Louisville Mailers Union No. 99, Etc.

LOUISVILLE MAILERS UNION NO. 99, ETC. 721 technicians who are not included in the unit request Will remain unrepresented. The thrust of the evidence Petitioner presented and the argument in its brief is that the electronic technicans are tech- nical employees who are required to show training and skill in their speciality, to exercise independent judgment and to work with pro- fessional engineers. The same considerations are equally applicable, however, to the 80 or so experimental technicians who are engaged in -other work of a technical nature not involving electronics. The Board has held that a unit of technical employees is inappropriate where it does not include all in that category." Finding as we do that the unit requested by the Petitioner is inap- propriate, we shall dismiss the petition.4 [The Board dismissed the petition.] 3 Westinghouse Electric Corporation ( Naval Reactors Facility ), 137 NLRB 332. 4 We are not passing on the question whether a unit of technical employees may, in any event, be separately represented at this plant under the criteria of Sheffield Corporation, 134 NLRB 1101 . We note, however , that the work of most of the electronic technicians, involving fabrication , proving-in, maintenance , or calibration of electronic test equipment and prototypes , is an essential element in the inspection process , which, as in The Boeing Company, 144 NLRB 1110 , is intimately connected with production. There are, for example , classifications of inspectors in the bargaining unit who use the same instruments as the electronic technicians and whose work also requires similar training, skills,- and the use of judgment in their work . In addition , some of the test equipment fabricated by the electronic technicians is produced for sale rather than for internal plant use and, to that extent, some of the technicians are directly engaged in production Louisville Mailers Union No. 99, affiliated with International Mailers Union and Standard Gravure Corporation . Case No. 9-CD-74. December 29, 196.E 4 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section,10(k) of the Act following a charge filed by Standard Gravure Corporation, herein called the' Employer, alleging that Louisville Mailers Union No. 99, Inter- national Mailers Union, herein called the Mailers, had violated Sec- tion 8(b) (4) (D), by threatening, coercing, or restraining the Em- ployer for purposes of compelling it to assign certain work to em- ployees represented by the Mailers, rather than to employees -repre- sented by General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Paper Handlers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Alan D. Greene, on July 23 and 24, 1964, at which all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon 150 NLRB No. 58. 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing were free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed., Briefs were filed by the Employer, Paper Handlers, and the Mailers. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board 1 makes the follow- ing findings : I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer is a Kentucky corporation with its principal office and place of business in Louisville, Kentucky. It is engaged in the business of printing rotogravure newspaper supplements, magazines, commercial booklets, and preprinted color pages for newspapers. During the past 12 months the Employer, in the course and con- duct of its business operations, shipped goods and materials in excess of $50,000 value from its Louisville plant directly to points outside the State of Kentucky. The parties stipulated and 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 jurisdiction herein. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Louisville Mailers Union No. 99, International Mailers Union and General Drivers, Ware- housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, -Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The basic facts The Employer uses in the printing business heavy rolls of news- print paper weighing up to 2,000 pounds. Newsprint rolls are moved by paperhandlers from trucks to the storage area 2 and at appropriate times are taken by paperhandlers and delivered to the pressroom at the printing presses. Pressmen place the rolls in presses. Printed hatter in page size, cut form, and folded that comes off the presses is sent by conveyor belt to the bindery on the third floor of the premises where employees represented by the Mailers take the products from the press conveyors; tie them in a tying machine, and wrap, label, and put bundles on conveyors or 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown] 2 The paperhandlers who move the newsprint rolls from truck to the storage area are on the payroll of the Courier-Journal. LOUISVILLE MAILERS UNION NO. 99, ETC. 723 skids. The bundles are then picked up by flatbed trucks and taken to the storage areas or to the marshaling area by both mailers and paperhandlers.3 In July 1963 Gravure initiated a process known as preprint. In this process rolls of newsprint are delivered to the presses in the normal way by paperhandlers, but unlike the customary binding process, in preprint, only one side or part of one side of the roll of newsprint is printed on. The purpose of this method of printing is to permit future users of this newsprint to print their own ma- terial on the unused printed side or unused areas of the newsprint roll. The preprint rolls are then rewound on a rewinding machine as they come off the printing press. At this point, the paper- handlers using a specially designed forklift move the rolls of pre- print to the reel room. The core is then broken down and the rolls that have been slit into four 15-inch sections are separated. If the roll is to be stored, it is wrapped in polyethylene for protection against moisture. The rolls that are to be sent to an outside customer are placed two per package, weighing between 850 to 915 pounds per package. The rolls are placed on the floor over wrapping material with the glue on the forward edge. A roll is then manually rolled over the wrap- ping material, picking up the glued edge, and is wrapped with the material. Three bands are, in like manner, glued onto the wrapped roll and the edges of the wrapping material are then hand-crimped around the roll. The roll is then rolled into a heated heading ma- chine, with 2-inch clearance on either side. The heading machine is then tripped with a lever, and two large circular clamps apply treated, kraft paper heads on each end of the roll. The heat from the header machine seals the heads on the package; after the head is applied, a paperhandler manually rolls the packaged roll from the heading machine. Labels are then affixed by, paperhandlers, and the roll is either rolled onto a conveyor, and taken to an elevator, or is transported to the elevators by a padded forklift. In July 1963 Standard began some limited, experimental pre- printing operations and the work of handling the preprint material as it came off the press was being performed by paperhandlers. In August 1963 the Mailers sent a letter to Standard, protesting the assignment of such work to paperhandlers. At this time the pre- print operation had not been put into effect on a permanent basis. 