Local 162, Machinists

LOCAL 162, MACHINISTS Local Lodge No. 162 affiliated with District 34 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO; Arnold Tucker, Business Representative; Gordon Rodgers, Chief Steward' and The Cincinnati Enquirer , Inc.2 and Cincinnati Typographical Union No. 3, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO.3 Case 9-CD-127 February 10, 1969 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CLARIFY AND MODIFY and AMENDING DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On September 11, 1968, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Determination of Dispute,4 in the above-entitled proceeding in which it was concluded that the Respondent was not entitled to perform the disputed work. The Decision described the work in dispute as 11. . . the electrical maintenance and repair of typesetting and subordinate equipment located in the composing room ..."5 of the Employer, and stated, in the "Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute," that on . . all pertinent factors appearing in the record, we shall assign the disputed work to the ITU machinists .."6 Nevertheless, that decision stated that we "... determine the .. . dispute by deciding that the ITU machinists, rather than the IAM electricians, are entitled to perform the electronic maintenance work on the Company's Elektron II typesetting machine. However, the award of this specified work is not to be taken as encompassing work traditionally performed by the IAM, such as repair or replacement of electric motors, lights, electric heater elements, temperature controls, and the wiring connecting the machines to sources of electric power."7 On October 23, 1968, the Charging Party filed a Motion, and Argument in Support of Motion, requesting the Board to modify and clarify its Decision and Determination of Dispute by: (a) a specific definition of the term "The Work in Dispute" awarded to the machinists represented by ITU, and (b) in the next to the last sentence of the section of the Decision entitled "Conclusion as to the Merits" deleting the words "electric heater elements, temperature controls." The Charging Party contended that the IAM, on the basis of the 'Herein called IAM or Respondent 'Herein called Employer or Charging Party. 'Herein called ITU or Intervenor 1172 NLRB No 226 'Id., sec. III, A. "Id sec. entitled "Conclusions as to the Merits of the Disputes" 'Ibid 399 Board's Decision herein, is now taking the position that the work awarded was only the electrical and mechanical maintenance repair of the Elektron If machines rather than of all composing room equipment of the Employer. The Employer argues that on the basis of the complaint, record, and briefs of all the parties, it is apparent that the work in dispute involved all electrical and mechanical maintenance and repair work on all equipment in the composing room, that it is reasonably clear that the Board so found, and that it was this work which was awarded to the ITU machinists. It is further argued by the Employer that the award of work on "electric heater elements and temperature controls" to electricians who are represented by IAM is inconsistent with the remainder of the Board's decision. On October 29, 1968, having considered the Charging Party's motion, the Board, in the interest of facilitating the disposition of the matter, notified the parties, that it deemed it desirable that each of the parties file a statement of position with respect to the Charging Party's motion. In response thereto, ITU International filed a reply in which it adopted the Charging Party's motion as its own, and the Intervenor filed a Statement of Position supporting and adopting the Employer's motion. The Respondent filed a motion in opposition and moved for dismissal of the Charging Party's motion. Respondent contended that the testimony of Larry Nash, Employer's Director of Operations, showed that electric maintenance work had traditionally been performed by electricians for 12 years and they had performed "The same job as we now have." 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 Dane]. Having fully reviewed the entire record herein and the present arguments of the parties, we find merit in the contention of the Charging Party. The position of all parties to this proceeding, as demonstrated by their statements on the record, and in their briefs, reveal that the work in dispute included all electrical and mechanical work on all the composing room equipment. Further, the record shows this was fully litigated. While the original decision herein contained the inadvertent deviation set forth above, it is clear that the scope of the work in dispute which was under consideration included all electrical and mechanical work on all composing room equipment. It is also clear that the decision was intended to assign to the machinists represented by the ITU the performance of such work, but it was not intended to reassign work traditionally assigned by the Employer to electricians represented by the IAM. In view of this ambiguity or possible inconsistency, we shall grant the Charging Party's 174 NLRB No. 66 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD motion to clarify and deny the "Respondent's motion to dismiss said motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Charging Party's motion for modification and clarification be, and it hereby is, granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following changes be made: 1. In the section entitled "Conclusion as to the Merits of the Dispute," the fourth and fifth sentences be deleted and the following be substituted: "We, accordingly, determine the instant dispute by deciding that the ITU machinists, rather than the IAM electricians, are entitled to perform the electrical maintenance and repair of the typesetting and subordinate equipment located in the composing room of the Company. However, the award of this specified work is not to be taken as encompassing work traditionally performed by the IAM electricians, such as repair or replacement of electric motors, lights, and the wiring connecting the machines to sources of electric power." 2. In the Determination of Dispute, paragraph numbered 1, delete the words: "of maintaining the electronic components on typesetting machines located" and substitute the following: "of electrical maintenance and repair of the typesetting and subordinate equipment located" IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Decision and Determination of Dispute issued on September 11, 1968, as printed, be, and shall appear as hereby amended.