Local Union 124, Electrical Workers

LOCAL "UNION 12 4, -ELECTRICAL WORKERS - 1091 Local Union 124 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and The Kansas City Star Company. Case 17-CD-60. September 13,1966 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND AMENDED DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE On March 1, 1965, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Determination of Dispute in the above-entitled proceed- ing,' pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, in which the Board made an affirmative award on the merits, based on the record evidence before it, of the disputed work of electrical and electronic maintenance and repair of the Linofilm, Autosetter, and Teletypesetter equipment as well as all other electrical and electronic equipment in the Employer' s newspaper composing room, to maintenance electricians represented by Local Union 124 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the IBEW. Thereafter, on May 3, 1965, the Employer moved the Board to reopen the proceeding, redetermine the work assignment dispute, and award the disputed work to employees represented by Kansas City Typographical Union No. 80, herein called the ITU. In support of its motion, the Employer alleged that following its assignment of the maintenance on its Linofilm, Autosetter, Teletypesetter, and Electron equipment 2 to the maintenance electricians on March 29, 1965, there were repeated and numerous occasions when an electrician was called upon to repair malfunctions in this equipment and was unable to do so, thereby causing substantial delays in publication; that it there- upon called upon the ITU machinists who then repaired the malfunc- tions in a relatively short time; and that in the circumstances, the Employer reassigned the electrical maintenance work in dispute to the ITU composing room machinists on April 23, 1965. The ITU joined in the Employer's motion. The IBEW filed opposition to the motion and supporting affidavits denying that delays were attributable to maintenance electricians, and further stating that they were due in many instances to improper conduct and the lack of cooperation on the part of composing room employees. The Board, on June 25, 1965, issued an Order remanding the pro- ceeding for a further hearing before a Trial Examiner for the purpose 3151 NLRB 350. 2 The Employer included in his assignment to the electricians of March 29, main- tenance of four Electron typesetting machines acquired shortly after the earlier hearing on the grounds that the Board 's award would be applicable to the new equipment, and none of the parties voiced objections to its inclusion. 160 NLRB No. 81. 1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of receiving evidence and making findings of fact and conclusions with respect to the ability of maintenance electricians to perform the required maintenance and repair on the Linofilm, Autosetter, Tele- typesetter, and Electron equipment. A further hearing upon due notice to all parties was held before Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr on September 8 to 10, 1965. All parties who appeared at the hearing were afforded fall opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses and to adduce evidence. On February 3, 1966, the Trial Examiner issued a Supplemental Decision. He found, as set forth in his attached Decision, that on seven specific occasions, between March 29 and April 23, the mainte- nance electricians either were unable to repair the specified equipment or required an "excessive" amount of time to do so.3 The Trial Exam- iner further found that the evidence taken at the reopened hearing disclosed no overt lack of cooperation or other improper conduct on the part of composing room employees. Thereafter, the IBEW filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief,4 and the Employer and the ITU filed cross-exceptions and briefs in support thereof. The Board 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 Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and makes the following additional findings of fact. As fully set forth in our prior Decision and Determination of Dis- pute, composing room machinists represented by the ITU have for many years performed mechanical maintenance and repair of the electrically powered linecasting machines in the Employer's compos- ing room, whereas IBEW maintenance electricians have had the responsibility for maintaining and repairing electrical and electronic portions of the same equipment. Under the Employer's practice, machinists stationed in the composing room would attempt initial repairs, but if the malfunction concerned electrical parts of the equip- ment, they would call for an electrician to make such repairs. This division of maintenance work was applied to certain electronically controlled Teletypesetters which the Employer introduced in its plant in 1950. The Employer's described practice continued until Novem- ber 1962, when, on the demand of the ITU, the Employer permitted 'The Trial Examiner did not, however , find that publication was thereby abnormally delayed. * The Board hereby denies the IBEW's request for oral argument as the record, excep- tions, and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1093 the machinists to make certain relatively minor adjustments on newer and more sophisticated electronic Teletypesetters and Autosetters a which the Employer had installed in the composing room the pre- vious May. However, consistent with the earlier practice, the mainte- nance electricians continued to service the electric motors, switches, lights, fuses, and electronic pot controls of the older linecasting equip- ment as well as the older electronic Teletypesetters. Thereafter, in the summer of 1963 the Employer installed additional Teletypesetters, Autosetters, and new electronically controlled photocomposition equipment called Linofilm,e and assigned the maintenance work on this equipment to the ITU machinists. The IBEW's subsequent threat to strike or picket the Employer in support of its claimed right to perform the electrical and electronic portions of this maintenance work prompted the filing of the instant charge. The dispute before the Board was centerd on the ITU's claim to the "overall" maintenance of the new electronically operated Tele- typesetters, Autosetters, and Linofilm on the one hand,7 and the IBEW's claim, in part resting on the Employer's long-established practice of dividing the maintenance function between the two groups, to the electrical and electronic maintenance of the new equip- ment., On the original record, the Board concluded that the mainte- nance electricians were "entitled to perform the work of electrical maintenance and repair on the Autosetter and Linofilm equipment as well as all other electrical and electronic equipment" in the Employ- er's composing room. In so doing the Board gave controlling weight to evidence that (1) the electricians possessed electronic skills and had maintained all other comparable electronic devices in the Employ- er's plant, (2) the machinists' experience with the equipment was limited to day-to-day cleaning and replacing of components, circuit panels, and reader heads,' (3) the more difficult repairs were handled 5 This equipment differs from old fashioned linecasting machines by the presence of vacuum tubes, transistors, solenoids, diodes, and removable panels containing involved wired or printed circuits It is attached to and actuates the linecasting equipment electronically. 6 Unlike the Autosetter, Linofilm is a different method for producing type. It consists of a keyboard and a completely automatic photo unit which converts electronic tape emanat- ing from the keyboard into a negative upon which printed characters appear The negative is then developed into a positive, and the resulting product is "cold type" which is a sub- stitute for hot metal type such as that produced by Linotype 4 The ITU indicated a willingness to follow the Employer's division of maintenance func- tions practice between the two groups as to the remaining composing room equipment. 8 The Employer, notwithstanding its assignment to the ITU machinists, took a neutral position before the Board in the earlier proceeding regarding the merits of the dispute. 9 While the evidence in the earlier proceeding showed that some machinists, in anticipa- tion of the Employer's assignment, were given specialized training in electronics, it did not reveal that the machinists had acquired adequate skill or experience to support an award of the work of electronic maintenance to them. 1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by an electrician possessing an understanding of electronic circuits,10' and (4) the Employer's long-established practice of dividing the maintenance duties on composing room equipment in the manner sought by the electricians. On the basis of the reopened record in this matter, the Trial Examiner has found instances where electricians were unable to effect timely repairs despite their claimed ability to handle the new equip- ment. On the other hand, he found that the ITU machinists were able to make the repairs expeditiously. This finding of the Trial Exam- iner, in our opinion, leads to the conclusion that the claimed superior competency or training of the electricians in dealing with problems arising from the installation and operation of new and sophisticated composing equipment was more assumed than factual." The reopened record also shows that the ITU's original claim to the work, based on its insistence that proper maintenance of the equipment in question requires a printer's skill and knowledge of the printing process in order to- locate the source of difficulty and that the machinists alone possess such knowledge, takes on a persuasiveness not apparent in the earlier hearing.12 It is now clear from the evidence of actual job performance that the ITU machinists have the ability, acquired through their training program, to deal with the overall maintenance of the Autosetter, Tel- etypesetter, Electron, and Linofilm equipment. It is also apparent that assignment of the disputed work to the ITU machinists who are stationed and thus immediately available in the composing room to. perform required maintenance tasks, as compared with maintenance electricians who must be summoned by telephone and dispatched from the electrical shop or other parts of the plant, promotes effi- ciency of the Employer's operations. Accordingly, as we are now of the opinion that the machinists. represented by the ITU have a more cogent claim to the disputed work, we shall reverse our prior work assignment determination and award the work of electronic maintenance and repair of the Autoset- ter, Fairchild Teletypesetter, Electron, and Linofilm machines to the ITU machinists. However, the award of this specified work is not to be taken as encompassing work traditionally performed by the 11 The record in the earlier proceeding showed that because of the existing dispute, elec- tronic repairs of the new composing room equipment were in fact made by the electrical maintenance foreman, Betts, so that the electricians' ability to maintain the specific wort. In dispute had not been actually put to the test prior to the incidents giving rise to the Employer' s motion. "We note that the Employer conceded that It did not have any basis earlier for ques- tioning the ability of the electricians. 12 We note that sometime prior to the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to the electricians , Foreman Betts, whose electronic skills were known, was promoted to a management position. LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS - 1095 IBEW electricians, such as maintenance and repair of the electric motors, switches, lights, fuses, and electronic pot controls on the older linecasting equipment and maintenance of the older Teletypesetters. That work remains with the electricians. In making this determina- tion, iw,e are assigning the work to the composing room machinists represented by the ITU, but not to that union or its members. AMENDED DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and upon.the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire 'record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following amended deter- mination of dispute : 1. Composing room machinists, represented by Kansas,City Typo- graphical Local Union No. 80, are entitled to perform mechanical and electronic maintenance and repair of Autosetter, Teletypesetter, Electron, and Linofiim equipment as well as mechanical maintenance of all other linecasting equipment at present in the composing ,room of The Kansas City Star Company, Kansas City, Missouri. 2. Local Union 124 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, to force or require The Kansas City Star Company to assign the above- described work to maintenance electricians. ' 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Amended Determination of Dispute, Local Union 124 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Re- gional Director for Region 17, in writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring The Kansas City Star Company, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the above-described work to maintenance electricians rather than to composing room machinists. TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION On March 1, 1965, the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Dispute in the above-entitled proceeding,' awarding the disputed work of electrical main- tenance and repair on the Autosetter and Linofiim equipment as well as other electrical and electronic equipment in the composing room of the Employer, The Kansas City Star Company, to the maintenance electricians represented by Local Union 124 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the IBEW, rather than to composing room employees repre- sented by the International Typographical Union, referred to herein as the ITU. On May 3, 1965, the Employer moved the Board to reopen the proceeding and redetermine the work assignment dispute. It alleged that on March 29, 1965, it assigned the maintenance work to the IBEW maintenance electricians pursuant to the Board's decision. Specifically, it alleged that "there have been repeated and numerous occasions when Linofilm , Autosetter, Teletypesetter and Electron equip- ment have malfunctioned and an electrician called upon to repair it has been unable 1151 NLRB 350. 1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to do so," thereby resulting in substantial delays in publication, and that ITU machinists were thereafter able to repair the malfunction in a relatively short time. Accordingly, the Employer alleged further that it was compelled to reassign the electrical maintenance work to the ITU composing room machinists on April 23, 1965. The ITU joined,in the Employer' s motion. The IBEW filed an opposition to the motion and supporting affidavits alleging that the assignment of the mainte- nance work 'did not, in view of all the circumstances, result in undue delays and that delays were due in many instances to improper conduct and the lack of cooperation on the part of composing room employees. The IBEW therefore requested that the Employer's motion be denied. On June 25, 1965, the Board, after having duly considered the matter, issued an order reopening record and remanding proceeding to Regional Director for further hearing, in which it ordered that a further hearing be held before a Trial Examiner for the purpose of adducing evidence with respect to the specific issues of fact raised by the allegations of the parties as set forth above. The Board's Order further provided that the Trial Examiner prepare and serve upon the parties a report resolving questions of credibility, if any, and make findings of fact and conclusions relating to the issues ordered litigated. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Kansas City, Kansas, on Septem- ber 8, 9, and 10, 1965, before Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from all parties and they have been carefully considered.2 Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Prefatory statement The Board has already noted in its Decision and Determination of Dispute the type of equipment in the Employer's composing room which is the subject of this dispute. However, to bring this matter up to date, it may be noted that the com- posing room equipment which the Employer assigned to the IBEW electricians for electrical maintenance and repair subsequent to the said Board Decision included the following: (1) The Linotype (also referred to as Linofilm) equipment, which consists of two photo units, five keyboards, and one photo composer; (2) 10 or 12 linecasting machines and 10 Star Parts autosetters. Additionally, and subsequent to the initial hearing herein, the Employer acquired four Electrons which were installed in the composing room. The Employer also assigned the maintenance and repair work of this equipment to the electricians, deeming this to be in accord with the Board's determination. Like the Linotype, but of a different type, the Electron is a typesetting machine. Fred Adsel, midwest manager of the Mergenthaler Com- pany, the manufacturer of the Linotype and Electron, testified that the Electron is principally a mechanical device, it having only "some [electrical] switches and other devices to permit the functioning of certain safety devices on the machine." It is undisputed that the Company, in compliance with the Board's Decision and Determination, assigned the disputed work to the IBEW maintenance electricians on March 29, 1965. It is further undisputed that it reassigned the work to the ITU machinists on April 23, 1965. In considering the entire evidence and the rather complex problem involved in this proceeding, it is important to bear in mind that all of the equipment involved in the disputed work is subject to electrical and mechanical failure. Thus, during the period from March 29 to April 23 when the electricians were assigned the work of electrical repair, the ITU machinists were still responsible for the maintenance and repair of any breakdown of a mechanical nature on the same pieces of equip- ment. As to the procedure followed by the Employer' when breakdowns occurred during this period, Richard Miller, the composing room superintendent, testified that "a machinist would be called in first . . . if the machinist would find nothing wrong it would be assumed that it was an electrical problem and an electrician 2 I hereby grant 'the motion of the Employer and the ITU to correct the transcript, not including the proposed corrections objected to by the dBEW which are marked with an asterisk. The document containing these corrections has been placed in the formal file of this proceeding. LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1097 would then be called." While this may have been generally true, the record dis- closes that in some instances the electricians were summoned first and that on some such occasions they found the trouble to be mechanical rather than electrical. 