Wilkes-Barre Typograpical Union No. 187

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 269 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

WILKES-BARRE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 187 269
All our employees are free to become, or refrain from becoming , members of the
above-named or any other labor organization.
STINSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington , Telephone No. 682-3300 , if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Wilkes-Barre Typographical Union No. 187 and Llewellyn &
McKane, Inc. -
Wilkes-Barre Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 137,
and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of
North America and Payne Printery, Inc.
Wilkes-Barre Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 137
and Llewellyn Brothers, Inc. Cases Nos. 4-CD-99, 4-CD-100,
and 4-CD-102. August 10, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act following
charges filed by Llewellyn & McKane, Inc., Llewellyn Brothers, Inc.,
and Payne Printery, Inc., alleging that Wilkes-Barre Typographical
Union No. 187, hereinafter referred to as ITU, and Wilkes-Barre
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 137, and International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, herein-
after 'referred to as Pressmen, had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of
the Act. The charges allege, in substance, that Respondent Unions
threatened to engage in a strike or refusal to work with an object of
forcing or requiring the Employers 'to assign particular work to em-
ployees represented by their respective unions. A consolidated hear-
ing was held before Hearing Officer William J. Davis on April 6
and 7, 1964. The Employers, the Pressmen, and 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
Pressmen and the ITU filed briefs. - I
'At the hearing the parties stipulated to incoiporate in the record herein by reference
the testimony of certain named witnesses given in other 10(k) proceedings before the
Board. Such testimony accordingly is made part of the record herein and has been con-
sidered by the Board in reaching its determination.
148 NLRB No. 26.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 2 makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Employers
The parties stipulated that all three companies are Pennsylvania
corporations located at or near Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and are en-
gaged in the operation of commercial printing shops. In the opera-
tion of their businesses, Llewellyn &'McKane and Payne Printery each
annually purchases goods and materials originating outside the State
of Pennsylvania valued at in-excess of $50,000 per annum. * Llewellyn
Brothers annually purchases goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Pennsylvania. We
find that the Employers are 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 are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The dispute
A. The basic facts
The Employers are members of the Employing Pressmen of Wilkes-
Barre, an organization of employers who operate commercial printing
establishments. The Employers have bargained on a multiemployer
basis with the ITU and Pressmen for a substantial period of time.
The current agreement between the Pressmen and the Association en-
tered into November 1, 1963, stipulated that the Pressmen shall have
jurisdiction over ". . . all work in connection with offset platemaking,
including camera operation, all dark room work, stripping, layout,
opaquing and platemaking." The current agreement between the
ITU and the Association provides, in material part that the ITU shall
represent all :
... employees engaged in proofing, waxing and paste-makeup
with reproduction proofs, processing the product of photo-
typesetting machines, including development and waxing paste-
makeup of all type, hand'lettered, illustrative border and decora-
tive material constituting a part of the copy; ruling;
photo-proofing; correction, alteration and imposition of the
paste-makeup in the platemaking process. Paste-makeup for the
camera as used in this paragraph includes all photostats "and prints
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(6) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom , Fanning,
and Brown].
WILKES-BARRE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 187 271
used in offset or letterpress work and includes all photostats and
positive proofs of illustrations (such as Velox) where positive
proofs can be supplied without sacrifice of quality or duplication
of efforts.
The Employers have executed respectively identical contracts with the
Unions involved.
At each Employer's plant, composing room employees are repre-
sented by the ITU and pressroom employees by the Pressmen. The
Employers now operate both letterpress and offset press equipment
although at one time they printed by letterpress process alone.
Llewellyn Brothers, Inc.: In 1953 Llewellyn Brothers installed its
first offset press; in 1960 through 1963 three more presses were added.
Offset preparatory and platemaking equipment, that did not include
an offset camera were installed in 1953 at the time the first offset press
was purchased. It is not disputed that the Pressmen performed all
of the preparatory work in the making of offset plates. The nega-
tives were purchased by the Employer.
In 1962 Llewellyn Brothers purchased an offset camera which was
installed on the second floor of the plant apparently in proximity to
the composing room. At the same time, the Employer hired one
Gerald Nash to operate the camera. Nash's duties also included offset
stripping. In early February 1964, the'Pressmen first made their de-
mand of Llewellyn Brothers for the assignment of the work of operat-
ing the offset camera and it is undisputed that on February 13, the
Pressmen threatened to strike the plant unless Nash who was then
operating the camera joined the Pressmen.
