Electrical Workers, Local 2

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 478 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lo-
cal 2, AFL-CIO and Gerstner Electric Company
and Eastern Missouri Laborers District Council, Af-
filiated with Laborers International Union of North
American, AFL-CIO. Case 14-CD-499
September 22, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by Eastern Missouri Laborers Dis-
trict Council, affiliated with Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, on November
19, 1974, alleging that International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 2, AFL-CIO, violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening officers of
Gerstner Electric Company in order to force or re-
quire the Company to assign work to employees rep-
resented by Electricians rather than those repre-
sented by Laborers. A hearing was held on June 5,
1975, before Hearing Officer Neil E. McDarby. All
parties I appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing
upon the issues.
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 rulings of the Hearing Officer are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Laborers
and Electricians filed briefs which have been duly
considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Gerstner, a Missouri corporation, is engaged in
electrical installation for highway systems and annu-
ally purchases and receives goods and materials val-
ued in excess of $50,000 at its St. Louis facility, di-
rectly from suppliers located outside the State of
Missouri. We find that Gerstner is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and it will effec-
1 Hoisting and Portable Engineers , Local 513, International Union of Op-
erating Engineers , AFL-CIO, appeared at the hearing but did not intervene
in the proceeding
tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It was stipulated and we find that Eastern Missou-
ri Laborers District Council, affiliated with Laborers
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
and International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local 2 , AFL-CIO, are labor organizations with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
On Thursday, November 14, 1974, the Company
was to cut concrete slots with manually propelled
saws for the installation of electric wire detector
loops for automatic traffic signals on project 1-70-
S-(98) on Interstate Highway 70, St. Louis County,
Missouri. The loops, embedded in the street, detect a
car passing over them and trigger a control on the
traffic light which allows a car to proceed through
the intersection.
On that morning, Project Manager Terry Howe as-
signed the work of cutting the slots-in the concrete to
the employees represented by the Laborers, as the
Company had done for the past 10 years. Before the
work was begun, Electricians' general foreman, Billy
Gene Mosier, made a claim to Howe for the work on
behalf of the electricians. Howe thereupon called
John Gerstner, who is the company officer responsi-
ble for making assignments of work, to apprise him
of the situation. Gerstner told Howe to do whatever
was necessary to get the slots cut that day because
the entire system had to be operational by the follow-
ing Tuesday. Since two saws were to be used for the
job, Howe proposed to Mosier that one laborer and
one electrician be used on the job. After Mosier re-
jected that compromise and reiterated his demand
for the entire job, Howe reassigned the work of cut-
ting the slots to employees represented by the Electri-
cians. The electricians completed the work of cutting
the slots on that day when there was only one laborer
available and there was other work for him to do. No
representative of the laborers intervened in this dis-
pute on Thursday.
B. The Work in Dispute
At the beginning of the hearing, the parties stipu-
lated that the work in dispute is the sawing of con-
crete slots for electrical wire in the installation of
traffic control devices at the work project I-70-
220 NLRB No. 74
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 2 479
S-(98) on Interstate Highway 70, St. Louis County,
Missouri.2
C. Contentions of the Parties
Electricians take the position that the 10(k) notice
should be quashed because the evidence is insuffi-
cient to support a finding of reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vio-
lated and because the dispute is moot.
Charging Party asserts there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) was violated because
Electrician's representative threatened to strike if its
members were not given the work of sawing the slots.
Employer's position goes only to the merits of the
dispute in that both the electricians and the laborers
have satisfactorily performed the kind of work in dis-
pute and the Employer has no preference as to which
employees are assigned the work.
2 At the hearing the Laborers moved to amend the charge to add the
epoxy work , which is another step in the process of laying the electrical wire,
as part of the work in dispute . The Hearing Officer referred that motion to
the Board . Since under Sec. 102 .89 and 102 .90 of the Board 's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8 , as amended , the Regional Director is charged with the
responsibility of investigating and determining the merit of charges, and as
the record contains no further information concerning the epoxy work or
any claims or rights relating of it, we hereby remand the Charging Party's
motion to the Regional Director for whatever action he deems appropriate.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
of a dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act, it must
be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe
that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated.
On the record before us, we are not satisfied that
any violation has occurred in this case. On Thursday
morning, November 14, Mosier merely made a claim
for the work but in no way threatened to take any
action against Employer if employees represented by
the Electricians were not given the work, as is re-
quired to establish a possible violation of the Act.
After Mosier refused to accept the Company's pro-
posed compromise of having one electrician and one
laborer do the job, he merely restated his claim to the
work, and it was reassigned. Although Laborers al-
leged that there was a threat to strike, the record
shows that this occurred the next day when the work
of placing the epoxy was about to begin and after the
sawing of the slot had been completed. Therefore,
there is no reasonable cause to believe that a viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. Accordingly,
we shall quash the notice of hearing.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing is-
sued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.