Albany Printing Pressmen, Loc. 23

ALBANY PRINTING PRESSMEN, LOC. 23 693 Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23, AFL-CIO and Williams Press, Inc. Case 3-CD-176 June 30, 1967 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE ' By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Williams Press, Inc., herein called Williams or the Company, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23, AFL-CIO, herein called the Pressmen. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 13 and 14, 1966, and January 3, 4, and 5 and February 14 and 15, 1967, before Hearing Officer Nelson G. Ross. The Company, the Pressmen, Albany Typo- graphical Union No 4, AFL-CIO, herein called the Typographers, the International Typographical Union, and Albany, Troy and Vicinity Stereo- typers' and Electrotypers' Union Local No. 28, AFL-CIO, herein called the Stereotypers, ap- peared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. I The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs which have been duly considered by the National Labor Relations Board. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec- tion with this case to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Com- pany, a New York corporation with its principal of- fice and business establishment located in Albany, New York, is engaged in the business of commer- cial and periodical printing, including the printing of magazines, directories, and periodicals, all for other firms. During the past 12 months, the Company received a gross revenue from the sale of products valued in excess of $12 million. In the same period, the Company has purchased materials, sup- plies, and/or merchandise valued in excess of $2,550,000, which were shipped directly to the Company from outside the State of New York, and has sold goods and/or merchandise valued in excess of $8 million, which were shipped to points outside the State of New York. Consistent with a prior finding of the Board,2 the parties further stipulated, and we find, that Williams Press, Inc., and Capital Electrotype Com- pany, Inc., herein called Capital or the Company, constitute a single employer for the purposes of the hearing in this case. We find that the Company is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Pressmen, the Typographers, and the Stereotypers are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background Prior to 1963, the Company operated exclusively as a conventional letterpress printing house. Em- ployees represented by the Typographers per- formed the traditional composing room work, end- ing with the production of chases containing locked- up type. Employees represented by the Stereo- typers prepared these chases for the making of elec- trotype plates, made the plates, and then turned them over to members of the Respondent Press- men, who put the plates on the presses prior to operating them. In the latter part of 1963, the Company purchased a press from the Meahley, Goss, and Decker Company. At the same time, the Company began producing dycril plates on a limited basis for use on the Meahley press. Members of the Typog- raphers and the Stereotypers worked on the manu- facture of the dycril plates.3 Sometime during 1965, the Company abandoned the dycril platemaking process and converted the Meahley press from a letterset to an offset press. The press became opera- tive as an offset press in January 1966. Members of the Typographers performed the preparatory work prior to the making of the offset plates, which work was substantially the same as that performed by I The Typographers and the Stereotypers are parties to the dispute The International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO, herein called ITU, inter- vened on the basis of its local's being a party to the dispute and par- ticipated jointly with the local. L Local 28, International Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers' Union of North America , AFL-CIO (Capital Electrotype Company, Inc.), 137 NLRB 1467 166 NLRB No. 71 3 The Company asserts that this work was undertaken on an experi- mental basis, but concedes that in the 2-year period it used this process, which it calls "letterset," some of the plates were used in the production and printing of magazines for its customers 308-926 0-70-45 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them in connection with the manufacture of the dycril plates. However, as the Company lacked the facilities to make the offset plates and perform the work incidental thereto, this work was contracted out to another firm. Approximately 50 percent of the plates produced by this operation were used in publications. By the summer of 1966, however, the Company had decided to replace the Meahley press with new offset presses and to create a separate offset preparatory section containing approximately 26 c mployees. This new section, which will also make the offset plates, will supplement and not replace the older letterpress operation. During this period, the Company also reviewed its work assignments to determine which of its em- ployees would be transferred to the new section. It is the work of this section which is here in dispute. Following conferences between the Company and the several unions lasting through the summer of 1966, the Company, on September 7, 1966, awarded substantially all of the work in dispute, hereinafter described, to members of Respondent Pressmen. Thereafter, the Typographers requested that the Company arbitrate its failure to assign the disputed work to them. The Company agreed to ar- bitrate. The Respondent Pressmen informed the Company that if it proceeded to arbitration with the Typographers the Pressmen would call a strike. On the following day, the Company filed a charge in this case against the Pressmen alleging violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D). The Company and the Typographers did ar- bitrate the grievance and an award was made on March 23, 1967, declaring that the assignment by the Company of a substantial amount of the work in dispute was in violation of the Company's contract with the Typographers.' Although the other unions here involved received notice of the arbitration proceeding, only the Typographers and the Com- pany were parties to that proceedings B. The Work in Dispute The dispute which gives rise to this proceeding concerns certain of the work involved in converting hot type to a film negative, the positioning, stripping , and opaquing of these negatives onto completed flats, as well as the tasks involved in transferring the images contained on the completed flats to aluminum plates used on the offset presses. i On March 24, 1967, the Typographers moved to reopen the instant record to receive into evidence the arbitrator's award Copies of said mo- tion were duly served on all of the parties herein, but no opposition to such motion has been filed Accordingly, the aforesaid documents are hereby' received into evidence and made a part of the record herein. Because neither the Stereotypers nor the Pressmen consented to or participated in the arbitration proceeding, the award cannot bind them We have considered the arbitration award only for the limited purpose of The Company assigned to its employees represented by the Typographers all the work which is performed in advance of the camera, in- cluding the operation of the chronopress. The operation of this machine results in a film negative. Under the Company's assignment, these employees are also assigned the operation of the scotch-print- proof press, up to and including the removal of the print sheet from the press. All other offset prepara- tory work, including platemaking, was assigned by the Company to its employees represented by the Pressmen. The Typographers, however, claim all camera and darkroom work and the Stereotypers claim the platemaking.6 C. The Contentions of the Parties The Company contends that its contract with the Pressmen compels the assignment of the work here in dispute to the employees represented by that Union. In support of this contention, the Company relies on the Condon case in which identical con- tract language was interpreted by the Board.7 It also contends that its work assignment is supported by custom and practice in the area. It contends further that greater efficiency in its operation will result if both platemaking and printing are performed by a single unit of employees. Referring to its original as- signment of certain offset preparatory work to em- ployees represented by the Typographers, the Company claims that such work was performed on an experimental basis and that the arrangement did not prove satisfactory. The Pressmen contends that its contract with the Company contains express language covering the assignment of the disputed work; that employees whom it represents have the necessary skills to satisfy the Company's requirements, and that the Company's assignment reflects Board policy in grouping the employees who perform offset preparatory work and who operate the offset presses into a single bargaining unit. The Typographers also relies on its contract in support of its claim to the disputed work. It con- tends, moreover, that the Company's original as- signment of the disputed work reflects the correct interpretation of its contract. The Typographers also claims that industrial practice supports assign- ment of the disputed work to the employees whom it represents. The Stereotypers maintains that platemaking traditionally belongs to the Stereotypers and, interpreting the Typographers ' contract with the Company .nternational Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America (J R Con- don & Sons, Inc), 148 NLRB 356 n At the hearing , the Stereotypers apparently claimed the operation of the camera and the work following However, in its brief to the Board, it has restricted the scope of its claim to platemaking. 7 J. R. Condon & Sons, Inc., 148 NLRB 356. ALBANY PRINTING PRESSMEN, LOC. 23 695 further, that the similarity between the work in- volved in the preparation of offset plates and dycril plates, which work was previously done by its members, compels the assignment of offset platemaking to the employees it represents. The Union also relies on its contract in support of its ju- risdictional claim. IV. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE 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 was reasonable cause to believe that a viola- tion had been committed and therefore directed that a hearing be held in accordance with Section I0(k) of the Act. On the basis of the entire record. includ- ing the Pressmen's threat to strike over any applica- tion of the arbitration provisions of the contract between the Company and the Typographers, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the board for determina- tion. V. THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE Section I0(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of disputed work, after giving due consideration to various relevant fac- tors.' The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon common sense and experience and a balancing of such factors.9 In this case , we consider " N L R B v Radio and Television Broadcasting Engineers Union, Local 1212, IBEW (Columbia Broadcasting System ), 364 US 573 9 international Association of Machinists , Lodge No 1743 (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 Q J. R Condon & Sons, Inc, 148 NLRB 356 1 The Typographers ' contract provides in relevant part Jurisdiction of the , Union and the appropriate unit for collective bargaining is defined as including all composing room work and in- cludes operators of all photo-typesetting machines . employees engaged in processing the product (either paper or film ) of photo- typesetting machines including development, proofing, correcting, waxing, and makeup , and employees engaged in paste-makeup with reproduction proofs and/or the product of photo-typesetting machines Paste-makeup is the assembly and makeup of the completed copy jot the camera used in the plate-making process, including waxing or pasting into position on flats of all type , reproduc- tion proofs, art work, photostats , product of photo-typesetting machines , photographs. illustrations , and hand-lettered illustrative border and decorative material , pen-ruling, photoproofing, cor- rection, alteration and imposition of the completed copy for said camera. The aforementioned photostats . [sic] photographs will he used in paste-makeup when they can he so used without sacrifice of quality or duplication of effort- Paste-makeup copy must he complete and ready for the camera used in the platemaking process before being sent to any other department the following factors to be determinative of the is- sues here involved: A. Provisions of the Collective-Bargaining Agreement As we have said in the Condon case , 10 it is clear that the Pressmen's contract with the Company is intended to cover offset preparatory work. This contract provides that: It is understood that the jurisdiction of this contract extends over all printing presses in- cluding offset and letterpress printing presses and associated devices, all work in connection with offset platemaking, including camera operation, all darkroom work, opaquing and platemaking. [Emphasis supplied.] This contract , effective October 1, 1965, and con- tinuing to the present time, constitutes a specific as- signment of the disputed work to the Pressmen prior to the occasion of the dispute herein . Again, for the reasons stated in the Condon case (supra), we find no merit in the contention of the Typog- raphers that its contract , which is identical to the one previously considered , entitles that Union to the work which it claims. i t Although the Stereo- typers' contract differs from the one considered in Condon, it contains no language which can be con- strued as specifically assigning offset platemaking to the Stereotypers . l' It is noteworthy , in this respect, that the Stereotypers has on occasion specifically included offset platemaking in the ju- risdictional provisions of contracts negotiated with other firms. No employer shall, make any other contract covering any of the above work, especially no contract using the word "strapping" to cover any of the work above-mentioned [Emphasis supplied ] z The aforementioned contract provides in material part The jurisdiction of this Union shall include all branches of Stereotyping Electrotyping and all methods of printing plate making and processing (including , but not limited to, rubber and plastic), also all duplication and reproduction processes requiring the use of synthetic and photosensitive materials and their related machinery, regardless of the location of such platemaking equipment in the Wil- liams Press building. All work that is required for any photosensitive process for the manufacture of relief printing plates for printing presses, viz Dycnl, Photopolymar, Nylon, Magnesium , Fairchild , Aluminum, etc . and the manning of all machines required to produce all photosensi- tive and relief printing plates shall be the work of the members of this Union The [Company) shall not execute a contract at any time grant- ing jurisdiction of the aforementioned work and processes to any other group or Labor Union [A] II work in the handling and conditioning of photosensitive materials in the Dycnl platemaking process or similar processes, ex- posing such materials to any type of light , the etching of such exposed materials, and curing, all related operations pertaining to platemaking shall be done by Electrotype molders. . [Emphasis supplied ] 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL B. Other Con sides atroi ti Other factors usually considered by the Board in jurisdictional dispute cases provide little assistance in determining the instant dispute None of the unions involved in this case has been certitied. While the parties concede a similarity between the disputed work and the work previously done by the Typographers and the Stereotypers it appears that the original assignment did not prove satisfactory to the Company The record is inconclusive with respect to area practice. industrial practice. and the degree of competence and skill held by the compet- ing groups of employees. In view of the foregoing. paiticularly the evidence pertaining to the provision of the contract between the Company and the Pressmen which ex- plicitly grants jurisdiction over the disputed work to employees represented by that Union and the fact that the Company bases its assignment on what it believes to be a more desirable assignment of work and desires no change , we find that the employees represented by the Pressmen are entitled to the disputed work and we shall determine the dispute LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in their favor In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to employees who are represented by the Pressmen and not to the Press- men or its members. Our present determination is limited to the particular dispute which gave rise to this proceeding. 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 hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees employed by the Company who are represented by Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23, AFL CIO. are entitled to perform the offset preparatory work of camera operation, darkroom work, stripping, opaquing, and platemaking which is performed in connection with the Company's operation at its plant in Albany. New York.