Masonry Magazine February 1986 Page. 43
MCAA
Information...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NLRB AWARDS SCAFFOLDING WORK
TO LABORERS INSTEAD OF
CARPENTERS
Case 1-CD-737-1
LABORERS LOCAL 223, LABORERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
and
MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF THE LABORERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO
(Turner Construction Company)
Case 1-CD-737-2
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
and
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF
MASSACHUSETTS, INC.
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Charges in this Section 10(k) proceeding were filed on 26 No-
vember and 11 December 1984 by the Associated General Con-
tractors of Massachusetts, Inc. (AGC) alleging that the Massachu
setts Laborers District Council, Laborers Local 223, Laborers
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Local 223) and
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 33 (Local 33) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National
Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an
object of forcing Turner Construction Co. (Turner) to assign cer-
tain work to employees represented by the above Unions. The
hearing was held 16 August 1985 before Hearing Officer John T.
Downs. AGC and Local 33 each filed posthearing briefs with the
Board.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority
in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings, finding them
free from prejudicial error. On the entire record, the Board makes
the following findings.
I. Jurisdiction
AGC is an association representing employers engaged in the
All dates refer to 1984 unless otherwise specified.
construction and related industries. Turner Construction Com-
pany, an AGC member, is a New York corporation engaged as a
general contractor in the construction industry. Turner annually
receives at its Massachusetts construction sites material valued
in excess of $50,000 from outside Massachusetts. The parties stip-
ulate, and we find, that Turner is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Laborers
Local 223 and Carpenters Local 33 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. The Dispute
# A. Background and Facts of Dispute
Turner Construction Company is the general contractor for the
140 Federal Street project, in Boston, Massachusetts, which in-
volves the complete restoration, both exterior and interior, of a
56 year-old, 24-story building. Turner is a member of AGC and
has authorized AGC to enter into collective-bargaining agree-
ments with both Carpenters Local 33 and Laborers Local 223.
Turner subcontracted the masonry and scaffolding work for the
project to Moliterno Stone Sales, Inc. which, in turn, subcon-
tracted the scaffolding work to Marr Scaffolding Company.
On 2 October representatives for Turner, Carpenters Local 33,
and Laborers Local 223 held a prejob conference to discuss var-
ious aspects of the 140 Federal Street project. At that time, Turner
Construction had not made a decision regarding whether, and to
whom, it would subcontract the masonry and scaffolding work.
According to the uncontested testimony of Walter F. Heyde, the
job superintendent for Turner, Local 33 business agent Bob Mar-
shall claimed at the conference that the scaffolding erection work
should be assigned to employees represented by Local 33. Mar-
shall further stated that if the Laborers erected the scaffolding.
Local 33 would picket the 140 Federal Street project as well as
cause trouble on every other Turner job under the jurisdiction of
Local 33. Marshall then left the prejob conference, although the
conference was not over, because of another appointment. Pat
Walsh, the business agent for Laborers Local 223, claimed the
work for the Laborers as well.
On 5 October AGC scheduled a meeting of Turner, Local 33,
and Local 223 representatives to determine whether the dispute
could be resolved. The dispute, however, was not resolved. Con
sequently. Local 33 indicated it would pursue the matter through
arbitration.
On 18 October Heyde contacted Ed Thompson, a business rep-
resentative of Local 33, and requested a steward for work on 22
October. Thompson replied that he would send a steward until
Local 33 met again with Turner to complete the prejob conference.
The parties scheduled a meeting for 22 October, but the meeting
was cancelled by Local 33.
On 22 October Heyde sent a telegram to Local 33 requesting
workers on the jobsite. Local 33, however, refused to dispatch the
workers. On 19 November Marshall went to the jobsite and was
again requested to supply employees to the job. Marshall re-
sponded. "Not this year, maybe 1985."
On 23 November Turner's representatives met with represen-
tatives of Local 33. Local 33 again asserted that it was entitled to
the scaffolding erection work and requested reimbursement for
all work done by the Laborers on the scaffolding erection prior to
that date. On that same date. Turner's representatives met with