Reply – Re: 50-50% or 67-33% HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: 50-50% or 67-33% HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
— by Ted Ted
CARPENTERS LOCAL 608, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Various Employers) and JOhn Harte, Franklin McMurray and Eugene Clarke, 2-CB--9767, 2-CB-9811, AND 2-CG-9812
         30 April 1986

      279 NLRB No. 99


A. The Exclusivity of the Hiring Hall

Respondent contends that its hiring hall herein is nonexclusive in nature, because in order for such an arrangement to be considered exclusive, "all" hiring authority must be reserved to the Union. I do not agree.

It is well settled that a hiring is deemed to be exclusive where the union retains exclusive authority for referrals for some specified period of time, such as 24 or 48 hours, before an employer can hire on its own. Mountain Pacific Chapter AGC, 119 NLRB 883 (1957); Boilermakers Local 587 (Stone & Webster), 233 NLRB 612, 614 (1977); Carpenters Local 78 (Murray Walter), 223 NLRB 733, 734-735 (1976). Thus to the extent that that union retains such exclusive authority during this period, it operates an exclusive hiring hall.

Similarly, an exclusive hiring hall can also exist where an employer has the contractual right to bring in a certain number or percentage of employees onto a job. Bricklayers Local 8 (California Mason Contractors), 235 NLRB 1001, 1003 (1978). Thus the employers herein have given up and delegated to Respondent the right to hire the first employee on the job and 50 percent of the remainder after the employer selects a second employee. I conclude that to such an extent an exclusive hiring hall is contemplated by the agreement. Heavy Construction Laborers Local 663 (Robert A. Treuner), 205 NLRB 455, 456 (1973).26

Since the record is bereft of any evidence that the terms of the contract have not been adhered to, I conclude that to the extent specified, Respondent operates an exclusive hiring hall, and is subject to the obligations and requirements which flow from such a finding.27
In 119 NLRB 883, Mountain Pacific, at 12:

The fact that the agreement limits the union's exclusive control to a 48-hour period after a request for employees is immaterial, for if unqualified exclusive delegation of hiring to a union is unlawful, the vice is not cured by a reversion back to the employer of the hiring privilege after the union is unable to enjoy the power conferred upon it.2