Masonry Magazine May 1977 Page. 19
MCAA INFORMATION
continued from page 16
work on eight area projects which are now completed, but he admitted that employees represented by Bricklayers were handling reinforcing rods on at least five current masonry wall construction jobs.
We find that the weight of the evidence relative to the factor of area and industry practice favors the Bricklayers claim to the disputed work.
4. Relative skills
The Ironworkers contend that the employees it represents possess superior skills in the handling, bending, cutting, and tying of reinforcing rods since they have traditionally performed such tasks as part of their craft. There is, however, uncontroverted record testimony in this case that the individuals assigned the work in dispute must do little more than pick up the precut reinforcing rod and place it horizontally or vertically into slots in the cement block wall. Rods are rarely cut or bent at the jobsite, and are never tied in this type of construction. In addition, a mason's skills are sometimes required to alter the configuration of a block in order to fit the reinforcing rod properly within the wall.
We conclude from the entire record that neither union can claim superior skills with regard to the work in dispute. Accordingly, we find that this factor does not favor an award to employees represented by either party.
5. Economy and efficiency of operation
According to the record, the Employer has several teams of bricklayers laying block simultaneously at different locations around the Evergreen Towers construction site. Mason tenders bring reinforcing rods to these locations along with other necessary masonry materials. The rods are usually inserted in place only when the completed wall section has reached the height of a half or full story. Accordingly, a very small fraction of each workday is spent handling and installing reinforcing rods. The Employer and EBA contend that inefficiences will arise from the assignment of the disputed work to an employee represented by Ironworkers because: (1) if masons at different locations simultaneously arrive at the point at which they must install reinforcing rods, someone will have to wait while the ironworkers attend to another; and (2) an employee whose sole task involves rodsetting will not have any work to do for much of each workday.
The Ironworkers contends that bricklaying crews could more efficiently lay the block walls in a sequential "assembly line" fashion so that an employee represented by Ironworkers, skilled in the craft of rodsetting, could allegedly move quickly from one wall to another and install rods without delay. It is not clear, however, whether this proposed procedure would keep the Ironworkers employee busy throughout the day. Furthermore, Ironworkers Business Agent Pino admitted that delays might still result while masons at various locations awaited the rodsetter's arrival.
It is clear that assignment of the work in dispute to employees by the Ironworkers would pose an additional economic burden on the Employer. Although it would have to add at least one more employee to its payroll, the Employer could not dispense with any of its present employees even if they were no longer responsible for the work in dispute.
We find that the factors of economy and efficiency of operation favor an award of the disputed work to employees represented by the Bricklayers.
6. Joint Board determinations
In support of its claim to the work in dispute, Ironworkers cites a March 11, 1920, Joint Board Decision awarding work jurisdiction over "all iron and steel used for re-enforcement in re-enforced concrete, cement and floor construction" to the Ironworkers. It further cites decisions rendered by the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board on January 23 and September 25, 1975, which awarded installation of vertical reinforcing bars in cement block walls to Ironworkers rather than Bricklayers. However, the latter decision, which had been expressly predicated upon the 1920 award, was reversed upon appeal on October 23, 1975, and Bricklayers was awarded the assignment of placing reinforcing rods in the walls. We therefore find that this factor does not support the claim to the work in dispute by employees represented by the Ironworkers.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full consideration of all relevant factors involved, we conclude that the Employer's employees who are represented by International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Local No. 1 of Pennsylvania are entitled to the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on the specific factors of the current collective-bargaining agreement between the EBA and Bricklayers, the Employer's assignment and past practice, area and industry practice, and the economy and efficiency of the Employer's operation. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees who are represented by International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Local No. 1 of Pennsylvania, but not to that Union or its members. The present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant of 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 makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Anastasi Brothers Corporation, who are represented by International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Local No. 1 of Pennsylvania, are entitled to perform the placement of horizontal and vertical steel reinforcing rods associated with the construction of load-bearing masonry walls at the Employer's Evergreen Towers construction site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2. International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers Local 405 is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require Anastasi Brothers Corporation to assign the disputed work to employees represented by that labor organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers Local 405 shall notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with the above determination.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 3, 1977
Howard Jenkins. Jr., Member
John A. Penello, Member
Peter D. Walther. Member
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brick Assn. of N.C. Elects Officers
Here are the officers for 1977 elected by the Brick Association of North Carolina at its recent annual board and stockholders meeting in Greensboro. Pictured (from left) are: William S. Jones, Boren Clay Products Co., president; Don McGinnis, Kings Mountain Brick, Inc., treasurer; and Frank L.. Todd, Moland-Drysdale Corp., vice president. Corb Garton, not shown, was reelected secretary.
MASONRY/MAY, 1977 19