Masonry Magazine June 1981 Page. 23
MCAA
Information...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LOCAL No. 393, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRONWORKERS, AFL-CIO and FABCON, INCORPORATED and LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA; AND BRICKLAYERS & ALLIED CRAFTSMEN, LOCAL UNION No. 1, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, AND LOCAL UNION No. 2, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
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 Fabcon, Incorporated, herein called the Employer, alleging that Local No. 393, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Ironworkers, 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 employees represented by the Ironworkers rather than to employees represented by Laborers District Council of Minnesota and North Dakota, herein called the Laborers, and Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local Union No. 1, St. Paul, Minnesota, and Local Union No. 2, Minneapolis, Minnesota, herein called the Bricklayers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Sheryl Sternberg on November 19, 20, and 25, 1980. The Laborers, the Employer, and the Ironworkers appeared and were afforded the opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employer and Ironworkers filed briefs.
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 is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the manufacture and installation of prestressed concrete wall panels, floor slabs, beams, columns, stairways, landings, and wood slabs. During the past year, the Employer sold and installed goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 outside the State of Minnesota. Accordingly, 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 of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. The Labor Organization Involved
The record indicates, and we find, that the Ironworkers, the Bricklayers, and the Laborers, and any locals of those Unions that are involved herein, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Dispute
# A. The Work In Dispute
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the work in dispute is the erection and installation of precast, prestressed concrete wall panels for the VWR Scientific Distribution Center, Batavia, Illinois. The work includes the hooking up, erecting, and plumbing of panels; grouting of the base of all panels; installing all grouted connections, welded connections, and bolted connections; and removal of temporary shores and loading of said shores on trailers.
# B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Since 1971, the Employer has had a series of collective-bargaining agreements with the Bricklayers and Laborers in Minnesota and North Dakota which specify that the Employer's field crew will be composed of laborer's and bricklayers. The Employer employs a permanent work force of approximately 40 employees, who are members of Bricklayers and Laborers. It also, at times, employs local bricklayers and laborers to supplement its nucleus of permanent employees. Whenever the Employer has needed to hire additional crew members for jobs performed in the Chicago area, it has executed agreements with area locals of the Bricklayers and the Laborers, and has thereby agreed to pay the prevailing area wage rates and fringe benefits.
Prior to beginning performance of a concrete panel installation subcontract at the VWR Scientific Distribution Center site, the Employer assigned all installation work to an integrated crew of its employees represented by the Bricklayers and the Laborers. Another subcontractor, Corporate Steel, was responsible for installing both a permanent structural steel skeleton and temporary "I-Beam" steel shoring at the VWR site.
On October 6, 1980, the Employer's crew arrived at the jobsite and started unloading and erecting the panels. James Treest, a business agent for the Ironworkers, told Richard Kolosky, the Employer's foreman, that the work should be done by members of the Ironworkers and the Bricklayers and asked Kolosky if he was going to put an ironworker on the crew. Kolosky said he would not do so. Ironworkers for Corporate Steel then walked off the jobsite. The following day, members of the local Building and Trades Council demanded that Kolosky put an ironworker on the crew. Kolosky again refused. The Employer's crew worked at other jobsites from October 8 until October 23, when work resumed at the VWR site. On October 24, members of the local Building and Trades Council returned to the jobsite and Kolosky again refused their demand to put an ironworker on the Employer's crew.
On October 28, the Employer received a telegram from the Ironworkers stating that the Employer was working in violation of area standards and that commencing on October 29 the public would be informed of that fact. The following day, members of
1. All dates hereafter refer to 1980.