BEDPLATE ARBITRATION
|
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE
DAVID A. PETERSEN, ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of Arbitration
between
NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY, INC.
THYSSEN-DOVER ELEVATOR COMPANY
KONE, INC.
and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS
|
)
)
)
)
)
) |
ARBITRATOR'S OPINION
AND AWARD
FMCS 98-10629
September 28,2000
|
Subject: Work Jurisdiction - Bedplates
Contract Provision Involved:
Article IV of the July 9, 1997 to
July 8, 2002 Standard Agreement
Appearances of Counsel:
Charles 0. Strahley, Esquire
On behalf of the NEII
Robert Matisoff, Esquire
On behalf of the IUEC
Page 1
OPINION
98-10629
In this case arising under the July 9, 1997 to July 8, 2002 Standard
Agreement between the National Elevator Industry; Inc. (NEII)
and the International Union of Elevator Constructors (IUEC), and
referred to arbitration by the Joint Industry Committee, it is
claimed that Employers Thyssen Dover (formerly Dover) and
KONE (formerly Montgomery-KONE) violated Article IV by preattaching
blocking beams to elevator machine bedplates in the factory and
by predrilling holes in beams in the factory for the attachment
of secondary or deflector sheaves. The IUEC disputes the NEII's
position that these beams actually constitute a part of the elevator
machine bedplates and, therefore, that this fabrication and drilling
work is factory work and not Elevator Constructor bargaining unit
work.
According to the IUEC, Article IV of the Standard Agreement
clearly requires that all elevator construction work be performed
by Elevator Constructors in the field unless a specific exception
is provided in the contract. The IUEC initially cites the following
portions of Article IV as relevant to the proper disposition of
this case:
" ARTICLE IV
Work Jurisdiction
Par. 1. It is agreed by the parties to this Agreement that all
work specified in Article IV shall be performed exclusively
by Elevator Constructor Mechanics and Elevator Constructor Helpers
in the employ of the Employer.
Par. 2.
* * *
(b) The erecting and assembling of all elevator equipment to
wit: electric, hydraulic, steam, belt, dumbwaiters, residence
elevators, parking garage elevators (such as Bowser, Pigeon
Hole, or similar types of elevators), compressed air and handpower.
(f) The installation of all grating under the control of
the Employer. The installation of all counterweight screens,
overhead work, either wood or iron, and all material used
for mounting of elevator apparatus in machine room, overhead
or below.
(g) The drilling of overhead beams for attaching machines,
sheaves, kick angles and all other elevator equipment.”
Page 2
The IUEC notes that while other Article IV provisions recognize
the Employers' right, by exception, to have some preassembly and
prefabrication work performed, nothing in Article IV authorizes
the preassembly and predrilling of beams which raise and/or support
elevator machine bedplates and deflector sheaves. The IUEC thus
stresses that both the contract and the longstanding practice
of the parties recognize that Elevator Constructors are entitled
to perform the assembly of this elevator equipment in the field.
The IUEC insists that the steel beams at issue are not properly
characterized as part of the bedplate of either the Dover or Montgomery
elevator machines involved in this matter. The IUEC stresses that
a bedplate, as defined by the parties' jointly-administered National
Elevator Industry Educational Program (NEIEP) in its Elevator
Terms illustrated glossary, is "a steel or cast-iron platform
on which a machine is placed." And the IUEC observes that
the illustration accompanying the definition of the term bedplate
in the current NEIEP glossary is "a drawing of a machine
sitting on a platform consisting of a single layer of steel support."
In the IUEC's opinion, the steel beams in this case are blocking
beams or raising beams' since they are attached below the platforms
on which these elevator machines are placed, and the beams effectively
raise the level of the elevator machine in the machine room. The
IUEC also basically urges that, for purposes of drilling holes
in beams for the attachment of deflector sheaves -- which is work
that had historically been performed by Elevator Constructors
when deflector sheaves were mounted in the traditional fashion,
below the machine beam or machine room floor and in the hoistway
-- the work should continue to be performed by bargaining unit
forces because it is indistinguishable from work on overhead beams
within the meaning of Article IV,
__________
1 Blocking beams (sometimes called Raising Beams),
asdefined in the NEIEP Elevator Terms illustrated glossary, are"steel
beams placed on machine beams to raise the level ofmachine room
equipment usually to provide space between thebedplate and the
machine beams for pouring a concrete floor.''Machine beams, as
defined in the NEIEP Elevator Termsillustrated glossary, are "two
or more horizontal steel beamswhich support the elevator driving
machine. The primefunction of machine beams is to carry the load
of the drivemachine, elevator car, and counterweights. They are
notconsidered a structural part of a building."
Page 3
Paragraph 2(g).2 It rejects the notion that the transition in
the industry to locating the deflector sheaves above the machine
beam or machine room floor transforms the work of drilling holes
in beams to mount the deflector sheaves from bargaining unit work
to factory work. The IUEC asserts that all the disputed work has
in fact been recognized as Elevator Constructor work on various
job sites over the years as evidenced by a number of prior grievance
settlements.
The IUEC offered witnesses and documentary evidence in support
of its case. The General President of the IUEC and the Assistant
to the General President testified. it was said that Elevator
Constructors have historically assembled elevator equipment in
the field. Elevator Constructors have attached blocking beams
to raise the level of machine room equipment and they have drilled
beams used to mount deflector sheaves. While it was not claimed
that Elevator Constructors have the contractual right to fabricate
bedplates or drill holes in bedplates, it was claimed that the
so-called bedplate assemblies which are at issue in this case
do not constitute bedplates as understood and mutually defined
by the parties in the NEIEP Elevator Terms illustrated glossary.
It was noted that neither the Standard Agreement nor theNEIEP defines
the term bedplate assembly, and it wascontended that the series
of beams which are welded orpredrilled and bolted below the Dover
and Montgomery machinesin this case were nothing more than blocking
beams and didnot constitute a part of the bedplates regardless of
wherethe isolation pads were located on these assemblies. Thesebeams
were said to be similar if not identical to the"framing"
referred to in NEIEP Module 6, Unit 1 - Machine andSheave Installation,
which is undisputedly bargaining unitwork. It was indicated that
these beam assemblies began tobe referred to as part of the bedplates
when the companiesdecided to move deflector sheaves into the machine
room. Thewitnesses had no objection to this relocation of deflectorsheaves,
given the attendant reduction in noise transmittedto the building
and the increased facilitation of maintenanceon the sheaves, but
it was adamantly disputed that theattachment of the beams and the
drilling of these beams thusbecame work which could now properly
be performed in thefactory rather than in the field as before.
__________
2 Overhead and overhead structure are defined
in the NEIEP Elevator Terms illustrated glossary, respectively,
as "the upper end of the elevator hoistway" and "all
of the structural members, platforms, etc. supporting the elevator
machinery, sheaves, and equipment at the top of the hoistway.”
Page 4
The NEII maintains that no violation of Article IV of the Standard
Agreement occurred in this cage. The NEII asserts that Employers
Thyssen-Dover and Montgomery-KONE have a longstanding practice
of manufacturing and assembling elevator machine components (ex.,
motor, gearbox, drive sheave, brake assembly and bedplate) in
their factories, and that the bedplates at issue are simply components
of their elevator systems. Factory employees have historically
constructed bedplates and drilled holes in bedplates. Elevator
Constructors have no valid claim to assemble or drill bedplates.
The NEIL notes that bedplates have changed over time; bedplates
have been manufactured in different sizes and shapes, and they
have been made out of different materials and have included different
structural parts. In the NEII's opinion, though, while bedplates
may vary in appearance they are functionally identical in that
they all serve to align the other elevator components mounted
upon it (ex., the motor, gear box, drive sheave assembly, brake
assembly and secondary sheave assembly); provide a structural
path for the loads from the elevator cars and counterweights to
the building; provide a stable platform which can be moved and
aligned in the machine room, accommodating the alignment of the
drive sheave and secondary sheave with the elevator car and counterweights;
and provide a means and a surface to isolate the noise and vibrations
of the elevator machine.
The NEII stresses that Elevator Constructors have no right by
contract or practice to manufacture bedplates, and the NEIL flatly
denies that Article IV, Paragraph 2(g) accords Elevator Constructors
the right to drill holes in bedplates for deflector sheaves. In
this regard the NEIL refers to Decisions of the Joint Industry
Committee to the effect that the drilling of holes in the machine
bedplate in the factory for the attachment of deflector sheaves
is not a violation of the Standard Agreement, and, although the
drilling of holes in angle iron or channels attached to the sheaves
for the purpose of mounting to the bedplate is bargaining unit
work, the holes in angle iron or channels may be pre-scribed in
the factory for later drilling in the field. The NEII disputes
that any of the beams located in the elevator machine room can
properly be characterized as an overhead beam, since, by definition,
an overhead beam is located in the upper end of the elevator hoistway
and below the floor of the machine room. With regard to prior
grievance settlements, especially those which were expressly made
without prejudice or precedent, the NEII urges that they should
not be considered as evidence of an Employer binding itself to
a contrary definition of overhead beams for purposes of Article
IV, Paragraph 2(g).
Page 5
The NEII asserts that the Elevator Constructors' drilling of
holes in overhead beams for the mounting of deflector sheaves,
which occurred routinely before Dover began mounting deflector
sheaves on the bedplates in late 1989 or early 1990 in response
to customer requests to have these sheaves located in the machine
room and isolated from the building structure so as to reduce
noise and vibration, does not give bargaining unit forces the
right to now drill holes in bedplates for the mounting of deflector
sheaves. Article IV, Paragraph 2(g) provides for the drilling
of holes in overhead beams by Elevator Constructors, but despite
opportunities for renegotiation the contract still does not provide
for the drilling of holes in bedplates by Elevator Constructors.
