Teamsters Local Union No. 5

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 474 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Truck Drivers , Warehousemen and Helpers
Local Union No. 5, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , Ind. and Grinnell Fire
Protection Systems Company , Inc. and Road Sprin-
kler Fitters Local Union No. 669, United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO. Case 15-CD-222
September 19, 1975
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Grinnell is a Delaware corporation licensed to do
and engaged in the fabrication and installation of fire
protection systems in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It was
stipulated that during the past 12 months Grinnell
has purchased goods and materials in excess of
$50,000 from points located outside of the State of
Louisiana.
We find that Grinnell is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act and it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by Grinnell Fire Protection Systems
Company, Inc., herein also called the Employer, on
May 30, 1975, alleging that General Truck Drivers,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 5, affi-
liated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Ind., herein also referred to as Local 5 or Teamsters,
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in
certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing
or requiring Grinnell to assign the work in dispute to
employees represented by Teamsters rather than to
employees represented by Road Sprinkler Fitters Lo-
cal Union No. 669, United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit-
ting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO, herein also referred to as Road Sprinkler
Fitters or Local 669.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Ed-
ward J. Fonti on July 17 and 18, 1975. All parties
appeared at the hearing and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine
witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the is-
sues . Thereafter, the Employer and Local 5 filed
briefs which have been duly considered.
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 Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the parties, the Board makes the following
findings:
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It was stipulated and we find that Teamsters Local
5 and Road Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
After contracting with Milton Womack, Inc., the
general contractor, to design and install a sprinkler
system at the Cortana Mall in Baton Rouge, Louisi-
ana, Grinnell began work on March 2, 1975. The in-
stallation process continued until May 23, 1975,
when a truckload of materials for Grinnell arrived at
the mall. Although three members of Local 669 were
present to unload the truck, the Teamsters job stew-
ard advised the Employer 's area foreman , Billie De-
laney, that members of Local 5 would unload the
vehicle.
As Delany prepared to unload the truck using
members of Local 669, he was confronted by Earl
Jones of Local 5 and approximately 20 men. Jones
then informed Delaney that the teamsters would un-
load the truck. Upon his return from contacting
Grinnell's management and law enforcement offi-
cials, Delaney discovered that Jones and members of
Local 5 had already unloaded the truck. According
to Delaney's testimony, he made no effort to halt the
unloading by the teamsters, "Because I figured 20
against 2, we couldn't stop them and they'd of
throwed us off that truck if we got up on it."
This incident resulted in the Employer filing the
instant charge with the Board. At that time, Local 5
gave the Board written assurance that it would re-
frain from interfering with the Employer's work as-
signments.
On June 19, 1975, Delaney arrived at the jobsite in
a pickup truck with tools on it. Tommy Craig, the
220 NLRB No. 116
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 5 475
new job steward for Local 5, soon informed him that
the teamsters would have to remove the tools from
the truck. Delaney responded that according to the
NLRB, Local 5 "wasn 't supposed to fool with" the
Employer until after the hearing. He further advised
Craig that a Condor Lift would arrive by truck mo-
mentarily. Craig said the teamsters would also un-
load this vehicle.
After several phone calls, Jones arrived at the job-
site to read a letter from Local 5's attorney to the
Board regarding the agreement that the Teamsters
would refrain from interfering with the Employer's
operations until the dispute had been adjudicated.
The teamsters then permitted Local 669 to unload
both the pickup truck and the Condor Lift, which
had arrived in the interim . The following morning
unidentified pickets were at a project gate protesting
the use of nonunion labor by another subcontractor
at the mall. As a result, the job was shut down for
several weeks.
Womack finally called a meeting of all subcontrac-
tors on June 26. Due to the continuing disputes be-
tween Local 5 and various subcontractors , Womack
requested Don Boyd, the district manager for the
Employer, to permit the teamsters to unload
Grinnell's materials . When Boyd did not agree to
such action, Womack told him to stay off the job
until further notice. The Employer has not been on
the jobsite since that date.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is limited to the initial unload-
ing of materials brought to the jobsite by trucks. Ac-
cording to the Employer, such materials include pipe,
pipe fabrications, and component parts of fire pro-
tection systems to be installed by Grinnell at the in-
stallation site.
