Cleveland Typograhical Union 53

CLEVELAND TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 53 Cleveland Typographical Union 53, International Ty- pographical Union, AFL-CIO and The Sherwin- Williams Company I and Cleveland Printing and Graphic Communications Union 56, AFL-CIO Case 8-CD-326 June 10, 1976 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS JENKINS , PENELLO, AND WALTHER This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing the filing of charges on January 6, 1976, by The Sherwin-Williams Company, herein called the Em- ployer, alleging that the Cleveland Typographical Union 53, International Typographical Union, AFL- CIO, herein called the Typographical Union, has vio- lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening, coercing, and restraining the Employer with an ob- ject of forcing the Employer to continue its original assignment of certain work to employees represented by the Typographers rather than to salaried manage- ment personnel or employees represented by the Cleveland Printing and Graphic Communications Union 56, AFL-CIO, herein called the Printing Union Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Rufus L Warr on March 11 and 12, 1976 All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues Thereafter, the Employer, the Typographical Union, and the Printing Union all 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 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 I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated that the Employer, an Ohio corporation with its principal office located in Cleve- land, Ohio, has a facility in North Olmsted, Ohio, 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing 583 where it produces various printed materials primarily for use within the Company Annually, in the course and conduct of its business operations, the Employer ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its North Olmsted facility directly to points located out- side the State of Ohio Accordingly, we find that the employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Typo- graphical Union and the Printing Union are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE DISPUTE A Background The Employer owns and operates a printing plant in North Olmsted, Ohio The plant produces various printed materials primarily for use within the Com- pany and employs approximately 180 salaried and hourly employees on two shifts Four unions repre- sent the hourly employees The United Steelworkers Union represents the production and maintenance employees, the Typographical Union represents the compositors, the Printing Union represents the press- men, and the Graphic Arts International Union, Lo- cal 36-124B, represents the bindery employees Only the Typographical Union and the Printing Union are involved in the current dispute The Employer currently utilizes both a hot metal printing process and a coldtype process It is engaged in converting its hot metal and rubber platemaking procedure to the more sophisticated photo-Polymer platemaking system as well as adding an offset plate- making capability As the first step in this conversion process, the Employer has installed Mergenthaler photocomposition equipment which is used to con- vert raw data to coldtype ready for pasteups After pasteups are prepared, they are sent to outside sup- pliers of metal printing plates because the Employer does not presently have the equipment to prepare its own plates Upon receipt of the printing plates in the plant, the Employer's compositors evaluate them to determine if they are of a suitable quality to utilize The compositors then use the hot metal plates to mold rubber plates which are sent to the pressroom for printing, or in some cases the metal plates are sent directly to the pressroom for printing At the present time employees represented by the Typo- 224 NLRB No 77 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD graphical Union perform all the work in the compo- sition room including the operation of the Mergen- thaler equipment and preparing the pasteups for the camera There is no dispute over the jurisdiction of this work As a second and third step in its conversion pro- cess, the Employer intends to install a Brown Com- modore camera and Nu-Arc equipment This new equipment will enable the Employer to make all of its own printing plates and eliminate the need to utilize outside suppliers The new equipment will also create new work which will involve stripping of copy, cam- era work, Polymer platemaking, and offset platemak- ing In anticipation of the newjob functions, the Em- ployer by letter dated October 30, 1975, assigned the work to employees represented by the Typographical Union In response, by letter dated November 3, 1975, the Printing Union disputed the Employer's as- signment of the work The Employer then notified both Unions that because of the dispute over the work it intended to assign the work to salaried man- agement personnel On December 5, 1975, the Typo- graphical Union notified the Employer by letter that any deviation from the Employer's original assign- ment of the work to employees represented by the Typographical Union would be met by strike action if necessary At present the equipment has not been installed and the work in question is still performed by outside companies B Work in Dispute The parties are in agreement that the disputed work consists of work performed by the Employer solely at its North Olmsted facility and involves (1) stripping of copy, (2) camera work, (3) Polymer platemaking, and (4) offset platemaking C Contentions of the Parties The Printing Union claims that the work should be awarded to employees it represents by virtue of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer, the skills of its members, and the industry and area practice Both the Employer and the Typographical Union contend the disputed work should be awarded to the employees represented by the Typographical Union They argue that such an award is proper be- cause of the Employer's assignment and preference, economy and efficiency of operation, the skill and training of typographical employees, industry and area practice, and because the new work is a substi- tution for work done by typographical employees D Applicability of 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 2 As set forth above, the Typographical Union by letter dated December 5, 1975, threatens strike action if necessary if the Employer does not reassign the work in dispute to employees represented by the Ty- pographical Union Accordingly, we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that a viola- tion of Section 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 the disputed work af- ter giving due consideration to various relevant