Louisville Mailers Union No. 99, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 721 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

LOUISVILLE MAILERS UNION NO. 99, ETC. 721
technicians who are not included in the unit request Will remain
unrepresented. The thrust of the evidence Petitioner presented and
the argument in its brief is that the electronic technicans are tech-
nical employees who are required to show training and skill in their
speciality, to exercise independent judgment and to work with pro-
fessional engineers. The same considerations are equally applicable,
however, to the 80 or so experimental technicians who are engaged
in -other work of a technical nature not involving electronics. The
Board has held that a unit of technical employees is inappropriate
where it does not include all in that category."
Finding as we do that the unit requested by the Petitioner is inap-
propriate, we shall dismiss the petition.4
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3 Westinghouse Electric Corporation ( Naval Reactors Facility ), 137 NLRB 332.
4 We are not passing on the question whether a unit of technical employees may, in
any event , be separately represented at this plant under the criteria of Sheffield
Corporation, 134 NLRB 1101 . We note, however , that the work of most of the electronic
technicians , involving fabrication , proving - in, maintenance , or calibration of electronic
test equipment and prototypes , is an essential element in the inspection process , which, as
in The Boeing Company, 144 NLRB 1110 , is intimately connected with production. There
are, for example , classifications of inspectors in the bargaining unit who use the same
instruments as the electronic technicians and whose work also requires similar training,
skills ,- and the use of judgment in their work . In addition , some of the test equipment
fabricated by the electronic technicians is produced for sale rather than for internal plant
use and, to that extent , some of the technicians are directly engaged in production
Louisville Mailers Union No. 99, affiliated with International
Mailers Union and Standard Gravure Corporation . Case No.
9-CD-74. December 29, 196.E 4
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section,10(k) of the Act following
a charge filed by Standard Gravure Corporation, herein called the'
Employer, alleging that Louisville Mailers Union No. 99, Inter-
national Mailers Union, herein called the Mailers, had violated Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (D), by threatening, coercing, or restraining the Em-
ployer for purposes of compelling it to assign certain work to em-
ployees represented by the Mailers, rather than to employees -repre-
sented by General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 89, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called
the Paper Handlers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Alan D. Greene, on July 23 and 24, 1964, at which
all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon
150 NLRB No. 58.
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing
were free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed., Briefs
were filed by the Employer, Paper Handlers, and the Mailers. Upon
the entire record in this proceeding, the Board 1 makes the follow-
ing findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer is a Kentucky corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Louisville, Kentucky. It is engaged in the
business of printing rotogravure newspaper supplements, magazines,
commercial booklets, and preprinted color pages for newspapers.
During the past 12 months the Employer, in the course and con-
duct of its business operations, shipped goods and materials in
excess of $50,000 value from its Louisville plant directly to points
outside the State of Kentucky. The parties stipulated and 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.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Louisville Mailers Union
No. 99, International Mailers Union and General Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, -Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The basic facts
The Employer uses in the printing business heavy rolls of news-
print paper weighing up to 2,000 pounds. Newsprint rolls are
moved by paperhandlers from trucks to the storage area 2 and at
appropriate times are taken by paperhandlers and delivered to the
pressroom at the printing presses. Pressmen place the rolls in
presses. Printed hatter in page size, cut form, and folded that
comes off the presses is sent by conveyor belt to the bindery on the
third floor of the premises where employees represented by the
Mailers take the products from the press conveyors; tie them in a
tying machine, and wrap, label, and put bundles on conveyors or
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]
2 The paperhandlers who move the newsprint rolls from truck to the storage area are
on the payroll of the Courier-Journal.
LOUISVILLE MAILERS UNION NO. 99, ETC. 723
skids. The bundles are then picked up by flatbed trucks and taken
to the storage areas or to the marshaling area by both mailers and
paperhandlers.3
In July 1963 Gravure initiated a process known as preprint. In
this process rolls of newsprint are delivered to the presses in the
normal way by paperhandlers, but unlike the customary binding
process, in preprint, only one side or part of one side of the roll of
newsprint is printed on. The purpose of this method of printing
is to permit future users of this newsprint to print their own ma-
terial on the unused printed side or unused areas of the newsprint
roll. The preprint rolls are then rewound on a rewinding machine
as they come off the printing press. At this point, the paper-
handlers using a specially designed forklift move the rolls of pre-
print to the reel room.
The core is then broken down and the rolls that have been slit
into four 15-inch sections are separated. If the roll is to be stored,
it is wrapped in polyethylene for protection against moisture. The
rolls that are to be sent to an outside customer are placed two per
package, weighing between 850 to 915 pounds per package. The
rolls are placed on the floor over wrapping material with the glue
on the forward edge. A roll is then manually rolled over the wrap-
ping material, picking up the glued edge, and is wrapped with the
material. Three bands are, in like manner, glued onto the wrapped
roll and the edges of the wrapping material are then hand-crimped
around the roll. The roll is then rolled into a heated heading ma-
chine, with 2-inch clearance on either side. The heading machine
is then tripped with a lever, and two large circular clamps apply
treated, kraft paper heads on each end of the roll. The heat from
the header machine seals the heads on the package; after the head
is applied, a paperhandler manually rolls the packaged roll from
the heading machine. Labels are then affixed by, paperhandlers, and
the roll is either rolled onto a conveyor, and taken to an elevator,
or is transported to the elevators by a padded forklift.
In July 1963 Standard began some limited, experimental pre-
printing operations and the work of handling the preprint material
as it came off the press was being performed by paperhandlers. In
August 1963 the Mailers sent a letter to Standard, protesting the
assignment of such work to paperhandlers. At this time the pre-
print operation had not been put into effect on a permanent basis.
3 The parties stipulated that the Mailers' certification described the unit as all of the
employees of said corporation engaged as such in the bindery department on the third
floor of the building of said corporation located at the above address.
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After the August letter, the Mailers and Standard entered' into nego-
tiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement. During these
negotiations, the question of the preprint operation came up, the
Mailers contending that the jurisdictional clause of its contract
covered the instant work. Standard did not, however, agree with
this interpretation of the contract, and the Mailers' representatives
were told by the Employer that the preprint operation was experi-
mental, that the Employer was not sure it would work out, and
that the Employer had as yet purchased no equipment for the
operation. The parties agreed-that if and when the problem arose
it could be negotiated at that time.
The instant controversy arose when the Mailers, learned for the
first time on February 28, 1964, that paperhandlers had been per-
manently assigned * the work of handling preprint material as it
came o$ the press, and that paperhandlers had shipped a load of
30 rolls of preprint material to a , customer in New York. The
Mailers' and Standard's representatives met in March of 1964, to
discuss the situation, and on April 23, 1964, the Mailers sent a letter
to Standard in which it threatened that unless the work in dispute
was assigned to the mailers it would strike Standard's plant. On
June 19, 1964, Standard filed the charge in the instant case.
B. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination 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. The record shows that upon learning and after -dis-
cussing the Employer's permanent assignment of the disputed work
to the Paper Handlers, the Respondent Mailers protested the assign-
ment and informed Standard that unless Standard immediately ad-
vised the Respondent it would henceforth assign the disputed work
to the Mailers, it would take strike action, and picket Standard.
On the basis of the foregoing conduct and the entire record, we
find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
C. Contentions of the parties
Respondent contends essentially that the established practice is
for paperhandlers to supply the rolls to the presses, and for mailers
to wrap, label, and ship printed products coming off the presses. It
alleges that the disputed work does not require any particuar skills
and that the work of handling the preprint rolls, header, and the
forklift can usually be learned in a matter of 6 days. Respondent
LOUISVILLE MAILERS UNION NO. 99, ETC. 725
further argues that-,the new process, -represents a "substitution -of
function"• and 'that the work therefore should properly be assigned
to it. Respondent also relies on its contract coverage.
The Employer contends that the mailers' work consists essentially
of bundling and placing material on skids, and only occasionally will
mailers wrap bundles with protective paper for shipment. It argues
in effect that the Mailers jurisdiction has been confined, to the
operation of the bindery department and that by custom and prac-
tice it handles material that comes off the presses in page size, cut
form, and folded, and that is carried to the bindery by means of con-
veyor belts. It maintains that the mailers have never had regular
work assignments in the press area; that mailers have no super-
vision in the pressroom area; that the preprint work is intermittent
in nature and that for this reason and because of the "hours of
work" provisions of the Mailers' contract, it would be economically
unsound to assign the work to mailers.
The Paper Handlers adopt the Employer's position grid further
contend that the work in dispute is merely a continuation of the work
of handling rolls of paper, as in the past, by' means of the operation
of mechanical equipment. The Paper 'Handlers also contend that
the Mailers waived any claim it may have had to the assignment of
the work to the paperhandlers by signing a new agreement after it
had notice of the institution of the preprint work.
D. 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 all rele-
vant factors; and the Board has held that its determination in a
jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment 'based upon com=
monsense and experience and a balancing of such factors 4 '
1. Skills involved
No issue appears to be raised with regard to the skills necessary
to perform the particular work. The Employer concedes, that mail-
ers are capable of being trained, to perform the ' work in 'dispute.
Accordingly, it is evident that this factor favors 'neither union. '
2. The NLRB certification
As indicated, the Mailers was certified in a unit. 'The certification
was issued long before the present controversy • a "rose and obviously
it has no application to the work,in.dispute. Moreover, the Mailers'
6 N.L R.B v Radio d Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U S, 573 , In-
ternational Association of Machinists Lodge No 1743 , AFL-CIO ( J. A. Jones Construction
Company), 135 NLRB 1402.
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certification in this case refers to work performed in the bindery on
the third floor of the Employer 's premises . While reference to the
area in which mailers work is performed is not necessarily to be
taken as a limitation on the scope of the unit , it is nevertheless indic-
ative of the fact that none of the mailers' work as a matter of
established practice was being performed in the area of the presses
or on the pressroom level . Thus, while the certification indicates
the nature of the work performed by employees in the certified unit,
we find nothing therein that would necessarily favor an assignment
of the work to Mailers.
