San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18

SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND MAILERS' UNION NO. 18 San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, Inter- national Typographical Union and Arcata Graphics Corporation and Bookbinders & Bindery Workers Union of Northern California, Local No. 3, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Bookbinders. Case 20-CD-322 September 21, 1971 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by Arcata Graphics Corporation, hereinafter called the Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by San Francisco- Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, International Typo- graphical Union, hereinafter called the Mailers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 26 and 27, 1971, in San Jose, California, and on June 2, 1971, at San Francisco, California, before Hearing Officer David F. Sargent. The Employer, the Mailers, and Bookbinders & Bindery Workers Union of Northern California, Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, hereinafter called Bookbinders, ap- peared at the hearing and were afforded full opportu- nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Both Mailers and Bookbinders filed briefs with the National Labor Relations Board. 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 panel. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the basis of the briefs and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Employer is a New York corporation engaged in the business of printing, binding, and mailing magazines, catalogues, telephone books, and other items at its San Jose, California, plant. During the preceding year the Employer sold and shipped directly to customers located outside of the State of California goods valued in excess of $50,000. We find, accordingly, that the Employer is engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will 275 effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Mailers and the Bookbinders are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer is engaged in the printing, binding, and mailing of magazines, catalogues, and similar items. The work in dispute concerns (1) the work of operating "in-line mailing heads" which affix address labels onto magazines and other publications and (2) the tying, sorting, and bagging operation associated with the Employer's "tipon" machine. The work involved in (1) above has heretofore been performed by Mailers on machines called Cheshires. The publications produced by the Employer are cut, folded, assembled, glued, or stitched on bindery machines operated by employees represented by Bookbinders. After completion of the bindery work, the publications are manually stacked and moved to the mailroom. The mailing head operation on Cheshires involves the hand feeding of publications beneath a mailing head which affixes labels contain- ing names and addresses. Upon completion of this operation, Mailers separate magazines according to zip codes, tie them in bundles, and place them in mailbags. To eliminate the carrying of publications from the bindery to the mailing department and the hand feeding of the Cheshires, the Employer introduced an in-line mailing operation. Under this arrangement, the mailing head is attached directly to the bindery line. Thus, instead of stacking and transferring publications to the mailing area for labeling, the in- line procedure accomplishes the labeling as part of a single operation. The in-line mailing head used in the instant dispute is called a Magnacraft. At the time of the hearing, there was no formal training program involving the operation of Magnacraft machines, but, rather, individuals were trained on the job. Regarding the disputed work in (2) above, the Employer's tipon machine has been used to affix address labels twice since it was installed in 1970. Its labeling use is limited to occasions when the Employ- er's customer, the publisher, wishes to affix a notice or letter to the outside cover of a publication. The tipon machine, like the mailing head operation, requires that publications coming off the machine be sorted, tied, and bagged according to zip code regulations. 193 NLRB No. 38 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Mailers concedes the feeding and operation of the tipon machine to employees represented by the Bookbinders but claims for its members the sorting, tying, and sacking operation when the machine is used for the purpose of labeling. In early 1968 the Employer began operating at its San Jose facility, site of the instant dispute. It advised both labor organizations involved herein that the employees represented by the Mailers would be assigned the operation of the in-line mailing head when address labels are being affixed to publications. The Employer stated that members of the Bookbin- ders were to perform the operation and feeding of the tipon machines. When the tipon machine was being used to affix an address label, however, employees represented by the Mailers would perform the disputed work. In early 1971 the Employer began using the Magnacraft. Anticipating its plans for 1971, addition- al work assignments were made in December 1970. Thus, in a letter dated December 15, 1970, the Employer's director of industrial relations stated that the Employer would continue to comply with its 1968 commitment to assign employees represented by the Mailers work involving the operation of the mailing head, as well as the sorting, tying, and sacking of publications, when mailing labels were affixed on an in-line machine. In the same letter all work associated with the tipon machine was assigned to members of Bookbinders except that, when this machine was used to affix material containing names and addresses for mailing, mailers were to perform the disputed work. Subsequent to this December 15 letter, the Bookbin- ders claimed for its members the performance of all the disputed work. The Bookbinders also sought arbitration under its collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer. The instant charge, however, was filed with the Board before arbitration could be held.' B. The Work in Dispute This dispute concerns the assignment of the work involved in the following operations: (1) the operation of the in-line mailing head machine located in the Employer's bindery department and the sorting, tying, and sacking of publications to which address labels have been affixed by this machine; and (2) the sorting, tying, and sacking of publications from the tipon machine, when that machine is used to affix address labels. C. Contentions of the Parties At the hearing the Employer, while taking a neutral position with respect to the assignment of the disputed ' None of the parties to the instant proceeding contends that the act of the Bookbinders in seeking arbitration constitutes an agreement on a work, stated that it would prefer that bookbinders perform the work since its San Jose operation had yet to show a profit and since the Employer anticipates a substantial reduction in labor costs should members of the Bookbinders be awarded the work. The Bookbinders contends, first, that its contractual claim is at least equal to that of the Mailers since its agreement with the Employer gave "mailing" in the bindery departments to employees represented by the Bookbinders. Secondly, the Bookbinders argues that the commitments made by the Employer in 1968 and 1970 to members of the Mailers should not prejudice the integrity of the Bookbinders contract. Thirdly, although members of the Bookbinders have limited experience in performing the work in question, Bookbinders stated that it could successfully train employees to perform the disputed work. Finally, Bookbinders asserts that it would be more economical and would provide for greater flexibility to assign the work to its members. The Mailers contends that its members have traditionally performed the work of affixing labels and sorting, tying, and bagging publications. It also argues that consideration of skill, competency, and training favors employees represented by the Mailers and that Mailers presently supplies trained personnel to perform the disputed work. Finally, the Mailers states that the Board in Washington Mailers' Union No. 29 (McCall Printing Company, Mid-Atlantic Division), 178 NLRB No. 28, determined a dispute in favor of its members on facts indistinguishable from the instant case. D. Applicability of the Statute The charges herein allege a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The record shows, and the Mailers concedes, that on or about March 4, 1971, Mailers threatened to slow down work and possibly strike if the disputed work were reassigned to employees represented by the Bookbinders. We find, therefore, 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. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after taking into account the evidence supporting the claims of the parties and balancing all relevant factors.2 We shall set forth below those factors which we find relevant in determining the dispute herein. voluntary method of adjustment of this dispute 2 N L R B. V Radio Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND MAILERS' UNION NO. 18 277 1. Certification and bargaining agreements The parties stipulated at the hearing that there is no Board certification relative to the disputed work. The Bookbinders contends, however, that its collective- bargaining agreement with the Employer covers the work in issue and defines itsjurisdiction.3 The Mailers also claims the work for its members on the basis of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer which, in effect, provides that only mailers may perform the disputed work.4 Thus, we find that the disputants' contracts do not favor the contentions of either labor organization. 2. Company and industry practices The evidence offered at the hearing shows that there is limited use of the Magnacraft in-line mailing head in the industry. The Bookbinders research director testified that, of the 13 contracts it has with employers in the country performing mailing operations, only 3 or 4 of these employers use the Magnacraft mailing head. The president of the Mailers testified that the Wall Street Journal, Olympic Press, and Steele's Mailing Service use Magnacraft machines and em- ploy its members to operate this equipment. While the evidence pertaining to area and industry practice favors assignment to members of the Mailers, it is not sufficiently widespread to establish a general practice in the industry. However, the record does establish that the Employer's practice has been to assign the work in dispute to its employees represent- ed by the Mailers, and this factor favors them. 3. Skill and training As stated, members of the Mailers have previous experience on Cheshires and possess knowledge of the zip code system. The Mailers representative estimated that it would take 6 months to train a novice in the Employer's mailing operations. The Employer asserts, however, that the disputed work is of a routine nature, depending chiefly on the ability to recognize and group publications with similar zip codes. The Bookbinders, using substantially the same arguments presented by the Employer, contends that, although its members have limited experience in performing the disputed work, it could successfully train employees to perform this work with only 10-16 hours of training.5 The Bookbinders concedes that the operation of the tipon and in-line machines, when International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U.S 573, International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410-I1 3 The Bookbinders contract defines its jurisdiction as follows jogging, tying by hand or machine of bindery or other products handled in the bindery department and mailing and the loading, feeding, operating used in mailing, "requires certain knowledge of the postal system." We find, therefore, that considera- tions of skill and training favor assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by Mailers. 4. Job loss Officials of the Employer testified that it was not possible to specify the number of jobs which would be affected by the assignment made herein but stated that, if members of the Mailers were assigned the disputed work, there would be a loss of jobs because of increased efficiency. The Employer also asserted that, if, on the other hand, the work is awarded to employees represented by the Bookbinders, 40 to 41 of the 50 premium shifts now being paid to employees represented by the Mailers would be eliminated, and bookbinders would gain jobs presently assigned to mailers. Consequently, this factor favors neither labor organization. 5. Economy and efficiency The Employer projected a savings of $54,000 if the disputed work were assigned to members of the Bookbinders. This projected saving is derived from considerations of lower contractual wage rates paid to bookbinders, as well as of fewer employees being needed to perform the work. On the other hand, the Mailers contends that the alleged economies are misleading and speculative. In either case, this factor does not favor assignment to members of either labor organization. 6. National Labor Relations Board award We find, as pointed out by the Mailers in its brief, that the work involved in this dispute is identical to that involved in McCall Printing, supra. The Board in that case awarded the disputed work to members of the Mailers. Although the Board did not have the tipon machine under consideration in McCall Print- ing, the disputed work on the in-line machine is identical to the disputed work on the tipon. Thus, factors considered in the determination of the award in that case are applicable to both machines. Conclusion Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the entire record, we conclude that the work in dispute (the operation of the in-line mailing head machine and taking of machines, equipment and other devices used in connection thereto .11 4 The Mailers contract defines its jurisdiction as "All mailing work addressing of wrappers . labeling." 5 The Board found in McCall Printing, supra, that a training period of from 30 days to 6 months is required to operate the Magnacraft with proficiency 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD located in the Employer's bindery department, and the sorting, tying, and sacking of publications to which address labels have been affixed by this machine; and the sorting, tying, and sacking of publications from the tipon machine when that machine is used to affix address labels) should be assigned to the employees represented by Mailers rather than to those represented by Bookbinders. We reach this conclusion relying on the established past practice of the Employer of assigning the disputed work to members of the Mailers, the degree of skill and training required, the fact the work in dispute is identical to work long performed by Mailers on Cheshires, and the Board's decision in McCall Printing, supra. Accordingly, we shall award the disputed work to those employees who are represented by Mailers, not to those represented by Bookbinders. 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 foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following determination of dispute: Employees of Arcata Graphics Corporation, San Jose, California, currently represented by San Fran- cisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, International Typographical Union, are entitled to perform the work of operating the mailing heads on Magnacraft machines and the sorting, tying, and sacking of publications to which address labels have been affixed by this machine, as well as sorting, tying, and sacking of publications emanating from the tipon machine when that machine is used to affix address labels at the Employer's San Jose, California, plant.