Local 7, Iron Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 1077 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

LOCAL 7, IRON WORKERS
Local No. 7, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-
CIO and Meade-McGrath Fence Co., Inc. and Local
No. 223, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CD-273
March 29, 1972
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed by Meade-McGrath Fence Co., Inc., here-
inafter called the Employer, alleging that Local No. 7,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Or-
namental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called
Iron Workers, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Paul V.
Lyons on December 1, 3, and 6, 1971. Local No. 223,
Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Laborers, Iron Workers,
and the Employer appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief.
Iron Workers did not file a brief.
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 hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer is engaged
in the sale and installation of fences and, during the
past 12-month period, received directly from points
outside of the State goods valued in excess of $50,000.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Iron Work-
ers and Laborers are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
195 NLRB No. 192
III. THE DISPUTE
1077
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer is a subcontractor for the erection of
chain link fence at two construction sites: the Harvard
Science Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, here-
inafter referred to as the Harvard site, and the Tufts
New England Medical Center in Boston, Massa-
chusetts, hereinafter referred to as the Tufts site. To
perform the work at the Harvard and Tufts sites, the
Employer used its own employees, who were repre-
sented by Laborers.
On August 30, 1971, Iron Workers claimed the work
that was being performed by the employees of the Em-
ployer at the Harvard and Tufts sites. At the Harvard
site, the Iron Workers steward requested that the dis-
puted work be assigned to Iron Workers members.
When his demand was refused, he talked to the Iron
Workers members working at the site. As he finished
talking to each employee, that employee walked off the
job. At the Tufts site, the Iron Workers steward made
the same demand, and later arranged for the project
manager to speak to one, McDonald, who identified
himself as a business agent for Iron Workers. In the
course of their conversation McDonald told the project
manager that if Iron Workers members were not as-
signed the disputed work, they would walk off the job.
On September 3, 1971, Iron Workers members at the
Tufts site forcibly ,prevented the Employer from com-
pleting its work, thereby causing a work stoppage at the
site.
Iron Workers business agents disclaim responsibility
for the two work stoppages, but nevertheless claim the
disputed work.
B. The Work in Dispute
The parties agree that the work in dispute involves
all work involved in the erection of chain link fence,
other than locating the post holes, digging the post
holes, placing the steel posts into the holes, cementing
the steel posts, smoothing the concrete, and removing
the excess dirt from the hole digging.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
1. The Employer: The Employer prefers that the
work in dispute be assigned to its own employees, who
are represented by Laborers . Its position rests on the
collective-bargaining agreement between it and Labor-
ers, company and area practices , economy and effi-
ciency of operations , and maintenance of a stable and
effective work force.
2. Iron Workers: Iron Workers contends that its
members are entitled to the disputed work inasmuch as
its original charter of 1896 provides that such work is
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within its jurisdiction, its members receive training
with regard to the disputed work, and the prevailing
area practice is to award such work to Iron Workers
members.
3. Laborers- Laborers contends that its members are
entitled to the disputed work inasmuch as it has had
collective-bargaining agreements with the Employer
covering the disputed work since 1967, the disputed
work does not require the unique skills of Iron Workers
members, Laborers original charter of 1903 provides
that such work is within its jurisdiction, and the pre-
vailing area practice is to award such work to Laborers
members.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of 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 there is
no agreed-upon method for voluntary settlement of the
dispute.
The record shows, and Iron Workers does not deny,
that its job stewards sought and demanded the assign-
ment of the disputed work at the Harvard and Tufts
sites on August 30, 1971. When Iron Workers demands
were denied, it induced its members, who had been
working for other subcontractors, to engage in work
stoppages at the Harvard site on August 30, 1971, and
the Tufts site on September 3, 1971. The parties stipu-
lated that there is no agreed-upon method for, or volun-
tary resolution of, the dispute over the assignment of
the work.
The record shows that Iron Workers Business Agent
McDonald told the project manager at the Tufts site
that if Iron Workers members were not assigned the
disputed work they would stage a walkout. We find no
merit in the disclaimer of responsibility by Iron Work-
ers for the ensuing work stoppages at the Harvard and
Tufts sites. Three days after McDonald's threat, a work
stoppage at the Tufts site by Iron Workers members did
occur. At the Harvard site, the facts likewise furnish
reasonable cause to believe that the Iron Workers stew-
ard induced and encouraged Iron Workers members to
engage in a work stoppage.'