3 The parties stipulated that the Mailers' certification described the unit as all of the employees of said corporation engaged as such in the bindery department on the third floor of the building of said corporation located at the above address. 724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD After the August letter, the Mailers and Standard entered' into nego- tiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement. During these negotiations, the question of the preprint operation came up, the Mailers contending that the jurisdictional clause of its contract covered the instant work. Standard did not, however, agree with this interpretation of the contract, and the Mailers' representatives were told by the Employer that the preprint operation was experi- mental, that the Employer was not sure it would work out, and that the Employer had as yet purchased no equipment for the operation. The parties agreed-that if and when the problem arose it could be negotiated at that time. The instant controversy arose when the Mailers, learned for the first time on February 28, 1964, that paperhandlers had been per- manently assigned * the work of handling preprint material as it came o$ the press, and that paperhandlers had shipped a load of 30 rolls of preprint material to a , customer in New York. The Mailers' and Standard's representatives met in March of 1964, to discuss the situation, and on April 23, 1964, the Mailers sent a letter to Standard in which it threatened that unless the work in dispute was assigned to the mailers it would strike Standard's plant. On June 19, 1964, Standard filed the charge in the instant case. B. Applicability of the statute Before the Board proceeds with a determination of the dispute pursuant 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 violated. The record shows that upon learning and after -dis- cussing the Employer's permanent assignment of the disputed work to the Paper Handlers, the Respondent Mailers protested the assign- ment and informed Standard that unless Standard immediately ad- vised the Respondent it would henceforth assign the disputed work to the Mailers, it would take strike action, and picket Standard. On the basis of the foregoing conduct and the entire record, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Sec- tion 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. C. Contentions of the parties Respondent contends essentially that the established practice is for paperhandlers to supply the rolls to the presses, and for mailers to wrap, label, and ship printed products coming off the presses. It alleges that the disputed work does not require any particuar skills and that the work of handling the preprint rolls, header, and the forklift can usually be learned in a matter of 6 days. Respondent LOUISVILLE MAILERS UNION NO. 99, ETC. 725 further argues that-,the new process, -represents a "substitution -of function"• and 'that the work therefore should properly be assigned to it. Respondent also relies on its contract coverage. The Employer contends that the mailers' work consists essentially of bundling and placing material on skids, and only occasionally will mailers wrap bundles with protective paper for shipment. It argues in effect that the Mailers jurisdiction has been confined, to the operation of the bindery department and that by custom and prac- tice it handles material that comes off the presses in page size, cut form, and folded, and that is carried to the bindery by means of con- veyor belts. It maintains that the mailers have never had regular work assignments in the press area; that mailers have no super- vision in the pressroom area; that the preprint work is intermittent in nature and that for this reason and because of the "hours of work" provisions of the Mailers' contract, it would be economically unsound to assign the work to mailers. The Paper Handlers adopt the Employer's position grid further contend that the work in dispute is merely a continuation of the work of handling rolls of paper, as in the past, by' means of the operation of mechanical equipment. The Paper 'Handlers also contend that the Mailers waived any claim it may have had to the assignment of the work to the paperhandlers by signing a new agreement after it had notice of the institution of the preprint work. D. 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 all rele- vant factors; and the Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment 'based upon com= monsense and experience and a balancing of such factors 4 ' 1. Skills involved No issue appears to be raised with regard to the skills necessary to perform the particular work. The Employer concedes, that mail- ers are capable of being trained, to perform the ' work in 'dispute. Accordingly, it is evident that this factor favors 'neither union. ' 2. The NLRB certification As indicated, the Mailers was certified in a unit. 'The certification was issued long before the present controversy • a "rose and obviously it has no application to the work,in.dispute. Moreover, the Mailers' 6 N.L R.B v Radio d Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U S, 573 , In- ternational Association of Machinists Lodge No 1743 , AFL-CIO ( J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402. 726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD certification in this case refers to work performed in the bindery on the third floor of the Employer 's premises. While reference to the area in which mailers work is performed is not necessarily to be taken as a limitation on the scope of the unit , it is nevertheless indic- ative of the fact that none of the mailers' work as a matter of established practice was being performed in the area of the presses or on the pressroom level . Thus, while the certification indicates the nature of the work performed by employees in the certified unit, we find nothing therein that would necessarily favor an assignment of the work to Mailers. 3. Contractual claims and area practice The Mailers' contract contains a jurisdictional clause which in part covers: ... taping, wrapping, packing, counting, packaging, separat- ing, bundling, typing, shipping, and similar duties, stacking, tagging, handling of bundles and mail sacks, sacking, stamping of cartons, operating addressing machines and labeling for other than promotional lists of samples, operation of hand or machine mailers, taking of bundles, magazines or printed prod- ucts from conveyors or escalators... . Although the Mailers contends that this language is sufficiently broad to cover any new products produced by the Employer which have to be packed, wrapped, labeled, stamped, bundled, mailed, or shipped, it is evident that the jurisdictional emphasis here is on the traditional material coming off the printing presses which because of its size and form is capable of being transported by conveyor belts and packed and shipped in relatively small bundles or envelopes. As noted, the Mailers' effort to have the jurisdictional clause in its contract interpreted so as to cover the particular work was not suc- cessful and the language of the jurisdictional clause has remained the same. 'The Paper Handlers contract with the Employer on the other hand provides that : The jurisdiction of the Union insofar as paper handling is concerned, shall include but shall not be limited exclusively to the unloading, storing, and handling of newsprint , cores and waste in the main building and in warehouses owned or leased by the Company. While the clause is sufficiently broad to cover the assignment of the preprint work we cannot say that its intent is so clear as to warrant us assigning the work to the paperhandlers. LOUISVILLE MAILERS UNION NO. 99, ETC. 727 There is no evidence in the record of any area or industry practice with respect to the work in dispute. There is evidence that paper- handlers on the Courier-Journal payroll but performing some of the Employer's work have handled surplus amounts of paper on hand at the end of a run. The paperhandlers rewind the paper, then put heads on the roll and send it back to the supplier. It is also shown that paperhandlers have bundled shipments of rolls of pre- print out of the Courier-Journal plant which were being forwarded to a customer. However, we cannot say on the evidence before us that either the factor of contract coverage or the factor of area practice favors either party. 4. Efficiency of operation The Employer has declared a definite preference for the assign- ment of the disputed work to the Paper Handlers and desires that the work be handled by the Paper Handlers based upon efficiency of operation of the Employer's business. The record shows that the mailers' work is performed on the third floor and not in the press- room area where the preprint press and equipment is located, where- as the pressroom area is the regular work area of the paperhandlers. Because of the weight of the equipment it is physically impossible to perform this operation on the third floor. Thus, the record shows that if the work were assigned to the Mailers, it would necessitate bringing them down to the pressroom level and providing additional supervision for them, since there is none at present on the pressroom floor. Furthermore, although it would take no more time to train a mailer than a paperhandler, mailers hired to handle the preprint work under Mailers' contract terms have to be paid for 71/2 hours' work notwithstanding the fact that the preprint work now avail- able does not called for 71/2 hours work on any one day and, indeed, averages no more than a total of 3 days per month. On the other hand, the record shows that there are no such restrictions in the Paper Handler's contract and men working in the pressroom area in pursuit of their customary duties can be freely : assigned to pre- print handling as required. We find therefore that efficiency of operation clearly favors the Paper Handlers. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute Although it may be said that, as a matter of general practice, paper- handlers are to bring paper to the presses and mailers take printed material from the presses,' it does not necessarily follow that such 5 Detro2t Gravure Corporation 146 NLRB 226 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD practice must be considered as determinative of all jurisdictional disputes between the labor organization involved herein.,, Here, unlike the situation in Detroit Gravure, mailers do not.work in,the area of the presses whereas paperhandlers do. This circum- stance, as well as the efficiency and economy effected by the existing assignment of the disputed work to the paperhandlers and the Em- ployer's'preference for the paperhandlers,_outweigh the claims of the mailers to the disputed work. Accordingly, we find that paper- handlers, represented by General Drivers, Warehousemen and Help- ers, Local Union- No. 89, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are entitled to the disputed work of wrapping, labeling, packaging, and handling preprint material, and shall determine the dispute in their favor. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to employees represented by the Paper Handlers, but not the Paper Handlers or its members. Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Uppn the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act. 1. Employees classified as' paperhandlers, currently represented by, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 89, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are entitled to the work of wrapping, labeling, packaging, and handling "preprint" material shipped by Standard Gravure Corporation at Louisville, -Kentucky. 2. Louisville Mailers Union No. 99,, affiliated with International Mailers Union, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the, Employer to assign the above work to mailers who are represented by Mailers Union No. 99, affiliated with International Mailers Union. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion above, Mailers Union No. 99, International Mailers Union, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to mailers rather than paperhandlers. 6 Nor do we find in the circumstances of this dispute any evidence that work customarily performed by mailers will be diminished by a failure to assign the disputed work to mailers.