3. Contractual claims and area practice
The Mailers ' contract contains a jurisdictional clause which in
part covers:
... taping, wrapping, packing, counting, packaging, separat-
ing, bundling, typing, shipping , and similar duties, stacking,
tagging, handling of bundles and mail sacks, sacking , stamping
of cartons , operating addressing machines and labeling for
other than promotional lists of samples , operation of hand or
machine mailers , taking of bundles, magazines or printed prod-
ucts from conveyors or escalators... .
Although the Mailers contends that this language is sufficiently
broad to cover any new products produced by the Employer which
have to be packed, wrapped , labeled, stamped , bundled, mailed, or
shipped, it is evident that the jurisdictional emphasis here is on the
traditional material coming off the printing presses which because of
its size and form is capable of being transported by conveyor belts
and packed and shipped in relatively small bundles or envelopes.
As noted, the Mailers' effort to have the jurisdictional clause in its
contract interpreted so as to cover the particular work was not suc-
cessful and the language of the jurisdictional clause has remained
the same.
'The Paper Handlers contract with the Employer on the other
hand provides that :
The jurisdiction of the Union insofar as paper handling is
concerned , shall include but shall not be limited exclusively to
the unloading , storing, and handling of newsprint , cores and
waste in the main building and in warehouses owned or leased
by the Company.
While the clause is sufficiently broad to cover the assignment of the
preprint work we cannot say that its intent is so clear as to warrant
us assigning the work to the paperhandlers.
LOUISVILLE MAILERS UNION NO. 99, ETC. 727
There is no evidence in the record of any area or industry practice
with respect to the work in dispute. There is evidence that paper-
handlers on the Courier-Journal payroll but performing some of the
Employer's work have handled surplus amounts of paper on hand
at the end of a run. The paperhandlers rewind the paper, then
put heads on the roll and send it back to the supplier. It is also
shown that paperhandlers have bundled shipments of rolls of pre-
print out of the Courier-Journal plant which were being forwarded
to a customer. However, we cannot say on the evidence before us
that either the factor of contract coverage or the factor of area
practice favors either party.
4. Efficiency of operation
The Employer has declared a definite preference for the assign-
ment of the disputed work to the Paper Handlers and desires that
the work be handled by the Paper Handlers based upon efficiency of
operation of the Employer's business. The record shows that the
mailers' work is performed on the third floor and not in the press-
room area where the preprint press and equipment is located, where-
as the pressroom area is the regular work area of the paperhandlers.
Because of the weight of the equipment it is physically impossible
to perform this operation on the third floor. Thus, the record shows
that if the work were assigned to the Mailers, it would necessitate
bringing them down to the pressroom level and providing additional
supervision for them, since there is none at present on the pressroom
floor. Furthermore, although it would take no more time to train
a mailer than a paperhandler, mailers hired to handle the preprint
work under Mailers' contract terms have to be paid for 71/2 hours'
work notwithstanding the fact that the preprint work now avail-
able does not called for 71/2 hours work on any one day and, indeed,
averages no more than a total of 3 days per month. On the other
hand, the record shows that there are no such restrictions in the
Paper Handler's contract and men working in the pressroom area
in pursuit of their customary duties can be freely : assigned to pre-
print handling as required. We find therefore that efficiency of
operation clearly favors the Paper Handlers.
Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute
Although it may be said that, as a matter of general practice, paper-
handlers are to bring paper to the presses and mailers take printed
material from the presses,' it does not necessarily follow that such
5 Detro2t Gravure Corporation 146 NLRB 226
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practice must be considered as determinative of all jurisdictional
disputes between the labor organization involved herein.,,
Here, unlike the situation in Detroit Gravure, mailers do not.work
in,the area of the presses whereas paperhandlers do. This circum-
stance, as well as the efficiency and economy effected by the existing
assignment of the disputed work to the paperhandlers and the Em-
ployer's'preference for the paperhandlers,_outweigh the claims of the
mailers to the disputed work. Accordingly, we find that paper-
handlers, represented by General Drivers, Warehousemen and Help-
ers, Local Union- No. 89, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are
entitled to the disputed work of wrapping, labeling, packaging, and
handling preprint material, and shall determine the dispute in their
favor. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed
work to employees represented by the Paper Handlers, but not the
Paper Handlers or its members. Our present determination is limited
to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Uppn the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this case,
the Board makes the following determination of dispute, pursuant
to Section 10(k) of the Act.
1. Employees classified as' paperhandlers, currently represented
by, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No.
89, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are entitled to the
work of wrapping, labeling, packaging, and handling "preprint"
material shipped by Standard Gravure Corporation at Louisville,
-Kentucky.
2. Louisville Mailers Union No. 99,, affiliated with International
Mailers Union, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)
(4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the, Employer to assign the
above work to mailers who are represented by Mailers Union No.
99, affiliated with International Mailers Union.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion above, Mailers Union No. 99, International Mailers Union,
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, whether
it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work
in dispute to mailers rather than paperhandlers.
6 Nor do we find in the circumstances of this dispute any evidence that work customarily
performed by mailers will be diminished by a failure to assign the disputed work to mailers.