Carpenters Local 186

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1972

196 N.L.R.B. 14 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union No. 186, AFL-CIO and
Douglas Whited and Joseph Skilken & Co. and La-
borers' International Union of North America, Local
Union No. 809, AFL-CIO. Case 8-CD-220
March 31, 1972
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
commercial, industrial, and residential buildings.
During the calendar year 1971, the Employer at the
Steubenville Metropolitan Housing Authority Pro-
ject, where the dispute occurred, received products
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from sources outside the State of Ohio. We find,
therefore, that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
a charge filed by Douglas Whited, an individual, and
Laborers' International Union of North America, Lo-
cal Union No. 809, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called La-
borers, alleging that The United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No.
186, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Carpenters, violat-
ed Section 8(b)(4)(d) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requir-
ing the Employer to assign certain work to employees
represented by Carpenters rather than to employees
represented by Laborers.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Frank
Motil on December 9, 1971. All parties appeared at
the hearing and were given full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues.' A brief
has been filed by Douglas Whited, an individual,
and the Laborers Union.
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. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and the record shows, that
the Employer is an Ohio corporation with its main
office and place of business in Columbus, Ohio. It is
engaged as a general contractor and developer of
' At the hearing Respondent Carpenters stated it had transmitted a letter
to the Regional Director disclaiming any interest in the disputed work and
moved to dismiss the charge , which motion the Hearing Officer denied. Afer
entering into certain stipulations that the Employer was engaged in com-
merce , and that the Unions involved were labor organizations , it withdrew
from further participation in the hearing, reserving its right to file a brief.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated and we find that Laborers
and Carpenters are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Basic Facts
The work in dispute involves the construction of
scaffolding by fitting together manufactured inter-
locking parts and placing planking furnished by the
manufacturer on the scaffold. There is no traditional
carpentry work connected with the erection of the
scaffold.
By letter of July 19, 1971, pursuant to an agreement
with Laborers, the Employer assigned the disputed
work to the laborers. About 8:15 a.m. on July 23,
1971, all carpenters left the jobsite. The Carpenters
steward, Vitchaman, told Carpenter Foreman Ross
that the reason for this action was that the scaffolding
was not erected by members of the Carpenters Union.
At the end of the workday on July 23, 1971, two
members of the Laborers Union were laid off because
of the walkout by carpenters. The Employer's Super-
intendent Ronk, when trying to stop the walkout, was
told by Carpenters work steward, Fleaman, that
among other things " ... we're going to show you how
this valley's run."
On Monday, July 26, the business agents of the
rival unions met and agreed to resume work. On the
following Wednesday, members of the Carpenters
Union mounted the scaffold and performed some car-
pentry work until it was necessary to move the scaf-
folding, at which time they refused to remount it.
Following two successive refusals by carpenters to use
the scaffolding, they were ordered by the Employer's
construction superintendent to proceed with the job.
Thereafter, the job was completed without further in-
terruptions.
On August 12, 1971, one of the laid-off laborers
filed the instant charge against Carpenters.
196 NLRB No. 7
CARPENTERS LOCAL 186 15
B. Contentions of the Parties
Laborers contend that the employees currently em-
ployed on the project are entitled to the work assign-
ment on the basis of existing and past contracts,
custom, and practice, and the appropriateness of the
assignment of the work to them under these and other
established Board standards. Laborers further con-
tend that Carpenters violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act by its conduct described above.
As noted, Carpenters withdrew from the hearing
and presented no evidence relating to the dispute.
Instead it contends that the charges should be dis-
missed because it had disclaimed any interest in the
disputed work.
C. Applicability of the Status
The charge alleges violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act and the record furnishes reasonable cause
to believe that Carpenters restrained and coerced the
Employer for the purpose of forcing assignment of the
disputed work to its members. Although at various
stages of this proceeeding Carpenters has disclaimed
any current interest in the existing work assignment
made by the Employer, there is insufficient assurance
that Carpenters will not foment further work interrup-
tions; nor does it appear that the dispute has been
adjusted? Accordingly, we find that there is reasona-
ble cause to believe that violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dispute is proper-
ly before the Board for determination under Section
10(k) of the Act.
D. Merits of the Dispute
As noted, there is no traditional carpentry work
connected with the erection of the scaffolding. Car-
penters' disavowal of any present claim to the disput-
ed work leaves this Board with no relevant basis upon
which it could predicate an affirmative work award at
variance with the Employer's present assignment and
longstanding practice. All the affirmative facts ap-
pearing in the entire record favor an award to the
employees presently doing the work, represented by
Laborers pursuant to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Employer. Thus, the record as a whole
2 It was stipulated at the commencement of the hearing, by all but Respon-
dent, that the parties have been unable to agree to any method of adjusting
the dispute
affirmatively establishes that (1) the Employer's as-
signment accords with the existing collective-bargain-
ing agreement between Employer and Laborers; (2)
the assignment comports with Employer, area, and
industry practice; (3) the employees represented by
Laborers are fully qualified to do the work and labor-
ers can be utilized for other jobsite work, whereas
carpenters may have to be laid off at times when there
is no carpentry work.
Scope of the Award
Laborers is here requesting a broad work award,
contending that such an award is necessary in order
to avoid future interruptions at other of its construc-
tion jobs. However, there is no evidence of a pattern
of misconduct that suggests a likelihood that this dis-
pute will extend to any other of the Employer's jobs
or recur in the future. Accordingly, we shall restrict
our determination to the dispute which gave rise to
this proceeding. Our award of the work is to employ-
ees represented by the Laborers and not to that Union
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 pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following determination of dispute.
1. Employees employed by Joseph Skilken & Co.,
who are currently represented by Laborers' Interna-
tional Union of North America, Local Union No.
809, AFL-CIO, are entitled to the erecting and assem-
bling of scaffolding on the Steubenville Metropolitan
Housing Authority Project of Joseph Skilken & Co.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union No. 186, AFL-CIO, is not en-
titled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act to force or require the Employer to award the
above work to its members or employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No.
186, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 8, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain
from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to award the work
in dispute to its members rather than to employees
represented by Laborers.