Int'l Brotherhood Electrical Workers, Local 124

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 350 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

fd1 i;F, I€l1ijl-15 Oil NATIONAL LARQ'1 I1E:LRTTOj,,T BOARD
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region I for
posting by United Airlines, if willing, at its ticket offices at the Statler-Hilton Hotel
and at 8 Federal Street, both m Boston, Massachusetts, and by The Gieat Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Co., if willing, at its retail store at 168 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston,
Massachusetts.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to com-
ply herewith 42
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that
Respondent engaged in, and induced or encouraged individuals employed by United,
A & P, or other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce to
engage in , strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to use manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or com-
modities, or to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring United, A & P,
or such other persons to cease doing business with University.
+- If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 254, BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, AND TO UNITED AIRLINES AND THE GREAT ATLANTIC &
PACIFIC TEA CO.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, or coerce United Airlines, The Great Atlantic
& Pacific Tea Co., or any other employer or person engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require
them to cease doing business with University Cleaning Co.
LOCAL 254, BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
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, Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone
No 523-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Local Union 124 of The International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers , AFL-CIO and The Kansas City Star Company. Case
No. 17-CD-60. March 1, 1965
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 on July 22, 1964,
by The Kansas City Star Company, herein called the Employer,
alleging a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) (D) by Local Union 124
of the International Brotherhood of Electical Workers, AFL-CIO,
herein called the IBEW or Electricians. Pursuant to notice, a
hearing was held on November 16, 17, and 18, 1964, at Kansas
151 NLRB No. 36.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 124 351
City, Missouri, before Hearing Officer William J. Cassidy. All
parties appeared at the hearing 1 and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing on the issuse. The rulings of Hearing Officer
Cassidy made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, both the IBEW and Kansas City
Typographical Local Union No. 80, herein called the ITU, filed
briefs which have been duly considered by the National Labor
Relations Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board 2 makes the
following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Missouri corporation, is the publisher of morn-
ing and evening newspapers in Kansas City, Missouri. During
1963, the average daily circulation of the newspapers was in excess
of 600,000 copies, of which approximately 31 percent was distributed
to points outside the State of Missouri. In addition, the Employer
purchased raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000 from sources
outside the State. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The IBEW and the ITU are both labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work at issue, background facts
The Employer maintains a composing room on a two-shift basis
to service both newspapers. The composing room is located on
the third floor of the newspaper plant and employs approximately
325 compositors, operators, and machinists under the supervision
of the composing room foreman. For many years the composing
room housed 45 linecasting machines, herein also referred to as
Linotype, 2 Ludlow machines, 5 proof presses, and an undisclosed
number of material casting machines. These machines are driven
by electrically powered motors. In addition, the Linotype machines
contain other electrical component parts as switches, lights, and
1 Both the International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO, and Kansas City Typographical
Local Union No. 80, intervened and were represented by counsel at the hearing.
2Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Fanning, Brown,
and Jenkins].
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fuses, and electronically activated "pot" controls which serve to
maintain the proper temperature of the lead in the metal pots
used in the casting of type.
The maintenance and repair of the mechanical equipment has
been the function and responsibility of the composing room machin-
ists. The maintenance and repair of the electrical equipment
in the composing room has always been, with perhaps some minor
exceptions , the responsibility of a group of maintenance electricians .3
It appears to have been the practice for the composing room
machinists to attempt initial repairs, but if the part repaired con-
cerned electrical equipment it was the machinists' custom to call for
an electrician . Composing room machinists were stationed at all
times in the composing room whereas the electricians, whose work
took them to all areas of the plant, were stationed in the subbasement
of the premises . This practice of having electrical maintenance and
repairs performed by electricians applied to certain electronically
controlled Teletypesetters which the Employer introduced in its
plant in 1950. However, there is no evidence that any dispute arose
with respect to such division of the work.
Although the ITU, which represented the composing room
employees, including the composing room machinists,4 has main-
tained contractual relations with the Employer for the past 70
years, it has never sought certification as the bargaining representa-
tive. The most recent contract between the Employer and the ITU,
effective October 1, 1962, has defined its work jurisdiction as:
Composing room Machinists shall continue the present practice
of servicing and maintaining all composing room machines,
including . . . all other devices pertaining to the operation of
the Teletypesetter and Autosetter . . . except those which
because of their nature must be serviced by other trained
personnel.
