International Stereotypers, Local 104, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 22, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 333 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS, LOCAL 104, ETC. 333 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES As Recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, we are posting this notice to inform our employees of the rights guaranteed them in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL, upon request, sign the agreement , dated February 1, 1964, which was submitted to us by Local 477, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, AFL-CIO, and we will pay our employees all wages and grant them any benefits they may have lost since February 1, 1964, because of our refusal to execute the agreement. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Local 477 as the exclusive representative of our employees , if no - request is made to sign the agreement of February 1, 1964. All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refuse to become or remain , members of Local 477, or any other labor organization. QUIEL BROS . ELECTRIC SIGN SERVICE CO., INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles , California , Telephone No. 688-5204 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union , Local 104, AFL-CIO and the Fresno Guide , Inc. Case No. 0O-CD-138. Jwne 2211965 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by The Fresno Guide, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging a violation of Sec- tion 8(b) (4) (D) by International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, Local 104, AFL-CIO, herein called the Stereotypers. Pursu- ant to notice, a hearing was held on July 1, 1964, at Fresno, California, before Hearing Officer James C. Paras. The Employer, the Stereo- typers, and Fresno Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 159, AFL-CIO, herein called the Pressmen, appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross- examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties filed briefs which have been duly considered by the Board. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. 153 NLRB No. 12. 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings : I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer, a California corporation with its principal office and business establishment located in Fresno, California, is engaged in operating a commercial printing shop, and in the publishing and print- ing of a semiweekly newspaper, The Fresno Guide, a shopping publi- cation with limited news coverage. In addition, the Employer also, prints a Catholic Diocese newspaper as well as the Bakersfield News, Bulletin. The Employer annually purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of California. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated , and we find, that the Stereotypers and Press- men are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE WORK IN DISPUTE A. Background facts Prior to June 1, 1964, the Employer performed all of its printing work on letterpresses located in its main building. Pursuant to col- lective-bargaining agreements stereotypers prepared the plates for use on the letterpresses, and pressmen operated the presses. The plate- making and letterpress operation were performed in the same general work area under the supervision of a stereotype foreman and a press- man foreman. The Employer's business manager was responsible for the integrated workflow between the stereotypers and the pressmen, and exercised general supervision over the entire printing operation. About June 1, 1964, the Employer acquired and installed a Goss offset press in a building directly across the street from its main plant. Thereafter, the Employer assigned both the offset platemaking and the operation of this new offset press to the pressmen who also con- tinued to operate the letterpresses. All other work assignments remained the same. It is the Employer's assignment of the offset platemaking to the pressmen which gives rise to the jurisdictional issue involved in the instant proceeding. The Stereotypers contend that all offset platemaking work should be assigned to employees which it represents rather than to pressmen. The Stereotypers make no claim that the pressmen should not be assigned the work of operating the new offset press. INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS , LOCAL 104 , ETC. 335 In early 1962, whcn the Employer was contemplating the purchase of an offset press, the Stereotypers claimed contractual rights to plate- making work for that press . The Employer disagreed with the claim of the Stereotypers , and the matter was not resolved because the Employer decided at that time not to purchase the press in question. When , in the spring of 1964, the Stereotypers learned that the Employer intended to purchase an offset press , it again made a demand for the platemaking work. The Employer again took the position that Stereotypers had no contractual right to the work and in addition indi- cated that the Stereotypers did not have qualified individuals in the area to perform the work. On or after April 22,1964, the Stereotypers threatened economic action against the Employer if it did not receive the work assignment of platemaking for the offset press . When the offset press was installed , the Employer assigned the platemaking function as well as the operation of the press to pressmen . Thereafter, the Stereotypers threatened to strike , a strike vote was taken among the membership of the local, and members voted to strike if they were denied the offset platemaking work. On June 15, 1964, the Employer filed the above charge. The record shows that an offset press utilizes an entirely different plate from that used on the letterpress . Thus , instead of a raised