Masonry Magazine December 1989 Page. 54
Laborers Locals 22 and 151's agreements with the AGC
Laborers Locals 22 and 151's agreements with the AGC, to which the general contractor, Turner, and the subcontractors, Anastasi and D. J. Construction, are signatory, specifically refer to the work in dispute as laborers' work.
Carpenters Locals 33 and 40's agreements with the AGC, to which Turner, but not Anastasi and D. J. Construction, is signatory, refer to the disputed work as carpenters' work. The Carpenters' contract, however, also expressly provides that the contractor or subcontractor with the final contract to do the work shall be the entity to make the work assignment. In this case, Anastasi and D. J. Construction have the final contract to perform the scaffolding work and are responsible for the work assignment. Neither Anastasi nor D. J. Construction is signatory to the contract with the Carpenters and therefore are under no obligation to award the disputed work to employees represented by Carpenters Locals 33 and 40.
Because Laborers Locals 22 and 151 have collective-bargaining agreements with Anastasi and D. J. Construction covering the disputed work and because Carpenters Locals 33 and 40 do not have such contracts with Anastasi and D. J. Construction, we find that this factor favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by Laborers Locals 22 and 151.
2. Company preference and past practice
Both Anastasi and D. J. Construction have in the past assigned scaffolding work to employees represented by the Laborers and that practice has continued up to the present. Neither Anastasi nor D. J. Construction has ever assigned the scaffolding work to employees represented by a Carpenters union. Accordingly, this factor favors an award to employees represented by Laborers Locals 22 and 151.
3. Area practice
Testimony presented at the hearing in Anastasi Bros., supra, and incorporated into the record in this case, shows that it is standard practice for laborers to erect and dismantle pipe scaffolding in the Boston area. Accordingly, this factor favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by Laborers Locals 22 and 151.
4. Relative skills and safety
The record reveals that the disputed work is performed at levels high above the ground. If the work is not properly performed, the employees performing the work and other employees working beneath the scaffolding could be endangered. The laborers hired by Anastasi and D. J. Construction have been trained to perform scaffolding work and have experience performing the disputed work. The record contains no evidence concerning the Carpenters' members' skills and experience to perform the disputed work safely. Accordingly, this factor favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by Laborers Locals 22 and 151.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The laborers who were assigned the scaffolding work perform other tasks for Anastasi and D. J. Construction. The laborers unload and deliver to the appropriate spot various masonry materials and supplies, mix mortar and bring it, together with brick supplies, to the brick masons, and perform cleanup details. If the disputed work were assigned to carpenters, they would have no duties beyond the construction of the scaffolding. Thus, Anastasi and D. J. Construction would need to hire two crews to do the work now done with one Laborers' crew. Accordingly, economy and efficiency of operation favors awarding the disputed work to employees represented by Laborers Locals 22 and 151.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that employees represented by Laborers Locals 22 and 151 are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on the factors of collective-bargaining agreements, employer preference and past practice, area practice, relative skills and safety, and economy and efficiency of operations.
In making this determination, we are awarding the work to employees represented by Laborers Locals 22 and 151, not to those Unions or their members. The determination is limited to the controversy that gave rise to this proceeding.
Masonry & Concrete Consultants, Inc.
SERVICES-Analysis of Existing Problems
-Design Assistance and Testing
-Masonry Restoration
-Contract Claims-Expert Witness
-Experience Includes-Precast and Masonry Panels, Load Bearing Masonry, Glass Block, Marble and Stone
Contact: TURNER SMITH/5211 Berry Creek/Houston, Texas 77017/ (713) 944-1148
54 MASONRY-NOVEMBER/DECEMBER, 1989