C. The Contention of the Parties
Respondent Local 5 argues that the established
past practice in the area involved herein requires as-
signment of the disputed work to its members. In
this connection , the Teamsters asserts the disputed
work could be done equally well by both Unions.
Respondent also argues that a 1967 agreement be-
tween Local 5 and Plumbers Local Union No. 198,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, is dispositive of the dis-
pute. Such agreement gives to Local 5 the initial
hand unloading and checking off of all materials.
The Employer contends that the Teamsters violat-
ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by seeking to compel
the assignment of the disputed work to members of
Local 5. The Employer also submits that the award
of the disputed work to its own employees is appro-
priate in view of their possession of the requisite
skills , efficiency and economy of operation, the con-
tract between Grinnell and the Road Sprinkler Fit-
ters, past company practice, and the Employer's as-
signment of the work. The position of Local 669 is in
agreement with that of the Employer.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
of a dispute under 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, which is binding on
all parties, for the voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute.
The record indicates only two to four men are nec-
essary to unload materials for the installation of a
fire protection system. When 20 teamsters confront-
ed Delaney and his crew of 2 men at the mall con-
struction site, it created an inference that Local 5 did
not intend to permit the unloading of the vehicle
without interference. Delaney's actions in calling the
police and his employer relative to the situation indi-
cate that he feared the consequences of continuing
work with the Local 669 employees of Grinnell.
Moreover, as a consequence of the Employer's stead-
fast refusal to give the disputed work to the team-
sters, the general contractors forced the Company off
the job.
In a jurisdictional context, the Board is not
charged with finding that a violation did in fact oc-
cur, but only that there is reasonable cause to believe
that there has been a violation. On the facts herein,
and without ruling on the credibility of testimony
that is in issue , we find there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
In addition, none of the parties has agreed to be
bound by determinations of the Impartial Jurisdic-
tional Disputes Board or any alternative method for
voluntary adjustment of this dispute. It is therefore
clear that at the time of the instant dispute there did
not exist any agreed-upon method for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute to which all parties were
bound. Accordingly, we find that the matter is prop-
erly before the Board for determination under Sec-
tion 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work af-
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ter giving due consideration to various relevant fac-
tors. As the Board has stated, the determination in a
jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment
based on commonsense and experience in weighing
these factors.' The following factors are relevant in
making a determination of the dispute before us.
1. Board certifications and relevant
collective-bargaining agreements
Neither of the labor organizations concerned here-
in has been certified by the Board as the collective-
bargaining representative for a unit of the
Employer's employees.
As a member of a multiemployer bargaining unit,
Grinnell contends that article 14 of the current col-
lective-bargaining agreement between the National
Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Association,
Inc., and the Road Sprinkler Fitters requires assign-
ment of the disputed work to employees represented
by Local 669. According to the testimony adduced at
the hearing, members of Local 669 have exclusively
handled the disputed work for at least the past 7 or 8
years under a contract substantially identical to that
executed on April 1, 1975. In addition, the Employer
noted that it has no current collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 5.
Although the Teamsters has no collective-bargain-
ing agreement with the Employer, Local 5 asserts the
1967 contract with Plumbers Local 198 gives it the
right to the work in dispute. However, such agree-
ment is not determinative of the instant proceeding
in view of the Road Sprinkler Fitters lack of partici-
pation therein. Accordingly, we find that this factor
favors an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by Local 669.
2. The Employer' s assignment and past practice
Although Local 5 alleges that its members have
performed the work in dispute for Grinnell on sever-
al occasions , the Employer's area foreman testified
that Local 669 has exclusively handled such work
during the past 7 or 8 years. In this connection, Grin-
nell presented an inclusive listing of jobs completed
since 1969. The Employer contends that the Road
Sprinkler Fitters unloaded materials off the trucks at
all of the jobs cited. It is also clear that the Employer
wishes to continue this assignment of the work.
