Local No. 1, Paper Handlers' and Straighteners' Union

648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local No. 1, Paper Handlers' and Straighteners' Union, International Printing Pressmen's Union of North America, AFL-CIO and American Bank Note Company and Graphic Arts International Union Local 43B, New York Graphic Arts Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, and Graphic Arts Interna- tional Union, Local 119B, AFL-CIO. Case 2-CD- 510 July 9, 1976 nue, Bronx, New York; that its annual sales exceed $1 million ; that it annually receives from suppliers outside of the State of New York materials and sup- plies valued in excess of $50 ,000; and that it annually ships to customers outside the State of New York products valued in excess of $50 ,000. Accordingly, we find 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 pro- ceeding. 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 charges filed on March 11, 1976, by American Bank Note Company (herein referred to as the Em- ployer) alleging that Local No. 1, Paper Handlers' and Straighteners' Union, International Printing Pressmen's Union of North America, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the Paper Handlers) had violat- ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held pursuant to notice at New York, New York, on April 9, 1976, before Hearing Officer Mary W. Taylor. The Employer, the Paper Handlers, Graphic Arts Inter- national Union Local 43B, New York Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the Bindery Workers), and Graphic Arts Internation- al Union, Local 119B, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the Paper Cutters), appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam- ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi- dence bearing on the issues. The Employer has filed a brief. 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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are here- by affirmed. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em- ployer is a New York corporation engaged in the printing of security documents, primarily by the in- taglio process, with an office and principal place of business located at Tiffany Street and Garrison Ave- II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Paper Handlers, the Bindery Workers, and the Paper Cut- ters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute As stated above, the Employer is engaged in print- ing security documents. Although it has plants in Massachusetts, Illinois, Canada, and England, only its Bronx, New York, plant is involved in this pro- ceeding. The Bronx plant employs approximately 1,100 em- ployees, some 900 of whom are represented by one union or another. There are five departments at this plant that include union-represented employees. The engraving department makes the plates. The printing department makes the ink and does the tinting and intaglio printing. The finishing department is divided into two sections. One finishes food coupons while the other finishes all other products. Finishing in- cludes imprinting serial numbers, signatures, and the like; cutting; preparing for wrapping; and wrapping for shipment. The shipping and receiving department receives the raw materials and ships the finished products. The general maintenance department maintains the plant. The Paper Handlers represents three groups of em- ployees, two in the printing department and a third group classified as packers, who work in the finishing department. These employees wrap and pack the fin- ished products and transport the packed products to storage and/or to the shipping and receiving depart- ment. There are approximately 48 employees in this group. The Bindery Workers represents the approximate- ly 350 employees, known as bindery workers, in the finishing department who examine the printed docu- ments for accuracy, quality, and quantity as they 225 NLRB No. 86 LOCAL NO. 1, PAPER HANDLERS ' AND STRAIGHTENERS ' UNION 649 pass through the finishing department and who per- form other related tasks. The Paper Cutters represents two groups of people in the finishing department. While one group does cutting, the other, consisting of approximately 32 em- ployees, is responsible for the movement of paper after it is put down by paper handlers at a drop point in the finishing department until it is delivered to the packers represented by the Paper Handlers for pack- ing. Prior to 1972, currency and other documents print- ed by the Employer were collated into bundles, banded, labeled, and put into boxes or chip board trays by employees represented by the Bindery Workers. These were then taken by utilitymen repre- sented by the Paper Cutters to the packers repre- sented by the Paper Handlers, where they were packed, labeled, and taken either to security storage or to shipping. There were variations in how bindery workers handled various products in order to con- form to the requirements of the customer, so that currency in some instances might be banded in 100- note packages, labeled, and placed on trays, and fan- folded documents would be counted and placed in boxes. In 1972 the Employer installed a shrink wrap ma- chine. This machine wraps packages in a plastic en- velope and then shrinks and seals the envelope so that it fits and seals the contents tightly. Paper han- dlers operate the shrink wrap machine and label, pack, and move the product thereafter. Since the installation of the machine, there have been various disputes with respect to certain aspects of the work done on the product before it goes into the machine. These were handled on a case-by-case basis, but the general pattern was that all preshrink wrap work was done by bindery workers and then moved to the packers by utilitymen. B. The Work in Dispute The disputed work involves the assignment of the handing of stacks of printed documents, placing them in containers, labeling them, placing the con- tainers on conveyances, and moving the conveyances to the point at which the products are wrapped by the packers. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Paper Handlers claims that all the disputed work should be assigned to employees it represents and that the contract between the Employer and the Paper Handlers covering packers provides for arbi- tration of jurisdictional disputes . The Bindery Work- ers claims the work prior to the movement of the flats, and the Paper Cutters claims the movement of the flats. The Employer's position is that the disputed work is properly and historically assigned so that the work of banding of stacks of product, placing the product into boxes or trays or other containers, label- ing the product, and placing the product into convey- ances for transportation prior to wrapping should be awarded to employees represented by the Bindery Workers and not by the Paper Handlers, and that the work involved in transporting the product in convey- ances to the wrapping operation should be awarded to employees represented by the Paper Cutters and not by the Paper Handlers. 