The IBEX', on the other hand, was certified by the Board in 1953
as the bargaining representative for all electricians performing
electrical maintenance work throughout the Employer's plant. After
certification, the Employer entered into contractual relations with
the Electricians and its current contract provides that "all electrical
apparatus in operation for the plant shall be covered with suf-
ficient electrical maintenance men to properly care for same while
in operation." The maintenance work in the composing room con-
tinued to be divided between the ITU machinists and the electricians,
s There is evidence that one ITU machinist possessed the ability to, and did on
occasion , maintain the pot controls.
4A different group of machinists, located in the Employer ' s maintenance department
and represented by the International Association of Machinists , are employed to main-
tain machinery outside of the composing room.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 124 353
the former concerned principally with the mechanical maintenance
and repair, and the electricians with the maintenance and repair
of all electrical and electronic controls, motors, switches, lights,
fuses, and related items. This division of work continued undis-
turbed until November 1962 when the Employer, on the demand of
the ITU, permitted the ITU machinists to undertake certain rela-
tively minor adjustments and repairs on some new equipment. It
appears that in May 1962, the Employer purchased and installed
in its composing room, five Fairchild Teletypesetters and four Star
Autosetters, the latter being a more sophisticated installation which
"reads" the type through a reading head and electrically operates
the keyboard of the linecasting machine. This equipment differs
from old-fashioned Linotype machines by the presence of vacuum
tubes, transistors, solenoids, diodes, and removable panels or boards
containing involved wired or printed electronic circuits.
As a result of the assignment of maintenance work on electronic
equipment to the ITU machinists, the IBEW on February 8, 1963,
filed a grievance which was not resolved after conferences between
the Employer and each union. The ITU continued to assert
jurisdiction over the maintenance work on the new equipment,
and on May 3, 1963, the Employer confirmed the ITU's claim to
the work by a written assignment thereof .5 By virtue of the assign-
ment the ITU machinists have performed exclusively the day-to-day
maintenance functions on the eight Autosetter consoles such as
removing the circuit boards for cleaning, making minor adjustments
in and repairing defective boards with spare ones, and the cleaning
and replacing of reader heads. However, because of what appears
to have been a limitation of electrical skills, whenever a curcuit
board burned out or required a major overhaul the work was per-
formed by Maintenance Foreman Betts, a qualified electrician.6
5 The Employer ' s assignment reads , in pertinent part , as follows:
. . the maintenance of all Composing Room equipment-even though it is electroni-
cally activated-is assigned to the Typographical Union Machinists.
. Typographical Union jurisdiction over electronic equipment is confined to that
equipment which produces type or substitutes therefore and . .. does not permit
expansion of such jurisdiction beyond the Composing Room.
. . . this assignment of work shall in no way interfere with the company ' s right
to call in electricians or outside help in the event the Typographical Union Machinists
are unable to perform any maintenance duties.
Betts served both as the Employer ' s maintenance foreman and as the manufacturer's
representative -serviceman The record testimony, however, is in conflict regarding the
necessity for Betts to perform this work. Thus, ITU Head Day-Shift Machinist Chatfield
testified that although machinists were capable of performing the work, they were not
permitted to do so for fear of damaging the printed circuit panels thereby voiding the
manufacturer ' s guarantee . Betts' testimony , on the other band, clearly implied that the
repair or replacement of transistors and component parts of the printed circuit boards was
electricians ' work, and that the only reason he performed it personally rather than assign-
ing an electrician was to avoid any further disputes.
783-133-66-vol. 151-24
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreover, the record also shows that consistent with the earlier
practice the maintenance electricians were permitted to continue
performing electrical service on motors, switches, lights, fuses, and
pot controls of the older linecasting equipment.
The dispute rested there until the summer of 1963 when the
Employer purchased and installed additional Teletypesetters, Auto-
setters, and new electronically controlled photocomposition equip-
ment called Linofilm.7 The maintenance of this equipment was,
under the terms of the Employer's work assignment of May 3,
turned over to the ITU machinists.8 On July 14, 1964, during a
conference on another matter, the IBEW again raised the question
of the assignment of the electrical maintenance to the ITU machin-
ists. It is not disputed that on this occasion IBEW Business
Representative Stack told the Employer that "unless the [electrical
maintenance] work was returned immediately upon the termination
of the existing contract there would be a banner around Eighteenth
and Grand." s Thereupon the Employer, on July 22, 1964, filed a
charge against the IBEW alleging a violation of Section 8 (b) (4)
(ii) (D) of the Act.
