Philadelphia Mailers Union No. 14

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 1424 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The violations of the Act committed by Respondent are potentially related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and the danger of their commis-
sion in the future is to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The
preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the Recommended Order
herein is coextensive with the threats. In order, therefore, to make effective the
interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and to prevent the recurrence of unfair labor
practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs com-
merce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent,
Titan, and Consolidated be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Marvin
Wiprovnick, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
2. By discharging Wadim Werbitzkij on April 24, 1964, and thereafter refusing
to reinstate said employee to his former or to a substantially equivalent position,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. By conveying to its employees the impression of surveillance of their union
activities and by requesting employees to engage in surveillance of the union activities
of other employees and to report such activities to the Respondent, Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices by reason of conduct
alleged in the complaint to have been in violation of the Act except insofar as such
conduct has been found hereinabove to have violated Section 8 (a) (1) or (3) of the
Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Philadelphia Mailers Union No. 14, International Mailers Union
and Gravure Division of Triangle Publications , Inc. Case No.
4-CD-117. December 9,1965
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 by Gravure Divi-
sion of Triangle Publications, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleg-
ing that Philadelphia Mailers Union No. 14, International Mailers
Union, herein called the Mailers, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D)
of the Act by threatening, coercing, or restraining the Employer for
the purpose of compelling it to assign certain work to, employees
represented by the Mailers, rather than to employees represented by
Local No. 16, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Pressmen, and Local
No. 169, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Paper Handlers.
155 NLRB No. 130.
PHILADELPHIA MAILERS UNION NO. 14 1425
Pursuant to notice, a hearing-was held before Hearing Officer Morris
Mogerman on various dates between October 5, 1964, and July 9, 1965,
at which all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at- the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby afi,.rmed.' All
parties filed briefs which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record 2 in this proceeding,- the National Labor
Relations Board 3 makes the following findings:
1. The business of the Employer
The Empicy er is a division of Triangle Publications, Inc., a. Dela-
ware corporation operating a plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
It is engaged in the production of written material through the
gravure process, including magazines such as TV Guide and Seventeen,
and preprinted color inserts for newspapers. During the past 12
months the Employer made shipments valued in excess of $50,000
from its Philadelphia plant directly to points outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania.. It also received directly from points out-
side the Commonwealth goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. -
2. The labor organizations involved
We find that Philadelphia Mailers Union No. 14, International
Mailers Union; Local 16, International Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO ; and Local No. 169, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
i The Mailers' appeal from the Hearing Officer's decision to close the record on July 9,
1965, is hereby denied, as the testimony taken, including that of the Mailers' president,
has furnished an adequate picture of all relevant aspects of the disputed operation. The
Mailers' appeal from certain other adverse rulings of the Hearing Officer is also denied.
g The Mailers has moved to correct the transcript in a number of respects . The Em-
ployer opposes certain of the proposed corrections . The Paper Handlers asserts that the
transcript errors are not serious enough to warrant action by the Board . We hereby
grant the Mailers' motion, except as to certain proposed changes. -
The_Employer has also moved to correct the- transcript . The Mailers oppose some of
the proposed corrections . We hereby grant the Employer's motion, except as to certain
proposed changes.
8 Pursuant - 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 [ Chairman McCulloch and
Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The dispute
a. The basic facts
In its normal operation, the Employer receives newsprint and raw
material paper used in printing by railroad car at the plant's lowest
level, the second basement. The paper, which come in large rolls, is
unloaded from the railroad cars and transported to conveyors by paper-
handlers. The conveyors move the rolls of paper upward to the next
level of the plant, the reelroom. Here, paperhandlers either store
the rolls or move them to the reels, the bottom portions of the gravure
presses. Pressmen put the rolls on the reels. The rolls are then fed
to the upper part of the presses operated by pressmen in the press-
room, which is on the floor above the reelroom. In the pressroom
the rolls are printed and folded into pages. The printed pages are
taken by hand from the presses by pressmen, loaded on to skids,
and transported to elevators. Employees represented by the Book-
binders Union come down to the pressroom and move the skids up
in elevators to the bindery and mailroom on the floor above. Some
printed pages are moved automatically by conveyors from the presses
to the bindery.
