Carpenters, Local 525

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 327 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

CARPENTERS, LOCAL 525 327
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 525, AFL-CIO and Ohio Valley
Builders Exchange, Inc. and Engstrom & Wynn,
Inc. and Laborers Local No. 134, Laborers
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO.
Case 9-CD-235
November 15, 1972
and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Respondent and the Laborers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by Ohio Valley Builders Exchange,
Inc., on behalf of Engstrom & Wynn, Inc., herein
called the Employer, alleging that United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
525, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent, has
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was
held before Hearing Officer William M. Kohner on
September 6, 1972. The Employer, Respondent, and
Laborers Local No. 134, Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called
Laborers, 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, briefs were filed by the
Employer and the Laborers which have been duly
considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is a West Virginia corporation engaged in
the business of general contracting with its main
office in Wheeling, West Virginia. The Employer has
the general contract for an addition to the Coshocton
County Memorial Hospital located on Orange Street,
Coshocton, Ohio, at which site it annually receives
goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points
directly outside the State of Ohio. Accordingly, we
find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts
On November 15, 1971, the Employer commenced
the construction of a three-story addition to the
Coshocton County Memorial Hospital in Coshocton,
Ohio. By May 1972, the form work for the super-
structure had been completed and on May 25, 1972,
the Employer assigned to laborers the final stripping
of column forms which supported the roof concrete
slab. On that day, the Carpenters business agent,
Dale Craddock, demanded that the Employer's job
superintendent, G. Eric Martin, assign the final
stripping to carpenters. On June 2, 1972, Carpenters
Steward Joe Chaney told Martin that the stripping
work belonged to carpenters and that they would
shut the job down if they did not get that work.
Martin thereupon telephoned Craddock who con-
firmed Chaney's threat. Furthermore, Martin testi-
fied that at a meeting of the Coshocton County
Commissioners on June 12, 1972, Craddock stated
that either the carpenters be assigned the stripping or
no one would,work. Then, on June 15, 1972, the
Employer assigned the stripping of flat arch forms to
laborers and again, later that day, according to
Martin, Craddock said that if carpenters were not
assigned the work, a picket line would appear the
next day. On June 20 and 21, the carpenters picketed
with signs which read, "Carpenters on Strike." On
both days, members of the Laborers crossed the
picket line to work while other crafts refused to do
so. On June 22, 1972, the carpenters returned to work
and no picketing has occurred since.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the final stripping of
wooden forms for columns between the second floor
and the roof of the building, the final stripping of
wooden forms for beam sides and beam bottoms at
the roof slab level, and the final stripping of steel
forms for shoring used to support beam forms and
slab forms. All the stripping involved herein is
considered by the Employer to be "final" stripping
since the forms are not to be reused on this project
but will be used on some other unknown project at
some unknown time in the future.
200 NLRB No. 50
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the work be left, as
assigned, to employees represented by the Laborers,
that this assignment complies with a 1949 agreement
between the Laborers and Carpenters as well as with
the Employer and area practice, and that the
assignment is consistent with the safe and economi-
cal completion of the job.
The Laborers position is the same as that of the
Employer.
The Carpenters contends that the Employer had
agreed to assign the work under a 1966 agreement
between the Carpenters and the Laborers and that
the 1949 agreement, supra, was not mentioned as the
basis for the assignment.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and
that there is no agreed-upon method for the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As noted, the record disclosed that Craddock, the
Carpenters business agent, made various demands
that the Employer reassign the work to carpenters
and threatened to shut the job down if that
assignment was not made. Furthermore, the facts
show that members of the Carpenters picketed the
jobsite for 2 days. Based on the foregoing and the
record as a whole, we find that an object of the
picketing was to force or require the Employer to
assign the disputed work to employees represented
by Respondent. Accordingly, and without ruling on
the credibility of the testimony in issue, we are
satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) did occur.
It was stipulated at the commencement of the
hearing that the parties had been unable to adjust the
dispute voluntarily and that the Employer is not
bound to the National Joint Board. We therefore
find that this dispute is properly before the Board for
determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
after giving due consideration to various relevant
factors.
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
Neither of the labor organizations involved herein
has been certified as collective-bargaining represent-
ative for a unit of the Employer's employees.
Although the Employer had contracts in effect with
both Unions at the time of the dispute, neither
contract is helpful in determining which of the crafts
is entitled to perform the disputed work. The
Employer and the Laborers argue that a 1949
"Memorandum on Concrete Forms" between the
Carpenters and Laborers Internationals supports the
Employer's assignment. While that agreement does
state that "stripping of forms which are not to be re-
used" is to be assigned to laborers, the agreement, on
its face, does not disclose whether the clause applies
to forms which, as here, are not to be reused at the
site but elsewhere at a later time. On the other hand,
the Carpenters contends, but the Employer denies,
that the Employer had assigned the work under a
1966 agreement, which provides that the stripping be
done by equal numbers of carpenters and laborers;
however, the record disclosed that this 1966 agree-
ment was canceled in 1970, prior to the controversy
herein. We therefore find that neither the contracts
nor the agreements are useful in making our
determination herein.
2. Employer and area practice
It is uncontradicted that the Employer, at least for
the 5-1/2 years Martin has been superintendent, has
consistently assigned the work in dispute to laborers.
In addition, the Laborers regional manager testified
that the general practice in the Ohio area is to assign
such work to laborers. The Employer's and the
Laborers witnesses testified that the 1949 memo has
consistently been interpreted as supporting the
Employer's assignment herein, and the Employer
and Laborers introduced various National Joint
Board awards which corroborate this interpretation.
The Employer and area practice, therefore, favor the
Employer's assignment.
3. Skills, efficiency, and economy of
operation
The Employer's superintendent, Martin, testified
that the laborers possess the requisite skill to perform
the work and are supervised by a foreman who has
been in the employ of the Employer for 25 years and
has had extensive experience in the supervision of the
work in dispute. As a result, the Employer argues
that the utilization of laborers to perform the work
would be more efficient and economical. We
therefore find that these factors favor the Employer's
assignment.
CARPENTERS, LOCAL 525 329
CONCLUSIONS
Having considered all pertinent factors present
herein, we conclude that employees who are repre-
sented by the Laborers are entitled to perform the
work in dispute. This assignment is consistent with
the initial assignment, the Employer and area
practice, and the skills, efficiency, and economy of
operation. In making this determination, we are
awarding the work in question to employees em-
ployed by the Employer who are represented by the
Laborers, but not to that Union or its members. The
present determination is limited to the particular
controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
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
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Engstrom & Wynn, Inc., who are
currently represented by Laborers Local No. 134,
Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to do the final stripping of
wooden forms for columns between the second floor
and the roof, the final stripping of wooden forms for
beam sides and beam bottoms at the roof slab level,
and the final stripping of steel forms for shoring used
to support beam forms and slab forms at the
Coshocton County Memorial Hospital in Coshocton,
Ohio.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Local 525, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to
force or require Engstrom & Wynn, Inc., to assign
the above work to its members or employees whom it
represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, the labor organiza-
tion listed in the preceding paragraph shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, whether
or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring
Engstrom & Wynn, Inc., by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in
dispute to its members or employees whom it
represents rather than to employees of Engstrom &
Wynn, Inc., represented by Laborers Local No. 134,
Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO.