Laborers Local 125 (Spancrete Northeast)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1987

284 N.L.R.B. 503 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

LABORERS LOCAL 125 (SPANCRETE NORTHEAST) 503
Laborers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 125 and Spancrete
Northeast, Inc. and Bechtel Constructors Cor-
poration and International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Work-
ers, Local Union No. 207 and Laborers' Inter-
national Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
Local Union No. 894. Case 8-CD-424
26 June 1987
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed 11 March 1987 by the Employer, Spancrete
Northeast, Inc., and by Bechtel Constructors Cor-
poration. The charge alleges that the Respondent
(Laborers Local 125) 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 rep-
resented by it and by Laborers' International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No.
894 (Laborers Local 894), rather than to employees
represented by International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local
Union No. 207 (Iron Workers). The hearing was
held 7 April 1987 before Hearing Officer Karen L.
Giffen. Thereafter, the Employer and Bechtel Con-
structors Corporation jointly filed a brief.
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, Spancrete Northeast, Inc., is a
New York corporation with a facility at Aurora,
Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and installation of precast, prestressed concrete
planks, panels, beams, and appurtenances. During
the year preceding the hearing, the Employer re-
ceived at its Aurora facility goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers
located outside the State of Ohio. The parties stipu-
late, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and that the Laborers and Iron
Workers are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
On 22 December 1986 the Employer began the
installation of precast concrete sections at the
Youngstown wastewater treatment plant in
Youngstown, Ohio, under its contract with the
general contractor, Bechtel Constructors Corpora-
tion. The Employer hired three members of Labor-
ers Local 894 from its permanent facility and two
members of Laborers Local 125 for work on the
site. The work entails unloading varying sizes of
these concrete planks from a truck using a crane.
The crane operation is performed by an operating
engineer and is not claimed by any labor organiza-
tion involved in this dispute. The employees "hook
up on the truck" to unload the planks; and then set
into place, level, and grout the product into place
on the structure. The employees use tools unique
to "precast," such as modified pinch bars and 'le-
vering devices, as well as tools common to the in-
dustry, such as concrete saws.
Bechtel Constructors Corporation is signatory to
a collective-bargaining agreement with the Iron
Workers. That agreement provides that Bechtel
shall not subcontract any work (to be performed
on a jobsite covered by the agreement) to any
entity that does not have a contract with the Iron
Workers. On 3 February 1987 Iron Workers Busi-
ness Manager Sudzina wrote to Bechtel Project Su-
pervisor Betts, notifying Betts of a grievance with
Bechtel because precast beam installation work had
been subcontracted to the Employer, with which
the Iron Workers have no collective-bargaining
agreement. Betts wrote to Sudzina on 12 February
1987, noting the jurisdictional dispute between the
Employer and the Iron Workers and rejecting the
Iron Workers' grievance. On 23 February 1987
counsel for the Iron Workers again wrote Betts
and restated the Iron Workers' grievance with
Bechtel on the basis of the Iron Workers' asserted
contractual right to the work.
On 5 March 1987 Laborers Local 125 Business
Manager Mason wrote to Bechtel concerning the
Iron Workers' grievance, advising that if Bechtel
changed its subcontract for precast concrete work
with the Employer, Laborers Local 125 would
"take the appropriate action against [Bechtel]."
Subsequently, Laborers Local 125 Secretary-Treas-
urer Carcelli allegedly advised counsel for the Em-
ployer that, if the work were reassigned, Laborers
Local 125 would defend its contract with the Em-
ployer by putting up a picket line.
284 NLRB No. 56
504 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the unloading,
stockpiling, and installation of precast concrete
slabs, walls, and sections at the Youngstown
wastewater treatment plant in Youngstown, Ohio.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and Bechtel contend that reasona-
ble cause exists to believe that Laborers Local 125
has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. They
argue that Mason's 5 March 1987 letter, warning of
"appropriate action" against Bechtel if the work
were reassigned to the Iron Workers, constituted
an unequivocal threat to resort to job action, in-
cluding picketing, as confirmed by the testimony of
Laborers Local 125's vice president, Barnes. Re-
garding the merits of the dispute, the Employer,
Bechtel, and Laborers Locals 125 and 894 all con-
tend that the disputed work should be awarded to
employees represented by the Laborers Local 894
and Laborers Local 125, respectively, based on the
factors of collective-bargaining agreements, em-
ployer preference, area and industry practice, rela-
tive skills and safety, and economy and efficiency
of operation. Iron Workers made no appearance at
the hearing and has taken no position.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion 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 the parties have not agreed on a
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute.
