Grapgic Communications Local 540 (Commercial Printing Co.)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Graphic Arts International Union, Local 540 and Commercial Printing Company. Case 10-CD-267 November 17, 1977 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Commercial Printing Company, herein called the Employer, alleging that Graphic Arts International Union, Local 540, herein called the Respondent, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to its members rather than to employees represented by Birmingham Typographi- cal Union, Local 104 of the International Typo- graphical Union, herein called the Intervenor. 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 Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer, an Alabama corporation with an office and plant located in Birmingham, Alabama, is engaged in commercial printing. During the past year, the Employer's gross revenues from its printing business exceeded $500,000 and the Employer sold and shipped commercial printing products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Alabama. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Graphics Arts International Union, Local 540, and Birming- ham Typographical Union, Local 104 of the Interna- tional Typographical Union, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5). of the Act. 233 NLRB No. 94 III. THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The disputed work involves all pasteup work for the camera for the lithographic photographic process at the Employer's printing plant. Pasteup is the assembling and pasting into a single sheet of materials including reproduction proofs, art work, and photostatic prints. This sheet is then photo- graphed and the negative is used to make a photostatic plate for the lithographic press which prints the final image. B. Background and Facts of the Dispute The pasteup work at the Employer's plant is done by six employees, five lithographers represented by Respondent, and an artist working in the art department who is not represented by any union. For approximately 40 years, all pasteup, except that performed by the art department artist, has been done by lithographers. By letter dated June 14, 1977, the Intervenor, which represents the Employer's typographers, filed a grievance on behalf of a member-employee contending that, rather than being laid off, he should have been assigned to pasteup work. In accordance with contractual procedures, the grievance was presented to the joint standing committee which could not resolve it. The Employer then suggested to a representative of Respondent that the grievance be resolved by assigning the grievant to pasteup. He replied that Respondent would cancel its contract and call a strike if there were any attempt to reassign the pasteup work to an employee represented by another union. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that pasteup work should be assigned to the lithographers represented by Respondent based on contract provisions, skill, past assignment, and efficiency. The Intervenor contends that the Employer has ignored its contractual obligation to assign pasteup work to it and has failed to carry the unresolved grievance to arbitration as required by its contract and that the issue is proper for deferral to contractual arbitration procedures under Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971). D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that (1) there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and (2) the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Following the 602 GRAPHIC ARTS INTL. UNION, LOCAL 540 joint standing committee deadlock, the Employer's general manager called Respondent's representative to suggest that the grievant be assigned to pasteup in order to resolve the matter and the representative stated that Respondent would strike if any pasteup work were reassigned to an employee represented by another union. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. There is no voluntary method of adjustment of the dispute since it is well established that grievance or arbitra- tion proceedings not involving all of the parties to the dispute do not constitute an adequate method of adjustment within the meaning of Section 10(k).' 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. We have considered the following factors in making our determination. i. Collective-bargaining agreement Prior to 1962, collective-bargaining agreements between the Employer and Respondent's predecessor contained express language giving the lithographers jurisdiction over pasteup work. That language, however, was omitted in contracts between 1962 and 1976; it was reintroduced in the current contract which provides at section 1.2: The Company agrees that. . . it will not sign any contract nor make any written agreement of any kind with any other Union relating to any Lithographic Production Work, and specifically to any jobs or work covered by this Agreement, including any litho process of pasteup of copy for the camera. On the other hand, since 1957, the multiemployer contract between the Intervenor and the Printing Industry of Birmingham, of which the Employer is a member, has defined the Intervenor's jurisdiction as including "paste-makeup with reproduction proofs" but has included the following exception for pasteup at the Employer's plant: It is recognized that some of the work processes utilizing reproduction proofs mentioned above are currently under contract by the Lithographers Union in Commercial Printing Company, as of the effective date of this contract. Without legal difficulties, the employers will, as soon as practi- I Frankford Quaker Grocery Comnpany. Inc., 218 NLRB 310, 312 (1975), and cases cited therein at fn. 8. cal, make an honest effort to cause all such work to be done under composing room practices under the terms of this agreement. As these agreements arguably establish a contrac- tual basis for the claims of both Unions, we conclude that the contract provisions do not conclusively favor assignment to one Union over the other. 2. Skills and efficiency of operation The evidence shows that members of Respondent have always performed the Employer's pasteup work and that pasteup requires many years of training and use of precision layout equipment. It also shows that, because the lithographic printing process requires continual editing of materials from pasteup to completion of the plate, knowledge of camera work and other aspects of the lithographic process is desirable. Assignment to the lithographers would allow the same employees to perform the entire process from pasteup to operation of the lithographic presses, whereas employees represented by the Intervenor have never performed any of these lithographic functions. Based on the foregoing, we find that the factors of skill, including experience, and efficiency of operation favor award to employees represented by Respondent. 3. Employer's assignment The Employer has assigned the work in dispute to the lithographers represented by Respondent and its predecessor for approximately 40 years and prefers that it be performed by them; this factor favors an award to those employees. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full consideration of all relevant factors, as noted above, we conclude that the lithographers represented by the Respondent are entitled to the work in dispute. The present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees who are represented by Graphic Arts International Union, Local 540, but not to that Union or its members. 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 603 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hereby makes the following Determination of Dis- perform the pasteup work for the camera for the pute: lithographic photographic process at Commercial Employees who are represented by Graphic Arts Printing Company. International Union, Local 540, are entitled to