In the Matter of Local 81 

Laborers' International Union of North America

Independent Hearing Officer 

Docket No. 00-17P 

Decided May 30, 2000 

Order and Memorandum 

This Order and Memorandum addresses the nomination protest filed by Thomas Pancini (Pancini) regarding the disqualification of Pancini from running for Business Manager in the June 3, 2000 election of officers of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local Union 81 (Local 81) in Valparaiso, Indiana. The IHO appointed an investigator who conducted interviews at the union and the workplace of the protestor.

 

Based upon the report from the investigator, the protest of Pancini is DENIED.  The IHO issued an initial summary order in this matter on May 19, 2000.  This Order and Memorandum supplements the May 19, 2000 Order disqualifying Pancini.

 

Findings of Fact

 

1.        Local 81 is located in Valparaiso, Indiana.

 

2.        In 1995, Pancini was hired by the Furnco Construction Company (Furnco) and assigned to the U.S. Steel facility in Gary, Indiana.

 

3.        From 1995 until April 2000, Pancini was employed by Furnco and served as the Nighttime Superintendent (sometimes referred to as Nightturn Supervisor) assigned to work at the U.S. Steel plant.

 

4.        In 1996, Pancini became a member of Local 81.

 

5.        In April 2000, Pancini voluntarily resigned his position at Furnco and then proceeded to place his name on Local 81’s out-of-work list.

 

6.        Pancini had authority to direct employees and to assign tasks to laborers and foremen of the various trades represented at the project site.

 

7.        Pancini’s responsibilities included time reporting on the night shift.  This meant Pancini reported tardiness and absenteeism of the employees assigned to the night shift.

 

8.        Pancini’s position as the Nighttime Superintendent gave him the authority to supervise an average of 25 laborers and foremen from various unions, including Local 81.  In the event that an incident occurred on Pancini’s shift, Pancini had the option to exercise his authority to make an independent judgment in the employer’s interest or Pancini could confer with his immediate supervisor, Carl Otto, the General Superintendent.

 

9.        Pancini’s position allowed him to recommend that the employer hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, discipline, and direct other employees in the interest of the employer.

 

10.     Pancini’s compensation was $30.00 per hour, in excess of the basic hourly pay rate of $22.08.

 

11.     Pancini was permitted to drive the company-leased 1996 Ford F-150 truck for business and personal use.

 

Discussion

 

Article V, Section 4 of LIUNA’s Uniform Local Union Constitution states that “no person shall be eligible to hold any office in the Local Union if he has not been regularly working at the calling of the International Union during the entire year immediately prior to nomination.”  Article V, Section 4(a) states that working at the calling includes “employment for which the Union serves, or is actively seeking to serve, as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of employees.”  A union member with supervisory responsibilities who is part of management can not be considered to be working at the calling.

 

The National Labor Relations Act defines the term “supervisor” as “any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees ....”  29 U.S.C. § 152(11).  Courts have interpreted this definition in the disjunctive, meaning any one of the enumerated powers may signify supervisory status.  See Telemundo de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 113 F.3d 270 (1st Cir. 1997).

 

The test to determine whether a person is a part of management, and thus ineligible to run for office is whether his duties, his pay, and his role in the management of the company indicate a conflict of interest between his obligations to the employer and his obligations to the Local Union.  See Local Union Officer Elections: A Guide for Local Union Judges of Election, Officers and Members (Laborers International Union of North America, May 2000, p. 22).  In this case, Pancini’s job responsibilities indicate that Pancini was a part of management as defined by the NLRA’s definition of supervisor.  Pancini’s supervision over the night shift, which gave him supervision over other union members as well as LIUNA members, demonstrates that Pancini was a part of management. Pancini’s job responsibilities, his compensation of $30.00 per hour, in excess of the $22.08 per hour basic wage rate for labor employees, and his access to benefits such as the 1996 Ford F-150 pickup truck indicate a conflict of interest between his obligations to Furnco management and his obligations to Local 81 members.[1]

 

The fact that Pancini voluntarily resigned from his position with Furnco and that he placed his name on Local 81’s out-of-work list does not make him eligible to run for office.  As discussed supra, Article V, Section 4 mandates that a person must be working at the calling for an entire year prior to nomination.

 

Conclusion

 

Pancini’s job responsibilities indicate that Pancini worked in a supervisory position.  Pancini was not working at the calling while working as a supervisor at Furnco.

 

Decision

 

Pancini’s protest is DENIED.

 

                                                                                                PETER F. VAIRA

 

                                                                                                INDEPENDENT

                                                                                                HEARING OFFICER