Masonry Magazine October 1982 Page. 12
MCAA
Information...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
262 NLRB NO. 120
D-9001
Cook County, III.
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS'
LOCAL 118, LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO
and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL 150, AFL-CIO
and
D. H. JOHNSON COMPANY
and
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS'
LOCAL 118, LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO
CASES 13-CD-303
and 13-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 D. H. Johnson Company, herein called the Employer. In Case 13-CD-303, the Employer alleged that Construction and General Laborers' Lo cal 118. Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL CIO, herein called the Laborers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening to picket with an object of forcing the Employer to refrain from assigning certain work to employees represented by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO, herein called the Engineers, in a manner inconsistent with its current assignment to the Laborers. In Case 13-CD- 304, the Employer alleged that the Engineers had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by picketing with an object of requiring the Employer to assign certain work to employees represented by the Engineers rather than to employees represented by the Laborers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on the consolidated cases before Hearing Officer Ramon Martinez. Jr., on October 1 and 9, 1981. 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. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employer, the Engineers, and the Laborers.
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. 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, is engaged in the business of brick masonry as a construction subcontractor. Its principal place of business is in DuPage County, Illinois. During the last calendar or fiscal year, the Employer had gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased goods and materials from outside the State of Illinois which it received at its worksites within the State of Illinois, having a value in excess 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 both 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 a construction subcontractor for an apartment building project located in Mount Prospect, Illinois, at which it employs both laborers and bricklayers. In general, the bricklayers are responsible for laying the masonry material (brick, block, stone. and wire) on the wall being constructed; the laborers are responsible for mixing the mortar prior to its transportation to the brick layers, and for assisting the bricklayers by shoveling mortar from the mortar tub to mortarboards for the bricklayers' use in laying the block or brick. The laborers also assemble scaffolding, and perform cleanup work or any miscellaneous tasks. Forklifts are used on the Employer's construction projects to lift bundles of bricks or the mortar tubs to the bricklayers' work locations, be they on the ground or on the scaffolding. The forklift also is used in the actual erection of the scaffolding.
Pursuant to its agreement with the Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago and Vicinity and consistent with its desires, the Employer assigned the operation of the forklift on the Mount Prospect project to employees represented by the Laborers by letter dated August 17, 1981. The evidence presented at the hearing established that the Engineers threatened to picket the jobsite unless forklift work being performed by employees represented by the Laborers was reassigned to employees represented by the Engineers; the Engineers thereafter began picketing on August 27, and the picketing lasted for approximately 2 weeks. In a letter dated September 2, the Laborers informed the Employer that it would engage in picketing if the Employer reas-
1. All dates are in 1981 unless indicated otherwise.
2. The Engineers makes no attempt to refute this evidence in the record correlating the picketing to the job assignment. In particular, Lloyd Anderson, a field superintendent for the Employer, testified that the Engineers' business representative, Bill Rucker, orally demanded that the forklift operation be assigned to a member of the Engineers. When informed that the work had been assigned to an employee represented by the Laborers, he allegedly stated, "Well, we'll see about this." Soon. thereafter, but after a lapse of more than 48 hours, employees repre sented by the Engineers commenced picketing on August 27.
12 MASONRY-SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER, 1982