Minneapolis Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 20

MINNEAPOLIS PRINTING, LOCAL 20 Minneapolis Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 20 and Johnson Printing Compa- ny, Inc. and Graphic Arts International Union, Local 1B, Twin Cities.' Case 18-CD-269 May 10, 1982 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND HUNTER This a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by Johnson Printing Company, Inc. (hereinafter the Employer), alleging that Minne- apolis Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 20 (hereinafter the Pressmen), violat- ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forc- ing or requiring the Employer to continue assign- ing certain work to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by Graphic Arts International Union, Local I B, Twin Cities (hereinafter the Bookbinders). Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Frank E. Kapsch, Jr., on Septem- ber 16, 1981. 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, the Pressmen, and the Bookbinders filed briefs, which have been duly considered. 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 rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that Johnson Printing Company, Inc., a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is engaged in commercial printing and packaging. During the past 12 months, the Em- ployer, in the course and conduct of its business operations, shipped from its Minneapolis, Minneso- ta, facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Minnesota. ' The name appears as amended at the hearing. 261 NLRB No. 103 Based on the foregoing, we find that the Em- ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that both the Pressmen and the Bookbinders are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer's business operations are divided about equally between manufacturing folding car- tons and printing books, catalogues, business papers, letterheads, and advertising folders. Em- ployees represented by the Pressmen and the Book- binders work as a composite crew in producing folding cartons. During this process, employees represented by the Pressmen set up and operate die-cutting presses, platen presses, gluer-folder ma- chines, and a roller coater. The Employer has as- signed the work of removing and stacking the fin- ished products of all these machines, except the roller coater, to employees represented by the Bookbinders. In March 1981,2 the Employer expanded its packaging operations by purchasing a Brown 2025 Thermo-Former machine. The thermo-former pro- duces molded plastic trays in which to package such objects as pen and pencil sets and cigarette lighters. When this machine commences its produc- tion cycle, the operator feeds sheets of rolled plas- tic into the thermo-former's heating element. The machine places the plastic on a mold and applies vacuum pressure to stretch the heated material into its desired shape. The operator then forms the pe- rimeter of the plastic box using the machine's die- cutting press. Finally, the machine ejects the fin- ished product into a receiving station for removal by another employee. In July, the Employer installed at its facility a Finester Windowing Machine, Model D, which places a cellophane or acetate window on a folding carton. To accomplish this task, the operator ini- tially puts a carton containing a precut window on the machine's automatic feeder. The carton is fed to a type of letter press which applies an adhesive around the window area. During the next step in this process, the windowing machine places a cello- phane square on the carton and then exerts pres- 2 All dates are in 1981, unless otherwise indicated. 789 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sure to ensure that the cellophane adheres to the surface. A second employee subsequently removes the finished product from the machine. Consistent with its practice regarding the oper- ation of other packaging machines, the Employer has assigned the production work on each machine to a composite crew of one employee represented by the Pressmen and one or more employees repre- sented by the Bookbinders. Employees represented by the Pressmen are totally responsible for the setup and operation of these machines during pro- duction runs. When the machines have concluded their production cycle, employees represented by the Bookbinders remove the finished products and inspect them for defects. While the Pressmen expressed no disagreement with the Employer's work assignments, the Book- binders claimed jurisdiction over the work present- ly performed by the pressmen. The Bookbinders thus filed a grievance allegedly to enforce the pro- visions of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer. Thereafter, on August 7, Jess March, the Pressmen business representative, sent a letter to the Employer stating that the Pressmen would cause a work stoppage if the Employer reas- signed the operation of the thermo-former or the windowing machine to employees represented by the Bookbinders. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute, as described in the notice of hearing, involves the operation of (1) the Brown 2025 Thermo-Former Machine and (2) the Finester Windowing Machine, Model D, at the Employer's facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the Pressmen vio- lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening to engage in a work stoppage if it reassigned the disputed work to employees represented by the Bookbinders. Additionally, the Employer urges that its assignment of the disputed work to employ- ees represented by the Pressmen should be upheld in view of their skills, efficiency and economy of operations, industry practice, company practice, job impact, the contract between the Employer and the Pressmen, and the Employer's assignment of the work. The Pressmen also contends that such work should be awarded to employees it represents for these reasons. The Bookbinders argues that its contract with the Employer, industry and area practice, relative skills, and efficiency and economy of operations favor an award of the disputed work to employees it represents. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of a 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) there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary resolution of the dispute. With respect to (1), above, it is uncontested that in a letter dated August 7, 1981, Jess March, the Pressmen business representative, informed the Em- ployer that "[i]f you assign the [disputed] work that the Bindery Union Local IB has been demanding that they receive, our Local will have no other re- course than to strike Johnson Printing Company." This threat to strike clearly constitutes a threat of serious economic harm and is coupled with the stated intention of forcing the Employer to contin- ue assigning certain work to employees represented by the Pressmen rather than to employees repre- sented by the Bookbinders. We therefore find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. With respect to (2), above, there is no evidence in the record and no party otherwise contends that there is an agreed-upon method for the voluntary resolution of the dispute. Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly before the Board for deter- mination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to various relevant factors.3 As the Board has frequently stated, the determination in a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based on commonsense and experi- ence in weighing these factors. The following fac- tors are relevant in making a determination of the dispute before us. 1. Board certification and relevant collective- bargaining agreements There is no evidence that either of the labor or- ganizations involved herein has been certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining representa- tive for a unit of the Employer's employees. It is clear that neither Union's existing collective- bargaining agreement with the Employer specifi- cally mentions operation of the Brown 2025 Thermo-Former Machine or the Finester Window- s N.LR.B. v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Colum- bia Broadcasting System]. 364 U.S. 573 (1961); International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, .FL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Compa- ny), 135 NL.RB 1402 (1962). 790 MINNEAPOLIS PRINTING, LOCAL 20 ing Machine, Model D. The record also contains no evidence that the parties contemplated the Em- ployer's purchase of these machines when they ne- gotiated the respective contracts. Nevertheless, the Employer and the Pressmen argue that their agree- ment covers the disputed work, while the Book- binders raises a similar contention concerning its contract with the Employer. Section 2(a) of the Bookbinders contract pro- vides that "[a]ll employees engaged in bindery de- partment production work and work incidental and supplemental thereto including shipping room shall be covered by this agreement." We find that this provision is vague with respect to the issues before us and thus provides no assistance in determining the instant dispute. The work jurisdiction of employees represented by Pressmen is defined in Section 2(a) of the con- tract between the Employer and the Pressmen as follows: This contract applies to pressrooms operated by the Employer . . . including but not limited to letterpresses, all offset presses, all gravure presses, all analine presses, all presses of a spe- cialty nature used for scoring, die-cutting, per- forating or cornering, all heat-set presses . . . all proofing and all miscellaneous pressroom employees .... Nothing in this clause shall be construed to apply to employees or work which is now covered by contracts with any other union. While the Employer and the Pressmen point out that "die-cutting" is an integral function involved in operating the thermo-former, we are not con- vinced that the quoted provision is sufficiently broad so as to cover this work. They further assert that the windowing machine falls within the Press- men's jurisdiction clause because it constitutes a press "of a specialty nature." It does not appear from the record, however, that the machine is "used for scoring, die-cutting, perforating or cor- nering." Thus, we conclude that the Pressmen's contract does not specifically cover operation of the windowing machine. Accordingly, we conclude that the factors of Board certification and relevant collective-bargain- ing agreements are inconclusive and do not favor an award of the disputed work to either group of employees. 2. Relative skills and efficiency and economy of operations The Employer argues for an award of the disput- ed work to employees represented by the Pressmen because of their experience in performing work similar to that in dispute here and the resulting effi- ciency and economy of operations. The record dis- closes that it is essential for the thermo-former op- erator to possess die-cutting skills such as employ- ees represented by the Pressmen have acquired in operating the Employer's other die-cutting presses. With respect to windowing machine operations, there is evidence that the pressmen perform similar tasks when they produce a finished carton from precut cardboard blanks on the gluer-folder ma- chine. Furthermore, the employee represented by the Pressmen who has been assigned this work pre- viously operated windowing machines for other employers. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that employees represented by the Pressmen have dem- onstrated the skills required to perform all the dis- puted work. By contrast, the record contains no evidence that any of the Employer's employees represented by the Bookbinders has experience in operating packaging machines. Accordingly, we find that the factors of relative skills and efficiency and economy of operations favor an award of the disputed work to employees represented by the Pressmen. 3. Area practice The Employer established that Mankato Carton Company, located about 85 miles from the Em- ployer's facility, has assigned the entire operation of an identical thermo-former machine to employ- ees represented by the Pressmen. There is no evi- dence, however, that Mankato Carton also employs employees represented by the Bookbinders. The record also discloses that Brown & Bigelow Com- pany of Minneapolis has assigned the operation of "two vacuum-forming machines" to employees rep- resented by the Bookbinders rather than to its Pressmen-represented employees. It is clear, how- ever, that this type of thermo-former is dissimilar to the Employer's machine since it does not per- form any die-cutting operations. We therefore con- clude that area practice regarding the thermo- former is inconclusive and does not favor an award of this work to either group of employees. With respect to the windowing machine, the Bookbinders presented evidence that three Minne- apolis companies utilize employees represented by the Bookbinders, rather than their Pressmen-repre- sented employees, to operate machines which insert a cellophane window on paper envelopes. None of these companies, however, is engaged in manufac- turing folding cartons. In these circumstances, we find that area practice relative to the windowing machine does not favor an award of such work to either group of employees. 791 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. Employer's assignment and past practice The Employer has assigned all the work in dis- pute to employees represented by the Pressmen and has expressed its preference that such work be performed by those employees. The Board has held that where an employer institutes a new production process, "company practice" regarding a work as- signment will be determined by comparing the nature of the tasks involved in the new process to the work traditionally performed by competing groups of employees. 4 It is undisputed that the Employer consistently has assigned the setup and operation of die-cutting presses, platen presses, gluer-folder machines, and the roller coater utilized in producing folding cartons to employees repre- sented by the Pressmen. We have noted that the tasks such employees perform in operating these machines are closely analogous to those involved in the disputed work. The Employer's Bookbind- ers-represented employees, by contrast, traditional- ly have been responsible only for handling the fin- ished products of packaging machines. They pres- ently are performing this function on the thermo- former and windowing machine under the Employ- er's work assignment. In view of the foregoing, we find that the Em- ployer's present assignment and past practice favor an award of the disputed work to employees repre- sented by the Pressmen. 5. Job impact The Employer and the Pressmen contend that an award of the disputed work to employees other than those represented by the Pressmen will result in the elimination of jobs for employees represent- ed by the Pressmen. Contrary to their argument, the evidence discloses that the Employer did not hire any new employees when it commenced oper- ations on the newly installed machines. Further- more, the Employer presently is not utilizing either machine at full capacity. When its projected expan- sion of these operations occurs, the Employer an- 4 Paper Handlers' and Sheet Straighteners' Union Local No 1. Interna- tional Printing & Graphic Communications Union. AFL-CIO (American Bank Note Company), 255 NLRB 261 (1981). ticipates hiring additional employees regardless of which employee group is awarded the disputed work. Thus, under the circumstances present here, it appears that the Employer would not dismiss any of its present Pressmen-represented employees if the disputed work is awarded to employees repre- sented by the Bookbinders. Accordingly, we find that this factor does not favor an award of the disputed work to either group of employees. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- sideration of all the relevant factors involved, we conclude that the Employer's employees who are represented by Minneapolis Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 20, are entitled to perform all the work in dispute. We reach this con- clusion based on the Employer's present assign- ment and past practice, relative skills, efficiency and economy of operations, and the similarity of the disputed work to the tasks that employees rep- resented by Pressmen previously have performed for the Employer. Accordingly, we shall determine the instant dispute by awarding all the disputed work to employees represented by Minneapolis Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 20, but not to that Union or its members. The scope of our award is limited to the facts of the instant dispute. 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 makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees of Johnson Printing Company, Inc., who are represented by Minneapolis Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 20, are en- titled to perform the work involved in operating the Brown 2025 Thermo-Former Machine and the Finester Windowing Machine, Model D, at the Employer's facility located in Minneapolis, Minne- sota. 792