Graphic Arts

366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Graphic Arts International Union, Local Union No. 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER 505, AFL-CIO-CLC' and Mid-America Printing Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Daily Rec- ord Company ' and St. Louis Paper Handlers' and Electrotypers' Union No. 16, Subordinate to the In- ternational Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO.' Case 14-CD-509 September 16, 1975 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing the filing of charges on May 21, 1975, by Mid- America Printing Company, a wholly owned subsid- iary of Daily Record Company herein called the Em- ployer, alleging that Graphic Arts International Union, Local No. 505, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called GAIU, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening, coercing, and restraining the Em- ployer with an object of forcing the Employer to as- sign certain work to employees represented by GAIU rather than to employees represented by St. Louis Paper Handlers' and Electrotypers' Union No. 16, subordinate to the International Printing and Graph- ic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Paper Handlers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Stanley R. Zawatski on June 12, 1975. 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. Thereafter, the Employer and the GAIU each filed a brief, and the Paper Handlers filed a motion to amend description of work tasks in dispute. 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 rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs of the parties, the Board makes the following findings: 1 The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing. The parties stipulated that the Employer, a Mis- souri corporation, with its central offices located in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in the op- eration of printing presses for newspapers and other commercial accounts. The Employer annually per- forms services valued in excess of $500,000 and pur- chases and causes to be transported and delivered to its St. Louis, Missouri, place of business goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which goods valued in excess of $50,000 are delivered directly to its St. Louis, Missouri, facility from points located outside the State of Missouri. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in 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 juris- diction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the GAIU and the Paper Handlers are labor organizations with- in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background The Employer specializes in color printing on newsprint and prints local and national tabloids, Sunday supplements for newspapers, and other com- mercial accounts. Until recently the Employer oper- ated two presses-an Urbanite and a Suburban. The parties stipulated that the dispute herein arises in connection with the installation of a third press-a Harris-Cottrell 1660. The Employer is signatory to collective-bargaining agreements with the GAIU and with the Paper Handlers. Paperhandlers unload rolls of newsprint from trucks and boxes, unload ink drums and miscella- neous items, and handle paper storage. They also take rolls of newsprint to the press area, line them up, strip off the protective wrapping and end covers, and leave them there. Feeders and pressmen represented by the GAIU put the rolls of paper on the press reels, or pasters, and print the product. In putting the pa- per on the reels of the Suburban and Urbanite press- es, the feeders take the rolls from where they were left by the paperhandlers, put them on turntables and dollies as necessary, and push them to where they can be inserted in the reels. The Employer began preparations for the installa- tion of the Harris-Cottrell press in the spring of 1974. The press has about twice the capacity of the Urban- 220 NLRB No. 66 GRAPHIC ARTS ite and four times the capacity of the Suburban presses. The method of movement of newsprint from where it is stripped by the paperhandlers to where it is put in the pasters or reels is different from that of the other presses. The Harris-Cottrell press has four pasters. Running perpendicular to each reel is an ap- proximately 20-foot long trench to the area where the rolls of newsprint are stripped. There is a dolly in each trench and a turntable at one end to permit the rolls of paper to be turned in alignment with the press reels. At the reel end opposite the loading turntable there is a skate which is used to move the paper perpendicularly from the trench to where it is put on the reel. Thus, once the paper is stripped it must be rolled onto the dolly in the trench on the turntable, the dolly must then be turned so the paper is properly aligned, the dolly with the paper is pushed about 20 feet to the skate area, and then the paper is pushed, perpendicularly to the trench, into position to be put on the reels. On February 28, 1975, prior to the operation of the Harris-Cottrell press, the Employer in a letter to the GAIU assigned all work commencing with the roll- ing of the newsprint rolls onto the dolly on the turn- table to employees represented by the GAIU. In May 1975, when the press was nearly completely in- stalled, the Harris-Cottrell Company tested the oper- ation of the reels. In so doing, they had paperhan- dlers move the newsprint onto the dollies and along the track to the reel. On May 20, 1975, a shop stew- ard of the GAIU told the Employer's president that if he gave away jurisdiction over handling the rolls of newsprint on the dollies, GAIU would shut him down. On May 21, 1975, the vice president of GAIU confirmed that GAIU would shut the Employer down under such circumstances. B. Work in Dispute The disputed work consists of the manual labor of loading rolls of newsprint onto dollies in the trenches of the Harris-Cottrell press, turning the loaded dol- lies on the turntable in the trench, and moving the loaded dollies to the area at which the newsprint is loaded onto the presses. There was inconsistent testi- mony by Paper Handlers witnesses with respect to what point along the trench they no longer claimed jurisdiction over the work. In any event, the disputed work at least involves the moving of rolls of news- print onto the dollies? 2 The Paper Handlers filed a motion to amend the description of work tasks in dispute to include "the movement and delivery of imprinted news- print . . . which includes the loading of said rolls of newsprint onto dollies for delivery to the press ." We find it unnecessary to rule on said motion in view of our disposition of this proceeding and because the record herein 367 C. Contentions of the Parties The Paper Handlers claims that the disputed work should be awarded to the employees it represents by virtue of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer which gives them jurisdiction over delivery of newsprint "to and from the presses." The Paper Handlers also argues that area and industry practice favor award of the work to paperhandlers. Both the Employer and the GAIU contend that the disputed work should be awarded to feeders rep- resented by the GAIU. They argue that such an award is indicated by the Employer's past practice, the Employer's assignment of the disputed work, and the efficiency and economy of operations which would result from such an award. 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 there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary settlement of the dispute . As to the latter, the record does not show the existence of any private means of adjustment of the dispute? As set forth above, representatives of the GAIU threatened on two occasions to shut down the Em- ployer if the work in dispute were not assigned to the GAIU. Accordingly, we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly before us for determination. 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 relevant factors. 1. Collective-bargaining agreements The collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Paper Handlers defines the juris- diction of paperhandlers to include "stripping and preparing rolls of newsprint both printed and un- printed and delivery to and from the presses." How- ever, delivery of newsprint "to the presses" is not a makes clear that the dispute involves the pushing of rolls of newsprint onto the Harris-Cottrell dollies The only question involves how far along the trench the handling of the paper is claimed by the Paper Handlers 3 The Paper Handlers submitted evidence of internal AFL-CIO charges which it brought against the GAIU. However, no evidence shows that the Employer, a necessary party to any voluntary settlement, had agreed to any such procedure. In fact, the evidence shows, to the contrary, that the Em- ployer is not a party to any voluntary dispute settlement procedure. 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD precise term, especially in the context of the Employer's operations. In taking rolls of newsprint to the Urbanite and Suburban presses, the paperhan- dlers line up the stripped rolls near where the rolls are put onto the press reels . On one of the presses the paper is left across an aisle or corridor from the past- ers or reels. On both the Urbanite and Suburban presses, pressmen, not paperhandlers, put the paper rolls on turntables and dollies, as necessary, and move the rolls the final distance to the reels. For these reasons, the collective-bargaining agreement, contrary to the Paper Handlers contention, does not favor award of the disputed work to paperhandlers. 5. Economy and efficiency The Employer's president testified without contra- diction that assignment of the disputed work to pa- perhandlers would require the Employer to hire an additional paperhandler so that someone would be in the immediate vicinity to supply the press with news- print. He also testified that assignment of the work to employees represented by GAIU would not require an additional employee because feeders, who were present to load and check the press reels, could do the work. This factor favors award of the work in dispute to employees represented by GAIU. 2. Employer assignment The Employer's assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the GAIU, prior to the actual operation of the Harris-Cottrell press, favors award of the work to such employees. 3. Area and industry practice The evidence on area and industry practice is in- conclusive. The Paper Handlers introduced evidence to show that employees it represents handled news- print on dollies on a track at a St. Louis, Missouri, newspaper. However, the record shows that the oper- ation was significantly different in that it involved a powered dolly on a track many times as long. In ad- dition, the unions involved in this dispute are not the same as at that newspaper. The Paper Handlers also introduced evidence with respect to a Minnesota newspaper. Not only is that company in a different geographic area but the testimony was spotty and the operations of that company not well described or, so it appears, well remembered. 4. Skills and safety The record shows that only minimal skills are re- quired to perform the work in dispute. Either group of employees can perform the work safely. Conclusions Upon the entire record, and after full consider- ation of all relevant factors here involved, we find that employees represented by the GAIU are entitled to perform the work in dispute. This award is sup- ported by the Employer's assignment of the work in dispute and by the economy and efficiency of opera- tions which would result if the feeders rather than the paperhandlers perform such work. In making this award, we are assigning the work to employees repre- sented by the GAIU rather than to that organization itself 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 on the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro- ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees of Mid-America Printing Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Daily Record Company, who are represented by Graphic Arts International Union, Local Union No. 505, AFL-CIO-CLC, are entitled to perform the disputed work loading rolls of newsprint onto dollies in the vicinity of the Harris- Cottrell 1660 press at the Employer's St. Louis, Mis- souri, plant.