Masonry Magazine February 1985 Page. 40
HEAVY DUTY
MASONRY
EQUIPMENT
FORKLIFT
MORTAR TUBS
* Will outlast 10 mortar boxes
* 10 cu. ft.- full batch
* 6 cu. ft.- ½ batch
BRICK & BLOCK
CARTS
NEW! UNIVERSAL
* 3 models
* Fastest way to move materials
* Up to 2 straps of brick or blocks
MORTAR BUGGY
Quickest way to get mortar inside buildings and up in high-rise.
* Height-29%"
6 cu. ft. batch
YOU CAN'T BREAK THE HANDLE ON THIS ONE!
ADJUSTABLE SCAFFOLDING
* Inside and outside use
Trouble free
Set'um down and they're setup
DEALER INQUIRIES INVITED
Mortar Board Stands Floor Scraper Brick Tongs
Concrete Tamper Masonry Tools
STAR
TOOL CO.
4101 Garland Dr.
Dept. T
Fort Worth, Tx 76117
817-485-6073
NLRB DECISION
continued
policy, and that this decision covers the work in dispute. Although at the hearing a Blount Brothers employee did indeed state that, to his knowledge, Blount Brothers follows the Green Book decisions, he also stated that he did not believe Blount Brothers had made any decisions that violated the Green Book. This contradictory testimony by an employee who also added that he did not make all the jurisdictional assignments nor implement the jurisdictional policy for Blount Brothers tends to lessen the impact of the Carpenters contention that Blount Brothers admitted that it abides by the Green Book.
In addition, it may well be that the scaffolding referred to in the 1920 decision is wood scaffolding, not pipe scaffolding, which was not invented until the 1930s. Nevertheless, despite the fact that this decision may not be applicable to this dispute due to the difference in scaffolding materials, the decision is a factor that may be considered for purposes of determining the dispute. The Board has held that, in cases in which a court or other decisionmaking body has made an award of disputed work, that award may be considered in determining the proper assignment of the dispute, but that award is not the determining factor of the dispute. Iron Workers Local 21, supra.
Carpenters also asserts that Laborers Local 223 conceded that the work in dispute was properly the work of Carpenters Local 33 members because the scaffolding was over 14 feet in height. This admission did not come from a representative of Laborers Local 223 at the hearing; rather, it came from the testimony of a Blount Brothers employee. Moreover, the fact that Laborers Local 223 threatened to strike if the work in dispute were reassigned to Carpenters Local 33 members tends to diminish the significance of this testimony.
In view of the fact that area practice is to assign scaffolding work to laborers despite the Green Book decision, this decision shall not be given controlling weight. Therefore, this factor favors an award to employees represented by Laborers Locals 22 and 223.
4. Economy and efficiency of operations
In addition to the erection and dismantling of pipe scaffolding, laborers perform other tasks involving masonry construction. These other tasks consist of (1) manually unloading various materials involved in masonry work such as cement, lime, and tools: (2) carrying these materials to a stockpile area; (3) mixing the mortar to be used in the masonry work: (4) tending the bricklayers who actually install the masonry work: (5) cleaning up the masonry areas; and (6) removing construction materials from the construction site. The actual erection and dismantling of the scaffolding takes only a few minutes. If the disputed work were assigned to employees represented by Carpenters Locals 33 and 218, the same number of laborers would still be necessary to complete the other tasks. The considerations of economy and efficiency thus favor an assignment of the work in dispute to employees represented by Laborers Locals 22 and 223.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that employees represented by Laborers 22 and 223 are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on the collective-bargaining agreement between the Employers and Laborers, the Employers' preferences and past practices, area practice, and economy and efficiency of operations. In making this determination, we are awarding the work of employees represented by Laborers Local 22 and 223, not to the Unions or their members.
Were Chairman Dotson and Member Hunter to consider the Green Book decision a separate factor apart from area practice, they would nonetheless reach the same ultimate conclusion that the work in dispute should properly be awarded to employees represented by Laborers Locals 22 and 223. Member Dennis agrees that the area practice factor favors awarding the disputed work to employees the Laborers Locals represent. Although she would find the Green Book decision is a separate factor favoring awarding the work to Carpenters-represented employees, she believes the factors favoring awarding the work to Laborers represented employees outweigh the factor favoring Carpenters-represented employees.
40 MASONRY-JANUARY/FEBRUARY, 1985