Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No. 84, Etc.

DES MOINES ELECTROTYPERS' UNION NO 84, ETC 391 Turf Club, the Board had occasion to consider racetrack operations of comparable size and character to the ones involved herein, and found that such operations, although not wholly unrelated to com- merce, were essentially local in character 12 The instant record does not compel a contrary conclusion, and, for the same reasons, we find that racetrack operations are essentially local in nature In the second place, Board declination of jurisdiction will not leave the labor rela- tions of such operations unregulated Congress, in addition to estab- hshmg the Board's discretionary authority to decline jurisdiction, specifically provided for State assumption of jurisdiction in such situations 18 Given the character of racetrack operations, which are permitted to operate by reason of special State dispensation, and are subject to detailed regulation by the States, we can assume that the States involved will be quick to assert their authority to effectuate such regulation as is consonant with their basic policy In these cir- eumstaaces, we anticipate little interference or obstruction with com- merce resulting from labor disputes in the racetrack industry as a result of our decision to decline to assert jurisdiction over such operations Consistent with the foregoing, we find that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein, and, accordingly, we grant the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition [The Board dismissed the petition ] 12 The two racetracks involved in that case were "among the leading racetracks in the United States in the amount of money distributed as prizes and stakes, the number of large stake races conducted, the size bf the attendance , and the amount of money wagered " The Employer ranks about 10th in the country in terms of money wagered Is Section 14(e) (2 ) of the Act, as amended, by Public Law 86-257, 86th Congress Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No. 84 and the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Meredith Publishing Company. Case No 18-CD-20 November 27, 1959 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro- vides that, "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter- mine the dispute out of which such unfair practice shall have arisen " 125 NLRB No 49 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On July 17 and August 5, 1959, Meredith Publishing Company, herein called Meredith, filed with the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region a charge and amended charge, alleging in substance that Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No. 84 and the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein collectively called the Stereotypers, had engaged in a strike for the purpose of forcing and requiring Meredith to assign work on machines #1 and #2 of the so-called "Pin System" to members of the Stereotypers in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections 102.79 and 102.80 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all parties. The hearing was held before Max Rotenberg, hearing officer, on August 18, 19, and 20, 1959. Meredith, the Stereotypers, and the Intervenor, International Print- ing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and Des Moines Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 86, herein collectively called the Pressmen, 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 pre- judicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties filed briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board 1 makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Meredith Publishing Company is engaged in the business of printing and publishing magazines and books. It makes annual ship- ments from its plant in Des Moines, Iowa, to locations outside that State valued at approximately $50,000,000. The parties agree, and we find, that Meredith is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Stereotypers and the Pressmen are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. The dispute : As stated, Meredith prints and publishes books and magazines at a plant in Des Moines, Iowa. On January 21, 1954, following a consent election, the Regional Director certified the Pressmen 2 as the exclusive representative of a unit at the Des Moines plant which included letterpressmen, offset department employees, inspection and preliminary make-ready de- ' 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning). 2 The certification was actually only to Des Moines Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 86, I.P.P.A.U.-AFL. DES MOINES ELECTROTYPERS' UNION NO. 84, ETC. 393 partment employees,' and paper stock department employees. On March 4, 1958, following another consent election, the Regional Direc- tor certified the Stereotypers 4 as exclusive representative of "all em- ployees of the Electrotyping Department (Dept. 70) . . . including molders and finishers . . . excluding all other employees...." The collective-bargaining contract between the Pressmen and Mere- dith effective from January 1, 1959, to May 1, 1960, provides (see. 2.10) It is recognized and agreed the jurisdiction over which this contract shall apply extends over all printing presses employed in departments where Pressmen's Local No. 86 now have juris- diction concerning pressrooms of the employer. This will include offset and letter press printing presses, and all work in connection with offset platemaking, including camera operation, all dark- room work, stripping, layout, opaquing, and platemaking; pre- make ready processes and services in connection with letter press plates. A collective-bargaining agreement between the Stereotypers and Meredith effective from March 1, 1957, to February 28, 1959, provides in section 15: All employees employed in the electrotype department performing the following operations are covered by this agreement : Filling of Originals for Molding, Cleaning, Taping, etc.; Mold- ing of Originals, Forms, Cuts, etc.; Disposition of Originals; Melting of and reconditioning of used plastics for reuse; Chrom- ing; Cleaning of Plates for chroming; Cleaning plastics for spraying and spraying of silver; Testing and Maintenance of Nickel, chrome, copper and tin batteries; Cleaning used plastics; Filing all plastics in current use; Tining shells; Trimming shells; Fluxing and tinfoiling shells; Flat casting; Scrubbing and cut- ting of -casts; Squaring shells for Centrifugal Casting; Making ring of shells for Centrifugal Casting; Casting Centrifugal Casts; Sawing Centrifugal Casts; Cleaning Flat Caster; Pressure Casting; Bumping plates; First Shaving of Plates; Consolevel- ing plates; Second shaving of plates; Flat finishing; Final shav- ing; Squaring of plates; Curving of plates; Beveling of plates; Routing of plates; Squaring curved cast plates; Boring curved plates; Solidifying curved plates; Recurving to press size; Curv- ing aluminum; Cutting aluminum; Washing aluminum; Lami- 'The unit which is very detailed describes the inspection and preliminary make-ready department as including "those operating single color proofing presses , both flat and cylinder, four color proofing presses , proving of plates and/ or cuts, interlaying or under- laying of all plates and/or cuts, the cutting of all face mats in treating , cutting treat sheets, including both front and back mats , and operating the treating machine... . A The certification actually ran to Des Moines Electrotypers ' Union No. 84, of the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO. 394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nating plates; Scarfing laminated plates; Changing of scarfing head; Changing of boring head; Mounting editorial cuts; -Mount- ing ads; Patching originals; Repairing ads; Repairing editorial. cuts; Dismounting of Editorial and ads; Cutting column base; changing saw blades; Changing trimmer knives; Curve finishing- of plates; Repairing plates on presses; Cropping plates to size; Trimming for register on proof presses; Making corrections on. cuts in form; The placing of face mats on curved plates, when such plates are in equipment under the jurisdiction of electro- typers, if and when the current dispute between electrotypers- and pressmen is settled in favor of the electrotypers. In the fall of 1958, Meredith introduced a new method of producing- some of its printing plates in order to improve the quality of its- printing and reduce the cost of premake ready and make ready- operations. The new method is known as the "Pin System" and com- prises the use of six different machines in sequence. Meredith as- signed the work on machines #3, #4, #5, and #6 to members of the Stereotypers; there is no dispute as to this assignment. It also noti- fied the Stereotypers that work on machines #1 and #2 would go to- members, of the pressmen. The Stereotypers refused to acquiesce in this proposed assignment and when its protests failed, struck on July 17, 1959. The strike and accompanying picketing continued until. July 20, 1959, when it was enjoined by a temporary injunction issued by a Federal district court. The Stereotypers stipulated that one of the objects of the strike was to obtain a collective-bargaining contract which would give to the Stereotypers the disputed work on machines #1 and #2. Although Meredith assigned the disputed work to the Pressmen, members of that organization are not presently perform- ing such work. Research development personnel have been operating the machines since their installation with the consent of both Unions because of the inability of the Unions to agree as to which members should perform the work. Contentions of the Parties Meredith contends that it was within its rights in assigning the work on machines #1 and #2 to the Pressmen. It asserts that the production results on these two machines are the same as those ob- tained by members of the Pressmen under methods used prior to the- adoption of the "Pin System" and that this work is given to the Press- men by the current collective-bargaining contract with that -labor. organization. It further asserts that the Stereotypers has no con- tractual right to such work and that the work stoppage and picketing engaged in by the Stereotypers to enforce its claim violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. DES MOINES ELECTROTYPERS' UNION NO. 84, ETC. 395 The Stereotypers contends that machines #1 and #2 in the "Pin System" do work which was done by members of the Stereotypers under the old method of plate manufacturing and that it is entitled to such work under the Board's certification and the collective-bargain- ing contract with Meredith which expired on February 28, 1959. The Pressmen asserts that its members have always performed the work now done by machines #1 and #2, that this work is covered by its Board certificate, and that it is included in the coverage of its present and past collective-bargaining contracts with Meredith. 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, and the Re- gional Director was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that there was reasonable cause to believe that such violation had been committed. In a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, the Board is re- quired to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated before proceeding with a determina- tion of the dispute out of which the unfair labor practice has arisen. On the basis of all the evidence, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Stereotypers engaged in, and induced and en- couraged employees of Meredith to engage in, a strike with an object of forcing or requiring Meredith to assign the work on machines #1 and #2 of the "Pin System" to its members, although Meredith had assigned such work to employees who were members of the Pressmen. Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. Merits of the Dispute We view the dispute presented as essentially a disagreement be- tween two unions as to which of the existing bargaining units ap- propriately includes the disputed work. It is therefore a dispute which may be determined by making an appropriate unit determi- nation.5 Machine #1 of the "Pin System" is a modified drawing board with translucent glass in it, lights underneath, and an apparatus above for determining page position. It is used in the following fashion. A vinyl proof of the printing plate is placed on the machine and over- layed with a piece of transparent plastic on which are marked posi- r Window Glass Cutters League of America, AFL-CIO ( Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Com- pany ), et at., 123 NLRB 1183 ( Members Rodgers and Bean dissenting) ; Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 556, AFL (Safeway Stores, Incorporated ), 101 NLRB 181 ; Local 26, International Fur and Leather Workers Union, etc. (WVinslow Bros . & Smith Co. ), 90 NLRB 1379. 396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tioning lines to indicate the position of the printing on the finished page of the magazine. After this position has been determined, marks are made upon the transparent proof of the printing plate in -order to locate in the succeeding operations the correct positioning of the plate on the press. The vinylite proof is then placed on the right :segment of machine #2 in line with predetermined marks on the machine, and the electrotype from which the proof was made is placed on the left segment of the machine in an approximately cor- rect position through means of a series of lenses. The image on the transparent proof and the image of the electrotype plate are super- imposed. The segment containing the printing plate is then moved laterally or circumferentially in order that the two images may be -exactly superimposed. By pushing a button two holes called pilot holes are drilled into the edges of the printing plate to indicate the correct positioning of the plate. The other plates which are to be registered with the first plate are handled in like manner. According to the testimony of Meredith's manager, mechanical re- -search and materials testing, which we credit, members of the Press- men have always done the registration 6 and preregistration of print- ing plates.7 Machines #1 and #2, according to this witness, are essentially preregistration devices. By the use of these new machines more effective and efficient preregistration can take place with a sav- ing of registration efforts on the presses during make-ready time. We find, on the basis of all the evidence, that employees operating machines #1 and #2 in the "Pin System" are appropriately in- -eluded in the unit represented by the Pressmen. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE On the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act : 1. Employees of Meredith operating machines #1 and #2 in the "Pin System" are appropriately included in the bargaining unit presently represented by the Pressmen and not in the bargaining unit now represented by the Stereotypers. 2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, Meredith, the Pressmen, and the Stereotypers shall notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing, of the steps each has taken to comply with the terms of this Decision and Determination of Dispute. e Registration is the movement of color plates so that the images are directly super- imposed in proper position on the printed surface. 7 Preregistration is the prepositioning of printing plates and identifying these printing plates in such a manner that a minimum amount of registration will be required on the ,printing presses.