General Truck Drivers, Local 5

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1605 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 5
General Truck Drivers , Warehousemen and Helpers
Local Union No 5, a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Ind and Mid South Fire Pro-
tection, Inc and Road Sprinkler Fitters Local
Union No 669, United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-
CIO Case 15-CD-234
June 22, 1976
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow-
ing charges filed by Mid South Fire Protection, Inc,
herein called Mid South or the Employer , alleging
that the Respondent , General Truck Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local Union No 5, a/w In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind, herein
called Teamsters Local 5, has violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain pro-
scribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring
the Employer to assign certain work to members of
Teamsters Local 5 rather than to employees repre-
sented by Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No
669, United Association of Journeymen and Appren-
tices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO, herein
called Local 669
A hearing was held on March 15, 1976 , before
Hearing Officer Lee J Romero , Jr All parties ap-
peared at the hearing and were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine wit-
nesses, and to adduce evidence on the issues
Thereafter , briefs were filed by the Employer, Team-
sters Local 5, and Local 669
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 Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudical error The rulings are hereby af-
firmed The Board has considered the entire record
in this proceeding , ' including the briefs of the parties,
and makes the following findings
i The parties stipulated that if Billy Dean Coffey Cyril Wayne Holder
James Dreher and Allen Jones were called as witnesses in this proceeding
they would testify in the same manner as they did in a 10(1) injunction
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
1605
The Employer is a Louisiana corporation with its
principal offices and fabricating facilities located in
Shreveport, Louisiana, where it is engaged in the fab-
rication of fire protection systems The parties stip-
ulated that during the past 12 months, a representa-
tive period, the Employer purchased and received
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from
points outside the State of Louisiana We find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Teamsters
Local 5 and Local 669 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE DISPUTE
A Background
Mid South is engaged in installing fire protection
systems in a four-state area including Louisiana and
has a subcontract to install sprinkler systems in the
Dillard department store at the Cortana Mall jobsite
in Baton Rouge, Louisiana On January 26, 1976,
Mid South arrived at the jobsite and began to unload
materials for installation of the sprinkler systems A
worker, later identified as a teamster, asked Mid
South's employees if they had a teamster on the job,
and Mid South's foreman said they did not need one
The teamster replied, "There would be war over
this," and left Mid South continued to unload the
truck Later that day three Teamsters Local 5 busi-
ness agents arrived and told Mid South's foreman to
stop unloading the materials and claimed that the
work was Teamsters work While the foreman called
Local 669's business agent, one of the Teamsters
business agents told the general contractor's con-
struction superintendent that he would have to shut
proceeding in the United States District Court Middle District of Louisi
ana in Civil Action 76-46 The transcript of that proceeding is included in
the record as it Exh I
The parties also stipulated to the incorporation herein of the entire rec
ords in Cases 15-CD-222 and 15-CD-228 Both cases present jurisdictional
disputes between Teamsters Local 5 and Local 669 In both the respondent
was General Truck Drivers Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 5
and the employer was Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company Inc Case
15-CD-222 is reported at 220 NLRB 474 (1975) Case 15-CD-228 is report
ed at 221 NLRB 1186 ( 1975) The parties stipulated that the work in dispute
in both Grinnell cases is identical to the work in dispute in the instant
proceeding Both Grinnell decisions awarded the disputed work to employ
ees represented by Local 669
224 NLRB No 211
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the job down. Mid South's foreman next called his
construction superintendent and told him that team-
sters had physically surrounded the truck and
blocked it with one of their pickups. Mid South's su-
perintendent then talked to one of the Teamsters
business agents who said that Local 669's members
were not going to unload the material. When asked
what would happen if Mid South tried, the Team-
sters business agent replied they would just have to
try it and see what happened. Mid South's superin-
tendent considered this a threat and told the foreman
to remove the truck from the jobsite.2
On January 28, the Teamsters steward at the Cor-
tana Mall jobsite told three Mid South employees
not to take anything off their truck, including tools,
without a teamster. Mid South continued to work on
the job without incident until February 10 when it
attempted to deliver a second load of materials. The
Teamsters business agent again claimed the work
and told a teamster to drive Mid South's truck
around the building and start unloading it. Mid
South's foreman told him not to touch the truck. The
business agent then told the teamster to set up a pick-
et line. Subsequently, the business agent told among
others a part owner of the mall that he would put up
a picket line. Thereupon Mid South removed the
truck and stopped work at the jobsite. On February
18, 1976, an injunction issued against Teamsters Lo-
cal 5, and Mid South resumed work.