Payne Printery, Inc.: As in the case of Llewellyn Brothers, it is not
disputed that after the acquisition of offset presses the offset prepara-
tory work was performed by the Pressmen . At' present Payne em-
ploys three letterpress operators, three offset pressmen, and three
compositors. Payne however acquired an offset camera some 6 years
before the present dispute arose. During that interval of time one of
the pressmen, who was then also occupied in making the offset plates,
was given the task of operating the camera . On November 18, 1963,
Payne employed one Frey mainly- to operate the camera, but also to
make offset plates. Frey was informed by an officer of the firm of the
presence of the Unions in the plant,,and ultimately elected to join the
ITU, although the work he was performing was work previously
performed by one of the pressmen.
During the month 'of December the Pressmen represented by Wil-
liams, local president, and by International Representative Tufo and
by Thennes , another union official, approached an officer of Payne and
demanded that Frey join the Pressmen. On another occasion during
the same month the ITU, represented by Local President Smith, made
a similar demand of the Employer . Apparently the representatives
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of each union threatened to strike unless Frey joined his union. Such
threat was specifically made on January 23, 1964, after the Press-
men had learned that Frey had filed a membership application with
the ITU.
Llewellyn c1 McKane, Inc.: Llewellyn & McKane acquired its off-
set camera in September 1963. Here, too, the Pressmen had before
this performed all offset preparatory work. Sometime before De-
cember 10, 1963, Llewellyn & McKane hired one Storz to operate the
camera. Storz had been hired from a nonunion shop, but at SOME
unspecified time after his hire joined the Pressmen. Apparently in
early December both the ITU and the Pressmen approached the Em-
ployer and claimed jurisdiction over the new employee.
Although the ITU denies that it at any time threatened to strike the
Employer unless jurisdiction over the offset camera was given to the
ITU, the evidence fairly establishes that the ITU representative,
Smith, showed the Employer a letter received from its International
in which the local was instructed to take a firm position concerning the
ITU's jurisdiction over the offset camera work. Smith then added
that if Storz did not join the Union he (Smith) "was going to pull
ITU members." Smith denied that he made such remark but admitted
that "Of course, I told him he was letting himself open for more
drastic action . . . we just told him we didn't anticipate any strike but
it was possible we could take our men and make them refuse to handle
any work ...."
B. Contentions of the parties
The Pressmen assert jurisdiction with respect to the work of operat-
ing the photo offset camera on the ground that their contract specifi-
cally covers the work in dispute, that the work is a normal part of offset
preparatory work, that the Pressmen have operated the offset camera
at Payne Printery for the past 6 years before the work was assigned to
a newly hired employee, that the "employee represented by the Press-
men now operates the offset camera at Llewellyn & McKane, and that
as a matter of employer practice pressmen regularly perform all other
offset preparatory work and the making of the finished plate. Fur-
thermore, the Pressmen contend that industry and area practice, as
well as considerations of skill and efficiency of operation, favor the
assignment of this work to the Pressmen.
With respect to the disputes affecting Llewellyn Brothers and Payne
Printery, the ITU claims that the photo offset camera is a substitute
process for tasks previously performed by the composing room em-
ployees. They also contend that' the traditional line of demarcation
between the composing room and press operations is, that the compos-
ing room prepares matter for running on the presses and the pressmen
WILKES-BARRE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 187 273
run the presses. The ITU also relies on contract coverage, industry
practice, skill, and efficiency of operations. As to the alleged dispute
at Llewellyn & McKane, the ITU argues that the evidence fails to
show that it had threatened any violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) and
hence that in the absence of such showing that the Board should not
proceed to a determination of the dispute in that case.
The Employers take neutral positions.
Applicability of the Statute
The charges, which were duly investigated by the Regional Direc-
tor, allege a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. The Re-
gional Director was satisfied upon the basis of investigations that there
was reasonable cause to believe that violations had been committed and
directed that a consolidated hearing be held in accordance with Sec-
tion 10 (k) of the Act.
The record is clear and it is not disputed that after Llewellyn
Brothers and Payne Printery hired the new employees to operate the
,offset cameras the Pressmen threatened to strike their plants unless
the new employees joined the Pressmen's Union.
As to Llewellyn & McKane, ITU Representative Smith's remark to
the Employer that although he did not anticipate a strike "it was
possible we could take our men and make them refuse to handle any
work," explaining that his remark at the time had reference to the
,camera, is reasonably subject to the interpretation that unless the
Employer assigned the particular work to the ITU, the employees
represented by the ITU would walk off their job. We find therefore
on the entire record that there is reasonable cause to believe that
violations of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) have occurred in all three cases, and
the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under
Section 10 (k) of the Act.'
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 act of judgment based upon common-
sense and experience and a balancing of such factors 4 -
8 Although certain of the claims refer to the union membership -of the employees per-
forming the disputed work , we find on the entire record that In each instance the under-
lying dispute concerns an Issue of work jurisdiction.
' N.L.R.B. v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, IBEWP ( Colum-
bia Broadcasting System ), 364 U S 573; International Association of Machinists, Lodge
No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402.
760-577-65-vol. 148-19
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Skills involved
In the case of Payne Printery, the evidence establishes that for a
period of some 6 years after the Employer acquired its own photo off-
set camera, a member of the, Pressmen operated the camera and there
is neither evidence nor contention that he was not qualified to perform
this particular task. Furthermore, a representative of the Pressmen
testified that the Pressmen maintain a technical trade school in Ten-
nessee where special courses are offered in the operation of the photo
offset camera, and that a study of offset camera operation as well as
platemaking is part of the study of the operation of the offset press.
However, the record makes equally clear that the ITU also maintains
a training school where courses are offered in the operation of the
offset camera and other preparatory work.'
While the record shows that a member of the Pressmen in one case
actually possessed and exercised the skills necessary for the operation
of the offset camera, and that pressmen were generally the ones who
performed all other offset- preparatory work, we cannot say on the
evidence in the record as a whole that employees represented by the
ITU are not equally skilled in the operation of the photo offset camera.
Therefore we find that the factor of employee skill favors neither
Union.
2. Area practice •
As noted above, the Employers involved in the instant matter are
members of the Employing Printers of Wilkes-Barre, an employer
association that engages in collective bargaining on a multiemployer
basis with the ITU and the Pressmen.
While the evidence is far from clear on this point, the record indi-
cates that there are nine commercial printing establishments in the
area, and that eight of them use the offset printing process as well as
letterpress process. Without exception, all offset preparatory work,
other than the camera work, is performed by pressmen. Three of the
-firms, other than the Employers here involved, do their own offset
camera work, and in each instance, such camera work is 'regularly per-
formed by members of the Pressmen. With the possible exception of
one firm, whose president is an ITU member, and who "may" on
occasion operate the camera, no firm employs an ITU member for
camera work. Although the evidence on area practice is not overly
persuasive, it does appear to favor the Pressmen.
s Newspaper Web Pressmen Local 6 , International Printing Pressmen and Assistants
Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Labor Cooperative Educational and Publishing Society,
Inc), 147-NLRB 660.
WILKES-BARRE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 187 275 .
3: Contractual claim
There is no reference in the record to any contracts which antedated
the acquisition of the photo offset cameras and thus the record fails
to establish either on behalf of the ITU or the Pressmen a contractual
claim to the particular work before the execution of the current con-
tracts. While the ITU claims jurisdiction over the,particular work
on the basis of its current agreement, such jurisdiction is far from
clearly spelled out in its agreement. The,Pressmen's contract, on the
other hand, specifically refers to the work under the jurisdiction of the
Pressmen as including "all work in connection with offset platemaking
including camera operation." We note however that none of the,
Employers assigned the work in dispute to the Pressmen but appar-
ently hired nonunion-employees who were free to join either Union
and that two of them elected to join the ITU.
Although the current agreements were entered into after the acquisi-
tion and installation of the cameras, and thus are not a controlling
consideration, yet it is clear from the language: of the agreements
that it was the intent of the contracting parties that the operation
of the photo offset camera, part of offset preparatory work, and the
making of the offset plates was to be a function of the Pressmen's unit.
We find therefore that the provisions of the parties' contracts favor
the Pressmen.
