United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 515

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 351 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, LOCAL 515 351
job. In these circumstances, even if the dispute extends to the-addi-
tional -work' claimed by Respondent, we find that the factors of effi-
ciency and economy of operations still favor the lathers. Considering,
in addition, the other factors favoring the lathers adverted to in our
original determination, we believe that that determination should be,
and it hereby is, affirmed.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
No. 515, AFL-CYO, et al . and J. . O. Veteto & Son. Case No.
27-CD-47. August 18, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act follow-
ing charges filed by J. O. Veteto & Son, herein called the Employer,
alleging that United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, Local No. 515, AFL-CIO, Southern Colorado Building and Con-
struction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and Carpenters District Council
of Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondents,
threatened, coerced, and restrained Continental Consolidated Corpora-
tion, Glenn Siebert Dry Wall Company, and J. O. Veteto & Son,
with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign particu-
lar work to employees represented by the Carpenters rather than to em-
ployees represented by Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International
Union, Local No. 48, ,AFL-CIO, herein'called Lathers. A hearing
was held before Hearing Officer-Allison E. Nutt on April 9 and 10,
1964. 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 issues.' The rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Respondents and Lathers filed briefs which have
been duly considered.-
Pursuant to the proviisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings : -
1. The business of the Employer
J. O. Veteto & Son is engaged in the lathing and plastering business
in Colorado and adjoining States. In the calendar year 1963, Veteto
purchased materials valued at more than $100,000 from suppliers in
148 NLRB No. 38. -
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Colorado who received the goods from manufacturers located in other
States. We find that Veteto is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved
Respondents and Lathers are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The dispute
A. The work in issue
Metal studs used in the erection of interior walls or partitions receive
a surface of either plaster or dry wall material. The work in dispute
here is the installation of metal studs which are to receive dry wall
material together with the tracks to which they are affixed and the
bracing material attached to them.
B. The basic facts
The Employer has a subcontract to install inside partitions in an
underground headquarters for North American Air Defense Com-
mand (NORAD) being constructed- by the Department of Defense at
Colorado Springs,. Colorado. Continental Consolidated Corporation,
general contractor for the project, subcontracted the erection of inside
partitions to Glenn Siebert Dry Wall Company which, in turn, sub-
contracted to Veteto the erection of the metal studs which are a basic
component of the inside partitions. Siebert has a collective-
bargaining agreement. with the Carpenters which provides that all
work be done by members of that union. Veteto has a contract with
Lathers covering all its work and does not employ carpenters. Veteto
assigned the installation of metal studs to lathers. Representatives of
the Respondents requested, Siebert to comply with-the terms. of its
collective-bargaining agreement. In a telephone conversation with
Respondents on March 9,1964, Veteto was told, when he asked whether
the job would be picketed, "there could be-more than likely there
could be." He was also advised that whatever action was taken by
the Carpenters would be supported by Respondent Building and Con-
struction Trades Council.
C. Contentions of the parties
Respondents assert as a defense a 1962 interim agreement between
the two International Unions here concerned which, assertedly, is still
in effect and which recognizes that the disputed work belongs to car-
penters. Respondents' chief reliance, however, is upon a March 2,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF' CARPENTERS, LOCAL 515 353
1964, decision of the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdic-
tibnal-Disputes which awarded the work in question to carpenters. It
further contends that area and industry practice support its claim to
the subject work, which is a traditional function of carpenters.
Similarly, the Lathers relies upon area and industry practice to
support its claim and, contends that -theinstallation of steel studs, re-
gardless of the type of covering to be attached thereto, is an integral
part of the lathers trade which should be performed by lathers.
The Employer, citing its contract with the Lathers, states that he
has assigned the disputed work to lathers and that he does not employ
carpenters; that replacement of the lathers, who can perform this in-
termittent work while not otherwise engaged, by carpenters, who
would have no other duties to perform for Veteto, would be wasteful
and' inefficient; and that the assignment to the lathers is in accord with
his past practice.
D. Applicability of the statute
The charges allege a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act.
The record indicates that the Employer, at the insistence of Siebert,
contacted officers of Respondents who asserted that unless the disputed
work were assigned to its members, the Carpenters, supported by the
Trades Council, would probably picket the project. We find that there
is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D),
has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for de-
termination under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of disputed work, after giving due consideration to various
relevant factors. The following factors are asserted in support of the
claims of the parties herein :
1. Collective-bargaining agreements: The Employer has a collec-
tive bargaining agreement with the Lathers covering the employees
to whom the Employer assigned the work in dispute. The Employer,
who has never employed carpenters, does not have a contract with
Respondents. The Employer's agreement with the Lathers does not
treat specifically with metal studs which are to receive a dry wall
covering.
2. Company, area, and industry practice: Both disputants intro-
duced evidence of area and industry practice to support their respec-
tive positions as they have done in previous cases arising the same area,'
but the results- of their efforts are inconclusive. Since the Employer
1 See, e.g., Carpenters District Council of Denver & Vicinity, AFL-CIO (J. O. Veteto
and Son), 146 NLRB 1242; 148 NLRB 350.
760-577-65-vol. 148-24
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS -BOARD
has never employed carpenters but has employed lathers exclusively in
the installation of metal studs, the assignment of this work to the
lathers is in accord with the Employer's past practice.
3. Efficiency of operation: It is conceded that both lathers and car-
penters possess the skills or ability to erect metal studs. Respond-
ents, however, do not claim the right to install all tracks and steel studs
to be used in the building; they demand the work of erecting only, such
tracks and steel studs as will receive a dry wall covering. The installa-
tion of tracks, studs, and furring is precisely the same whether the final
covering is a wet or dry wall material. The disputed work is not per-
formed continuously while the Employer 's operations are in progress,
but is done intermittently, as required, by lathers, who, when not so,
engaged, are otherwise employed by the Employer in the exercise of.
contractual functions to which their claim is not contested on jurisdic-
tional grounds . In these circumstances, the Employer' s assignment
of the disputed work to the lathers is more consistent with efficiency
of operation than would be the interjection of a second craft, the car-
penters, for the limited purpose of intermittently installing a portion
of the metal studs to be used on the project. This is especially true
when the Employer has no other work to which he -may assign-
carpenters.
4. Action of the joint board: Both Unions rely on decisions of the
national joint board to support their respective claims. Moreover,
Respondents urge that in the instant dispute the joint board awarded
the work to them in a decision of March 2, 1964. Inasmuch as the
Employer had not agreed to be bound by a decision of the joint board
in this matter, the decision by that body is merely one of the factors
which we must consider in assigning the disputed work .2
5. The interim agreement: Respondents assert that the "Interim
Agreement" of January 6, 1962, between the International representa-
tives of the contending Unions should have binding force. That
agreement purports to divide the disputed work between lathers and
carpenters by assigning to carpenters, "The installation of metal
studs-nailable or nonnailable-to receive, finished materials other
than plaster or sprayed-on or trowel applied materials done by
Plasterers ...." The Lathers contends that the interim agreement
has been abrogated by the parties while Respondents contend it should
be dispositive of the dispute herein, relying upon the case of Acoustics,
d Specialities, Inc.' The Acoustics case , however, is distinguish-
able. There, the Board accorded determinative weight to the interim
agreement only because the usually determinative criteria in such cases
2 Local 964 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO
( Carleton Brothers Company ), 141 NLRB 1138.
3 Local Union No. 68, Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO
(Acoustics & Specialties , Inc.), 142 NLRB 1073. ' 11
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, LOCAL 515 355
were not present therein and in the resulting "state of balance" the
interim agreement was held controlling. Even assuming,- therefore,
that the interim agreement is still in force, the state of balance present
in Acoustics does not obtain here and we, therefore, decline to accord
controlling effect to the interim agreement 4
F. Conclusion as to. the merits of the dispute'
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors appearing in the entire
record, we shall assign the disputed work to the lathers. They are as
skilled in the performance of the work as the carpenters who compete
for it and have performed it to the satisfaction of the Employer, who
desires to retain them on the job. The present assignment of the dis-
puted work to the lathers is consistent with their collective-bargaining
agreement with the Employer, it conforms to the Employer's,past
=practice, and the' efficiency with which the lathers may accomplish
the task demonstrates the superior claim of the lathers to the disputed
work. We conclude that the Employer's assignment of the work to
the lathers should not be disturbed. We shall, accordingly, determine
the existing jurisdictional dispute by deciding that lathers, rather than
carpenters, are entitled to the work in dispute. 'In mailing' this 'deter-
mination,' we are assigning the disputed work' of 'the employees of
the Employer who are represented by the Lathers` but; not to that
Union or its members. `
Determination Of Dispute
Upon the basis of-.the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of; dis=
.pute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act : .
1. Lathers employed by J. O. Veteto & Son, who are represented
by Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers Local Union No. 48, AFL-CIO,
are entitled to perform the work of erecting tracks and metal studs to
,receive dry wall on interior partitions in the underground headquar-
ters for North American Air Defense Command at Colorado Springs,
Colorado.,
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local No. 515, AFL-CIO; Southern Colorado Building and Con-
struction Trades Council, AFL-CIO; and Carpenters District Coun-
cil of'Southern Colorado, AFL-CIO, are not entitled, by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act; to force or require the
Employer to assign the above work to carpenters: -
4 Carpenters District Council of Denver & Vicinity, AFL-CIO (J. 'O. Veteto and Son),
footnote 1, supra. Member Leedom agrees that this agreement is not entitled to con-
trolling weight , but for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Acoustics & Spe-
cialties, Inc., supra.
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, the Respondents named above shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 27, in writing, whether they will or will not re-
frain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed
by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to carpenters
rather than lathers.
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North
America and Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
No. 23 and J . R. Condon & Sons, Inc.' Case No. 3-CD-111. Au-
gust 18, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act, following a
charge filed by J. R. Condon & Sons, Inc., herein called the Company,
alleging that International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America and Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union No. 23, herein called Pressmen, had violated Section 8(b) (4)
(D) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer Arthur E. Neubauer on March 25, 26, and 27 and April 2
and 3, 1964. The Company; the Pressmen; Albany Typographical
Union No. 4, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein
called Local 4, ITU; and Albany, Troy and Vicinity Stereotypers'
and Electrotypers' Union No. 28, International Stereotypers' and Elec-
trotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Stereo-
typers,2 appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, all parties filed briefs before the Board.
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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Company
The parties stipulated that J. R. Condon & Sons, Inc., a New York
corporation, has its principal office and sole place of business at Albany,
New York, where it is engaged in the business of commercial and news-
i The name of the Company appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Local 4 , ITU, and the Stereotypers are parties to the dispute . The International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called ITU, intervened on the basis of its local's
being a party to the dispute and participated jointly with Local 4.
148 NLRB No. 39.