’s Local 894 (Donley’s, Inc.) (Donley’s I), 360 NLRB No. 20 (2014), and Operating Engineers Local 18 (Donley’s, Inc.) (Donley’s II), 360 NLRB 903 (2014), the Board found reasonable cause to believe that Sec. 8(b)(4)(D) had been violat- ed with respect to two disputes involving Operating Engineers Local 18 and Laborers. Donley’s I involved Laborers Locals 310 and 894; Don- ley’s II involved Laborers Local 310. Laborers and the Employers moved that the records in those cases be incorporated into the instant proceeding, and the hearing officer granted the motion. and Laborers filed posthearing briefs.5 Operating Engi- neers also filed a motion to quash the 10(k) notice of hearing. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find- ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire rec- ord, we make the following findings. I. JURISDICTION The parties stipulated that in the 12-month period prior to the hearing, Employers KMU, Schirmer, Platform, 21st Century, Independence, and Donley’s each pur- chased and received materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Ohio. The parties further stipulated, and we find, that the Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Laborers and Operating Engineers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employers, all of whom operate in northeastern Ohio, are involved in various aspects of construction work ranging from site development and demolition to general contracting and concrete work, and have em- ployed employees represented by both Operating Engi- neers and Laborers for many years. They have also all been signatories to a series of successive collective- bargaining agreements, negotiated by the Construction Employer’s Association of Greater Cleveland (CEA) with both Unions.6 The respective contracts cover con- struction work performed in Cuyahoga County in north- eastern Ohio, where the jobsites at issue in this case are located. The most recent of these contracts are effective from 2012 through 2015.7 The Employers utilize various kinds of equipment in their construction projects, including forklifts and skid steers, a type of small front-end loader. Representatives of the Employers testified that they have a long-held practice of assigning the operation of forklift and skid steer equipment to employees represented by Laborers. Specifically, witnesses for five of the Employers testified 5 Laborers filed a brief stating that it incorporates the Employers’ posthearing brief and adopted the Employers’ arguments as its own. 6 CEA is a multiemployer bargaining association that represents con- struction industry employers in negotiating and administering collec- tive-bargaining agreements with various labor organizations. 7 The CEA-Operating Engineers contract states that it is effective May 1, 2012 through April 30, 2015. Although it does not include exact dates, the CEA-Laborers was entered into on May 1, 2012 and states that it is effective from 2012 through 2015. 361 NLRB No. 37 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 382 that, in the time they have worked for their respective employers, the forklift and skid steer work was always assigned to employees represented by Laborers. In addi- tion, Rob DiGeronimo, vice president of Independence, testified that Independence has assigned its forklift and skid steer work to employees represented by Laborers except that, on the “rare” occasion when it had “full- time, continuous work,” it would assign the work to em- ployees represented by Operating Engineers. After the ratification of successor 2012–2015 contracts between CEA and Laborers and CEA and Operating En- gineers, the Employers began work on various construc- tion projects in Cuyahoga County. On each of these pro- jects, the forklifts and/or skid steers were operated by employees represented by Laborers. Upon learning of the assignment of this work to employees represented by Laborers, Operating Engineers filed “pay-in-lieu” griev- ances against each Employer, seeking the payment of wages and fringe benefits for each day that employees other than those represented by Operating Engineers op- erated the forklift and/or skid steer equipment on the construction projects. Following the filing of each pay-in-lieu grievance, the recipient Employer sent a letter to Laborers’ business manager, Terence Joyce, stating that if it were to lose the grievance it would need to reassign the forklift and skid steer work to employees represented by Operating Engi- neers. Joyce sent each Employer a letter in response, stating that if the forklift and skid steer work were reas- signed to Operating Engineers-represented employees, Laborers would “picket and strike any and all projects where such assignments took place.” B. Work in Dispute The work in dispute in Case 08–CD–109665 (KMU) involves the operation of forklifts and skid steers as part of a construction project at Equity Trust in Westlake, Ohio. The work in dispute in Case 08–CD–109666 (Schirmer) involves the operation of skid steers as part of a construction project at South Pointe Hospital in War- rensville Heights, Ohio. The work in dispute in Case 08– CD–109671 (Platform) involves the operation of skid steers as part of a construction project at Equity Trust in Westlake, Ohio. The work in dispute in Case 08–CD– 109683 (21st Century) involves the operation of forklifts as part of a construction project at Southwest General Hospital in Middleburg Heights, Ohio. The work in dis- pute in Case 08–CD–109709 (Independence) involves the operation of forklifts and skid steers as part of a con- struction project at Alcoa in Cleveland, Ohio. Lastly, the work in dispute in Case 08–CD–114937 (Donley’s) in- volves the operation of forklifts and skid steers as part of a construction project at University Hospitals’ Lot 59 Garage in Cleveland, Ohio and the operation of forklifts as part of a construction project at Commerce Park in Beechwood, Ohio. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employers and Laborers contend that there are competing claims for the work in dispute, that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated by the threats to picket and strike over the assignment of forklift and skid steer work at the construction projects referenced above,8 and that the work in dispute should be awarded to employees repre- sented by Laborers based on the factors of employer preference and past practice, area and industry practice, and economy and efficiency of operations. Finally, they contend that a broad area wide award is warranted, coin- ciding with the territorial jurisdiction of Operating Engi- neers Local 18, because it is likely that disputes over the assignment of forklift and skid steer work will arise on future projects. Operating Engineers contends that the notice of hear- ing should be quashed because it has not claimed the work in dispute. Operating Engineers contends that it is merely seeking economic damages for breaches of the CEA-Operating Engineers contract, and thus the disputes are not cognizable under Section 10(k). Operating Engi- neers further argues that the notice of hearing should be quashed because Laborers’ threat to picket and strike was a sham, resulting from collusion with the Employers to manufacture a jurisdictional dispute. Operating Engi- neers alternatively contends that, if the notice of hearing is not quashed, the disputed work should be awarded to employees it represents based on the factors of collec- tive-bargaining agreements, employer preference and past practice, area and industry practice, economy and efficiency of operations, and relative skills and training. Lastly, Operating Engineers contends that the scope of the award, if any is made, must be limited to the jobsites that were the subject of Operating Engineers’ pay-in-lieu grievances. D. Applicability of the Statute The Board may proceed with a determination of a dis- pute under Section 10(k) of the Act only if there is rea- sonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. Operating Engineers Local 150 (R&D Thiel), 345 NLRB 1137, 1139 (2005). This standard requires finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that there are competing claims for the disputed work between rival 8 They also point to evidence from Donley’s I and Donley’s II that, prior to the filing of the charges in this case, Operating Engineers threatened to strike over forklift and skid steer work at other worksites in the Cleveland area. LABORERS LOCAL 310 (KMU TRUCKING & EXCAVATING) 383 groups of employees, and that a party has used pro- scribed means to enforce its claim to that work. Addi- tionally, there must be a finding that the parties have not agreed on a method of voluntary adjustment of the dis- pute. Id. On this record, we find that this standard has been met. 1. Competing claims for work We find reasonable cause to believe that both Unions have claimed the work in dispute for the employees they respectively represent. Laborers has claimed the work by its letters from Local Business Manager Terry Joyce to each of the Employers, objecting to any assignment of the forklift or skid steer work to Operating Engineers- represented employees. In addition, “their performance of the work indicates that they claim the work in dis- pute.” Sheet Metal Workers Local 54 (Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.), 203 NLRB 74, 76 (1973); see also Operat- ing Engineers Local 513 (Thomas Industrial Coatings), 345 NLRB 990, 992 fn. 6 (2005) (same), citing Laborers Local 79 (DNA Contracting), 338 NLRB 997, 998 fn. 6 (2003) (same). We also find, despite its claims to the contrary, that Operating Engineers has claimed the disputed work. Operating Engineers filed pay-in-lieu grievances against each of the Employers, alleging contract violations with respect to their assignment of forklift and/or skid steer work to employees represented by Laborers. “The Board has long held that pay-in-lieu grievances alleging con- tractual breaches in the assignment of work constitute demands for the disputed work.” Operating Engineers Local 18 (Donley’s, Inc.) (Donley’s II), 360 NLRB 903, 906, citing Laborers Local 265 (AMS Construction), 356 NLRB 306, 308 (2010); Laborers (Eshbach Bros., LP), 344 NLRB 201, 202 (2005). Moreover, we find no merit in Operating Engineers’ contention that it has made a work preservation claim. The record shows that Laborers-represented employees were performing the forklift and skid steer work at all of the Employers’ construction projects, and that the Em- ployers have consistently assigned work of the kind in dispute to employees represented by Laborers. Where, as here, a labor organization is claiming work that has not previously been performed by employees it repre- sents, the “objective is not work preservation, but work acquisition,” and the Board will resolve the dispute through a 10(k) proceeding. Electrical Workers Local 48 (Kinder Morgan Terminals), 357 NLRB 2217, 2219 (2011), and cases cited. 