After the printed pages have been stapled or otherwise bound by
bookbinders they are stored on skids on the bindery and mailroom
floor. At this point, mailers take over. They package the printed
product and affix shipping or mailing labels, after which they store
the product on the mailroom floor. When it is time to ship the pack-
aged goods, mailers lower them by elevator and move them to the truck-
loading dock, a half level above the reelroom, or to the railroad
platform at the second basement level. Mailers then load the printed
products on the trucks or railroad cars.
In March 1964 the Employer began producing material for inserts
by a new process known as "preprint." In the regular process, such
material comes off the presses in a single sheet or page form. In the
preprint process, the material for inserts, after being printed, is
rerolled in a form usable for printing on newspaper presses. In
other words, after the printing and rerolling, a newspaper which is
to use it can treat it like an unprinted roll except that printing on a
preprint roll can only be around or on the other side of the gravured
page.
The preprinting process is as follows : The roll of unprinted paper
is fed through the presses and is printed on one side only, or on a
part of one side. It is then usually slit into four rolls and rewound
on a primary winder attached to the press, after which the rolls are
removed by overhead hoists run on monorails. At this point, the
rolls are inspected. Those that require further rewinding are marked
"RW"; those that do not are marked "OK." After being so marked,
PHILADELPHIA MAILERS UNION NO. 1 4 1427
the rolls are moved on overhead hoists to a lift table where a clamping
device known as a mandrel puller decores the rolls by drawing out
the shafts extending through the middle of the rolls. The rolls are
then rolled down an inclined plane or moved by a hoist to a storage
area . From the storage. area the rolls marked "RW" are transferred
to the "secondary rewinder," where they are rewound and defects
eliminated. - A hoist takes the rolls from the secondary rewinder to the
lift table where the spindles used on the secondary rewinder, and the
dividers used to hold the cores in place, are. removed. The rolls are
then moved by ramp from the lift table back to the storage area.
When the rolls are ready for wrapping and labeling they are mnoved
manually from the decoring area to the wrapping area at the south-
eastern corner of the pressroom . The movement of the preprint
from the decoring area to the wrapping area is the first phase of the
operation in dispute. In the wrapping area the cores of the rolls
marked "OK" must be reduced in size from 5 inches to 3 inches. (Rolls
that have. been on the secondary rewinder already have the smaller
core.) This is accomplished by hammering or pushing in a steel
casting adapte-r.
The wrapping process for preprint is unique. First, a circular piece
of kraft paper is taped onto- each end of the roll. Then- the roll is
moved manually to the mechanical header. In order to insure that
the preprint roll is not. damaged by moisture while in storage or
transit, a. 12-foot piece of pembine wrap, which is corrugated on the
outside and has a moisture-proof inner lining, is placed underneath
the roll. A button is pushed on the heading machine and rollers
underneath the pembine wrap and preprint rotate and cover the
preprint with the wrap. Next, the flaps of the pembine wrap which
extend beyond the roll on each side are folded over the roll by hand.
Then a level is tripped on the heading machine and a steel. bar rises
between the rollers and moves the roll into the header. The header
is activated and two circular metal discs on the header move toward
each other pressing and tightening the pembine wrap. Using a paint-
type roller, an employee places glue on two heavy corrugated card-
board discs that are placed on each end of the roll. Once again, the
roll is placed in the heading machine and the metal discs are pressed
against the ends gluing the cardboard discs in place. While the discs
are being glued another employee prepares labels containing, in.'er alia_,
the date wrapped, the job number, and the roll number, and the
number of copies of preprint impression on the roll. A sample of the
particular preprint job contained in the roll is also prepared. After
the wrapping has been completed the labels and sample are affixed
to various parts of the roll. The roll is now ready for storage prior
to shipment.
212-809-66-vol. 155-91
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
In most instances, the wrapped preprint is stored on-the reelroom
floor. Usually the roll is taken from the wrapping area by a sling-
hoist and lowered through an opening in the" pressroom floor to the
reelroom. Personnel in the reelroom are,preti-iouslynotified of the
lowering of a roll by a bell operated by a button on the pressroom floor.
The roll is lowered onto a dolly in the reelroom, the hoist is unfastened,
and the roll is moved to a nearby storage area in the reelroom. - On
occasion, if this storage area is full, wrapped preprint may be lowered
from the pressroom by freight elevator to another storage area in the
reelroom or to a storage area on the second basement level.
When the preprint rolls are to be shipped, personnel from the
truck-loading dock come to the reelroom and move the rolls to an
elevator, and from the elevator to the truck-loading dock. It _is at
this point that the work in dispute ends. - Prior to shipment, the rolls
are weighed and shipping labels are affixed by individuals on the
truck-loading dock, but this work is not in dispute.