Thus, we find that this factor favors award of the
1 N L R B v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broad-
casting System], 364 U S 573 (1961); International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Constuction Company), 135 NLRB
1402 (1962)
work in dispute to employees represented by Local
669.
3. Area and industry practice
The record indicates that the industry practice is to
use members of the Road Sprinkler Fitters to unload
and check in materials for installation of fire protec-
tion systems. The district superintendent for a com-
petitor of Grinnell testified that he knows of no claim
by any union other than Local 669 for the disputed
work in his area, which includes New Orleans and
Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Mobile, Alabama; south-
ern Mississippi; and the Florida Panhandle. A. T.
Lyde, the Employer's district superintendent, said
that members of Local 669 have always unloaded the
pipe and pipe fabrications during his 36 years in the
industry.
Area practice among the other building trades is
generally to permit Local 5 to hand unload and
check off materials arriving at the jobsite. Although
the teamsters have also received some of the work in
dispute in the Baton Rouge area here involved, the
Board finds that those companies installing sprinkler
systems that have permitted Local 5 to handle these
functions have done so in order to avert the possibili-
ty of a shutdown at the jobsite. In several instances,
the teamsters were paid for work they did not per-
form.
Consequently, we find that industry practice fa-
vors an award of the work in dispute to employees
represented by Local 669, while area practice is
mixed and favors an award to neither of the compet-
ing groups of employees.
4. Relative skills, efficiency, and economy of
operations
The Employer strongly favors an award of the
work to its employees represented by Local 669 be-
cause of their experience in performing the disputed
work and the resulting efficiency and economy of
operation.
In this connection, Local 669 apprentices undergo
a 5-year training program which includes instruction
in the reading of blueprints and identification of the
color coding system used in the industry to identify
fabrications and components. When members of Lo-
cal 5 unload the pipe and fabrications in a random
manner, the record shows that the Road Sprinkler
Fitters must then sort the materials by blueprints ac-
cording to sequence and area of installation. Grinnell
desires to avoid such additional handling by system-
atically unloading the materials to expedite the in-
stallation process. Moreover, the teamsters perform-
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 5
ing this work would receive wages for at least 4
hours' work even though the job normally requires
less time.
Accordingly, we find that this factor favors award
of the work in dispute to employees represented by
Local 669.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of all relevant factors, we con-
clude that the Employer's employees who are repre-
sented by Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No.
669, United Association of Journeymen and Appren-
tices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, are enti-
tled to the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion
based on the Employer's current collective-bargain-
ing relationships ; the Employer's assignment of the
disputed work to these employees and the fact that
the assignment is consistent with the Employer's
practice; the fact that employees represented by Lo-
cal 669 possess the requisite skills to perform the
work; and the fact that such an assignment will result
in greater efficiency and economy of operations. Ac-
cordingly, we shall determine the dispute before us
by awarding the work in dispute to those employees
represented by Local 669, but not to that Union or
its members . We find that Teamsters Local No. 5 is
not entitled, by means proscribed under Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employ-
er to assign the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by it.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
477
Relations Act, as amended, and on the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro-
ceeding the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Grinnell Fire Protection Systems
Company, Inc., who are represented by Road Sprin-
kler Fitters Local Union No. 669, United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work
involved in the initial unloading of materials brought
to the jobsite by trucks.
2. General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and
Helpers Local Union No. 5, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Ind., is not enti-
tled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act, to force or require Grinnell Fire Protection
Systems Company, Inc., to assign the disputed work
described in paragraph 1 of this Determination of
Dispute to employees represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, General Truck Driv-
ers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 5,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Ind., shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 15, in writing, whether or not it will refrain
from forcing or requiring Grinnell Fire Protection
Systems Company, Inc., by means proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the above-described disput-
ed work to employees represented by it rather than to
employees represented by Road Sprinkler Fitters Lo-
cal Union No. 669, United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit-
ting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO.