Masonry Magazine September 1980 Page. 17
MCAA
Information...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
252 NLRB No. 16
D-6924
Washington, D.C.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL Nos. 77, 77-A,
77-RA, 77-B, 77-C, 77-D, AFL-CIO
and
BRICKLAYING, INC.
and
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL No. 74. AFL-CIO
Case 5-CD-261
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 Bricklaying, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging that International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Nos. 77, 77-A, 77-RA, 77-B, 77-C, 77-D, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or the Engineers, 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 certain work to its members rather than to employees represented by Laborers' International Union of North America, Local Union 74. AFL-CIO, herein called the Laborers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert L. Clayton on June 26 and 30 and July 1, 1980. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.
Pursuant to the provision 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. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings:
I. The Business of the Employer
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Brentwood, Maryland, is engaged in the business of general masonry construction. During the past year, the Employer purchased finished products from outside the State having a value of $50,000. The parties also stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. The Labor Organizations Involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Engineers and the 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 Employer is engaged in the masonry construction business in the Washington, D.C., area. The Employer has a subcontract with Baltimore Contractors, Inc., to perform certain masonry work at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The Employer is signatory to a collective-bargaining agreement between Construction Contractors Council-AGC Labor Division, Inc., herein called CCC, and the Laborers. In addition, through its membership in the Mason Contractors Association of America and the Mason Contractors Association of the District of Columbia, the Employer is contractually obligated to the collective-bargaining agreement between these employer organizations and the Laborers' International Union.
There is also in effect a collective-bargaining agreement between the Engineers and CCC, which the Respondent contends, but the Employer denies, is binding on the Employer. Both CCC contracts contain provisions that require signatory employers to assign the disputed work (operation of forklifts) to the respective Unions. The Engineers-CCC contract contains a provision which provides that any jurisdictional dispute shall be submitted to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board, herein called the IJDB, for settlement in accordance with the plan adopted by the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, herein called the BCTD. The Employer's contracts with the Laborers do not contain such a provision.
Pursuant to its contract with the Laborers and consistent with its past practice, the Employer assigned the disputed work to employee members of the Laborers. As of May, 1980, the Employer employed approximately 21 employees, of whom 13 were members of the Laborers, 7 were members of Bricklayers Local Union No. 6, and 1 was a member of the Engineers, and operated a hoist. Employee members of the Engineers and the Laborers also were employed by other employers on the jobsite, including Dan LaPore & Sons, subcontractor, and J. W. Bateson Co., Inc., contractor, both of whom are signatories to the Engineers-CCC contract.
On May 13, 1980, the Engineers submitted claims to the IJDB concerning the operation of forklifts for LaPore and Bateson by employee members of the Laborers. On June 2, the IJDB awarded this work to employee members of the Engineers.
On the morning of June 5, members of the Engineers employed by various employers on the jobsite engaged in a work stoppage for 1-% to 2-2 hours to protest the Employer's assignment of the forklift work to members of the Laborers.
The Engineers members subsequently returned to work and there has been no further work stoppage at the site.