Masonry Magazine May 1973 Page. 11
MCAA
information
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
202 NLRB No. 158
D-7372
Kankakee, III.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON
WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 465, AFL-CIO
and
HANSEN & HEMPEL, INC.
and
BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA,
LOCAL NO. 37, AFL-CIO
Case 38-CD-91
Decision and Determination of Dispute
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by
Hansen & Hempel, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging
that International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, Local No. 465, AFL-CIO, herein called
Iron Workers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (ii)(D) of the
Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object
of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees
represented by Iron Workers rather than to employees repre-
sented by Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International
Union of America, Local No. 37, AFL-CIO, herein called
Bricklayers. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer James
L. Ferree, on December 11, 1972, in Kankakee, Illinois.
The Employer, Iron Workers, and Bricklayers appeared at
the hearing and were offered full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes
the following findings:
1. The Business of the Employer
The Employer, an Illinois corporation whose principal office
is in Elmhurst, Illinois, is engaged in masonry contracting in
and around northern Illinois. In the course and conduct of
its business in the past year, it purchased goods valued in
excess of $50,000 from suppliers located outside the State of
Illinois and caused those goods to be shipped directly to points
inside the State of Illinois. Accordingly, we find, as the parties
have stipulated, that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
II. The Labor Organizations
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Iron Workers and
Bricklayers are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Dispute
# A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute consists of the erecting or installing of
architectural natural stone facing panels on the Kankakee
Detention Center, Kankakee, Illinois.
# B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Azzarelli Construction Company, a general contractor, con-
tracted with Hufschmidt Engineering Company, a manufacturer
of prefabricated limestone panels, for the installation of panels
onto certain outer walls of the Kankakee Detention Center,
Kankakee, Illinois. Hufschmidt, in turn, subcontracted the
installation work to the Employer.
Two-thirds of the panels to be affixed to the wall are single
pieces of cut limestone. The remaining third consists of multi-
stone panels backed with reinforced concrete. The single-stone
panels are attached to the wall by means of mortaring, bolting,
or welding. The multistone panels are attached by means of
bolting or welding. All the panels are merely decorative and
are not load bearing.
In September 1972, at a meeting attended by George T.
Hempel, a vice president of the Employer, Henry Stahl, busi-
ness representative of Ironworkers, and Gino Martini, business
representative of Bricklayers, Hempel informed Stahl and
Martini that he intended to utilize bricklayers exclusively for
the panel installation work. Stahl objected to the proposed
assignment as contrary to a 1962 agreement between the Iron
Workers and Bricklayers Internationals which, he argued,
assigned the work in dispute to a composite crew of ironworkers
and bricklayers. Hempel remained adamant in his decision,
and the meeting ended without any agreement. According to
the testimony of Hempel and Martini, Stahl threatened an
Iron Workers picket if a composite crew was not utilized."
Another meeting was held in October 1972, with the same
people in attendance plus International representatives of both
Iron Workers and Bricklayers. Again the subject of a composite
crew was discussed, with Hempel remaining steadfast in his
intention to use only bricklayers to do the disputed work.
Subsequent to this meeting, Hempel was urged by Azzarelli
and Hufschmidt to resolve the dispute so as to avoid labor
unrest and a possible attendant slowdown of work. At one
point, according to Hempel, Stahl told him it would be a long
time before the Employer did any more work in this area.
Through all this time, Hempel's mind remained unchanged.
The Employer began the disputed work on November 16,
1972, and has now completed 10 percent of its contract. There
is no evidence that Iron Workers has actually picketed. No
work stoppages have occurred. There is some evidence of a
high rate of absenteeism among ironworkers during the period
of the jurisdictional dispute, but Jack Suprenant, an assistant
manager for Azzarelli, acknowledged that there was similar
absenteeism within other crafts as well, and the ironworkers'
(Please turn page)
11