Local 25, Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 256 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO and Charlane Electric Co.,
Inc., d/b/a Unity Electric Co.' and Highland
Construction Corp. and Local 363, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Case
29-CD-167
June 10, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
BY MEMBERS
FANNING, JENKINS , AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow-
ing charges filed by Charlane Electric Company Inc.,
d/b/a Unity Electric Co ., herein called Charging
Party or Employer , alleging that Local 25, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electric Workers , AFL-CIO,
herein called Respondent or Local 25, has violated
Section 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Howard Edelman on January
10, 1974 . Highland Construction Corp. (general
contractor), the Charging Party , Local 25, and Local
363, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called Local 363, appeared at the hearing and
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to adduce
evidence bearing on the issues.
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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudical error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Unity Electric Co., is a New York corporation with
an office at East Meadow, Long Island. At the time
of the hearing it was engaged as an electrical
contractor at a Smithtown, New York, construction
site , the Lake Grove Shopping Center. During the
past 12 months, Unity purchased goods and materi-
als in excess of $50,000 from points outside of the
State of New York.
We find that Unity is engaged in commerce within
1 The name of the case is hereby amended so that the word Charlane is
spelled pursuant to the General Counsel's request at the 10 ( 1) proceeding.
The parties have stipulated the record and certain exhibits in that
proceeding ; Kaynard v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical
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
Respondent and Local 363 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
Unity Electric Co. is the electrical subcontractor on
the construction of two restaurants for Highland
Construction Corp. at the Lake Grove Shopping
Center. Unity, whose employees are members of
Local 363, is a member of the United Construction
Contractors Association.
The Association had a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Local 363 extending from November 15,
1970, to November 14, 1973. Unity also had its own
agreement with Local 363 which likewise expired in
mid-November 1973. At the time of the hearing, the
parties were negotiating a new agreement. Under
these agreements Unity paid wages less than those
paid under contracts with Local 25, and lower than
the prevailing rates for electricians in the area.
Contractors employing Local 25 employees have
been competing against Unity for some time and
recent events have caused Unity to file the charge
herein.
In June and continuing through August 1973, a
business agent for Local 25, Fred Kerbs, and
Highland's Lake Grove jobsite superintendent, John
Melkun, Jr., met at four different times. The first
meeting occurred in a parking lot adjacent to the
jobsite and lasted only long enough for Melkun to
ask Kerbs, who was taking pictures of the jobsite, to
identify himself. Apparently Kerbs declined. The
pictures were for Local 25's business manager who
intended using them to keep Local 25's membership
informed of jobs being done with wage scales less
than Local 25's. On either July 24 or 31, they met
again near the jobsite. Melkun again asked Kerbs,
who again was taking pictures, for his identification.
At Kerbs' insistence, they drove a short distance
from the site2 and Kerbs identified himself as a
business agent for Local 25. Melkun told Kerbs that
he had heard of Local 25's picketing of Unity before,
to which Kerbs replied, "yes, I have the picket signs
in the trunk." Melkun testified at the 10(1) proceed-
ing that Kerbs referred to "trouble" he had been
Workers, AFL-CIO, 367 F. Supp. 1065 (1973).
2 Kerbs testified that he insisted on leaving the site before identifying
himself because he had been specifically instructed by Local 25's business
manager not to speak to anyone at the site.
211 NLRB No. 26
LOCAL 25, ELECTRICAL WORKERS , AFL-CIO 257
experiencing with Unity Electric on other jobs and
that something was going to have to be done about
this job. According to Melkun, Kerbs complained
that "Unity was not Local 25," but later Melkun
referred to that as not "specifically" stated. Kerbs
said he would return in a week to see the outcome of
their discussion. Melkun explained to Kerbs that he
would get in touch with the representative parties
and try to straighten the matter out.
The next meeting occurred accidentally on August
3 or 4 in a nearby department store. Kerbs asked
Melkun if he had heard anything about the job and
Melkun replied no. Three or four days later Kerbs
appeared at the jobsite. Melkun walked over to
Kerbs' car and Kerbs asked if anything had been
resolved. Melkun explained that Unity was supposed
to get in touch with him and Kerbs then stated,
"Well I don't want to put a picket line up at your job,
but if I have to I will." Melkun testified that at no
time did Kerbs, or any union or building trades
council, ask to have Unity's contract broken, or to
have Unity put off the job or substituted by another
subcontractor.
