Carpenters Local 558 (Joyce Brothers Storage & Van Co.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 2000

331 N.L.R.B. 1022 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1022
Chicago & Northeast Illinois District Council of Car-
penters and Carpenters Union Local 558 (Joyce
Brothers Storage & Van Company) and Ira
Gleason. Case 13–CD–549
August 14, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, HURTGEN, AND BRAME
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed
February 11, 1998, by Charging Party Ira Gleason, an
employee of the Employer Joyce Brothers Storage &
Van Company (Joyce Brothers), alleging that the Re-
spondent, Chicago & Northeast Illinois District Council
of Carpenters and Carpenters Union Local 558 (Carpen-
ters Local 558), violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed
activity with an object of forcing Joyce Brothers to as-
sign certain work to employees that it represents rather
than to employees represented by Teamsters Local Union
705, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO (Teamsters Local 705). The hear-
ing was held on March 11, 1998, before Hearing Officer
Alan A. Satyr.
On July 28, 1999, the National Labor Relations Board
granted Joyce Brothers’ request for special permission to
appeal the hearing officer’s ruling quashing the notice of
hearing, and remanded the case for further appropriate
action. Following a notice of hearing dated August 11,
1998, which was amended on August 19, 1998, a full
hearing was held on September 8, 1998, before Hearing
Officer Vivian Perez. Thereafter, Joyce Brothers and
Carpenters Local 558 filed briefs.
The National Relations Board has delegated its author-
ity 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 re-
cord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
Joyce Brothers, an Illinois corporation, with offices lo-
cated in Melrose Park, Illinois, is engaged in the business
of commercial and residential moving and storage. Dur-
ing the 12 months preceding the hearing, Joyce Brothers
performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for com-
panies directly engaged in interstate commerce. The
parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, and that Carpenters Local 558 and
Teamsters Local 705 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer is a moving company which does both
residential and commercial moving. It has a collective-
bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 705, which
represents a bargaining unit of tractor-trailer drivers,
truckdrivers, helpers, and warehousemen. One of Joyce
Brothers’ longstanding customers is a company known
as Midcon Corporation, which has a facility in Lombard,
Illinois.
For at least 10 years, employees of Joyce Brothers rep-
resented by Teamsters Local 705 have periodically disas-
sembled, relocated, and reassembled cubicles for Mid-
con. The cubicles consist of movable partitions ranging
from 30 to 60 inches in height, which are connected by
using bracket-like clips. In addition, there is a separate
desk surface connected to the cubicle walls by a clip.
The assembled cubicles are the workspace for Midcon
office employees.
On January 14, 1998, Stanley Macenas and Douglas
Bannister, business manager and business representative,
respectively, of Carpenters Local 558, visited the Midcon
jobsite, where they observed four men installing cubi-
cles. Macenas and Bannister asked for the men’s union
cards. Two of the men did not have union cards and
were not at the time members of any union. The other
two, one of whom was Ira Gleason, the Charging Party,
were members of Teamsters Local 705.
Macenas and Bannister then went to see Carol Doerr,
the facility manager for Midcon. According to Doerr,
the men told her that she needed to “stop having the cu-
bicle furniture put together by Joyce Brothers,” as she
was “taking food out of their children’s mouths. And
that they would picket.” She responded by asking what
she needed to do to avoid a work stoppage.
As a result of the meeting with Macenas and
Bannister, Doerr stopped construction at Midcon and
contacted Joyce Brothers to determine whether Joyce
could provide union carpenters, i.e., employees repre-
sented by Carpenters Local 558. Thereafter, Joyce
Brothers subcontracted with Chicago Installation Com-
pany, which provided union carpenters. No further dis-
assembly or assembly of cubicles was done by any
member of Teamsters Local 705 after January 14, 1998.
Ira Gleason, then the union steward for Teamsters Lo-
cal 705, who was present at the meeting between Doerr
and the representatives of the Carpenters, telephoned
Local 705 Business Agent Richard de Vries to advise de
Vries that Carpenters Local 558 was claiming the cubicle
work. De Vries initially opined to Gleason that it
sounded as though Carpenters Local 558 was taking
Teamsters’ work, and de Vries promised Gleason to look
into it. Although de Vries and Gleason spoke after that
date, de Vries did not inform Gleason of the results of his
investigation, nor did de Vries ever affirmatively advise
Gleason that the cubicle work belonged to employees
represented by the Teamsters.
On February 11, 1998, Gleason filed a charge alleging
that Carpenters Local 558 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act. Thereafter, on March 2, 1998, Thomas R. Car-
331 NLRB No. 131
CARPENTERS LOCAL 558 (JOYCE BROS. STORAGE) 1023
penter, legal counsel for Teamsters Local 705, wrote to
Terrence McGann, legal counsel for Carpenters Local
558, disclaiming the “assembly and disassembly work
related to the installation and erection project at Mid-
con.” On March 9, 1998, Carpenters Local 558 filed a
motion to quash the 10(k) hearing. A hearing was held
on March 11, 1998, for the limited purpose of taking
evidence on the motion to quash.
At the hearing, Business Agent de Vries confirmed the
Teamsters’ intent, expressed in Carpenters’ March 2 let-
ter to McGann, to disclaim any interest in the cubicle
work at the Midcon jobsite. At the end of the hearing,
the hearing officer granted the Carpenters’ motion to
quash, finding that the work had, in fact, been effectively
disclaimed by the Teamsters both through the March 2
letter and through Richard de Vries’ testimony.
Following the hearing, Joyce Brothers requested spe-
cial permission to appeal the hearing officer’s ruling. On
July 28, 1999, the Board granted the request, stating as
follows:

