Masonry Magazine October 1973 Page. 18
MCAA
information
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
197 NLRB No. 49
D-6321
Newark, N.J.
LOCAL NO. 399, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
and
CLARENCE B. HANEY MASON CONTRACTORS,
INC.
and
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 569,
AFL-CIO
Case 22-CD-200
Decision and Determination of Dispute
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Clarence B. Haney Mason Contractors, Inc., hereinafter called the Employer, alleging that Local No. 399, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Carpenters, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the work in dispute to Carpenters rather than to employees of the Employer represented by Laborers' International Union of North America, Local Union No. 569, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Laborers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Joel S. Selikoff on January 4, 13, 14 and 31 and February 1, 1972. 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 filled by the Employer, Carpenters, and Laborers.
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. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the briefs, and hereby makes the following findings:
1. The Business of the Employer
The parties stipulated that Clarence B. Haney Mason Contractors, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the furnishing of nonretail building and construction masonry services, having its principal office and place of business at 1745 Eaton Avenue, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The Employer furnishes these services at various construction jobsites in the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, including the site for the construction of the Northeast Consumer Plant for Mobil Chemical Company, Plastics Division, at Mansfield Township. Warren County, New Jersey.
During the past 12 months, the value of masonry services furnished by the Employer directly to customers located outside the State of Pennsylvania exceeded $50,000. During the same period, the Employer purchased goods and services valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped directly to it from outside the State of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, we find that Clarence B. Haney Mason Contractors, Inc. is 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
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Carpenters and Laborers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Dispute
# A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The work dispute occurred at the construction site of the Northeast Consumer Plant of the Mobil Chemical Company, Plastics Division, in Warren County, New Jersey. Louis Hajdu, Inc. is the general contractor for the industrial building. Hajdu subcontracted the masonry work to the Employer. In order to perform the subcontract the Employer was required to erect and dismantle both metal tubular and self-rising scaffolding. The work in dispute here involves scaffolding rising above 14 feet in height.
When the masonry work began in September, 1971, the Employer used laborers to erect the initial scaffolding which was less than 14 feet in height. At approximately this same time, the Carpenters' business agent, Wallace Whiteford, had conversations with the Hajdu job superintendent, Joseph Vangeli, and the Employer's jobsite foreman, Richard Whited, during which Whiteford demanded that the disputed work, scaffolding over 14 feet high, be awarded to the Carpenters.
Thereafter, Whited hired Fred Koeck, a member of the Carpenters, for 2 days, October 6 and 7, to work with several laborers to erect scaffolding rising above 14 feet. After 2 workdays Whited laid off Koeck and laborers were used exclusively to perform the disputed work.
On Saturday, October 23, 1971, between 7 and 9 a.m., 15 members of the Carpenters, carrying signs reading "On Strike", picketed the jobsite. On November 1, 1971, another work stoppage by members of the Carpenters took place. The record shows that the purpose of these actions was to require the Employer to assign the disputed work to members of the Carpenters.
5. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute here involves the erection and dismantling of both metal tubular and self-rising scaffolding (the latter commonly referred to as Morgen scaffolding) rising to heights above 14 feet at the Mobil Chemical Company construction site in Warren County, New Jersey. The Carpenters claim only that work involving the erection and dismantling of scaffolding over 14 feet high.
# C. Contention of the Parties
The Employer contends that the laborers possess the requisite skills and it has been its practice to have employees represented by Laborers perform the disputed work. The Employer further avers that its collective bargaining agreement with the Laborers calls for members of the Laborers to do the work; and that it (Continued on page 27)
masonry
• October, 1973