2. The testimony relative to the ability of the electricians to perform the disputed work a. Witnesses for the Employer Irvin Baird, the production manager of the Kansas City Star, has general overall supervision of the composing room. In addition to matters not relating to the topic under discussion, Baird's testimony was chiefly limited to reports received by him from Don Kitts, the assistant production manager, concerning incidents alleged involving the inability of the electricians to perform the work assigned to them. Since Baird's testimony concerning these incidents was based entirely on hearsay, such testimony is incompetent evidence and therefore will not be set forth here. This testimony does reflect, however, that as head of the composing room Baird did receive reports from Kitts to the effect that at various times the electricians were not able to repair the equipment in question and that on such occasions they were replaced or assisted by the ITU machinist. Baird also corroborated Kitts to the effect that after receiving a report concerning an incident occurring on or about the evening of April 21, he specifically instructed Kitts to keep detailed reports of any further occurrences concerning breakdowns of equipment which the electricians were unable to repair. Baird also testified that during the period March 29-April 23 he personally observed instances where "the electricians would be attempting to repair this machine . . . and they repeatedly could not fix this equipment." Baird did not, however, give any details as to the times when this occurred or as to the electricians and equipment involved. Don Kitts, the assistant production manager, is in charge of the composing room on the night shift. Kitts testified as to three specific incidents which I enumerate below. 1. Kitts testified that 2 or 3 days after March 29 when the electricians were assigned to the disputed work a photo unit went down .3 Kitts testified that Saxton, an electrician, was not able to perform the repair after working for an hour. He (Kitts) thereupon called in Harvey Atwood, a machinist, who put the unit in operating condition in 14-15 minutes. 2. The next specific incident, which Kitts said took place after "a series of bad nights," occurred on April 21.4 Kitts testified that on this evening six pieces of equipment went down, these including four Electrons and two photo units. Kitts testified that the electricians worked on this equipment for approximately 3 hours and had no success in putting it in operating condition .5 He thereupon summoned the electricians and the ITU machinists to his office and told them "we had to get up there . . . we had to work together and get it running any way they could." Kitts testified that after the meeting the machinists and electricians "apparently" worked together, and that about 20 minutes later all of the down equipment was put in running order. However, Kitts was not present to observe who made the repairs. 3. The last incident concerning which Kitts testified occurred on the following eve- ning, April 22. Kitts testified that he went to the Linofilm room at approximately 7:30 or 8 o'clock and found that keyboard No. 3 was down. Kitts said that he remained in the area and that "keyboard No. 2 went down at 8:18, photo unit No. 1 was down, which went in, photo unit No. 2 was not giving us suitable prod- uct off of it. Virtually we had 2 keyboards and 2 photo units down." Kitts further 8 The term "down equipment" refers to equipment which developed a malfunction or which did not function at all ' Kitts did not elaborate as to what happened on the alleged "series of bad nights." While there was some confusion in Kitts' testimony as to exact dates, the entire record, including his written report and the testimony of other witnesses, reflect that the above incident occurred on the night of April 21 and that the next incident, related below, occurred on the night of April 22. 'Kitts said that "over the period" of the 3 hours time there were three or four electri- cians working on the Electrons (linecasting equipment) and the photo units. He identified them as Saxton, Paul Parks, and Don Gossett. He stated further that "if I remember correctly, Mr. McKee was down there this night." 1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testified that electricians Saxton and Gossett started to work on the equipment about 8 p.m. and,that.they worked on it until about 11:10 p.m. without succeeding in getting any of the equipment in operating condition. It is undisputed that Kitts thereupon called George McKee, a journeyman electrician and the IBEW steward, at the latter's home. Kitts advised McKee of the difficulty. McKee suggested that he call a Mr. McDonald, the service man for the Mergenthaler Company. Kitts said he called McDonald's home and received no answer. He thereupon instructed Sidney Lida, foreman of the composing room, to send in the machinists. According to Kitts, the machinists (later identified by Foreman Hanssen as Atwood and John- son) started working at 11.35 p.m. and succeeded in getting all four pieces of equipment in operating condition by 12:16 p.m.6 In addition to the incidents cited above, Kitts testified that there were other occasions during the period between March 29-April 23 when the electricians could not repair the equipment and it was necessary to call in the machinists.? However, this testimony was of a generalized nature, Kitts stating that he was not able to recall any of the details as to the equipment or employees involved. Kitts further testified that the electricians were able to repair the equipment some of the time . . . but that frequently this took too long and resulted in too much down time. Again, this latter testimony was largely conclusionary and was not supported by any probative detail. Richard Miller, the composing room superintendent, testified to the following incidents: 1. Miller testified that about 9:30 a.m. on April 21 or 22, 7 of the 10 linecasters with Star Part autosetters went down at about the same time. Three electricians were called in and each began working on one machine. Miller than called in machinists to work on the four machines. The culmination of this testimony simply was that the electricians and the machinists proceeded to put in operating condition the respective units they were working on. I cite this incident merely because it is part of the evidence which I have considered. If anything, it reflects only that the electricians were successfully able to perform the work on this occasion. There is no evidence to reflect that they took an excessive amount of time in so doing. 2. Miller credibly testified to another incident which he said occurred about 10 days after the one cited above. On this occasion, according to Miller, electrician Donald Saxton worked on a down keyboard in the Linofilm room from about 7 a.m. until 12 noon. Miller said that at noontime he asked Saxton if he was making any progress and that Saxton said it was getting past his lunchtime. Saxton then went to lunch. Miller testified that the faulty keyboard was then bottlenecking 20 percent of the productive capacity in the Linofilm room, so he assigned Jack Hart, a machinist, to work on the machine. Miller testified that Hart restored the key- board to operating condition in about 10 minutes. Miller further testified that Hart advised him that the difficulty was corrected by the replacement of a faulty tube.8 3. Miller testified to another incident which occurred at about the same time as that in paragraph 2, above. Miller testified that on this occasion electrician Saxton worked on a down photo unit for approximately 2 hours without success. Accord- ing to Miller, the down photo unit constituted "50% of our productive capacity." He thereupon relieved Saxton and assigned machinist Ed Wilson to the job. Miller testified that Wilson repaired the machine within 5 minutes.9 Miller further testified that Wilson, in making this repair, did not perform a mechanical adjustment but that he observed him work on the electrical relay in the panel. 4. Other than the specific instances cited above, Miller testified that he recalled "numerous times when equipment was down for long periods of time when in my mind I didn't feel like it should have been because we didn't have this problem 8 Kitts utilized a typewriter memorandum addressed to Assistant General Manager Speer to refresh his memory as to the specific time the machinists started to work on each piece of equipment, as well as the specific time each was put by them in operating condition. This memorandum (Employer's Exhibit 1) was prepared by Kitts pursuant to Baird's in- struction on the preceding day that he make a detailed report as to any future occurrences when equipment went down Kitts testified that he prepared the memorandum from his handwritten notes at the end of the shift on the night in question. 7 Kitts testified that he reported these incidents, either orally or by notes, to Baird on the following morning. He testified that he did not keep copies of these notes. 8 Miller estimated that there was a thousand tubes in this piece of equipment. 8 Miller testified that he remained at the machine until Wilson put it in operating condition. LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1099 before." According to Miller, the electricians were able to repair the equipment about 20 percent of the time; in the instances when they were unable to make the repairs, he said, the ITU machinists were called in.10 LeRoy Hanssen, who is the assistant night foreman of the Linofilm room, testi- fied concerning the following incidents: 1. Hanssen testified that on or about April 1, shortly after the electricians took over, he called in an electrician to repair a malfunctioning Linotype photo unit. This electrician was identified as George McKee. Hanssen said that McKee took the panels off, and stood for about 30 minutes looking at the machine. McKee then left and returned with another electrician. Hanssen said that he (Hanssen) ran tapes through the unit to demonstrate the malfunction. According to Hanssen, the two electricians stood by and discussed the problem between themselves for another 30 minutes and then left. Hanssen thereupon reported the matter to his superior, Sidney Lida, who assigned machinist LeRoy Johnson to the job. Hanssen testified that Johnson put the machine in operating condition "in a matter of minutes." He said that the machine was down for 2 hours from the time McKee first started to work on it. 2. This incident occurred shortly after the one related above and also involved a malfunctioning photo unit., Hanssen testified that in this instance, as in the other involving the photo unit, he decided that an electrician should be called because the malfunction did not appear to be mechanical.'1 Electrician Saxton was sum- moned to make the repair. Hanssen testified that Saxton worked on the photo unit "a good four hours altogether" without success. Lidia, upon being advised by Hans- sen, thereupon assigned machinist Johnson to the job. According to Hanssen, John- son had the machine in operation "in a very short period of time." 3. Hanssen also testified concerning the breakdown of the two Linofilm key- boards and the two photo units which occurred on the evening of April 22. His testimony concerning this incident was substantially corroborative of Kitts, who testified concerning this matter,12 and need not be detailed here. Finally, Hanssen testified that there were other instances during the period March 29-April 23 when the electricians were called to repair Linofilm equipment. Hanssen said that he could not recall further specific incidents, but that in these other instances the electricians "at times" successfully performed the repair work, but that "most of the time" they did not. According to Hanssen, in the latter instances the machinists would be called in and they were able to repair the equip- ment in a relatively short period of time. Sidney Lida, night foreman of the composing room, testified merely that on the evening of April 22 he observed two electricians working on two down photo units and two down keyboards in the Linofilm room. His other testimony was either conclusionary or consisted of hearsay and need not be set forth here. b. Witness for the IBEW William Stack has been employed by the Company for 5112. years as a journey- man electrician. Stack, who said that from March 29 to April 23 most of his time was spent on maintenance repair in the composing room, testified that he could recall only two instances when he failed to get an Electron linecasting machine run- ning. On the first occasion, Kitts advised him that there was a schematic manual for the machine and helped him find it. Stack said that he then worked on the machine for "some time" and found a defective solenoid. Thereafter he and Kitts looked for a part and failed to find one. He left that evening without repairing the machine. When he returned the next evening he found the machine operating. According to Stack, machinist Johnson at this time advised him that he had found a "board" which had been locked up and that he had repaired the machine. On the second occasion, he reported for duty one evening and was told by another electrician that an Electron was down. Stack testified that he worked on 10I shall comment upon these latter statements by Miller when making my concluding findings herein. 11 In this regard Hanssen testified, "I know three mechanical things to check which are readily visible, and I just told Air Lida that the machine was not operating, what I thought or why it had stopped . . . . They are not the only mechanical parts that could be the matter with it, but I could possibly say these three things are more readily seen. It could have been that something else mechanical was the matter with it." 12 See paragraph 3 of Kitts' testimony, supra 1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the machine for a considerable period of time ("roughly a couple of hours") and finally found a bad clutch. Stack testified, "All I could do was disengage the clutch and we didn't have any parts and that part had to be ordered, so I didn't fix the machine at that time." 13 Stack testified that there were three times when he could not repair a Linofilm keyboard. Concerning these occasions, Stack testified, "In each one of these instances I would have had to spend a lot of time on that machine, possibly." 14 Stack testified that he also worked on down Linofilm photo units on four or five occasions. He testified that in one such instance he worked together with electrician Don Saxton and that "we didn't get it fixed." Don Gossett, an electrician whose shifts overlapped, testified that there was not much trouble on the day shift but that the machines broke down repeatedly on the night shift. After first asserting that he "never failed to fix anything," Gossett con- ceded that there were occasions when he worked on equipment that "was down all night" but claimed that in these instances he finally found the trouble to be of a mechanical nature. Citing three such instances, he referred first to an occasion when he and electrician Parks worked most of the night on an Electron, the fault being that the elevating mechanism was out of order. He testified that they checked "the electrical part of the machine" but that toward the end of the shift they found "a shear pin on the mechanical activator . . . there was a clutch with a shear pin on it and the pin was broken." Gossett next testified to an occasion when he checked the circuits on a down Electron and finally found, "there was a little push rod with a mechanical activator that activates the line switch, [which] I found to be out of adjustment." Finally, Gossett referred to an occasion when he and elec- trician McKee worked on a typecasting machine (apparently an Electron) which did not quad properly. He said that they worked overtime on this problem, check- ing the electrical circuit, until the next shift came in. At this point they asked a machinist whom he identified as "Buddy" to check the machine. Gossett testified that this machinist promptly found that an arm was out of adjustment. "He adjusted the arm," Gossett testified, "and it ran all right." Gossett was present on the night of April 21 when there were four Electrons and two photo units down. (See testimony of Kitts.) Gossett, who appeared to be somewhat confused as' to the events of this evening, testified that he recalled there were an unusual number of breakdowns and that he worked on the Electrons "getting them running as fast as they could get in a down state." He testified that to his knowledge, he, McKee, and Parks succeeded in repairing this equipment. When asked if any machinists gave them assistance this evening, Gossett responded, "not in my presence, no." As to the evening of April 22, Gossett testified that he worked intermittently on the various pieces of machinery that were broken down.15 He testified that after working on the equipment for about 21/2 hours, Kitts came over and told the electricians to leave, that the machinists would take over. Accord- ing to Gossett, the machinists put all the equipment- into operating condition after working on it for 11/2 hours 16 Paul Parks, an electrician, worked on the late shift from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Much of Parks' testimony is confused or came into the record on a fragmentary basis. However, he testified to the effect that there were several instances when he was called upon to perform alleged electrical repair, only to find, after working for awhile, that the difficulty was of a mechanical nature. Parks testified that he worked on the evening of April 21 but that he did not attend or know of any meeting called by Kitts.17 With reference to the Electrons and photo units that were down that night, Parks testified, "We got them going 18 Concerning this incident Stack testified that he disassembled the wires and that a machinist took the clutch off. 16 In rather confused testimony, Stack indicated that in these instances he went on to "more pressing things" after apparently having been informed by the keyboard operator that the down keyboards were not needed because there were enough operators on the third shift to man the five keyboards. zs Gossett did not dispute Kitts as to the pieces of equipment which were down on this occasion. '('Gossett testified that he and the other electricians stood by until the machinists finished putting all the equipment in operating condition. 