Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No 84, Etc.

DES MOINES ELECTROTYPERS ' UNION NO. 84, ETC. 801 practices have been remedied and conditions for a free choice established, from adopting representation from their own ranks or any other kind of representation, if such is their genuine desire, unfettered by the Company's domination , assistance, or support . As the findings of interference, restraint, and coercion are derived from the Section 8 (a) (2) violation, it will be recommended only that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in like or related conduct interfering with the rep- resentation of its employees. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Shop Council is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By assisting, supporting, and dominating the Shop Council as heretofore described, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. 3. By such conduct the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in 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. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No. 84 and the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Respondent Unions and Meredith Publishing Com- pany. Case No.18-CD-20. August 4.,1960 DECISION AND ORDER On June 22,1960, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.' The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report , the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. 3 The • Respondents have requested oral argument. The request is denied as the record, including the exceptions and the brief, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. '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]. 128 NLRB No. 97. 802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No. 84 and the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of Meredith Publishing Company to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, ma- terials, or commodities or to perform any services where an object thereof is forcing or requiring Meredith Publishing Company to assign work on machines #1 and #2 of the "Pin System" to members of the Respondents rather than to employees who are not members of that labor organization, unless and until the Respondents are certified by the Board as the bargaining representative for employees perform- ing such work. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at their respective business offices copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by official representatives, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to members of the Respondents are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Meredith Pub- lishing Company, the Company willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice to be fur- nished by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondents, as indicated, be forthwith re- turned to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, of the steps taken to comply herewith. 3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of 'a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." DES MOINES ELECTROTYPERS' UNION NO. 84, ETC. APPENDIX 803 NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF DES MOINES ELECTROTYPERS'UNION No. 84 AND THE INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS' AND ELECTROTYPERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of Meredith Publishing Company to engage in, a strike or a con- certed refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu- facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require Meredith Publishing Company to assign work on machines #1 and #2 of the "Pin System" to our members rather than to employees who are not members of our labor organization, unless and until we are certified by the Board as the bargaining representative for employees performing such work. DES MOINES ELECTROTYPERS'UNION No. 84, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS'AND ELEC- TROTYPERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, against the Respondent Union , Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No. 84 and the International Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Electrotypers, upon charges filed by Meredith Publishing Company, hereinafter called Meredith, and upon complaint and answer,' was heard, pursuant to due notice, in Des Moines, 1 Electrotypers' answer was not filed in accordance with Sections 102.20 and 102 21 of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , Series 8, and both Meredith and the Pressmen ob- jected to the admission of the answer. ( They were not served copies as required by the rules.) I admitted the answer without ruling on the objection in the interest of saving time, and the merits of the case were tried. Inasmuch as the issues were litigated ; the principal party to the proceeding is the General Counsel and he had received proper 804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Iowa, on March 14 and 15, 1960.2 The allegations of the complaint, denied by the answer, are that the Electrotypers violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. All parties were represented at the hearing, participated therein, and were afforded full opportunity to present and meet evidence, and to file briefs. Both the General Counsel and the Electrotypers filed briefs and findings of fact and conclusions of law. From my observation of the witnesses, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Meredith Publishing Company is engaged in the business of printing, publishing, and distributing the magazine commonly known as Better Homes and Gardens, and other magazines and various books. It makes annual shipments from its plants in Des Moines, Iowa, to locations outside the State valued at approximately $50,000,000. I find that Meredith Publishing Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No. 84 and the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background On November 27, 1959, the Board issued a Decision and Determination of Dispute in Case No 18-CD-20, 125 NLRB 391. The following determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act was made: 1. Employees of Meredith operating machines #1 and #2 in the "Pin System" are appropriately included in the bargaining unit presently repre- sented by the Pressmen and not in the bargaining unit now represented by the Stereotypers. [I call them Electrotypers.] 