Graphic Communications Local 732-C (Haddon Craftsmen)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1992

308 N.L.R.B. 1190 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

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.