B. Contentions of the parties
The ITU contends that its work claims are limited and that
the jurisdictional dispute herein is confined to, and exists only
with respect to, the electrical maintenance of the Autosetters and
Linofilm machines, which were the sole subject of the IBEW
grievances. It supports its claim to the work on such grounds as
efficiency, skills, area, and industry practice, and the fact of the
Employer's assignment. It also contends that the IBEW certifica-
tion in 1953 predated the invention of the machines involved
herein and could not therefore have contemplated the present
dispute 10
The IBEW, on the other hand, bases its claim to the contested
work on the Board's certification of a unit of employees possessing
and exercising general electric skills, its collective-bargaining
agreements, the Employer's past practice, the electricians' superior
7 Unlike the Autosetter , which is attached to and activates Linotype equipment , Linofilm
is a different method for producing type. It consists of a keyboard and a completely auto-
matic photo unit which converts electronic tape emanating from the keyboard into a
negative upon which printed characters appear . The negative is then developed into
a positive , and the resulting product is "cold type" which is a substitute for hot metal
type such as that produced by Linotype.
8 The record evidence shows that in addition to the maintenance work performed by
the ITU machinists , a representative of the manufacturer of Linofilm serviced the Em-
ployer's equipment on a regular basis.
8 The site of the Employer 's newspaper plant
10 As to the other composing room equipment, the ITU concedes in its brief that it is
willing to follow the Employer's long-established practice of having ITU machinists
initiate maintenance work and, when necessary , call for an electrician to perform elec-
trical maintenance.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 124 355
skills, and the matter of efficiency. It further argues in effect that
the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to the ITU was not
based on objective factors, but on the ground that the Employer
has more to fear from a work stoppage affecting 325 composing room
employees than one affecting only 9 electricans.
Although the Employer had assigned the work in dispute to the
ITU, it has indicated both at the hearing and in a letter to the
Board that it now maintains a neutral position regarding the
merits of the dispute.
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. The uncontradicted record testimony shows that on July 14,
1964, IBEW Business Representative Stack made remarks which
the Employer reasonably construed as a threat to picket the
Employer upon the termination of the current contract unless
the Employer assigned the electrical maintenance work on the
composing room equipment to IBEW members. In such circum-
stances, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has occurred and that the dispute
is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k)
of the Act.
D. Merits of the dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of the disputed work after giving consideration to various
relevant factors, and the Board has held that its determination
in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based upon common
sense and experience in balancing such factors.1'
1. Certification; contract; and Employer's past practice
As noted, the IBEW was certified in 1953 to represent a unit of all
maintenance electricians employed by the Employer, and the sub-
sequent contracts between the Employer and IBEW provide for
the maintenance by electricians of "all electrical apparatus in opera-
tion for the plant." The ITU contract, on the other hand, apart
from the disputed assignment, does not specifically grant the work
in issue to the ITU machinists; on the contrary, it excludes from
ITU jurisdiction those devices "which because of their nature must
be serviced by other trained personnel." Furthermore, it is clear
that it was the established practice, before and since the IBEW's
U Internattional Association of Machvnists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones
Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402.
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certification, for electrical' and electronic maintenance work to be
performed by the IBEW electricians and that such practice per-
sisted until November 1962 when the ITU first asserted a claim
to the performance of a substantial portion of the electrical and
electronic maintenance of composing room equipment. In the light
of the foregoing, we find that the factors of Employer's past
practice, the certification, and the contracts favor the IBEW's claim
to the work.
2. The skills and work involved
It is clear from the record that the ITU machinists had little,
if any, skill or experience with respect to the maintenance and
repair of electrical components prior to the introduction of the
electronic equipment in question. However, in anticipation of the
Employer's assignment, the ITU instituted specialized training
programs for its membership in order to overcome this deficiency.
Thus, the ITU provided an electronics course for 2 machinists, a
4-week course in Linofilm circuitry in Kansas City for 6 of the
Employer's 17 ITU machinists, and 6 days of additional training
on Linofilm maintenance for the Employer's 2 leadmen machinists
at the ITU's training school in Colorado Springs, Colorado. As
a result, the machinists have attained a measure of proficiency
in the use of such instruments as oscilloscopes and amp-ohmmeters
which are utilized in detecting electrical troubles. In addition,
ITU Representative Cremonesi pointed out that proper maintenance
of the equipment in question also requires a printer's skill and
knowledge of the printing process in order to locate the source of
difficulty, and that the machinists alone possess such knowledge.
