Int'l Association of Bridge, Etc., Local 474

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1435 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

INT'L ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC., LOCAL 474 1435
International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers , Local 474; Benjamin Roy, President and Struc-
tural Concrete Corporation . Case No. 1-CD-80. May 6, 19641
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This. is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, following the filing of charges under Section 8 (b) (4)
(D) of the Act by Structural Concrete Corporation' alleging that
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, Local 474,2 induced or encouraged employees to cease work
in order to force or require Structural to assign the work in dispute to
members of Ironworkers. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer
G. F. Mclnerny on June 11 and 12, 1963. All parties who appeared
at the hearing were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon the
issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs were filed
by the Respondent, the Employer, and United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica 3 and have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
findings : 4
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Structural Concrete Corporation is a New Hampshire corporation
engaged in the design, manufacture, and erection of prestressed and
precast building members. The parties stipulated that the Employer
annually receives goods valued at more than $50,000 from points out-
side the State -of New Hampshire and annually performs services
valued at more than $50,000. We find that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act 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 the Steelworkers and the
Ironworkers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
Herein called Structural or the Employer.
Herein called the Ironworkers.
Herein called the Steelworkers.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) .of the Act, the Board has delegated Its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Jenkins].
146 NLRB No. 152.
1436 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work in dispute
As ;stated, Structural is engaged in the design, manufacture, and
erection of prestressed and precast concrete building members. Each
of these functions is performed at a different location-the designing
in Laconia, New Hampshire, the 'manufacturing in Franklin, New
Hampshire, and the erecting directly on the jobsite. All this work is
performed by the Employer's own employees represented by the Steel-
workers. The disputed work, which gives rise to this proceeding, re-
lates to the erection of the prestressed and precast concrete members.
Although precast concrete members have been used in northern New
England since 1947, the use of prestressed concrete members in con-
struction is a relatively new process in the United States and was first
introduced into northern New England by Structural about'1959. In
prestressed material, the members are fabricated off the jobsite, prop-
erly tensioned in accordance with the load factor determined from
the job specification, then shipped to the jobsite and erected there.
The chief problem with respect to the erection is the weight of the
members, the fact that they are easily damaged, and the close tolerance
that is needed to fit the pieces into place.
When Structural first began its erection operation, the erection crew
spent a substantial amount of time in the manufacturing plant.. As
the business expanded, the erection crew spent more time on the site
than in manufacturing; by 1960 they were spending only 5 percent of
their time in manufacturing. The crew handles all phases of the erec-
tion, including the grouting of pieces when they are in place. The
Employer has generally utilized its own crew for all its work in the
tristate area .5
On October 19, 1962, the Steelworkers filed a petition 6 for certifica-
tion of all production and maintenance employees and truckdrivers
at the Employer's Laconia and Franklin, New Hampshire, plants ex-
cluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in: the, Act. - At -the representation hearing, it was 'established that.
erection work was part of the ordinary work of Structural. Steel-
workers was certified as bargaining representative for the unit it had
requested. -
, Outside the dispute in question, the only other times the Employer has utilized out-
side crews have been on the Manchester school job in June 1960 and on the Nashua school
protect' tn^ the 'spring 'of •1962. The ' reason given by the Employer for utilizing outside
crews in both these instances is the same as in this case, i.e., the Ironworkers threatened
a work stoppage if Structural did not use ironworkers.
e Case No. 1-RC-7166 ; Decision and Direction of Election issued by. Regional Director
December 4, 1962.
*-INT'L ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC., LOCAL 474 1437
B. Evidence of conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (D)
At the hearing in this case, Nils Skorve, chief engineer for Struc-
tural, testified that in April. 1963,'the Employer subcontracted from
Harvey Construction the erection of certain structural members on
a' job for the Auclair Transportation Company in Manchester, New
Hampshire. Skorve further testified that on the morning of April 15,
1963, he received a call from Harvey indicating that there
would be trouble on the job and requesting him to- call Ben Roy,
president of the Ironworkers. Skorve discussed the matter with
Structural's attorney, Peter Millham, who later spoke to Roy on the
telephone. Skorve listened to this conversation - on the extension,
heard Roy claim the work of erection of these concrete members, and
heard him state that Ironworkers would have to take action if the
work was not awarded to it. Millham's version of the conversation
was that Roy declared, "If you don't put up our men on this job, we
are going to pull everybody off; we are going to close the job down."
About the same date, Skorve received a call from Respondent's
business agent, Bernard Cowette, reiterating that employees of Struc-
tural could not do erection work in Manchester and threatening to
take action on the job if the crew wasenot changed. At this point,
according to Skorve, because of a promise to Harvey not to have
trouble on the job, Structural decided to hire ironworkers. Accord-
ingly, the foreman of the erection crew at the jobsite was instructed
to obtain ironworkers the next morning. According to Henry Les-
sard, construction foreman for Harvey, Roy came to the Auclair job
on the afternoon of April 15, and on the following morning the fore-
man for Smith Masonry, a mason subcontractor on the job, told him
that his employees would not go to work until the dispute.about the
beams was settled. The masons did not, in fact, go to work at their
usual 8 o'clock starting time. The Structural foreman, pursuant to
his instructions, hired ironworkers to complete the job. After he
had begun hiring ironworkers, the masons went back to work.
Benjamin Roy, president of Ironworkers, testified that it was his
understanding that ironworkers would be used on the Auclair job.
