Truck Drivers Union Local 170

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 236 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Truck Drivers Union Local 170, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts,
Inc. and Granger Contracting Co., Inc. and
Laborers International Union of North America,
Local 243
Truck Drivers Union Local 170, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
N. C. Allen Co., Inc . and Laborers International
Union of North America, Local 243 . Cases 1-CD-
411 and 1-CD-418
January 17, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by Associated General Contractors
of Massachusetts, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the
AGC, on behalf of Granger Contracting Co., Inc.,
hereinafter referred to as Granger, and by N. C.
Allen Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as Allen,
alleging that Truck Drivers Local Union 170,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, hereinafter referred to as the Teamsters or
Local 170, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by
engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object
of forcing or requiring Granger and Allen to assign
truckdriving work to employees represented by the
Teamsters rather than to employees represented by
the Laborers International Union of North America,
Local 243, hereinafter referred to as the Laborers or
Local 243.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing. was held before
Hearing Officer Francis X. McDonough on Septem-
ber 19 and 20, 1974. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues . Thereafter,
briefs were filed on behalf of the AGC, Granger,
Allen, and the Teamsters.
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 Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
216 NLRB No. 46
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Granger Contracting Company, a general contrac-
tor, and N. C. Allen Company, a utility and pipeline
subcontractor, operate primarily in the Worcester
area . Granger and Allen each receive from points
outside the State goods and services valued in excess
of $50,000. Accordingly, we find that the Employers
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) 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
Laborers and the Teamsters are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts
During the past several years, the Teamsters has
intermittently requested that local contractors hire its
members to perform the driving which is now being
claimed by the two Unions. The Worcester area
contractors, including the parties herein, have gener-
ally used members of the Laborers for this kind of
driving.
On July 15, 1974, Locals 243 and 170 signed a
memorandum of understanding in which the Labor-
ers agreed to disclaim this work. The record
establishes that Arthur Coia, Laborers International
vice president, directed Bill Porter, Local 243's
business manager, to sign this memorandum, despite
his objections. According to Porter, this agreement
was part of a larger deal in which the Teamsters
promised to stop raiding the Laborers local in
eastern Massachusetts. The next day, Porter and
Victor Nuzzolilo, a Local 170 business agent, visited
Raymond Granger, the president of the Granger
Contracting Company. Both Granger and Porter
testified that during this visit Nuzzolilo asked
Granger to sign a contract with his local and warned
of picketing if Granger refused. At the time, Granger
did not employ any member of the Teamsters. On
July 18, Granger filed charges against Local 170.
Sometime in June 1974, Nuzzolilo asked Norman
Allen, president of N. C. Allen Co., to hire Teamsters
drivers for his trucks. At the time, Allen did not
employ any members of Local 170 and ignored
Nuzzolilo's request. About a month later, during the
evening of July 17, 1974, some teamsters carrying
placards appeared at a site where Allen was
TRUCK DRIVERS UNION LOCAL 170 237
preparing to install two gate valves into a section of
water main for the city of Worcester. Nuzzolilo was
with them and again demanded that Allen reassign
the truckdriving jobs to members of his local. Allen
asked for a meeting the next day to discuss the
matter, but Nuzzolilo refused.
Just before Allen's employees began working that
night, a crew from the Worcester Water Department
shut off the flow of water in the mains around the
point where the installation was to occur. Soon after
Nuzzolilo's arrival, the foreman of this crew in-
formed Allen that his men did not intend to cross the
Teamsters picket line. At that moment, the teamsters
were blocking the crew's access to the spot where the
controls to the mains that had been shut off were
located. This meant that as long as the Teamsters
continued picketing, the water mains would remain
closed. Allen thus found himself with a choice of
either defying the Teamsters, and leaving a part of
the city without water, or signing a contract. Allen
signed, and the next day discharged two laborers and
replaced them with two members of Local 170.
B. The Work in Dispute
The disputed work concerns the loading, unload-
ing, and driving of trucks which are used for
transporting equipment and materials to and from
construction sites and to and from different areas
located within such sites.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before proceeding with a determination of this
dispute, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, the
Board must be convinced that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated and the -parties have not adjusted or
established a method providing for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.
Local 170 argues that the memorandum of under-
standing of July 15 continues to bind the signatory
parties, that the disclaimer contained therein remains
effective, and that, therefore, no jurisdictional dis-
pute exists. However, Local 170, nevertheless, asks
the Board to issue an award on the merits.
We do not find that the memorandum of under-
standing continues to operate as a disclaimer of the
disputed work on the part of the Laborers. At the
hearing, Porter unequivocally renounced the memo-
randum and denied any intention to disclaim the
work. Also, nothing in the record suggests that the
parties have established a method for voluntarily
adjusting the dispute. Accordingly, we find the
dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.
D. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of the disputed work after duly
considering all of the relevant factors.' As the Board
has stated, a determination in a jurisdictional dispute
is an act of judgment based upon commonsense and
experience in measuring the weight to be accorded
various factors.2 We have considered the following
factors:
1. Certifications
The labor organizations involved in this case have
not been certified by the Board as the collective-
bargaining representative for a unit, or units, of
either Employer's employees.
2. The interunion agreement
As stated earlier, we have found that the memoran-
dum of understanding of July 15, 1974, is not now
binding upon Laborers' Local 243, and, therefore, is
not a factor to which weight can be given in
determining the merits of this dispute.
3. Employer and area practice
The record clearly establishes that, until the time of
this dispute, both Employers used members of the
Laborers to do the driving Local 170 is now claiming.
In fact, neither Employer had any employees who
were members of the Teamsters when the threats
against them were made. Witnesses for Local 243
and the AGC testified that area contractors have
used Laborers for this work for at least the past 20
years. This factor favors an award to employees
represented by the Laborers.
4. Relative skills and efficiency and
economy of operation
The driving skill of members of either Union is not
really questioned. Thus, the factor of comparative
skills does not affect the balance in favor of either
Union. Witnesses for both Employers and for Local
243, however, testified to the inefficiency that would
result if members of the Teamsters were awarded the
work. According to these witnesses, the trucks
involved here are used only intermittently. When not
driving, the laborers assigned to the trucks perform
other tasks. Because these other tasks are exclusively
within Local 243's jurisdiction, members of the
i N. L. R. B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union , Local 1212,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia
Broadcasting System], 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
2 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J.
A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1%2).
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters , if awarded the work , could drive the
trucks, but do nothing else. As a result , when a truck
was idle , a teamster would be idle too. Thus, an
award to members of the Teamsters would increase
the Employers ' costs without improving productivity.
The factors of economy and efficiency , therefore,
favor an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by the Laborers.
Conclusion
Having considered all relevant factors , particularly
those concerning the Employee 's past practice, area
practice , and efficiency and economy of operations,
we conclude that employees of the Employers
represented by the Laborers are entitled to perform
the disputed work. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding , the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis-
pute:
1. Employees employed by Granger Contracting
Co., Inc ., of Worcester , Massachusetts , and N. C.
Allen Co ., Inc., of Marlboro , Massachusetts , who are
currently represented by the Laborers International
Union of North America , Local 243 , are entitled to
perform the work of loading, unloading , and driving
trucks which Granger and Allen use for transporting
equipment and material to and from construction
sites and to and from different areas located within
such sites.
2. Truck Drivers Local Union 170 is not entitled
by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act
to force or require the Employers to award the above
work to its members or employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , Truck Drivers Local
Union 170 shall notify the Regional Director of
Region 1, in writing , whether it will or will not refrain
from forcing or requiring the Employers , by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to award the work
in dispute to its members rather than to employees
represented by the Laborers.