- The Employer assigned all the work on the preprint rolls from the
time they are run through the presses -until the wrapped rolls are
dropped to the reelroom to pressmen. It assigned the work of moving
the rolls to storage areas in the reelroom to- paperhandlers, and the
work of moving the rolls from the reelroom to the loading dock,
weighing and addressing the rolls; and loading the preprint on trucks
to mailers.
b. 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
record shows that upon learning of the Employer's assignment of the
disputed work, Respondent Mailers, by letter dated May 14, 1964,
informed the Employer that its assignment of -the- preprint work
was "a clear and definite violation of the jurisdiction clause of- our
contract [with the Employer`]," and that "Unless your Company
immediately agrees to comply with-its written contract ... [Respond-
ent] shall take the necessary steps without delay to establish a picket
line around'yaur-plant advertising the fact that you have given our
work to others." In a letter to the Mailers on May _18, 1964, the
Employer rejected the Mailers' claim of jurisdiction over the handling
of preprint rolls. Again, on June 18, 1964, the Mailers wrote a letter
to the Employer stating that "unless the work is assigned to members
of our unit within the next five days, we shall establish a picket line
around your plant.." The Employer filed a charge against the Mailers
alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) 'on July 13, 1964, and an
amended charge on July 29, 1965.
-PHILADELPHIA lATLERS UNION NO. 14 1429
On the basis of the foregoing conduct, we find that there is reason-
able cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) has
occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for deter-
mination under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
c. Con tentions of the parties
Respondent contends that-it is established industry practice, as well
as the Employer's past practice, for mailers exclusively to wrap and
label "finished products," and that preprint rolls are "finished prod-
ucts." In support of the latter contention, the Mailers cites sections
of its international constitution and decisions of arbitrators, as well
as the Board's Decision in Detroit=mailers Union. No. 4, international
Mailers Union (Detroit Gravure Corporation), 146 NLRB 226. The
Mailers contends also that its contract with the Employer gives the
Mailers jurisdiction over such printed finished goods. Finally,
Respondent urges that it would be more efficient to assign the disputed
work to mailers.
Both the Employer and Pressmen dispute the Mailers' argument
based on efficiency and contend, instead, that the printing of the
preprint rolls, their wrapping and labeling, and the, lowering of the
rolls to the reelroom level, is one integrated operation that is per-
formed most economically by employees represented by the Pressmen
who work regularly on the pressroom floor. As for that part of the
operation performed in the reelroom, the Employer and Paper Han-
dlers argue that its most efficient for paperhandlers to receive the rolls
and store ther_Z in the reelroom, as pa-perhandlers regularly work in
this area moving and storing rolls of newsprint. Contrary to the
Paper Handlers, however, the Employer urges that the assignment to
mailers of the moving of the preprint rolls to the loading dock is more
efficient because the mailers work on the truck-loading dock itself and
because the mailers ordinarily move printed products from the storage
areas to the loading dock.
d. Merits of the dispute
1. Skills involved
The record shows that the disputed work requires little skill; it
can be learned in a week. The Mailers contends that its members
have more experience in moving preprint rolls than pressmen as
mailers customarily move heavy rolls of kraft wrapping paper in the
plant. According to the Mailers, its members also bring greater
expertise to the wrapping and labeling of preprint, as they exclusively
have labeled finished products for shipment.. The Paper Handlers,
on the basis of its members' experience in moving rolls of newsprint,
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS -BOARD
urges that the-factor of skill favors it. Both the Mailers and Paper
Handlers admit, however, that no great skill is required to perform
the disputed operation. In view of this fact, we find that the factor
of skill favors none of the unions.
2. National Labor Relations Board certification
The Paper Handlers was certified-in 1952 as the representative of
a unit of "All paper handlers, employed by the company at the store-
room and at the two Reel Rooms of the Rotogravure Division . . . ."
Although never certified as majority representative, the Mailers won a
union authorization election in 1948 in a unit of "mailers" in another
building of Triangle Publications. The Pressmen has never been
certified.
Both the Paper Handlers' certification and the union shop authoriza-
tion of the Mailers were issued long before pre-print work was begun
and thus can have no direct application to the work in dispute.