Several months later, on November 12, 1973, when
Unity's contract with Local 363 was about to expire,
Local 25 began to picket the Lake Grove jobsite with
signs advertising that Unity's electricians did not
receive wages and working conditions as good as
those established in contracts of Local 25. Pickets
were given written instructions not to block trucks
and to refrain from talking to anyone. The Respon-
dent's business manager testified that if the electri-
cians on the site "were receiving wages and benefits
that members of Local 25 received, I would be happy
and glad to remove those pickets immediately." The
picketing continued for 2 weeks until November 26,
when Unity left the job, apparently at Highland's
request. During the picketing, Highland's employees
and those of the other subcontractors on the site
refused to work. Once Unity left the site the
picketing stopped and the employees returned to
their work.
Local 25 had carried on similar picketing at two
other Unity jobs. In June 1973, Unity was forced to
complete its work at one construction project at
times when other subcontractors were not on the site.
The general contractor subsequently canceled Uni-
ty's contract for two additional jobs and replaced it
with a Local 25 contractor. In August 1973, after 2
weeks of picketing by Local 25, Unity was canceled
from work at a motel complex and again replaced by
a Local 25 contractor. The most recent job cancella-
tion occurred when a contractor, in August or
September 1973, claimed pressure from a trades
council of which Local 25 was a member as the
reason why Unity was replaced on a renovation job
by a contractor employing members of Local 25.
B. The Contention of the Parties
The General Counsel and the Charging Party
contend that Kerbs' remarks to Job Superintendent
Melkun at the Lake Grove jobsite were threats to
picket unless the electrical work was assigned to
employees who are members of or represented by
Local 25. In their view, the picketing and contract
cancellations in late 1973, as well as the subsequent
picketing at the Lake Grove site, are evidence of an
unlawful attempt to force the assignment of the
electrical work.
The Respondent in its brief takes the position that
the 10(k) notice should be quashed because of the
absence of a dispute. Respondent contends it has
merely engaged in peaceful area standards picketing,
truthfully advertising that Unity pays wages lower
then those established by Local 25 contracts.
In the preceding 10(1) hearing, and continually
during the 10(k) hearing, Local 25 expressly dis-
claimed any interest in the work allegedly in dispute.
In a letter of December 10, 1973, to the Regional
Director of Region 29, Respondent asked that the
notice of hearing be quashed as it "did not and does
not claim, and formally and unequivocally disclaims
any of the work in question." The Respondent points
out that the record is devoid of evidence that Local
25 asked Highland Construction or any other general
contractor ever to replace Unity with a Local 25
contractor and that at no time did the Respondent
ever ask Unity to sign a contract with, or to employ,
Local 25 men.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act, which directs the Board to
hear and determine disputes out of which 8(b)(4)(D)
charges have arisen, restricts the Board's authority to
circumstances where the employer's assignment of
work is in dispute. Here we agree with the Respon-
dent that the requisite dispute is absent.
Respondent has carried on picketing for the
purpose of advising the public that wages paid by
Unity are lower than those received under its
contracts. To reach that end placards advertised that
as its purpose and the pickets were instructed to
neither block trucks nor talk to any employees at the
site. Such conduct does not indicate a dispute over
work assignment 3 but merely an attempt to advertise
the substandard wage scale paid by Unity.
In our view, neither the conversations between
3 Ship Scaling Contractors Association, 87 NLRB 92, 98
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Business Agent Kerbs and Job Superintendant
Melkun nor the picketing indicates that Local 25
ever made claim to the work.
Respondent has consistently disclaimed interest in
the work. No evidence was offered that it had asked
Unity for a contract, or to hire its members, nor was
evidence submitted to indicate that any demand was
made upon Highland Construction Corp. or any
general contractor to replace Unity with a contractor
employing members of or employees represented by
Local 25.
Therefore, as no competing claim exists to the work
at issue within the meaning of the Act, we shall
quash the notice of hearing issued herein.4
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the notice of hearing
issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.
4 Sheet Metal Workers, Local Union No. 465 (Thorpe Insulation with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
Company), 198, NLRB 1245; Laborers ' International Union of North AFL-CIO (The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.), 207 NLRB No.
America Local 935, AFL-CIO (C & S Construction Co. Inc.), 206 NLRB No. 149.
133; and Local 56, Amalgamated Food and Allied Workers Union, affiliated