Int'l Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1614 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1614 DECISIONS . OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Respondent Companies described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce. .
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Employers Aristocrat and Essex , and Respondent
Union , Local No . 4, have engaged in certain of the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint , I•will recommend that they , cease and desist therefrom . and take
certain affirmative action designed. to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that these Respondent Employers discriminately discharged M•adie
Roots on February 16, 1963 , I will recommend that they offer her full reinstatement
to her former or substantially equivalent ' position , without prejudice to her seniority
or other rights and privileges , and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may
have suffered by reason of Respondents ' discrimination against her , by payment to
her of a sum of money equal to that which she would normally have received as wages
from the date of the discrimination against her to the date of offer of reinstatement,
less net earnings during said period , in the manner established by the Board in
F.. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB-289. It will be further recommended that
Respondent Companies preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or
its agents , for examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment
records, - timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary
and useful to determine the amount of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement
under the terms of this recommendation . It will also be recommended that Re-
spondent Companies and Respondent Union cease and desist from coercively inter-
rogating employeesconcerning their union activities or sympathies.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following: :. . . .
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Companies are. engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. Local No . 4; Building Service Employees International Union , AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act. .
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of..Madie
Roots, Respondent Employers Aristocrat and Essex have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
4. By interrogating employees concerning their union activities and sympathies,
thus interfering with, restraining, and, coercing them in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of: the Act , these Respondent Companies • have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act , and Respondent Union . has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A ) of the Act.
5. Respondent . Companies have not, by deducting union dues from the wages of
.their employees , violated the Act._ .
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO; Memphis Newspaper Printing Pressmen's
Union , Local No. 24; and Their Agent , Frazier Moore and
Kelley & Jamison , Inc.- 'Case No. 26-CD-15. May 14, 196.1
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OFD DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, following a
charge filed by Kelley & Jamison, Inc., herein called the Company, al-
146 NLRB No. 186.
INT'L PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION 1615
leging that International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, and Memphis Newspaper Printing
Pressmen's Union, Local No. 24, herein jointly called the Pressmen,
and their agent, Frazier Moore, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of
the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Roger B. Holmes
between December 11, 1963, and January 7, 1964. The Company, the
Pressmen, and International Typographical Union and its Local No.
11, herein jointly called the ITU, appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings
of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial.
error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Company, the Press-
men, and the ITU filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board' makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Company
Kelley & Jamison, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, is engaged in type-
setting and printing at its only plant located in Memphis, Tennessee.
Annually, the Company sells products in excess of $50,000 which are
shipped ..to points outside the State of Tennessee . We find that the
Company is engaged in commerce 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.
2. The labor organizations involved
The Pressmen and ITU unions herein are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The dispute
A. The work in dispute; background facts
The disputed work which gave rise to this proceeding concerns the
offset preparation work of camera, stripping, opaquing, and plate-
making which is performed in connection with the Company's offset
printing of newspapers.
The Company prints seven tabloid newspapers, of which four are
weekly and three are monthly publications.2 For many years, the
newspapers were printed by the letterpress method. Under this
2Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegnted Its
powers In connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Blembers Leedom, Fanning,
and Brown].
2 Two of the weekly papers which the Company prints are its own . The Company also
performs typesetting work for the trade, such as for commercial job printing shops, but
the disputed work is not involved In this service.
744-670-65-vol. 146--103
1616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
method, the composing room employees, who are represented. by the
ITU, performed the necessary typesetting or "hot metal" work which
culminated in their preparation of a form or chase of raised type.
This chase was sent to the pressroom where the Company's pressmen,
represented by the Pressmen, placed the chase on the press and ran
off copies of the newspapers. In pursuance of an earlier determination
to convert to the offset method of printing its newspapers, the Com-
pany moved to a new building in August 1963. It purchased an offset
press and offset preparation equipment, including a Kenro camera
and a platemaking machine. The Company decided to assign the off-
set press work to employees represented by the Pressmen and the offset
preparation work, which is now in dispute, to employees represented
by the ITU.
Under the offset method, instead of a chase of raised type being used
as a printing plate, a smoother, aluminum plate of photographed
printed matter is utilized for this purpose. Compositors, functioning
as they did before, contribute to the production of plates under the new
method. Although this new equipment has not diminished the work
previously performed by the pressmen, it has lessened the composing
room work previously done. For example, formerly, if an advertiser
in the Company's tabloid desired to run a full-page advertisement
which had appeared in a larger newspaper, the composing room em-
ployees would set type for the entire page. Now, with the use of the
camera, a reduced, tabloid size photographic negative is made of the
advertisement, which is processed into an offset plate. Again, under
the letterpress method, a copy for a smaller-sized aclvertiselnent, but
less than a full tabloid-sized page, would be set in type,, whereas the
camera is now used to photograph that particular component. .
The camera is also used to reproduce to desired size newsphotos
which are to appear on a page of the newspaper. The processing of
these photos, under the letterpress method, was performed by outside
concerns.
. The composing room foreman, who supervised the compositors in
the preparation of the letterpress chase, is in charge of the employees
engaged in the preparation of the offset plate. Although the operation
of the camera and the preliminary steps of stripping and opaquing
prior to pla.tema.king is generally performed by one employee, he is
assisted by compositors as the need arises.' The Company employs 77,
composing room employees and recently increased its pressmen. com-
plement from 3 to 4 employees.
