Laborers', Local 935

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 807 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

LABORERS', LOCAL 935 807
Laborers' International Union of North America, Local
935, AFL-CIO and C & S Construction Co., Inc. and
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 171, AFL-CIO. Case 8-CD-268
that,C & S Construction Co., Inc., is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
October 30, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed by C & S Construction Co., Inc., herein
called the Employer or C & S Construction Co., alleg-
ing that Laborers' International Union of North
America, Local 935, AFL-CIO, herein called Re-
spondent or Laborers, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act. The charge alleges, in substance, that the
Laborers, by threatening and actually taking econom-
ic action, i.e., striking the Employer, violated the Act
in that the purpose of such conduct was to force the
Employer to reassign certain work to its members
rather than to members of United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 171, AFL-
CIO, herein called Carpenters, to whom the Employer
had assigned such work. A hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Patricia A. Gallagher on July 20,
1973. The Employer, Respondent, and the Carpenters
appeared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.
Thereafter, the Carpenters filed a brief, and the La-
borers a position letter. The brief and letter have been
duly considered by the Board.
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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
C & S Construction Co., Inc., is an Ohio corpora-
tion with offices and place of business in Canfield,
Ohio, where it is engaged in the general construction
business. During the past 12 months, it purchased
goods and materials directly from sources outside the
State of Ohio of a value in excess of $50,000. We find
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Re-
spondent and the Carpenters are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
C & S Construction Co. is engaged in the construc-
tion of an A & P store at the corner of Belmont
Avenue and Trumbull Avenue, Liberty Township,
Youngstown, Ohio. Construction at the site com-
menced in May 1973. The Employer is a party to
collective-bargaining agreements with the Carpenters
and the Laborers.
The Employer assigned the work of erecting neces-
sary scaffolding to its employees represented by the
Carpenters. The erection of the scaffolding began
about the second week of June 1973. On June 19, after
the work had been in progress about 1 week, Benja-
min Walker, the Laborers steward on the project, stat-
ed to the Employer's project superintendent, Gerald
Cuifo, that laborers would refuse to stock any scaf-
folding that was built by carpenters, because the La-
borers business agent, Ralph Patterson, had said that
the erection of scaffolding was laborers work. Later
the same morning, Patterson, himself, came to the
jobsite and said that the erection of scaffolding was
laborers work and that laborers would not stock any
scaffolding built by carpenters. Thereupon, all of the
employees represented by the Laborers walked off the
job. Since there were no more materials stocked on
the scaffolding, the Employer laid off six bricklayers,
two carpenters, and two plumbers, all of his employ-
ees on the project at that time, because there was no
more work to be performed without materials.
The employees represented by the Laborers re-
mained away from work until Monday, July 2. Mean-
while, there was no work performed on the project.
There was no picketing at the jobsite. Since work
resumed on July 2, the employees represented by the
Carpenters have continued to erect the scaffolding
and the employees represented by the Laborers have
continued to stock the scaffolding with materials. The
Laborers has made no demand for the work in dispute
since that time.
On July 16, 1973, the Laborers stated in writing by
letter to the Acting Regional Director of Region 8 that
206 NLRB No. 133
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it formally disclaimed all interest in the work dispute.
By letter of July 25, 1973, to the Board the Laborers
reiterated this , disclaimer.
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute consists of the erection of all
scaffolding work at the construction site of an A & P
supermarket at the corner of Belmont Avenue and
Trumbell Avenue, Liberty Township, Youngstown,
Ohio.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the work in dispute
should be left, as assigned, in conformity with its col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters, be-
cause such assignment is consistent with efficiency,
safety considerations, and area practice. The Employ-
er concedes that since all the employees returned to
work on July 2, the Laborers has not interfered with
the work of the carpenters engaged in the erection of
the scaffolding and that the Employer does not antici-
pate any further work interruption by the laborers.
The Laborers states that since work resumed on
July 2, the Laborers has, disclaimed all interest in the
work in dispute, has written the Acting Regional Di-
rector of Region 8 on July 16 formally expressing this
disclaimer, and has reiterated the disclaimer in its
position letter of July 25 to the Board. Accordingly,
it contends that a jurisdictional dispute no longer ex-
ists and that the notice of hearing should be quashed.
The Carpenters contends that a jurisdictional dis-
pute does exist and that the Board should proceed
with a determination thereof on the merits. It argues
that carpenters are entitled to perform the work in
dispute.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Since Section 10(k) of the Act directs the Board to
hear and determine disputes on the basis of which
8(b)(4)(D) charges have been filed and limits the
Board's authority to situations in which an employer's
assignment of work is in dispute, a jurisdictional dis-
pute no longer exists where, as here, one of the com-
peting unions or parties effectively renounces its
claim to the work.' As the Laborers has unequivocally
disclaimed further interest in the disputed work, we,
find that there no longer exists a jurisdictional dispute
within the meaning of the Act. We shall therefore
quash the notice of hearing issued herein.
ORDER
It is hereby order that the notice of hearing issued
in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.
i Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No 465 (Thorpe Insulation Company),
198 NLRB No 184; Millwrights and Machinery Erectors Local 1102, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Port Huron
Sulphite and Paper Company), 140 NLRB 79; also see Local 1905, Carpet,
Linoleum & Soft Tile Layers (Southwestern Floor Co), 143 NLRB 251.