17 See Kitts' testimony, supra, re the evening of April 21. I credit Parks' testimony that he did not attend. LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1101 as we would work on them, they weren't all working all the time, but they weren't all down, either." Parks testified that he was not assisted by any of the machinists on this evening. With reference to the evening of April 22, Parks said that he did not work on the equipment that was down in the Linofilm room that night. He said that on this occasion he was working on Electrons and Comets and that Gossett came over to assist him several times. It is undisputed that Parks was replaced by a machinist late that evening. Leo Gash, a lead electrician, worked on the first shift from 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Gash testified concerning an incident when he assisted in the repair of Linofilm equipment, this occurring 2 or 3 days after the electricians took over on March 29. According to Gash, he was called up to assist electrician Saxton who was working on two or three down keyboards and a down photo unit. They began checking from the schematics. In a short time, members of the composing room supervisory staff appeared, including Baird, Speer, Betts, and a Mr. Hatten, the latter Bett's assistant. Also present were Jim Wills, the composing room superintendent, and Jack Hart, a machinist. Gash testified that "we worked on it an hour or more," that they finally succeeded in putting the machine in operation.18 Gash testified that on other occasions he worked on Electrons and that whenever he did so he succeeded in repairing the equipment. Other than the incident related above, Gash did not work on the Linofilm keyboards or photo units. George McKee, an electrician, is also the IBEW steward. He worked on the evening shift with Gossett from 3 to 11 p.m. McKee, when asked, first testified that he never started to repair any machine which he was not able to repair. However, in effect he contradicted this statement by immediately thereafter testifying to an occasion when he was summoned to repair a Linotype machine. McKee said that he removed the panels from the machine and "looked for something visible to cause the machine to stop." After 30 minutes he called Saxton, who was at home. Apparently Saxton came in to work on the equipment. McKee did not succeed in repairing the equipment on this occasion.19 With reference to the evening of April 21, McKee testified that he, Gossett, and Saxton were working on the equipment that was down at this time. McKee acknowl- edged that he was called to a meeting in Kitts', office where a number of machinists were also present 29 According to McKee, Kitts at this time stated that "we are in a tight spot" and that he asked all those present to go up and work together to get the equipment in operating condition. However, McKee said that by the end of the meeting it was quitting time and that he went home. McKee testified that he recalled that four pieces of Linofilm equipment went down on the evening of April 22.21 He said that he was notified about this diffi- culty by either Harvey Atwood or LeRoy Johnson, electricians, but that he and Don Gossett were working on Electrons in the composing room at the time. He testified further that he went to the Linofilm room to look for "any visual mal- functions" and that Gossett then told him to call electrician Saxton (at home) as quickly as he could. McKee testified that he left and went home at 10:30 p.m. and that Kitts telephoned him later that evening. Confirming the testimony of Kitts, McKee testified that at this time he suggested that Kitts call McDonald, the latter the Mergenthaler service representative in the Kansas City area. On cross-examination, McKee testified that the Linofilm equipment was unfamil- iar to him on March 29 and that "it still is." Asked if he felt competent to repair this equipment, McKee replied, "Not without some instructions and some manuals and some proper schooling . I do not without the proper instructions." Donald Saxton, an electrician, spent most of his time during'the relevant period working on the Linofilm equipment 22 Although assigned to the day shift, he was '- The quoted portion of Gash's testimony is as specific as he was as to who actually worked on the equipment at this time. Gash said that Hart ran a tape through the machine but that there was "no assistance from him from the electrical standpoint." m McKee testified that this was the first time he was called upon to work on the Lino- type equipment. "McKee testified that he was the only electrician present at this meeting. I credit this testimony over that of Kitts' who indicated that other electricians were also present. 21 This included the same equipment referred to in Betts' testimony, supra. 33 Saxton was hired by Betts on March 23, 1965. Before that he was employed for 13 years as an electronics technician at the Lake City Arsenal. 1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD frequently called back during the evening. Saxton testified that about the middle of April he worked on a down Linofilm•keyboard for several hours. Hart, a machinist, assisted by operating the controls. Saxton finally left for his regular lunch period and returned 30 minutes later to find that the keyboard had been restored to operating condition. He said he did not know who made the repair. With reference to the evening of April 21, Saxton testified that he was called back to the plant to work on the down Linofilm photo units. He said that he worked on this equipment for between 1 and 2 hours and succeeded in putting, it in operat- ing condition. He also said that machinist LeRoy Johnson was present but that to his knowledge Johnson did not perform any electrical work on the down equipment. Saxton testified that on the evening of April 22 he was again called at home and on this occasion returned to the plant around 9:30 p.m. In accord with Kitts' testi- mony concerning this evening, Saxton testified that two Linofilm photo units and two Linofilm keyboards were down. He testified further that when he arrived he observed that Gossett and McKee were having considerable difficulty with the Elec- tron equipment. According to Saxton, he worked on photo unit No 1 for approxi- mately 20 minutes and put it in working order.23 He said he worked on photo unit No. 2 for about the same period of time with the same result. He testified that he then began to work on the keyboards; and that after working for about 1 hour checking the tubes and adjusting the voltages, Kitts came up and advised that the electricians were being taken off the job and that the machinists would take over. According to Saxton, the machinists repaired keyboard No. 1 in 10-15 minutes and then went on to repair keyboard No. 2. After repairing the latter, keyboard No. 1 went down again and they returned to it. He testified that the machinists worked for approximately 2 hours before all the equipment was operating properly. 3. Conclusions as to alleged occasions when electricians were, unable to repair the equipment In view of the conflicting interests of the various parties hereto, I have little doubt that various witnesses on each side tended to exaggerate their testimony in a light most favorable to their cause. For example, I do not credit the testimony of electricians McKee and Gash to the effect that they never worked on any machine which they were not able to repair; or that of Saxton and Parks to the extent that they never received the assistance of a machinist. On the other hand, neither do I credit the testimony of Foreman Lida and Hanssen, both members of the ITU, to the effect that the electricians never were able to put a machine in operating con- dition by themselves or without the assistance of a machinist. Superintendent Rich- ard Miller, an ITU member, testified that the electricians were able to repair the equipment only about 20 percent of the time when they were called upon to do so. While I believe Miller to the extent that there were some occasions when he ob- served electricians having difficulty in finding a malfunction or were unable to repair certain equipment, I regard his testimony to the effect that this occurred approxi- mately 80 percent of the time as an exaggerated guess. Based upon the credible testimony and the entire evidence, I find that the elec- tricians were unable to repair the equipment in question or engaged in excessive downtime in the repair of such equipment , in the following instances: 1. The instance of Saxton being unable to repair a down photo unit 2 or 3 days after March 29. (See paragraph 1, testimony of Kitts.) 