Accordingly, we conclude that, on the basis of the
entire record, there is reasonable cause to believe a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) by Iron Work-
ers has occurred, and that the dispute is properly before
the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
' Local 349, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
(Dade Sound and Controls), 149 NLRB 430, 433-434.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving
due consideration to various relevant factors.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Employer has no employees represented by Iron
Workers. Nor does the Employer have a collective-
bargaining agreement with Iron Workers. On the other
hand, the Employer has had a series of collective-bar-
gaining agreements with Laborers covering the work in
dispute since the Employer' s inception in 1967.
2. Company and area practice
The Employer's consistent practice has been to as-
sign the disputed work to Laborers.
With respect to area practice, the majority of chain
link fence erection companies do not assign such work
to Iron Workers.
3. Relative skills, economy and efficiency of
operations
The record shows that the employees presently em-
ployed by the Employer now possess sufficient skills to
satisfactorily perform the work in dispute and the Em-
ployer is fully satisfied with the productivity and effi-
ciency of its employees and desires to continue assign-
ing such work to them. The record also shows that if
Iron Workers members were assigned the disputed
work the productivity and efficiency of the Employer's
operations would be impaired since the Employer's
regular work force would still be required to perform
certain preliminary tasks not claimed by Iron Workers,
and hence the former would be left idle for considerable
periods of time by any such fragmentation of the over-
all job.
4. Gain and loss of employment
The Employer has developed an essentially stable,
nonseasonal work force of eight employees. These em-
ployees, for the most part, have retained their jobs for
long periods of time. The Employer testified that award
of the disputed work to Iron Workers would necessitate
the discharge of two or three employees from its cur-
rent full-time regular work force.
Conclusion
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after
full consideration of all the relevant factors, in particu-
lar the contractual relationship between the Employer
and Laborers, and also the Employer's practice, we
conclude that employees of the Employer who are
LOCAL 7, IRON WORKERS 1079
represented by Laborers are entitled to the work in
question, and we shall determine the dispute in their
favor. We do not, however, award the work to Laborers
or its members.
F. Scope of Determination
At the beginning of the hearing in this case, the
Employer moved the Board to broaden the award to
include all similar work sites at which it might perform
in the future within the State of Massachusetts.
There is precedent for a determination broader in
scope than the specific sites actually involved.' How-
ever, before issuing such a determination, it is the
policy of the Board to consider the record evidence as
to the likelihood that similar disputes between the same
parties will occur in a broader geographic area than the
site or sites actually involved. Testimony establishes
this broader effect in this case. Thus, in the months
prior to the hearing, Iron Workers made approximately
10 claims on other employers engaged in similar work.'
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, and as
the record reveals a pattern of conduct making it likely
that further disputes involving this work would arise,
we hold that the determination in this case should
' Lathers Union Local 104 (The Blaine Petty Company), 186 NLRB No.
70.
' The majority of these claims related to sites within a 25-mile radius of
Boston, Massachusetts ; however, one site was 64 miles north of Boston.
According to the Employer's treasurer, the Employer performed work
within a 50-mile radius of Boston , Massachusetts . According to Iron Work-
ers business agent , Iron Workers geographic jurisdiction was centered in the
city of Boston, and covered an elliptical area which measured 100 miles
from north to south and 25 miles from east to west.
cover not only the two specific sites where the dispute
arose, but also all similar sites within the geographic
jurisdiction of Iron Workers.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended , and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, the National Labor Relations Board makes the
following determination of the dispute:
1. Employees employed by Meade-McGrath Fence
Co., Inc ., Needham , Massachusetts , who are currently
represented by Local No. 223, Laborers International
Union of North America , AFL-CIO, are entitled to all
work involved in the Employer 's erection and repair of
chain link fences within the geographic jurisdiction of
Local No. 7, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO.
2. Local No. 7, 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 Meade-
McGrath Fence Co., Inc ., to assign all, or any part, of
such work to employees represented by Iron Workers.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute , Local No . 7, International
Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers , AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 1, in writing , whether or not it will
refrain from forcing or requiring Meade-McGrath
Fence Co., Inc., by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work to employees
represented by it.