N. Haven, Meriden & B'port Electrotypers, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 14, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1443 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

N. HAVEN, MERIDEN & B'PORT ELECTROTYPERS, ETC. 1443 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , 707 North Calvert Street, Sixth Floor, Baltimore , Maryland , Telephone No. 752-8460. New Haven , Meriden & Bridgeport Electrotypers Union No. 83, International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union , AFL-CIO and Meredith Printing Company (West Haven Plant ) and New Haven Typographical Union No. 47, International Typographi- cal Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CD-95. July 14,1965 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of a charge by Mere- dith Printing Company (West Haven Plant), herein called the Employer, alleging that New Haven, Meriden & Bridgeport Electro- typers Union No. 83, International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Electrotypers, had violated Sec- tion 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. The charge alleges, in substance, that the Electrotypers threatened a work stoppage against the Employer in order to force the Employer to assign certain work to the Electrotypers rather than to members of the New Haven Typographical Union No. 47, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Typographers. Thereafter, a duly scheduled hearing was held before Hearing Officers S. Anthony di Ciero and Henry M. Kelleher on Feb- ruary 4 and March 16, 1965. All parties 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 Officers made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties submitted briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) or the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown and Jenkins]. Upon the record in this case, the Board makes the following findings : 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer is a printing company which maintains its principal office in Des Moines, Iowa, and operates a composing room facility at West Haven, Connecticut. The Employer ships from its West Haven plant directly to points located outside the State of Connecticut prod- ucts valued in excess of $420,000 per annum. The parties stipulated, 153 NLRB No. 126. 1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and we find, that the Employer 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. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Electrotypers and Typographers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. M. THE DISPUTE A. Background facts In the summer of 1964 the Employer took over the composing room facilities of a Greenwich, Connecticut, printing firm known as Conde Nast. The Employer moved the operation from Greenwich to West Haven, Connecticut, and since August 24, 1964, the composing room facility has been operated as a separate plant. The plant makes molds from typewritten copy and illustrations in the form of copper originals or electros sent from editorial offices of magazines in New York. When the copy and illustrations are received, the copy is sent to the linotype room to be set, and the illustrations are sent to the blocking room to be mounted on metal bases in order to bring them to the same heights as the linotype slug so that it will produce an even impression when put together in a page. The mounting of the illustrations, i.e., the process in the blocking room, is the subject of the dispute herein. When the Employer purchased and moved the Conde Nast facility from Greenwich to West Haven, Connecticut, it continued to print certain magazines formerly printed by Conde Nast. It hired 41 of the 99 composing room employees from Conde Nast; 90 percent of these employees having worked for that company for 25 years or more. The Typographers represented 38 of the employees, and 3 were represented by the Electrotypers. The facts are undisputed that the same employ- ees currently performing the mounting and blocking work also per- formed the work at Conde Nast. In fact, testimony reveals that the Typographers have been performing mounting and blocking work at Conde Nast for more than 35 years. The Employer has not changed the method of assigning or distributing work, and the Electrotypers never protested the work assignment under Conde Nast. Prior to beginning operations at the West Haven plant, the Employer and the Typographers negotiated an agreement, their intent therein being to vest in the Typographers jurisdiction over all opera- tions in the composing room except molding. The Employer later negotiated an agreement with the Electrotypers, and, during negoti- ations, the Electrotypers were shown a copy of the Employer's agree- ment with the Typographers and they were also advised that the N. HAVEN, MERIDEN & B'PORT ELECTROTYPERS, ETC. 1445 Typographers would have jurisdiction over all operations in the com- posing room except molding. With this knowledge of the Typog- raphers' jurisdiction, but after voicing some objection thereto, the Elec- trotypers signed an agreement. Thereafter, on January 13, 1965, the Electrotypers notified the Employer that they were going to engage in a work stoppage within 10 days unless the Employer assigned the work of mounting illustrations to them. B. Contentions of the parties The Employer contends that the assignment of the disputed work to the Typographers rather than to the Electrotypers is consistent with the contracts involved ; that it is the most efficient way to have the work performed; that it is consistent with 35 years of practice with the same employees and the operation; that it is indicative of the Com- pany's preference and satisfaction; that it is not inconsistent with apparent practice throughout the industry; and that it gives the work to employees possessing both the skill and experience to perform it. The Typographers contends that it should have the disputed work because the Employer's assignment to it was unequivocal ; it was timely made known to the Electrotypers; the assignment was based upon the sound grounds of past practice, the nature of skills involved, the effi- ciency of the Employer's particular operation, and its contractual commitments. The Electrotypers contends that it is entitled to the work because the present assignment is contrary to its contract and a written contract between the Electrotypers and the Typographers; 1 contrary to the practice in the Employer's main plant in Des Moines ; and contrary to industry practice and custom. 