2. Use of proscribed means We find reasonable cause to believe that Laborers used means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) to enforce its claims to the work in dispute. As set forth above, Labor- ers’ Local business manager, Terry Joyce, sent a letter to each Employer stating that members of Laborers would picket and strike any projects where forklift and/or skid steer work was assigned to employees other than those represented by Laborers. These statements constitute threats to strike over the assignments of forklift and skid steer work, and such threats are a proscribed means of enforcing claims to disputed work. Operating Engineers Local 150 (Patten Industries), 348 NLRB 672, 674 (2006). We find no merit in Operating Engineers’ assertion that the Employers have colluded with Laborers to fash- ion a sham jurisdictional dispute. The Board has consist- ently rejected this argument “[i]n the absence of affirma- tive evidence that a threat to take proscribed action was a sham or was the product of collusion.” Operating Engi- neers Local 150 (R&D Thiel), above, 345 NLRB at 1140; see also Donley’s II, above, slip op. at 5. In this case, there is no evidence that Laborers’ written threats to “picket and strike” over the assignment of the disputed work were the result of collusion with CEA and/or the Employers or were otherwise not genuine. 3. No voluntary method for adjustment of dispute We further find no agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute to which all parties are bound. The Employers and Laborers stipulated accordingly, and Operating Engineers provided no evidence or argument to the contrary. Based on the foregoing, we find that there are compet- ing claims for the work in dispute, there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violat- ed, and there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. We accordingly find that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination, and we deny Operating Engineers’ motion to quash the notice of hearing. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirma- tive award of disputed work after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573, 577–579 (1961). The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is “an act of judgment based on common sense and experience,” reached by balancing the factors involved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (J.A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410–1411 (1962). The following factors are relevant in making the de- termination of this dispute. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 384 1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements The work in dispute is not covered by any Board or- ders or certifications. As noted above, the Employers are signatories to a multiemployer collective-bargaining agreement with Operating Engineers. Paragraph 10 of the current collec- tive-bargaining agreement between the CEA and Operat- ing Engineers states: In accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Employer shall employ Operating Engineers for the erection, operation, assembly and disassembly, and maintenance and repair of the following construction equipment regardless of motive power: . . . Forklifts, Skid steers . . . . The Employers are also signatory to a separate mul- tiemployer collective-bargaining agreement with Labor- ers. Article 1, section 7 of that agreement specifies nu- merous types of work within the jurisdiction of Laborers. Each provision states: The operation of forklifts, . . . [and] skid-steer loaders, . . . when used in the performance of the aforementioned jurisdiction shall be the work of the laborer [or labor- ers]. We find that the language in both contracts covers the work in dispute. Therefore, the factors of certifications and collective-bargaining agreements do not favor an award to either group of employees. 2. Employer preference and past practice Representatives of the Employers testified that they prefer assigning the disputed skid steer and forklift work to employees represented by Laborers. In addition, the Employers’ representatives testified that assignment of this work to their Laborers- represented employees is consistent with their past prac- tice. Specifically, Representatives for KMU, Schirmer, Platform, 21st Century, and Donley’s testified that they always assign work of the kind in dispute to employees represented by Laborers.9 Rob DiGeronimo, vice presi- 9 Kevin Urig, owner of KMU, testified that since 2010, when KMU became a signatory to the Laborers-CEA agreement, KMU has as- signed its forklift and skid steer work solely to Laborers. Urig further testified that, prior to signing the Laborers-CEA agreement, KMU did not use forklifts and it assigned skid steer work almost exclusively to non-union employees. John Roche, vice president of Schirmer, testi- fied that, during his 30 years with Schirmer, Schirmer’s forklifts and skid steers have been operated exclusively by employees represented by Laborers. Jason Klar, president of Platform, testified that Platform has assigned its forklift and skid steer work solely to employees repre- sented by Laborers since Platform became a signatory to the Laborers- CEA