New York Paper Cutters (Franklin/Rapid/Dart)

NEW YORK PAPER CUTTERS (FRANKLIN/RAPID/DART) New York Paper Cutters and Bookbinders Union No. 119, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO and District 65 , National Council of Distrib- utive Workers of America ,and Franklin/Rapid/Dart Organization, Incorporated . Case 22-CD-163 April 15; 1970 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Nation- al Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by Franklin/Rapid/Dart Organization, Incorporated, hereinafter called Employer, alleging that New York Paper Cutters and Bookbinders Union No. 119, and District 65, National Council of Distributive Workers of America, hereinafter called Local 119 and District 65, respectively, had each violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act, by threatening, coercing, or restraining officials of the Employer, for the purpose of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the work to employees in a particular labor organization rather than to employees in another labor organization. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert M. Schwarzbart on December 3, 8, and 11, 1969. All parties were present and represented by Counsel at the initial hearing. However, only the Employer and District 65 appeared on the two subsequent dates when the testimony concerning the facts was received by the Hearing Officer. All parties were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. None of the parties filed briefs. 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 con- nection with this case to a three-member panel. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF EMPLOYER The Employer and District 65 stipulated that Franklin/ Rapid/Dart Organization, Incorporated, is engaged in the business of lithographing and mailing commercial publications and advertising material and other related matter; that during 1969, the Employer has shipped from its production facility in Weehawken, New Jersey, printed material -valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of New Jersey; and that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 3 The parties stipulated that New York Paper Cutters and Bookbinders Union No. 119, and District 65, Nation- al Council of Distributive Workers, are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute The dispute arises from the assignment of work on two papercutting machines at the Employer's Weehawk- en, New Jersey, plant. On January 1, 1969, three firms, Franklin/Rapid, Ard- lee, and Dart, merged to form the present Employer. Prior thereto Franklin/Rapid was engaged in lithograph- ing and direct mailing of printed matter and employed about 125-150 employees. Franklin/Rapid belonged to the Metropolitan Lithographers Association, which had a labor agreement with Local 1 of the International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, and to Direct Mail Master Contract Association, Inc., which had a labor agreement with District 65. Franklin/Rapid had two papercutting machines and employed two papercutters who were represented by District 65. Ardlee was engaged in the same type of business and had about 70 employees. Ardlee also belonged to the above-named employer association through which it had labor agreements with the same two labor organiza- tions. Ardlee had two papercutting machines and one papercutter who was a member of Local 1, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO; however this employee retired in the spring of 1969 subsequent to the merger. Dart was engaged in lithography and had approximate- ly 60-70 employees. It once belonged to the Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., an employer association,' which had a labor agreement with Local 119, one of the parties herein. At the time of the. merger this employer did not have any employees classified as papercutters on its payroll.2 However, Local 119 did represent one paper handler who at the time of the hearing was still working in Dart's New York City operation and has never worked at the New Jersey plant here involved. The record shows that all of the New York City facilities of all three employers will be closed down and that all operations will be housed in one plant at Weehawken, New Jersey. At the time of the hearing the Employer was operating two papercutting machines and had one other machine not being used. The Employer assigned the work of operating the machines to papercut- ters who are members of District 65. ' Hereinafter referred to as the Printers League The record shows that Dart resigned from the Printers League in July 1968, prior to the above-mentioned merger in 1969 2 One papercutter employee was laid off in January 1968, I year prior to the merger 182 NLRB No. 3 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On August 4, 1969, Arthur Grossman, a representative of Local 119, stated that if the Employer did not employ a member of Local 119 as a papercutter and assign him papercutting work, his Union would tie up the Employer so that nothing would move in the plant The Employer's attorney David Arvan advised Gross- man that the Employer had a contract with District 65 for this work On October 16, 1969, Grossman again told the Employer that a Local 119 papercutter was to be put to work On October 27, 1969, a representative of District 65 told the Employer that all papercutting work must be assigned to employees covered by the labor agreement with District 65 and that the Employer would face an immediate strike by District 65 in the event the Employer assigned the work to employees of any other union Thus in summary, the Employer, through its member- ship in the above-named employer associations, has a contract with District 65 which includes the classifica- tion of papercutters Papercutters were in the employ of Franklin/Rapid and Ardlee at the time of the merger On the other hand, at the time of the merger Dart had a contract with Local 119 which included papercut- ters But at the time of the merger Dart had no papercut- ters in its employ , and moreover had already resigned from the employers association Thus Local 119's claim is based upon a contract with an employer no longer in existence and no longer belonging to the association with which Local 119 has its contract B The