Masonry Magazine May 1976 Page. 25
MCAA
information
223 NLRB No. 129
D-1078
Gary, Ind.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS, LOCAL 1005
and
STEBBINS ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CO.
Case 13-CD-250
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 July 28, 1975, by Stebbins Engineering & Manufacturing Co., hereinafter referred to as the Employer, against the Lake County District Council of Carpenters, Local 1005, hereinafter referred to as the Carpenters or Respondent Union, alleging that Carpenters 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 certain work to employees represented by rather than to employees represented by the International Laborers Association, Local 81, hereinafter referred to as the Laborers.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Daniel R. Meany on December 2, 1975, in Chicago, Illinois. 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 issue. A brief has been filed by the Employer.
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 rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and hereby are affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings:
I. The Business of the Employer
The parties stipulated that the Employer, a New York corporation with its principle offices in Watertown, New York, is engaged in manufacturing and engineering pertaining to specialty masonry work and in the past fiscal year has had a gross volume of business in excess of $1 million and has had shipped to Gary, Indiana, from points outside the State of Indiana, goods valued in excess of $50,000. We find, therefore, 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 the Carpenters and the Laborers are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. The Dispute
# A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the erecting, dismantling, and moving of masonry scaffolding at the Dean Mitchell power station of Northern Indiana Power and Service Co., with the jobsite in Gary, Indiana.
# B. 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, and that there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
The charge alleges violations of Section 8(b) (4) (D) under the Act and the record furnishes reasonable cause to believe that the Carpenters restrained and coerced the Employer for the purpose of forcing the assignment of the disputed work to its members. The Employer's vice president, Morgan, testified that he was told by Respondent Union's business representative, Manley, that "if indeed we did not take Carpenters on, we would have a picket line on the job. Since Manley admittedly had told Morgan "we needed the work, that was Carpenters work being performed on this job, and that we had no Carpenters doing our work" and also "since there was no pre-job conference and we had a large unemployment problem, that I couldn't be held responsible for what would happen in the morning, whether there'd be pickets or no pickets," we find that Manley's remarks are reasonably interpreted as a threat to picket the project for an object proscribed by Section 8(b) (4)(D) of the Act. There is no evidence that the parties are signatories to any agreement or that any process exists which can resolve the dispute in question. Accordingly, 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.
# C. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer is a specialty alty masonry contractor, operating across the United States and Canada. A very high percentage of its work involves the construction of structures which contain chemicals and solutions and, therefore, the structures must be chemical-resistent by nature. A large volume of the work involves reinforced tile construction which includes walls with tile on the inside and tile or brick on the outside. Its customers are primarily within the pulp and paper, chemical, and power industries.
The Employer has a contract with Davy Powergas Company for the Dean Mitchell project, Northern Indiana Power at Gary, Indiana. The Employer's contract with Davy Powergas calls for the Employer to supply labor, materials, and equipment, and to install and erect a sulfur dioxide absorption column. The unit is approximately 26 feet square by 70 feet high. The walls of the unit are approximately 15 inches thick at the base and on the outside of the wall is expanded shale block. The inside face of the wall is of chemical-resistant vitrified glassed tile and between the inside face and the outside face is a reinforced concrete core. After the basic shell has been erected, the lower part of the unit up to about 30 feet is given a chemical-resistant membrane of a material about an eighth of an inch thick, over which is installed an acidproof brick line set solidly in an acidproof cement. As part of the work, the Employer installs certain steel fittings going through the wall.