Printing Pressmen Local 76

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 535 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 76
Duluth Printing Pressmen & Assistants ' Union Local No.
76' and . Clark Printing Company, Inc.' and Duluth
Typographical Union ,• Local No. 136, affiliated with
International Typographical Union ' and International
Stereotypers & Electrotypers , Duluth-Superior Local
118. Case 18-CD-97
May 19, 1970
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge
filed by Clark Printing Company, Inc., herein called
the Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act by Duluth Printing Pressmen & Assistants'
Union Local No. 76, herein called Pressmen. Pursuant
to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
James T. Hansing in Duluth, Minnesota, on January
20 and 21, 1970. The Employer; the Pressmen; the
Duluth Typographical Union, Local No. 136, affiliated
with International Typographical Union, herein called
Typographers; and International Stereotypers & Electro-
typers, Duluth-Superior Local 118, herein called Ste'reo-
typers, 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following findings
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Clark Printing
Company, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation engaged
in wholesale printing of newspapers and commercial
material. During the past year, it purchased goods valued
in excess of $100,000 from outside the State of Minneso-
ta. 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 purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
it. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED„
The parties stipulated , and we find , that the Pressmen,
the Typographers, and the Stereotypers are labor organi-,
nations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
' The names of these parties appear in the caption as amended
at the hearing
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
535
The disputed work which gave rise to this proceeding
concerns the offset preparatory work, including opaqu-
ing, stripping, paste makeup, and platemaking, all of
which accompanies the offset process and is performed
prior to the locking.of the plate on the press.'
In the latter part of August 1969, the Employer pur-
chased a 1250 Multilith offset press and had it installed
in the one large room where the main presses are located
and where the pressmen and the compositors work.
Robert Sulkowski, the Employer's president, testified
that he had heard that Donald Anderson, a compositor
and a member of the Typographers, was experienced
in the offset preparatory process and, on that basis,
made an initial assignment of the offset preparatory
work to him. The work involved requires the ordering
of a negative from another firm that is located on the
second floor of the same building occupied by the
Employer. Anderson takes the negative to the light
table in the mailing department, which is located, in
a separate room off the composing department, and
masks the negative and cuts out the areas that are
to be printed. The opaquing and burning then follows.
Once the plate is burned, Anderson uses a process
gum and developing solution to sharpen the image. When
the required offset preparatory work is completed and
a plate is made, it is routed to a pressman for placing
on the press and for doing the printing - ,
Sulkowski also testified that he expected a jurisdiction-
al problem as had occurred in 1965 when a Heidelberg
offset press had been installed. At that time, when
the plant was under different ownership,-the offset pre-
paratory work was assigned to a member of the Pressmen
and the Typographers threatened to strike unless its
members were assigned the work. That dispute resulted
in the removal of the offset press after a short period
of operation. In the light of the 1965 dispute, Sulkowski
deemed it advisable to contact representatives of the
Pressmen and the Typographers when the offset press
involved herein was installed. As a result of his efforts,
he was told by a representative of the Pressmen that
the member of the Typographers who was then doing
the offset preparatory work could continue doing it
until the dispute was resolved by the Board.
On or about October 23, 1969, Sulkowski received
a letter from Robert J. Plasch, president of the Pressmen,
in which Plasch cited the jurisdiction clause of its current
contract with the Employer and demanded that the
disputed work be assigned to members represented by
the Pressmen Plasch stated in this letter that if the
disputed work was not so assigned that there will be
"no alternative but to call a work stoppage of our
members and place pickets at the entrance of your
plant "
2 There is no dispute as to the operation of the offset press itself,
as the parties agreed that this is work within the jurisdiction of the
Pressmen and is being performed by its members
182 NLRB No. 77
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Contentions of the Parties
The.Employer is neutral as to which Union is to
be assigned the disputed work.
The Pressmen contend that the Employer never made
an assignment of the work to the Typographers; that
its members are competent and skillful enough to perform
the work; and that, on the basis of its current contract
and area practice, the work should be awarded to its
members. The Pressmen further contend that the
Employer's practice favors an assignment of the disputed
work to its members, as evidenced by the installation
of the Heidelberg press in 1965 and the assignment
of the offset preparatory work to one of its members.
