St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 8, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 1127 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

ST. LOUIS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 8, ETC. 1127
St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, affiliated with Interna-
tional Typographical Union , AFL-CIO and Bejae Printing
Company and St. Louis Printing Pressmen and Assistants
Union No. 6, Inc., affiliated with International Printing Press-
men and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Case
No. 14-CD-135. April 8, 1963
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, following a
charge filed by Bejae Printing Company, herein called the Employer,
alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) by St. Louis Typographi-
cal Union No. 8, affiliated with International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called the ITU. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was
held on September 26, 1962, at St. Louis, Missouri, before Thomas W.
Seeler, hearing officer. 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 officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, both the ITU and St. Louis
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 6, Inc., affiliated with
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Pressmen's Union, filed briefs
which have been duly considered by the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Missouri corporation with its principal office and
business establishment in St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in general
commercial printing and the preparation and nonretail sale of printed
matter. The Employer annually ships from its establishment in St.
Louis, Missouri, directly to customers located outside the State of
Missouri, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. 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 juris-
diction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
ITU and Pressmen 's Union are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
141 NLRB No. 100.
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The basic facts
The Employer maintains a general commercial printing establish-
ment, including both offset and letterpress operations. Its approxi-
mately 31 employees are classified as typographers, compositors, press-
men, and a pressfeeder. The pressmen and pressfeeder are represented
by the Pressmen's Union, and the typographers and compositors are
represented by the ITU.
In October 1961 the Employer purchased a new machine called a
Compos-O-Line which is described in the record as a sequential card
camera, and is the subject of the present controversy. At various
times from October 1961 to January 1962, Harry Russell, president
of the ITU, and John Ilewski, president of Pressmen's Union, observed
the new machine at the plant and discussed its operation with Em-
ployer's president, John McSorley. When both Unions claimed juris-
diction over the operation of the Compos-O-Line, McSorley requested
a meeting with Russell and Ilewski to resolve the question. This
meeting, which was held on February 20, proved unsuccessful, and up
until the time of the hearing the employer had not made an assign-
ment of the work in question.
Subsequent to the aforementioned meeting, Russell is alleged to
have threatened to strike the Employer unless the operation of the
Compos-O-Line was assigned to the members of the ITU. McSorley
testified that on March 28 Russell visited his office and stated that he,
Russell, had strike sanction from his International Union concerning
the assignment of the Compos-O-Line work. Edward Busekrus, Em-
ployer's plant superintendent, testified that on April 19, and again
on May 10, Russell told him to inform McSorley that he (Russell)
had strike sanction and that the ITU could not sign a new contract
with McSorley unless the work assignment (referring to the Compos-
O-Line) was satisfactorily settled. McSorley further testified that
on July 30 he had a conversation with Russell during which Russell
again stated that he could not give McSorley a contract until the ma-
chine was assigned to ITU members and that "he would hate to do it,
but he would have to strike and he had the authority to do so unless
he did get it." According to McSorley and Alfred Kempton, Em-
ployer's accountant, who was also present during the conversation,
Russell was asked by Kempton what would happen if the work were
assigned to the Pressmen's Union, to which Russell replied, "the
[ITU] International would force a strike." Russell, in his testimony,
denied making any of the above statements attributed to him and
denied that he in fact requested strike sanction from the International.
However, Russell did admit that the ITU is claiming the Compos-O-
ST. LOUIS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 8, ETC. 1129
Line work and that he has not offered a new contract to McSorley
"because I want this thing [Compos-O-Line] resolved before we had
a contract."
B. Contentions of the parties
No party denies the existence of a jurisdictional dispute.
The ITU claims jurisdiction over the work in question based upon
(a) the skill of its members to perform such work, and, (b) the efficient
operation of the Employer's business. Pressmen's Union also bases
its claim upon these criteria, but in addition it claims the work under
its contract with the Employer and on the basis of area practices with
respect to similar equipment. The Employer takes a neutral position
in the dispute.
C. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute pur-
suant 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 vio-
lated. As set forth in section A, above, there is record testimony that
on various occasions from March 28 to July 30, 1962, ITU President
Russell threatened the Employer with a strike and a refusal to enter
into a new collective-bargaining agreement unless the Employer as-
signed the work on the Compos-O-Line to ITU members. While
Russell denied such statements, he did admit that the ITU is claiming
the work in question and that he has not offered a new contract to the
Employer "because I want this thing [Compos-O-Line] resolved be-
fore we had a contract." In such circumstances, 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.
IV. THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
The Compos-O-Line is a new reproduction machine, of which there
were only 14 in existence in the United States at the time of the hear-
ing. Although the Compos-O-Line has not as yet been used in the
Employer's operations, President McSorley stated that it was his
intention to use the machine in filling orders for catalogues and parts
lists. The machine may be said to operate as a camera. The material
to be reproduced is typed on cards which are inserted in the machine
in a particular sequence. The machine's camera lens is then focused
upon a specific line of printing on the card, and as the cards flip over
automatically, the printing is photographed. When the film is re-
moved from the machine, it is developed and a negative made. The
negative in turn is used in the preparation of an offset printing plate.
