Masonry Magazine January 1974 Page.15
MCAA
information
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
212 NLRB No. 94
D-8931
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 318
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 Smith Southern Corporation, herein called the Employer, alleging that Iron Workers Union Local No. 84, herein called Iron Workers or Respondent, 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 it represents 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 January 29, 1974, before Hearing Officer William H. Helms. 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 Employer, Iron Workers, and Bricklayers filed briefs in support of their respective positions.
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:
1. The Business of the Employer
The Employer is a corporation organized under pertinent statutes in Texas with its offices and principal place of business
1. Following the close of the hearing, the Respondent filed a motion for leave to reopen the record herein for the purpose of introducing additional exhibits to be identified as Charged Party's Exhs, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The Employer filed a response in opposition to Respondent's motion. hereby deny Respondent's motion because Respondent has not amply justified its failure to present this evidence before the record was closed. See Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, sec. 102.48 (d) (1).
located in Houston, Texas, where it is engaged in the building and construction industry as a masonry contractor. During the past 12 months, the Employer has purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to the Employer 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 purposes and policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. The Labor Organizations Involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the 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
Early in 1973, the Employer obtained a subcontract from the McGregor Construction Company to perform certain masonry work, including the installation or erection of prefabricated brick wall panels on the Sperry Rand Building in Houston, Texas. On April 23, 1973, the Employer assigned the work involved in performing this construction contract to its own employees represented by the Bricklayers, with necessary assistance to be furnished by employees represented by Laborers. On November 15, 1973, the Iron Workers made its initial demand that the Employer award the work to employees it represented, and on December 17, 1973, it commenced picketing the worksite. Picketing continued on December 18 and 19, 1973, with the legend on the picket sign reading as follows:
Smith Southern is unfair to Iron Workers Local 84 in violation of the joint board agreement. Dispute is against no one else.
# B. The Work in Dispute
The disputed work concerns the unloading, stockpiling, and erection of preassembled brick wall panels on the Sperry Rand building job in Houston, Texas. These wall panels, numbering in excess of 200, are in varying dimensions, e.g., 9 feet by 8 feet; 4 feet by 30 feet; and 7 feet by 30 feet; and they are inst by being set in mortar, or they are caulked, prior to being welded or bolted to the basic structure of the building." The Iron Workers primarily claims the rigging, hooking on, signal-ing, and landing functions involved in the erection of these prefabricated brick wall panels.
# C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer argues that this dispute is properly before the Board on the basis of evidence showing that the Employer is not a party to any agreed-upon method of settling this matter (Continud on page 27)
2. In assigning the disputed work, the Employer granted it to members of Bricklayers who were to be assigned by employees represented by Laborers International Union of North America, Local No. 18. The Laborers did not participate in the instant hearing.
3. The subject work is nearly snearly identical to that involved in a prior dispute involving these same parties which was re-cently before this Board for resolution, involving these loard for resolution, Iron Workers Union Local No. 84 (Smith Southern Corporation), 208 NLRB No. 36 (1974).
masonry
Nov./Dec., 1974
15