Teamsters Local 420 (Stief Co.), 814 (1994)

CourtNational Labor Relations Board (US)
Date28 February 1994
Docket Number21-CD-00608

Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers, Local 420, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO and Stief Co. West and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12, AFL- CIO. Case 21-CD-608

February 28, 1994

DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE

BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND TRUESDALE

The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding, filed on August 26, 1992, by the Employer, alleges that the Respondent, Teamsters Local 420, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by Operating Engineers Local 12. The hearing was held on May 19, 1993, before Hearing Officer Kevin R. Steen.1 The Employer filed a posthearing brief.

The National Labor Relations Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings, finding them free from prejudicial error.2 On the entire record, the Board makes the following findings.

  1. JURISDICTION

    The Employer, Stief Co. West, is a California corporation engaged in highway construction. It annually purchases and receives supplies worth over $50,000 directly from businesses within California, which in turn purchase and receive supplies worth over $50,000 directly from businesses outside California. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Operating Engineers Local 12 and Teamsters Local 420 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

  2. THE DISPUTE

    1. Background and Facts of the Dispute

      The Employer is a subcontractor engaged in the construction of concrete barriers on bridge and highway projects in California. As part of the construction process, the Employer uses a boomtruck, which is a tractor with a rear-mounted crane and an attached 45-foot trailer. Heavy forms used in fabricating the barriers are carried on the boomtruck trailer. The crane is used to remove and position them at the jobsite.

      The Employer's employees who drive the boomtruck and operate its crane are classified as working truckdrivers. In accord with its collective-bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 420, the Employer has assigned the driving and operation of its boomtrucks to working truckdrivers represented by that Union.

      The Employer has never had a collective-bargaining agreement with Operating Engineers Local 12. The Operating Engineers, however, does have collective-bargaining agreements with several general contractors, including Kiewit Pacific, that provide grievance procedures for resolving jurisdictional disputes. On August 19, 1992, Local 12 filed a grievance against Kiewit Pacific regarding the subcontracting work involved here. Local 12 Representative Brad Nelson informed Kiewit Representative Bill Murphy that the work was operating engineers' work and that Local 12 wanted Stief to sign a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 12 and wanted an operating engineer on the boomtruck.

      Subsequent to Local 12's filing the above grievance, Local 420 claimed in an August 24 letter that the boomtruck work performed by the Employer at the Garden Grove Interchange jobsite should continue to be assigned to employees it represented. It also threatened to take immediate economic action if the Employer removed these employees from boomtruck work on that project.

    2. Work in Dispute

      The disputed work, as agreed to by the parties appearing at the hearing, involves the task of driving the Employer's boomtruck to and from jobsites and the operation of the boomtruck at jobsites, including the lowering, setting, and raising of barrier forms.

    3. Contentions of the Parties

      The Employer contends that there are competing claims for the work in dispute and that there is reasonable cause to believe that each of the Unions involved in this proceeding has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D). The Employer and Teamsters Local 420 maintain that the work in dispute should be awarded to employees represented by the Teamsters on the basis of collective-bargaining agreements, the Employer's preference and past practice, relative skills, area practice, and economy and efficiency of operations. In addition, the Employer seeks an award that encompasses not only performance of the work in dispute at...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT