Masonry Magazine January 1969 Page. 43
NLRB Decisions
Employees employed by Seedorff Masonry, Inc., who are represented by Construction and General Laborers Local 1238, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of erecting and dismantling all-metal tubular scaffolding used by Seedorff in the construction of the hospital parking ramp at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Carpenters Union Local 1260, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Seedorff Masonry, Inc., to assign the above-described work to carpenters represented by that Union.
Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Carpenters Union Local 1260, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Seedorff Masonry, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to carpenters rather than to the employees employed by Seedorff.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 9, 1968
John H. Fanning, Member
Howard Jenkins, Jr., Member
Sam Zagoria, Member
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
173 NLRB No. 190
D-1551
Birmingham, Ala.
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA AND VICINITY
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
and
S & W MASONRY, INC.
and
LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, LOCAL #559
Case 10-CD-207
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by S & W Masonry, Inc., hereinafter referred to as S & W, alleging that Jefferson County, Alabama and Vicinity Carpenters District Council, hereinafter referred to as Carpenters or Respondent, threatened, restrained, and coerced S & W and Richardson Construction Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Richardson, for the purpose of forcing or requiring S & W to assign particular work to carpenters represented by Carpenters rather than to employees of S & W represented by Laborers International Union of North America, Local 559, hereinafter referred to as Laborers. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer William T. Rutherford on August 6 and 7, 1968, at Birmingham, Alabama. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs were filed by the Charging Party and the Respondent.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings:
1. The Business of the Employer
S&W, an Alabama corporation whose principal office is located in Bessemer, Alabama, is engaged in the business of masonry construction. In the operation of its business S & W annually purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Alabama. Richardson, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in general contracting and presently is under contract for the construction of a building known as the Affiliated Facility for the Mentally Retarded, University of Alabama Medical Center, a contract valued at $1,900,000. Construction materials and equipment purchased and shipped directly from points located outside the State of Alabama for use on this construction site are valued in excess of $50,000.
II. The Labor Organizations
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Carpenters and Laborers 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 is the erection and disassembling of scaffolding over 14 feet high at the aforementioned building.
# B. THE BASIC FACTS
As noted above, Richardson is the general contractor engaged in erecting a building which is part of the University of Alabama Medical Center in Birmingham. The completed structure will be 10 stories in height. S&W has subcontracted from Richardson the outside masonry work, which consists of facing the building with brick. The brick masons are able to perform their work by the utilization of tubular metal scaffolding. That scaffolding is prefabricated, and is rented or sold to the masonry contractor, and assembled on the jobsite. Assembly of the metal scaffolding consists of finding or making a secure footing and fitting the sections of metal scaffolding together by use of joints built into the sections. Special care must be taken to insure that the scaffolding is level. Levelling is accomplished by use of a spirit level or possibly a transit. The scaffolding section joints are sometimes secured by striking them with a hammer, although it appears that wood and bricks are sometimes substituted for a hammer. Additionally, sometimes the scaffolding is tied to the building itself by means of welding a clamp which is attached to both the building and the scaffold.
S& W employees represented by Bricklayers International Union No. 1 of Alabama, hereinafter Bricklayers, perform the masonry work and employees represented by Laborers perform all of the scaffolding erection and dismantling under the supervision of the bricklayers' foreman. Carpenters claims all of the scaffold erection and dismantling over 14 feet in height.
# C. THE INCEPTION OF THE DISPUTE
General Contractor Richardson's Job Superintendent, Killingsworth, testified that on or about May 22, 1968, Respondent's Business Representative, Pennington, told him that if carpenters were not put on the scaffolding work, the Carpenters would picket the job. George Edwards, the Vice President and General Manager of Richardson, testified that on June 24, Respondent's Assistant Business Agent, Parker, stated that if carpenters did not get the work, he would have to "proceed with his only weapon."
Pennington denied mentioning picketing to Killingsworth or anyone else, and Parker likewise denied that he had ever mentioned or inferred that Respondent was contemplating picketing.
# D. CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES
Respondent contends that it did not violate Section 8(b)(4) (ii) (D) of the Act and thus that the Board is precluded from making a work determination within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. Respondent further contends that the work should be awarded to employees represented by Carpenters due to general contractor Richardson's contractural obligation and Laborers' agreement to be bound by decision of the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Building and Construction Industry (hereinafter, Joint Board); due to a Joint Board award in its favor; due to past practices in the industry and area; and due to the training, skills, and experience of its members.