The issue raised with respect to the motion to
quash the notice is appropriately resolved on a full
record after a complete Section 10(k) hearing. See
Longshoremen ILWU (General Ore), 124 NLRB
626, 628–629 (1959) (“The primary function of the
hearing officer, who is acting under the delegation of
authority from the Board, in a nonadversary
proceeding is to insure that the record contains a full
statement of pertinent facts as may be necessary for
the determination of the dispute by the Board.”).
Accordingly, without deciding at this time whether
there was a valid disclaimer, the Employer’s request
for special permission to appeal the hearing officer’s
ruling to quash the notice of hearing is granted, and
the matter is remanded to the Regional Director for
further appropriate action.

Pursuant to the Board’s Order, a second hearing was
held on September 8, 1998. Prior to that hearing, on
September 2, 1998, Teamsters Local 705 counsel Car-
penter wrote to the Board’s Regional Director to reiterate
the Teamsters’ disclaimer, stating that “the work in ques-
tion, as described at the [March 11] hearing, is properly
assigned to members of the Carpenter’s [sic] Union,
rather than members of Teamsters Local 705 employed
by Joyce Brothers.” Teamsters Local 705 declined to
participate in the September 8 hearing.
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the assembly and disassembly
of furniture, including cubicles, owned by Midcon Cor-
poration at the facility located at 701 East 22nd Street,
Lombard, Illinois.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Teamsters Local 705 and Carpenters Local 558 con-
tend that there is no work assignment dispute in this case
because Teamsters Local 705 has effectively disclaimed
any interest in the cubicle work. As to the desire ex-
pressed by Ira Gleason and certain other members of the
bargaining unit to continue doing the work, Teamsters
Local 705 notes that Gleason at the first hearing ex-
pressly stated that he had not intended to claim the work
when he filed his charge. Rather, he filed the charge
because he did not know who should be performing the
work. Carpenters Local 558 acknowledges that Gleason
attempted to claim the work “in his individual capacity,”
but contends that individuals may not create a jurisdic-
tional dispute when their union has effectively dis-
claimed the relevant work.
The Employer contends that a work assignment dis-
pute continues to exist between Gleason and other Joyce
employees who have traditionally performed cubicle
work, on the one hand, and the Carpenters Union on the
other. The Employer also argues that the Teamsters’
disclaimer is not clear and unequivocal, because the dis-
claimer is factually inaccurate in its statements about the
history of Teamsters Local 705 and Carpenters Local 558
working at Midcon.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act directs the Board to hear and
determine disputes out of which Section 8(b)(4)(D)
charges have arisen. Before the Board may proceed to
determine a dispute under Section 10(k), however, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe
that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. Such reason-
able cause requires (1) the existence of a genuine juris-
dictional dispute; (2) activity proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D)(i) or (ii) of the Act; and (3) an objective to
force the Employer to reassign the work. Longshoremen
ILA Local 1235 (Naporano Iron), 306 NLRB 698, 699–
700 (1992).
A genuine jurisdictional dispute arises when there “is a
dispute between two or more groups of employees over
which is entitled to do certain work for an employer.”
Id. at 700. The Board has held, with Supreme Court ap-
proval,1 that a jurisdictional dispute no longer exists
when one of the competing unions or parties effectively
renounces its claim to the work. Plumbers Local 262
(Dyad Construction), 252 NLRB 48, 49 (1980). To be
effective, a disclaimer must be a clear, unequivocal, and
unqualified disclaimer of all interest in the work in ques-
tion. Operating Engineers Local 150 (Interior Develop-
ment), 308 NLRB 1005, 1006 (1992).
In the instant case, Teamsters Local 705 has consis-
tently disclaimed any interest in the disputed cubicle
work. No such work has been performed by employees
represented by Teamsters Local 705 since January 14,
1998. Nothing that Teamsters Local 705 has said or
done is in conflict with the Union’s disclaimer.