2 Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Meredith, the Pressmen, and the Stereotypers shall notify the Re- gional Directoi for the Eighteenth Region, in writing, of the steps each has taken to comply with the terms of this Decision and Determination of Dispute. Section 10(k) interposes an intermediate formal step between the completion of the investigation and the issuance of the complaint based thereon. It provides for a hearing and a declaratory ruling by the Board on the question of legal entitle- ment to force or require the work assignments involved in the underlying dispute, which is designed to facilitate settement of the dispute and to obviate the need for further proceedings. If the 10(k) procedure has failed to produce a settle- ment or acceptance of the underlying dispute-and it is clear that it has failed to do so in this case 3-then the only substantive matter to be decided in the instant proceeding is whether an unfair labor practice has been committed within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) as of the time alleged and, if so, what the appropriate remedy should be. It must be remembered that the Board did not definitively determine that the Electrotypers violated the Act, rather, it found that there is reasonable cause to believe that they did so. Meredith. through its technical staff, designed, built, and put into operation, a new system for the production of electrotype. plates known as the "Pin System," consisting of six separate machines. It assigned the operation of "Pin System," machines #1 and #2 to the Pressmen, and machines #3 to #6, inclusive, to the Electrotypers. service of the answer; and the other parties can show no prejudice to their case in view of the disposition of the matter, I hereby overrule this technical objection and admit the answer over their objections. B International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, intervened in the proceedings . It will be hereinafter called the Pressmen. 8 The Regional Director was advised by wire on December 7, 1959, that the Electrotypers disagreed with the Board decision and were not going to comply with its ruling. DES MOINES ELECTROTYPERS' UNION NO. 84, ETC. 805 The Electrotypers demanded of Meredith that Meredith assign the operation of "Pin System" machines #1 and #2 to them instead of to the Pressmen, and upon refusal of Meredith so to do, the Electrotypers called a strike. The plant was struck and picketed by Electrotypers, beginning about noon, on June 17, 1959, for the purpose of forcing Meredith to assign the operation of "Pin System" machines #1 and #2 to the Electrotypers. The strike and picketing continued until and ended about 1 p m. on July 20, 1959, in compliance with the Federal district court injunction. These facts are uncontested by Electrotypers. The Board found in its Decision and Determination of Dispute in the Section 10(k) proceedings, that the dispute presented was essentially a disagreement between two unions as to which of the existing bargaining units appropriately included the disputed work. l agree with this. B. Merits of the dispute 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 plates is placed on the machine and overlayed with a piece of transparent plastic on which are marked positioning 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 suc- ceeding operation 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 correct position through means of a series of lenses. The image on the transparent proof and the image of the electrotype plate are superimposed. 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 research and materials testing, which is credited,4 members of the Pressmen have always done the registration and preregistration of printing plates. (Registration is the move- ment of color plates so that the images,are directly superimposed in proper position on the printed surface. 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.) 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 saving of registration efforts on the presses during makeready time. An important consideration in making the finding that machines #1 and #2 are essen- tially preregistration devices has to do with quality responsibility. Registration of the plates is determined largely by the precision with which the work is per- formed on these two machines. Likewise prior to the use of the machines pre- cise registration was accomplished by the Pressmen. C. The contentions of Respondent Unions The Electrotypers claim that by virtue of a certification from the Board they are entitled to the work done by the two machines as the machines have now re- placed actual manual operations which were heretofore done by Electrotypers. They claim, in essence, that the pinholes put into the plate by machine #2 have nothing to do with the actual registration of the curved plate on the press and that the drilling of the two holes governs the entire manufacturing process of the plates in its size and shape and that as its certification runs to the type of work ordinarily done in the manufacture of a plate, that this certification covers the operations. In addition, they claim the work of the machines by virtue of the fact that the actual putting of the pinholes into the electric type plates directly affect their work under the contract as it relates to the squaring of the plates, the beveling of the plates, the 'The parties stipulated that the record in the Section 10(k) proceeding was to form part of the record in this case. In that proceeding the Board credited Meredith's man- ager and there is nothing in this record to cause me to question this determination. 