Printing & Paper Trades Workers, Loc. 520

PRINTING & PAPER TRADES WORKERS, LOC. 250 531 Printing and Paper Trades Auxiliary Workers, Local No. 520, AFL-CIO' and The Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc. of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia Mailers Union, Local No. 14 2 and The Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc. of Pennsylvania .3 Cases 4-CD-165 and 4-CD-166 November 28, 1967 nually ships manufactured products valued in ex- cess of $50,000 directly to persons and firms out- side the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It was stipulated, and we find, that The Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. We further find that it will effectuate the poli- cies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceed- ing. DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA This is a consolidated proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of amended charges by The Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc., of Pennsylvania (herein called the Employer), alleging that Printing and Paper Trades Auxiliary Workers, Local No. 520, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 520), and Philadelphia Mailers Union, Local No. 14 (herein called Mailers) violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) by inducing or encouraging employees to en- gage in a strike, and threatening, coercing, or restraining the Employer with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to employees represented by one union, rather than to employees represented by the other. A hearing was held on various dates between February 23 and May 15, 1967, before Hearing Of- ficer Alfred Vitarelli. All parties appeared and were aforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence hearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer, Local 520, Mailers, and the Intervenor have filed briefs which have been duly considered. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc. of Pennsylvania is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the print- ing of magazines and newspaper supplements and other types of commercial printing at its Philadel- phia, Pennsylvania, plant, which is the only plant in- volved in the instant proceeding. This plant an- I This name appears as contained in the charges in Case 4-CD-I65. 2 This name appears as corrected at the hearing 3 Bookbinders and Bindery Women's Union , Local No. 2, International 168 NLRB No. 75 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Printing and Paper Trades Auxiliary Workers Local No. 520, AFL-CIO, Philadelphia Mailers Union Local No. 14, and Bookbinders and Bindery Women's Union, Local No. 2, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTES The notice of hearing defines the disputed work as "(1) Piling of publications on skids where publi- cations are not to be immediately mailed; (2) bagging publications when such are soft wrapped in the bindery; and (3) hand feeding publications into a counter-stacker attached to the Heyssen Wrapping Machine." A. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to a determination of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. B. The Dispute Over Piling This dispute arose in October 1966 when the Em- ployer assigned the work in dispute on "Name Brands" catalogs to employees represented by the Mailers. As a result of such assignment, Local 520 protested to the Employer, threatened to call a strike, and instructed employees represented by it to strike unless the work in dispute was done by em- ployees represented by Local 520. It is not controverted and we conclude, on the basis of the entire record, that there is reasonable cause to believe that the conduct of Local 520, as described above, in connection with the above dispute violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) and that this dispute is properly before the Board for determina- tion under Section 10(k) of the Act. C. The Dispute Over Bagging This dispute arose as the result of the Employer's assignment on December 6, 1966, of the disputed Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, ( herein called Intervenor), was permitted to intervene based on its contract with the Employer and its claims to certain work 336-845 0 - 70 - 35 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL work in connection with the mailing of a supple- ment to "Harper's Bazaar," called "One Hundred Great Beauties of the World," to employees represented by the Mailers. Local 520 protested to the Employer and threatened to strike unless the work of bagging was done by employees represented by Local 520. Local 520 moved to quash the notice of hearing as to this dispute on the basis of a union authoriza- tion election which it won in 1950 in a unit which in- cluded the "bagging" classification. We deny this motion as it affords no bar to our taking jurisdiction over the dispute. Cf. The Cuneo Eastern Press. 