Iron Workers Local No. 563

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 260 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Iron Workers Local No. 563, International
Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers , AFL-CIO and Spancrete Midwest
Company and Bricklayers , Cement Block Stone &
Marble Masons, Pointers, Cleaners & Caulkers
Union No. 2 of Minnesota and Construction and
General Laborers Local 563, AFL-CIO. Case
18-CD-72
April 7, 1969
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Iron
Workers; and Bricklayers, Cement Blocklayers,
Stone & Marble Masons, Pointers, Cleaners &
Caulkers Union No. 2 of Minnesota, herein called
Bricklayers; and Construction and General Laborers
Local 563, AFL-CIO, herein called Laborers, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGQRIA
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following a charge filed by Spancrete Midwest
Company alleging in substance that Iron Workers
Local No. 563, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called Iron Workers, have
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Kenneth W. Haan on September 25 and October 22
and 23, 1968. All parties appeared at the hearing
and were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence hearing on the issues. Briefs filed by
Spancrete Midwest Company, herein called the
Employer or Spancrete, and Iron Workers, have
been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
All parties stipulated that Spancrete Midwest
Company, the Employer, is a Minnesota
corporation with headquarters in Osseo, Minnesota,
engaged in the sale and erection of prestressed
concrete products of varying tonnage; that during
the calendar year 1967 it purchased from points
outside the State of Minnesota steel and cement
valued in excess of $400,000; and that the value of
the structure which is the site of this jurisdictional
dispute near Brainerd, Minnesota, is in excess of
$500,000. We find that Spancrete is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Work in Issue
The work in dispute may be described as the
rigging, signalling, and welding of large precast
double T concrete beams at Spancrete's Brainerd
Construction site. Respondent takes the position
that one of its members should be assigned to each
Spancrete crew to perform this work.
Spancrete employs principally members of the
Bricklayers and Laborers, neither of which has been
certified by the Board as representative of any unit
of its employees. Both of these unions have had
contractual agreeement with Spancrete since 1962,
and their current contracts expire May 1, 1969.
Since 1962, Spancrete has assigned all phases of its
erection work to its own employees, members of
Bricklayers' and Laborers' local unions, under the
provisions of these contracts.
Lund-Martin Construction Company was
constructing a large concrete building to be used as
a retail sports center, 4 miles north of Brainerd.
Spancrete, through a subcontract with Lund-Martin,
undertook to furnish and erect a roof system
composed of prestressed double T concrete beams,
so called because imbedded in the concrete are steel
strands and reinforcing bars. These concrete beams
vary in weight from 5-15 tons, and those used on the
Brainerd jobsite averaged in weight about 10 tons.
The erection of these concrete beams is generally
accomplished in the following manner. The slabs are
delivered to the jobsite by North Star Concrete Co.,
the parent company of Spancrete, by means of
trucks, which rendezvous with Spancrete's crews at
the site. The crews are dispatched to the site from
Spancrete's headquarters or from other work points.
The concrete slabs are unloaded from trucks on the
jobsite by the hooking of cables attached to a crane
to handles on each end of the double T members.
The beam is then lifted into place by the crane, its
correct placement being determined and
communicated to the crane operator by a member
of the erection crew. Placement in this manner is
termed "signalling." The beam is then unloaded
from the crane. The crew on the roof align the
beams, and do welding and repair work or grouting
when necessary. They may also saw holes into the
double T beams as openings for such things as
ventilating equipment, chimneys and skylights.
175 NLRB No. 45
IRON WORKERS LOCAL NO. 563
Spancrete has from 12 to 14 erection crews, each
of which is normally comprised of I precast mason
and 2 laborers. In addition Spancrete has five cranes
of its own whose operators are members of
Operating Engineers. Generally an erection crew is
serviced by a crane with one operator and an oiler.
B. The Work in Dispute
Learning of the impending job at the Brainerd
site, Iron Workers' Representative Rawn contacted
Spancrete by telephone on July 16, seeking
assignment of part of the work required in the
erection process. Spancrete rejected this demand,
and the next day approximately 11 pickets
representing Iron Workers engaged in mass
picketing at the Brainerd site for the purpose of
forcing a work assignment. The signs carried by the
pickets read "Unfair to Iron Workers Local 563."