The maintenance electricians, on the other hand, acquired the
requisite electronic skills as part of the IBEW's apprenticeship
program. The record shows that they have maintained and repaired
all other electronic devices utilized by the Employer in other parts
of the plant, devices which are comparable in complexity to those
in the composing room,12 and, that they are equally capable of
handling the electrical maintenance work on the present equipment
in the composing room. While the evidence also shows that ITU
machinists have been able to handle most of the Linofilm mainte-
nance work, the record discloses that thus far the Linofilm has
required a minimum of electronic maintenance and, further, that
a representative of the Linofilm manufacturer regularly inspects
and maintains the equipment. Moreover, with respect to the Auto-
setter, the record evidence shows that the maintenance duties
v Among such devices is the hurletron which controls color in the presses , the con-
troller of the paper conveyor , the star-hi machine on the stereotype , the heisters on the
presses, the palter system on the large presses , and the counter-stackers in the mailing
room.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 124 357
performed by ITU have been limited to the cleaning and replacing
of components, circuit panels, and reader heads, whereas malfunc-
tions of equipment that could not be overcome by simple repairs
and required a redesign or substantial modification of the circuit
panels had to be assigned to electricians with an understanding
of electronic circuits.13 WWTe find from the foregoing and the entire
record that the factor of skill favors the electricians.
3. Industry and area practice
The record testimony establishes that at least four companies
in the Kansas City area use Linofilm and have ITU members
performing maintenance work thereon. Further -testimony shows
that several other companies including newspapers throughout the
Nation use Linofilm or similar equipment, all of whom also employ
printer-machinists to maintain them. However, the evidence fails
to show whether ITU members exclusively maintain and repair
the equipment, and have always done so, or whether resort is had
on occasion to maintenance electricians. Furthermore, no evidence
was adduced to show that ITU machinists also perform the mainte-
nance and repair on such other essential electronic -equipment as
the Teletypesetter or Autosetter. Thus, while there is some evidence
of area and industry practice utilizing ITU members with respect
to the Linofilm, we cannot consider it as conclusive insofar as
the scope of the present dispute is concerned. We therefore find
that the factor of industry and area practices does not favor the
ITU in any substantial respect
4. Efficiency of operations
The ITU contends that since the machinists alone possess suf-
ficient skills to maintain completely the electronic composing room
equipment, the Employer's assignment results in a more efficient
maintenance operation. It further asserts that, while machinists
are stationed in the composing room and are immediately available
when trouble arises, the electricians are headquartered three floors
below the composing room, are on call everywhere in the plant,
and that in the past delays were occasioned because electricians
were preoccupied with other maintenance duties. The evidence,
however, establishes a record of efficient service by the electricians
in the composing room, particularly with respect to a low "down
time" of equipment due to malfunctioning of electrical maintenance.
Moreover, it is also established that in some instances electrical
repairs and maintenance had to wait for the former maintenance
13 We note that although the work was not actually assigned to unit electricians and
was performed by maintenance Foreman Betts himself, it is clear that the maintenance
electricians were capable of performing such maintenance
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foreman because of the lack of adequate electrical skills by the
machinists. We therefore find that the factor of efficiency does
not favor the ITU.
E. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute
On the basis of the record as a whole, and on appraisal of all
the relevant considerations, we conclude that the maintenance
electricians are entitled to the work in dispute. Such factors as
the Employer's past practice, the Board's certification, the collective-
bargaining agreements, and the unquestioned superior skills and
experience of the electricians demonstrate the superior claim of the
IBEW. Accordingly, we shall determine the jurisdictional dispute
by awarding the disputed work to the Employer's maintenance
electricians who are represented by the IBEW, but not to that Union
or its members. Our present determination is limited to the partic-
ular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determina-
tion of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act :
Maintenance electricians represented by Local Union 124 of
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
are entitled to perform the work of electrical maintenance and
repair on the Autosetter and Linofilm equipment as well as all
other electrical and electronic equipment at present in the composing
room of The Kansas City Star Company, Kansas City, Missouri.
United Mine Workers of America; District 12, United Mine Work-
ers of America ; and Local 1148, United Mine Workers of
America, and Peabody Coal Company , and District 1, Progres-
sive Mine Workers of America , and Armin D. Reinhardt, and
Local 520, International Union of Operating Engineering, AFL-
CIO, and Local 50, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case
No. 14-CD-184. March 1, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a. charge filed on
October 12, 1964, by District 1, Progressive Mine Workers of
151 NLRB No. 47.