Teamsters Local Union 991

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 900 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local Union 991 and Power Piping Company and
United Association,of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Plumb-
ing and Pipe Fitting Contracting Division of the
Construction Industry, Local Union No. 366. Case
15-CD-179
October 20, 1972
whose principal office is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
is a general contractor engaged in the building and
construction industry. In the course and conduct of its
business in the previous year, it shipped directly from
its Pittsburgh plant goods valued in excess of $50,000.
Accordingly, we find, as the parties have stipulated,
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed by Power Piping Company, herein called
the Employer, alleging that Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 991, herein
called Teamsters, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed
activity with an object of forcing the Employer to
assign certain work to employees represented by
Teamsters rather than to employees represented by
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Plumb-
ing and Pipe Fitting Contracting Division of the
Construction Industry, Local Union No. 366, herein
called Pipefitters. A hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Peyton Lacy, Jr., on June 15, 1972, in Pensa-
cola, Florida. The Employer, Teamsters, Pipefitters,
and Mobile Chapter, Associated General Contractors
of America, herein called Mobile AGC, appeared at
the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.' The Em-
ployer filed a posthearing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Pennsylvania corporation
1 The Hearing Officer permitted Mobile AGC to intervene because of
Teamsters assertion that the Employer was bound to the contract executed
between Mobile AGC and the Mobile-Pensacola Building and Construction
Trades Council, which provided that the teamsters would perform the work
in dispute
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Team-
sters and Pipefitters 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 consists of handling mate-
rials received at the Employer's craft storeroom 2 at
the Crist Steam Plant construction site, Pensacola,
Florida, and the driving of two pickup trucks in con-
nection with the handling of such materials within the
construction site.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Gulf Power Company is the general contractor
for the construction of generator 7 at the Crist Steam
Plant, Pensacola, Florida. The Employer is a subcon-
tractor for installation of power piping. It began work
on the project about June 1971. At that time, the
Employer assigned its work to its own 80 employees,
who are pipefitters represented by Pipefitters, with
whom the Employer has a contract.
Beginning in March 1972, Teamsters, through its
secretary-treasurer, Mort Sherman, and its business
agent, Charles E. Merritt, sent a series of letters to
Employer claiming the work in question. On May 8,
1972, there was a conversation between Merritt and
Employer's construction manager, Robert A. Patter-
son. Merritt again stated Teamsters claim to the dis-
puted work. Patterson answered that the work
properly belonged to pipefitters. On the next day,
Teamsters began to picket the jobsite. The picketing
continued through May 11. On May 16, Patterson
expressed to Merritt his desire that Teamsters and
Pipefitters work together to settle the dispute. Merritt
2 The central warehouse is the prime contractor's general warehouse where
all materials to be used on the project are first delivered From there, the
materials are dispatched to the, various subcontractors who will eventually
utilize these materials and are then stored in special craft warehouses or
storerooms Part of the instant dispute revolves around the operations of the
Employer's craft storeroom.
199 NLRB No. 149
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 991 901
responded that Teamsters would continue picketing
at his discretion until the disputed work was assigned
to teamsters. Thereafter, Teamsters resumed picket-
ing on May 17 and 18. Since that time, however, no
picketing has occurred and construction has been
proceeding normally.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Teamsters contends that the disputed work
should be assigned to it pursuant to work rules incor-
porated into a contract executed by the Mobile-Pen-
sacola Building and Construction Trades Council,
herein called Trades Council, of which Teamsters is
an affiliate, and the Mobile AGC, to which, Team-
sters contends, the Employer has agreed to be bound.
The Employer contends that the assignment of
the work is governed solely by the contract it signed
with Pipefitters, which provides that work in dispute
is to be performed by employees represented by Pipe-
fitters. It specifically denies that it is signatory to, or
is any way bound, by, the Mobile AGC-Trades Coun-
cil contract. The Employer also argues that economy
and area practice dictate an assignment of the work
to Pipefitters.
Pipefitters position is substantially the same as
the Employer's; namely, that employees represented
by Pipefitters are entitled to the work, in view of its
contract with the Employer, contracts it signed with
other contractors, longstanding area practice, and ef-
ficiency operation.
The Mobile AGC contends that the Employer is
not party to the Mobile AGC-Trades Council con-
tract. Moreover, it claims that the work rules relied on
by Teamsters as contractual authority for its jurisdic-
tion were never agreed upon by the Mobile AGC and
the Trades Council and hence were never incorporat-
ed into the aforementioned contract. The Mobile
AGC also argues that to assign to teamsters the dis-
puted work would be contrary to area practice and
economy and efficiency of operation. It finally con-
tends that the handling of materials in the Employer's
craft storeroom calls for special knowledge of the var-
ious kinds of pipefitting materials that only a pipefit-
ter possesses.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section (b)(4)(D) has been violated. On
the basis of a stipulation by all parties that Teamsters
on May 9, 10, 11, 17, and 18, 1972, picketed the Crist
Steam Plant in furtherance of its request that the work
in dispute be assigned to its members , we find that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
the Act has occurred and that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work after
giving due consideration to various relevant factors.
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
The collective-bargaining agreement in effect 3
between the Employer and Pipefitters at the time of
the picketing clearly provides for an assignment of the
work in question to employees represented by Pipefit-
ters. Article II, paragraph 7, of that the contract spe-
cifically provides that the contract covers:
the rates of pay, hours and working conditions of
all journeymen and apprentices engaged in the
installation of all . . . pipefitting systems .. .
including ... servicing and handling, unloading,
distributing . . . all piping materials, appurtenan-
ces and equipment . . . [Emphasis supplied.]
Although Teamsters contended that it had a contrac-
tual claim to the work in dispute, the Employer and
Mobile AGC deny the existence of any such contract.
We need not decide that issue; for reasons set forth
below the existence of that contract would not be
determinative.
2. Employer and area practice
The employer has built two other power units at
the Crist Steam Plant in the past 15 years. It has also
participated in the building of similar installations all
over the country. On each of these projects, it has
consistently assigned the work in dispute to pipefit-
ters. The evidence as to area practice is that local
electrical and mechanical contractors customarily as-
sign the work of unloading, checking, and warehous-
ing of specific materials and the onsite trasnport of
such materials to the craftsmen who use those mate-
rials in their work.4 As for Teamsters, its business
agent, Charles E. Merritt, cited isolated projects in
3 The most recent contract would have expired on March 31 , 1972, a new
contract was not signed until June 8 , 1972. However, prior to March 31, the
parties agreed to continue the old contract from day to day , until a new
contract could be executed.
The evidence derives chiefly from a poll of approximately 20 mechanical
and electrical contractors faken by Frank Hawkins, executive secretary of the
Gulf Coast Chapter of the National Electric Contracting Association and the
executive secretary of the Mobile Mechanical Contractors' Association. All
the firms polled operate out of the gulf coast area and do both construction
and maintenance work, most of it large scale . However , very few are engaged
in powerplant construction as is the Employer.
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which teamsters were assigned the disputed work, but
admitted that for the last 5-7 years the disputed work,
previously assigned to teamsters, had been custom-
arily assigned to other craft groups. Employer and
area practice , therefore , favor the Employer's assign-
ment.
3. Skills , efficiency , and economy of operation
The operation of the Employer's two pickup
trucks does not involve any special skill. However, the
operation of the craft storeroom , insofar as it encom-
passes the handing out of pipefitter materials, in-
volves knowledge of the properties of various fittings
and of which fittings are appropriate for specific
tasks . Pipefitters possess such knowledge ; teamsters
do not.
With respect to efficiency and economy of opera-
tions, the record discloses that the two trucks are used
only rarely to haul tools and materials . Frequently the
truck is used for incidental chores such as getting mail
and transporting men. Very often, the trucks would
remain idle , waiting to be used to take injured men to
the hospital. This being the case, it would be ineffi-
cient for an employee represented by Teamsters to be
assigned the work , because such an employee would
spend little productive time on the job.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the factors
of skill, efficiency, and economy of operation favor
the Employer's assignment.
4. Conclusions
Having considered all pertinent factors present
herein, we conclude that employees who are repre-
sented by Pipefitters are entitled to perform the work
in dispute. This assignment is consistent with Employ-
er and area practice, relative skills, and efficiency and
economy of operations . In making this determination,
we are awarding the work in question to employees
represented by the Pipefitters, 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 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 pro-
ceeding , the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of the Employer who are currently
represented by the United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO, Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Contracting
Division of the Construction Industry, Local Union
No. 366, are entitled to handle materials received at
the craft storeroom at the Crist Steam Plant construc-
tion site , Pensacola , Florida, and to drive pickup
trucks in connection with the handling of such mate-
rials within the construction site.
2. Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers , Local Union 991, is not entitled by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force
or require the Employer to assign the above work to
its members or employees whom it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of the Decision
and Determination of Dispute , the labor organization
listed in the preceding paragraph shall notify the Re-
gional Director for Region 15, in writing , whether or
not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Power
Piping Company by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work awarded
above in a manner inconsistent with the above deter-
mination.