Masonry Magazine May 1973 Page. 12
MCAA Information
absenteeism rate was not abnormally high. There is also evidence that Azzarelli had, during this time, difficulty procuring workmen through Iron Workers. However, Iron Workers insisted that the failure to furnish the requested workmen was due to a temporary shortage of men and was not in any way an indirect attempt to coerce the Employer through Azzarelli. Suprenant also testified that such temporary shortages were not unusual.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Iron Workers contends that the disputed work should be assigned to a composite crew of equal numbers of ironworkers and bricklayers, as provided for in the 1962 Iron Workers-Bricklayers Agreement. Iron Workers also cites a 1923 Green Book award handed down by the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes as a basis for at least a partial claim to the work indispute. Iron Workers also claims the requisite skills to do a large portion of the disputed work, and further argues that area practice dictates the use of a composite crew.
As the panel facing to be installed is ornamental and non-structural, the Employer defends its present assignment of the disputed work as consistent with its own and area practice, efficiency, and economy of operation. The Employer also cites a contract between the Mason Contractors Association of America, of which the Employer is an affiliate, and the Bricklayers International, which allegedly provides for the Employer's present assignment.
Bricklayers supports the present assignment. Bricklayers claims exclusive jurisdiction over any wall erection work involving natural stone, either in the form of single-stone units or multistone units backed by concrete. The 1962 Iron Workers-Bricklayers Agreement, it argues, applies only to precast concrete walls, not walls with natural stone facing. Bricklayers cites skills, area practice, and the Mason Contractors Association contract to support the present assignment.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination of dispute pursuant to 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. Both Hempel and Martini testified that Stahl of the Iron Workers had threatened to picket unless the Employer assigned the disputed work to a composite crew. Hempel also suggested that Iron Workers withheld craftsmen from Azzarelli as an indirect pressure upon the Employer, through Azzarelli, to reassign the work. All of this was vigorously denied by Iron Workers.
The Board is not charged with finding that a violation did in fact occur, but only that reasonable cause exists for finding such a violation. A conflict of testimony does not prevent the Board from proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act. Therefore, without ruling on the credibility of Iron Workers denial, we find that such reasonable cause exists, and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination."
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to various relevant factors.
1. Certification and Contracts
The agreement between the Mason Contractors Association and the Bricklayers International' defines the work jurisdiction of Bricklayers as that work which had traditionally been
Local Union No. 331. Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (C.H. Heiat Corporation), 175 NLRB 618.
"This agreement was originally executed in 1954 and amended in July. 1969. The agreement has since remained in effect on a year-to-year basis with each party having the option to terminate or recommend modification 60 days prior to the anniversary date of of the agreement. As there is no indication in the record that either party has ever exercised ita option, we assume this agreement is still in effect.
Bee Constitution and Rules of Order. Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of America, art. XI. sec. 3 (adopted September 4, 1970).
12
assigned to Bricklayers International as described in the International constitution. The constitution clearly includes the setting of all cut stone within the definition of masonry, but is silent as to the setting of multistone panels backed by reinforced concrete.
The 1962 agreement between Iron Workers and Bricklayers would seem to support Iron Workers claim for a composite crew, at least with regard to the concrete-backed panels. The agreement specifically applies to:
the installation and erection of precast, prestressed concrete stone or imitation stone or other fabricated masonry units when installed as wall panels by means of bolting and/or welding to structural steel or concrete frame construction.
The parties hereto agree as follows:
(3) The plumbing, aligning, leveling and anchoring, including bolting and/or welding shall be performed by a crew composed of an equal number of members of Iron Workers and Bricklayers.
However, Stahl admitted that the agreement has been violated by both parties in the past so that it was, in Iron Workers' eyes, of doubtful viability. And assuming arguendo that the agreement was continuously adhered to by both parties, the Employer never agreed to be bound by it.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the factor of contracts does not favor the claim of Iron Workers, but does favor the Employer's present assignment to the extent that it covers the installation of single-stone panels.
2. Employer and Area Practice
The practice of the Employer has been to assign the work of installing stone paneling on ornamental nonstructural walls to workmen who were members of Bricklayers. There was an isolated case where a composite crew crew of ironworkers and bricklayers was used, but it was, Hempel estimated, one job out of 60. As for area practice, both Unions cite examples to support their respective claims. In view of the foregoing, we find that employer practice favors the present assignment and area practice does not favor Iron Workers.
3. Skills, Efficiency and Economy of Operation
Ironworkers appear to have the requisite skills to perform many of the tasks incident to the work in dispute. As noted earlier, all of the multistone panels and some of the single-stone panels are attached to the wall by means of bolting or welding. Ironworkers are proficient in this area. Iron Workers also claims that its members are proficient in the area of plumbing and leveling of panels. The only area of the disputed work in which Iron Workers does not claim any skill is the task of mortaring.
Bricklayers appears to possess sufficient skill to perform all work in dispute, although none of its members were, until recently, certified as welders. However, Bricklayers claims that many of its members have possessed the requisite welding skills for years. We find that the factor of skill favors neither the present assignment nor an assignment to a composite crew.
With regard to efficiency and economy of operations, the record disclosed that the bulk of the stone paneling to be installed is of the single-stone variety, and this installation involves mortaring work which bricklayers can do more skillfully. While ironworkers are skilled at rigging, aligning, bolting, and welding of concrete-backed multistone panels, there would not be enough work in this area to keep them busy all the time. As members of a composite crew, crew, either they would become idle or would help to install the single-stone panels, a task for which they are not as skilled as bricklayers. Also, Hempel testified that he has experienced costly time delays due to bickering between the two Unions when he used a composite crew on a precast concrete project.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the factors of efficiency and economy of operation favor the Employer's assignment.
Conclusions
Having considered all pertinent factors present herein, we conclude that employees who are represented by Bricklayers are entitled to perform the work in dispute. This assignment (Continued on page 27)
masonry
May, 1973