577684-61-vol. 128-52 806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD squaring of the curve cast plates, the scarfing, and the cropping of plates all of which jobs were done prior to the advent of the machines by them. Considerable evidence was adduced as to the work previously performed by the Electrotypers and that performed by the Pressmen. The Trial Examiner inspected the plant in order to better understand the issues. D. Concluding findings as to the dispute To recap, the General Counsel contends that the Respondents have violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by virtue of the conduct outlined above. The main thrust of the Electrotypers' defense is that they are claiming the work by virtue of previous certification and also by virtue of a contract with the Employer. If the Electrotypers are correct with respect to either of these contentions the Act is not violated. In its original 10(k) decision the Board dealt with this identical contention and found that it could not agree, and, in fact found that on the contrary the Pressmen were entitled to the work by virtue of the fact that the work done by machines #1 and #2 belong to the employees in the bargaining unit being represented by the Pressmen and not to the employees in the bargaining unit being represented by the Electrotypers. I have come to the same conclusion based upon my own independent study of essentially the identical record used by the Board, and I likewise find the contention of the Electrotypers to be without merit. I fully agreed with the Board that machines #1 and #2 are essentially preregis- tration devices, that by the use of the new machines more effective and efficient pre- registration can take place with the saving of registration efforts on the presses during makeready time, and that members of the Pressmen have always done this registration and preregistration of printing plates. It appears to me that Meredith, by using these machines, has considerably shortened the time within which one of these plates can be made and of course has considerably dropped its operating cost. The crux of the case seems to be that the Electrotypers are saying that Meredith with the use of machines # 1 and #2 is doing the same job but by a different machine than it formerly did. Hence, as they used to do the job they should work the machine. However, it seems to me that rather than doing the some job Meredith is using different means to accomplish a same end product. This is not the same as to say that the same job is being done by a different machine. In creating the same end product, the most important aspect of machines #1 and #2 is to preregister. The fact that machines #1 and #2 of the "Pin System" took away work formerly done by Electrotypers does not mean that the Electrotypers are entitled to work the machines. Work of others was also lost. Nowhere in the certification to the Electrotypers is the disputed work assigned to to the employees represented by the Electrotypers. There is no order of the Board assigning this disputed work to the employees represented by the Electrotypers. Nor is there any provision in a contract between Meredith and the Electrotypers which gives the disputed work to the employees represented by them. As a matter of fact, on January 21, 1954, following a consent election, the Regional Director certified the Pressmen as the exclusive representative of a unit, including the em- ployees engaged in premakeready, preregistry and registering of electroplates. Ma- chines #1 and #2 of the "Pin System" is in this job classification. In addition, the contract between the Pressmen and Meredith, in evidence in this proceeding, specifi- cally gives the disputed work to the Pressmen. This provision has been included in the prior contracts between Meredith and the Pressmen union for many years. Accordingly, I find that the Electrotypers violated the provisions of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by engaging in a strike and picketing, the object of which was to force Meredith to assign the disputed work to them rather than to the Press- men, when they had no claim to it based upon a previous Board certification, or Board order or a contract between them and Meredith. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Electrotypers set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the employer set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead and have led to labor disputes threatening commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Electrotypers violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. LENSCRAFT OPTICAL CORP. AND RAYEX CORP. 807 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Electrotypers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By engaging in a strike and picketing with an object of forcing or requiring Meredith to assign the disputed work on machines #1 and #2 of "Pin System" to its members rather than to employee members of the Pressmen, the Electrotypers have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2( 6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Lenscraft Optical Corporation and Rayex Corporation and Alessandro Rivero and Local 422, International Jewelry Work- ers Union, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract Local 122, International Jewelry Workers Union , AFL-CIO and Alessandro Rivero and Local 422, International Jewelry Work- ers Union, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract Lenscraft Optical Corporation and Rayex Corporation and Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Ware- housemen, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Ind.) and Local 422, International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL- CIO, Party to the Contract Local 122, International Jewelry Workers Union , AFL-CIO and Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Ind.) and Local 422, International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract. Cases Nos. 2-CA-5504,2-CB- 2097, 2-CA-5505, 2-CB-2071,. August 24, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On July 31, 1959, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his Intermediate Report in these proceedings, finding that the Respondent Companies, Lenscraft Optical Corporation and Rayex Corporation, herein individually called Lenscraft and Rayex, had engaged in vio- lations of Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act and recommend- ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner found that neither the Respondent Companies nor Local 122, International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO, the Respondent Union, had engaged in certain other un- fair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended the dismissal of the complaint with respect to such allegations. There- after the Respondent Companies filed exceptions, a brief and reply 128 NLRB No. 99.