Work in Dispute The work in dispute is the operation of papercutting machines at the Employer's Weehawken plant C Contentions of the Parties Local 119's claim for work is apparently based upon its current contract with the Printers League This con- tract includes operation of papercutting machines such as those used by the Employer District 65 bases its claim to the work on its current contract with the Direct Mail Master Contract Associa- tion, Inc The Employer's position is that Franklin/Rapid and Ardlee had a total of three papercutters in their employ prior to the merger who were not covered by Local 119 contracts, that after the merger they have three papercutters assigned to work two machines ,3 that Dis- trict 65 had jurisdiction over the work on these machines prior to the merger, and that it should continue to maintain jurisdiction after the merger D Applicability of the Statute The charges herein allege a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act The record shows that on August ' The Employer employs two employees as papercutters on day shift and one employee on night shift 4 and October 16, 1969, Local 119 stated that if the Employer did not employ one of its members and assign him a papercutting machine then Local 119 would tie up the Employer so that nothing would move in the plant On October 27, 1969, District 65 informed the Employer that there would be an immediate strike in the event that the Employer assigned the work to employ- ee members of another union In view of the conduct described above, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act E The Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors The following factors are relevant in making a determination of the dispute before us The parties stipulated that there is no outstanding Board certification as to the work involved herein The record does contain a copy of a contract between the District Mail Master Contract Association, Inc , and District 65 covering production employees including the classifications of papercutter The record also shows that Local 119 had a collective- bargaining agreement with Dart through the Printers League, mentioned above, prior to the 1969 merger However, Dart had no papercutters in its employ at the time of the merger and, prior to the merger, had withdrawn from that Association In these circumstances the agreement between District 65 and the Employer is a factor which favors an award of the work to employees represented by District 65 There is no showing that the disputed work requires skill not possessed by employees represented by District 65 On the contrary the record shows that employees who are members of and are represented by District 65 possess the necessary skills to perform the work In the Employer's plant, the cutting machines are located in the cutting and folding department All employees in this department including papercutters are members of District 65 and are under the supervision of the foreman of the department The Employer's assignment is not inconsistent with area practice The record shows that employees represented by District 65 are employed as papercutters in several other plants by other employers with whom they have collective-bargaining agreements Other factors provide little assistance in determining the instant dispute Thus, the record shows that the Printers League, pursuant to a grievance brought by Local 119, against Dart, decided that Dart and its respec- tive successors and/or assigns is bound by the contract between Local 119 and the above-named association Since the Employer was neither a party to the proceeding nor a member of the Printers League it does not consider itself bound by the award Furthermore, District 65 was not a party to the above-named proceeding and NFR YORK P PER CUTTERS (IIR 1NKI IN/RAPID/DAR r) was not aware of the award Accordingly we find that the award doe` not favor the assignment of work to Loc it 119 In view of the foregoing on the basis of the record as a whole and upon appraisal of all relevant consider ations we believe, that the work in dispute should be awarded to employees represented by District 65 The fact that the Employer's assignment conforms to its own and area practices and is consistent with its collec- tive bargaining agreement the fact that papercutters employed by the Employer not only have the requisite skills but are familiar with all facets of the work in dispute, and the attendant efficiency of operations lead us to conclude that Employer's assignment of the work is the proper one Therefore we shall determine the dispute by assigning the work in question to employees represented by District 65 On making this determination which is limited to the controversy which gives rise to this proceeding, we are not assigning the work to Local 65 or its members DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act as amended and upon the basis of the forego- ing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following determination of the dispute 5 I Lmployees employed by Franklin /Rapid/Dart Organization Incorporated , who are represented by Dis- trict 65 National Council of Distributive Workers of America AFL-CIO rather than employees represented by New York Paper Cutters and Bookbinders Union No 119 International Brotherhood of Bookbinders AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of operating the papercutting machines at the Employers plant in Weehawken , New Jersey 2 New York Paper Cutters and Bookbinders Union No 119, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4)(D) of the Act to force or require the Employer, Franklin/Rapid/Dart Organization Incorporated, to assign the above work to papercutters represented by it 3 Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute , New York Paper Cutters and Bookbinders Union No 119, International Brother- hood of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO, shall notify the Region al Director for Region 22, in writing , whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Employ er, Franklin/Rapid/Dart Organization , Incorporated, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4)(D ), to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by District 119 rather than to employees of the Employer who are represented by District 65