St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, Etc.

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.