Graphic Communications Local 458-3M (American Bank Note Co.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1994

314 N.L.R.B. 897 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

897
314 NLRB No. 149
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 458–3M (AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO.)
1 The Respondent Union, GCIU Local 458–3M, was created by
merging the previously separate litho and bindery local unions.
2 Pursuant to a 1989 supplemental agreement to the collective-bar-
gaining agreement between the Employer and the Typographical
Union, the Employer, in its discretion, agreed to assign employees
represented by the Typographical Union to work on the Purup sys-
tem and guaranteed lifetime employment for seven Typographical
Union employees named in that agreement.
3 It is unncessary to resolve the above conflicts in testimony.
While the above witnesses disagree as to the terms of the work as-
signment, they all agree that an assignment of work was made.
Graphic Communications International Union, Chi-
cago Local 458–3M AFL–CIO and American
Bank Note Company and Chicago Typo-
graphical Union No. 16/CWA No. 14408. Case
13–CD–494
August 26, 1994
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS
AND DEVANEY
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed March 31, 1994 by the Employer, alleging that
the Respondent, Graphics Communications Inter-
national Union Local 458–3M (GCIU) violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by en-
gaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing
the Employer to assign certain work to employees it
represents rather than to employees represented by
Chicago Typographical Union No. 16/CWA No. 14408
(Typographical Union). The hearing was held April 8,
1994 before Hearing Officer Richard Kelliher-Paz.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire
record, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture of security documents at its Bed-
ford Park, Illinois facility, where it annually ships
goods valued in excess of $50,000 to customers lo-
cated outside the State of Illinois. The parties stipu-
lated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
the Act and that the GCIU and the Typographical
Union are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer produces printed security documents
at its Bedford Park plant, which includes food stamps
for the United States Government, travelers checks,
stocks and bonds, car titles, and currency for foreign
governments. The Employer is party to contracts with
both the GCIU and the Typographical Union. There
are two contracts with the GCIU; one covers 27 litho
prepress employees and litho pressmen and the other
covers 220 bindery employees.1 The contract with the
Typographical Union covers four employees.
The Employer’s current printing system is the Purup
system, which is a desktop printing system. The Purup
system can set type and design a nonprocess color
printing job by rearranging component text or design
features. The Purup system produces film and not
plates, it is not readily transferable to Macintosh, it
cannot scan in Optical Character Recognition (OCR),
it cannot process color, and it cannot be connected by
modem to any other machines at other locations. The
Purup system is also incapable of performing four-
color process work. Work on the Purup system cur-
rently is performed by employees of the Employer rep-
resented by both Unions.2
In February 1994, the Employer’s assistant general
manager, Ronald Michi, informed representatives of
both unions of its intention to install an AGFA com-
puter terminal at its Bedford Park facility. The AGFA
system is a component of a desktop printing system.
In addition to all the functions that the Purup system
performs, the AGFA system also scans OCR text,
scans four-color process printing, makes plates, and is
capable of being connected to any other computer in
any other location. A significant difference from the
Purup system is that the AGFA system is capable of
four-color process work.
On February 14, 1994, Steven Berman, president of
the Typographical Union, met with Michi and the Em-
ployer’s human resources manager, Maryann Owen, to
discuss the assignment of work on the AGFA system.
The testimony regarding what was said at that meeting
is conflicting. Both Michi and Owen testified that at
that meeting, Michi informed Berman that the Em-
ployer was awarding the work on the AGFA system to
the GCIU, but that the GCIU might agree to share ju-
risdiction with the Typographical Union. Michi and
Owen also testified that Berman claimed jurisdiction
over the AGFA system for the Typographical Union.
Berman, however, testified that Michi did not tell him
that the work was being awarded to the GCIU, but
rather, testified that Michi informed him that work on
the AGFA system would be divided between the em-
ployees represented by both Unions.3
On March 28, 1994, the GCIU, in a letter sent by
President Charles Timmel, informed Michi that it be-
898 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 Graphic Communications Local 109 (Courier-Citizen Co.), 223
NLRB 309 (1991).
5 Laborers Local 731 (Slattery Associates), 298 NLRB 787 (1990);
Laborers (O’Connell’s Sons), 288 NLRB 53 (1988); Sheet Metal
Workers Local 107 (Lathrop Co.), 276 NLRB 1200 (1985); Car-
penters Local 1207 (Carlton Inc.), 313 NLRB 71 (1993).
lieved that the AGFA work fell within the GCIU’s ju-
risdiction. In a subsequent telephone conversation be-
tween Timmel and Michi, Timmel stated that unless
the AGFA work was assigned to employees of the Em-
ployer represented by the GCIU, he would not permit
other employees of the Employer represented by the
GCIU (i.e., the 27 employees under the litho contract
and the 220 employees under the bindery contract) to
handle or complete the processing of material produced
on the AGFA system (i.e., film or plates). At the date
of the hearing, the Employer had not yet installed the
AGFA computer terminal nor had it set a definite tar-
get date for its installation. The parties stipulated that
both Unions claim the work in dispute.
B. Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the operation of the
AGFA computerized image-processing system by the
employees of American Bank Note Company at its fa-
cility located at 5858 West 73rd Street, Bedford Park,
Illinois.
C. Contention of the Parties
The Employer contends that a jurisdictional dispute
is properly before the Board, noting that where, as
here, an employer has made a formal assignment of
work, it is no bar to a jurisdictional dispute that the
work has not commenced or has been completed. The
Employer states that GCIU threatened to stop all pro-
duction at the plant by stating that the GCIU would
not permit any employees of the Employer represented
by it to handle or process any material produced on the
AGFA system (i.e., film or plates) unless such work
was performed by employees represented by the
GCIU. Thus, the Employer contends, this threat of a
work stoppage provides reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of Sec. 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. Fi-
nally, the Employer contends that the factors of em-
ployer preference and past practice, industry practice,
relative skills and the work involved, efficiency of op-
erations, and loss of jobs compel an award of the work
to the employees represented by the GCIU.
The GCIU contends that the Board’s decision in
Communications Workers Local 11-C (Rosenthal &
Co.), 312 NLRB 531 (1993), is factually similar to the
dispute here and supports an award of the work to the
GCIU. The GCIU argues that the following factors
fully support an award of the work to the employees
represented by the GCIU: collective-bargaining agree-
ments, employer preference and past practice, area and
industry practice, relative skills, economy and effi-
ciency of operations, and potential employment impact.
The Typographical Union contends that the Board
should not assert jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10(k)
of the Act because there is no evidence that the Em-
ployer is faced with a strike threat over its con-
templated assignment of the work in dispute. It argues
that the Employer is attempting to use the Board’s
processes to avoid meeting with it and possibly arbi-
trating the issue of the assignment of the work under
the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. Finally,
the Typographical Union argues that there is no con-
tractual basis for the Board to determine that the GCIU
has exclusive jurisdiction over certain phases of the
operation of the AGFA system (i.e., typesetting or
proofreading), because this has been within the exclu-
sive jurisdiction of the Typographical Union. Thus, it
contends that the AGFA system is essentially a re-
placement of the Purup system, and therefore jurisdic-
tion over the new system should be shared in the same
manner as the old system.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that
the parties have not agreed on a method for the vol-
untary adjustment of the dispute.
At the outset, we acknowledge that the work in dis-
pute has not commenced. It is well-established, how-
ever, that once an employer, as here, makes a formal
assignment of that work, the fact that the work has not
commenced does not bar the Board from deciding the
jurisdictional dispute.4 Further, as described above, in
a telephone conversation between Charles Timmel,
president of the GCIU, and Ronald Michi, the Employ-
er’s assistant general manager, Timmel informed Michi
that if the work in dispute were not assigned to the
employees represented by the GCIU, other employees
represented by the GCIU would not complete the proc-
essing of any material produced on the AGFA sys-
tem—action which would effectively halt all the Em-
ployer’s production. There is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has oc-
curred if a labor organization that represents employees
who are assigned the disputed work threaten to strike
or otherwise coerces an employer to continue such an
assignment.5
We find reasonable cause to believe that a violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and, as stipulated
by the parties, there exists no agreed method for vol-
untary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of
Section 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the
dispute is properly before the Board for determination.
899GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 458–3M (AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO.)
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of the disputed work after consid-
ering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers
IBEW Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S.
573 (1961). The Board has held that its determination
in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based
on common sense and experience, reached by bal-
ancing the factors involved in a particular case. Ma-
chinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction), 135
NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of this dispute.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
There is no claim that the Board has certified either
the GCIU or the Typographical Union as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of any of the Employer’s
employees.
The Employer is a member of the Chicago Lithog-
raphers Association, an employer organization author-
ized to bargain on behalf of the Employer. The collec-
tive-bargaining agreement between the Chicago Li-
thographers Association and the GCIU, effective by its
terms from May 1, 1990 to April 30, 1996, encom-
passes ‘‘all work, processes and operations directly re-
lated to Lithography or Offset Printing’’ and includes
‘‘any technological change, evolution or substitution
for any work, process, or operation’’ used in litho-
graphic printing and any ‘‘new or improved machines
or processes for lithographic production work.’’ The
collective-bargaining agreement between the Typo-
graphical Union and the Employer (including the sup-
plemental agreement), effective by its terms from June
7, 1992 to June 6, 1995, covers typesetting and proof-
reading and includes ‘‘any process, machinery or
equipment . . . used as an evolution or substitute for
current processes, machinery or equipment.’’ Thus, the
language of both collective-bargaining agreements cov-
ers aspects of the work in dispute. We find that this
factor does not favor either employees represented by
the GCIU or the Typographical Union and is neutral.
2. Employer preference and past practice
The preference of the Employer is to assign the
work in dispute to employees who are members of the
GCIU. Michi testified that the assignment of the work
in dispute to members of the GCIU is consistent with
the Employer’s previous assignment of AGFA work at
its Horsham, Pennsylvania facility to members of the
GCIU. Michi also testified that the GCIU operates a
training school and that their members are familiar
with the materials produced by the AGFA system. We
find that this factor favors an award of the disputed
work to the employees represented by the GCIU.
3. Area and industry practice
Michi testified that members of the GCIU are tradi-
tionally assigned to handle the four-color process work
produced by conventional printing methods and that
the AGFA system produces four-color process work.
In addition, GCIU business representative, Lawrence
Jankowski, testified that an understanding has been
reached within the Chicago Lithographic Association
(the employer association to which the Employer be-
longs and which negotiated the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Employer and the GCIU) that
desktop publishing technology (including prepress
functions performed on a Macintosh computer) is with-
in the contractual definition of lithographic production
work. Jankowski also identified 10 other employers
(some of which are members of the Chicago Litho-
graphic Association and also party to the same collec-
tive-bargaining agreement as the Employer) at which
the GCIU represents lithographic production units and
where it is undisputed that GCIU’s jurisdiction in-
cludes desktop publishing technology. We find that
this factor favors an award of the disputed work to the
employees represented by the GCIU.
4. Relative skills
The AGFA system has not been installed at the Em-
ployer’s facility, nor has the Employer initiated any
type of training program for the system. The AGFA
system is similar to the existing Purup system in that
both systems consist of computer terminals which uti-
lize a keyboard and mouse through which operators of
the system input or retrieve the data used to produce
images. However, Michi testified that the employees
who are members of the GCIU are more skilled in the
handling of color and ‘‘dot pattern’’ material which
will be produced by the AGFA system. Moreover,
Michi further testified that the Employer is paying into
the GCIU training school and that no similar program
is presently in place for members of the Typographical
Union. We find that this factor also favors an award
of the disputed work to the employees represented by
the GCIU.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
Michi testified that the reason that the AGFA sys-
tem is being installed at the Bedford Park facility is
that it will be able to access, by the use of a modem,
archival material from the Horsham, Pennsylvania
AGFA mainframe, thus avoiding costly and duplicative
production design and typesetting at Bedford Park. It
would be more efficient for GCIU members at Bedford
Park to coordinate the transfer of data on the AGFA
system with GCIU members at Horsham who are as-
signed to work on the AGFA system. In addition,
GCIU members at Horsham, who are already assigned
to work on the AGFA system, would be able to train
900 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GCIU members at the Bedford Park facility on that
system. We find that this factor also favors an award
of the disputed work to the employees represented by
the GCIU.
6. Arbitration awards
The GCIU and the Typographical Union submitted
arbitration awards into the record which involve the
award of desktop publishing work to each union re-
spectively. We find that this factor is neutral.
7. Loss of jobs
Michi testified that if the work in dispute were as-
signed to the Typographical Union, up to two employ-
ees represented by the GCIU could be laid off. If,
however, the work in dispute were assigned to the
GCIU, there would be no adverse employment impact.
Michi also testified that the Employer currently does
not intend for the AGFA system to replace the Purup
system (on which the Typographical Union employees
work). Thus the employment of the Typographical
Union members would not be affected. Moreover, the
1989 agreement between the Employer and the Typo-
graphical Union guarantees lifetime employment for
the Typographical Union employees. We find that this
factor favors an award of the work in dispute to the
employees represented by the GCIU.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we con-
clude that employees represented by the GCIU are en-
titled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying on employer preference and past
practice, area and industry practice, relative skills, effi-
ciency and economy of operations, and loss of jobs. In
making this determination, we are awarding the work
to employees represented by the GCIU, not to that
Union or its members. The determination is limited to
the controversy that gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the fol-
lowing Determination of Dispute.
Employees represented by Graphic Communications
International Union, Chicago Local 458–3M AFL–CIO
are entitled to perform the operation of the AGFA
computerized image-processing system by the employ-
ees of American Bank Note Company at its facility lo-
cated at 5858 West 73rd Street, Bedford Park, Illinois.