Electrical Workers, Local 1527

128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD since has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 5 By refusing to recognize Barbara Wright the duly selected grievance chairlady or steward and thereby refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act 6 By refusing to employ Kathleen Lewis on May 25 1965 and Beulah Wilson on September 14 1965 the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act 7 By the foregoing conduct the Respondent has interfered with restrained and coerced employees in their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 9(a)(1) of the Act 8 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act [Recommended Order omitted from publication ] International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1527, AFL-CIO and McCall Corporation and Dayton Typographical Union, Local No 57, International Typographical Union, AFL- CIO Case 9-CD-80-2 October 19,1966 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by McCall Cor poration, herein called the Company, alleging that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No 1527, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or IBEW, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by inducing or encouraging employees of the Company to cease work for the purpose of forcing or requiring the Company to assign the work in dispute to employees who are mem- bers of the Respondent rather than to employees who are represented by the Dayton Typographical Union, Local No 57, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the ITU A hearing was held on June 7, 1965, before Hearing Officer Donald G Logsdon All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportu- nity to be heard, to examine and cross examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Company, the Respondent, and the ITU Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following findings I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The McCall Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the publishing and printing business, employing 5,600 people repre- 161 NLRB No 10 ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1527 129 sented by 15 unions, at its Dayton, Ohio, plant In addition to its own publications, McCalls, Redbook, and Saturday Review , the Company prints some 50 or 60 other publications by contract with other pub lishers, principally Readers Digest, Newsweek, U S News and World Report, and Popular Science The plant prints and distributes on the average of 4,500,000 magazines daily During the 12 month period preceding the hearing, it performed services to customers outside the State of Ohio valued at more than $50,000, and during this same period it also shipped goods and materials valued at more than $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Ohio The parties stipu lated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, tnd that it will ef[ectuite the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The IBEW and the ITU are both labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act III THE DISPUTE A The work in issue The work in dispute is the maintenance of the "electronic" 1 por tions of electro mechanically operated Elektron and Monarch type setting machines at the Company's Dayton, Ohio, plant B Facts as to the dispute Since 1924, when the Company established its plant in Dayton, Ohio, it has dealt with both the IBEW and the ITU unions and has had formal bargaining agreements with them dating from 1937 Dur ing this period, ITU machinists have performed all the mechanical maintenance of the Employei's typesetting machines The Employer's maintenance electricians, members of the IBEW, have performed certain maintenance functions such as the repair or replacement of the electric motors which drive the machines, the lights, the electric heater elements which provide the heat for melting the metal used in casting the type, and the temperature controls The maintenance elec i The record does not indicate that vacuum tubes transistors or other semiconductor devices or other components of an electronic nature are in fact employed in the operations of the typesetting machines here involved However the term electronic has been used in this record to designate the electrically activated type of operation which distinguishes these newer typesetting machines from the older machines in the Company s composing room We shall likewise use the term electronic to designate the electric devices which activate the machine functions in the Company s newer machines which are the subject of this dispute 264-188-67-vol 161-10 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tricians have also done the necessary wiring to connect the machines to the sources of electric power in the Employer's plant In May 1964, the Company installed two Elektron and one Mon 'irch typesetting machines These are essentially the same as the tra ditional Linotype machines which have long been used, but are "electronically" rather than mechanically operated, and incorporate certain electronic, or electric, safety devices to warn of any malfunc tion From May until October 1964, the new machines were maintained by the ITU machinists, including maintenance of the electronic oper ,tting and safety controls At some time in October, a machinist took in electronic component, such as a resistor or capacitor, but not posi ti%ely identified in the record, to a maintenance electrician for testing this incident led to the filing of a complaint by the IBEW with the Emp'oyei in iihich it ch iiged thit the ITU machinists were doing electrical maintenance work in the composing room which properly belonged to the IBEW maintenance electricians The Company met with the IBEW and suggested that the two Unions, ITU and IBEW, get together and try to settle their differences But no agreement was reached by the Unions, ind in January 1965 the IBEW, in a meeting with the Company, charged that the ITU machinists were perform ing not only the electrical maintenance on the three new typesetting iachines, but also other electrical maintenance work which the IBEW electricians had formerly done At a later date in January, the Company met with the ITU, which refused to give up any of the mainten'ince work, whether electrical or mechanical, on the new machines Following this impasse, the Company filed a charge against the IBEW alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D), but this was sub sequently withdrawn On April 30, the Company directed a letter to the Unions, making a formal assignment of the typesetting machine maintenance work, including the electronic or "electro mechanical" work, to the ITU machinists, but excluding all electrical hookup ii ork on drive motors, heaters, lights, temperature controls, and cer tarn other work on the circuit breaker boxes for the temperature con trols, which was assigned to the IBEW electricians Thereafter, on May 3, the IBEW notified the Company that this assignment was entirely unsatisfactory and that its members did not intend to per form any work for the Company after May 28, 1965, unless a satis factory assignment was made On Mty 10, the Company filed the charge in this case Subsequently, the IBEW agreed that in the event the Board issues a notice of hearing in this proceeding, it would not engage in a strike There has been no ii ork stoppage ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1527 131 C Contentions of the parties The IBEW contends that its contract and constitution, ' and the Company's past practice, give it jurisdiction over all electrical maintenance work in the plant, including all the electrical mainte nance on the Company's typesetting machines The ITU, on the other hand, contends that it has historically poi sessed jurisdiction of the maintenance work on typesetting machines, that both its conti act 9 and p tist pi actice in the Company's plant give it this jurisdiction, and further contends that the functions of the elec tronic components on the new machines are so intertwined with the mechanical operation of these machines that the entire maintenance, electronic as well as mechanical, belongs and should be assigned to the machinists represented by the ITU The Company, while agreeing with the ITU, further argues that the electronic devices on the new machines are no more than secondary to their mechanical aspects and hence that the knowledge and expert ence of the ITU machinists make them fundamentally more qualified foi their mainten ince The Company also asserts that the efficiency of its operations demands that the work be assigned to the ITU machinists because they ai e ilw ays stationed in the composing room, tnd that a division of the maintenance work between that which is electrical and that which is mechanical would be too costly because it would require the permanent assignment of electricians to the coin posing room, in addition to the ITU machinists who are already sta tioned there D Applicability of th e statute The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director, alleges a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act The Regional Director was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that there 2 Article III section I of the IBEW Bargaining Agreement sets forth its coverage as follows all employees engaged in work which comes under the jurisdiction of the above named International Union Article XXVIII of the IBEW constitution provides in pertinent part that the jurisdiction of the IBEW be recognized as one covering (a) The manufacture assembling construction installation or erection repair or maintenance of all materials equipment apparatus and appliances required in the production of electricity and its effects 3 The ITU Bargaining Agreement provides in pertinent part that Jurisdiction is defined as including all composing room work and includes operators and machinists on all mechanical devices which cast or compose type A jurisdiction includes maintenance of all the foregoing equipment and devices except that programming and maintenance which is provided by the manu facturer or lessor or by experts not available from the employees covered by this agreement 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was reasonable cause to believe that a violation had been committed and directed that a hearing be held in accordance with Section 10(k) of the Act Before making a determination of the dispute, the Board is required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated We aie satisfied that there is adequate support for such a finding in this case, particularly in the light of the IBEW's letter dated May 3, 1965, rejecting the Company's April assignment of maintenance R of k on typesetting machines in the com- posing room and advising that its members did not intend to perform any work after May 28 unless a satisfactory assignment was made Upon the basis of the above and the entire record before us, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that the IBEW threatened a strike with an object of forcing the McCall Corporation to assign work to members of the IBEW rather than to member- of the ITU, and that therefore a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) has occurred Accordingly, we find that the work dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act E Merits of the dispute Section 10 (k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of the disputed work, after giving due consideration to vari ous relevant factors The factors hereinafter set forth bear on the issue of work assignment before us 1 Background facts as to the machines and operations involi ed The traditional typesetting , or Linotype , machine is a complex machine designed to mold lines of type in metal In it a mold is stored for each letter or character These are released in proper order by the pressing of keys on a keyboard and fall into an assembling elevator from which, when a line has been properly assembled and justified, they move to the molding area of the machine where the line is cast with a molten alloy of lead The molds, or mats, are returned by a second elevator and distributed back into the magazine of the machine The various processes of the machine, in the traditional Linotype, are activated mechanically by cams, or by a leer moved by the operator of the machine In the machines which are the subject of the dispute in this pro ceeding, the steps in the process above described are brought about, not mechanically by the use of cams, but electrically through the use of solenoids which activate the moving parts Microsu itches are used at various points in the machine as a safety device, causing the machine to stop as the result of a malfunction in some part Also to an increasing extent, these machines are being operated not directly ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1527 133 oy the pressing of keys on the keyboard, but by the use of prepunched tape which has been prepared for that purpose on a separate machine The general purpose of these various functional improvements, like the invention of the Linotype machine itself, has been to increase the speed ww ith which type can be set 2 The skills and training of the employees From the time of the invention of the Linotype machine and the first installation of the machine about 1886 or 1890 in ITU ieprecented shops, ITU members hale both operated and maintained these machines I he ITU had developed for the machinist apprentice a separate course of apprenticeship which includes not only instruc tion in the maintenance and repair of typesetting machines, but also, in part, training such as is given to the typesetting machine operator, including fnmilitirity with the keyboard, setting of type, and making of forms Completion of this apprenticeship leads to journeyman -tatus similar to that of the opeiator, and qualifying for an identical pay scale ITU members hai e likewise prepared for and performed the maintenance work on all the changes and improvements on the Linotype or other typesetting machines since the beginning The ITU operates a training center which provides courses of training in the ad-, anted in i liine operations, including a special 3 week course on the Elektron m ichine The ITU ilso operates throughout the United States and Canada about 100 other training schools which use instiuctois tiained it the training center About the time of the installation of the new machines at the Com p my s pl int, thiec machinists, one from each shift, were sent to a 'chool conducted bti the m inuf ictuiei of the machines for a special 2 -,seeh course of instruction in then maintenance'` Upon their return, they used this ti iining is a basis for familiarizing the other machin ists with the maintenance of the new equipment The maintenance electricians also possess ability to perform mainte mince upon the electric components involved in the functioning of these machines At the hearing, the ITU stipulated that there is other complicated equipment ha-ving similar "electronic" components in the Company's plant that is maintained by the electricians And the Company likes` ise conceded that the electricians have the ability to do this work Howe\ er, both the ITU and the Company assert, and the record appears to establish, that the ITU machinists are better prepared to perform the necessary maintenance work on the electrical operating controls of the new machines by virtue of their greater familiarity with the mechanical processes involved and their general Three machinists including at least one of the three above mentioned have also taken a 9 month course in electronics set up by the Dayton Typographical Union 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD training in the setting of type. Repairs of components such as micro- switches and solenoids in most cases involve no more than removing the part and replacing it with a new one. The machinists' knowledge of the mechanical features of typesetting machines enables them more quickly to locate and repair a malfunctioning part. In the case of typesetting machines operated by prepunched tape, which includes not only material to be converted into type but also various operating instructions to the machine, the machinists are able more readily to read the tape and apply the thus acquired information to locate the source of the malfunction. Upon the entire record, we conclude that because of their greater familiarity with the operations of the machines and the setting of type, the factors of training and skill appear to favor the ITU machinists. 3. Collective -bargaining agreements The record shows that the Company has had collective -bargaining contracts with both Unions for a number of years, beginning before introduction of the electronically operated typesetting machines in the plant. Both the IBE'W contract and constitution set forth in footnote 2, supra, and the ITU contract set forth in footnote 3, supra, can be said to be subject to an interpretation which would include jurisdiction over the maintenance of electronic components of the newly acquired typesetting machines. Accordingly, and as neither contract provides any specific reference to the operations here in dis- pute, we find that the factor of contract provisions favors neither Union. 4. Company, area, and industry practice The record establishes that the Company's practice has always been to assign the mechanical maintenance work, and since the advent of its three new machines also the electronic maintenance work, on its typesetting machines to the ITU. Further, the record shows that while there are no other known electro -mechanical typesetting machines being utilized in the Dayton area, ITU machinists maintain and repair similar electronic typesetting equipment throughout the industry. We therefore find that the Company's past practice of assigning the disputed work to the ITU, in accord with the practice of other principal employers in the industry, favors awarding the disputed work to the ITU. 5. Other pertinent decisions There has been no arbitration decision concerning the work in dis- pute at this plant. The record shows, however, that on February 16, 1965, pursuant to a complaint filed by the IBEW, David Cole, umpire ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1527 135 of the AFL-CIO Internal Dispute Plan, issued a decision concerning the electrical maintenance of Elektron typesetting machines at the New York Daily News. Cole found the ITU in violation of the AFL- CIO constitution by performing electrical maintenance. We note, however, that neither the Company nor the ITU appeared at the hearing. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any showing in the record as to its evidentiary basis, we can attach little weight to that determination.5 6. Substitution of functions and job loss As set forth above, for many years the ITU machinists have per- formed all maintenance work relating to the mechanical operations of the Company 's Linotype or other typesetting machines . Electricians represented by the IBKW have performed tasks in connection with replacement or repair of drive motors , heaters, lights, and tempera- ture controls . It is clear, as indicated in our previous discussion of the typesetting machines and their operation , that the electrical compo- nents on the Elektron and Monarch machines whose maintenance is here in dispute perform precisely the same functions as the mechanical cams and levers on the earlier forms of typesetting machines and hence are merely a more efficient substitute for these earlier mechani- cal devices. If maintenance of the "electronic " portions or components of the E]ektron and Monarch machines is awarded to the ITU machinists, it would result in neither gain nor loss of work to either of the competing groups of union members, but if the same work is awarded to the IBEW electricians it would advantage them at the expense of the machinists . Thus, this factor favors the ITU machinists. 7. Efficiency of operations The Company desires assignment of the disputed maintenance work to the ITU machinists, asserting that such assignment promotes the efficiency of its operations. The record discloses that in the conduct of the Company's publishing business time is an important factor, as there are constant deadlines to be met. It is evident that at least one advantage in use of the improved machines here involved is their pos- sible contribution to speed in production. The IBEW electricians are stationed on a floor of the plant other than that on which the compos- ing room is located. They are summoned by telephone and are dis- patched, if available, from this location or from other parts of the plant. The ITU machinists, however, are stationed in the composing 5 Carpenters District Council of Denver t Vicinity, AFL-CIO (J 0. Veteto and Son), 146 NLRB 1242 ; Local 964, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL- CIO (Carleton Brothers Company), 141 NLRB 1138 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I oom, two on each of the three shifts, and are thus immediately avail able to perform required maintenance tasks e We find that the factor of efficiency favors the ITU Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute Upon consideration of all pertinent factors appearmg in the rec- ord, we shall assign the disputed work to the ITU machinists, who possess sufficient skill, are more effective in the performance of such work because of their broader knowledge of the machines and of the typesetting process, and have performed the work in the past to the satisfaction of the Company, which desires to retain them on the job r The present assignment of the work in dispute to the machinists is consistent with the Company's past practice, is in accord with that of other employers in the industry, and results in neither gain nor loss of jobs for either disputant The assignment of the disputed work to the electricians would not promote the efficiency of the Company's typesetting operations, and might result in adding unnecessary cost to maintain them We, accordingly, determine the instant jurisdic tional dispute by deciding that the ITU machinists, rather than the IBEW electricians, are entitled to perform the electronic maintenance work on the Company's Elektron and Monarch typesetting machines How e-. er, the award of this specified work is not to be taken as encom passing work traditionally performed by the IBEW, such as repair or replacement of electric motors, lights, electric heater elements, tem. perature controls, and the wiring connecting the machines to sources of electric power In making this determination, we are assigning the work to the machinists Hho are repiesented by the ITU, but not to that Union or its members DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following determination of dispute 1 The machinists employed by the McCall Corporation, who are represented by the Dayton Typographical Union, Local No 57, Inter national Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform 6 The record indicates that the very great majority of all maintenance work on the typesetting machines is mechanical in nature Hence the Company is in any event required to continue the full time assignment of ITU machinists to the composing room If the IBEW electricians were to be assigned the maintenance of electronic components in the typesetting machines the possibility of breakdown in these parts and necessity of speedy repairs would the Company asserts require the assignment also of an IBEW electrician to full time duty in the composing room on each shift a procedure which would involve excessive cost 1Locai Union 1$4 of IBEW (Kansas City Star Company) 160 NLRB 1091 (Supple mental Decision and Amended Determination of Dispute) ELSA CANNING COMPANY 137 the disputed work of maintaining the electronic components on type- setting machines located in the composing room of the McCall Cor- poration plant, Dayton, Ohio. 2. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1527, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Company to assign the above-described disputed work to electricians. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision, and Determina- tion of Dispute, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, Local No. 1527, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forc- ing or requiring the Company, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to electricians rather than to machinists. Elsa Canning Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, General Drivers Local Union No. 657. Case 23-CA-2109. October 20,1966 DECISION AND ORDER On May 31, 1966, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, all parties filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and supporting briefs. Respondent filed a brief in answer to the Charging Parties' exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]. 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 Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and briefs, the General Counsel's and the Charging Parties' exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the fol- lowing modification. 161 NLRB No. 9.