Newspaper and Mail Deliverers of N.Y.

NEWSPAPER AND MAIL DELIVERERS OF N.Y. Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York and Vicinity and New York News, Inc. and New York Mailers Union No. 6, International Typograph- ical Union, AFL-CIO New York Mailers Union No. 6, International Typo- graphical Union, AFL-CIO and New York News, Inc. and Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York and Vicinity. Cases 29-CD-126 and 29- CD-127 October 19, 1972 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING IN PART BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This is a consolidated proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of charges by New York News, Inc., herein called the Company. The charge against Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York and Vicinity, herein called Deliverers, al- leges that Deliverers violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Company to assign certain work to employees represented by Deliverers rather than to employees represented by New York Mailers Union No. 6, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Mailers. The charge against Mailers involves the same work dispute and alleges that Mailers engaged in like illegal conduct for the purpose of forcing the Company to assign the work to members of Mailers instead of to members of Deliverers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Joan Zweifel at Brooklyn, N.Y., on June 21, and July 7, 1972.' All parties 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. None of the parties filed briefs. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: ' Except as noted, all dates are 1972. 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER 869 The parties stipulated that the Company pub- lishes a daily and Sunday newspaper in New York City; its annual gross revenue from its publishing op- erations exceeds $200,000; it holds membership in and subscribes to various interstate news services, in- cluding, inter alia, Associated Press; and it publishes various syndicated features and advertises various na- tionally sold products. Accordingly, we find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Deliver- ers and Mailers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute consists of the handling of mail bundles after they have left the wiretie machines, which includes the work of pushing tables filled with mail bundles; removing such bundles from the tables and stacking them on wooden skids, also known as dumping; and removing wrappers from mail bundles during retie on the floor. B. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Company's Brooklyn, New York, plant mailroom is the locale of the dispute , which involves certain work on the "mail" or "east route" bundles of newspaper. After the newspapers have gone through the printing process, they are moved from the press- room to stackers along conveyors to wire-tying ma- chines which are at the end of conveyors. At the wire-tying machine, an employee, represented by Mailers, takes a wrapper, puts it on top of the bundle, and presses the pedal which wireties the bundles. As the tied bundles come out of the machine, two other employees, represented by Mailers, pick up the bun- dles and place 21 of them on a table with wheels. When the table is full, the mailers push it far enough away from the wire-tying machine to make room for another table. Employees, represented by Deliverers, then take the table loaded with bundles , and push it toward and onto the platform for loading into trucks. The deliverers thereafter bring the empty table to the vicinity of the wire machine in the mail room. In certain circumstances , the deliverers do not take the mail bundles directly to the loading platform but 199 NLRB No. 141 870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stack them on skids , a procedure known as dumping. When deliverers retie the bundles, they remove the wrappers placed on them by mailers. Deliverers in the mailroom also operate the wire- tie machine for all "local" or "direct delivery" papers, load the tied bundles on tables, push the load to the platform, and load it into the trucks. There is no dis- pute as to local or direct delivery paper bundles. On April 27, 1972, the deliverers began dumping east route bundles in the mailroom rather than taking them to the platform for loading . Mailers Chapel Chairman Salzburg complained that dumping mail bundles was mailers ' work and he threatened to shut down the presses if deliverers continued to perform this work; later, he caused two presses to be shut down for this reason . Early the next morning, Salzburg complained about the fact that deliverers, rather than mailers, were removing the wrappers from bundles that were being retied by the deliverers in the mail room. During the early morning hours of April 30, De- livers Assistant Chapel Chairman Goldstein com- plained that mailers were taking tables from the wire-tying machine to the wall at the loading platform rather than simply rolling them away from the wire- tying machine, and he threatened a work stoppage if this did not cease. When it did not, he ordered deliver- ers to stop working . After work resumed, the mailers objected to the deliverers' retying the mail bundles in the mailroom and countered by ripping off the wrap- pers before retie . Goldstein again warned of a work stoppage if the mailers continued to push the tables, and he caused certain presses to stop. C. Contentions of the Parties The Mailers contends that there is no dispute cognizable by the Board because of previous separate arbitration awards made under Mailers and Deliver- ers contracts and on account of the Board's decision in Newpaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York and Vicinity, Independent (News Syndicate Co., Inc.), 141 NLRB 578. It also relies upon the arbitration clauses in the collective-bargaining agreements be- tween the Company and Unions herein. Alternative- ly, should the Board resolve the work-dispute issues on their merits, it would have the Board award such work to mailers who are represented by it. The Company and Deliverers are in agreement that no trilateral method of voluntary adjustment of the dispute herein has been agreed upon or exists. Both maintain that the disputed work should be as- signed to deliverers who are represented by the Deliv- erers. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board proceeds with a determination of 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. As described above, work stoppages were threat- ened and caused by the Mailers and Delivers on the account of the performance of disputed work by the other's members and for the purpose of inducing the Company to assign the disputed work to their re- spective members. We find no merit in the Mailers contention that there has been an adjustment or agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the disputed work under Section 10(k) of the Act. For, as was said by the Board in News Syndicate Co., supra:" . . . the Mailers arbitration would be binding only upon the Mailers and the Company, and the Deliverers arbitration like- wise would be binding only upon the Deliverers and the Company. The voluntary adjustment must bind both disputing Unions as well as the Employer to come within the meaning of voluntary settlement as set out in Section 10(k)." Moreover, the work which was the subject of the arbitration awards , as well as the work in dispute in the News Syndicate Co. case, is not the same work as is in dispute herein. On the basis of the entire record , we find there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that the dispute is prop- erly 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 giving due consideration to . various factors . Certain of the usual factors considered by the Board in these cases, such as skills and contracts , provide little if any basis for determining the instant dispute . For all par- ties agree that no special skill or training is required to perform the work in dispute, and neither Union has a contract which provides for its performance of such work. In terms of economy and efficiency of opera- tions, the Company testified that, if the work in dis- pute of pushing tables filled with mail bundles, dumping, and removing wrappers from mail bundles during retying on the floor was assigned to mailers, it would have to hire additional mailers whereas the present complement of deliverers can perform the dis- puted work without interruption of their present du- ties. The Company thus favors an award of the work to the deliverers who have been performing such work at the Brooklyn plant . There is no other evidence of NEWSPAPER AND MAIL DELIVERERS OF N.Y. Company or area practice which would favor an award to the mailers. F. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- sideration of all the relevant factors involved , we con- clude that the Company's employees who are represented by Deliverers are entitled to perform the work in dispute . Our determination to award the work to the employees who are represented by the Deliver- ers, but not to that Union or its members, is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and on the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro- ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of New York News, Inc., who are represented by Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Un- ion of New York and Vicinity at the Company's 871 Brooklyn, New York, plant, are entitled to perform the work of: (1) pushing tables filled with mail bun- dles; (2) removing mail bundles from tables and stacking them on skids (dumping); and (3) pulling wrappers off mail bundles during retie on the floor. 2. New York Mailers Union No. 6, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require New York News, Inc., to assign the above-described work to employees represented by Mailers Union No. 6. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, New York Mailers Union No. 6, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Re- gion 29, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring New York News, Inc., to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by Newspaper and Mail Delivers' Union of New York and Vicinity. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing in this proceeding be, and it hereby is, quashed insofar as it concerns Case 29-CD-126. I