Masonry Magazine October 1982 Page. 31
New "Pro" Materials from IMI
In an expansion of the Awareness campaign which was launched last year, IMI's Market Development Program has produced three new items to distinguish union craftsmen and contractors from their non-union counterparts. All items bear the "Sign of the Masonry Pro."
T-shirts are 100% cotton, available in small, medium, large and extra large for $4.00 each, $40.00 per dozen. Hats are red and white, adjustable to fit all sizes, and sell for $4.00 per hat, $40.00 per dozen. Black-and-white patches are 3% inches in diameter with reinforced edge, to be sewn on jackets, shirts, etc., and cost $1.00 each or $10.00 per dozen.
These new "Pro" materials continue to be available free of charge: bumper stickers, truck signs, hard hat stickers, stationery seals, logo sheets, and job-site sign layouts.
To order, contact IMI's Market Development Program at 823 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, or call (202) 783-3908.
NLRB AWARDS FORKLIFTS TO LABORERS
continued from page 11
tional claim and state in writing the jurisdictional claim and the action that they propose to take if their claim is not honored. This action by the Laborers (a threat to picket or strike) must be taken in good faith and the Laborers must intend to assert their rights fully through all legal means.
All subcontractor clauses in agreements with general contractors should be carefully reviewed. The subcontractor clause cannot give the right to the general contractor to take back certain portions of the work in the event of labor difficulties. If there is to be a backcharge for any costs, the contractor should have the right to control the employees of the general contractor who are to perform the disputed work.
In the event the Operating Engineers or another union claim, by filing a grievance, that there has been a violation of a subcontracting clause with the general contractor and if this is determined to be simply a jurisdictional claim, the general contractor should object to the use of the grievance and arbitration procedures by the Operating Engineers as a means of resolving jurisdictional disputes. Unions that are members of the ALF-CIO are bound to the Jurisdictional Disputes Board and the rules of that Board prohibit the use of the grievance and arbitration procedures to resolve jurisdictional disputes.
As always, communication with MCAA headquarters should be made at the early stages of any jurisdictional dispute so that efforts can be coordinated and if at all possible the dispute resolved quickly and amicably.
The two decisions received by MCAA members will solidify the position of the Association in its continuing efforts with respect to jurisdictional disputes.
NLRB / D.H. JOHNSON CO.
continued from page 13
# C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the dispute is properly before the Board because there does not exist any method for the voluntary adjustment of the instant jurisdictional dispute to which all necessary parties are bound. It argues that it is not a member of the BAC or the CEA, and therefore claims that it is not bound to the JCB by any employer association membership or affiliation. The Employer claims membership only in the MCAA and the Mason Contractors Association of DuPage County, neither of which is a member of the JCB. In addition, the Employer claims that it is not bound by the Memorandum of Agreement signed with the Engineers in 1965, as no further agreements have been entered into between the two parties. It further argues that its assignment of the disputed work was proper in light of certain factors usually considered by the Board in these matters. The Employer contends that the disputed work should be assigned to the employees represented by the Laborers, relying on the following factors: employer preference, economy and efficiency of operation, safety, relative skills, and employer past practice.
The Engineers contends that the Board is without jurisdiction to determine the merits of the dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act because the parties have agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute, for the reasons expressed more fully, supra. Alternatively, in the event the dispute is properly before the Board, the Engineers urges that the work be assigned to employees represented by it on the basis of collective-bargaining agreements, employer and area practice, awards of the JCB, relative skills, efficiency and economy of operation, and the alleged job impact of an award to employees represented by the Laborers.
The Laborers contends that there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the instant dispute and that the Employer's assignment of the work to employees represented by the Laborers was proper and in accord with the economy and efficiency of operation and relative skills factors. While the Laborers contends that it does not consider itself to be bound by the JCB, it offers no rebuttal to the Engineers' allegation that the Laborers is bound by means of its affiliation with the CBTC.
# D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination of the 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 the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
1. It is undisputed that the Engineers picketed the Centennial project site, and we find that such picketing was to protest the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the Laborers. Accordingly, we find that reasonable cause exists to believe that the Engineers violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Additionally, the Laborers does not dispute that it threatened to picket the Centennial project if the Employer were to reassign the disputed work to the employees represented by any other union. Accordingly, we find that reasonable cause exists to believe that both the Laborers and the Engineers violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
2. Before the Board will defer to an agreed-upon method for