Local 14, Iron Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 674 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of the Act.
C& C PACKING COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting , and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Federal
Building and United States Courthouse , 500 Gold Avenue,
S.W., Albuquerque , New Mexico 87101, Telephone
247-0311.
Local 14, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO and United Buckingham Freight
Lines, Inc. and Local 690 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Case 19-CD-114.
March 29,1967
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , following
a charge filed on June 16 , 1966 , by United
Buckingham Freight Lines , Inc., herein called the
Employer . The charge alleged that Local 14,
International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO , herein called
the Iron Workers , violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act. On July 6, 1966 , the Regional Director for
Region 19 issued a notice of hearing. A hearing was
held in Spokane, Washington , on July 20 and
October 19 , 1966 , before Hearing Officer Ralph
Wilmot . The Employer, the Iron Workers, and
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.
Local 690, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called Teamsters, participated in
the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The
rulings of the Hearing Officer are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs
were filed by the Employer and the Iron Workers
.and have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National
Labor Relations Board' makes the following
findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Washington corporation, is a
motor carrier licensed under the Interstate
Commerce Commission, engaged in the
transportation business in Washington and other
States of the United States, and also in Canada.
During the 12 months immediately preceding the
hearing, the Employer performed services in excess
of $500,000 for customers outside the State of
Washington.
We find, accordingly, 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 Iron
Workers and Teamsters are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
The notice of hearing specified that the dispute
only concerns the assignment of the following work:
The loading of construction equipment from
railroad cars onto the Employer's trucks at Metaline
Falls and lone, Washington, and the unloading of the
equipment at the storage yard of Seattle City Light,
a public utility corporation, at its Boundary
Hydroelectric Project, Pend Oreille County,
Washington.
A. Facts
Seattle City Light is in the process of having a
hydroelectric dam built in the State of Washington.
163 NLRB No. 91
LOCAL 14, IRON WORKERS
Boundary Dam Constructors, a joint venture, is the
general contractor. Seattle City Light owns and
maintains control over a storage yard adjacent to the
project. Seattle City Light also acts as a supplier of
some of the heavy construction equipment used in
the project. It purchases this equipment from
various manufacturers and has it shipped to the
railhead at lone or Metaline Falls. Seattle City Light
then arranges for transporting this construction
equipment to its storage yard where it is stored until
the time that such materials are needed in the
project itself.
In December 1964 and thereafter, Seattle City
Light engaged the Employer, a common carrier, to
transport this equipment from the railhead to the
storage yard. The Employer used its own employees,
represented by Teamsters and International Union
of Operating Engineers,2 to load the equipment from
the railroad cars onto its trucks and to unload the
equipment from the trucks at the storage yard.
In May 1966, approximately 17 months after the
initial assignment of the work, the Iron Workers
threatened a work stoppage on the Boundary Dam
project if the Employer did not reassign the work to
members of the Iron Workers.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that it has labor contracts
for this work with Teamsters and International
Union of Operating Engineers, that it has assigned
the work to its own employees , and that its own
employees are best suited to perform this work by
virtue of their special training and experience.
The Iron Workers contends that historically the
storage yards and the railhead are extensions of the
jobsite at hydroelectric projects, and that work of the
type in dispute has always been performed by its
members.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to
hear and determine a dispute out of which a Section
8(b)(4)(D ) charge has arisen , unless the parties to
such dispute submit to the Board satisfactory
evidence that they have adjusted or agreed upon
methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
Here the parties apparently have no satisfactory
method for the voluntary adjustment of this dispute.
Before making a determination of the dispute, the
Board is required to find there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D ) has been violated.
2 International Union of Operating Engineers did not appear at
the hearing
675
The uncontested facts show that the Employer
assigned the work to its own employees represented
by Teamsters and the International Union of
Operating Engineers. The Iron Workers thereafter
claimed the work for its members and threatened a
walkout and work stoppage if the work was not
reassigned to its members. Accordingly, we find
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act has been violated, and that the dispute is
properly before the Board for determination under
Section 10(k) of the Act.
IV. MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
As we stated in J. A. Jones Construction
Company,3 we will determine the appropriate
assignment of disputed work in each case presented
for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act only
after taking into account and balancing all relevant
factors.
Collective-bargaining agreements: The Employer
has collective-bargaining agreements with
Teamsters and International Union of Operating
Engineers covering the employees who were
performing the disputed work. The Employer does
not have a collective- bargaining contract with the
Iron Workers and did not have in its employ persons
who were represented by or members of that Union.
Clearly the factor of collective-bargaining
agreements favors the Employer's present
-assignment.
Company, area, and industry practice: As noted
above, the Iron Workers places its principal, if not
sole, reliance upon the claim that the railhead and
the storage area are extensions of the jobsite and
that its members have historically performed the
work in dispute.
The record shows that much of the construction
equipment used in hydroelectric projects is
extremely large and heavy, and formerly could only
be transported by railroad cars. For this purpose
railroad sidings were constructed at the project site,
and the railroads would transport the equipment to
these sidings from the nearest regular railhead; but
the unloading was done by the general contractors,
using Iron Workers, who were employed in the
construction phases of the project. The unloaded
equipment was put either at the final location on the
site or in storage yards until the final location was
ready. In recent years, however, an innovating factor
has made an appearance, that is, in some instances,
as is the case herein, the State Highway Department
has constructed highways from the railhead to the
project, thus eliminating railroad sidings and
' International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743,
AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402
295-269 0-69-44
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereby enabling common carriers with special
trucks and other special equipment to perform this
phase of transportation from the railhead to the site.
Because of this new and different method of
transportation , we find no merit in the Iron Workers'
contention that the railhead now should be regarded
as an extension of the site.
The evidence offered by the Iron Workers to
support its claim that its members always performed
this work was countered by evidence from the
Employer that for many years , and without objection
by the Iron Workers , its own employees have
performed this work at other hydroelectric dams in
the area. The record also shows that the Employer's
employees have performed this work on the project
herein since December 1964 , without objection by
the Iron Workers until the present case arose in May
1966 . In addition , the evidence reveals that the
Employer has used its own employees on other
similar jobs in the area since it established its heavy-
haul division 3 years prior to the hearing.
Accordingly , we conclude that evidence of past
practice does not establish a clear pattern of
assignment of the disputed work to the Iron
Workers. On the contrary , this factor also favors the
Employer 's present assignment.
Efficiency of operation , skills involved : The record
shows that in performing this disputed work the
Employer uses specially designed equipment, which
its employees are specialists in using, in the moving
of the heavy equipment. The record of performance
by the Employer's employees over a period of 3
years indicates that they are obviously capable of
performing the disputed work . Indeed , there is no
claim by the Iron Workers that its members are
more capable . Hence we find that this factor favors
the present assignment.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, it is
clear that none of the relevant factors favors an
assignment of the work as claimed by the Iron
Workers. Although the Iron Workers sometimes
performs similar work of loading or unloading for
employers in the construction industry, with whom
they have a contract, the Iron Workers does not have
a contract for such work with the Employer. Such
factors as the Employer's past practice, the collec-
tive-bargaining agreements, and the demonstrated
skills of the Employer's own employees favor the
present assignment. Moreover, the Iron Workers has
acquiesced in the Employer's assignment for a
substantial period of time prior to the May 1966
incident. In addition, as we have found, area
practice does not support the Iron Workers' claim.
Accordingly, we shall determine the dispute by
confirming the Employer's present assignment to its
own employees represented by the Teamsters and
the Operating Engineers, but not to those unions or
their members. Our present determination is limited
to the particular controversy which gave rise to this
proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, and upon the
basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record
in this proceeding , the Board makes the following
Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees of United Buckingham Freight
Lines, Inc., currently represented by Local 690,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and
International Union of Operating Engineers, are
entitled to perform the following work:
The loading of equipment from railroad cars
onto the Employer's trucks at Metaline Falls
and lone, Washington , and the unloading of the
Employer 's trucks at the storage yard of Seattle
City Light at Boundary Hydroelectric Project,
Pend Oreille County, Washington.
2. Local 14 , International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, is not entitled , by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the
Employer to assign the above work to ironworkers
represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , Local 14,
International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO, shall notify
the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing,
whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring the
Employer , by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute to
ironworkers represented by it rather than to
employees represented by Teamsters and Operating
Engineers.