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The ITU and Pressmen's Union base their respective claims to the
disputed work on the following factors : 1
A. The skills involved
The Employer has no other camera equipment in the plant, and
McSorley stated that to his knowledge there was no one in the plant,
with the exception of himself and his assistant, who were qualified to
operate the Compos-O-Line. The Employer contemplates assigning
only one employee to perform the work in question, except in such in-
stances where, due to the size of the project, more than one employee's
services will be required to prepare the cards used in the machine. The
employee, who would be classified as an operator, would be expected
to perform several functions. The operator would prepare the cards
if they had not been previously prepared by the customer; make the
necessary lens adjustments in the machine's camera; and, manually
operate the machine. The film negative would be used in the prepara-
tion of an offset plate, but as the Employer now has no platemaking
facilities, this work is contracted out. McSorely stated that the prep-
aration of the cards and the camera lens adjustments would require
a knowledge of type sizes and that these skills are found among the
compositors, who are represented by ITU. However, McSorley also
stated that the lens adjustments on the Compos-O-Line are similar
to those on an offset platemaking camera. Ilewski of the Pressmen's
Union testified without contradiction that a man experienced in offset
camera work could operate the Compos-O-Line and that there is
presently employed in the Employer's plant a member of the Press-
men's Union who has had such experience.
It would appear from the foregoing that the requisite skills neces-
sary for an employee to perform the work in question would involve a
knowledge of type sizes. As it is established that such knowledge
would be found not only among the compositors, but also in the Press-
men's unit in the Employer's plant, we find that factor of employee
skills favors neither Union.
B. Contractual claim
The Pressmen's Union claims jurisdiction over the Compos-O-Line
work based upon section 2 of its current collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Employer. Section 2 grants to Pressmen's Union
jurisdiction over all printing presses, including offset and letterpress
printing presses, and "all work in connection with offset platemaking,
' Certain other factors normally relied upon by the Board in making jurisdictional awards
are not present in this case These would include Board certifications , awards by joint
boards , and employer assignments.
ST. LOUIS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 8, ETC. 1131
including camera operation, all darkroom work, stripping, layout,
opaquing, and platemaking." Pressmen's Union contends that the
Compos-O-Line is a camera which is used in the preparation of an
offset plate, and hence the literal language of this provision expressly
grants jurisdiction over the machine to its members.
There is no current collective-bargaining agreement in effect between
the Employer and the ITU. However, it appears that the parties are
honoring the terms of their agreement which expired on September 30,
1961, article 1, section 5, of this agreement provides that in the event
the Employer installs new machines and/or new processes "affecting
composingroom work," the Employer agrees to give the Union ade-
quate notice to enable it to train employees or other members to op-
erate them. The ITU argues that composingroom work is affected be-
cause the Compos-O-Line eliminates the necessity of setting type in
"hot metal," which is considered to be composingroom work.
While it is undisputed that the work performed by the Compos-O-
Line in other circumstances might be done in "hot metal," the record
establishes that the Employer contemplates using the machine only to
handle special orders (catalogues and parts lists) which it was not
equipped to handle in the past. Also, with respect to the ITU's con-
tractual claim to the disputed work, article 1, section 2, of its agree-
ment with the Employer provides that the ITU does not claim the
camera, used in making the negative for the platemaking process, if
the Employer has, by contract, assigned it to another union. In view of
the foregoing, we find that the factor of contractual claims favors the
Pressmen's Union.
C. Industry and area practice
There is no industry or area practice in evidence with respect to the
operation of the Compos-O-Line. However, based upon the similarity
between the Compos-O-Line and the offset platemaking camera, Press-
men's Union offered evidence to show that its members operate offset
cameras in several printing shops in the St. Louis area. The ITU also
introduced evidence to establish that its members operated various
types of cameras in establishments in the St. Louis area. However, the
ITU was unable to cite any example where its members operated
lithographic cameras such as are used in the offset platemaking proc-
ess. Accordingly, we find that area practice favors Pressmen's Union.
V. EFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS
Both the Pressmen's Union and the ITU cite this factor in support
of their claims. However, their claims are premised on the theory
that their respective members are the most skilled to perform the
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disputed work and would therefore perform it more efficiently. In
view of our finding with respect to the skills of the Employer's em-
ployees, we find that the factor of efficient operation of the Employer's
business favors neither Union.
CONCLUSIONS AS TO TAE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
On the basis of the evidence set forth under the above-enumerated
factors, we conclude that the pressmen are entitled to the disputed
work herein. Accordingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdic-
tional dispute by deciding that the pressmen, represented by Press-
men's Union, rather than the compositors, represented by the ITU,
are entitled to the work in question. In making this determination, we
are assigning the disputed work to pressmen, who are represented by
the Pressmen's Union, but not to Pressmen's Union or to its members.
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. Pressmen in the unit represented by St. Louis Printing Pressmen
and Assistants Union No. 6, Inc., affiliated with International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, are
entitled to operate the Compos-O-Line, including the preparation of
cards; the making of lens adjustments in the machine's camera; and
the manual operation of said machine, used by Bejae Printing Com-
pany at its St. Louis, Missouri, printing shop.
2. St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, affiliated with International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been lawfully
entitled to force or require Bejae Printing Company to assign the
above work to employees engaged as compositors, who are currently
represented by St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, affiliated with
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO.
3. Within 10 clays from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, affiliated with
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Re-
gional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in writing, whether or not
it will refrain from forcing or requiring Bejae Printing Company,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in
dispute to compositors rather than to pressmen.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Determination of Dispute.