Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen & Packers, Local No 82

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1989

292 N.L.R.B. 794 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

794 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers,
Helpers & Warehousemen & Packers, Local
No 82 , affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO and Cham-
pion Exposition Services , Inc and General
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Help-
ers of Brockton and Vicinity , Local Union No
653, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , AFL-CIO Case 1-CD-
828
January 31, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed February 11, 1988, by the Employer, alleging
that the Respondent, Teamsters Local 82, violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations
Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an
object of forcing the Employer to assign certain
work to employees it represents rather than to em-
ployees represented by Teamsters Local 653 The
hearing was held June 13, 14, 17, 22, 24, and 27,
1988, before Hearing Officer John Welsh
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings,
finding them free from prejudicial error On the
entire record, the Board makes the following find-
ings
I JURISDICTION
The Employer, a Massachusetts corporation, is
engaged in the installation, dismantling, and deco
ration of exhibit work, trade shows, conventions,
meetings, expositions, and like activities Annually,
it purchases and receives in Massachusetts goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points outside the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts The Employer also annually performs
services, valued in excess of $50,000, in States
other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
The parties stipulate, and we find, that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Team-
sters Local 82 and Teamsters Local 653 are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
II THE DISPUTE
A Background and Facts of Dispute
In autumn 1986, shortly after its formation as an
exhibition company, the Employer recognized
Teamsters Local 653 as the bargaining representa
tive of all its employees performing exhibition
work, including the drayage, setup, breakdown,
and decorating work associated with trade shows
and conventions On November 1, 1986, the Em-
ployer executed a 3-year contract with Teamsters
Local 653 Since the John P Hynes Veterans Me
morial Convention Center (Hynes Center) in
Boston, Massachusetts, reopened in January 1987
after extensive renovations, the Employer has as
signed exhibition work at that facility to its Team-
sters Local 653-represented employees
Teamsters Local 82 represents the employees of
the Employer's two principal competitors in the
Boston area, which have exclusive contracts for ex-
hibition work at the other two major facilities in
Boston, and also perform work at other locations
in the Boston area, including the Hynes Center In
late 1987, John Perry, who was then president of
Teamsters Local 82, telephoned one of the Em-
ployer's customers, Crimson Tech, a computer
graphics company located in Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, that planned a May 1988 trade show at
the Hynes Center According to the direct testimo
ny of a manager of Crimson Tech, Perry stated in
the telephone conversation that Teamsters Local
82 had jurisdiction over the Hynes Center, so if
Crimson Tech contracted for exhibition services
there, it had to use a Teamsters Local 82-affiliated
company When informed that Crimson Tech
planned to use the Employer's services, Perry
stated that the Employer was not part of Team
stern Local 82," and that there would be an un
specified "problem" if Crimson Tech did use the
Employer because it was not a Teamsters Local
82-affiliated company On cross-examination, how
ever, the witness agreed with counsel for Team
sters Local 82 that Perry had referred to "a juris-
dictional problem" that would arise if Champion
used Teamsters Local 653 employees at the Hynes
Center Finally, when questioned further by the
hearing officer, the witness emphasized that
"[Perry] didn't say [the problems] would be juris
dictional problems He said there would be prob-
lems " Teamsters Local 82 made no further contact
with Crimson Tech and, although Crimson Tech
did use Champion for Crimson Tech's May 1988
trade show at the Hynes Center, Teamsters Local
82 did not picket or engage in any other activity
associated with that show
292 NLRB No 83
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 82 (CHAMPION EXPOSITION)
By letter dated January 22, 1988, Teamsters
Local 82 requested a hearing before the executive
board of Teamsters Joint Council No 10 to resolve
a jurisdictional question between it and Teamsters
Local 653 concerning the work performed at the
Hynes Center On June 10, 1988, the Joint Council
determined that Teamsters Local 82 had jurisdic-
tion over the exhibition work performed at the
Hynes Center While the dispute was pending
before the Joint Council, the Employer invoked ar-
bitration on whether the Employer was bound by a
Joint Council decision regarding work performed
at the Hynes Center On April 11, 1988, the arbi
trator rendered his determination that the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement between the Employer
and Teamsters Local 653 did not obligate the Em-
ployer to comply with such a decision
B Work in Dispute
The disputed work as stipulated by the parties
involves the drayage, setup, breakdown, and deco-
rating work done by the Employer at trade shows
and conventions at the John P Hynes Veterans
Memorial Convention Center in Boston, Massachu-
setts
C Contentions of the Parties
Teamsters Local 82 contends that there is no
reasonable cause to believe that the telephone con-
versation with Crimson Tech involved a violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act Teamsters Local
82 also argues that the decision of the Joint Coun
cil that exhibition work at the Hynes Center falls
within the jurisdiction of Teamsters Local 82 is
binding on all parties For these reasons , Teamsters
Local 82 contends that the present dispute is not
properly before the Board In the alternative,
Teamsters Local 82 argues that the work in dispute
should be awarded to employees represented by it
because the disputed work falls within its jurisdic-
tion as defined in its charter, and further that the
factors of relative skills and safety considerations as
well as area and industry practice favor such an
award Finally, Teamsters Local 82 asserts that the
Employer's claimed preference for employees rep-
resented by Teamsters Local 653 is not based on
relative skills or efficiency of operations, but rather
on an arrangement with Teamsters Local 653 per-
mitting lower wages and lax contract performance
The Employer contends that there is reasonable
cause to find that Teamsters Local 82 threatened
Crimson Tech in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act, and also disputes that the Joint Council
decision constitutes a voluntary method of adjust-
ment binding on the Employer, citing the arbitra-
tor's decision in support of its contrary position
795
Moreover, the Employer contends that the factors
of employer preference, efficiency and economy of
operations, and its collective bargaining agreement
with Teamsters Local 653 favor an award of the
disputed work to employees represented by Team-
sters Local 653 Teamsters Local 653 agrees with
the position advanced by the Employer
D Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the
Act, it must be satisfied there is reasonable cause to
believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vio-
lated The Employer contends that Teamsters
Local 82 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) by its state
ment to Crimson Tech indicating that there would
be "a problem" if the latter used the Employer to
perform exhibition work at the Hynes Center be-
cause its employees were not represented by Team-
sters Local 82 Teamsters Local 82, however,
argues in its brief that the statement did not consti-
tute a threat, but merely informed Crimson Tech
that the use of Teamsters Local 653 represented
employees would result in jurisdictional problems
between the two locals The only evidence present
ed by the Employer in support of its contention
that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated is the tes-
timony by the manager of Crimson Tech who was
contacted by Teamsters Local 82 The witness pro
vided an ambiguous account of her telephone con
versation with Teamsters Local 82 representative
Perry, testifying initially that Perry had indicated
there would be 'a problem" if she used the Em-
ployer because its employees were not represented
by Teamsters Local 82, later agreeing that Perry
had cited "jurisdictional problems," and ultimately
reaffirming her initial testimony The witness fur-
ther testified that she interpreted Perry s remarks
to mean that Crimson Tech "wouldn't be able to
have the show or whatever " The witness' subjec-
tive interpretation, however, does not determine
whether Perry's statement constituted a threat of
prohibited activity Rather, the critical consider-
ations are the specific language used and surround-
ing conduct and events See generally Carpenters
District Council (Apollo Dry Wall), 211 NLRB 291
fn 1 (1974) In this case Perry' s alleged statement,
under each of the versions testified to by the man-
ager , did not explicitly refer to any specific con-
duct by the local Moreover, there was thereafter
no strike, picketing, or other action taken by Team-
sters Local 82 that would reasonably lend meaning
to the alleged "threat "
In these circumstances, we find the testimony
too vague and insubstantial to establish reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
796 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
violated 1 Accordingly, we shall quash the notice ORDER
o° hearing 2 The notice of hearing is quashed
See generally Operating Engineers Local 106 (E C Ernst) 137 NLR B
1746 1749-1752 (1962) (absent further evidence ambiguous phrase try it
and see does not establish reasonable cause) cf Laborers Local 1191 2 In view of our finding that there is no reasonable cause to believe
(Morrison Co) 209 NLRB 310 (1974) (promise of trouble coupled with that Sec 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated we find it unnecessary to pass on
union s causing cessation of same work on another job sufficient basis for the further contention by Teamsters Local 82 that an agreed on method
finding reasonable cause) exists for the voluntary adjustment of this dispute