The mass picketing continued for several days at
which time this activity was enjoined by a State
court. The picketing ceased permanently thereafter
and the disputed work has since been completed by
Spancrete's regular employees.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
Iron Workers contended at the hearing that all
parties to this proceeding are bound to follow the
procedures of the National Joint Board for the
Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Building
and Construction Industry. Iron Workers also seeks
to establish the existence of a work jurisdiction
agreement between the Iron Workers International
and the Bricklayers International. As to the merits
of the issue of a proper work assignment, Iron
Workers contends that, except as to Company
assignment and preference, its claim for the work
assignment in question is superior in all the test
categories applied by the Board in such situations,
including custom and tradition of the area, skills
possessed by the employees represented by the
respective unions and ability to perform the work
involved, the construction industry practice,
preference of general contractors in the area,
historical performance of the work involved,
agreement between the internationals of the involved
unions, area agreement between unions and other
employers, Joint Board determinations, written
work rules of the unions, union constitutions
governing jurisdictional arrangements, and safety
and efficiency of operations.
The Employer contends that from 1962 on, it has
always assigned the erection of its prestressed
concrete products to an erection crew made up of its
regular employees, composed of members of the
Bricklayers and Laborers Unions. Employer
contends, secondly, that it is more efficient to assign
the work to one of its regular crews whose members
perform interchangeably all the functions making up
an erection job rather than to assign a fragment of
261
the job to an Iron Worker employed at the time
solely for that purpose. It contends, additionally,
that crews trained by it possess skills adequate for
doing all the work including that in dispute, and
that it is satisfied with the work done by its crews
and prefers to operate the way it has in the past.
Laborers also claims the disputed work. Laborers'
position is the same as that of Spancrete, that the
work is covered by its collective-bargaining
agreement and is rightfully within its work
jurisdiction. It further contends that its members are
qualified to do the disputed work because they work
in the erection crew and progress by job training to
the classification of precast mason.
Bricklayers contends, in support of Spancrete's
position, that the disputed work is covered by its
collective-bargaining agreement and lies within its
traditional jurisdiction. Bricklayers contends that its
position is further buttressed by the circumstance
that it has a category of union membership reserved
for precast masons whose craft skills are designed
for the kind of erection work involved here.
D. Applicability of the Statute
In accordance with the requirements of Section
10(k) of the Act, the Board must first ascertain that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act has occurred, and
that there is no agreement upon methods for
adjustment of the dispute.
Counsel for Iron Workers offered to stipulate that
the Local engaged in picketing on July 17, 1968, for
the purpose of forcing or requiring Spancrete to
make a work assignment to its members, and the
evidence at the hearing established that Iron
Workers' members did in fact picket Spancrete's
Brainerd jobsite on and after July 17 for that
purpose. The record further establishes that the
rigging, signalling , and welding portion of the
erection work on the Brainerd jobsite sought by Iron
Workers was claimed and is being performed by
members of Bricklayers and Laborers employed by
Spancrete.
The evidence also establishes that Spancrete,
though its majority stock is owned by its parent,
North Star Concrete Company, is operated
separately , handles its own negotiations and
contracts , and has separate labor policies from those
of its parent . North Star Concrete Company is an
affiliated member of Associated General
Contractors of Minnesota , rather than a contractor
member , and as such is not bound by any labor
agreement of that Association ; nor is it a party to
any agreement which binds it to the National Joint
Board for adjusting this dispute. Spancrete is not in
any other manner bound to adjust the dispute
through the Joint Board.
We find that there is reasonable cause to believe
that Respondent Iron Workers violated Section
8(b)(4)(D), and there is no agreement binding all the
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parties to voluntarily adjust the dispute by a Joint
Board award.
E Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of disputed work after
giving due consideration to all relevant factors. The
following factors are asserted in support of the
claims of the parties herein.
1. Collective-bargaining contracts
The Employer's contracts with Laborers and
Bricklayers provide that Spancrete shall recognize
the respective unions as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agents for the employees classified in the
respective contracts.
Article IV of Bricklayers' contract states:
Employees employed in the erection of preformed,
reinforced concrete units of columns, beams,
floors, roofs and other such construction shall be
known as prefab, reinforced concrete masons and
shall be paid .. .
Article VI of both contracts state.
One or more preformed concrete masons shall be
integrated with laborers in a construction crew at
the discretion of the Employer.
As revealed by the pertinent portions of the
agreements, the parties appear to have intended that
the erection of prestressed concrete units shall be
assigned to employees of Spancrete represented by
Bricklayers and Laborers. Iron Workers, however,
while not disputing the contractual intent of the
parties as to the assignment of erection work
generally, contends that the agreements make no
specific assignment whatever of signalling, rigging,
or welding to either Bricklayers' or Laborers'
members; that there is nothing in the contract
language to prevent Spancrete from adding
members of other trades to its erection crews; and
that Spancrete's contractual obligation to
Bricklayers is fully satisfied by integrating one or
more preformed concrete masons' into an erection
crew While Iron Workers' contention with regard
to additional employees may or may not be
technically true, it is conceded that Iron Workers
has no contract with Spancrete entitling it to the
disputed work. In these circumstances, we find that
the aforementioned contractual provisions favor an
award to employees represented by Bricklayers and
Laborers.
2. Employer and area practice
Spancrete's practice has been to use precast
masons and laborers, represented by Bricklayers and
Laborers, to do its erection work. This practice has
been followed since 1962, except in a few instances
where Spancrete used Iron Workers in Northern
Minnesota, and it asserts, this was done under
protest. It appears from the testimony that the
practice of other employers engaged in the same
business as Spancrete in this same geographic area,
and in some instances, nationally, has also been to
use bricklayers and laborers in the erection of
prestressed concrete units. In this regard the practice
of Spancrete and other specialty companies like it
differs from the practice of general contractors
engaged in iron structural construction, who
historically, have used iron workers in the erection
of iron beams and whose erection crews are
composed in whole or in part of ironworkers under
agreements with the Ironworkers' Union.
3. Skill, efficiency, economy, and safety factors
Iron Workers contends that as craft journeymen
its members have specialized knowledge of the
rigging and related functions involved in the
disputed work. The training of Iron Workers is
made up of an apprenticeship of more than 6,000
hours of on-the-job training plus additional
schooling in various phases of the work related to
rigging. The apprentice is then tested by the union's
examining board before being made a journeyman.
Spancrete's precast masons and laborers are trained
on the job to do erection work, and under this
system a laborer may progress into a precast mason
job and become eligible for membership in the
Bricklayer's Union. There is no evidence presented
to support a conclusion that the training afforded
precast masons or laborers does not qualify them to
perform satisfactorily the work in dispute. Rather it
seems plain from the record that members of
Bricklayers and Laborers have demonstrated over a
period of several years their competency to perform
all phases of the Employer's erection work.
As for the element of safety, there is no evidence
that the precast masons and laborers cannot
adequately do the work in dispute, or that their
doing it will create a hazard to equipment or
workers. The history of their performance through
the years clearly evinces the contrary conclusion.
The scheduling of erection jobs in Spancrete's
operations is subject to momentary alterations due
to sudden weather changes, equipment breakdowns
and like circumstances. The 12 to 14 work crews of
Spancrete therefore often find it necessary to alter
work schedules quickly. A high degree of
coordination in scheduling work and dispatching
crews is necessary to assure delivery of materials
and simultaneous arrival of crews and equipment at
the various jobsites. The members of the different
crews grow to know one another's work habits so
that they work together smoothly and can
interchange tools and work assignments as necessity
or expediency dictates.
It is plain, therefore, that whereas factors of skill
and safety do not favor any of the unions, the
efficiency and economy considerations as well as the
practice of this employer- and others similarly
IRON WORKERS LOCAL NO. 563
engaged favor continued performance of erection
work by Spancrete's regular employees, members of
Bricklayers and Laborers.
