Masonry Magazine April 1992 Page. 40
D. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense and experience, reached by balancing the factors involved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (JA. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the determination of the dispute.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Employer and Bricklayers have a collective-bargaining agreement effective from Jun 14, 1988 to June 14, 1991. Article II of this agreement is entitled "Scope, Work Assignments, Manpower, Training." It refers specifically, inter alia, to work assignments involving the work in dispute. The Employer does not have a collective-bargaining agreement with the Iron Workers.
We find that this factor favors an award to employees represented by Bricklayers.
2. Company preference and past practice
The Employer prefers that the work in dispute be performed by employees represented by Bricklayers. The Employer has consistently assigned exterior stonework involving the work in dispute to employees represented by Bricklayers since 1972. We find that this factor favors an award to employees represented by Bricklayers.
3. Area and industry practice
Witnesses for the Employer and Bricklayers testified consistently that the practice of employers in the Chicago area and in the industry nationwide has been to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by Bricklayers. Bricklayers Local 21 President Lozich provided affidavits from five construction companies working in the area stating that they used bricklayers to do the type of construction at issue in this dispute. We find that the factor of area practice favors an award of the work in dispute to employees represented by Bricklayers.
4. Relative skills, efficiency, and economy of operation
Project Coordinator Steckling testified that the bricklayers who performed the disputed work had an average of five and a half years experience with stonework installation using the Employer's unistrut system. Ironworkers have no comparable experience or training. Further, the Employer does not currently employ ironworkers. If all or part of the work in dispute were assigned to employees represented by Iron Workers, the Employer would have to hire and train these employees.
Steckling also testified that both the quality and speed of the integrated unistrut installation process would be adversely affected if various phases of that process were divided between bricklayers and ironworkers. Employees represented by Bricklayers would have to let employees represented by Iron Workers perform support angle installations critical to the proper alignment of stone. If bricklayers subsequently determined that a finished wall section was not in plumb, they would be idled while ironworkers reset the angles and struts. In addition, ironworkers would have no other work when they were not performing the work in dispute. We find that this factor favors an award of the work in dispute to employees represented by Bricklayers.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that employees represented by Bricklayers are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion by relying on the factors of collective-bargaining agreements, employer preference and past practice, area and industry practice, relative skills, efficiency, and economy of operations. In making this determination, we are awarding the work to employees represented by Bricklayers not to that Union or its members.
Scope of Award
The Employer and Bricklayers request that the Board issue a broad award covering all of the Employer's jobs in the Chicago area. They claim that such an award is necessary to avoid the recurrence of similar work disputes between Bricklayers and the Iron Workers.
We conclude that the issuance of a broad award would be inappropriate and we shall limit our determination to the particular controversy that prompted the instant proceeding. In this regard, we note that there are two prerequisites for a broad, areawide award. First, there must be evidence that the disputed work has been a continuous source of controversy in the relevant geographic area and that similar disputes may recur. Second, there must be evidence demonstrating that the charged party has a proclivity to engage in unlawful conduct in order to obtain work similar to the work in dispute. Iron Workers Local 433 (Crescent Corp.), 277 NLRB 670 0 (1985); Electrical Workers IBEW Local 104 (Standard Sign), 248 NLRB 1144 (1980). In the present case Brick-
The Employer and Iron Workers did have one agreement limited to a construction jobsite which is not at issue in this proceeding.