Brick Layers, Masons & Plasterers, Local 15

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 1092 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brick Layers, Masons, and Plasterers, Local No. 15
and J . A. Jones Construction Company. Case
10-CD-221
April 13, 1970
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following a charge filed on October 6, 1969, by the
J. A. Jones Construction Company, the general
contractor herein, alleging that the above-named
Brick Layers, Masons, and Plasterers, Local No.
15, herein called Local 15, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A duly scheduled hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Robert C. Batson on
November 18, 1969. All parties appearing were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues.' The rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Briefs were filed by Jones,
Thigpen, Local 15, and Local 614.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board'
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The parties stipulated that (1) Jones Construction
Company is a Delaware corporation with principal
offices located in Charlotte, North Carolina, that it
is engaged in the general construction business and
is presently the general contractor for the U. S.
Plywood - Champion Papers project near
Courtland, Alabama, and that in the operation of
the construction at this project Jones annually
purchases goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from sources outside the State of
Alabama; and (2) that Thigpen Brothers is a
partnership engaged in cement finishing contracting
work and is presently under contract for work
valued at $225,000 for Jones Construction Company
on the U. S. Plywood - Champion Paper project
near Courtland, Alabama. We find that both
Employers herein are engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
'Thigpen Brothers Contracting Company, herein called Thigpen, the
subcontractor herein which made the work assignments here in dispute and
Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons, Local 614, herein called Local
614, the Union to which the work was originally assigned intervened and
fully participated in the hearing
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Brick
Layers Local 15 and Plasterers Local 614 are labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work at Issue
The work which gave rise to this proceeding
consists of cement finishing at the Jones
Construction site outside of Courtland, Alabama.
B. Contentions of the Parties
Jones contends that the Board should find a
jurisdictional dispute and assign the work of cement
finishing to employees of Thigpen Brothers
represented by Local 614.
Thigpen Brothers contends that there is no
jurisdictional dispute but in the event the Board
finds that a dispute does exist, that the work should
be assigned to its employees as represented by Local
15.
Local 15 concurs in the contentions of Thigpen
Brothers and also contends that the work in dispute
has been properly assigned to its members who are
employees of Thigpen Brothers.
Local 614 contends that there is a jurisdictional
dispute, that the work in question had originally and
properly been assigned to Thigpen Brothers'
employees who were members of Local 614 because
the work in question was within the work and
territorial jurisdiction of Local 614, that Thigpen
Brothers thereafter refused to recognize and deal
with Local 614 as the representative of its employees
and improperly transferred recognition to Local 15
as representative of its employees.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to
determine a dispute out of which a Section
8(b)(4)(D) charge has arisen. However, before the
Board proceeds with a determination of dispute, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. In
order to conclude that reasonable cause exists, the
Board must find evidence in the record showing that
conduct proscribed by this section has occurred and
that such conduct was engaged in for the purpose of
forcing or requiring an employer to assign particular
work to employees in a particular labor organization
or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to
employees in another labor organization or in
another trade, craft, or class.
Jones asserts that after it was awarded the general
contract for Phase III of the construction project
involved herein it held a prejob conference to which
all the building trades unions, including Locals 614
181 NLRB No. 170
BRICK LAYERS , MASONS , & PLASTERERS , LOCAL 15
and 15, were invited; and that at this meeting and
on several occasions thereafter, Local 15 demanded
that the work of cement finishing be assigned to
employees represented by it and threatened that if
the work of cement finishing was not assigned to
employees represented by Local 15, bricklayers, also
represented by Local 15, would not be supplied to
the jobsite and that Local 15 would shut the project
down if Local 15 was not given the cement finishing
work. Several days after the prejob conference,
Jones entered into negotiations with Thigpen
Brothers for the cement finishing work on Phase
III. In the course of these negotiations, Jones'
representatives made it clear to Thigpen that
securing of the subcontract was dependent on
Thigpen following and applying Jones' labor
relations policies. One aspect of Jones' labor policy
was that insofar as all territorial disputes between
two or more building trades unions were concerned,
Jones followed the decision of International Union
or Unions involved. Although Thigpen had
theretofore used Local 15 men as his employees, in
April 1969 with full knowledge of and in accord
with Jones' area jurisdiction requirement, it
recognized and dealt with Local 614 for referral of
employees and as representative of the cement
finishers on the job.3 On September 22, 1969,
Thigpen announced that he was of the opinion that
the work was in the jurisdiction of Local 15, that he
was no longer recognizing Local 614, and that he
was henceforth recognizing and dealing with Local
15. At the same time, a representative of Local 15
advised Jones' representative that if Jones made any
attempt to interfere with the assignment of work by
Thigpen to Local 15 then Local 15 would remove its
bricklayers from the project.
