Graphic Communications Local 732-C (Haddon Craftsmen)Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 30, 1992308 N.L.R.B. 1190 (N.L.R.B. 1992) Copy Citation 1190 308 NLRB No. 175 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent dates shall be in 1991. Bloomsburg Graphic Communications Union, Local No. 732-C and Haddon Craftsmen, Inc. and Local 97B, Graphic Communications Inter- national Union. Case 4–CD–823 September 30, 1992 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND OVIATT The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed December 11, 1991, by Haddon Craftsmen, the Employer, alleging that the Respondent, Local 732-C, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Re- lations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by Local 97B. The hearing was held March 9–10, 1992, before Hearing Officer Richard P. Heller. The National Relations Board has delegated its au- thority 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 Employer, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sulli- van Graphics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, manufac- tures hard-cover and soft-cover books at several facili- ties, including facilities in Scranton and Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. During the calendar year preceding the hearing, the Employer purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points out- side the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The parties stipulate, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Local 732-C and Local 97B are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute For at least 50 years, Local 97B has represented bindery workers at the Employer’s Scranton plant, which is engaged primarily in binding printed pages into hard-cover and soft-cover books. At one time the Employer also printed books at the Scranton plant, but ceased doing so in about 1976. Article 1, section 3 of the current collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and Local 97B describes the bargaining unit as ‘‘employees in the Bindery Department work- ing on binding processes and all other operations inci- dental to Bindery materials and products.’’ Other unions represent other units of employees at the Scranton plant, and article 13 of the agreement be- tween the Employer and Local 97B provides that: upon the initial firm commitment of the installa- tion of new equipment . . . the Company will no- tify in writing those Unions involved who will upon notification meet in joint discussion with the Company to resolve the jurisdictional problem that might be involved concerning the operation of said piece or pieces of equipment. Article 13 further provides that if the Employer and the competing unions are unable to resolve conflicting claims, then the Employer is free to assign the work to the union it prefers, with the competing unions re- taining the right to grieve the assignment of the work. Since 1966, Local 732-C has represented employees at the Employer’s Bloomsburg plant, located about 60 miles from Scranton and used by the Employer pri- marily to print books. The current collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and Local 732-C de- scribes the bargaining unit as ‘‘all production and maintenance employees employed at the Bloomsburg plant.’’ In January 1991,1 Sullivan Graphics informed the Employer of plans to transfer a binder line, used in bookbinding, from another plant to Bloomsburg. Three machines, a binder, a gatherer, and a trimmer, com- prise the binder line, and three skilled and six to eight unskilled workers are required to operate it. The binder line arrived in Bloomsburg on January 31. On Feb- ruary 26, Local 97B filed a grievance contending that placement of the binder line in Bloomsburg violated articles 1 and 13 of its agreement with the Employer. Local 97B demanded that the Employer move the equipment to the Scranton plant and assign the work of operating the binder line to employees it represents. When the Employer denied the grievance, the parties arbitrated it, and on October 17, the arbitrator’s award issued. The arbitrator found nothing in the Local 97B agreement to prevent the Employer from locating the binder line at the Bloomsburg plant and ordered the Employer to comply with article 13 by meeting with Locals 97B and 732-C to discuss which Union’s rep- resented employees would be assigned to operate the binder line. The Employer tried unsuccessfully to arrange such a meeting with representatives of Local 97B and Local 732-C. The Employer installed the binder line at the Bloomsburg plant, completing the process about De- cember 9. On December 4, Local 732-C’s president, Liddick, wrote to the Employer disputing the arbitrator’s au- thority to order Local 732-C to participate in a meeting 1191GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 732-C (HADDON CRAFTSMEN) 2 Local 732-C did not take an official strike vote, and its contract prohibits it from engaging in strikes or other work stoppages during the contract’s term. 3 No party contends that Local 732-C is bound by the Local 97B/Employer arbitration discussed above. with Local 97B to resolve jurisdictional claims and re- fusing to discuss the work assignment. Liddick further stated that Local 732-C’s agreement with the Employer required that employees operating the bindery line be represented by Local 732-C. In addition, Local 732-C’s membership authorized Liddick to inform the Em- ployer that Local 732-C would take ‘‘strike action’’ if employees it represents were not assigned the work.2 On December 9, Liddick wrote the Employer that [w]e understand Local 97B in Scranton, PA is claiming bindery work at Bloomsburg Craftsmen. This is our work; and if it is not assigned to our Local 732-C Bloomsburg Craftsmen, we plan on taking strike action. On February 4, 1992, the arbitrator issued a new deci- sion in which he concluded employees represented by Local 97B should operate the binder line at the Bloomsburg plant, based on articles 1 and 13 of Local 97B’s agreement with the Employer. The Employer has filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking to vacate the arbitrator’s award. B. Work in Dispute The work in dispute is the operation of the equip- ment comprising a binder line, which binds hard-cover and soft-cover books at the Employer’s plant in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. C. Contentions of the Parties Local 97B moves that the notice of hearing be quashed because no reasonable cause exists to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. It argues that Local 732-C’s president, Liddick’s, December 9 letter stated only that Local 732-C would take a strike vote if the work were not assigned to its members and was a sham threat intended only to invoke the Board’s ju- risdiction, and that the Employer generated the dispute by placing the binder line in Bloomsburg, a printing plant at which it had not previously bound books, and thus is faced with a dispute of its own making. Local 97B further contends that if the Board denies its mo- tion to quash, the disputed work should be awarded to employees it represents on the basis of the factors of collective-bargaining agreements; past practice; train- ing, experience, and skills; and safety. The Employer contends that there is reasonable cause to believe that Local 732-C violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) and that a genuine work dispute exists in that Local 732-C threatened to strike if the Employer assigned the operation of the binder line to Local 97B and neither Union has disclaimed the disputed work; that its collective-bargaining agreement with Local 732-C covers the work; and that the factors of em- ployer preference, industry practice, and economy and efficiency of operations favor an award of the work to employees represented by Local 732-C. Local 732-C contends that the Board should deny Local 97B’s motion to quash the notice of hearing be- cause a genuine work dispute and reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated exist, noting that Local 97B has claimed the work through a grievance culminating in an arbitration award, that it reiterated its own claim to the work at the hearing, and that it has notified the Employer that it will strike if the work is reassigned to Local 97B. Local 732-C con- tends further that the arbitrator is without authority to make an award binding on Local 732-C; that the work is covered by the unit description in its contract with the Employer; that the factors of Board certification and collective-bargaining agreements, employer pref- erence, requisite skills, economy and efficiency of op- eration, and area practice favor award of the work to Local 732-C. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determination of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that reasonable cause exists to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that the parties have not agreed on a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. The parties have stipulated that there is no agreed- upon method for voluntary adjustment of the work dis- pute.3 In addition, we find that reasonable cause exists to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has oc- curred. In this regard, we disagree with Local 97B that, because Local 732-C had not voted to strike when Liddick sent the December 9 letter, its threat to take strike action if the work were reassigned to employees represented by Local 97B was a sham. We note that at the hearing and in its brief Local 732-C reiterated its threat to strike if the work is reassigned, and noted in its brief that it would have no alternative but to strike if the work were reassigned because the griev- ance-arbitration provision of its contract with the Em- ployer is not binding on Local 97B. Under these cir- cumstances, we find that the reasonable cause standard has been met. Thus, we find that the parties have no agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) and that there is reason- able cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. Accordingly, we find that the 1192 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 Local 97B argues that no genuine jurisdictional dispute exists be- cause the Employer created the dispute by deciding to place a bind- ery line in its Bloomsburg printing plant, where it had not previously engaged in bookbinding, and assigning the work to employees rep- resented by Local 732-C, citing Teamsters Local 578 (USCP- Wesco), 280 NLRB 818 (1986). We disagree and find Wesco inap- plicable. In Wesco, the Board quashed the notice of hearing because the root of the dispute there, which involved the transfer of work already performed by the unit to employees represented by another union and employed by another employer, was whether the employer had breached a no-subcontracting agreement. Thus, the preservation of work already assigned to and performed by the unit was at issue. By contrast, employees represented by Local 97B have never oper- ated the new binder line installed at Bloomsburg, and the Employ- er’s assignment of the work of operating it to the Bloomsburg em- ployees was therefore an original assignment of new work. Thus, Local 97B’s claim of the operation of the new binder line was an attempt to acquire new work, not to preserve old work, and the dis- pute is properly before the Board in a 10(k) proceeding. dispute is properly before the Board for determina- tion.4 E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirm- ative award of disputed work after considering 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 balancing the factors in- volved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). The following factors are relevant in making the de- termination of the dispute. 