2. The instance of April 21, as discussed in paragraph 2, testimony of Kitts.24 21 He testified that after running a tape through the machine and processing the film "they said they would go ahead and use the machine." u It will be recalled that on this evening Kitts found it necessary to call a meeting in his office to point out the urgency of getting the equipment in operating condition Several machinists and one electrician attended this meeting Although Kitts did not obseri-e which employees put the equipment in operating condition after this meeting, machinist Harvey Atwood testified that he attended this meeting and immediately thereafter repaired one of the down photo units I credit this testimony of Atwood Although the electricians may have ultimately succeeded in putting some of the equipment in operating condition on this occasion, I am convinced and find that it took them an excessive amount of time to do so, thus causing a disruption of production work in the composing room LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1103 3. The occasion of the electricians being unable to repair the down'equipment on the evening of April 22. (Paragraph 3, testimony of Kitts; paragraph 3, testimony of Hanssen.) 25 4. The incident set forth in paragraph 2, discussion of Miller's testimony. 5. The incident set forth in paragraph 3, discussion of Miller's testimony. 6. The incident set forth in paragraph 1, discussion of Hanssen's testimony. 7. The incident set forth in paragraph 2, discussion of Hanssen's testimony. Other than the specific incidents referred to above, •I have heretofore noted the testimony of Kitts, Miller, and Hanssen to the effect that there were numerous other instances, concerning which they could not recall the details, where they observed that electricians either were unable to make the necessary repairs or where they utilized an excessive amount of downtime in effecting such repairs. It is difficult to accord much weight to this testimony, lacking as it is in any pertinent detail. I do credit this testimony, however, to the effect that there were at least some other occasions, in addition to those cited above, where the electricians encountered difficulty in restoring down or malfunctioning equipment to operating condition. But as far as the electricians are concerned , I also credit their testimony to the extent that there were occasions when they were able to make the necessary repairs without undue delay or without the assistance of the machinists. As indicated above, I have found, contrary to the apparent contention of the IBEW, that there were instances during the period while the electricians were assigned to the disputed work where they were unable to repair the equipment in question when called upon to do so. It may be noted, however, that the IBEW admits that there were certain occasions when electricians "were obliged to use an abnormal amount of time in making repairs on equipment in the composing room." 26 The factors which the IBEW attributes to such delays, which I shall regard as also pertaining to the other findings noted above, are discussed in the succeeding sections herein. 4. Alleged improper conduct On the basis of the testimony and the affidavits submitted to the Board by the IBEW, I state my findings and conclusions with respect to the following incidents which I assume are those alleged by the IBEW to have' involved improper conduct by other persons or parties employed by the Company. a. The cut wire incident Donald Gossett stated in his affidavit that on April, 19, 1965, "we found a wire had been cut with a sharp object in a location on the machine where such a cut on a wire would not have been due to wear or accident." Gossett, however, offered no testimony concerning this allegation. George McKee, who did not refer to this matter in his affidavit, testified that on an occasion when he was tracing circuits to repair a machine he found "a nick across a wire . the wire had been nicked and was in two." He further testified, "I am not saying this was done intentionally or by any certain one . ... I think it is clear that the above testimony is insufficient to support any 'finding of alleged misconduct. I so find and conclude. b. The gum incident McKee testified that on one occasion he worked on a down Electron and "finally found a foreign substance on the worn gear out of the time clutch." McKee testi- fied that he did not have, the, substance analyzed, but that it looked like chewing v While there is testimony to suggest that there were an unusual number of breakdowns on this evening, the fact remains that the machinists succeeded in putting this equipment into operating condition within a short time after they replaced the electricians In this latter regard, I credit the testimony of Kitts over that of,Gossett and Saxon as to the length of time it took the machinists to repair the equipment. Kitts in some respects was a poor witness and frequently was inclined to state conclusions rather than facts Never- theless, I credit his testimony here as I do in the other instances specified herein I do not believe that Kitts fabricated his testimony concerning his taking notes on the evening in question as to the exact amount of time it took the machinists to make the repairs after they replaced the electricians. 26 Page 11, brief of IBEW. 1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gum or heavy oil. On cross-examination , McKee further testified that the substance possibly could have been congealed lubricating grease. Without belaboring this matter further, I find and conclude that McKee 's testimony is insufficient to support any finding of improper conduct insofar as this incident is concerned 27 c. The disconnected wire incident Gossett and Parks testified concerning an evening when they spent approximately 2 hours working on a down Electron typesetting machine. They testified that sud- denly, and while they were still working on the front of the machine , it com- menced to run. According to these witnesses , they thereupon went to the rear of the machine where they found machinist LeRoy Atwood with a screwdriver and screw in his hand. Gossett and Parks testified that they asked Atwood what he was doing and that Atwood replied the machine had been down long enough ; that he wanted to see the machine run before he went home . Gossett testified , "We touched the screw to fasten down the terminal, and that completed the circuit and the machine started to function and it worked very well. That was an inaccessible place and somebody had to remove the screw ." Atwood, who was called as a wit- ness, testified that he was about to leave for home when he heard someone say that a wire was loose on the Electron on which Gossett and Parks were working. He said that he thereupon went over to the machine , found the wire and the screw laying on the floor, and started to make the proper connection. He testified that the two electricians "came around" as he was making the connection ; further that the machine did not start running at this time 28 I credit Atwood's testimony that the machine did not start running before the electricians came up to him. Indeed, this is reflected in and consistent with that part of Gossett's testimony quoted above. In any event, while the incident is not above suspicion, I am persuaded and find that the evidence is insufficient to establish any deliberate or improper conduct by any particular person or parties. While perhaps Atwood would have exercised better judgment by calling the severed connection to the attention of the electricians who were working on the machine rather than handle the matter himself , his failure to do so did not contribute to any further delay in the repair of this equipment 29 5. Availability of schematics and manuals During the bearing counsel for the IBEW appeared to raise an issue as to whether the schematic diagrams and operational manuals pertaining to the equip- ment in question, which was in the possession of the Employer, was made avail- able to the IBEW electricians after their assignment to the maintenance and repair of this equipment on March 29, 1965. After hearing the evidence, I doubt whether the IBEW continues to make any serious contention that the Employer did not make this data available . William Stack, the only electrician who testified concern- ing this subject, conceded that the schematics and manuals for the Electrons and other equipment, except for the Linofilm equipment , were made available on March 29. As to the data pertaining to the Linofilm equipment , he testified that "about half way through the jurisdiction" he "was told" that the schematics were kept in the Research and Engineering office. He further testified that three sets of manuals pertaining to the Linofilm equipment were made available to him about 7 or 8 days after the jurisdiction was assigned to the machinists. However, Stack conceded that he never asked any company supervisor whether any such data existed. The fact is, according to the credited testimony of LeRoy Hanssen, assist- ant Linofilm foreman, that a full set of schematics for the Linofilm equipment was available in an unlocked cabinet in the Linofilm room at all times after March 29. As respects any contention by the IBEW as to the unavailability of the sche- matics and manuals applicable to the equipment in question, I can but conclude ar Gossett did not testify concerning this incident , although he referred to it in his affidavit. 