In view of the conduct described above, we find
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that
the dispute is properly before the Board for
determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
D. Merits of the Dispute
Jones, as a general contractor, engages in
extensive contracting work throughout much of the
south and southeastern portions of the United
States. As a general contractor it has entered into a
multitude of subcontracts with various other
employers engaged in the building trades. To avoid
territorial and work assignment disputes between the
sundry local unions of the building trades unions
Jones, adopted a policy of conforming to the
territorial jurisdiction awards as promulgated by the
respective international unions. Following this
policy, Jones, as noted above, advised Thigpen
during contract negotiations for the cement finishing
'That Thigpen recognized this requirement is eminently clear from the
testimony of Edward Thigpen to the effect that he entered into an
agreement with Local 614 which included Local 614's agreement to grant
referral out of Local 614 to 6 of Thigpen's regular employees to the job
1093
work that the respective International Unions of
Locals 15 and 614 had determined that Local 614
had jurisdiction for referral of cement finishers on
the project involved herein. Although Thigpen
originally agreed to and did recognize Local 614 as
the Union through which cement finishers would be
referred, at the hearing, Thigpen, along with Local
15, contends that the project site is within the
geographical jurisdiction of Local 15.
The record discloses that Local 15 of the
Bricklayers Union and Local 614 of the Operative
Plasterers Union both have historically represented
employees engaged in the work of cement finishing
in the State of Alabama. The record also shows that
for the State of Alabama the International Unions
of the 2 Locals herein, by mutual agreement in
August 1959, agreed that where their jurisdictional
claims overlapped that plasterers, cement masons
and shop hands should have jurisdiction in certain
counties of the State while the cement finisher
members of the Bricklayers would have jurisdiction
in the other counties. Insofar as the county of
Lawrence is concerned, (where the construction site
is located) the International Unions agreed to a
division of the county with the Plasterers Union
having jurisdiction of the Western part of the county
including the city of Moulton, Alabama. To clearly
spell out the line of demarcation between the two
Locals in Lawrence County, the International
Unions caused a map to be prepared setting out the
Plasterers Unions' jurisdiction in . blue and the
Bricklayers' in red. This map shows the city of
Moulton and that portion of the county west of
Moulton to be in the area colored blue. From the
testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that the jobsite
is located in the blue area and is west of a
north-south line drawn along the eastern boundry of
the city of Moulton.4 Other testimony clearly shows
that in the period immediately following the prejob
conference, International President Murphy of the
Bricklayers Union personally advised Jones'
representative that the worksite was within the
jurisdiction of Local 614 and that he had so advised
Mr. Whitt, Local 15's representative.
We view the dispute to be decided as a narrow
one, limited to the cement finishing work at the U.
S. Plywood Champion Paper construction site at
Courtland, Alabama. Upon consideration of all
pertinent factors in the entire record we find that
Thigpen's award of the disputed work to employees
represented by Local 15 is not supportable on the
'At the hearing, Local 15 introduced a contract entered into between the
North Alabama Contractors Association and Plasterers and Cement
Masons Locals 614 and 826 of Sheffield Alabama and Vicinity dated
January 1962, wherein Local 614' s jurisdiction in Lawrence County is
described as being the "western half of Lawrence County including the city
of Courtland " Although Courtland is west of Moulton , since the jobsite
still lies west of a north-south line running along the east side of the city of
Courtland, this particular exhibit offers no support for Local 15's
contention that the site is within its territorial j urisdiction In addition, the
record also shows that prior to Thigpen 's subcontract , cement finishers on
the job for other employers had been referred to the jobsite by Local 614.
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
record before us. We further find that the work in
question belongs to employees represented by Local
614. Although the cement finishers from both
Unions are fully capable of performing the work in
question and Thigpen has for years dealt only with
Local 15 members, the record is abundantly clear
that the jobsite in question falls within Local 614's
jurisdiction, that Jones, the prime contractor, prior
to executing Thigpen's subcontract herein,
recognized Local 614's jurisdiction in this matter,
that Thigpen as a condition to obtaining the
subcontract herein agreed to abide by Jones'
determination as to Local 614's jurisdiction, that
Thigpen following these conditions, did in fact
recognize and deal with Local 614 for almost 5
months, and that Thigpen has offered no evidence to
establish at this time that its employees represented
by Local 15 are otherwise entitled to the work.
Accordingly, we shall determine the existing
jurisdictional dispute by deciding that the cement
finishers represented by Local 614 rather than
cement finishers represented by Local 15, are
entitled to the work in dispute. In making this
determination, we are assigning the disputed work
to those employees represented by Local 614, but
not to Local 614 or its 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
hereby makes the following determination of the
dispute.
1. Cement finishers represented by Operative
Plasterers and Cement Masons, Local 614, are
entitled to perform the disputed work of cement
finishing at the U. S. Plywood - Champion Paper
construction project located at Courtland, Alabama.
2. Brick Layers, Masons, and Plasterers, Local
No. 15, is not entitled, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require J.
A. Jones Construction Company or Thigpen
Brothers Contracting Company to assign such
disputed work to its members rather than to
employees represented by Operative Plasterers and
Cement Masons, Local 614.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Brick Layers,
Masons, and Plasterers Local No. 15, shall notify
the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing,
whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in
dispute to its members rather than to employees
represented by the Operative Plasterers and Cement
Masons, Local 614.