4. Employers' past practice
As indicated, the offset camera at Llewellyn Brothers has been op-
erated by a member of the ITU since 1962.6 At Llewellyn & McKane
the camera has been operated by a member of the Pressmen since
September 1963. Although•the camera at Payne Printery has been
operated by a member of the ITU since approximately, January 1964,.
when employee Frey elected to join the ITU, we note that for the 6
years prior to that time the offset camera was operated by employee
Carter, a member of the Pressmen. , Thus, while individual Employer
practice does not point convincingly' in either direction insofar, as
Llewellyn Brothers and Llewellyn & McKane, are concerned, we are
disposed to weigh the balance in favor of the Pressmen at Payne
Printery since it is clear that'for a period of 6 years Carter, a member
of the Pressmen , was assigned the duties not only of operating the
camera but of platemaking as well, and when the new employee Frey
replaced Carter he also was assigned the additional duty of plate-
making, ,a function that is clearly part of the Pressmen's job.
6 The Pressmen maintain that before Nash was hired the offset camera was operated by
a member of the Pressmen . The Employer disputes this testimony . Even if the testimony
of the Pressmen is to be credited it is obvious that if any such operation took place it was
of such short duration as to be of no significance
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Efficiency of operation
Neither union challenges the skills of the employees who are at
present performing the disputed work although each claims that its
members can perform the work more efficiently. The Employers do
not contend that members of one union can perform the work more
efficiently than those of the other.
Although the offset camera at Llewellyn Brothers is located in an
area near the composing room there is no evidence that the work of
operating the camera is intimately tied in with other work performed
in the composing room. On the other hand, it is stated on the record
that Frey, the camera operator at Payne Printery, is also engaged in
platemaking, a function, we have observed, that is within the province
of the Pressmen. However, we cannot say on the record before us
that the factor of efficiency of operation favors one union more than
another.
CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
In view of the foregoing, particularly the evidence pertaining to
area practice, the contract provisions between the Employers and the
Pressmen which explicitly give jurisdiction over the disputed work
to the Pressmen, the exercise of jurisdiction over the disputed work
by the Pressmen in the case of at least one employer, the fact that the
established area and employer practice shows, without exception, that
the Pressmen exercise jurisdiction over all other offset preparatory
work, and the fact that the Board normally includes offset camera-
men in the same unit as other offset preparatory employees,7 we find
that pressroom employees represented by the Pressmen's Union are
entitled to the disputed work of operating the photo. offset camera,
and shall determine the dispute in their favor. In making this de-
termination, we are assigning the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by the Pressmen, but not to the Pressmen or its 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 proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of
dispute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Employees, employed by the Employers, who are represented `
by Wilkes-Barre Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 137,
and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North
7 E.g., The Plimpton Press, 140 NLRB 975, 977.
CARIBE LUMBER AND TRADING CORPORATION 277
America, are entitled to perform the operation of the photo offset
camera at the Employers' Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, plants.
2. Wilkes-Barre Typographical Union No. 187, affiliated with Inter-
national Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been
lawfully entitled to force or require Llewellyn & McKane, Inc., to
assign the above work to employees who are currently represented
by Wilkes-Barre Typographical Union No. 187, affiliated with Inter-
national Typographical Union, AFL-CIO.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Wilkes-Barre Typographical Union No. 187, affiliated with
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, whether or not it will
refrain from forcing or requiring Llewellyn & McKane, Inc., by
means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dis-
pute to compositors rather than to pressmen.
Caribe Lumber and Trading Corporation and Virgin Islands
Labor Union. Case No. A0-79. August 10, 1964
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on July 13, 1964, by Caribe Lumber and
Trading Corporation, herein called the Employer, for an Advisory
Opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National
Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows :
1. There is pending before the Department of Agriculture and
Labor, Virgin Islands of the United States at Christiansted, St. Croix,
herein called Territorial Department, a proceeding filed by the Virgin
Islands Labor Union, herein called the Union, and docketed as Case
No. 1-1965, charging the Employer and two of its officers with the
commission of an unfair labor practice in the dismissal of Vincente
Rosa from its employ.
2. The Employer, a Virgin Islands corporation, is engaged in the
retail and wholesale sale of building materials and supplies and in
general hardware merchandising. Its principal office and store are
located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, while its branch office
and store are located in St. Croix, Virgin Islands. The Employer's
annual gross volume of business in St. Croix is over $500,000.
3. The Territorial Department has made no findings with respect
to the aforementioned commerce data.
4. There is no representation proceeding involving the Employer
and the Union presently pending before the Board or the Territorial
Department.
148 NLRB No. 29.