1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements As set out above, each Union is a party to a collec- tive-bargaining agreement with the Employer and each Union contends that the work in dispute is explicitly covered by the terms of its agreement with the Em- ployer. Our review of the respective contracts and the surrounding circumstances indicates that both Local 97B and Local 732-C have arguable contractual claims to the disputed work. Accordingly, we conclude that this factor does not favor an award of the work in dis- pute to employees represented by either Union. 2. Employer past practice The record indicates that the work of binding hard- cover and soft-cover books has traditionally been per- formed by the employees represented by Local 97B. Accordingly, we find that this factor favors awarding the disputed work to employees represented by Local 97B. 3. Area and industry practice The evidence regarding area and industry practice is mixed. There is some evidence that other employers in the area and industry have facilities combining printing and binding at the same worksite. However, since about 1976 the Employer itself has maintained separate facilities for presswork and bindery operations. This factor does not favor awarding the disputed work to ei- ther group of employees. 4. Relative skills The Scranton plant contains two binder lines oper- ated by employees represented by Local 97B. The most skilled of these employees, those classified as Bookbinder A, have completed an apprenticeship pro- gram that teaches the skills involved in operating the binder line. The Employer and Local 732-C offered evidence that the members of Local 732-C currently operating the binder line in Bloomsburg have received training in the skills needed to operate the binder line and are performing the work in a satisfactory manner. Thus, this factor does not favor awarding the work to either group of employees. 5. Employer preference and economy and efficiency of operations The Employer prefers that the work be assigned to the employees represented by Local 732-C, who are currently performing it. In addition, the evidence indi- cates that the soft-cover books printed and bound in Bloomsburg are shipped directly to customer ware- houses located closer to Bloomsburg than to Scranton. Employer Senior Vice President Vispi testified that be- fore the binder line was installed in Bloomsburg, the pages printed there were shrink-wrapped and sent to Scranton for binding. Vispi testified that ending the trucking of unbound books to Scranton saves the Em- ployer approximately $.01 for each book bound in Bloomsburg. Further, Vispi testified that, as Bloomsburg is located over 60 miles from Scranton, transporting employees represented by Local 97B from Scranton to Bloomsburg would involve significant in- creases in unproductive travel time, need for overtime, and insurance costs, as the employees represented by Local 97B would be ‘‘on the clock’’ during their travel time. Vispi also noted that the bookbinders represented by Local 97B observe different holidays under their agreement than do the employees at the Bloomsburg plant, which would create further scheduling problems. Further, the evidence indicates that the Bloomsburg plant, which is newer and is built on one level with concrete flooring, affords safer housing for the binder line than the Scranton plant, which is older, has mul- tiple levels, and has wooden flooring. 1193GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 732-C (HADDON CRAFTSMEN) We find that the factors of employer preference and economy and efficiency of operations favor awarding the disputed work to employees represented by Local 732-C. Conclusion After considering all the relevant factors, we con- clude that employees represented by Local 732-C are entitled to perform the work in the dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on employer preference and economy and efficiency of operations. In making this determination, we are awarding the work to employees represented by Local 732-C, not to that Union or its members. The determination is lim- ited to the controversy that gave rise to this proceed- ing. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE The National Labor Relations Board makes the fol- lowing Determination of Dispute. Employees of Bloomsburg Craftsmen, a Division of Haddon Craftsmen, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, rep- resented by Bloomsburg Graphic Communications Union, Local No. 732-C, are entitled to perform the operation of the equipment comprising a binder line, which binds hard-cover and soft-cover books at Had- don Craftsmen, Inc.’s plant in Bloomsburg, Pennsyl- vania. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation