Long Island Typographical Union No. 915, ITU

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1596 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Long Island Typographical Union No. 915, International Typo-
graphical Union , AFL-CIO and Sinclair Manifold Products,
Inc. and New York Printing Pressmen 's Union No . 51, Inter-
national Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO
New York Printing Pressmen 's Union No. 51, International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO and Sinclair Manifold Products , Inc. and Long
Island Typographical Union No. 915, International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 2-CD-305-1 and 2-CD-
305-2. December 11, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, following
charges filed by Sinclair Manifold Products, Inc. (the Employer),
alleging that Long Island Typographical Union No. 915, Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (the ITU), and New York
Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51, International Printing Pressmen-
and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO (the Pressmen),
had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the National Labor Relations
Act as amended. A consolidated hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Jacques Schurre on August 4, 1964. 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. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error.and are hereby affirmed. No briefs
were filed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board 1 makes the following
findings :
1. The Business of the Employer
Sinclair Manifold Products, Inc., located at Westbury, Long
Island, New York, is engaged in the manufacture and printing of
business forms such as invoices, purchase orders, and carbon interleaf
forms. Its annual gross income is approximately $800,000 of which
approximately $700,000 is derived from goods sold and shipped to
customers outside the State of New York. The Employer's pur-
chases from outside the State of New York are in excess of $50,000
a year. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein. -
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 ('b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three - member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Jenkins].
149 NLRB No. 141.
LONG ISLAND TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 915, ITU 1597
2. The Labor Organizations Involved
The parties stipulated , and we find , that the ITU and the Press-
men are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The Dispute
The work here in dispute is offset preparatory work. This is com-
pletely different from letterpress preparatory work. While the
letterpress work involves typesetting in metal and making rubber
plates, the offset work consists of photographing the desired business
form, the negative of which is burned on to the pressplates by use of
an are light. The finished plate then goes to a pressman. This oper-
ation also includes ruling lines with a draftsman's pen on a microm-
eter ruling table.
The Employer operates seven or more letterpresses and one rotary
offset press . The employees who run both type of presses are repre-
sented by the Pressmen, while the ITU represents the letterpress
compositors?
The Employer has collective-bargaining contracts with both of the
Unions involved herein for a number of years.
In October 1963 the Employer decided to purchase a rotary offset
press and the required preparatory equipment. The chapel chair-
man of the ITU and the Pressmen were notified of the Employer's
decision . Shortly thereafter the Employer met with a representative
of the Pressmen who asserted a claim to the work, whereupon the
Employer signed an agreement with the Pressmen recognizing that
Union's jurisdiction over "offset presses and related lithographic
work such as camera , stripping and platemaking."
On April 29, 1964, the ITU wrote a letter to the Employer in
which it claimed "jurisdiction of all processes" in connection with the
offset press, including "camera, platemaking, stripping and paste-
up," offered to furnish the Employer with competent help, and sug-
gested that the Employer communicate with it prior to the installa-
tion of the offset press. The Employer did not reply.
The offset press was installed early in May and on May 11 the
Employer hired David Boyce, who was assigned the offset prepara-
tory work, and made application for membership in the Pressmen.
On this same day, ITU president, Jack Douglas, was informed that
the offset work had been assigned to an employee who was not a.
2 On October 17, 1955, the Pressmen and Local 119, New York Paper cutters' and'
Bookbinders Union, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, API.-CIO, were jointly
certified to represent all production, maintenance, and shipping employees." The Press-
men does not claim jurisdiction on the basis of its certification. It does not appear that
ITU has been certified with respect to any employees involved herein.
1598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
member of the ITU. Douglas visited the Employer and protested
the assignment. The Employer informed him of the agreement which
assigned the disputed work to the Pressmen.
On May 13 Douglas sent the Employer a letter in which he charged
the Employer with violation of its contract with the ITU and
asserted that the ITU would therefore "be forced to take any action
necessary to see that our jurisdiction and work opportunities are pro-
tected." The Employer did not respond. This same day the
Employer and the Pressmen executed a "Supplementary Agree-
ment" in which the Employer agreed to assign Boyce to on-the-job
training as an apprentice in camera, stripping, and platemaking.
Boyce received an apprentice membership card from the Pressmen.
On or about June 16, ITU's President Douglas, and another repre-
sentative of the Union visited the Employer and reasserted their
claim to the preparatory work; Douglas threatened that if an ITU
member was not assigned this work by 4:30 that afternoon, he would
pull his members out. As a result of this threat, a meeting was
arranged to be held on June 24. At this meeting it was decided that
in order to avoid strike action by either union, a member of the ITU
would join Boyce in doing the offset preparatory work. Douglas
suggested Joe Maniaci, an ITU member already employed who had
prior experience. Maniaci was assigned but the Employer has not
been satisfied with his performance.
A. Contentions of the parties
The Employer is neutral as to which Union is to be assigned the
disputed work; however it finds the compromise solution which
involves having two men do the work that one could do adequately,
an undue expense.
The Pressmen contends that the preparatory work for the offset
press is an accretion to the original bargaining unit for which the
Pressmen is certified, and that this work is closely related to the
operation of the press; it also relies on its agreement with the
Employer which assigns the work to it and on area practice which it
asserts would support this assignment.
The ITU contends that it should be awarded the work because :
(1) the work involved is preparatory in nature and hence more
closely allied to ITU work than the Pressmen's operation of the
presses; (2) in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, industy practice is for
the disputed work to be done by members of the ITU; (3) offset
preparatory work is a substitute for letterpress preparatory work
which is presently done by members of the ITU and hence they
should also do the offset preparatory work; (4) if the ITU is not
LONG ISLAND TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 915, ITU 1599
awarded the disputed work there will be a loss of jobs for its mem-
bers, since this work will eliminate some of the preparatory work
done on the letterpress.
B. Applicability of the statute
Charges herein allege a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the
Act. The record shows that on or about June 15, 1964, Jack Douglas,
president of the ITU, threatened to pull his members off the jobs
unless the Employer assigned the offset preparatory work to a mem-
ber of the ITU.3 We find reasonable cause to believe that this action
was in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) and that the dispute is
properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of
the Act.
C. 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. The Board has held that its determination in a
jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon common-
sense and experience and a balancing of such factors.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
Although the Employer's collective-bargaining contracts with both
the ITU and the Pressmen include provisions which might be inter-
preted as encompassing jurisdiction over the disputed work, we are
unable to conclude, upon examination of the pertinent provisions,
that either of the contracts expressly covers the work in dispute. The
Pressmen, however, signed a separate agreement with the Employer,
dated December 2, 1963, which specifically assigns to it the offset
preparatory work.
2. Area and industry customs
The ITU introduced evidence to show that in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties of New York there are three printing companies which have
contracts with the ITU and the Pressmen where the offset prepara-
tory work is done by ITU members; it also named two additional
commercial printing plants in the area where the preparatory work
is done by ITU members. The Pressmen, on the other hand, intro-
duced evidence to show that in at least 55 shops in New York City
the Pressmen do the offset preparatory work, and that the Pressmen
also do so in three shops besides that of the Employer in Nassau and
'The Pressmen had made a similar threat.
1600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Suffolk. As it therefore appears that in Nassau and Suffolk both
the ITU and the Pressmen perform the disputed work, we can find
no prevailing custom and practice within the industry.
3. Sufficiency of skills
Neither the work on the presses currently performed by members
of the Pressmen nor the preparatory letterpress work by members of
the ITU provides the training necessary to do the disputed work.
Although Maniaci, a member of the ITU assigned to this job at its
insistence, had some prior experience, his performance on the job has
not been satisfactory. Boyce, a member of the Pressmen originally
assigned to do this work by the Employer, has also had prior training
and is able to do the job to the Employer's satisfaction. Moreover,
the Board has held that employees performing offset preparatory
work have a close enough community of interest with those who
operate the presses to be included in one unit 4
CONCLUSION
In view of all the foregoing, particularly the evidence pertaining to
the 1963 agreement whereby the Employer, in effect, assigned the
work to the Pressmen, the fact that the employee-member of the
Pressmen who is presently performing the work is sufficiently skilled
and has performed it to the satisfaction of the Employer who desires
to retain him on the job, and the close relationship between those
who do the offset preparatory work and those who operate the
presses, we assign the disputed work to the employees represented by
the Pressmen. Our determination is limited to the particular con-
troversy which gave rise to the proceeding. In making this deter-
mination, the Board is assigning the disputed work to employees who
are represented by the New York Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51,
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, but not to that Union.
In view of the above, we find that the ITU was not and is not
entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to force or
require Sinclair Manifold Products, Inc., to assign offset preparatory
work to the ITU rather than to the Pressmen.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this proceeding, the Board makes the following Determination of
Dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
4 See New York Printing Pressmen's Uneon No . 51, International Printing Pressmen's
Union and As8i8tants of North America, AFL-CIO ( Stuyvesant Press Corporation), 143
NLRB 167.
WIGWAM MILLS, INC. 1601
1. Employees currently represented by New York Printing Press-
men's Union No. 51, International Printing Pressmen an Assistants'
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the
offset preparatory work for Sinclair Manifold Products, Inc., at Old
Westbury, Long Island, New York.
2. Long Island Typographical Union No. 915, International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means pro-
scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the
Employer to assign the aforementioned offset preparatory work to
employees who are represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Long Island Typographical Union No. 915, Inter-
national Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 2, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from
forcing or requiring Sinclair Manifold Products, Inc., by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to
employees represented by the ITU rather than those represented by
the Pressmen.
Wigwam Mills , Inc. and United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 30-CA-25 and 30-RC-8 (formerly Cases
Nos. 13-CA-5889 and 13-RC-9460). December 11, 1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
On August 12, 1964, Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed. He further found
that the Respondent had interfered with an election held on August 9,
1963, and recommended that it be set aside.' Thereafter, Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a support-
ing brief.
1 Although the Regional Director, on March 27, 1964, consolidated Case No. 13-RC--
9460 with Case No. 13-CA-5889, the Trial Examiner had before him for hearing and
decision only those matters raised by objection No. 3. As the Trial Examiner's recom-
mendation, which we adopt, with respect to objection No. 3 disposes of the basic issues
in the representation case, we find it unnecessary to consider the matters raised by the
Union's other objections, the Regional Director's report on such objections, and Respond-
ent Employer 's exceptions to them. The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby
denied.
149 NLRB No. 146.
770-076-65-vol. 149-102