2' Atwood testified that the machine did not start "for the simple reason when a ground is broken on one of those safety units It drops off K-8, which is a relay that runs the driver clutch , and It never emerges until the ready button Is on." 2D Atwood denied telling the machinists that the machine had been "down long enough " I am inclined to credit the testimony of Gossett and Parks in this regard. But even assum- ing that he said this, any such statement would hardly constitute an admission that he was responsible for the difficulty. LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1105 that if anything the evidence indicates a certain disinterest on the part of the elec- tricians to ascertain for themselves whether such data was available. 6. Training and instruction While the IBEW has not clearly set forth its position concerning the matter captioned above, it appears to contend that the Employer did not afford the elec- tricians sufficient training and instruction concerning the maintenance and repair of the equipment in question. In this regard, it may be noted that the Employer takes the following position: (1) that it is under no contractual or statutory obliga- tion to provide training or schooling to the electricians or any other group of employees; and (2) that the IBEW is estopped to now contend that the Employer is under some obligation to provide training and schooling to the electricians in the maintenance and repair of the equipment because the electricians in the 10(k) hearing represented that the electronic skills required by them as part of the IBEW's apprenticeship program would enable them capably to handle the disputed work. The Board's Order reopening the record in this proceeding restricts me to making the certain findings and conclusions concerning the contentions which are specified therein and does not appear to encompass the issue noted above. However, I set forth for the Board's consideration the testimony concerning this matter As indicated in the Board's initial Decision herein, the ITU provided an elec- tronic course for two machinists, a 4-week course in Linofilm circuitry in Kansas City for 6 of the Employer's 17 ITU machinists, and 6 days of additional training on Linofilm maintainence for the Employer's 2 leadmen machinists at the ITU's train- ing school in Colorado Springs, Colorado. As previously noted, the Employer acquired eight Electron linecasting machines subsequent to the initial hearing. About March 14, 1965, the Employer sent two of its ITU machinists to an Electron school maintained by the manufacturer of this equipment in Plainview, New York. There they received approximately 2 weeks of training in the maintenance of the Electron equipment. Two additional machinists, Chatfield and Atwood, were sent to the Plain- view school on March 28, 1965, for similar training. The electricians were not afforded a similar opportunity, although it also appears that they did not ask for it. Baird testified that the electricians were not sent because "we saw no need for it . they claimed competency as maintenance people." 30 Concerning the electricians, the record reflects only that on a Sunday morning just prior to taking over the disputed work the electricians were taken to the Lino- film room where they received an orientation or "brief rundown of the operation" by Minford Betts, then the chief electrician, and other supervisory personnel. 7. The alleged lack of cooperation by the ITU composing room employees As indicated in the Board's Order, the IBEW further alleges that any delay in the maintenance and repair of the equipment in question by the electricians was in part due to a lack of cooperation on the part of the ITU composing room employees. I find a discussion of this allegation to be somewhat difficult because the IBEW has not spelled out just what it has in mind when it charges the ITU employees with failing to cooperate.31 However, I think we must start out with the obvious premise 30 Baird testified that the machinists were given "a minimum amount of instruction" at the plant by a representative of the Linofilm manufacturer when the Linofilm equipment was first installed. The electricians received no similar instruction, although Minford Betts gave some vague testimony that at one point a Mr. McDonald of the Mergenthaler Com- pany came to the plant after the electricians took over. He did not elaborate 311 note the following testimony of a general nature which was adduced at the hearing: (a) McKee testified that he was present at the meeting on the night of April 21 at Kitts' office which was attended by Kitts and a number of ITU machinists. McKee testified with- out contradiction that when Kitts told the machinists and the electricians to work together in repairing the down equipment, machinist Atwood stated, "We are not going to take bread and butter out of our mouths ; we are not going to work with the electricians or give them any assistance." (b) Baird testified that he heard "scuttlebutt" that the machinists would not cooperate with the electricians, and (c) LeRoy Hanssen, assistant Linofilm foreman, testified that he "heard" that the electricians were not receiving cooperation from ITU employees, but that no electrician ever reported this to him. 257-551-67-vol. 160-71 1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that if a machine fails to' function properly; the first one to notice the fault would be the operator of the machine; i.e., a' production employee. I think I can safely take judicial notice of the fact that as a general rule production employees are not responsible for the maintenance or repair of the machinery which they operate nor are they expected to be capable of analyzing the source of any difficulty which may occur. As in the case here, the production employee ,will simply notify his foreman when a malfunction occurs. To be sure, there may be some instances when the mal- function may be readily apparent, even to the operator. However, although I will discuss below the several instances wherein IBEW witnesses have charged ITU employees with a failure to cooperate, there is no evidence of an ITU operator having failed to disclose any such information when electricians were summoned to repair the machines. 32 The evidence reflects that the operators did, however, cooper- ate to the extent that was generally possible, such as demonstrating a malfunction by feeding tape into the machine while an electrician was working on the machine. I turn now to the testimony involving the alleged noncooperation of the ITU machinists (as contrasted to the operators). William Stack testified that when he first worked on an Electron he consulted a machinist whom he identified only as "Leo." Stack testified, "He told me if I wanted to do something to show him what I wanted to do he would do it. Otherwise, as far as he was concerned, that was as far as he would go." Stack further testified: "On the second shift I did not have the assistance or the cooperation of the ITU machinists, on the third shift I did " Stack named machinists Harvey Atwood, LeRoy Johnson, and Mike Cowan as not being cooperative. He did not elaborate, however, to illustrate the manner in which these employees allegedly were not cooperative. In this regard he testified only that "Cooperation is a matter of degree . I don't think I could list for you the machinists and the way they cooperated, which was more or less. I have given my impression . . . I think I did my work effectively. I think I could have done better had I had cooperation." Don Gossett testified that on one occasion he spent quite a bit of time checking the electrical circuit of an Electron. He finally found a mechanical actuator out of adjustment. Gossett testified that he thereupon told a machinist named Mike, who came up while he was working, that the problem was mechanical and that he asked Mike which one of them should make the adjustment. According to Gossett, the machinist "smiled" and he thereupon made the adjustment. Gossett testified that on another occasion he and McKee worked most of the night checking the electrical circuit on a down Electron that did not quad properly. He testified that finally a machinist came in and they asked him to check the machine. According to Gossett, the machinist "looked . . . and said, `this arm is out of adjustment. That is what is the matter with it.' He adjusted the arm and it ran all right." 33 Paul Parks gave some rather confused and conclusionary testimony which I assume was offered in support of the allegation of noncooperativeness by the ITU machinists. I shall not burden this report with a recitation of this testimony since, having considered it, I do not deem it of any probative value in resolving the issues herein 34 Leo Gash conceded that the machinists cooperated with him to the extent of running tape through the machines and by "running the machine and taking covers and things off to make switches and wiring accessible." Gash, in fact, did not charge any ITU members with noncooperation. He concluded his testimony by stating, "I would like to restate that I don't need their [the machinists'] help to do my work. I would maybe need their help to try to analyze what the fault is." Se Don Gossett testified that on one occasion he asked the operator of a Comet machine "what seemed to be the trouble" and that "all I got out of him was a shrug of his shoul- ders." However, it developed that the operator in this case was a deaf mute. Moreover, Gossett conceded that he was aware that the specific malfunction in this instance was a failure of the machine to elevate. It would seem to me that it was Gossett's responsibility to ascertain the source of the difficulty, not the operator's. 33 This incident is cited in the IBEW's brief as an example of "failure or refusal of ITU employees to cooperate with the electricians." Insofar as this incident is concerned, I am inclined to view the opposite as being true. 141 have also considered Parks' testimony concerning an incident where he found two nylon wheels which should have been free but which were pinched together. Although this is illustrative of an Occasion where an electrician found the trouble to be mechanical rather than electricial, there is no evidence tending to prove that this difficulty was the result of some deliberate misconduct. LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1107 George McKee testified that shortly after March 29 he was assigned to a down Electron. He said that he asked Mike Cowan, a machinist, what the trouble was and the Cowan simply replied, "It won't run." He testified that when he thereupon asked Cowan if he "would work with us," Cowan replied, "McKee, we have been friends. I would like to work with you but I can't." McKee testified that neverthe- less Cowan proceeded to run tape through the machine and that he and Gossett proceeded to make the necessary repair. On cross-examination, McKee testified that the problem was of an electrical nature; that he did not intend to criticize Cowan; that he only inquired of Cowan because it could have saved time if Cowan advised him of the source of the trouble, if he (Cowan) knew what it was. I turn now to my conclusions. As indicated heretofore, the Board's Order directs that findings be made with respect to the contention of the IBEW that "delays were due in many instances to a . . . lack of cooperation on the part of the com- posing room employees." Upon the basis of the testimony set forth above, and on the entire record in this case, I find the evidence does not support this allegation.35 The conclusionary accusations in the testimony of the IBEW employees, as set forth above, are meaningless unless supported by factual instances of alleged non- cooperation. I find probative testimony of this nature to be lacking. True there were instances, as noted above, where the electricians were called to make repairs which they ultimately found to be a mechanical rather than an electrical malfunc- tion. In some instances this was ultimately pointed out to them by a machinist who, arrived on the scene. However, the evidence does not establish that in these instances such information was deliberately withheld by the machinists. Indeed, the record in the case reflects that it is not always a simple matter to determine initially whether the problem is of a mechanical or electrical nature . . . and this is a problem which is confronted by whoever is first assigned to a machine, be it an electrician or a machinist. I have no doubt that the ITU machinists resented having to give up the disputed work to the electricians. In this regard I have considered the testimony cited in footnote 31. However, this testimony in itself again does not establish that there was in fact the type of noncooperation which the IBEW alleges. Finally, I might add that any question of cooperation between two groups of employees, particularly in the circumstances presented in this situation, is a nebu- lous one and therefore one of difficult practical resolution. Basically, I have found the evidence insufficient to establish any overt lack of cooperation by the ITU machinist. Whether there were instances where these employees remained silent when they should have spoken is, of course, a matter which the evidence simply does not reveal 36 8. The alleged substantial delays in publication The Employer concedes that there were no instances of missed editions or abnor- mally delayed deadlines during the period March 29 to April 23. In fact, there is 3-5 There is perhaps one exception. Thus, machinist Harvey Atwood, when called by the ITU as a witness , testified that on one occasion he observed electrician Stack working on a machine which was not quading properly. Atwood testified that he knew what the trouble was but that he did not volunteer this information to Stack. On the other hand, Atwood credibly testified to several instances where he did give voluntary assistance to electricians when they were in difficulty. I also credit the testimony of machinist Donald Chatfield, which I need not detail here, concerning his voluntarily giving assistance to an electrician who could not find the source of difficulty on a down Electron. 13 I further call to the Board's attention the following assertion of the Employer, as set forth in its brief, concerning which there may be some merit: IBEW suggests just such a course of action-the Employer is to "insist" that the ITU machinists and operators "cooperate" with the electricians, and, if they fail to do so, they are to be disciplined or discharged. We suggest that such a "solution" not only ignores industrial realities but merely emphasizes the critical situation in which the Employer will be placed if compelled to 4llow the disputed maintenance work to be performed by IBEW electricians. No employee can be compelled to disgorge his knowledge to another. Nor is it realistic to suggest that an industrial arbitrator would uphold the discipline or discharge of an ITU machinist for failing to share his knowl- edge with an IBEW electrician , especially in circumstances like the present, where the electricians have consistently represented that they are possessed of the necessary knowledge, skills and capabilities to perform the work. 1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD no evidence at all to reflect that there were any substantial delays in publication during the period the machinists were assigned to maintain the equipment in the composing room. Kitts testified, in response to leading questions, that during this period advertise- ments were omitted from the newspapers "at a greater frequency" than was the case when the equipment was maintained by the machinists. I am constrained not to accord any weight to this testimony, unsupported as it is by any documentary evidence or other pertinent detail.87 Accordingly, I find that the Employer has not established that the assignment of the work in question to the electricians caused news items or other matter to be omitted from its publications. There can be no doubt, however, that the electricians engaged in excessive "down time" during the period they were assigned to the disputed work. In this regard I need only refer to the instances cited earlier in this report where it has been found that the electricians were unable to repair the equipment or engaged in excessive downtime in effecting certain repairs. The evidence also reflects, and I find, that during this period the Employer was required to pay overtime which would not have been necessitated absent the failure of the electricians to promptly effect the repair and maintenance work to which they were assigned. Indeed, it is undisputed that on a number of occasions electricians were recalled from their homes to lend assistance to electricians who were having difficulty at the plant.38 9. Concluding statement From the entire evidence in this case, including the various incidents noted herein, it seems quite apparent, and I think it appropriate so to note, that a chief problem in determining this dispute is the absence of any clearly defined division of work between mechanical maintenance and electrical maintenance of the Employer's composing room equipment. As indicated in the testimony heretofore discussed, there were some occasions when the electrician spent considerable time working on a piece of down equipment, only to find the difficulty to be of a mechanical nature. Similarly, there would be some inevitable duplication of effort if the machinists were summoned first, only to find the problem to be of an electrical nature. It is beyond my function to make any determination whether, with a view to eliminat- ing or minimizing this problem, the machinists and electricians should be granted further time to work together and/or whether the electricians should be afforded time for additional training and experience in the maintenance of this equipment.39 27I find this applicable also to the generalized testimony of Superintendent Miller es Baird testified that the Employer had an increase of over 400 percent in overtime during the month of April. Although this testimony came in without objection, I do not feel warranted in accepting this figure at its face value without some supporting records, documentary data, or testimony shown to be predicated thereon. .o In this connection , William J. Stack, the IBEW business representative, testified that it may very well take 2 or 3 additional months for the electricians "to get familiar with the functional operations of this equipment." United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO ( Continental Can Company, Inc. and Wade Laughrey. Case 8-CB-971. September 14,1966 DECISION AND ORDER On April 4, 1966, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Deci- sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 160 NLRB No. 85.