Masonry Magazine May 1969 Page. 27
NLRB Decision
(Continued from page 13)
II. The Labor Organization Involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Carpenters Local 213 and Laborers International Union of North America, Local No. 18, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Laborers Local 18, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Dispute
# A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Manhattan Construction Company of Texas, herein referred to as Manhattan, is the general contractor on an addition and modification presently being erected at the St. Luke's-Texas Children's Hospital project in Houston, Texas. General Masonry has a subcontract to perform the masonry work at the site. General Masonry has no collective-bargaining agreement with Carpenters Local 213, having refused to renew an agreement which General Masonry's predecessor had with Local 213 and which expired May 1, 1968. General Masonry is party to a collective-bargaining agreement with Laborers Local 18, pursuant to which it employs laborers to erect, move and disassemble metal tubular scaffolding at the above-mentioned hospital site, as well as elsewhere.
James M. Childs, Jr., a construction superintendent for Manhattan, testified that in September 1968, when General Masonry laborers were erecting scaffolding at the jobsite, Carpenters Local 213's steward Westbrook advised Childs that "the carpenters would not stay there as long as the laborers were doing their work." About a week later Westbrook stated to Childs, "They told me not to let the carpenters work as long as the laborers are putting up the bricklayers' scaffolding." Whereupon the carpenters, including Westbrook, who were employed by Manhattan and other contractors at the site, ceased work and walked off the job. This work stoppage continued for 1 day after which all carpenters returned to work.
On December 26, 1968, Null, an officer of Carpenters Local 213, presented himself at a separately located Houston building project where General Masonry was a subcontractor, and asked General Masonry's foreman whether whether carpenters would be used to do the scaffolding work there involved. The foreman replied that laborers would be used, at which time Null stated that "I guess you know what I am going to do." A picket appeared at the project that same day and on December 27. The picket sign stated "General Masonry does not employ members of nor have a contract with the Carpenters District Council of Houston." As a result of the picketing on December 27, none of the employees of any other contractor or subcontractor scheduled to work on the site performed any work.
# B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute here is the erection, assembly, and dismantling of steel tubular section scaffolds at construction projects located at Houston, Texas.
# C. The Contentions of the Parties
Carpenters Local 213 contends that there is insufficient evidence to establish reasonable cause to believe Section 8(b) (4) (D) was violated. Local 213 contends it has not engaged in inducement or coercion and insists it has no dispute with Laborers Local 18 over work assignment.
The Employer contends that Section 8(b) (4) (D) was violated by, inter alia, the threats and work stoppages initiated by Carpenters Local 213 in September and December pursuant to Local 213's attempts to force the Employer to assign its scaffolding work to Local 213's members rather than to laborers.
The Employer further contends that the disputed work belongs to laborers because of Employer, area, and industry practice, skill and efficiency, contract coverage, and the Employer's assignment of the work to laborers.
# D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to determine a dispute out of which a Section 8(b) (4) (D) charge has arisen. However, before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated. The record shows that in September, 1968, Carpenters Local 213's steward at the hospital construction site where laborers employed by the Employer were engaging in scaffolding work, told the general contractor on the site that carpenters and not laborers should perform that work, and that there would be a work stoppage if the scaffolding was not reassigned to the carpenters. Shortly thereafter, there having been no reassignment of the work, the steward led all carpenters at the site on a 1-day work stoppage.
The record further shows that in late December at another Houston, Texas, construction job involving the Employer an officer of Carpenters Local 213, having first inquired, was told by by the Employer that laborers rather than carpenters would perform the scaffold work there involved. Local 213's officer replied "I guess you know what I am going to do," shortly after which a picket appeared and a work stoppage developed.
In view of the conduct described above, 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 determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
# E. Merits of the Dispute
1. Collective-Bargaining Agreement
The Employer and Laborers Local 18 are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement which provides that the scaffolding work shall be assigned to unit employees, represented by Local 18. Carpenters Local 213 has no contract with the Employer, and the Employer employs carpenters only on rare occasions.
2. Employer and Industry Practices
Testimony by the Employer and other masonry contractors, as well as written statements by Texas contractors who did not appear at the hearing, compels the conclusion that the overwhelming practice of this Employer as well as of the industry, both in the city of Houston and the State of Texas, is to assign scaffolding work to laborers rather than carpenters.
(Please turn page)
1. Tampa Sand and Material Co., 132 NLRB 1564, 1568, 1581.
2. No finding has been made based on the activities of the Houston District Council as there is little if any evidence that it was acting as an agent of Carpenters Local 213. Moreover, the Council is not a party herein.
3. Carpenters Local 213 introduced no evidence concerning the merits of the dispute.
masonry
May, 1969
27