agreement in 2002. Patrick Butler, president of 21st Century, dent of Independence, testified that Independence assigns forklifts and skid steers to Laborers except on “rare” oc- casions when they would assign the work to Operating Engineers, which occurred “less than five percent” of the time. Operating Engineers cites to evidence of isolated in- stances when one of the Employers may have used an employee represented by Operating Engineers to operate a forklift or skid steer.10 Such evidence, however, nei- ther demonstrates the existence of a practice of using Operating Engineers-represented employees nor shows that the Employers’ past practice of using Laborers- represented employees is inconclusive.11 See, e.g., La- borers Local 210 (Surianello General Concrete Contrac- tor), 351 NLRB 210, 212 (2007); Elevator Constructors Local 2 (Kone, Inc.), 349 NLRB 1207, 1210 (2007); Millwrights Local 1026 (Intercounty Construction Corp,), 266 NLRB 1049, 1052 (1983). We find, therefore, that the factor of employer prefer- ence and past practice favors an award of the work in dispute to employees represented by Laborers. 3. Area and industry practice The Employers and Laborers argue that area and in- dustry practice supports an award of the disputed work to testified that 21st Century has assigned its forklift and skid steer work to employees represented by Laborers since the company was founded in 2001. Mike Dilley, Donley’s vice president of concrete operations, and Greg Przepiora, Donley’s operations manager of Concrete, testified that during their 14 and 16 years, respectively, with Donley’s, the fork- lift and skid steer work has always been assigned to employees repre- sented by Laborers. 10 In addition to DiGeronimo’s testimony, above, about the rare oc- currences, Operating Engineers cites to the following evidence in the record: (a) a picture of someone who resembles an Operating Engi- neers-represented employee on a skid steer at a Platform ite at an un- specified time; (b) the testimony of KMU owner Kevin Urg that KMU utilized Operating Engineers-represented employees “at one point in time”; (c) the testimony of 21st Century President Patrick Butler that he reassigned a skid steer from a Laborers-represented employee to an Operating Engineers-represented employee for about a week at a job site in Southwest Ohio after “the Operators BA … threatened my la- borers on site”; and (d) the testimony of Operating Engineers member David Russell that he witnessed the intermittent operation of a skid steer and forklift by an Operating Engineers member at a Schirmer jobsite. 11 Relying on Longshoremen ILWU Local 50 (Brady-Hamilton Ste- vedore Co.), 223 NLRB 1034, 1037 (1976), reconsideration granted and decision rescinded on other grounds 244 NLRB 275 (1979), Oper- ating Engineers also contends that the Employers’ stated preference should be treated with skepticism because it is based on a sham. We find no merit in this argument. First, as noted above, the stated prefer- ence is consistent with the Employers’ past practice. Second, Long- shoremen ILWU Local 50 is distinguishable because the employer’s preference in that case changed after the charged union initiated a work action. Id. No such change has occurred here. LABORERS LOCAL 310 (KMU TRUCKING & EXCAVATING) 385 Laborers-represented employees. In Donley’s II,12 Tim Linville, executive vice president of the CEA, testified that forklifts and skid steers are usually assigned to La- borers-represented employees and are sometimes as- signed to carpenters or iron workers. And in both this proceeding and Donley’s II, Joyce testified that, in his experience, the area practice in the building industry of Northeast Ohio is to assign forklifts to Laborers- represented employees, and not to Operating Engineers- represented employees. In arguing that this factor weighs in favor of the em- ployees it represents, Operating Engineers’ introduced work orders from signatory contractors for the referral of Operating Engineers’ members capable of operating skid steers and forklifts. Without more, however, this evi- dence does not establish that any Operating Engineers- represented employees actually performed skid steer and forklift work on the jobs to which they were referred. See Donley’s II, above, at 908–909.13 We find based on the foregoing evidence that this fac- tor favors an award of the work in dispute to employees represented by Laborers. 4. Relative skills and training Both Laborers and Operating Engineers introduced ev- idence that they provide training in the operation of fork- lifts and skid steers and that the employees they represent are certified to operate this equipment. In addition, sev- eral representatives of the Employers testified that they provide training in the operation of forklifts and skid steers to their Laborers-represented employees, and that they are satisfied with the skills of those employees. We find from this evidence that this factor does not fa- vor an award of the disputed work to either group of em- ployees. 12 As mentioned above in fn. 4, the hearing officer granted the mo- tion of Laborers and the Employers to incorporate the records in Don- ley’s I and Donley’s II, into the instant proceeding. 