General Laborers' Local Union No. 66

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 611 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

GENERAL LABORERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 66
General Building Laborers' Local Union No. 66 of the
Laborers ' International Union of North America
and Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Furniture,
Floor, Grocery , Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local No.
138, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Case 29-CD- 159
March 13, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
herein called Georgia-Pacific, alleging that General
Building Laborers' Local Union No. 66 of the
Laborers' International Union of North America,
herein called Laborers, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
requiring Georgia-Pacific to assign certain work to
employees represented by Laborers rather than to
Georgia-Pacific's employees who are represented by
Furniture, Floor, Grocery, Teamsters & Chauffeurs
Local No. 138, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood o- Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, herein called Team-
sters.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Office- Randall M. Kelly on July 17 and 20,
1973. All parties appearing at the hearing were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
on the issues. Thereafter, Georgia-Pacific filed a
brief.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer are free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
The parties stipulated that:
A. Glen Arms Construction Corp., herein called
Glen Arms, a corporation engaged in the general
contracting business, in the course of its business
during the past year contracted for and caused to be
transported to the construction site involved here at
31 Brewster Street, Glen Cove, New York, building
construction materials and other goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported
to the construction site in interstate , commerce
directly from States other than New York State.
1 Gypsum board, also known as sheetrock, is a dried mineral slurry
covered by paper that comes m sheets normally about 1/2 inch thick and in
611
B. Georgia-Pacific is a Georgia corporation, with
branches in Syosset, New York, and elsewhere in the
United States, and is engaged in the manufacture
and wholesale distribution of building materials.
During the 12 months preceding the hearing,
Georgia-Pacific manufactured, sold, and distributed
products valued in excess of $50,000 which were
shipped into New York State in interstate commerce
directly from other States.
On the basis of these stipulated facts, we find that
the two companies are engaged in interstate com-
merce and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Laborers
and Teamsters are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Glen Arms is the general contractor at the Brewster
Street site, an apartment construction project, and
performs part of the work with its own employees,
some of whom are represented by Laborers. Its
current contract with Laborers provides that employ-
ees in the Laborers unit would "unload from trucks
... when done by hand at the jobsite all Carpenter's
material, and . . . distribute such material to . . . the
point of installation where it shall be deposited in
piles and stacks."
Glen Arms subcontracted the carpentry work at
the site, including the installation of gypsum board i
on interior walls, to Mara Construction Corporation,
herein called Mara, which has no contract with
Laborers, so far as the record shows. Mara, in turn,
contracted with the Syosset branch of Georgia-
Pacific (hereafter, the Syosett branch) for the
delivery of gypsum board to the site . The parties'
understanding was that the gypsum board would be
delivered by a truck equipped with a remote control
hydraulic boom, and deposited insofar as possible
via the boom fork through the building windows
directly into the rooms in which it would be used.
Each boom truck is operated by a driver and helper.
Both are represented by Teamsters pursuant to a
bargaining agreement with the Syosset branch. The
Syosset branch has no bargaining agreement with
Laborers.
Georgia-Pacific delivered the first shipment of
gypsum board on June 7, 1973, to the Brewster Street
site without incident. The following day a delivery
sizes ranging from 4 feet by 8 feet to 4 feet by 12 feet and weighing from 100
to 150 pounds.
209 NLRB No. 84
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
truck was sent, but returned without being unloaded
because of a dispute at the site. On Monday, June 11,
Fellinger, the Syosset branch manager, accompanied
the delivery truck to the site. There he spoke to the
Laborers shop steward, who informed him that the
work of removing gypsum board from the boom fork
was "his job" and that Georgia-Pacific employees
could not do it. The steward, however, stated that he
did not want any trouble and requested Fellinger to
telephone the Laborers business agent, Phillip
Sommese, to clarify the matter. Fellinger agreed to
do so, and attempted unsuccessfully to call Sommese
from the site. Afterwards, he had Georgia-Pacific's
employees unload the truck.
At about 2 p.m. the same afternoon, Fellinger
succeeded in telephoning Sommese, and attempted
to persuade him that Georgia-Pacific's employees
should unload the boom fork. He explained that the
employees were organized and that in a similar
situation in Philadelphia the Laborers had been
enjoined from taking action against Georgia-Pacific
to get the work.2 Sommese replied that he didn't
care, he wasn't in Philadelphia, it was the Laborers
job to remove gypsum board from the boom fork,
and he would be at the jobsite the following day to
look into the matter.
On Tuesday, June 12, another load of gypsum
board was sent to the Brewster Street site. Fellinger
also went there and, when he arrived, the truck was
parked across the street from the site still loaded.
After instructing the driver to complete the delivery,
Fellinger met Sommese, who was accompanied by a
group of Glen Arms' laborers. Sommese told
Fellinger that offloading the boom fork was Laborers
work; that if the Georgia-Pacific wanted to do some
Laborers work, it could do all their work; and that
Sommese would take his people off the job. Fellinger
asked him whether he was going to call a strike or
put up a picket. Sommese replied that Fellinger
should just stand around and watch if Fellinger
wanted to know what he was going to do. Sommese
then went into the jobsite trailer of Glen Arms and
spoke with the job superintendent, Sola. When
Sommese came out, the laborers walked off the job.
The laborers apparently returned to work that or the
following day. There is no evidence of a further
instance of work disruption caused by Laborers.
On June 15 Laborers wrote Georgia-Pacific's
counsel that it disclaimed the disputed work at the
Brewster Street site. At the hearing, Laborers
reiterated its disclaimer and moved to quash the
2 Fellinger was referring to the fact that in February 1973 Laborers
Local 332 of Philadelphia and Vicinity had entered into an agreement in
settlement of unfair labor practice charges filed by Georgia -Pacific pursuant
to which Local 332 agreed not to seek by unlawful means the assignment of
the work of delivciy and unloading of gypsum board by hydraulic boom to
employees represented by Local 332 rather than to employees represented
notice of hearing because of the absence of an
existing work assignment dispute.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the unloading of gypsum
board from the boom fork of delivery trucks
equipped with remote control3 hydraulic booms.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Laborers contends that because of its disclaimer
there is no existing work assignment dispute and that
the notice of hearing should therefore be quashed. As
to the merits, it contends that its contract with Glen
Arms requires award of the work to laborers, that
area practice and considerations of efficiency of
operation support such an award, and that other
factors normally considered by the Board in making
awards of disputed work favor neither party to the
dispute.
Georgia-Pacific contends that Laborers disclaimer
is ineffective to terminate the work assignment
dispute because it was specifically limited to the
Brewster Street site and Laborers stated at the
hearing that the disclaimer did not apply to similar
work which Georgia-Pacific would perform in the
future. As to the merits, it contends that an award of
the work to Teamsters is supported by considerations
of efficiency and economy of operations and its own
past practice, and that other factors normally
considered by the Board are not pertinent here.
D. Applicability of the Statute
It is settled law that "a jurisdictional dispute no
longer exists where . . . one of the competing unions
or parties effectively renounces its claim to the
work."4 The work in dispute does not mean work in
the abstract sense, but it means the work at the situs
where the dispute arose.
If we were to determine the dispute and make an
award of the work in this case, our award would be
limited to the work at this particular jobsite. Here,
Laborers has disclaimed that work and there is no
evidence that it has acted inconsistently with the
disclaimer. Its disclaimer is not rendered ineffective
by its retention of the right to seek to have the work
assigned to its members at future jobsites where
Georgia-Pacific may perform it, since there is no
by Teamsters Local 513
3 The description of the dispute is changed to reflect the specific type of
truck involved here, as requested by Georgia-Pacific.
h Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 935, AFL-CIO
(C & S Construction Co. Inc), 206 NLRB No. 133.
GENERAL LABORERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 66
evidence it will use illegal means to obtain the
assignment.5 Under these circumstances, we find that
there no longer exist competing claims to the
disputed work within the meaning of the Act, and we
shall therefore quash the notice of hearing herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.
CHAIRMAN MILLER and MEMBER KENNEDY, dissent-
ing:
This Board is "directed to hear and determine the
dispute" which has given rise to a charge alleging a
union's violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) unless the
parties establish that they have "adjusted, or agreed
upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of, the
dispute."6 Since this statutory mandate is premised
on the existence of rival claims to the disputed work,
we held in Safeway Stores7 that we may not render a
decision and determination of dispute where "one of
the unions claiming the work effectively renounces its
claim. "8 (Emphasis supplied.) As the Supreme Court
noted in approving that decision, we have taken a
"narrow view . . . of the Safeway rule."9 We have
done so especially in determining when an employer
has been actually confronted with competing claims
for work.10
The facts here clearly demonstrate that the Labor-
ers Local Union has not renounced its claim to the
type of work which caused the jurisdictional dispute
in this case. The Laborers Local Union has only
disclaimed interest at this one apartment construc-
tion jobsite. Furthermore, it has affirmatively stated
that it is not disclaiming the work at any other
location.
The Laborers stated at the 10(k) hearing that "we
disclaim the work . . . that is, this particular
location, we don't disclaim the work for any location
at which Georgia-Pacific may be involved in the
future." (Emphasis supplied.) It explained that the
disclaimer did not stem from a lack of interest in
performing the work in question, but "was motivated
by the fact that there was so little [work] involved" at
the Brewster Street site.
Thus, because little was involved at this particular
5 Cf Local No 6, International Association of Bridge, Structural &
Ornamental Ironworkers (Spancrete Northeast, Inc), 196 NLRB 1182.
6 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, Sec 10(k)
7 Highway Truckdrivers & Helpers, Local 107, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent-
(Safeway Store.; Incorporated), 134 NLRB 1320.
8 N.L.R.B. v Plasterers Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers' and
Cement Masons' International Association , AFL-CIO [Texas State Tile &
Terrazzo Co, et all 404 U.S. 116,134 (1971)
9 Id at 136, and cases cited at 135, fn. 31.
10 E g., compare Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No 54 (The Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company and O.T.D Corporation), 203 NLRB No 21, with
613
construction site, the Laborers Local Union limited
its "disclaimer" just to this site . This qualified
"disclaimer" was made only after a strike over the
assignment of the work had occurred and 3 days
after the unfair labor practice charge in this case has
been filed.
At the time of the hearing Georgia-Pacific was
bidding on contracts for delivery of gypsum board at
other locations. At the hearing the Laborers Local
Union made it clear that it was not disclaiming the
same type of work for any other location. Thus, there
still exists the underlying work dispute among these
same parties as to who should perform the type of
work in question and there still exists the substantial
probability that this same jurisdictional dispute will
arise once again among the same parties but at
different locations.ll
Our failure to act now to resolve the underlying
dispute in this case can only lead to further
jurisdictional disputes among these parties over this
same type of work, more charges, and more 10(k)
hearings. When so much concern has been expressed
for so long about the Board's rising caseload, it
would be expected that the Board would be willing to
resolve this dispute now and avoid future conflicts
and future cases over this issue. Quashing the 10(k)
notice of hearing in this case fails to solve the
problem.
The C & S Construction 12 case relied on by our
colleagues is distinguishable. In that case the respon-
dent union made a clear, unequivocal, and unquali-
fied disclaimer to "all interest in the work in
dispute." There was no suggestion in that case that
the disclaimer was limited to the jobsite in question.
There was no affirmative statement by the respon-
dent union in that case that it was not disclaiming the
work for any other location at which the employer
might be involved in the future. Unlike the C & S
Construction case, the Respondent Union here has
not made an effective disclaimer to all interest in the
work, without conditions or limitations, and the
Respondent here has given the clear implication that
it will seek the work in the future at other locations.
In these circumstances, we believe that the Board
must fulfill its statutory obligations under Section
10(k) to determine this jurisdictional dispute.
Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Ind (Hills Transportation Co), 136 NLRB 1086, and Woo4 Wire &
Metal Lathers International Union, Local No. 328, AFL-CIO (Acoustics &
Specialities, Inc.), 138 NLRB 598
ii We note that there is evidence here of a settlement agreement
concerning an earlier jurisdictional dispute over this type of work involving
another Laborers Local Union in Philadelphia , another Teamsters Local,
and Georgia -Pacific, which also occurred in 1973.
i2 Laborers ' International Union of North America, Local 935, AFL-CIO
(C & S Construction Co, Inc.), 206 NLRB No. 133