B. The Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated that the work in dispute is
the same as that in the Grinnell cases (see fn. 1, su-
pra). The second Grinnell case described it as follows:
The work in dispute is limited to hand-un-
loading from trucks the initial, or first, drop of
material or equipment delivered by or for the
Employer at the jobsite, and the receiving or
checking off of said material or equipment.
There is no dispute concerning the driving of
the trucks to, or on, the jobsite, which work is
performed by employees of the Employer repre-
sented by Local 669.
More succinctly, the work in dispute is limited to the
initial unloading of materials brought to the jobsite
by trucks.
2 Mid South's superintendent, as well as most people in the industry in
Baton Rouge, was aware of the violence which occurred in a similar dispute
at the Stauffer Chemical Corporation That dispute was the subject of the
second Grinnell case reported at 221 NLRB 1186 (1975)
C. Positions of the Parties
Teamsters Local 5 contends that established past
practice in the Baton Rouge area requires assignment
of the disputed work to its members. It argues that a
1967 agreement with Plumbers Local Union No. 193
cedes jurisdiction of the disputed work to its mem-
bers. In the Grinnell cases it argues that a 1923 deci-
sion of the "National Joint Board" in Oregon awards
the disputed work to its members. Although this
award was not raised in its brief herein, the award
was referred to in the record. The Teamsters also
contends that there is no violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act because there were no threats,
coercion, or picketing. Finally, it argues that the
Board's award, if any, should be limited in scope.
The Employer contends that the Teamsters violat-
ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by seeking to compel
the assignment of the disputed work to its members.
The Employer argues that the disputed work should
be awarded to its employees who are members of
Local 669 on the basis of skills, efficiency, and econ-
omy of operation, its collective-bargaining agree-
ment, past company practice, industry practice, and
its assignment of the work to Local 669 members.
With respect to the remedy, the Employer argues
that the award should extend to all employers per-
forming similar work within the jurisdiction of
Teamsters Local 5.
Local 669 contends that there is a clear violation
of the Act and the work in dispute should be award-
ed to its members on the basis of its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Employer. Local 669 ar-
gues that the award should apply to all similar work
done by any employer wherever the territorial juris-
diction of Teamsters Local 5 coincides with the terri-
torial jurisdiction of Local 669.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
of a 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 voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.
As set forth above, the Teamsters demanded that
the work in dispute assigned to its members rather
than to employees of Mid South who are represented
by Local 669. Although a mere demand for the reas-
signment of work is not unlawful, it may become so
if accompanied by threats, picketing, work stop-
pages, or other coercion. Although no picketing or
work stoppage occurred, the Teamsters clearly
threatened the general contractor, Mid South, and a
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 5 1607
part owner of the mall to do so. Teamsters also phys-
ically surrounded the blocked Mid South's trucks on
two occasions and once threatened to drive the truck
and unload it. The Teamsters further threatened Mid
South in telling it to try and unload and see what
happened. In the context of the recent dispute in the
second Grinnell case, which resulted in a sprinkler
fitter being shot and his foreman beaten, we find that
the above actions could reasonably be considered
more than mere idle threats. Accordingly, we find
reasonable cause to believe that the Teamsters,
through its agents, engaged in the type of conduct
prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(D) for the purpose of
compelling the Employer to assign the work in dis-
pute to its members.
The record shows that the Employer has never
agreed to be bound by any voluntary means to adjust
the dispute herein. Thus, not all, if any, of the parties
have entered into an agreement for voluntary adjust-
ment of the dispute. Accordingly, we find that the
matter is properly before the Board for determina-
tion under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
In accord with Section 10(k) of the Act we shall
make affirmative award of the disputed work after
giving due consideration to the relevant factors.'
1. Prior decisions
The two Grinnell cases (reported at 220 NLRB 474,
and 221 NLRB 1186) involve essentially the same
dispute as herein. (See fn. 1, supra.) Although a dif-
ferent employer is involved in this proceeding, there
is nothing in the record to convince us that the Grin-
nell cases should not be controlling. Both Grinnell
cases awarded the work in dispute to employees rep-
resented by Local 669.
2. Board certification, collective-bargaining
agreements, and awards
Neither labor organization has been certified by
the Board as the collective-bargaining representative
for a unit of the Employer's employees.
The Employer is a member of the National Auto-
matic Sprinkler and Fire Control Association, Inc.,
and through such membership has entered into a col-
lective-bargaining agreement with Local 669, effec-
tive from April 1, 1975, to March 31, 1977. Article 14
of the agreement provides in part:
3 N L R B v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broad-
casting System], 364 U S 573 (1961)
The Union shall accept all materials and equip-
ment as delivered by or for the Employer and
the unloading handling and installing of such
material and equipment shall be performed by
employees covered by this Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
The Teamsters has no collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Employer. It argues that the 1967
agreement with the Plumbers Local 198 and the 1923
National Joint Board decision allocate the disputed
work to its members. Neither agreement, however, is
determinative of the matter since neither the Em-
ployer nor Local 669 participated therein or are par-
ties thereto.
We find that the Employer's collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 669 favors awarding the dis-
puted work to Local 669's members employed by the
Employer.
3. Area and industry practice
The Board found in the Grinnell cases that, on an
industrywide basis, the disputed work is performed
by employees represented by Local 669 rather than
by members of the Teamsters. Area practice is am-
biguous. Teamsters in the Baton Rouge area perform
initial unloading of materials for all building trades
except road sprinkler fitters. Teamsters have also
performed the disputed work for some area sprinkler
employers, but they obtained that work by threats to
close down the job.
We find that industry practice favors award of the
disputed work to employees represented by Local
669. However, area practice is ambiguous and does
not favor an award to either group of competing em-
ployees.
4. Skills, economy, and efficiency
Local 669 members are qualified to read blueprints
and the color coding system used in the industry to
identify fabrication and components and, therefore,
unload materials by blueprint according to sequence
and area of installation, contrary to Teamsters mem-
bers who unload randomly. Teamsters performing
this work would receive at least 4 hours' pay even
though the work may take less time. Accordingly, we
find these factors favor award of the disputed work
to employees represented by Local 669.
5. Employer assignment and practice
The Employer assigned the disputed work to its
employees represented by Local 669 and clearly does
not want to change the assignment. The Employer
1608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has never hired teamsters or any employees other
than sprinkler fitters to perform the disputed work.
The Employer's assignment in accord with its past
practice favors award of the work in dispute to em-
ployees represented by Local 669.
Conclusion
or to be done by any employer engaged in the instal-
lation of fire protection sprinkler systems within the
geographical jurisdictional boundaries of General
Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local
Union No. 5, a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Ind.
Having considered the relevant factors, we con-
clude that employees represented by Local 669 are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. In making
this determination, we are assigning the disputed
work to employees of the Employer who are repre-
sented by Local 669, and not to that Union or its
members.
Scope of the Award
As indicated above, Teamsters Local 5 has repeat-
edly engaged in similar disputes in the same geo-
graphical area with the same unlawful objective. The
first Grinnell case arose from unlawful activity by the
Teamsters in March 1975, the second from such ac-
tivity in August 1975 and earlier, and the instant pro-
ceeding in January and February 1976. In addition,
the record refers to other instances where the Team-
sters forced the assignment of similar disputed work
to its members. That similar disputes are likely to
occur in the future is further evidenced by the Team-
sters business agent's reply to Local 669 business
agent's statement that he thought the matter had
been settled. He replied, `No, it has not been cleared
up so far as you're concerned." Furthermore, the dis-
putes have been marred by violence which resulted in
criminal convictions. It is thus apparent, and we find,
that the Teamsters volatile and continued mainte-
nance of its claim that the disputed work should be
assigned to its members creates a considerable likeli-
hood that similar disputes may occur in the future.
Accordingly, we shall grant the motion of Local 669
for a broad determination. The determination in this
proceeding applies not only to the jobsite on which
the dispute herein arose, and not only to similar work
done by the Employer, but to all similar work done
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and on the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees employed by Mid South Fire Pro-
tection, Inc., who are represented by Road Sprinkler
Fitters Local Union No. 669, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Cana-
da, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the disputed
work of the initial unloading of materials brought to
the jobsite by trucks.
2. General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and
Helpers Local Union No. 5, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Inc., is not entitled, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to
force or require Mid South Fire Protection, Inc., or
any other employer engaged in similar work within
its geographical jurisdictional boundaries, to assign
the disputed work to individuals it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, General Truck Driv-
ers, Warehouseman and Helpers Local Union No. 5,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind.,
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring Mid South Fire Protection, Inc., or any
other employer engaged in similar work within its
geographical jurisdictional boundaries, to assign the
disputed work in a manner inconsistent with this De-
termination of Dispute.