Pressmen, Local No. 1

PRESSMEN, LOCAL NO. 1 Local No. 1, Paper Handlers & Sheet Straighteners Union, International Printing Pressmen's & Assist- ants Union of N.A.' and American Bank Note Company and New York Paper Cutters' & Book- binders' Union No. 119, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO? Case 2-CD-445 March 20, 1973 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing charges filed by American Bank Note Company, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D) by the Paper Handlers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 27, 31, and August 16, 1972, in New York, New York, before Hearing Officer Lawrence A. Diner- stein. The Employer, the Paper Handlers, and the Paper Cutters, 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 authority in this proceeding 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 entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated that American Bank Note Company is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at Garrison Avenue and Tiffany Street, Bronx, New York, and has plants located in Massachusetts, Illinois, Canada, and England, where it is engaged in the printing of security documents, currencies and travelers checks. During the past year the Employer received at its New York place of business in excess of $1,000,000, of which in excess of $50,000 was received from customers for goods shipped outside the State of New York. During the same period the Employer purchased and had delivered to its New York plant from suppliers located outside the State of New York 1 Hereinafter referred to as Paper Handlers 2 Hereinafter referred to as Paper Cutters The Board has been administratively advised that the International Brotherhood of Bookbind- 501 supplies and materials 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 effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Paper Handlers and the Paper Cutters are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer is engaged in the printing of various security documents, including stock certificates, bonds, foreign currencies, government food coupons, off-track betting tickets, and various other docu- ments related to the printing of securities. The printing of such securities is accomplished primarily through the intaglio printing process. Although the Employer has plants located in Massachusetts, Illinois, Canada, and England, only its Bronx, New York, plant is involved in this proceeding. In view of the negotiability of the documents which the Employer prints, some security measures are required with respect to the work area, the material printed, and the storage of the printed documents. The Employer has had collective-bargaining agree- ments with both the Paper Handlers and the Paper Cutters for many years. The Employer first signed a contract with the Paper Handlers in 1941. The current agreement is effective June 1, 1971, to April 30, 1974. The latest agreement between the Employer and the Paper Cutters is effective January 1, 1971, to December 31, 1973. The Paper Handlers represents those employees in the plant known as paper handlers, while the Paper Cutters represents the utility men. In the past, members of the Paper Handlers have been responsible for the movement of paper within the Employer's plate printing depart- ment, while members of the Paper Cutters have been responsible for the movement of paper within the finishing department. Prior to the present dispute, all the paper used in the plant was in sheet form rather than in rolls, and members of the Paper Handlers have never been engaged in the movement of sheet paper within the finishing department or to and from storage areas. The Employer's printing process often begins with the movement of paper to the plate printing ers, AFL-CIO, and the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union merged on September 4, 1972, to become the Graphic Arts International Union 202 NLRB No. 63 502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD department or the finishing department. If the paper is destined for the plate printing department, a paper handler moves it to the press in the plate printing department. If the paper is to be delivered directly to the finishing department, a paper handler moves the paper to a designated drop point within the finishing department. Any further movement of the paper within that department is performed by the utility men represented by the Paper Cutters. The paper handlers are in charge of the movement of paper in the plate printing department and the movement of rolls of waxed paper on which printed stock is left to dry. After the printed matter is removed from the rolls, it is usually moved by the paper handlers to a drop point within the finishing department. The utility men move the paper through the various stages within the finishing department. Whenever more sheet stock is left at the drop point in the finishing department than can be processed immediately, it is moved to a storage area within the finishing department. If the drop point becomes overcrowded, the utility men move the excess stock to the storage area. Thereafter, the utility men remove the stock from the storage area as needed. In 1969, the Employer developed a new printing process which provided for the use of rolls of paper rather than sheet paper. Such change was a result of the Employer's development of a new press and finishing machine process called Web Rotary Intaglio (Printing, hereinafter referred to as WRIP. The need for printing on roll paper arose as the result of computer printing units which required that securi- ties be supplied in a form to be used in computer printout equipment. The Employer assigned to the paper handlers the work of moving rolls of paper to and from the WRIP press in the plate printing department. The work of moving paper rolls to and from the WRIP finishing machine in the finishing department was assigned to the utility men. The WRIP finishing machine was installed in a caged area in the finishing department and was put into operation in February or March 1970. A drop area was designated next to such machine and within the caged area. The first major test of the WRIP machines included a three-part order that required nearly 8 months to complete. The present dispute did not arise until more than half of this order was completed, in October 1970, when a storage area for rolls of paper was created in the finishing depart- ment. The necessity for such area arose when the sales of securities fell off and the Employer was instructed to slow down its production. When the WRIP process was first instituted, the Paper Handlers claimed the work of placing the shafts through the core of the rolls of paper and thereafter mounting the rolls on the WRIP finishing machine. As a result of the Paper Handlers insist- ence, and to avoid a halt in production, the Employer made the assignment. The dispute between the Paper Handlers and another affiliate of the same International became the subject of an attempted settlement which failed. Thereafter, the Employer filed a charge with the Board and the dispute was settled when the Paper Handlers withdrew its claim to the shafting work. The storage area which was created to accomodate the pileup of work in the finishing department in the fall of 1970 was a small room located around the corner from the WRIP finishing line. Thereafter, the paper handlers were permitted to deliver the rolls directly to the new storage area because it was only 15 or 20 feet away from the drop area. The Employer permitted the paper handlers to continue to move the rolls into the new storage area after it met with the Paper Handlers representative who insisted that its jurisdictional demands had to be met. The Employer thereafter filed a charge with the Board in a dispute which involved the Paper Handlers and another affiliate of the same International. However, the Paper Cutters was not involved. After settlement of the dispute, the Employer notified the Paper Han- dlers by letter that any further movement of paper within the finishing department after the paper handlers had moved the paper to the drop area would be performed by the utility men who were members of the Paper Cutters. The temporary storage area near the WRIP finishing machine was discontinued in March 1970. The Employer has subsequently designated permanent storage areas for rolls on floors different from that on which the WRIP finishing machine is located. It has designated these storage areas as part of the finishing depart- ment. The utility men represented by the Paper Cutters have always performed the work of moving the rolls of paper from the drop point in the finishing department to the various storage areas and from those same storage areas back to the drop point. At hearing time, the Employer had nearly 300 rolls of paper located in those storage areas designated for use by the finishing department. B. The Work in Dispute The disputed work involves the assignment of the handling of rolls of paper after delivery to the drop point in the finishing department of the plant in Bronx, New York, including the movement of rolls of paper within the finishing department from the drop point to storage areas and from the storage areas to the drop point. PRESSMEN, LOCAL NO. 1 C. The Contentions of the Parties The Paper Handlers contends that the Board should award the work to its members because they are perfectly competent to perform the work as they did for a period of 9 months with no harmful effects to the Employer; that its contract gives it jurisdiction over the work; that the Employer seeks to assign the disputed work to the Paper Cutters because its members receive lower rates of pay; that, after the Paper Handlers dispute with another affiliate of the same International over the right to shaft the roll, a dispute which was resolved through settlement in the latter part of 1969, it was the understanding of the Paper Handlers that, while they had conceded the shafting work to the affiliate, they would still handle the paper to and from the presses and any depart- ments within the plant as in the past; that it had been within the jurisdiction of Paper Handlers to distrib- ute paper from department to department and for the Paper Cutters to move paper solely within its own finishing department; that because of the introduc- tion of the new WRIP process, the members of the Paper Cutters go from floor to floor moving rolls of paper from so-called storage areas in various parts of the building; that initially the designated area was close to the WRIP finishing line and Paper Handlers was assigned the work of bringing the rolls to that area; and that after the permanent storage areas were designated the Paper Handlers was stripped of the work. The Employer contends that the language of the contract favors the assignment of the work to the Paper Cutters because the Paper Handlers contract does not mention the finishing department; that Employer's Bronx plant is unique because the WRIP process and machines used there were invented by the Employer; that because of the negotiability of the certificates, currencies, and travelers checks printed by the Employer, security is an important element in the planning of product flow in the plant and, therefore, rolls of paper within the finishing depart- ment should be stored by the members of the Paper Cutters because they will remain in the finishing department for the rest of their shift; and that the Paper Cutters members, or utility men, have always been responsible for the movement of paper within the finishing department, while the paper handlers moved paper within the plate punting department, and therefore the Employer's assignment of the disputed work is consistent with past practice at its plant. The Paper Cutters contends that, with the excep- tion of a 3-month period in the fall of 1970, the work 503 in dispute has always been done by its members; that such members have always moved all paper within the finishing department, both sheet and roll paper; that most of the paper in the department is sheet paper and only a small fraction of the paper is in roll form; that the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to the Paper Handlers' for the 3-month period was a variance from normal, a result of the threat by the Paper Handlers that was involved in another work dispute with the Employer; and that after such dispute was settled the Employer reassigned the disputed work herein to the Paper Cutters. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of the 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. The record shows that at a meeting held on June 19, 1972, and attended by representatives of the Employer and the Paper Handlers, McConnin, the Employer's director of labor relations, stated that the Employer would not change the assignment of the disputed work, notwithstanding that the Paper Handlers insisted that it be given jurisdiction of all movement of the partially printed rolls of paper within the finishing department up to the point where the paper emerged, fanfolded, from the WRIP finishing machine. When the Employer's representa- tives remained firm in their determination not to reassign the work, Hunt, the Paper Handlers repre- sentative, stated that unless the work was reassigned to the Paper Handlers he would call a work stoppage. We find that the Paper Handlers, through its Business Representative Hunt, threatened to cause a work stoppage with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the disputed work to members of the Paper Handlers rather than to members of the Paper Cutters. On the basis of the entire record, we conclude 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 giving consideration to various relevant factors. The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on commonsense and experience, reached by balancing those factors involved in a particular case.3 3 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402. 504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements There is no evidence in the record that any of the unions involved herein, nor any other labor organiza- tion, has been certified to represent any of the Employer's employees. Although both the Paper Handlers and the Paper Cutters have had contracts with the Employer for many years, it is clear from the record that, although these contracts cover workers who move paper, none of the contracts specifically covers the work in dispute. It is clear from the record that the factors of certification and contract are not relevant herein. 2. Company and industry practices The record shows that there is no uniform pattern with respect to the movement of paper in other shops in which both Unions represent employees. In view of the facts that the Employer designs many of its machines, including the WRIP machines, the Em- ployer's operation is unique and, therefore, industry practice would not be a relevant factor herein. As to company practices, the record shows that the movement of paper within the finishing department has been performed by the utility men, members of the Paper Cutters, for more than 12 years. The Paper Handlers, or its members, has been responsible for the movement of paper within the plate printing department. However, the record also shows that for a period of approximately 3 months, from October 1970 to January 1971, part of the disputed work was performed by members of the Paper Handlers. There is testimony in the record that this temporary variance from the Employer's customary practice was a result of the Paper Handlers threat to stop work on the first large order involving the WRIP process if the Paper Handlers did not handle the rolls for the WRIP finishing machine. When the Employ- er filed charges with the Board, the dispute between the Paper Handlers and another affiliate of the same International was settled, and the Employer termi- nated the paper handlers' practice of moving paper to and from the temporary storage room in the finishing department. During this period, the tempo- rary storage area was approximately 20 feet from the previously established drop area and constituted no more than an extension of the drop area. Moreover, there is testimony that none of the security problems involved in the movement of the paper to the present storage areas, which are within the finishing depart- ment though on floors different from the one on which the WRIP finishing machine is located, existed during this short period when the members of the Paper Handlers were handling the rolls. The record also shows that in August 1970 large numbers of rolls of paper piled up in the plate printing department until the general superintendent of printing returned from Europe. Upon his return to the plant, he ordered that the rolls be delivered to the finishing department, and the members of the Paper Handlers took the rolls directly to the temporary storage area next to the WRIP finishing machine. There is further testimony that this action was necessary because there were too many rolls involved to allow them to be accumulated in the usual drop area. In March 1971, the room adjacent to the WRIP finishing machine was abandoned as a storage room, and new storage areas were designated in various locations in the plant including some that were located several floors away. Although the Paper Handlers claim that the Employer's superintendent sent a letter to the Paper Handlers in which he stated that there would be work for a paper handler when the Employer operated three or more finishing lines, the same superintendent testified at the hearing that, in his letter, he was referring to the shafting of rolls, not the disputed work, and that his letter was only a suggestion of a possible settlement which was rejected by the Paper Handlers. Finally, the parties are in agreement that the factor of area practice is not controlling herein in view of the uniqueness of the Employer's operation, since it invented the WRIP finishing machine which is not used in any other plant. It would appear that the factor of company practice favors the assignment of the disputed work to the Employer's employees who are utility men and members of the Paper Cutters. Accordingly, we find that company practice favors the continued assign- ment of the work to the Employer's employees represented by the Paper Cutters. 3. Relative skills, economy, and efficiency of operations The record reveals that no special skills are necessary for the performance of the work and that the employees represented by either labor organiza- tion are capable of doing the work. Thus, the factor of relative skills would not appear to be controlling. As to the economy and efficiency of operations factors, the record shows that the work shifts in the plate printing department and the finishing depart- ment are not the same, since the plate printing department regularly runs on two 7-hour shifts scheduled for 5 days per week, while the WRIP finishing is usually accomplished on a rush basis, with the WRIP finishing machine running around the clock on two 12-hour shifts, and through the PRESSMEN, LOCAL NO 1 505 weekend. Thus, if the paper handlers were assigned the disputed work they would be required to work when the plate printing department was closed, through the night and on weekends. Also, the assignment of the disputed work to the paper handlers would result in their performing several hours' work while moving the rolls of paper and thereafter remaining idle since they would not be permitted to perform other work in the finishing department. The record also shows that, because of the negotiability of the certificates, currencies, and travelers checks printed by the Employer, security is an important element in the planning of product flow in the Bronx plant. Many documents are transported from place to place within the plant in locked boxes. In the finishing department, both the sheet stock finishing machines and the WRIP finishing machine are completely enclosed in cages and protected with alarms. The Employer has maintained strict account- ability within the department in order to determine in which department missing sheets may have been lost. A system of blind counts, whereby paper leaving any department is counted and the count is sent to a central tracing department, has been used by the Employer to avoid loss of securities. Clearly, the record shows that the assignment of the disputed work to the members of the Paper Handlers would lessen the Employer's departmental control over the securities, since the paper handlers would have access to certain areas of the finishing department. Thus, it would appear that the factor of efficiency of operation favors the assignment of the disputed work to the Employer's employees who are utility men and members of the Paper Cutters. Conclusions Having considered all pertinent factors, we con- clude that the factors, including company practice and efficiency of operation, favor awarding the work to the employees of the Employer who are presently performing the disputed work, and we shall deter- mine that they are entitled to perform the work in dispute. Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional controver- sy by awarding to the employees represented by the Paper Cutters, rather than to the employees repre- sented by the Paper Handlers, the handling of rolls of paper after delivery to the drop point in the finishing department of the plant in Bronx, New York, including the movement within the finishing department of rolls of paper from the drop point to the storage areas and from the storage areas to the drop point. In making this determination, we are assigning the work to the employees who are represented by the Paper Cutters and not to that Union 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 following Determination of Dis- pute: 1. Employees of American Bank Note Company, who are currently represented by New York Paper Cutters' & Bookbinders' Union No. 119, Graphic Arts International Union, are entitled to perform the work of the handling of rolls of paper after delivery to the drop point in the finishing department of the plant in Bronx, New York, including the movement within the finishing department of rolls of paper from the drop point to the storage areas and from the storage areas to the drop point. 2. Local No.1, Paper Handlers & Sheet Straight - eners Union, International Printing Pressmen's & Assistants Union of N.A., is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require American Bank Note Company to assign the disputed work to its members rather than to employees represented by the Paper Cutters. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Local No. 1, Paper Handlers & Sheet Straighteners Union, International Printing Pressmen's & Assistants Union of N.A., shall notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring American Bank Note Company, by means proscribed in Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work to its members rather than to employees who are presently working for the Employer and who are members of the Paper Cutters.