plate prepared by a hot metal process , a smooth aluminum plate of photo- graphed print is used. All the camera work required in the making of the offset plate is performed by an outside firm, with the remainder of the offset platemaking process being performed by the Employer in an area near the offset press. The record also shows that the prep- aration of offset plates involves processes and skills not heretofore used or needed in the Employer 's printing plant, and at the time the new offset press was installed, the Employer had no employees fully qualified to perform the offset platemaking work. However, an expert in this type of work was brought in from the Pressmen 's headquarters in Tennessee at the Pressmen 's expense to train the pressmen assigned this work. At the time of the hearing, two runs had been made on the offset press in the printing of advertising leaflets for various retail establishments in the area. The Employer indicated that both runs were successful and satisfactorily performed . The future use of the offset press is speculative, although there is some indication that it will be used for other types of printing, but there is no certainty that it will be used in the printing of newspapers. No new jobs have been added nor has any job been ab,' ished as a result of the installation of the Goss offset press. B. Contentions of the parties The Employer, in assigning the offset platemaking work to the press- men, relies on its collective -bargaining agreement with the Pressmen's 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union and particularly on an addendum thereto which the Employer contends contractually entitles pressmen to such work. The Employer also argues that custom and practice in the area and in the industry fully supports its assignment of the offset platemaking work to press- men. In addition, the Employer also takes the position that the Stereo- typers does not have men in the Fresno area qualified to perform the work involved, and that assigning such work to the pressmen is the most efficient manner in which to accomplish the entire offset printing work. The Pressmen contends that, pursuant to its collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer, the offset platemaking work has been properly assigned to pressmen working at the Employer's plant. In addition, like the Employer, the Pressmen also urges that the efficiency and economy of operations, availability of qualified men to perform the work involved, and the area and industry practice with respect to such work assignment, militates in favor of the Employer's work assignment. Finally, the Pressmen argues that there are no local understandings or agreements between the Unions involved respecting the assignment of such work, and that the assignment of such work to pressmen results in no loss of job opportunities for stereotypers. On the other hand, the Stereotypers contends that its collective-bar- gaining agreement with the Employer requires the assignment of the work to stereotypers inasmuch as the work in question is but a substitute for the hot metal platemaking process already assigned to stereotypers. In addition, the Stereotypers also argues that the Employer's work assignment results in the increase of work for the pressmen and an ultimate loss of work for the stereotypers, that the Employer's con- tention concerning efficiency of operations at this early date is "pure speculation," and finally that while industry practice relating to the assignment of such work is "hopelessly confused at the present time," nevertheless stereotypers have been assigned such work by other employers in the area, and the International Union has agreed to sup- ply a man skilled in offset platemaking, with no expense to the Employer, to train local stereotypers in the art of offset platemaking. C. Applicability of the statute The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director, alleges a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. The Regional Director was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that there was reasonable cause to believe that a violation had been committed and directed that a hearing be held in accordance with Section 10(k) of the Act. On the basis of the entire record, including the Stereotypers' threat to strike because of the assignment of the disputed work, we INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS, LOCAL 104, ETC. 337 find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination. D. The merits of the dispute Section 10 (k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due consideration to various rele- vant factors.' Certain of the usual factors considered by the Board in these cases, such as Board certification, skills, and area and industry practice, in our opinion, provide little basis for determining the instant dispute. Thus, neither the Stereotypers nor the Pressmen has been certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative for any of the Employer's employees. As to skills, although pressmen are now satis- factorily performing the work after having been trained by a repre- sentative of the International Pressmen, it is clear that stereotypers could have been or can be similarly trained at no expense to the Employer, and that some of its members have in fact been sent to San Francisco for such training. Although it appears from the record that pressmen in the Fresno area are customarily assigned to offset platemaking work, nevertheless, it also appears that some few of the area employers utilize the services of stereotypers to perform such work. Finally, although there was considerable testimony as to indus- try practice, as in the case of area practice, we cannot give significant weight to this consideration because no definite pattern is evident which indicates that such work is primarily or usually performed by mem- bers of either of the unions herein involved. Accordingly, the factors discussed below are determinative. 1. Provisions of collective-bargaining agreements: A compelling consideration for our determination in this case is the labor agreements between the Employer and each of the two unions. It is clear that the Pressmen's contract with the Employer was intended to cover offset preparatory work. That contract was entered into on July 15, 1962, and was later supplemented by an addendum executed on October 30, 1963. The basic contract in relevant part provides : SECTION 3-EQUIPMENT (a) If, during the life of this contract, presses of types or sizes or any new equipment not covered by this contract should be installed, or any material alterations made in the existing equip- ment, the manning of such equipment shall be determined prior to operation. i N.L.R B v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Unson, Local 1212 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( Columbia Broadcasting System ), 364 U S 573; In- ternational Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A Jones Construe- teon Company ), 135 NLRB 1402, 1411. 79 6-027-66-vol. 153-23 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) This Agreement covers the existing three (3) unit Goss press. (c) Offset jurisdiction. The addendum which became effective on September 1, 1963, further provides : SECTION 2 JURISDICTION It is understood that this contract applies to the union press- rooms operated by the employer, and that the jurisdiction of this contract extends over all printing presses employed in said press- rooms, including, but not limited to gravure, offset and letterpress printing presses and associated devices (all work in connection with offset platemaking, including camera operation, all darkroom work, stripping, layout, opaquing and platemaking). The employer agrees to employ only members of the union in the bar- gaining unit defined in this contract thirty-one (31) days follow- ing the effective date of this agreement. New employees employed after the effective date of this agreement within the bargaining unit defined herein shall be required to become members of the union as a condition of employment thirty-one (31) days follow- ing the beginning of such employment. The foregoing provisions clearly constitute a specific assignment of the disputed offset platemaking work to the Pressmen. Moreover, this agreement as to the work assignment was entered into prior to the time at which the dispute herein arose. On the other hand, the Stereotypers contends that its contract also unequivocally covers the disputed work and that since its provisions were negotiated approximately 5 years before the Pressmen's contract, such provisions should be given priority. This latter claim to the dis- puted work is grounded on section 3(b) of the Stereotypers' contract which was inserted in the collective-bargaining contract with the Employer some time prior to February 1959 at a time when no offset work was contemplated. The pertinent provisions are as follows: SECTION 1. The Fresno Guide, Inc., hereby recognizes Fresno Stereotypers Union x$104 as the collective bargaining representative of all employees doing stereotyping as defined in this contract. SECTION 3. (a) Stereotyping shall be defined as the fol- lowing operations : The preparation, molding, trimming, packing and finishing of matrices and the registering of said matrices. All job work and casting, routing of flat and curved stereotype press plates and the finishing of all stereotype plates. Mortising, shaving and planing, sawing and all work pertaining to the fin- INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS, LOCAL 104, ETC. 339 ishing of such plates including the mounting blocking of stereo- type plates, electrotype, plastic, nylon, and rubber plates, also the mounting of any type of printing plate on stereotype base, curbed or flat, shall be under the jurisdiction of Stereotypers Local $ 104. (b) Should the Publisher signatory hereto install within juris- diction of the Union as herein defined any machinery and/or equipment in the Stereotype Department now being manned by Stereotypers, such Publisher shall recognize the Jurisdiction of the Union over such machinery and/or equipment and shall make no other contract covering such work. As hereinbefore noted, in early 1962, when the Employer was con- templating the purchase of an offset press, the Stereotypers, in a series of meetings with the Employer, claimed the right to offset platemak- ing work pursuant to the above provisions, particularly section 3(b). The Employer disputed this claim and the matter was not resolved because the Employer decided at the time not to purchase the press in question. Although the negotiations clearly indicated the Employer was considering an offset press, the same general section 3 (b) provision which was included in the earlier contract was again incorporated, without change, in the 1962 contract and was in effect at the time that disputed work was assigned to pressmen. While section 3(b) of the Stereotypers' contract might be construed to cover all platemaking performed at the Employer's plant, we cannot find that it reflects a specific intent to assign offset platemaking work to stereotypers, nor can we find that it unequivocally supports the Stereotypers' claim, par- ticularly in view of the above bargaining history. Therefore, contrary to the contentions of the Stereotypers, we conclude that the Stereo- typers, unlike the Pressmen, has no contract claim to the disputed work.2 2. Efficiency and economy of operation : The work in dispute is per- formed in a separate building approximately 75 to 100 yards from the main letterpress printing operation. Under the existing assignment of work, pressmen make the offset plates for part of their shift and operate the offset presses during the remainder. At the present time, the making of the plates for the offset press does not require the assign- ment of employees for an entire shift. The record indicates that there are no immediate plans to change this type of arrangement. The offset press is located 10 to 25 feet from the offset platemaking area. Thus there is little time lost when pressmen go from the platemaking to the offset printing operation. On the other hand, under present working arrangements, had the offset platemaking work been assigned to stereo- typers, the result would be either (a) the stereotypers working a short 2 See , e g., International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America and Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No 23 (J R. Condon it Sons, Inc.), 148 NLRB 356. 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD period of time on platemaking and then standing by while the printing was performed by pressmen; or (b) after they finished the platemak- ing, the stereotypers would go back to the main plant and perform regular stereotypers' duties. Either of these arrangements would result in substantial loss of time. Therefore, by assignment of the dis- puted work to pressmen, the Employer is able to have the entire offset work done by the same employees in the same building with a minimum disruption of operations or loss of time. On the basis of the inte- grated nature of the offset printing operation and of the most efficient operation of the Employer's plant, we conclude that the Pressmen's Union has the more compelling claim .3 Finally, the Board customarily includes offset preparation employ- ees in a unit of offset press employees as it is clear such employees have a close community of interest with offset press employees .4 E. Con elusions as to the merits of the dispute On the basis of the evidence set forth above, we conclude that the pressmen are entitled to the disputed work herein. Accordingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional dispute by deciding that pressmen , represented by the Pressmen's Union, rather than stereo- typers, represented by the Stereotypers, are entitled to the work in question . In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to pressmen who are represented by the Pressmen's Union, but not to the Pressmen's Union or to its members. Our present determina- tion is limited to the particular dispute which gave rise to this pro- ceeding. 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 this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of the Dispute. 1. Pressmen employed by the Employer who are represented by Fresno Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 159, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the offset platemaking operation which is per- formed in connection with the commercial and newspaper work at the Employer's plant in Fresno, California. 2. International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, Local 104, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) 3 See International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL- CIO, Mempbis Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union, Local No 24, and their agent Frazier Moore ( Kelley & Jamison, Inc.), 146 NLRB 1614. 4 The Plimpton Press , 140 NLRB 975, at 977; The Meredith Publishing Company, and The Meredith Printing Company, 140 NLRB 509, at 511. FAMOUS-BARR COMPANY 341 to force or require The Fresno Guide, Inc., to assign the work in dis- pute to employees engaged as stereotypers who are currently repre- sented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, Local 104, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring The Fresno Guide, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to stereotypers rather than pressmen. The May Department Stores Company d/b/a Famous -Barr Com- pany and Warehouse and Distribution Workers Local No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,' Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-4843. June 22,1965 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Offi- cer Philip E. Kaplan. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. i The petition in this case was filed by Teamsters Local 709 After the close of the hearing, Warehouse and Distribution Workers Local -No 68b filed a motion to substitute itself as the Petitioner herein in place of Local 709. Thereafter, Local 688 filed with the Regional Director a showing of interest adequate to support a petition The Em- ployer filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion and the moving party filed a reply. It is uncontroverted that the membership of Local 709 has voted to dissolve and to transfer its membership and bargaining rights to Local 688. The Employer suggests that there may have been some irregularities in the dissolution and transfer and states that Local 709 is still in existence as a functioning labor organization. Counsel for Local 709, who is also counsel for Local 688, asserts that the only functions that Local 709 is presently carrying out are those necessary to wind up its affairs pursuant to the dissolution and transfer, and that Local 709, to the extent that it still exists, agrees that the motion for substitution should be granted Since it appears that Local 709 does not wish to appear on the ballot and that Local 688 has succeeded to the rights and obliga- tions of Local ,v9, and, in addition, has itself suomitted an adequate showing of interest, we grant the motion for substitution. 2 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and briers adequately present the views and positions of the parties. A brief filed by the Petitioner, and a memorandum and reply memorandum filed by the Employer, have been received and considered 153 NLRB No. 26.