By his letter of 5 March 1987, Laborers Local
125 Business Manager Mason threatened "appropri-
ate action" against Bechtel if the work were reas-
signed to the Iron Workers. Laborers Local 125's
vice president, Barnes, testified that the Laborers
claims the disputed work and that, in taking job
action to defend that claim, Laborers Local 125
would "put a picket up,"
On the basis of the foregoing, we find reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. There is no evidence in
the record, and no party contends, that an agreed-
upon method exists for the voluntary resolution of
this dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of
the Act. Accordingly, we fmd that the dispute is
properly before the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an at-
firmative award of disputed work after considering
various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW
Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573
(1961). The Board has held that its determination in
a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based
on common sense and experience, reached by bal-
ancing the factors involved in a particular case.
Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction),
135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of this dispute.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
None of the labor organizations involved in this
proceeding has been certified by the Board as the
collective-bargaining representative for a unit of
the Employer's employees. Accordingly, this factor
is not helpful in determining the dispute.
The Employer is signatory to a national con-
struction agreement with Laborers' International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, which covers
all field construction. The Employer is also signa-
tory to a collective-bargaining agreement with La-
borers Local 894, covering field erection employ-
ees assigned out of its Aurora, Ohio manufacturing
facility. The Employer is not signatory to any
agreement with Iron Workers and does not employ
any employees represented by Iron Workers. The
national agreement covers all work in the trade.
The Laborers' Manual of Jurisdiction includes un-
loading, stockpiling, setting into place, grouting,
etc., precast concrete slabs.
Based on the above, we find that the factor of
collective-bargaining agreements favors an award
of the work in dispute to employees represented by
Laborers.
2. Company preference and past practice
At the hearing and in its brief, the Employer ex-
pressed its preference that the disputed work con-
tinue to be assigned to laborers based on their fa-
miliarity with the Employer's products and their
skill in handling them.
The Employer's assignment of the disputed work
to three members of Laborers Local 894 and two
members of Laborers Local 125 is consistent with
the Employer's past practice of utilizing permanent
employees represented by Laborers Local 894 on
field erection work assigned from the Employer's
Aurora, Ohio facility, supplemented by employees
represented by the Laborers local in whose juris-
diction the work is located. The precast products
used at the Youngstown worksite were manufac-
tured at the Employer's Aurora, Ohio facility. Fur-
ther, according to the Employer, it has erected
5,679,928 square feet of product in 232 jobs in the
State of Ohio since 1980 using employees repre-
LABORERS LOCAL 125 (SPANCRETE NORTHEAST) 505
sented by Laborers Local 894 and various other
Laborers locals. Additionally, the Employer in sev-
eral other States has used employees represented
by various Laborers locals to install products man-
ufactured at its South Bethlehem and Rochester,
New York facilities.
Accordingly, we find that these factors favor an
award to the employees represented by Laborers
Local 894 and Local 125, respectively.
3. Area and industry practice
The Employer's vice president, Koepnick, testi-
fied that in his 17 years with a previous employer
he used employees represented by Laborers to in-
stall field products. We find that the factors of area
and industry practice are inconclusive.
4. Relative skills and safety
Koepnick also testified, without dispute, that the
use of permanent, experienced crews of employees
represented by Laborers results in greater safety on
the job because of their familiarity with all aspects
of the Employer's field work and their knowledge
of the Employer's unique products. Accordingly,
we find that these factors favor an award to the
employees represented by Laborers Local 894 and
Local 125, respectively.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
Koepnick further testified, without dispute, that
the utilization of a single trade which can perform
all facets of field work, such as laborers, is eco-
nomically more advantageous than would an as-
signment to a composite crew of iron workers, la-
borers, and masons. We find, accordingly, that
these factors favor an award to the employees rep-
resented by Laborers Local 894 and Local 125, re-
spectively.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that employees represented by Laborers
Local 894 and Laborers Local 125, respectively,
are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We
reach this conclusion relying on the factors of col-
lective-bargaining agreements, employer preference
and past practice, relative skills and safety, and
economy and efficiency of operation. In making
this determination, we are awarding the work to
employees represented by those Unions, respective-
ly, but not to those Unions or their members. The
determination is limited to the controversy that
gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute.
Employees of Spancrete Northeast, Inc., repre-
sented by Laborers' International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 125 and
Local Union No. 894, are entitled to perform un-
loading, stockpiling, and installation of precast con-
crete slabs, walls, and sections at the Youngstown
wastewater treatment plant in Youngstown, Ohio.