4. Agreement between the Internationals
The agreement between the Iron Workers
International and the Bricklayers International
dated December 6, 1962, "applies to the installation
and erection of all types of pre-cast, pre-stressed
concrete stone . . . when installed as wall panels by
means of bolting and/or welding to structural steel
or concrete frame construction."
It is apparent from reading the agreement that it
is applicable only to installation of wall panels. It
does not cover erection of prestressed concrete
beams. Accordingly, we find it has no bearing on
the issue in the instant proceeding.
Conclusions as to Merits of the Dispute
It appears from the foregoing that none of the
relevant factors favors Iron Workers alone. Thus,
although the practice of many of the general
contractors in the area favors making the award to
Iron Workers, the practice of specialty companies
like Spancrete, favors an award to Bricklayers and
Laborers. Moreover, the Employer in assigning the
work to either Iron Workers or to members of
Bricklayers and Laborers may, it appears, get the
work done and operate with safety but it will
operate more efficiently and economically with the
use of its own crews as they are presently composed.
As previously indicated, the provisions of the
current contracts between Spancrete on one hand,
and Laborers and Bricklayers, on the other, favor
strongly the present practice by Spancrete of having
its employees, members of Bricklayers and
Laborers, perform its erection work. For this
reason, we shall award the work to the employees
represented by Bricklayers and Laborers. In making
this determination, we are awarding the work to the
employees of the Employer who are currently
represented by Bricklayers and Laborers Unions,
but not to those Unions or their members.
Scope of Award
Spancrete is here requesting a broad work award
by the Board on behalf of the members of
Bricklayers and Laborers Unions, contending that
such an award is necessary in order to avoid future
interruptions of other of its construction jobs. Iron
Workers contends that the instant fact situation is
not sufficient to warrant such an award, and
warrants no more than an award directed to the
specific job in question. We are disposed to agree as
to the foregoing issue with the position of Iron
Workers. Iron Workers' claim for work assignment
is confined to the Brainerd jobsite, and the
possibility of a harder claim involving Spancrete's
263
future operations by Iron Workers at other jobsites
is not based on any substantial evidence and, is
speculative.'
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
makes the following determination of dispute.
1. Employees employed as precast masons and
laborers by Spancrete Midwest Company, currently
represented by Bricklayers, Cement Blocklayers,
Stone & Marble Masons, Pointers, Cleaners &
Caulkers Union No. 2 of Minnesota and
Construction and General Laborers Local 563,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of
erecting prestressed concrete units at the Brainerd
Construction site, and particularly double T
concrete beams, including the rigging, signalling,
and welding of such and all other related phases of
Spancrete's erection work heretofore performed by
them.
2. Iron Workers Local No. 563, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been
entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act, to force or require Spancrete Midwest
Company, to award the above work to members of
Iron Workers Local No. 563, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decison
and Determination of Dispute, Iron Workers Local
No. 563, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 18, in writing, whether it will or will not
refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act,
to award the work in dispute to employees
represented by its members rather than to
employees represented by Bricklayers, Cement
Blocklayers, Stone & Marble Masons, Pointers,
Cleaners & Caulkers Union No. 2 of Minnesota and
Construction and General Laborers Local Union
563, AFL-CIO.
'Member Zagona would grant Spancrete 's request to make a broader
award in this case Iron Workers' representative Raun told Hanson,
Spancrete's vice-president and general manager, that Iron Workers "wasn't
going to stop us at Brainerd , but the next time I came to Duluth he would
stop me and I would have to use all Iron Workers " Similarly, Raun
told foreman Visenor "he would get us in Duluth and close us down
completely " When questioned specifically on this point by counsel at the
hearing, Raun refused to retreat from this position , but stated only he "did
not know" what Respondent would do at future projects In Member
Zagona's view, the evidence reveals a substantial likelihood that Iron
Workers will engage in future work interruptions at other Spancrete
projects , and fully justifies a broad award