Masonry Magazine December 1989 Page. 51
MCAA
Information...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS DISTRICT
COUNCIL,
LOCAL 22
and
Case 1-CD-796(1)
1-CD-803(1)
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
and
BOSTON DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS,
LOCAL 33
MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS DISTRICT
COUNCIL, LOCAL 151
Case 1-CD-796(2-3)
and
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
and
BOSTON DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS,
LOCAL 40
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The charges in this Section 10(k) proceeding were filed March 4 and 15, 1987, by Turner Construction Company (Turner), alleging that the Respondents, Massachusetts Laborers District Council, Locals 22 and 151, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing Turner or its subcontractors to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by Boston District Council of Carpenters, Locals 33 and 40. The hearing was held June 8, 1988, before Hearing Officer Ronald S. Cohen.
The National Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
All dates refer to 1987 unless specified otherwise.
The contracts specifically refer to the building, erection, and dismantling of all scaffolding and staging for all trades as work within the jurisdiction of Locals 33 and 40.
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
Turner, a New York corporation with an office and place of business in Boston, Massachusetts, is engaged in the construction industry as a general contractor in Massachusetts, where it annually purchases and receives goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The parties stipulate, and we find, that Turner is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Massachusetts Laborers District Council, Locals 22 and 151, and Boston District Council of Carpenters, Locals 33 and 40 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. The Dispute
# A. Background and Facts of Dispute
Turner is the general contractor at four construction jobsites in the greater Boston, Massachusetts area: Heritage on the Common, the jobsite involved in Case 1-CD-796(1); Cambridge Center Three, the jobsite involved in Case 1-CD-796(2); Cambridge Center One, the jobsite involved in Case 1-CD-796(3); and Tent City, the jobsite involved in Case 1-CD-803(1). Turner, as a member of the Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts (AGC), is a party to an area collective-bargaining agreement with various Carpenter Locals, including Boston District Council of Carpenters, Locals 33 and 40 (Carpenters Local 33 and Local 40). As a member of AGC, Turner is also a party to an area collective-bargaining agreement with various Laborers Locals, including Massachusetts Laborers District Council, Local 22 and 151 (Laborers Local 22 and Local 151).
Under the provisions of Turner's contracts with Carpenters Locals 33 and 40, Turner is prohibited from subcontracting any work covered by the contract to be performed on the jobsite to contractors who are not party to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters. At each of the jobsites described above, Turner subcontracted out the work of the erection and dismantling of the pipe scaffolding for masonry work to contractors who were not parties to any contracts with Carpenters Locals 33 or 40. These contractors, D. J. Construction Company (D. J. Construction) at the Cambridge Center Three jobsite and Anastasi Brothers Corporation (Anastasi) at the other three jobsites, assigned the erection and dismantling of the pipe scaffolding work to employees who were represented by either Laborers Local 22 or Local 151 pursuant to collective-bargaining agreements which D. J. Construction and Anastasi had with these Laborers Locals.
With regard to all four jobsites, after Turner subcontracted the work to contractors who did not have collective-bargaining agreements with the Carpenters, Turner was notified by Carpenters' representatives that the Carpenters believed that Turner had violated the contract and that if the work in question were not reassigned to the Carpenters, the Carpenters would pursue a con-
please turn page
MASONRY-NOVEMBER/DECEMBER, 1989 51