13 Operating Engineers additionally cites to a 1954 interunion agreement between the International Union of Operating Engineers and the International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America that appears to have been admitted into the record in Don- ley’s I. However, neither the terms of that agreement, nor anything else in the record, indicates that the 1954 agreement covers the disputed work at these jobsites. Additionally, the record does not show that the Employers have agreed to be bound by the agreement, or that the area and industry practice in fact conforms to the terms of the agreement. See, e.g., Plumbers Local 562 (Charles E. Jarrell Contracting Co.), 329 NLRB 529, 533 (1999) (finding that interunion agreement does not favor award of disputed work to either group of employees where rec- ord did not contain conclusive evidence as to whether the agreement covered the work in dispute, whether the employer had agreed to be bound by the agreement, or that area and industry practice conformed to the terms of the agreement). 5. Economy and efficiency of operations Representatives of each of the Employers testified that it is more efficient and economical for them to assign the operation of forklifts and skid steers to employees repre- sented by Laborers. They testified that their utilization of forklifts and skid steers is sporadic and is usually in- termittent throughout the day. They stated that Laborers- represented employees perform multiple tasks in addition to the disputed work and, therefore, can leave the forklift or skid steer when it is not in use to perform these other tasks, which are duties that Operating Engineers- represented employees do not perform. They further explained that it would not be economical to hire em- ployees represented by Operating Engineers to occasion- ally perform the work in dispute while also retaining employees represented by Laborers to perform the other work within Laborers’ jurisdiction. They additionally testified that, because forklifts and skid steers are only used approximately 25 to 50 percent of the time, Operat- ing Engineers-represented employees would be idle for substantial periods of time, when the equipment was not in use. See, e.g., Seafarers International Union (Luedtke Engineering Co.), 355 NLRB 302, 305 (2010); Laborers (Eshbach Bros., LP), above, 344 NLRB at 204.14 We find that this factor favors an award of the disputed work to the Laborers-represented employees. Conclusion After considering all of the relevant factors, we con- clude that employees represented by Laborers are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion based on the factors of employer preference and past practice, area and industry practice, and economy and efficiency of operations. In making this determination, we award the work to employees represented by Labor- ers, not to that labor organization or its members. 14 Operating Engineers contends that assigning the work in dispute to Laborers-represented employees would subject the Employers both to the labor costs of paying those employees and to the damages result- ing from their breach of the pay-in-lieu provisions. This contention is without merit, as maintenance of pay-in-lieu grievances after the Board has awarded the work in dispute violates Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(D). Iron Workers Local 433 (Otis Elevator Co.), 309 NLRB 273, 274 (1992), enfd. 46 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1995). Operating Engineers additionally contends that it would be equally efficient to assign the disputed work to Operating Engineers- represented employees if the Employers would also assign them other tasks, specifically, those that Laborers-represented employees currently perform. This contention, too, is without merit, as representatives of the Employers testified that the other tasks that Laborers-represented employees perform are within the jurisdiction of the Laborers in the CEA-Laborers contract and not the type of work typically performed by Operating Engineers-represented employees. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 386 Scope of Award The Employers and Laborers request a broad area wide award, covering the geographic jurisdiction of Operating Engineers. In support, they argue that the evidence in prior Board cases (Donley’s I and Donley’s II) shows that Operating Engineers has a proclivity to violate Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D) and that the dispute here is likely to re- cur. In Donley’s II, which issued after the conclusion of this proceeding, the Board granted a broad area wide award to employees represented by Laborers, for work of the kind in dispute. See Donley’s II, supra, 909–910. That award covers the area where Local 310’s and Local 18’s jurisdictions overlap, which encompasses the instant disputes in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Our award in the instant cases restates and applies that area wide order. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow- ing Determination of Dispute. Employees of KMU Trucking & Excavating, Schirmer Construction Co., Platform Cement, Inc., 21st Century Concrete Construction, Inc., Independence Excavating, Inc., and Donley’s Inc., who are represented by Labor- ers’ International Union of North America, Local 310, are entitled to perform forklift and skid steer work in the area where their employers operate and the jurisdiction of Laborers International Union of North America, Local 310 and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 overlap.