Printing Pressmen Local 76

PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 76 Duluth Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union Local No. 76' and . Clark Printing Company, Inc.' and Duluth Typographical Union ,• Local No. 136, affiliated with International Typographical Union ' and International Stereotypers & Electrotypers , Duluth-Superior Local 118. Case 18-CD-97 May 19, 1970 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Nation- al Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Clark Printing Company, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by Duluth Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union Local No. 76, herein called Pressmen. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer James T. Hansing in Duluth, Minnesota, on January 20 and 21, 1970. The Employer; the Pressmen; the Duluth Typographical Union, Local No. 136, affiliated with International Typographical Union, herein called Typographers; and International Stereotypers & Electro- typers, Duluth-Superior Local 118, herein called Ste'reo- typers, appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. 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 Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that Clark Printing Company, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation engaged in wholesale printing of newspapers and commercial material. During the past year, it purchased goods valued in excess of $100,000 from outside the State of Minneso- ta. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. it. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED„ The parties stipulated , and we find , that the Pressmen, the Typographers, and the Stereotypers are labor organi-, nations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ' The names of these parties appear in the caption as amended at the hearing III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute 535 The disputed work which gave rise to this proceeding concerns the offset preparatory work, including opaqu- ing, stripping, paste makeup, and platemaking, all of which accompanies the offset process and is performed prior to the locking.of the plate on the press.' In the latter part of August 1969, the Employer pur- chased a 1250 Multilith offset press and had it installed in the one large room where the main presses are located and where the pressmen and the compositors work. Robert Sulkowski, the Employer's president, testified that he had heard that Donald Anderson, a compositor and a member of the Typographers, was experienced in the offset preparatory process and, on that basis, made an initial assignment of the offset preparatory work to him. The work involved requires the ordering of a negative from another firm that is located on the second floor of the same building occupied by the Employer. Anderson takes the negative to the light table in the mailing department, which is located, in a separate room off the composing department, and masks the negative and cuts out the areas that are to be printed. The opaquing and burning then follows. Once the plate is burned, Anderson uses a process gum and developing solution to sharpen the image. When the required offset preparatory work is completed and a plate is made, it is routed to a pressman for placing on the press and for doing the printing - , Sulkowski also testified that he expected a jurisdiction- al problem as had occurred in 1965 when a Heidelberg offset press had been installed. At that time, when the plant was under different ownership,-the offset pre- paratory work was assigned to a member of the Pressmen and the Typographers threatened to strike unless its members were assigned the work. That dispute resulted in the removal of the offset press after a short period of operation. In the light of the 1965 dispute, Sulkowski deemed it advisable to contact representatives of the Pressmen and the Typographers when the offset press involved herein was installed. As a result of his efforts, he was told by a representative of the Pressmen that the member of the Typographers who was then doing the offset preparatory work could continue doing it until the dispute was resolved by the Board. On or about October 23, 1969, Sulkowski received a letter from Robert J. Plasch, president of the Pressmen, in which Plasch cited the jurisdiction clause of its current contract with the Employer and demanded that the disputed work be assigned to members represented by the Pressmen Plasch stated in this letter that if the disputed work was not so assigned that there will be "no alternative but to call a work stoppage of our members and place pickets at the entrance of your plant " 2 There is no dispute as to the operation of the offset press itself, as the parties agreed that this is work within the jurisdiction of the Pressmen and is being performed by its members 182 NLRB No. 77 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Contentions of the Parties The.Employer is neutral as to which Union is to be assigned the disputed work. The Pressmen contend that the Employer never made an assignment of the work to the Typographers; that its members are competent and skillful enough to perform the work; and that, on the basis of its current contract and area practice, the work should be awarded to its members. The Pressmen further contend that the Employer's practice favors an assignment of the disputed work to its members, as evidenced by the installation of the Heidelberg press in 1965 and the assignment of the offset preparatory work to one of its members. The Typographers contend that the disputed work should be awarded to its members on the basis of the Employer 's assigning such work to one of its mem- bers, the skill and competency of this'member to perform the work, the area practice, and the contract provision in its contract with the Employer which grants jurisdic- tion over the work. The Stereotypers contend that the platemaking aspect of the offset preparatory process belongs to its members on the basis of its current contract with the Employer and the area practice. C. 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 violation had been committed and therefore directed that a hearing be held in accordance with Section 10(k) of the Act. On the basis of the entire record, including the Pressmen's threat of a work stoppage unless its work-assignment demand was met, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act had occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination. D. The Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work only after giving due consideration of various relevant factors. As the Board has stated, its determination in a jurisdic- tional dispute case in an act of judgment based upon common sense and experience and a balancing of such factors.3 1. Certification and bargaining agreements Certain of the usual factors considered by the Board in these cases, such as certifications and contracts, ' N L R B v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U S 573, International Asso- ciation of Machinists, Lodge No 1743 (J A Jones Construction Compa- ny), 135 NLRB 1402, 1411 clearly provide little basis for determining the instant dispute. Thus, there is no Board certification relative to the disputed work, and the collective-bargaining con- tracts that the Employer has with the Pressmen, the Typographers, and the Stereotypers, include provisions which can be interpreted as encompassing jurisdiction of the disputed work. 2. Employer and industry practice Testimony as to area practice reflects that offset pre- paratory work in the Duluth-Superior area is done by members of both the Pressmen and the Typographers. In view of this, there appears to be no justification based on area practice for assigning the disputed work to either the Pressmen or the Typographers. As to the Pressmen's contention of a prior practice as evidenced by the assignment in 1965 of the offset preparatory work to one of its members, the record shows that this press was in operation for only a short period of time and at a time when the plant was under different ownership. Consequently, it appears that the 1965 assignment is of little value in determining the assignment of the disputed work. 3. Efficiency of operations The record reflects that the Employer has a small operation and that the printing and related equipment are centrally located. Both the Pressmen and the Typog- raphers apparently concede that this factor would favor none of the Unions involved herein. 4. Relative skills As to the actual performance of the required offset preparatory work to date, Sulkowski testified that Ander- son has performed such work in a satisfactory manner since receiving the initial assignment. In addition, it is significant to note that James Cran, foreman of the pressroom and a member of the Pressmen, who was assigned the offset preparatory work on the Heidelberg press in 1965, admitted that Anderson had superior experience in this type of work. Based on the foregoing, it would appear that the factor of skills favors an assign- ment of the disputed work to the employees represented by the Typographers. 5. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute Although the factors usually considered by the Board in jurisdictional dispute cases provide little assistance in determining the instant dispute, we nevertheless deem significant the fact that the Employer assigned the offset preparatory work to an employee represented by the Typographers, that this employee admittedly has superior experience in such work, and that this employee has performed the disputed work in a satisfactory manner since such assignment. On this record, we can find no compelling reasons for disturbing this assignment. Accordingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdiction- PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 76 al dispute by awarding the offset preparatory work to employees represented by the Typographers , rather than to employees represented by the Pressmen or the Stereo- typers In making this determination , we are assigning the disputed work to employees who are represented by the Typographers and not to the Typographers 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 fol- lowing Determination of Dispute 1 Employees employed by the Employer who are represented by Duluth Typographical Union , Local No 537 136, affiliated with International Typographical Union, are entitled to perform the offset preparatory work which is performed in connection with the Employer 's opera- tion at its plant in Duluth , Minnesota 2 Duluth Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union Local No 76 is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Clark Printing Company , Inc , to assign such work to employ- ees represented by it 3 Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute , Duluth Printing Pressmen & Assistants ' Union Local No 76 shall notify the Region- al Director for Region 18, in writing , whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Clark Printing Company , Inc , by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act , to assign the work awarded above in a manner inconsistent with the above determination