Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 963 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16, AFL-CIO 963
it has been shown that Fa.lley's action varied from that of the other
Respondents, which has previously been found permissible. Nor does
Falley's use of the word "retaliatory" to describe his action change
the character of that action.'
accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
7 Cf. Safeway Stores, Incorporated.. 148 NLRB 660, where the Board held that threats
violative of Section 8(a)(1) did not change the defensive character of a lockout.
Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 , AFL-CIO and Neely Print-
ing Company , Inc.' Case No. 13-CD-156. November 16, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
• This is a proceedin g under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Neely Print-
ing Company , Inc., herein called the Company , on December 28, 1964,.
alleging that; Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Respondent Union, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (d) of the
Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forc-
ing or requiring the Company to assign certain offset preparatory
work to employees represented by the Respondent Union rather than
to employees represented by Franklin Union No. 4 , affiliated with the
International Printing Pressmen and assistants' Union of North
America , AFL-CIO, herein called Franklin Union. Pursuant, to
notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert P. Hender-
son from June 14 through 1.7, 1965. Franklin Union was permitted
to intervene in the proceeding . All parties appeared at the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues..
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties filed briefs and
they have been duly considered.
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 [C .hairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
I The name of the Company appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
155 NLRB No. 98.
212-809-6 6-vol. 15 5-0 2
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the
following findings :
1. The business of the Company
The parties stipulated that the Company, an Illinois corporation
with plant and office facilities in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the
commercial printing business; that in 1964, a representative period,
its gross volume of business exceeded $500,000, and that in the same
period it received material valued in excess of $50,000 at its Chicago
plant directly from points outside the State of Illinois. Accordingly,
we find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Respondent Union and
Franklin Union are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute
A. Background
The jurisdictional dispute herein is limited to the "stripping" or
taping of film negatives onto a paper carrier and the tasks involved
in transferring the film images by means of an are light onto presensi-
tized metal plates for use on the Company's offet printing presses. The
negatives used for this purpose are produced by a bright type camera
which photographs conventional galley type. This camera, which is
located in the Company's composing room, is operated by members
of the Respondent Union. There is no dispute over the performance
of this camera work by typographers.
The negatives produced by the bright type camera are taken to the
Company's job pressroom where employees represented by Franklin
Union perform the "stripping" and platemaking operations which
are here in dispute. Before proceeding with this work, the pressroom
foreman may occasionally require a prelineup sheet to assure compli-
ance with the specifications of a particular printing job. The pre-
lineup sheet, which determines trim and the location of headings and
margins, is used by the "strippers" as a guide in the placement of
negatives on the paper carrier. These sheets are produced by typog-
raphers as part of the composing room operation. There is no dispute
over the assignment of this work to typographers, although as dis-
cussed in greater detail below, the Respondent Union did process a
grievance concerning the small amount of such work these employees
CHICAGi) TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16, AFL-CIO 965
had been given to do. Moreover , the typographers ' refusal to furnish
these prelineup sheets precipitated the filing of charges herein, alleg-
ing a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D ) of the Act.
On October 1, 1964, the Company acquired the first of its two "MGD
Duplicators ," a type of offset printing press. These presses are located
in the Company 's job pressroom . In the pressroom and in close prox-
imity to these presses , the Company established a small darkroom
where the "stripping " and platemaking operations are carried out by
the pressroom employees represented by Franklin Union.
Oil being advised that the Company contemplated the introduction
of offset presses , Fred Hunt , Jr., president of the Respondent Union,
telephoned company officials to protest the assignment of "stripping"
and plateinaking to pressmen and to claim this work on behalf of the
typographers . ' I'liese conversations , and a subsequent conversation
with George M. Houlihan , secretary and general manager of the
Franklin Association of Chicago , the employer association which rep-
resents the Company in matters of collective bargaining with the
unions here involved , failed to resolve the dispute over the Company's
assignment . They led, however , to a meeting of the Industrial Com-
mission" on 'November 24 , 1964. This Commission was established
by the collective -bargaining agreement between the Franklin Associa-
tion and the Respondent Union as a step in the grievance procedure
immediately preceding formal arbitration.2
Discussion at this meeting, which was attended by representatives
of the Assocint ion. the Company , and the Respondent Union, ranged
freely and included matters which were collateral to the Company's
work assignment here in dispute . Specifically , discussion also included
a grievance of the Respondent Union to the effect that all "stripping"
of bright type negatives onto the paper carrier should proceed only
after a lineup guide is furnished the "stripper ." As previously stated,
this lineup wN^orlc is performed by typographers . In the course of this
meeting , dnrin^; which both grievances were discussed intermittently,
Lester Schlossberg, chairman of the Respondent Union's scale com-
inittee , allegedly tlireatened to stop all lineup work in connection with
t.lie Coinpaiiv's ot1'set printing operation . The meeting adjourned with-
out agreement on the disposition of either grievance.
On Toveinlier ?a, 196 1, 1 day after the meeting of the Industrial
Commissinl ;, Robert Carlson , a member of the Respondent Union who
is regularly a -- i tried lineup work , refused to produce a prelineup sheet
for offset use when one was ordered. by the foreman of the job press-
room. The official status of this work stoppage was ascertained by
2 In view of on, holding in this case , we find it unnecessary to determine as the Respond-
ent Union asserts, that Franklin Union was bound , under its agreement with the Associ-
ation , to submit the dispute herein to a form of tripartite arbitration.
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nick Pampenella, general foreman of the composing room and a mem-
ber of the Respondent Union, in subsequent conversations with Hunt,
the Union's president, and Carlton Stoebig, the chapel chairman. On
that occasion, Pampanella produced the required prelineup sheet.
Between November 25, 1964, and January 4, 1965, this work was per-
formed either by pressroom employees or by others, outside the Com-
pany's plant.
On January 4, 1965, Hunt sent a letter to the Board representative
who was investigating the charges herein, stating that the chapel chair-
man had been instructed to advise typographical employees to perform
the aforementioned lineup work. He also telephoned W. S. Woolsey,
president of the Company, and informed him that the typographers
would accept any lineup work given them. Thereafter, the Company
met with the Respondent Union and the latter's grievance over the
production of lineup work was resolved. No work stoppage or threat
thereof is alleged to have occurred since January 4, 1965.
B. Contentions of the parties
Both unions advance various reasons why "stripping" and plate-
making should be awarded to the employees they represent. The Com-
pany's position is in accord with that of Franklin Union. The
Respondent Union also contends, among other things, that the notice
of hearing in this case should be quashed, as there is no evidence to
show that it or any of its agents engaged in conduct violative of Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act.
C. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute pursuant
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. To satisfy
this requirement, it is not enough to show that two competing groups-
of employees make claim to the same work assignment or that there
has been a concerted work stoppage by the employees themselves.
Under the language of Section 8(b) (4) (D), the evidence must relate
to illegal conduct or speech by the Respondent Union or its repre-
sentatives.3 For the reasons stated below, we are unable to conclude
that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent Union
engaged in unlawful activity in asserting its claim to the disputed
work assignment.
The Company alleges that the Respondent Union unlawfully threat-
ened to stop production of prelineup sheets in pressing its claim with
respect to "stripping" and platemaking. This allegation is based on
the incident which occurred at the November 24 grievance meeting.
8 International Union of Operatinq Engineers, Local 106, AFL-CIO (Northeastern Line
Constructors Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association ), 137 NLRB 1746, 1751.
CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16, AFL-CIO 967
Houlihan, who represented the employer Association, testified that
after claiming the disputed work assignment,
... the union informed us this was their jurisdiction; they were
either going to do it all or none of it. I asked them what they
meant by that, and Mr. Schlossberg said, "You might not get
any lineups." .. .
At the meeting, the parties admittedly discussed collateral grievances,
and this same incident was described by Hubert B. Nelson, comptroller
of the Company, as having occurred in an entirely different context.
In short, he testified that the alleged threat was made immediately
after a discussion of the Union's grievances over lineup work.4 The
Company's allegation of an unlawful threat rests entirely upon the
testimony of Houlihan and Nelson. The Respondent Union asserts
1 hat any alleged threat related solely to its grievance regarding lineup
work and not to the Company's work assignment here in dispute.
The Company also alleges that in carrying out its threat, as demon-
strated by Carlson's refusal to produce a prelineup sheet on the day
following the aforementioned grievance meeting, the Respondent
Union engaged in further unlawful conduct. The Respondent Union
again asserts that this refusal was occasioned solely by the grievance
over lineup work. The record shows that on November 25,1964, Carl-
son, a member of the Respondent Union, refused to furnish the fore-
man of the job pressroom a prelineup sheet, in accordance with instruc-
tions Carlson received from Stoebig, his chapel chairman. Carlson
gave no reason for his refusal to produce the required work. Pam-
penella, Carlson's supervisor, testified that he subsequently telephoned
Hunt, president of the Respondent Union, concerning this incident.
Hunt confirmed the official status of the work stoppage and advised
him: "if we cannot do it all, we. will not do anything at all at this
time." [Emphasis supplied.] When questioned as to his understand-
ing of what Hunt meant by "all," Pampenella stated :
Well, if I remember correctly, in some instances management felt
that some sheets do not need to be pre-lined. And there were
some that were required to be pre-lined. And that is the reason.
Thereafter, Pampenella spoke to Stoebig. The latter, according to
Pampenella's testimony, believed that "we should be doing all the
sheets."
4 Excerpts from Nelson 's testimony:
Q. Can you tell us what was said before and what was said after Dtr. Schlossberg's
remarks and by whom 9
A. I mentioned that I don ' t remember what was said after because it was accepted
as it was apparently given. What was said before was a discussion of all the facts
relating to lineup and whether or not all should be lined up or none or some or what.
[Emphasis supplied.]
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
William Behrens, plant superintendent, testified that in addition to,
the November 25 incident, Carlson refused to perform lineup work on
three other occasions. On the third such occasion, Carlson allegedly
told Behrens: "Unless we get all the preparatory work we can't get
the lineup." However, no adequate foundation was established as
to when this remark was made or the circumstances surrounding its
utterance. Accordingly, we find that this one isolated remark allegedly
made by Carlson falls short of establishing an unlawful union
objective.
On balance, and after consideration of all the relevant evidence,
we find that the threat and the refusal to perform the required lineup
work can be attributed to considerations other than the jurisdictional
dispute here involved. Moreover, whatever doubt may have arisen
regarding the motive for the conduct here in question appears to have
been dispelled by subsequent events. On January 4,1965, the Respond-
ent Union formally instructed its members to perform whatever
lineup work is occasionally required by the Company, and, by Febru-
ary 1965, the grievance over lineup work was entirely resolved. While
the Respondent Union persists in its claim with respect to "stripping"
and platemaking, no threat or work stoppage is thereafter alleged to
have occurred. Under these circumstances, we deem the record evi-
dence too vague and insubstantial to support the necessary finding
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section
8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act has occurred. We therefore conclude that the
Board is without authority to determine this dispute. Accordingly,
we shall quash the notice of hearing issued herein.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
Local 1 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO and Sundermeyer Painting Co., Inc. ' Case No. 14-CD-190.
November 16, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Sundermeyer
Painting Co., Inc., herein called Sundermeyer, on January 7, 1965,
and amended on February 5, 1965, alleging that Local 1, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Respondent Local, has violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by
engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
' The name of the Company appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
155 NLRB No. 97.