International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 44

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 1334 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 44, AFL-CIO and Utility Builders, Inc. and
Local Union No. 400 of the International Union of
Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO and Laborers
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
Montana District Council of Laborers . Case 19-
CD-267
April 11, 1977
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 Utility Builders, Inc. (hereinafter
Employer), alleging that International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 44, AFL-CIO (hereinaf-
ter IBEW Local 44), had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity
with an object of forcing Utility Builders to assign
certain work to employees represented by IBEW
Local 44 rather than to employees represented by
Local Union No. 400 of the International Union of
Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter Operat-
ing Engineers), and Laborers International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, Montana District Coun-
cil of Laborers (hereinafter Laborers).
Pursuant to a notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Ralph G. Wilmot, Jr., on December
14 and 15, 1976, in Missoula, Montana. The
Employer, IBEW Local 44, the Operating Engineers,
and the Laborers appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues. Thereafter, all parties filed
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds they are free
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record
in this case and hereby makes the following findings:
1. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer , Utility
Builders , Inc., is a Montana corporation engaged in
i The only change to which the parties agreed was the addition of the
word "underground" in each of the above paragraphs Although IBEW
Local 44 asked to have the word "electrical" removed from the description
228 NLRB No. 167
the construction business. During the past calendar
year, Utility Builders, Inc., purchased goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 from sellers
located outside the State of Montana for delivery
directly to the Employer within the State of Mon-
tana. During the past calender year Utility Builders
Inc., performed services valued in excess of $50,000
for Mountain Bell Telephone Co., which is itself
engaged in interstate commerce. Accordingly, we
find 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
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated , and we find, that IBEW
Local 44, the Operating Engineers , and the Laborers
are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The notice of 10(k) hearing , as amended at the
hearing, describes the work in dispute as follows: i
The operation of all mechanical equipment used
in excavating, backfilling, and repaving of trench-
es and any other operation of equipment used in
the project of installing underground communica-
tion or electrical duct lines and manholes on
projects performed by Utility Builders, Inc., in the
State of Montana.
The fine grading of trenches, shoveling work,
placement of separators between ducts, installa-
tion and placement of underground duct work
and the pouring and placement of concrete
around the duct system and all other miscellane-
ous associated tasks on projects performed by
Utility Builders, Inc., in the State of Montana.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer was awarded a contract to perform
the disputed work by the Mountain Bell Telephone
Company. The Employer is a member of a multiem-
ployer collective-bargaining group known as the
Montana Contractors Association. Through this
Association it has been a party to various collective-
bargaining agreements , including one with the
Laborers. Through that multiemployer association
and an association known as the Montana Heavy,
of the work none of the other parties agreed to such a deletion . Accordingly,
the work in dispute remains as described in the notice of hearing, as
amended by agreement of the parties at the hearing.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 44
Highway and Building Contractors Joint Council,
the Employer is also signatory to a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Operating Engineers.
The Employer has no contract with IBEW Local 44.
Pursuant to its above bargaining agreements, the
Employer assigned the operation of all mechanical
equipment used in the excavating, backfilling, and
repaving to its employees represented by the Operat-
ing Engineers, and the work of fine grading of
trenches and placement of underground ducts and
the pouring and placement of concrete and related
operations to its employees represented by the
Laborers. The Employer began work on the project
on August 16, 1976. A few days earlier, IBEW Local
44 Business Agent Gordon Mahood sent a letter to
the Employer's president, R. H. Blakeslee, requesting
a prejob conference on the project and asking the
Employer to sign a "letter of assent" binding it to a
current collective-bargaining agreement between
IBEW Local 44 and a multiemployer association
known as Western Line Contractors Chapter, Inc.,
NECA, Inc. Blakeslee declined to sign the letter of
assent, stating that the Employer intended to
perform the work as it had done in the past by
assigning it to its employees who are represented by
the Laborers and the Operating Engineers.