Furthermore, the Mailers' union shop authorization was for employees
in another building and therefore could not be made applicable to
the Gravure Division. The Paper Handlers' certification does refer
to work performed in the reelroom at Gravure and therefore might
be utilized to support a claim to the preprint work assigned by the
Employer to paperhandlers in the reelroom. By limiting the paper-
handlers' work to the storeroom and reelrooms, however, the certifica-
tion provides some. indication that it was not the established practice
for paperhandlers to do work, such as that now in dispute, -which
would take them to the loading -dock. Accordingly, we find nothing
in the Paper Handlers' certification or the Mailers' union shop authori-
zation that is in conflict with the Employer's assignment of work.
3. Contractual claims -
The most recent collective-bargaining contract between the Mailers
and the Employer was entered into on December 6, 1962, and was
effective from October 1, 1962, to September 30, 1965. Section 1, the
recognition clause of the contract, provides that "The Employer
recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for all of its
employees in the mailing room."' Section 2, upon which the Mailers
relies, delineates the Mailers' jurisdiction, as follows:
(a) All work appertaining to mailing,- such as addressing,
tagging, stamping, labeling, -bundling, banding or wrapping of
magazines, newspapers or other printed matter in packages,
cartons or on skids, preparing of lists or wrapping, operating
stencil machines, or filing and correcting stencils, sorting, routing,
dissecting or marking wrappers, taking bundles of -papers or
magazines from conveyors or escalators, stacking folding, han-
PHILADELPHIA M OILERS UNION NO. 14 1431
dling of bundles or mail sacks, distributing,- counting- of papers
or magazines (leaving or returning), tying, sacking, delivering
papers or magazines (to mailers, carriers or newsboys), inserting
or dispatching of papers=or magazines, envelopes whether done
by hand or power machine (including auxiliary machines used
in preparatory work for making plates, stencils or any device that
may be used in placing names or addresses on wrappers or papers,
etc.), now in use or that in the future may be introduced, is part
of the mailing craft.
- (b) Jurisdiction as defined in Paragraph (a) of this section,
insofar as it pertains-to conveyors or escalators shall include only
Inquirer supplements and finished products requiring bundling or
wrapping.
(c) It is agreed and understood that this agreement is not
intended to curtail mailer jurisdiction over any specific job opera-
tion not specifically described herein which is presently being
done by members of the collective bargaining unit. Only mailers
(members of the collective bargaining unit) shall be permitted to
perform any specific job operation, jurisdiction over which has
been conferred in this section to members of the collective bargain-
ing unit, regardless where said work is performed inside the plant.
-Earlier collective-bargaining contracts between the Mailers and
the Employer, as far back as December 1946, all contain jurisdictional
language similar to that found in section _2. -
Stressed by the Mailers in its brie-f to the Board are those provi-
sions of section 2 that confer jurisdiction "regardless where said work
is performed inside the plant," and over "other printed matter." The
Mailers argues that this phraseology is broad enough to encompass
the wrapping and labeling of preprint-rolls. According to the Mailers,
that -part of section -2(b) which confers jurisdiction over "finished
products''-'requiring bundling and wrapping also gives the hailers
Jurisdiction over rolls of ,preprint. A decision by Arbitrator J. Charles
Short on January 19, 1955, involving only the Mailers and Employer
and defining the phrase "finished product," is .cited by the Mailers
to show that the disputed work is coveredby section 2(b); Arbitration
was resorted to when the Employer refused to give to the Mailers the
job of wrapping and labeling certain flat products that required no
further work at the Triangle bindery but did-require, some additional
work at an outside bindery. Arbitrator Short held; that the term
"finished products" in section 2(b) did encompass such products as
the Mailers claimed. - -
The Employer denies that the Mailers' contract covers preprint
rolls. It is the Employer's` contention that section 2(a)', which sets
forth the specific work over which the Mailers has jurisdiction, must
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be read together with the recognition clause which relates to "employ-
ees in the mailroom." Thus, the Employer urges that section 2(a)
is a description only of work to be accomplished in the mailing room.
The Employer, too, cites an arbitration award, in this instance by
Arbitrator Aaron Horvitz, rendered on May 5, 1963. The award held,
in part, that the TV Set Buyers Guide was not a "finished product"
when it came off the conveyors as it required the insertion of a stitch,
or staple, in the Triangle bindery before being shipped out. The
Employer reasons from this holding that as "OK" rolls of preprint
in the storage area still must be fitted with a 3-inch adaptor, they are
not "finished products" and do not require work "appertaining to
mailing" under the jurisdictional clause of the Mailers' contract.