3 The operation of the camera requires a higher degree of skill than the other offset
preparation work . Stripping involves the positioning of negatives made by the camera so
that four pages of a newspaper will appear on one offset plate. Opaquing is the brushpaint-
ing of negatives to correct scratches or defects that may appear in the negatives. Both
the ITU and the Pressmen operate schools where a 3-week course is given in all phases of
offset preparation work.
INT'L PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION 1617
The Company has a written contract with Local 11; ITU, covering
its composing room employees .. The contract , which has a June 1965
expiration date, does not specifically cover the disputed work. During
bargaining negotiations in 1962, and several times thereafter, the
Company orally agreed that offset preparation work would be assigned
to members of Local 11 , when its contemplated conversion to the off-
set method was initiated . The Company had a written contract with
Local 24, Pressmen , covering the pressmen , which expired on May. 31,
1963. However, the Company has continued to recognize Local 24 as
the bargaining representative of those employees . On. October 31,
1963 , during negotiations with the Pressmen for a new contract,
Frazier Moore , an International vice president of the Pressmen and
representative for Local 24, demanded that the offset preparation
workbe assigned to members of Local 24. When the Company replied,
that it was committed to the ITU for this work , Moore threatened to
strike unless members of Local 24 were assigned the disputed work.
B. 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 Pressmen's
threat to strike unless the work.was.assigned to its members, we 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.
C. 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
relevant factors and the Board has held that its determination in a
jurisdictional dispute case is an at of judgment base upon common
sense and experience and a balancing of such factors.
Certain of the usual factors considered by the Board in these cases,
such.as certifications, contracts, and skills clearly provide little basis
for determining the instant dispute. Thus, neither the ITU nor the
Pressmen has been certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining
representative for any of the Company's employees. The Pressmen
' N.L.R.B. v. Radio A Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212 , IBETV, AFL-
CIO (Columbia Broadcasting System ), 364 U.S. 573; International Association of Machin-
ists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402.
1618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admit that its latest contract with the Company did not cover the dis-
puted work. Contrary to the position of the ITU, its existing written
contract does not cover this work, as was admitted by the Company.
And the requisite skills to perform the work in question do not re-
quire extensive training. Other factors urged for consideration are:
Area and industry custom: The Pressmen's main claim to the dis-
puted work is based upon an alleged practice in the industry. In the
-Memphis area, it has contracts with four companies covering offset
-preparation work, and it has similar agreements in other parts of the
country. These Pressmen agreements are with employers who are in
the commercial or job printing business rather than with those en-
gaged in newspaper publishing. In Memphis, as in the other areas, the
Pressmen has a separate local to represent employees in commercial
shops and another local for employees in newspaper operations. Thus,
Local 24, known as Memphis Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union,
represents the Company's pressmen who operate the web newspaper
press and the pressmen who are employed on two daily newspapers,
whereas Local 18, Pressmen, not a party to this proceeding, represents
employees who operate presses for the commercial shops. Local 24
has no contract with any employer covering offset preparation work,
and Local 18 admitted that none of the commercial shops under con-
tract publish newspapers. On the other hand, the ITU represents
employees in Memphis who are engaged in the disputed work for an
employer who publishes a shopping newspaper. Regarding com-
mercial shops in other areas, where such employers also publish some
type of newspaper, both the ITU and the Pressmen have agreements
covering the disputed work, but neither union is shown to have a
preponderance of representation in these situations. As already noted,
the Company's utilization of offset preparation work is confined to its
newspaper publishing operations.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Pressmen has not estab-
lished any significant custom as a factor which favors its claim to the
disputed work.
Efficiency and economy of operations : All the employees represented
by the ITU, including those engaged in offset preparation duties,
work under the same foreman, who is thus able to coordinate their
functions. The work of these employees is interrelated and designed
primarily to furnish a common product, namely, a printing plate for
the pressroom. There exists in the composing room a readily avail-
able source of manpower to assist in the offset preparation work when
needed. It appears that the factors of efficiency and economy of
operations favor the assignment made by the Company.
INT'L PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS'. UNION 1619
Conclusion
Upon consideration of all the pertinent factors.in the record, we
shall not disturb the Company's assignment of the disputed work to
employees represented by the ITU. The Company is satisfied with
the results achieved by its assignment and desires no change. Its as-
signment promotes efficiency and economy of operation. Under a
contrary assignment, job opportunities for employees represented by
the ITU would be lessened.' Accordingly, we shall determine the
existing jurisdictional dispute by deciding that the compositors,
represented by the ITU, rather than the pressmen, represented by the
Pressmen, are entitled to the offset preparation work of camera,
stripping, opaquing, and platemaking. In making this determina-
tion, we are assigning the work in question to employees represented
by the ITU, but not to the ITU or its members. Our present deter-
mination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to
this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in
this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of dis-
pute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Compositors employed by the Company who are represented by
International Typographical Union, Local No. 11, are entitled to per-
form the offset preparation work of camera, stripping, opaquing, and
platemaking at the Company's Memphis, Tennessee, plant.
2. International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, Memphis Newspaper Printing Pressmen's
Union, Local No. 24, and their agent Frazier Moore, are not entitled,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or
require the Company to assign the above work to pressmen who are
represented by them.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, Memphis Newspaper Printing Press-
men's Union, Local No. 24, and their agent Frazier Moore, shall
notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, in writing,
whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring the Com-
pany, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work
in dispute to pressmen rather than to compositors.
6In this case , Member Leedom finds it unnecessary to rely on tlhis factor in determining
the assignment of disputed work.