Thereafter, Mahood telephoned Blakeslee and told
him that the Employer's assignment of the work in
dispute was "unsatisfactory," and that IBEW Local
44 would not allow any other crafts to do work on
the project. When Blakeslee indicated he would not
change his position, Mahood threatened to go to
Mountain Bell. Subsequently, Mahood wrote a letter
to Mountain Bell requesting that any work being
performed by the Employer be suspended and that
the project be completed by a contractor employing
IBEW Local 44 members. Thereafter, on August 31,
1976, an IBEW Local 44 picket appeared at the
Employer's project carrying a placard reading,
"Utility Builders-Unfair-IBEW."2 Personnel work-
ing at the construction site refused to cross the picket
line and work on the project was temporarily
suspended.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer , the Operating Engineers , and the
Laborers contend that the work was properly
assigned to employees represented by those unions
based on the Employer 's practice and the collective-
bargaining agreements which the Employer has
maintained with both unions over a period of years.
The Employer further contends IBEW Local 44 had
engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D).
1335
IBEW Local 44 claims that the work should be
assigned to employees represented by it on the
grounds that members of a sister IBEW local have
performed similar work for Mountain Bell Telephone
Company, IBEW members will have further respon-
sibilities after the ducts are in place, and the overall
knowledge of communication system by members of
the IBEW gives them the experience to perform the
work most efficiently.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that (1) there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated,
and (2) the parties do not have an agreed-upon
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
With respect to (1), above, the record reveals that
an authorized agent of IBEW Local 44 threatened to
shut down the Employer if it refused to assign the
disputed work to employees represented by IBEW
Local 44. Thereafter, the job was halted by picketing
which IBEW Local 44 authorized. In view of these
facts we find that reasonable cause exists to believe
that IBEW Local 44 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act.
With respect to (2), above, we find, for the reasons
stated below, that all parties to the instant dispute are
required to submit their jurisdictional disputes to the
Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB) for
resolution.
The Employer and the Operating Engineers are
parties to a collective-bargaining agreement effective
between May 1, 1976, and April 30, 1979. Article IV,
section 5, of that agreement contains the following
provision for the resolution of jurisdictional disputes:
The Union and the Employer agree that there
shall be no strikes, lockouts, or interruptions on
account of jurisdictional disputes. Jurisdictional
disputes shall be processed in accordance with the
Procedural Rules and Regulations of the Impar-
tial Jurisdictional Disputes Board and Appeals
Board Procedures. Any settlement rendered shall
take into consideration previous area practice.
The contract between the Employer and the Labor-
ers, dated May 1, 1974, and effective until May 11,
1977, contains a similar provision. Thus, article VII
section 7, of that contract reads as follows:
The Union and the employer agree that there
shall be no strikes, lockouts, or interruptions on
account of jurisdictional disputes, [sic] jurisdic-
2 IBEW Local 44 stipulated at the heanng that the picket line was
authorized by it
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
tional disputes shall be processed in accordance
with the procedural rules and regulations of the
Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board and
Appeals Board procedures.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Employer, the
Operating Engineers, and the Laborers have specifi-
cally committed themselves to resolve their jurisdic-
tional disputes through the Impartial Jurisdictional
Disputes Board.
As to IBEW Local 44, it is well settled that, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board may
take administrative notice of the fact that IBEW, as a
member of the Building and Construction Trades
Department, AFL-CIO, is bound by the agreement
between the Building and Construction Trades
Department and the various employer associations
3 Absent affirmative evidence that a labor organization has withdrawn
from the Building and Construction Trades Department , AFL-CIO, the
Board presumes its continued membership See Local Union No 70,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Workers,
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which created the IJDB. Pursuant to said agreement
IBEW Local 44 is bound to abide by the IJDB rules
and procedures for the settlement of jurisdictional
disputes.3
We find, therefore, that all parties to this dipute are
bound to a voluntary method for the resolution of
this dispute through procedures established by the
Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board.
Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of hearing
issued herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this proceeding be, and it hereby is,
quashed.
AFL-CIO (F. W Owens and Associates, Inc), 205 NLRB 1171, 1 173 (1973)
There is no evidence in the record before us of a valid withdrawal by the
IBEW or its constituent , Local 44, from the Building and Construction
Trades Department, AFL-CIO