The Pressmen and Paper Handlers do not rely on their collective-
bargaining contracts 4
While we do not specifically adopt the contentions of either the
Employer or Mailers with respect to the interpretation of their con-
tract, we find that, although the language of the jurisdictional clause
is quite broad, it appears to relate exclusively to the common, flat
printed product. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the parties could
have contemplated otherwise, as the language of the jurisdictional
clause dates back to 1946, many years before the production of preprint
in rolled form. Accordingly, we cannot say that the parties' intent,
as indicated by their contract, warrants an assignment of the disputed
work to the Mailers.
4. Union constitution
In order to substantiate its claim that its traditional jurisdiction
extends to the wrapping and labeling of rolls or preprint, the Mailers
refers to the jurisdictional clause of its constitution, article III, section
2(a). This section was amended in 1964, specifically to include the
"preparing for mailing, wrapping and shipping of preprinted prod-
ucts ...." The Mailers further contends that it always bad jurisdiction
over the wrapping, labeling, storing, and shipping of flat preprints
and that the 1964 amendment was merely a clarification. Prior to
1964, however, article II, section 2(a) was no more specific with
respect to the work here in dispute than is the jurisdictional clause
of the Mailers' most recent collective-bargaining contract, which we
have already found to be of no value in determining the instant con-
troversy. Clearly, too, the 1964 amendment is of such recent vintage
that it cannot be used to delineate the Mailers' "traditional" jurisdic-
4 The Pressmen suggests the relevancy of a letter agreement dated March 13, 1964, by
which the Employer and Pressmen agreed to the details of that part of the preprint oper-
ation which the Employer already has decided to assign to the Pressmen. This letter
agreement, however , does not claim to rely upon language in the Pressmen's contract and
is, accordingly , of no value in weighing the jurisdictional claims herein.
PHILADELPHIA MAILERS UNION NO. 14 1433
tion. And, even accepting the Mailers', contention with respect -to its
exclusive jurisdiction over flat preprints, this camiot be. dispositive of
its claim with respect to the singular methods utilized to wrap and
label rolled preprint.
,-he Pressmen's constitution was not introduced into evidence; -the
Paper Handlers' constitution contains no relevant jurisdictional lan-
guage. We find that the Union's constitutions are not a- helpful factor
in determining the dispute.
5. Efficiency of operation -
The Employer vigorously asserts that its assignment of the disputed
work is the most efficient method of doing this work. The record
shows that at present the. Employer's No. 3 press, the only press upon
which preprint work is performed, normally has an employee com-
plement of six pressmen. When work is to be performed on the
secondary rewinder, the Employer usually calls in two additional
employees, one pressman and one flyboy. If there are rolls of preprint
to be wrapped, labeled, and lowered to. the reelroom, the-. Employer
brings in two additional flyboys to .perform these operations. This
additional personnel is not brought in until approximately four shifts
after the preprint operation begins, insuring that there will be suf-
ficient work for those assigned to handle the preprint rolls.
The -Mailers denies that the present assignment of work is most
efficient. It contends that as mailers now work in all areas of the
plant, they could easily be brought to the pressroom to work on the
preprint rolls, and could be transferred to other work if there was a
lull in preprint roll production. - Supervision would be no problem,
according to the Mailers, as mailers working on preprint rolls could
be supervised either by the pressroom supervisor or by the supervisor
who now di-ides most of his time between mailers on the truck-loading
dock and those on the train loading platform., Finally the,, Mailers
notes that when additional' flyboys are assigned to the No. 3 press
crew, the. Pressmen's contract provides. that they cannot-be assigned
to work with any other crew. Thus, the Mailers argues, if -there- 'are
no preprint rolls to move, wrap, and label, the extra flyboys will be
idle for an entire shift.
A representative of the Employer testified, however, that if the
mailers were assigned the disputed work, not only would at least
one -dditional employee have to be hired, but probably an additional
supervisor would have to be called in as well. The record shows,
furthermore, that far from remaining idle when there is no work to
do on preprint rolls, the -additional flyboys are assigned to other jobs,
such as cleanup work. Contrary to the _Mailers' Claini, the testimony
1434 DECISIONS` OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
indicates that it might be difficult to reassign mailers to other jobs
if there were no wrapping or labeling work on preprint to be done,
as the mailers do not ordinarily do much work on the pressroom floor.
