Laborers' International Union of North America, Local No. 118, AFL-CIO (Ronald Huber d/b/a Huber Masonry)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 1417 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

LABORERS LOCAL NO. 118
Laborers' International Union of North America,
Local No. 118, AFL-CIO and Ronald Huber
d/b/a Huber Masonry and International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO.
Case 13-CD-299
March 31, 1982
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND
HUNTER
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Ronald Huber d/b/a Huber
Masonry, herein called the Employer, alleging that
Laborers' International Union of North America,
Local No. 118, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 118,
had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by en-
gaging in certain proscribed activity with an object
of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign cer-
tain work to its members rather than to employees
represented by International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO, herein called
Local 150.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Alan Hellman on September 9 and
21, 1981. All parties appeared and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues. Thereafter, Local 150 and the Em-
ployer timely filed briefs.
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 Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, a sole proprietor with its principal place of
business in Lake Zurich, Illinois, is engaged in the
business of masonry work. During the past calen-
dar or fiscal year, a representative period, the Em-
ployer received masonry products valued in excess
of $50,000 from suppliers in the State of Illinois
who received those products directly from points
located outside the State of Illinois.
We find that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
260 NLRB No. 193
of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local
118 and Local 150 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 operation of a forklift
in the loading and unloading of masonry supplies
and materials at the Woodfield Business Center in
Schaumburg, Illinois.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Soon after July 4, 1981,' the Employer com-
menced its operations at the Woodfield Business
Center, and assigned the disputed work to an em-
ployee represented by Local 118. On July 23, the
Employer received a telephone call from a repre-
sentative of Local 150, who indicated that Local
150 would picket the jobsite if the work were not
assigned to an employee whom it represented.
Local 150 has continuously picketed the jobsite
since on or about July 26. After the commence-
ment of the picketing, but before August 17, the
Employer spoke with a business agent from Local
118 who informed the Employer that the work
should be performed by a laborer. On August 17,
the Employer received a letter from Local 118
which indicated that, if the Employer assigned the
work "in any manner inconsistent with the current
assignment to laborers," then Local 118 would
have "no alternative but to engage in picketing."
C. Contentions of the Parties
Local 150 contends that all of the parties are
bound to an agreed-upon method for the adjust-
ment of the dispute. Local 150 argues that the par-
ties have agreed, through either their collective-
bargaining agreements or other agreements, to
submit this dispute to the Joint Conference Board,
hereinafter referred to as the JCB, which was es-
tablished by the Chicago Building Trades Council
and the Construction Employers Association.
The Employer contends that the disputed work
should be assigned to its employees represented by
Local 118, based upon employer preference, econo-
my and efficiency of operation, safety, skills, the
Employer's past practice, and the applicable collec-
tive-bargaining agreements. The Employer argues
that there is no agreed-upon method for adjusting
I Unless otherwise specified, all dates herein refer to 1981
1417
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the dispute, and that it is not bound to submit the
dispute to the JCB.
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 (1) there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
has been violated and (2) the parties do not have
an agreed-upon method for the voluntary settle-
ment of the dispute.
With respect to the former issue, it is undisputed
that on August 17 the Employer received a letter
from Local 118 which indicated that Local 118
would have no alternative but to engage in picket-
ing if the Employer made an assignment of the dis-
puted work in any manner inconsistent with its
current assignment to a laborer. We therefore find
that there is reasonable cause to believe that Local
118 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
However, we find for the reasons stated below
that the parties have agreed upon a method for the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute, and we shall
order that the notice of hearing be quashed.
The Chicago Building Trades Council, a local
council of the Building Trades Department of the
AFL-CIO, and the Construction Employers Asso-
ciation, an umbrella group of eight construction as-
sociations, are parties to an agreement known as
the standard agreement.2 The standard agreement
created the JCB, which is designed to decide juris-
dictional disputes arising between parties bound to
the agreement. Article IV of the standard agree-
ment provides:
A Joint Conference Board is hereby created
by agreement between the Association and the
Council, which shall be binding upon the
members and affiliates of each, and it is hereby
agreed by the parties hereto, together with
their members and affiliates, that they will rec-
ognize the authority of said Joint Conference
Board and that its decisions shall be final and
binding upon them.
In pertinent part, article V of the standard agree-
ment provides:
Should a jurisdictional dispute arise between
or among any members or affiliates of the par-
ties hereto, or between or among the members
or affiliates of the parties hereto and some
other body of employers or employees, which
dispute the parties involved are unable to
adjust or settle, said dispute shall immediately
be referred to the Joint Conference Board.
2 The record discloses that the current standard agreement will remain
in effect until 1983. The agreement was first reached in 1913.
Should same not be so referred by either or
both of the interested parties, the Joint Confer-
ence Board may, upon its own initiative, or at
the request of others interested, take up such
dispute and decide same and its decision shall
be final and binding upon the parties hereto
and upon their members and affiliates.
Under article XV, the standard agreement ap-
plies "only to work performed within Cook
County, Illinois."3
We find that both Local 150 and Local 118 are
bound by the standard agreement. In this connec-
tion we note that article IV provides that the
agreement creating the JCB shall be binding upon
"members and affiliates" of the parties, and that the
parties and their "members and affiliates" will rec-
ognize the JCB's authority. Article V provides that
jurisdictional disputes between or among "members
and affiliates" shall be referred to the JCB. The
record discloses that Local 150 is directly affiliated
with the Chicago Building Trades Council. The
record further discloses that the Construction and
General Laborers District Council of Chicago and
Vicinity, which represents and encompasses Local
118 and other locals, is a member of the Chicago
Building Trades Council. We therefore find that,
through their affiliation with the Chicago Building
Trades Council, both Local 150 and Local 118 are
bound under the standard agreement to submit this
dispute to the JCB.4
We also find that Local 150 and Local 118 are
bound to the standard agreement through their
own collective-bargaining contracts. Local 150 and
the Mid-America Regional Bargaining Association,
hereinafter referred to as MARBA, are parties to a
master agreement known as the Illinois building
agreement. Article VIII, section 4, of that contract
provides that, with respect to jurisdictional disputes
arising within Cook County, it is "understood and
agreed that the parties to this Agreement shall be
bound to the provisions of the Standard Agreement
establishing the Joint Conference Board as if set
forth in full herein." Furthermore, the Construc-
tion and General Laborers District Council of Chi-
cago and Vicinity, on behalf of Local 118 and
other locals, has also entered into a master agree-
ment with MARBA. That agreement expressly
provides that the "Standard Form of Agreement"5
a The parties have stipulated that the village of Schaumburg, where the
disputed work is being performed, is located within Cook County, Illi-
nois
' We also note that art. XVI of the constitution and bylaws of the Chi-
cago Building Trades Council provides that all jurisdictional disputes be-
tween local unions, district councils, or conferences affiliated with the
Council shall be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the stand-
ard agreement establishing the JCB
5 At the hearing. uncontradicted testimony established that the stand-
ard agreement is also known as the standard form of agreement
1418
LABORERS LOCAL NO. 118
is "Used and Made Part of this Agreement." We
therefore find that, through the clear language of
their collective-bargaining agreements, Local 150
and Local 118 have agreed to submit jurisdictional
disputes arising within Cook County to the JCB.6
The record further discloses that the Employer
is bound to the standard agreement through its
contracts with both Local 150 and Local 118. On
March 27, 1980, the Employer entered into a
memorandum of agreement with Local 150. The
memorandum expressly adopted the existing master
agreement between Local 150 and MARBA which,
as noted above, provides in article VIII, section 4,
that jurisdictional disputes shall be submitted to the
JCB. The memorandum of agreement also provides
that it will remain in effect from year to year and
that it will adopt any subsequent master agreements
between Local 150 and MARBA, unless either
party gives notice of its desire to amend or termi-
nate the memorandum of agreement 3 months prior
to the expiration of the master agreement. No such
notice has been given, and the master agreement
has been extended until 1984. We therefore find
that the memorandum of agreement is still in effect.
In view of the foregoing, we find that, by signing
the memorandum of agreement with Local 150, the
Employer has agreed to submit this jurisdictional
dispute to the JCB.
On September 4, 1980, the Employer also signed
a memorandum of agreement with the Construc-
tion and General Laborers District Council of Chi-
cago and Vicinity, which, as noted in the memo-
randum of agreement, represents and encompasses
Local 118 and other locals. The memorandum ex-
pressly adopts the master agreement, referred to
above, between the General Laborers District
Council and the Builders Associations of Chicago
and Vicinity and other associations.7 As noted, the
master agreement contains a provision expressly in-
corporating the standard agreement. The memoran-
dum of agreement provides that it shall remain in
effect until May 31, 1981, and that it shall continue
thereafter unless either party gives 60 days' written
notice of its desire to modify or amend the memo-
randum. It also provides that, in the absence of
such notice, the parties agree to be bound by the
master agreement and to extend the memorandum
The most recent Illinois building agreement became effecti,.e on July
1, 1981, and will expire in 3 years The record discloses that the master
agreement of the General Laborers District Council has been extended
until May 31, 1983. The provisions governing jurisdictional disputes
remain unchanged in both agreements
' Those associations were represented by MARBA In the negotiations
of agreement for the life of the master agreement.
There is no evidence that either of the parties gave
written notice, and the record discloses that the
master agreement has been extended to May 31,
1983. Therefore the memorandum of agreement is
still in effect. In view of the foregoing, we find
that, by signing the memorandum of agreement
with the General Laborers District Council of Chi-
cago and Vicinity, the Employer has also agreed to
be bound to the standard agreement's provision for
the submission of jurisdictional disputes to the
JCB. 8 Further, in view of its agreements with both
Local 150 and Local 118, we find that the Employ-
er is bound to the standard agreement even though
it is not a member of the Construction Employers
Association.
Therefore, since all of the parties are bound to
submit this dispute to the JCB, we shall quash the
notice of hearing issued herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this proceeding be, and it is hereby is,
quashed.
' Member Jenkins notes that the provisions of the standard agreement
do not preclude the Employer from invoking the processes of the JCB
Art V of the standard agreement provides that, if a jurisdictional dispute
arises between members or affiliates of the parties to the agreement, or
betwseen members or affiliates of the parties and "some other body of em-
ployers or employees'," then the jurisdictional dispute "shall immediately
be referred to the Joint Conference Board'" This provision clearly doies
not prohibit emploNers from referring disputes to the JCHB Further, art
V also prorsides thilt, if a dispute is not referred to the JCB, the JCB may
on its owAn initiative, "or at the request of others interested." proceed to
decide the dispute It seems clear that the Employer ,.ould also be able
to initiate the processes of the JCB under this language.
In sies of Ihe albove aind all of the esideincc in the record. Member
Jenkins finds that this case is distinguishable fronm those cases in hilch he
dissented from the majoriny's decision to quash the notice of hearing See,
e g. Intcrit, wnui / i ill ,' Operating Engineer. Local '. 17 1' .1'B (iulJ-
,an and Hutinei. 254 Nl RB 71 (1981): Local X25, Bruantchc 4. B C D
International n,/on Of Operating Engineerr. .FL-C'I10 (Bafill Construction
Cborp , 242 NLRB 673 h (1979): lncted .fint Wrkers oJ 4nerirca Local
I'nion ,12i9 /Ril. thei Tru-,,.,i /ine Barn, d I, 7uuckr cH! ('o and Damui
lrucking. Inc iL 241 Nl RB 231 (1979): G/uao Hirir, lo, al .\ '4t0 In-
rernational Btnrothrhod ,f Painrer5 and 4.lietd Irade., -11l-(C10 rioin
Bcno,,i Glasm (C'. Inc. ) 224 NLRB 1155 (197lTi L'ntlrd 4,saii,ton yJ
Journiv rtens and lrpprnc'nii, of the Plurnirrn and Pipc Frrring l]rrsdsur, t/'
the t'nited Stal/c and (Canada. Loxal Union .o. 447 I'L-CI()1 ( (aprrul
A4,r ('Crordmonir. /ncL 224 NLRB 985 (197h) In those case, Member
Jenkinrl ftrud that there .sis no agrceed-upon method wiihin ihe meaning
of the Act T'he asserted lgreemnents either precluded the emploiscr from
initialing the dispute resolution processes, failed to provside for the resolu-
tion of the drpute w- here lie disputed work had already been completed.
co' ered orllly iagcs, hhllurs and working coinditions. or intsolscd a condi-
lion iimpoiised tIlllmiermall hs ai genleral coiitraclir upon a suhbconlractior
Since Member Jenkins find, nit e idence that these circunistances are
presenl i1n the Iniiitii csec. he agrees at thei niolice of htearingl ho1uldl hb
quashed
1419