The NEII also notes that the MR-26 geared traction machine and
bedplate which is involved in this case is substantially identical
to MR-21 and MR-26 models which were sold and installed by Armor
Elevator Company earlier in the 1980's, before Armor was purchased
by KONE, and that no work jurisdiction problems appear to have
been raised with the installation of those machines.
The NEII, in its case, presented exhibits as well as testimony
from a Codes and Standards Engineer for Dover, a Regional Field
Manager for Schindler, a former NEII Manager of Codes and Safety,
the NEII Executive Director, the Director of North American Research
and Development for KONE, a retired Manager of Montgomery's Baltimore
Office, and a Manager of Field Labor Relations for KONE. It was
said that the GD-1, which was commercially available in late 1989
or early 1990, was the first Dover elevator machine which had
a deflector sheave mounted on what the manufacturer terms the
bedplate. It was indicated, though, that the GD-1 was not sent
from the factory with predrilled holes for the deflector sheave;
those holes were drilled in the field by Elevator Constructors.
With regard to the MR-26, the Montgomery-KONE machine in this
case, it was said that Armor Elevator (later bought by KONE and
merged with Montgomery in December 1994) had marketed an MR-26
since 1984. That machine also had a deflector sheave mounted on
what the manufacturer terms the bedplate. From the manufacturer
or design standpoint, the location of the isolation pad on the
elevator machine assembly defines the bedplate; whatever beams
or supporting structures (including so-called legs or blocking
posts) are located above the isolation pad is considered a part
of the bedplate. It was agreed that the final alignment of the
MR 26 on a job site is performed by the bargaining unit.
A NEII witness stated that he could recall no previous Union complaints
about MR-26 installations. Finally, with regard to grievance settlements,
it was stressed that there are occasions when time constraints
or other valid business reasons support a decision to resolve
a dispute short of arbitration, and it was urged that no reliance
should be placed on settlements which were entered into on the
basis that they were to be without precedent or prejudice.
Page 6
***
Article IV of the Standard Agreement governs work jurisdiction
issues for Elevator Constructor Mechanics and Elevator Constructor
Helpers. Article IV, Paragraph 2(b)clearly provides that "all
work specified in Article IV shall be performed exclusively"
by these Mechanics and Helpers, and Article IV, Paragraph 2(b)
designates "the erecting and assembling of all elevator equipment"
as bargaining unit work.
It is acknowledged that Article IV does not accord Elevator Constructors
the right to manufacture elevator components such as the motor,
gearbox, drivesheave, deflector sheave and bedplate. That work
has long been recognized as factory work rather thanfield work.
Thus, if it is determined that the beams inthese cases actually
constitute a part of the elevator machine bedplate, the work involved
in attaching and drilling these beams in the factory is not ElevatorConstructor
bargaining unit work and no violationof Article IV could be found
to have occurred. However,if it is determined that these beams
are not a part of thebedplate, then the preattaching and predrilling
of thesebeams in the factory would violate Article IV as thiswork
would be bargaining unit assembly work envisioned by Article IV,
Paragraph 2(b) and not otherwise excepted under one of the listed
preassembling or prefabricating exceptions set forth elsewhere
in Article IV.
The determination of whether the beams attached immediately below
the steel platforms on which theseDover and Montgomery elevator
machines are placedcomprise part of the bedplate cannot be based
on a generic definition of the term bedplate. Even thoughit might
not be unreasonable to view these beam assembliesas a part of
the bedplates in some other context, the term bedplate in the
elevator industry is specifically defined. Accordingto the parties'
National Elevator Industry Educational Program (NEIEP), current
standard terminology in the industry defines abedplate as 'a steel
or cast – iron platform on which a machine is placed. Neither
this definition of bedplate nor the language of Article IV nor
the mutually accepted practice in the industry is found to envision
a bedplate configuration which includes additional beams being
preattached below this platform. And the assembly of such additional
beam in the field, as well as the drilling of beams for the attachment
of deflector sheaves, is certainly work which Elevator Constructors
are qualified to perform and have traditionally performed. This
is work contemplated as being within their exclusive jurisdiction
under Article TV. Therefore, in the absence of a mutually recognized
and accepted change in standard terminology and/or contract language
and practice in the industry,it is concluded that beams attached
below the basic platform cannot be considered part of the bedplate.
Based on this conclusion, neither the protested preattachment
of these beams nor the protested predrillingof these beams can
be found to constitute factory work. Elevator Constructors are
entitled to perform this work consistent with Article IV, Paragraphs
1 and 2(b), and no alleged practice inconsistent with these provisions
of the Standard Agreement can compel a different conclusion.
Accordingly, the case will be sustained to the extent that Article
IV of the Standard Agreement is interpreted as precluding Elevator
Constructors from being denied their right to assemble all elevator
equipment in the field by mischaracterizing the subject beam configurations
on these Dover and Montgomery machines as being a part of the
elevator machine bedplates and by having these beams preattached
and predrilled in the factory. As requested by the IUEC, the Employers
will be directed to cease depriving Elevator Constructors of this
bargaining unit work.
AWARD
The case is sustained as set forth in the Opinion.
(Signature on File)
David A. Petersen, Arbitrator