According to him, on April 12, 1963, Richard Carrier, a full-time
foreman employed by Structural, told him that he would be called
upon to supply ironworkers for the Auclair job.' When Roy did
not receive the expected call, he visited the site to see what was happen-
ing. He found that the job had begun without ironworkers, got into
an argument with Carrier, and then called Harvey who told him that
he had also thought Structural was going to use ironworkers on the
job. -Roy denied making any threats to close the job down and denied
inducing any other tradesmen on the job to refrain from doing any
7 Wiliam J . Weleh; an ironworker foreman, substantiated Roy's statement.
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work for Harvey or his subcontractors. But he admitted that he
noticed that the masons were iiot working on the job on the morning
following his first visit. Fred Jada, the mason tenders' representa-
tive, testified that neither Roy nor any other of the Ironworkers'
representatives requested that he call his men off the job.
C. The contentions of the parties
The Employer contends that, since the Board certification in Case
No. 1-RC-7166 running to the Steelworkers encompasses erection
crews as well as production and maintenance employees and since its
assignment of work to the Steelworkers conforms to this certification,
the work must be awarded by the Board to employees in this unit. It
further argues that the skill and experience of its regular crew in
doing the work, Employer and. industry practice, efficiency, and econ-
omy require that the work be assigned to its own employees currently
represented by the Steelworkers. Steelworkers agrees with the Em-
ployer that it should be awarded the work in question. On the other
hand, Ironworkers, although admitting that Steelworkers has been cer-
tified as bargaining representative for Structural's production and
maintenance employees; contends that the certification does not cover
the employees doing the work in question since the classification of
erection employee is not mentioned in the certified unit, and it also
argues that erection work is a task traditionally assigned to members
of, or employees represented by, the Ironworkers.
D. Applicability of the statute
The charges were duly investigated by the Regional Director. He
was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that there was rea-
sonable cause to believe that a. violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) had
been committed. On the basis of the entire record, we also find that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this section has
been committed, and that a jurisdictional dispute exists and is prop-
erly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
7 • As indicated above, • Steelworkers was certified as the collective-
bargaining representative of all production and maintenance em-
ployees of Structural, and has entered into a collective-bargaining
contract with Structural which specifically covers the erection crew.
Although the Steelworkers certification does not specifically list the
erection crew as included in the unit, the members of that crew were
permitted to vote in the election. We find that they are included in
the certified unit. Section 8 (b) (4) (D) requires that controlling
INT'L ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC., LOCAL 474 1439
weight be given to a certification of the Board determining the bar-
gaining representative for employees performing the disputed work.
The record discloses the following additional reasons for awarding
the work to the Steelworkers. In northern New England, 60 percent
of the erection of prestressed concrete members is done by members
of the Steelworkers. In fact, there has been only one job in New
Hampshire involving such work which has not been performed by
Structural. In all except the two jobs noted above, Structural has
always used its own employees. Also, Respondent Ironworkers does
not customarily grout the erection pieces when they are in place and
cannot work outside of their geographical jurisdictional limits,
whereas the Steelworkers do the grouting and follow the Employer's
operation wherever it may be located. It should also be noted that
Structural includes in all its contracts provisions for erection, as well
as for fabricating and delivering of the prestressed concrete members.
Accordingly, on the basis of the certification, contract, company
and area practice, efficiency, and the fact that the Steelworkers mem-
bers are sufficiently skilled to perform the work and have performed
the work to the satisfaction of the Employer who desires to retain
them, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional dispute by award-
ing the disputed work to erection crew employees of the Employer
represented by. the Steelworkers, rather than to erection crew em-
ployees represented by the Ironworkers. Since there is a strong
probability that similar disputes may occur in the future, we hold
that the determination in this case applies not only to the job in
which the dispute arose but to all similar work done or to be done
by Structural Concrete Corporation in which it uses its own crew to
do the erection work. In making this determination, we are assign-
ing the disputed work to employees represented by the Steelworkers,
but not to that labor organization or its members.
DETERMINATION 'OF THE DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, the Board makes the following Determination of
Dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Employees of Structural Concrete Corporation, currently rep-
resented by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled
to erect prestressed and precast concrete members for their Employer.
2. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local 474, is not and has not been entitled by means
proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) to force or require Structural Con-
crete Corporation to assign the aforesaid erection work to ironwork-
ers, who are currently representedby it.
744-6M-65-vol. 146 92
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers shall notify the Regional Director for the
First Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring Structural Concrete Corporation by means proscribed by
Section 8(b) (4) (D) to assign the work in dispute to their members
rather than to the employees of the Employer.
American Greetings Corporation and International Brotherhood
of Pulp , Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 26-RC-1909. May 6, 1964
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
executed on April 3, 1963, an election by secret ballot was conducted on
April 25, 1963, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Twenty-sixth Region among the employees in the
stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the balloting, the Regional
Director furnished the parties with a tally of ballots which showed
that, of approximately 655 eligible voters, 631 cast ballots, of which 86
were for, and 532 were against, the Petitioner, and 13 were challenged.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election.
The Regional Director investigated the objections and on May 31,
1963, issued his report on, objections,' in which he found that objec-
tion No. 8 raised substantial and material issues affecting the election
and recommended that the election be set aside and a new election
be held. He recommended that all other objections be overruled.
The Employer and the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the report.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the
following unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production,
maintenance, and warehouse employees at the Employer's plants in
1 On June 14, 1963, the Regional Director issued an erratum.
146 NLRB No. 157.