Masonry Magazine January 1969 Page.36
NLRB Decision
(Continued from page 34)
The Employer has no contract with Carpenters' Local 200. The record discloses that masonry scaffolding is erected as the masonry work progresses and that the time spent erecting and dismantling such scaffolding is minimal. Therefore, the laborers (mason tenders) assigned to this work are also available to assist masons, performing such tasks as carrying and stacking bricks, tending and carrying mortar. The use of carpenters on scaffolding over 14 feet high would necessarily require the Employer to hire carpenters, there being none on its payroll, and would result in the accumulation of idle time and increased costs in the production of the work.
Testimony by the Employer and other masonry contractors compels the conclusion that the overwhelming practice of this Employer as well as the industry in Columbus, Ohio, is to assign metal masonry scaffolding work to laborers.
Other factors usually considered by the Board in jurisdictional dispute cases provide little assistance in determining the instant dispute. Neither of the Unions has been certified. The Joint Board Decision, relied upon by the Carpenters in support of its claim, is not binding upon the Employer, who is unwilling to abide by the Decision. In fact, the Employer specifically informed the Joint Board by telegram on February 6, 1969, that he had made no request for a job decision from the Joint Board nor authorized such a request since he was not stipulated to the Joint Board.
It appears from the record that carpenters and masonry contractors laborers possess the requisite abilities to do the work.
In view of the foregoing, on the basis of the record as a whole, and upon appraisal of all relevant considerations, we believe that the work in dispute should be awarded to employees represented by Laborers Local 423. The fact that the Employer's assignment conforms to its own and area practices and is consistent with its collective-bargaining agreement, the fact that laborers employed by the Employer not only have the requisite skill but are familiar with all facets of the work, and the attendant efficiency and economy of operations lead us to conclude that Employer's assignment of the work is the proper one. Therefore, we shall determine the dispute by assigning the work in question to employees of Pagura Masonry Co., Inc., requested by laborers Local 423. In making this determination, which is limited to the controversy which gives rise to this proceeding, we are not assigning the work to Local 423 or its members.
We find without merit the contention of Carpenters Local 200 that the Fred D. Pagura Co., Inc., and the Pagura Masonry Co., Inc. are a single employer and therefore, since Fred D. Pagura, Inc., is stipulated to the National Joint Board, the Employer herein is also bound. The record establishes that while the two corporations are owned and controlled by the same stockholder, there are different secretaries, they maintain separate books, bank accounts, payrolls, make their own employment compensation payments and other deductions, pay separate taxes, have separate supervisors, employ separate types of employees, (mason tenders-general laborers), and have separate collective bargaining agreements negotiated by separate employer associations. From all of the above we find that the AGC contract is not binding on Pagura Masonry Contractors, Inc. Malt J. Zaich, et al., 143 NLRB 153.
Nor do we find merit in Carpenters Local 200's contention, that the Carpenters and Laborers have voluntarily agreed, as disclosed by the record to additional methods for the elimination of disputes masonry scaffolding. The Employer is not a party to such agreements and cannot be held to be bound thereby.
On the record before us, we find no merit in the Employer's request for a broad remedial order. The request is hereby denied. The Masonry Contractors Association of Columbus, Ohio, Inc., joined the Employer in the request for a broad remedial order. The request is hereby denied as the Association is not a party herein.
See Porrazzo and Hurley Co., Inc., 177 NLRB No. 36; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 213, AFL-CIO (General Masonry, Inc.), 175 NLRB No. 101: United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local No. 153 (Blount Bros. Corporation), 175 NLRB No. 81.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following determination of the dispute.
Employees employed by Pagura Masonry Co., Inc., who are represented by Laborers International Union of North America, Local No. 423, AFL-CIO, rather than carpenters represented by Local No. 200, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the erection, assembly, and dismantling of metal tubular scaffolds used in the erection of masonry walls at the construction site of the DeSoto Chemical Co., plant in Columbus, Ohio.
Local No. 200, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer, Pagura Masonry Co., Inc., to assign the above work to carpenters represented by it.
Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Local No. 200, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, Pagura Masonry Contractors, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to carpenters, rather than to employees of the Employer who are represented by Laborers Local 423.
Dated, Washington, D. C. October 17, 1969
John H. Fanning, Member
Gerald A. Brown, Member
Howard Jenkins, Jr., Member
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(SEAL)