Masonry Magazine January 1974 Page. 45
MCAA information
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
208 NLRB NO. 36
D-8155
Houston, Texas
IRON WORKERS UNION LOCAL NO. 84
and
SMITH SOUTHERN CORPORATION
and
BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
LOCAL NO. 7
Case 23-CD-304
Decision and Determination of Dispute
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by
Smith Southern Corporation, herein called the Employer,
alleging that Iron Workers Union Local No. 84, herein nerein called
Iron Workers or Respondent, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act by seeking to force the Employer to assign the
work in dispute described herein to employees represented by
it rather than to employees represented by Bricklayers, Masons
and Plasterers' International Union of America, AFL-CIO,
Local No. 7, herein called Bricklayers. Pursuant to notice, a
hearing was held in Houston, Texas, on April 17 and April
18, 1973, before Hearing Officer Clayton Corley. 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, the Em-
ployer, Iron Workers, and Bricklayers filed briefs in support
of their respective positions.
On August 9, 1973, the Board issued a Notice To Show
Cause why the Board should not reopen the record to receive
certain exhibits proffered by Iron Workers and to thereafter
find that all parties have agreed to be bound by the National
Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes,
herein called the National Joint Board. Thereafter the Em-
ployer and Bricklayers filed briefs in response.
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 Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial
error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record
in this case, including the briefs, the Board makes the following
findings:
I. The Business of the Employer
The Employer is a Texas corporation with offices and princi-
pal place of business located at 9142 Scranton, Houston, Texas,
where it is engaged in the building and construction industry
as a masonry subcontractor. During the past 12-month period,
masonry • January, 1974
the Employer has purchased goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to the Employer's
Houston locations from points located outside the State of
Texas.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer 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 Involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Iron Workers and
Bricklayers are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Dispute
# A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
In December 1972, the the Employer was awarded a subcon-
tract by the Baxter Construction Company to perform the
masonry work, including the installation of precast concrete
panels, at the Hildebrandt Intermediate School, Klein, Texas.
In connection therewith, the Employer assigned this work to
its own employees, represented by Bricklayers. On March 5.
1973, when the Employer initiated work on the project, Iron
Workers made a demand for the aforesaid work, and on
March 9 began picketing the jobsite. Picketing continued on
March 10 and 12, 1973. The picket signs bore the following
legend:
No Contract Picketing
Smith Southern subcontractor on this job does not have
a contract with nor employ members of Iron Workers
Local 84. There is no dispute between other contractors
or subcontractors on this job.
# B. The Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the work in dispute
involves the unloading, stockpiling, and erection of cast stone
panels approximately 4 inches wide, 2 feet 10 inches high, and
15 feet long, which are set in a mortar joint tack-welded at the
top of a clip angle. In this connection, Iron Workers, at the
hearing, only claimed the power work of rigging, hooking on,
signaling, and loading of the cast stone panels.
# C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the Board should confirm its
assignment of the disputed work to its employees represented
by Bricklayers, since there is no agreed-upon method for res
olution of this dispute. The Employer argues that the Board
should rely on such factors as its contract with Bricklayers
covering the disputed work, which reflects its personal prefer-
ence; its past practice of assigning the work to bricklayers;
and the fact that bricklayers can perform the work more safely,
skillfully, economically, and efficiently than ironworkers. Brick-
layers' position is substantially the same as the Employer's.
Iron Workers argues that its picketing at the jobsite does not
give rise to a jurisdictional dispute cognizable by the Board
since all of the parties to this dispute are bound by agreements
providing machinery for the adjustment of jurisdictional dis-
putes. Alternatively, Iron Workers urges that the relevant
factors favor an award to employees it represents.
# D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination of
(Please turn page)
45