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. The record is clear, and it is not disputed, that after the Employer assigned the disputed work to the Typographers, the Electrotypers threatened the Employer with a work stoppage if the work was not 'On January 10, 1910, the Typographers and the Electrotypers entered into an agree- ment that mounting or blocking of stereotype of electrotype plates, either on wood or metal bases , and the mortising or trimming of such plates are properly under the juris- diction of the International Stereotypers and Electrotypers ' Union. This agreement has never been rescinded 1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reassigned to it. Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, 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. D. 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 the various relevant factors; and the Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon common sense and experience and a balancing of such factors .2 1. Skills involved The record reveals that the disputed work is not of a highly skilled nature, and a training period of approximately 2 weeks is normally sufficient to train a new employee for this work. Both the Electro- typers and the Typographers include the disputed work in their apprenticeship programs, and the members of both unions are qualified to do the work. 2. Collective-bargaining agreements 3 Article XI (a) of the Electrotypers' contract states : The bargaining unit shall consist of employees performing the following operations : All molding in plastic, rubber plate making, vinylite, tenaplate, lead molding and waxing. In the event the manufacture of plates is continued beyond the molding process at the Employer's West Haven facility, this section shall extend to the finishing operations required by the Employer in connec- tion with such work .... Section 1(3) of the Typographers' agreement provides: Jurisdiction of the Union begins with the markup of copy [except such markup as is done before the copy reaches the Employer] and continues until the material is ready for the print- ing press [but excluding the making of stereotypes or electro- types], and the appropriate collective-bargaining unit.consists of all employees performing such work. 2 N L R B. v. Radio 4 Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia Broadcasting System ), 364 U.S. 573; International Association of Machinests, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402 8 The 1916 agreement between the Electrotypers and the Typographers which apparently defined the work in dispute as within the jurisdiction of the Electrotypers we deem of little significance in this case because of evidence that a contrary practice has existed at this plant for some 35 years , and the absence of any record evidence to establish that Electrotypers and Typographers have continued to abide by this agreement over the years. N. HAVEN, MERIDEN & B'PORT ELECTROTYPERS, ETC. 1447 Upon consideration of both contracts, in the light of the record, we cannot say it appears that either contract explicitly covers the work in dispute .4 3. Joint board decision There is no decision concerning the exact work in dispute in this plant. 4. Assignment made by Employer The Employer's assignment of the disputed work is consistent with the assignment of the same work to the same type of employees for at least 35 years. 5. Area and industry practice The area practice, as far as the disputed work is concerned, has not been uniform. The record reveals that, throughout the country, there are many printing establishments in which the disputed work is per- formed by electrotypers, and there are about as many in which the dis- puted work is performed by typographers. Thus, the evidence of area and industry practice appears inconclusive. 6. Efficiency of operation The record reveals that the disputed work is normally performed in such a volume as to require the services of only one employee. On occa- sion, however, the work increases to an extent that the services of three employees are required. When this happens, the Employer assigns three typographers to the disputed work and as the volume decreases the men are assigned to other work. If the employer assigns the work to the electrotypers, it would have to employ three men to do the dis- puted work when the volume increases, but it would have no assign- ment for them when the volume of work requires only the services of one man. Conclusion as to the Merits of the Dispute Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in this case, we shall assign the disputed work to employees represented by the Typogra- phers. We have given consideration to the fact that there is no definite area or industry practice in the assignment of such work to either the electrotypers or the typographers; that while neither the Electrotyp- ers' nor the Typographers' contract can be found to specifically cover the disputed work, the assignment of the work appears to be in accord- ance with the assignment intended by the Employer in its contracts with the two unions; that typographers have performed the disputed work for the Employer and its predecessor for approximately 35 years 4 The difficulty in applying the contract stems from the confusion in the record as to whether the work in dispute can be characterized as a finishing operation. 1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD without complaint from the Electrotypers; and that the Employer's assignment to the typographers will result in efficiency of operations. Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. In making this determination, we are awarding the disputed work to employees of the Employer who are represented by the Typographers and not to the Typographers Union and its members. 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 Dispute. 1. Typographers employed by Meredith Printing Company (West Haven Plant) who are represented by New Haven Typographical Union No. 47, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the disputed work of mounting and blocking of illustrations in the Employer's West Haven, Connecticut, plant. 2. New Haven, Meriden & Bridgeport Electrotypers Union No. 83, International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require Meredith Printing Company (West Haven Plant) to assign the above work to employees who are represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, New Haven, Meriden & Bridgeport Electrotypers Union No. 83, International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, AFL- CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, dispute to electrotypers rather than to typographers. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA-9736. Jury 14, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On March 22, 1965, Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. The Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 153 NLRB No. 125.