Masonry Magazine August 1985 Page. 26
Beneficial Center
Peapak, New Jersey
Sure Klean 101 Lime Solvent
New Masonry Cleaners
Don't risk ruining a million dollar job with Muriatic Acid. Pressure rinsing after application of Sure Klean. Sure Klean products are the safe and effective answer to new masonry cleaning problems. No bleaching, staining or burning like Muriatic. Sure Klean New Masonry Cleaners leave your structure with a clean, uniform appearance. Sure Klean products are job-suited and laboratory tested. Quick-acting and easy to apply.
SURE KLEAN
The Number One New Masonry Cleaner
ProSoCo, Inc.
Chemicals for Construction
P.O. Box 1578, Kansas City, KS 66117
Stone Mountain, GA South Plainfield, NJ
913/281-2700
TRIPARTITE ARBITRATION
continued
The work to Operating Engineers. The exhibit lists 79 contractors, 20 of whom are general contractors, who do not assign mason tending forklift operations to Operating Engineers. From the foregoing testimony and Employer Exhibit No. 13, the undersigned is satisfied that the evidence supports a conclusion that the area practice likewise favors an Award assigning the disputed work here to employees represented by the Laborers.
The Engineers have argued that practice in Area II has been established favoring the Engineers position in this matter by reason of repeated litigations occurring in Area II wherein a series of arbitration awards determined that assignment of mason tending forklift work to Laborers violated the Operating Engineers contracts. The Engineers argument in this respect is rejected for two reasons. First, the awards arose in Area II rather than Area I, and as concluded above, Area II practices are not material to a determination in Area I.
Secondly, the arbitration decisions upon which Engineers rely (Lauer Bros., Inc.; Stevens Construction Corp.; Oscar Boldt) were all bipartite arbitrations involving issue of whether a collective bargaining agreement was violated. Here, the issue is the proper assignment of the work where the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreements to which Dentinger is bound appear to assign the disputed work to both the Laborers and to the Engineers. Thus, an assignment of the disputed work to the Engineers could well establish a violation of the Laborers Contract, and an assignment of the work to the Laborers could well establish a violation of the Engineers Contract. Consequently, the undersigned concludes that the prior arbitration awards upon which the Engineers rely are inapposite to these proceedings.
Economy and Efficiency of Operation
The record testimony of Dentinger satisfies the undersigned that the efficiencies of his operation are better served by the assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the Laborers. Dentinger persuasively testifies and provides cost exhibits demonstrating that the addition of an engineer to the work force would significantly add cost to the operation. The testimony further establishes that when Laborers operate the forklift to tend masons they continue to perform work on other duties such as mixing mud and transporting materials when they are not operating the forklift. The record testimony satisfies the undersigned that the Engineers would not be in a position to perform these related duties when the forklift is not in operation.
The record testimony establishes that the traditional crew configuration on a bricklaying job is 5 masons to 3 laborers, known as a 5-3 crew. The record testimony further establishes, to the satisfaction of the undersigned, that if Engineers are assigned the work the crew configuration will be increased from a 5-3 configuration to a 5-4 configuration. It is obvious that the requirement of an additional crew person detracts from the economy and the efficiency of the operation. Because of the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that the factor of economy and efficiency of operation favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by the Laborers.
Relative Skills
Evidence was adduced at hearing with respect to the Engineers apprenticeship program, which trains engineers in the skills required in their craft. There is also record evidence that Laborers are trained to run a forklift, although the training of Laborers is not pursuant to an indentured apprenticeship program. While the record evidence establishes that the Engineers operate a training facility in which they train apprentices to run the equipment to which they will ultimately be assigned on job sites, the evidence also establishes that at the training site, training in the operation of forklifts is not one of the requirements of the training program. It is not until apprentices are assigned to the employ of contractors that apprentices commence on-the-job training for operation of forklifts.
Consequently, the undersigned concludes that the on-the-job training of Laborers to run forklifts is commensurate with the type of training received by Engineers in operating that same type of equipment. As a result of the foregoing conclusions, the undersigned concludes that the factor of relative skills is unpersuasive.
26 MASONRY-JULY/AUGUST, 1985