4 We conclude, on the basis of the entire record, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a viola- tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that this dispute is also properly before the Board for determination. D. The Dispute Over Hand Feeding of the Coun- terstacker Attached to the Heyssen Wrapping Machine This dispute arose in January 1967 when the Em- ployer, in experimentation, utilized employees represented by Local 520 to move bound and trimmed "Family Circle" magazines from trucks on to a conveyor leading to a counterstacker and check weigher, also connected by conveyor to a new wrapping and mailing machine, called the Heyssen Wrapping Machine. At that time, the Mailers protested to the Employer and threatened to strike if the disputed work was not assigned to employees represented by the Mailers. The record shows that the Employer planned not to operate the coun- terstacker until sometime in the future, estimated at 2 months from the date of the hearing, and that at that time it would be automated with conveyors in the bindery, obviating the need for handfeed. The parties concede that there will be no future need to handfeed the counterstacker. Under the circum- stances, we shall grant the motions made by Local 520 and the Intervenor to quash the notice of hear- ing as to the handfeeding of the counterstacker, as we find that there is no active work dispute and that the question is therefore moot. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 542 (Bell Telephone Company).5 There remains for disposition the contention ad- vanced by the Employer that the Board should determine disputes raised by the parties at the hear- ing over future work assignments, encompassing the normal operations of the continuous process from the gathering machines in the bindery through the Heyssen Wrapping Machine to the shipping room and abnormal operations in the event of a change in the continuous process desired by the LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD Employer or necessitated by a breakdown of any of the component machines, because during the course of the hearing, a representative of the Mailers threatened a stoppage of work if the opera- tion of the counterstacker and other work were not assigned to the Mailers. The three unions oppose our taking jurisdiction on the ground that there is no prima facie case of an 8(b)(4)(D) violation as to any future work assignment. We shall not deter- mine any such dispute. The Employer has not yet made any such work assignment. In any event, no charge has been filed alleging that conduct relating to any such future work assignment violates Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. E. Merits of the Disputes Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors. 1. The dispute over piling This dispute is confined to work in the mailing area involving the removal of single machine- wrapped catalogs from a table adjacent to a mailing machine and the placing of such catalogs on pallets or skids for removal to a storage area with the inten- tion of later affixing individual addresses on the wrappers for outside mailing. Basic Facts: For at least a 5-year period prior to October 1966, members of a mailing crew represented by Mailers were engaged in work identical to that now performed by employees represented by Mailers, which led to this dispute. This prior work was performed on the "Lafayette Electronics" catalogs, and is characterized as "job work." Contentions of the Parties: The Employer, in the interest of being neutral, now asserts that its assign- ment to employees represented by Mailers, while justified by the prior assignment in the case of the "Lafayette Electronics" catalogs, involves un- skilled work, which it would now be willing to have assigned to either Mailers or Local 520, because employees represented by Local 520 do most of the piling in the plant. Mailers predicates its claim to the work on a number of factors, including (1) the above past practice, and (2) section 2 (k) and (1) of its contract with the Employer which reads: Work of the Mailers shall consist of the follow- ing operations in the mailing of magazines and periodicals. (k) Job work. * * (1) All positions on mailing machines. Local 520 bases its claim to the disputed work 4 157 NLRB 779, 782. 5 144 NLRB 1351, 1357. PRINTING & PAPER TRADES WORKERS , LOC. 520 largely on (1) the fact that no further mailing work was performed on the "Name Brands" catalogs, and (2) the Local 520 contract with the Employer refers specifically to piling, whereas the Employer's contract with the Mailers does not. Local 520 also relies on testimony to the effect that the tables were not part of the mailing machine. Local 520 con- cedes, however, that work on catalogs is "job work." Conclusions We have considered the various factors relied on by the parties , and find that the determinative fac- tors are the contract between the Employer and Mailers which specifically covers the work in question , i.e., "job work," and the past practice under which the Employer assigned the work in question to employees represented by the Mailers. We observe that Local 520's contract with the Em- ployer explicitly covers piling only in the bindery and does not explicitly cover piling in the mailing area. We also observe that the Employer does not now express a preference as to the assignment of the work in dispute , and that the work involved does not require any special skills not possessed by either group. Based upon the foregoing, we determine that the disputed work belongs to employees represented by the Mailers . Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York City and Vicinity (New York Times. ) 6 In making this determination, we are, of course , assigning the disputed work to the em- ployees represented by the Mailers , and not to that Union or its members. 2. The dispute over bagging This dispute is confined to the closing and placing of mailbags containing hand-wrapped publications on a conveyor which moves them to the shipping room, and the affixing of empty mailbags in their stead on hooks provided therefor on tables in the bindery. Basic Facts: For many years prior to 1966, it was the practice of the Employer to have employees represented by Local 520 bag hand-wrapped magazines in the bindery area. With the advent of new third-class postal regulations in 1966, the Em- ployer decided to give such work to employees represented by the Mailers, who also did bundling. Thus, it directed bindery employees called "girl mailers," who were represented by the Intervenor, to make a "single-wrap" on the individual copies, pass them across the table to employees represented by the Mailers, who were directed to segregate and tie the publications in bundles, insert 533 them and a mail tag into and tie each mail sack, close the sack and place it on a conveyor, and at- tach a new empty replacement sack. Contentions of the Parties: The Employer con- tends that the work in question is new and thus not embraced by any contract or certification. It desires that the work be assigned to bundlers represented by the Mailers in order to have one employee do bundling and bagging, thus making the operation more efficient. Mailers predicates its claim to all the work based on the Employer's assignment and asserted greater skills in performing all the operations, while con- ceding that the dispute is limited to bagging only. Mailers also relies on section 2(b) of its agreement with the Employer which encompasses in the work of the Mailers: (b) Handling of the mailing machine - feeding of books, attaching dick strips to machine, sort- ing and bagging. [Emphasis supplied.] Local 520 predicates its claim to the work on the principal ground that the Employer's assignment was in derogation of its current agreement with the Employer, which specifically includes in Local 520's unit employees who do bagging for girl mailers, which is the work in question. Conclusions We have considered the various factors relied on by the parties and find that the determinative factor is the contract between the Employer and Local 520, which explicitly includes under bindery clas- sifications "Male Helpers ... bagging for girl mailers." We also observe that in the 1950 union authorization election in Case 4-UA-2134, as the result of which a certification issued to Local 520, the stipulated unit included the identical job classifi- cation. Moreover, contrary to the Mailers and the Employer, the work in question has been performed in the past by employees under the Local 520 con- tract, and thus the Employer's assignment is in derogation of such contract. We observe that the contract between the Employer and the Mailers ex- plicitly covers bagging only as a part of the job of handling a mailing machine; such provision has no application to the work in question, which was per- formed in connection with a hand operation, in the bindery. Finally, there is no showing that it would be more efficient to award the work to employees represented by the Mailers and that such employees alone possess requisite skills. Under these circum- stances, we do not give the Employer's assignment to employees represented by the Mailers con- trolling weight. And, even if it were more efficient 6 142 NLRB 704. 534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to use employees represented by the Mailers for the work, observance of the contractual provisions, above quoted, must be given paramount considera- tion. Based upon the foregoing, we determine that the disputed work belongs to employees represented by Local 520. In making this determination, we are, of course, assigning the disputed work to the em- ployees represented by Local 520 and not to that Union or its members. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES 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 the disputes. 1. Mailing machine crew members employed by The Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc. of Pennsylvania, who are represented by Philadelphia Mailers Union, Local No. 14, are entitled to perform in the mailing area the work of piling catalogs from the mailing machine on to skids, where the Employer intends to have later mailing functions performed by the mailing crew. 2. "Mail Helpers" employed by the Cuneo East- ern Press , Inc. of Pennsylvania, who are represented by Printing and Paper Trades Auxiliary Workers, Local No. 520, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform in the bindery area the work of "bagging for girl mailers." 3. Printing and Paper Trades Auxiliary Wor- kers, Local No. 520 , AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc. of Pennsylvania to assign the above -piling work to em- ployees represented by it. 4. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes , Printing and Paper Trades Auxiliary Workers , Local No. 520, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 4 , in writing , whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Cuneo Eastern Press , Inc. of Pennsylvaina, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the piling work in dispute to employees represented by it rather than to mailing machine crew members. The Notice of Hearing herein, insofar as it relates to "hand feeding publications into a counter-stacker attached to the Heyssen Wrapping Machine," is hereby quashed.