Finally, and most important, the present assignment of -work clearly
follows a , closely coordinated' and integrated pattern with an efficient
use` of personnel. Pressmen, who regularly work on the pressroom
floor, are assigned all work on the preprint rolls in the pressroom.
Likewise, paperhandlers, who ordinarily move and store large- rolls
of newsprint in the reelroom, are required to receive and store the
preprint in the ree-lroom., Similarly, mailers, who work daily on the
truck-loading dock, are responsible for bringing the preprint rolls to
the dock.
Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute
The principal basis of the Mailers' claim is its traditional role in
taking material- from the presses and in wrapping, labeling, and
shipping this material. Such traditional factors were relied on in
Detroit Gravure Corporation, 146 NLRB 226, where the Board
awarded to the Mailers work similar to that in the instant case. No
evidence was adduced in Detroit Gravure, however, to substantiate
claims that an assignment to the Mailers was inefficient, and the
Board held that the factor of efficiency of operation appeared to be
"of little or no importance." Subsequently, in Louisville 'hailers
Union No. 99, Affluiated International Mailers Union, Standard Gra
vure Corporation, 150 NLRB 121, the Board recognized that the
economies realized from a particular assignment of work on preprint
rolls might be, dispositive. In the Standard Gravure decision, the
Board first- distinguished Detroit Grarvure, noting that, unlike the
situation in Detroit Gravure, mailers at the Standard plant did not
work in the area of the presses, where the preprint operation was
performed, whereas paperhandlers did.5 The Board then held that,
"This circumstance, as well as the efficiency and economy effected by
the existing assignment of the "disputed work to the paperhandlers
and -the- Employer's `preference for the paperhandlers, outweight the
claims of the mailers to the disputed work." -
We likewise find that the factor of efficiency of operation upon
which the Employer's assignment of the disputed work was based
outweighs the h'ailers' claim to work now being performed by the
pressmen. fie also reject the Mailers' contention that it should
perform work now done by paperhandlers in the reelroom. In addition
to the factor of efficiency which, because paperhandlers regularly work
c At the Gravure Division, too , the- Employer' s assignments of preprint- work to the
pressmen, paperhandiers , and mailers are in the areas of the plant where these employees
regularly work. -
PHILADELPHIA MAILERS UNION. NO. -14 1435
in the reelroom, favors the Employer's assignment, we find that the
Paper Handlers' certification for a. reelroom unit supports its claim
to this aspect of the preprint operation. The Paper Handlers' claim
to the work now performed by- mailers of moving the preprint' rolls
from the reelroom to the loading dock is without merit. Here; too,
the efficiency factor favors the mailers, who must coordinate. the flow
of work on the loading dock with -the movement- of the preprint to
the dock. Further support for an assignment of this aspect of the
disputed work to the mailers may be found in the mailers' traditional
role in loading wrapped bundles.
Accordingly, we shall determine the existing dispute by assigning,
to pressmen represented by Local No. 16, International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, the
work of handling, moving, storing, wrapping, and labeling preprint
material in the pressroom and dropping the preprint rolls to the
reelroom; to paperhandlers represented by Local No. 169, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, the work of receiving and storing the preprint material
in the reelroom; and to employees represented by Philadelphia Mailers
Union No. 14, international Mailers Union, the work of moving the
preprint rolls from the storage area in the reelroom to the loading
dock. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed
work to employees represented by the respective unions, but not to
these unions or their members. Our present determination 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 case-, the Board makes the following determination of dispute,
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act :
1. Employees classified as pressmen, flyboys, etc., currently repre-
sented by Local No. 16, International Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to the work of
handling, moving, storing, wrapping, and labeling preprint material
from the time it is moved from storage in the decoring area until it
is dropped to the reelroom at the Employer's plant located in Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania. Employees classified as paperhandlers, currently
represented by Local No. 169, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are entitled
to the work of receiving and storing preprint rolls in the reelroom.
Employees classified as mailers, currently represented by Philadelphia
Mailers Union No. 14, International Mailers Union, are entitled to
the work of moving the preprint rolls from the reelroom storage area
to the loading dock.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Philadelphia Mailers Union No. 14, International Mailers Union,
is not entitled, be means prescribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the
Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above work, not
now being done by mailers represented by Philadelphia Mailers Union
No. 14, to the mailers.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion, Philadelphia Mailers Union No. 14, International Mailers Union,
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, whether
it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work
in dispute to mailers rather than to paperhandlers or pressmen.
0