1 See NLRB v. Plasterers Local 79 (Texas State Tile & Terrazzo
Co.), 404 U.S. 116, 134–135 (1971).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1024
The Employer argues that the Teamsters’ March 2 dis-
claimer is invalid and must fail because it is internally
inconsistent and equivocal and based on mistaken facts.
In addition, the Employer accuses Business Agent de
Vries of “equivocation” in his testimony regarding the
March 2 disclaimer. It is not necessary, however, for us
to scrutinize the language of the March 2 disclaimer let-
ter or the testimony of de Vries to determine whether the
alleged inconsistencies compromise its validity, as there
is a later disclaimer which the Employer has ignored.
The Teamsters’ counsel in his September 2, 1998 letter
to the Regional Director simply, clearly, and unequivo-
cally stated that the work described at the March 11 hear-
ing should be assigned to employees represented by the
Carpenters and not to employees represented by the
Teamsters. We find on the basis of this disclaimer,
viewed in light of the earlier disclaimer and the entire
record, that Teamsters Local 705 has effectively and un-
equivocally disclaimed the disputed work assignment.
We find no merit in the Employer’s contention that the
stated desire of the Charging Party and other bargaining
unit employees to continue to do the cubicle work creates
a continuing jurisdictional dispute. Gleason filed his
charge in order to get an answer to his question about
who had a right to the cubicle work, not to assert a claim
to the work.2 Consequently, there is no dispute.

2 Gleason testified:
Q. Mr. Gleason, you testified that the reason you filed the
charge against the Carpenters was because you weren’t sure
whose jurisdiction this work came under; is that correct?
A. Correct
Q. So by filing this charge, you weren’t making a claim that it
was [Teamsters] work. You didn’t know one way or the other; is
that correct?
A. Exactly.
Tr. of March 11, 1998, at 104–105.
Q. Isn’t it true . . . when you testified [on March 11] you
stated that you filed the charges because you weren’t sure of
whose jurisdiction it was, Carpenters or Teamsters?
A. Correct.
Q. That’s an accurate statement?
A. It’s accurate.
Q. And you also responded in questions at that time that you
were not making a claim to the work. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Even assuming that Gleason in fact intended to claim
the work for himself and other bargaining unit members,
the Employer’s contention must fail. Concededly, there
may be cases where a group of employees continues to
claim the work, even after their union has ostensibly dis-
claimed the work.3 If there is also a rival claim by an-
other group, a jurisdictional dispute may exist. However,
in the instant case, there is no indication that Gleason or
any of his fellow employees continued to seek the work
after Teamsters Local 705’s disclaimer. In any event,
independent conduct by individual members of a union
will not vitiate a disclaimer when “the totality of the cir-
cumstances indicates that the disclaimer was not equivo-
cal.” Longshoremen ILA Local 1235 (Naporano Iron),
supra at 700; and Teamsters Local 85 (U.C. Moving Ser-
vices), 236 NLRB 157, 158 (1978) (throughout the hear-
ing individual members of disclaiming union asserted
claims to the disputed work). To find a union’s dis-
claimer rendered ineffective solely on the basis of the
independent statements of some individual members
would undermine the union’s position as the statutory
bargaining representative and would counter the well-
established principle of exclusive representation, particu-
larly in the absence of convincing evidence that the un-
ion’s disclaimer was equivocal. See Teamsters Local 85
(U.C. Moving Services), supra at 159.
In light of our conclusion that Teamsters Local 705’s
disclaimer was effective and unequivocal, the claims of
Gleason and other bargaining unit members are of no
effect. Accordingly, we find that competing claims to
the disputed work within the meaning of the Act no
longer exist and that there is no reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. We shall
therefore quash the amended notice of hearing issued
here.
ORDER
The amended notice of hearing issued in this case is
quashed.

Tr. of September 8, 1998, at 105–106.
3 See Pipeliners Local 798 (Moon Pipeline Contractors), 177 NLRB
872 (1969); and Bricklayers Local 2 (Decora, Inc.), 152 NLRB 278
(1965).