fac- tors 1 Collective-bargaining agreements The Employer's contract with the Printing Union contains a section which provides in pertinent part that "all work in connection with offset plate making including camera operation, all dark room work, stripping, opaquing, layout and plate making" is within that Union's jurisdiction However, the Employer's contract with the Typographical Union also contains provisions which define that Union's jurisdiction as, inter alia, "full jurisdiction over all offset plate making operations from and including camera work to the presses in those plants which have not offered offset plate making services at the effective date of this Agreement" and "any new pro- cess, equipment, or machinery to be used as an evo- lution of or a substitution for current composing room processes, equipment, or machinery " Our re- view of the agreements between the parties reveal that both contracts contain jurisdictional language that supports each of the two Unions' claims that the 2 The Printing Union contends that the proceeding should be deferred pending the determination of the dispute by the internal dispute procedure of the AFL-CIO However the record discloses that the Employer , a neces- sary party to any voluntary settlement , has not agreed to be bound by any such settlement Accordingly there is no agreed-upon voluntary method available to resolve the dispute by a decision binding upon all parties The matter is properly before the Board for determination CLEVELAND TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 53 585 work belongs to its members Accordingly , we find under these circumstances the agreements of the par- ties are not helpful to a determination of this dispute 2 Employer's assignment and preference The Employer's original assignment of the disput- ed work to employees represented by the Typograph- ical Union, and the Employer's present preference of assigning the work to those employees favor an award of work to such employees 4 Area and industry practice The evidence on area and industry practice is in- conclusive The Typographical Union presented evi- dence that employees represented by that Union presently perform work similar to the work in dispute in a number of shops both locally and nationally The Printing Union presented similar evidence Inas- much as the factor of area and industry practices is mixed, it favors the assignment of work to neither group of employees 3 Economy and efficiency of operations The Employer introduced evidence which estab- lishes that the new equipment the Employer intends to install (which will create the work in dispute) will be physically located in the composition room adja- cent to the Mergenthaler equipment The Mergen- thaler equipment is presently operated by employees represented by the Typographical Union, and the natural flow of work will require the employees per- forming the work in dispute to work between the Mergenthaler equipment and the new equipment The Employer's testimony further indicates that its printing operations will run more smoothly if all the work in the composition room is performed by em- ployees in the same craft Such an assignment would eliminate the problems of transferring work from one craft to another, coordinating supervision over two crafts, and determining where the responsibility lies in the event a problem develops The Employer also pointed out that if employees represented by the Printing Union performed the work, such employees would be idle for substantial periods of time on the second shift, and further inefficiencies in the press- room and composition room would be created when the pressmen would be pulled off the presses to do the new work Conversely, if the work is performed by typographical employees, the variety of skills pos- sessed by those employees would give the Employer more flexibility and efficiency in operation and no loss of working time Finally, the Employer testified that the assignment of the disputed work to typographical employees would permit it to perform the work with one less employee than if the work is assigned to the printing employees Although both groups of employees earn approximately the same hourly wages, the need for one less employee will entail a savings amounting to approximately $25,000 a year Accordingly, we find efficiency and economy of operations favor assign- ment of the work to employees represented by the Typographical Union 5 Skills and training The Employer presented testimony which estab- lishes that neither group of employees possess the skills to perform the new camera work, and a new employee would be hired for that work As to the other work, both groups of employees possess suffi- cient skills to do the work The Employer , however, was of the opinion that the skills possessed by the typographical employees are more integrally related to skills needed for the new work In fact the disput- ed work is a refinement and replacement for work presently being performed by the composition room employees, and thus they will be better able to do the new work In addition , if the work is assigned to the typo- graphical employees, the Employer will be able to use the training center operated by the International Typographical Union The Employer has already used this facility for other training and is of the opin- ion that it will offer the most suitable training needed for the new equipment We find therefore that the factors of skill and training favor an assignment to employees represented by the Typographical Union Conclusion Upon the entire record and after full consideration of all relevant factors here involved , we find that em- ployees represented by the Typographical Union are entitled to perform the work in dispute The award is supported by the Employer' s assignment and prefer- ence, the skills and training of the typographical em- ployees, and the economy and efficiency of opera- tions which would result if the typographical employees rather than the printing employees per- form such work In making this award, we are assign- ing the work to employees represented by the Typo- graphical Union rather than to that organization itself or to its members Our present determination is limited to the particular dispute which gave rise to this proceeding 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Employees of The Sherwin-Williams Company, who are represented by Cleveland Typographical Union 53, International Typographical Union, AFL- CIO, are entitled to perform the disputed work per- formed by the Employer solely at its North Olmsted, Ohio, facility involving stripping of copy, camera work, Polymer platemaking, and offset platemaking 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 pro- ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute