Albany, Troy & Vicinity Stereotypers', Etc., No. 28

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 880 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Albany, Troy and Vicinity Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers'
Union , Local No. 28, International Stereotypers ' and Electro-
typer,' Union of North America and Capital Electrotype Com-
pany, Inc.
Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union , Local No. 23,
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of
North America, AFL-CIO l and Williams Press, Inc. Cases
Nos. 3-CD-130 and 3-CD-131. May 25, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , following separate charges filed by (1)
Capital Electrotype Company, Inc., herein called Capital , alleging a
violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii ) ( D) of the Act by Albany, Troy and
Vicinity Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers ' Union, Local No. 28, Inter-
national Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers' Union of North America,
herein called Stereotypers , and (2 ) Williams Press, Inc., herein called
Williams, alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii ) ( D) of the Act
by Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union , Local No. 23,
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, herein called Pressmen. Specifically , Capital's
charge avers that the Stereotypers threatened to strike Capital in order
to force Capital to assign the disputed work to electrotypers employed
by it who are represented by Stereotypers , rather than permitting that
work to be done by pressmen employed by Williams , who are repre-
sented by Pressmen . Conversely , Williams' charge alleges that the
Pressmen threatened to strike Williams if the disputed work was per-
formed by Capital 's employees who are represented by Stereotypers
rather than by Williams ' own employees who are represented by
Pressmen . The cases were consolidated and a duly scheduled hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Arthur E. Neubauer on February 16
and 17, 1965, at Albany , New York. All parties appeared at the hear-
ing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs were filed by the
Employer,2 Pressmen , and Stereotypers, which have been duly
considered.
1 The names of both Unions appear as amended at the hearing
2 The parties stipulated that, for the purposes of this proceeding , Capital and Williams
are a single employer . We note , in addition , that they were so found in an earlier 10(k)
proceeding ( 137 NLRB 1467). They are jointly referred to herein as the Employer.
152 NLRB No. 92.
ALBANY, TROY & VICINITY STEREOTYPERS', ETC., NO. 28 881
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the fol-
lowing findings :
A. The btahtess of the employers
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Capital is engaged in manu-
facturing printing plates, and Williams in the operation of a printing
plant, both in Menands, New York. During the year preceding the
hearing, Capital and Williams each purchased goods valued in excess
of $50,000 from sources outside the State of New York. We find that
Capital and Williams are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
B. The labor organizations involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Pressmen and the
Stereotypers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
C. The work in dispute
In June 1964 Williams installed a Miehle Goss double web 6-nnlt
letterset press which, to the time of the dispute, had been used only
experimentally. The dycril plates to be used on this press are prepared
by Capital, whose employees are represented by Stereotypers. Before
being affixed to the press cylinder by Williams' pressmen, the dycril
plates are crimped or bent along two sides by a crimping device made
exclusively for use in conjunction with the Miehle Goss letterset press.
The dispute involves the work of crimping or bending the dycril plates
prior to their affixation to the press.
D. The basic facts
As noted above, Capital manufactures printing plates, which are
sold almost exclusively to Williams for use in printing presses. The
plates thus purchased by Williams are affixed to the presses, and the
presses are operated by Williams' employees. Capital and Williams
have their plant facilities in different areas of the same building.
In June 1964 Williams purchased and had installed a new Miehle
Goss double web 6-unit printing press3 which was first used on an
'Hereinafter called press No. 53 , a shorthand name given it by the Employer.
739-730-66-vol 152-57
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
experimental basis in November 1964 4 and was still used only experi-
mentally at the time of the hearing. In conjunction with this press,
Williams also purchased a crimping or bending device which bends
the two ends of the dycril plates, so that the plates may be fastened
to the press cylinder by placing the bent ends into a slot on the cylin-
der. Although the flat dycril plate is a finished product and usable
on the new press without prior bending, the crimping makes possible
an easier and more accurate placement of the plate to the press cyinder.
On November 4 Williams ordered a dycril plate from Capital for
use on press No. 53. Thereupon, Stereotypers' representatives
employed by Capital told Williams' Vice President Stiles that Stereo-
typers intended to have its members bend the dycril plates. Pressmen
President Carney joined the conversation and stated that the work
was within the Pressmen's jurisdiction and should be done by its
members. Following this, Stiles told Capital that Williams wanted
the dycril plates delivered flat. On November 11, at a meeting with
Capital and Williams officials, Stereotypers' President Cilberti reiter-
ated Stereotypers' jurisdictional claim and stated that "no one else had
better touch the plate after it left the electrotyper's hands." Never-
theless, Stiles confirmed that "Williams wanted the dycril plates deliv-
ered flat and ... would accept them in no other way," whereupon
Cilberti said that "Williams Press would have to suffer the conse-
quences of ... asking that the plates be delivered flat." By letter of
November 16,1964, Stereotypers again informed Capital and Williams
of its jurisdictional claim and stated that any contrary assignment of
the disputed work might result in a strike by the Stereotypers.
A meeting was held on November 27 between representatives of Cap-
ital, Williams, and the two Unions at which Stereotypers said they
would not permit the pressmen to bend the plates, and the Pressmen
stated they would not handle the plates if they were bent by electro-
typers. Stereotypers President Cilberti stated that a calculated risk
of strike existed if pressmen bent the plates. On November 30 the
electrotypers at Capital stopped work after Williams ordered two
dycril plates to be delivered flat. At a meeting later that day, Stereo-
typers' Cilberti said the reason for the stoppage was because the dycril
plates were being purchased flat in order that they be bent by Williams'
pressmen. Asked what would happen if the order for flat plates were
rescinded, Pressmen- President Carney said that pressmen would strike
if the bending was done by members of Stereotypers. The parties
thereafter agreed that, pending a determination by the Board, press-
men and electroplaters would alternate in performing the disputed
work.
4 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates are in 1964
ALBANY, TROY & VICINITY STEREOTYPERS', ETC., NO. 28 883
E. Contentions of the parties
The Employer and the Pressmen contend that the crimping opera-
tion falls within the Pressmen's jurisdiction for the following reasons :
(1) Pressmen's contract with Williams; (2) Employer's past practice
of assigning allegedly similar work; i.e., bending of tympan sheets,
to pressmen; (3) Pressmen's traditional jurisdiction over positioning
and registration, of which the disputed work is assertedly a part; (4)
fact that a flat dycril plate is a finished product which can be affixed
to the press without being bent; (5) greater efficiency and economy
with which pressmen claim they can do the work as an incident to their
other work; (6) adaptability of the bending device to a pin system of
registration, which the Board has held to be pressmen's work; 5 and
(7) Employer's assignment.
The Stereotypers' claim for the work is based on the following: (1)
Stereotypers' contract with Capital; (2) Employer's past practice;
(3) assertion that crimping is part of finishing the plates for the
presses; and (4) general industry practice.
F. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute pur-
suant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated.
The record shows that Stereotypers threatened to, and did in fact,
induce employees of Capital to cease work with an object of forcing
or requiring the Employer to assign the work of bending dycril plates
to employees represented by Stereotypers, rather than to Williams'
employees represented by Pressmen. Similarly, the record shows that
Pressmen threatened to strike Williams if the Employer assigned the
disputed work to Capital's employees represented by Stereotypers
rather than to Williams' employees represented by Pressmen. Accord-
and on the basis of the entire record, we find that there is reasonable
cause to believe that a violation has occurred and that the dispute is
properly before the Board for determination.
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of disputed work after giving due consideration to various
relevant factors. The following factors are asserted in support of
the claims of the parties herein :
1. Certification; contract
There is no evidence that either Union has been certified by the
Board. However, the Pressmen has a collective-bargaining agreement
with Williams and the Stereotypers has a contract with Capital.
5 Des Moines Electrotypera' Union No. 84, etc. (Meredith Publishing Company), 125
NLRB 391.
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Pressmen seeks to establish its right to the disputed work by
relying on the jurisdictional clause in its contract which states :
It is understood that the jurisdiction of this contract extends over
all printing presses including offset and letterpress printing
presses and associated devices....
The Pressmen contends that the crimping machine is an "associated
device" within the meaning of the contract, because : (1) It was pur-
chased as an accessory to press No. 53, (2) it is usable only in conjunc-
tion with press No. 53, and, (3) it is located approximately 31/9 feet
from press No. 53. However, the scope of the term "associated devices"'
as used in the contract is not spelled out either to include or exclude
any definite and recognizable device. As such, the term cannot be con-
sidered an assignment of the specific work here involved. Nor is the
location of the machine of significance, since it is movable though
heavy.
The Stereotypers contends that its contract with Capital 6 gives it
jurisdiction over the work of bending of dycril plates. It asserts that
the bending is merely the last step in the making and processing of
the dycril plate.
The record clearly shows that the dycril plate constitutes a complete
and finished product without first being crimped. For the plate, in its
flat form, can be attached to the press cylinder by several means other
than crimping. The crimping process merely facilitates and makes
more accurate the process of affixing the plate to the presses. Thus,
we find no merit in Stereotypers' contention that the process of crimp-
ing dycril plates is covered by the contract granting it jurisdiction
over "all work ... required ... for the manufacture of relief printing
plates for printing press, viz: Dycril . . ." as well as work connected
with the "completion" and "finishing" of such plates. Accordingly,
neither the Pressmen's nor the Stereotypers' contract is determinative
of the instant dispute.
e Section 3 of the Stereotypers ' contract provides as follows:
The jurisdiction of this Union shall include . . . all methods of printing plate-
making and processing . . . also all duplication and reproduction processes requir-
ing the use of synthetic and photosensitive materials and their related machinery,
regardless of the location of such platemaking equipment in the Williams Press
Building
. . The finishing including all color registration , pre-making ready, pre -register-
ing and every process or operation for the perfecting and completing such plates
or reproductions for printing and other purposes shall be done by members of Albany
Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers Union , Local No. 28.
All work that is required for any photosensitive process for the manufacture of
relief printing plates for printing presses , viz: Dycril . . . plus the completion and
preparation of such work and the manning of all machines required to produce all
photo-sensitive and relief printing plates shall be the work of the members of this
Union The Capital Electrotype Company , Inc. shall not execute a contract at any
time granting jurisdiction of the aforementioned work and processes to any other
group or Labor Union.
. . [The] finishing . . . and every process for the completion of such plates
described in the preceding paragraph shall be done by Electrotype finishers . . . .
ALBANY, TROY & VICINITY STEREOTYPERS', ETC., NO. 2S SS5
2. Company, area, and industry practice
The Stereotypers claims the work on the basis of the Company's past
practice. The Employer had made use of dycril plates for several
years prior to acquiring the press No. 53. These plates were used
largely on an experimental basis and were processed and crimped by
Capital's electrotypers. The record indicates that over a period of 18
months, only 20 to 25 dycril plates were bent by electrotypers and that
the total time consumed in bending all of these plates during this
18-month period amounted to approximately 50 minutes. In these
circumstances we are unable to say that an Employer practice of assign-
ing the disputed work to electrotypers has been established.
Both the Employer and the Pressmen contend that the crimping
operation here in dispute is similar to that involved in bending tympan
sheets, an operation which Williams' pressmen have been performing
for some 12 years. While there are obvious physical differences
between tympan sheets and dycril plates, the mechanics and the pur-
poses of the bending operation are very similar. Thus the purpose of
the bending is to facilitate and insure the more accurate attachment of
the plates or sheets to the presses.
3. Efficiency of operation
Both disputants claim to possess the necessary skill in operating the
bending machine. The record indicates that both pressmen and elec-
trotypers have been trained in its operation.
The bending machine is located 31/2 to 4 feet from press No. 53 and
about 225 feet from the area in which Capital's electrotypers work.
Representatives of the Employer and Pressmen testified that the bend
on dycril plates is easily damaged in handling, making it necessary
that they be rebent, and that there is real clanger of such damage when
the plates are carried between the work area of Capital and Williams.
When a plate does not fit properly on the press cylinder because of
damage to the crimp, the entire press must be stopped. If a pressman
does the bending, he can put the damaged plate on the bending machine
adjacent to the press, recrimp the plate, and replace it on the cylinder;
if an electrotyper does the bending, the four pressmen must wait while
an electrotyper is summoned to the press from the Capital work area.
Williams' Vice President Stiles estimated that the total man-hours
required to perform the bending in issue would amount to 24 minutes
per day if press No. 53, which uses 12 plates, were plated once a day.
Furthermore, as noted above, the bending operation is not essential
to finishing the plates for the presses; it is merely a more accurate and
more efficient method of preparing the plate for affixation to the
886 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
presses. As such, the bending operation is incidental to the function
of attaching the plates to the presses, a function which has been per-
formed traditionally by pressmen. It appears, therefore, that this
work can be done more efficiently and economically by pressmen in con-
junction with their regular work of operating the presses.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the entire record, we
shall assign the work in dispute to Williams' pressmen. They have
performed similar work to the satisfaction of the Employer. And, as
the work consumes but a very small portion of each workday, it can
be performed more efficiently and economically as an incident to the
positioning and registration work normally done by pressmen. Under
these circumstances, we conclude that the Employer's assignment of
the work to the pressmen should not be disturbed. We shall, accord-
ingly, determine the existing jurisdictional dispute by deciding that
pressmen, rather than electrotypers, are entitled to the work in dispute.
In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to
the employees of Williams who are represented by Pressmen but not
to that Union or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record in the proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees engaged as printing pressmen, currently represented
by Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local No. 23,
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to bend the dycril plates and to oper-
ate the machine for bending such plates where the purpose of the bend-
ing operation is to facilitate attaching the plates to the presses.
2. Albany, Troy and Vicinity Stereotypers' Union, Local No. 28,
International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8 (b)
(4) (D) to force or require Capital Electrotype Company, Inc., to
assign the work in dispute to employees engaged as electrotypers who
are currently represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Albany, Troy and Vicinity Stereotypers' and Electro-
typers' Union, Local No. 28. International Stereotypers' and Electro-
typers' Union of North America, shall notify the regional Director
TWIN CITY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 887
for Region 3, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing
or requiring Capital Electrotype Company, Inc., by means proscribed
by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to electrotypers
rather than to printing pressmen.
Twin City Carpenters District Council of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO [August
Cederstrand Company] and Archie L. Anderson . Case No.
18-CB-230. May 26,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 15, 1965, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the com-
plaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner , and orders that
the complaint herein be , and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
'We adopt the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that the complaint herein should be dis-
missed. In our opinion , the evidence on the record falls short of establishing that
Williams was in fact acting in his capacity as steward when he engendered the "unrest"
among the employees leading to Anderson's discharge.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case, heard in Minneapolis , Minnesota , on January 25 and 26, 1965,1 before
Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel, pursuant to a charge filed the preceding October 7
1 All other dates herein refer to the year 1964, unless otherwise noted.
152 NLRB No. 102.