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. On March 11, 1976, the Employer was working on currency for Haiti. Bindery workers were taking the notes, checking serial numbers, counting, banding, stacking, placing in chip board trays, labeling the batch on the tray, and putting the tray on a flat. Utilitymen were taking the flat to the shrink wrap machine which is on a different floor some 200-300 feet away. Packers represented by the Paper Han- dlers handled the shrink wrapping and then cased the product for shipping. Mahoney, shop chairman of the Paper Handlers, informed Banke, the supervisor of the finishing room, that it claimed the work of banding, labeling, and putting the product on the tray, later adding the movement of the trays to the machine. Officials of the Paper Handlers were contacted and they in- formed the Employer that the packers would not work unless the procedures were changed and the work properly assigned. If this was not done, packers would not report the next day and the Paper Han- dlers would call out the other units represented by it. At 7:30 a.m., March 12, all members of the Paper Handlers stayed out and the Paper Handlers took the position that its members would not go back to work until the work in dispute was reassigned. The Em- ployer refused to meet and talk until the employees returned to work. Eventually the employees returned to work after the instant charge was filed. There does not appear to be any voluntary method for adjusting the dispute which would be binding on all parties. Accordingly, we find 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. 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD E. Merit of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after taking into account the evidence supporting the claims of the parties and balancing all relevant fac- tors.' We shall set forth below those factors which we find relevant in determining the dispute herein. 1. Certifications, collective-bargaining agreements, and prior Board decision Consideration of these factors does not favor an award of the disputed work to any of the parties. Although all three Unions have had contracts with the Employer for many years, none has been certi- fied. In evidence are the last individual contracts be- tween the Employer and the three Unions ending in 1974. Also in evidence are the authorizations by the Employer for the Printers League of the Printing In- dustries of Metropolitan New York (PIMNY), to bargain for them and the current master agreements between PIMNY and the three Unions. In each case it was mutually agreed that the unit coverage and description of the work would remain the same as they were before the association bargaining, although the master agreements do not describe them accu- rately. None of these contracts specifically covers the work in dispute. Finally, the language of the prior Board decision,' involving these parties, does limit the award therein to the circumstances of that particular dispute and therefore is not determinative of the instant case. 3. Employer and area practice The record contains no evidence with regard to any relevant area practice, inasmuch as no company in the area does the same type of work. As noted above, the evidence shows that the Employer's past practice, except for a brief 2-month period when an excessive backlog of work required packers to be temporarily assigned to move some documents from the bindery workers to the wrapping process, has been to assign the disputed work to bindery workers and utilitymen. We therefore conclude that this fac- tor favors awarding the disputed work to employees represented by the Bindery Workers and the Paper Cutters. Conclusions Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the entire record, in particular the Employer's assign- ment, efficiency, and economy of operations, and the Employer's past practice, we conclude that employ- ees of the Employer who are represented by the Bindery Workers and the Paper Cutters, and not those represented by the Paper Handlers, are entitled to the work in dispute and we shall determine the dispute in their favor. Accordingly, we shall award the disputed work to those employees who are represented by the Bindery Workers and the Paper Cutters, but not to those Unions or their members. Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy giving rise to this proceeding. 2. Employer's assignment, economy, and efficiency The Employer has assigned the disputed work to bindery workers represented by the Bindery Workers and to utilitymen represented by the Paper Cutters, both of whom have traditionally done such work. The Employer points out that these employees should therefore be able to do the disputed work more efficiently, if only because of their familiarity with the rhythm of the work. Accordingly, we find this factor favors awarding the disputed work to em- ployees represented by the Bindery Workers and the Paper Cutters. 1 N L R B v Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broad- casting System], 364 U S 573 ( 1961), International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410-11 (1962) 2 Local No 1, Paper Handlers & Sheet Straighteners Union, International Printing Pressmen 's & Assistants Union of N A (American Bank Note Compa- ny), 202 NLRB 501 (1973) DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, upon the ba- sis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the Board hereby makes the follow- ing Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of American Bank Note Company, Bronx, New York, currently represented by Graphic Arts International Union Local 43B, New York Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work involved in the handling of stacks of printed documents, placing them in con- tainers, labeling them, and placing the containers on conveyances. 2. Employees of American Bank Note Company, Bronx, New York, currently represented by Graphic Arts International Union, Local 11 19B, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work involved in moving the conveyances to the point at which the products are wrapped by the packers. LOCAL NO. 1, PAPER HANDLERS' AND STRAIGHTENERS' UNION 651 3. Local No. 1, Paper Handlers' and Straighteners' Union, International Printing Pressmen's Union of North America, AFL-CIO, 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 above work to packers represented by it. 4. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute , Local No. 1, Paper Handlers' and Straighteners' Union, International Printing Pressmen's Union of North America, AFL- CIO, 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 by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination.