Settlement of Construction Jurisdictional Disputes

Abstract

Jurisdictional disputes in the construction industry have long been a source of lost productivity. While dispute causes have been documented else‐where, the mechanisms for resolving disputes are explored here. Two alternatives are possible, namely: (1) The National Labor Relations Board; and (2) the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board. For each approach, the organization, resolution process, appeal and injunctive relief opportunities, decision time frame, and decision criteria are documented. The two approaches are compared, and the advantages and disadvantages for each are cited. These assertions are based upon interviews and questionnaires. More than 60 industry and union officials participated. It is concluded that a voluntary procedure is highly desirable. The major barriers to developing a satisfactory procedure are: (1) Decision criteria; (2) enforcement authority; (3) contractor stipulation; and (4) scope of application. By far, the most difficult issue is that of decision criteria. The unions want the primary criterion to be past agreements of record and established trade practices. Contractors want more emphasis on efficiency and good management practices. It is concluded that unless this issue is resolved, no voluntary procedure will be satisfactory.