The Typographers contend that the disputed work
should be awarded to its members on the basis of
the Employer 's assigning such work to one of its mem-
bers, the skill and competency of this'member to perform
the work, the area practice, and the contract provision
in its contract with the Employer which grants jurisdic-
tion over the work.
The Stereotypers contend that the platemaking aspect
of the offset preparatory process belongs to its members
on the basis of its current contract with the Employer
and the area practice.
C. The 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 therefore 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 of a work stoppage unless its work-assignment
demand was met, we find that there is reasonable cause
to believe that a violation of the Act had occurred
and that the dispute is properly before the Board for
determination.
D. The Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work only
after giving due consideration of various relevant factors.
As the Board has stated, its determination in a jurisdic-
tional dispute case in an act of judgment based upon
common sense and experience and a balancing of such
factors.3
1. Certification and bargaining agreements
Certain of the usual factors considered by the Board
in these cases, such as certifications and contracts,
' N L R B v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212 (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U S 573, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, Lodge No 1743 (J A Jones Construction Compa-
ny), 135 NLRB 1402, 1411
clearly provide little basis for determining the instant
dispute. Thus, there is no Board certification relative
to the disputed work, and the collective-bargaining con-
tracts that the Employer has with the Pressmen, the
Typographers, and the Stereotypers, include provisions
which can be interpreted as encompassing jurisdiction
of the disputed work.
2. Employer and industry practice
Testimony as to area practice reflects that offset pre-
paratory work in the Duluth-Superior area is done by
members of both the Pressmen and the Typographers.
In view of this, there appears to be no justification
based on area practice for assigning the disputed work
to either the Pressmen or the Typographers.
As to the Pressmen's contention of a prior practice
as evidenced by the assignment in 1965 of the offset
preparatory work to one of its members, the record
shows that this press was in operation for only a short
period of time and at a time when the plant was under
different ownership. Consequently, it appears that the
1965 assignment is of little value in determining the
assignment of the disputed work.
3. Efficiency of operations
The record reflects that the Employer has a small
operation and that the printing and related equipment
are centrally located. Both the Pressmen and the Typog-
raphers apparently concede that this factor would favor
none of the Unions involved herein.
4. Relative skills
As to the actual performance of the required offset
preparatory work to date, Sulkowski testified that Ander-
son has performed such work in a satisfactory manner
since receiving the initial assignment. In addition, it
is significant to note that James Cran, foreman of the
pressroom and a member of the Pressmen, who was
assigned the offset preparatory work on the Heidelberg
press in 1965, admitted that Anderson had superior
experience in this type of work. Based on the foregoing,
it would appear that the factor of skills favors an assign-
ment of the disputed work to the employees represented
by the Typographers.
5. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute
Although the factors usually considered by the Board
in jurisdictional dispute cases provide little assistance
in determining the instant dispute, we nevertheless deem
significant the fact that the Employer assigned the offset
preparatory work to an employee represented by the
Typographers, that this employee admittedly has superior
experience in such work, and that this employee has
performed the disputed work in a satisfactory manner
since such assignment. On this record, we can find
no compelling reasons for disturbing this assignment.
Accordingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdiction-
PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 76
al dispute by awarding the offset preparatory work to
employees represented by the Typographers , rather than
to employees represented by the Pressmen or the Stereo-
typers In making this determination , we are assigning
the disputed work to employees who are represented
by the Typographers and not to the Typographers or
its members Our present determination is limited to
the particular dispute which gave rise to this proceeding
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 fol-
lowing Determination of Dispute
1 Employees employed by the Employer who are
represented by Duluth Typographical Union , Local No
537
136, affiliated with International Typographical Union,
are entitled to perform the offset preparatory work which
is performed in connection with the Employer ' s opera-
tion at its plant in Duluth , Minnesota
2 Duluth Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union
Local No 76 is not entitled by means proscribed by
Section 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Clark
Printing Company , Inc , to assign such work to employ-
ees represented by it
3 Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , Duluth Printing Pressmen
& Assistants ' Union Local No 76 shall notify the Region-
al Director for Region 18, in writing , whether or not
it will refrain from forcing or requiring Clark Printing
Company , Inc , by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act , to assign the work awarded above
in a manner inconsistent with the above determination