Masonry Magazine June 1981 Page. 25
4. Skills, safety, economy, and efficiency of operation
The record discloses that the Employer teaches both bricklayers and laborers the skills required to perform all aspects of the disputed work. As a result of this training, the Employer's employees are able to work in an integrated and interchangeable fashion concerning all the various phases of the erection and installation of walls. These employees are also certified welders. The Ironworkers maintains that, as a result of apprecticeship programs and its more stringent welding certification procedures, its members possess greater skills than the Employer's employees in performing such tasks as welding, rigging, and the removal of temporary shores. It asserts that an ironworker should be added to the Employer's crew to perform those tasks. However, the Ironworkers does not claim greater expertise in performing the remaining jobs involved in performing the disputed work such as patching or grouting. Therefore, inasmuch as ironworkers do not possess the skills involved necessary to perform all of the functions of the disputed work, we find that the broader and more diverse skills of the Employer's employees who are represented by the Bricklayers and the Laborers favor awarding the work to those employees.
With respect to safety, there is no evidence to indicate that this factor favors awarding the work in dispute to employees represented either by the Bricklayers and the Laborers or by the Ironworkers.
As noted above, the Employer's employees are trained to be familiar with the entire erection process. Therefore, the record discloses that they can be used to help in other areas of erection if the materials they may need for their own work are not available at that moment. An ironworker, if added to the crew, would be able to do only the work prescribed by his craft and would not be able to perform other jobs. Accordingly, the factors of efficiency and economy of operation also favor awarding the disputed work to employees represented by the Bricklayers and the Laborers.
Conclusion
Upon the entire record as a whole, and after full consideration of all relevant factors involved, we conclude that employees who are represented by the Bricklayers and the Laborers are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion based on the Employer's collective-bargaining agreements with the Bricklayers and the Laborers, the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to its employees represented by the Bricklayers and the Laborers, the Employer's past practice, industry practice, and the skills, efficiency, and economy of operation involved in performing the work in dispute. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees who are represented by the Bricklayers and the Laborers, but not to those Unions or their 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 proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Fabcon, Incorporated, who are represented by the Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local Union No. 1, St. Paul, and Local Union No. 2, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and by the Laborers District Council of Minnesota and North Dakota, are entitled to perform the work of erecting and installing precast, prestressed concrete walls at the VWR Scientific Distribution Center project.
2. Local No. 393, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Fabcon, Incorporated, 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, Local No. 393, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 13, 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. May 6, 1981
John H. Fanning, Chairman
Howard Jenkins, Jr., Member
Don A. Zimmerman, Member
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SEAL
MCAA
Educational Seminars
Current Yield
DOLLAR$ and SENSE
Annualized Average
100%
Isn't it a good time to add to your educational account?
ARE
YOU
RELOCATING?
Please let us know about it so you can continue to get your monthly copies of MASONRY uninterrupted.
It takes approximately six weeks to process address changes, and the Post Office won't let us follow you around unless we get your new address.
So please send it to:
MASONRY
Circulation Department
17 W 601-14th Street
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
P.S. A couple of things are we spelling your name right, and are we using the correct address? If either is amiss, please remove the mailing label from the cover and send it to us with corrections.
Many thanks... and happy reading!
MASONRY/JUNE, 1981 25