Sioux Falls Builders' Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 27 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

SIOUX FALLS BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION 27
Sioux Falls Builders' Association and International Association
of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-
CIO, Local No. 184, Petitioner. Case No. 18-RC-5360. June 24,
1963
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and
Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer is an association of 13 building contractors en-
gaged in the construction of commercial and domestic buildings in
the States of South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. The Employer's
labor force includes employees Tull and Sylvia, who are members of
the Petitioner and spend a majority of their time performing iron-
work for the Employer's members and the balance in general labor
work.' It also includes some 14 employees who, although hired as
laborers and carpenters, spend a majority or substantial portions of
their time performing ironwork for the Employer's members.2 The
carpenters and laborers are currently represented by labor organiza-
tions,' but there is no history of bargaining in an ironworker unit.
The Petitioner seeks a craft emit of the Employer's ironworkers,
limited in scope, however, to employees Tull and Sylvia,' who the
1 Tull and Sylvia testified that they spend 90 to 95 percent of their time in ironwork;
the Employer claims that Tull has spent 440 hours out of 772 hours in ironwork , and that
Sylvia has spent 472 hours out of 621 hours in ironwork.
2 Of these 14 employees , 4 spend 50 percent or more of their time in ironwork, and the
remainder spend 40 percent or more of their time in ironwork.
3 International Hod 'Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union, Local 351, AFL-
CIO, and Carpenters Local 783 , AFL-CIO, which represent these employees , disclaim all
interest in them to the extent that they perform ironwork.,
* Alternatively, the Petitioner would also include McKnight, who spends 40 percent or
more of his time in ironwork. In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to
consider the Petitioner ' s alternative request.
143 NLRB No. 10.
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petitioner contends are qualified journeymen ironworkers. The Em-
ployer contends that the Petitioner's unit is inappropriate, because
the Employer does not hire, and has no need for, journeymen iron-
workers.
The Employer's ironwork primarily consists of rodman, or steel
reinforcing, work. It involves the placement and tying together of
rods, bars, and mesh for cementing, and associated routine work such
as unloading, sorting, and placing these items. The Employer's
ironwork also involves a minor amount of ornamental ironwork and
simple structural steelwork, such as the installation of steel beams,
girders, and joists, floor and roof decking, paneling, and simple
columns.5 The work of rodman requires only the use of pliers, tapes,
chalks, and knowledge of a few rope knots. An ability to read blue-
prints is helpful, but not necessary. Proficiency in this work can ap-
parently be acquired in 3 to 6 months of on-the-job experience re-
quiring no background of formal education or training. The work is
generally performed by work gangs of varying size, whose members
have interchangeable functions. On occasion, when the Employer's
members require more highly skilled or difficult work, they hire a
few journeymen ironworkers for short periods or use the services of
specialty subcontractors who furnish their own ironworkers. The
ironwork performed by the 14 carpenters and laborers differs in no
substantial degree from that performed by Tull and Sylvia.
Although Tull and Sylvia, the only ironworker members in the
Employer's employ, originally earned an ironworker rate of $3.671/2
an hour pursuant to the wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act,
the United States Department of Labor permitted the Employer to
reduce this wage scale to $2.271/2 an hour, the current rate for the
Employer's laborers.
The Petitioner relies on the fact that Tull and Sylvia are the only
employees who hold the status of "rodman journeyman," accorded
them by the Petitioner for having passed an examination covering
rodmen's duties. However, they did not acquire this status until 2
months after their completion of the ironwork here in issue.' Fur-
thermore, their "rodman journeyman" status does not require a com-
plete knowledge of the ironworker trade, nor does it qualify them to
perform work requiring the variety of skills possessed by journeymen
ironworkers, who can perform all phases of ironwork.
5 The Employer testified that the structural steel work is of a simple type which any
assigned worker can perform, and unlike that required for a skyscraper in a large city.
6 Tull and Sylvia were in the active employ of an employer-member for 4 months Dur-
ing the 2 -month period immediately preceding the hearing , they did no ironwork but en-
gaged in picketing to protest the Employer 's action in securing the Department of Labor's
consent to the reduction in their wages They took the journeyman rodman examination
about 10 days before the hearing. Although declaring its intention to replace them, the
Employer has not done so.
LOCAL 17, INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, ETC. 29
In these circumstances, we are not persuaded that the duties and
skills required of Tull and Sylvia are such as to justify a finding that
a separate unit is appropriate? Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
instant petition.
[The Board dismissed the instant petition.]
7 Kimble Glass Company, 102 NLRB 933 , 934-936.
Local 17, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO
[Vogtli & Sons Construction Corp .] and Harold W. Regenauer.
Case No. 3-CB-621. June 25, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 16, 1963, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the en-
tire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report and the
exceptions, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications noted
herein.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner, with the following modifications :
(1) Delete the words "interfere with" from Section 1(c) of the
Order and also change "restrain or coerce" to "restraining or
coercing."
(2) Delete the second paragraph of the notice appended to the
Intermediate Report.
143 NLRB No. 6.