Printing & Paper Trades Workers, Loc. 520

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 531 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

PRINTING & PAPER TRADES WORKERS, LOC. 250 531
Printing and Paper Trades Auxiliary Workers, Local
No. 520, AFL-CIO' and The Cuneo Eastern
Press, Inc. of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia Mailers
Union , Local No. 14 2 and The Cuneo Eastern
Press, Inc. of Pennsylvania .3 Cases 4-CD-165
and 4-CD-166
November 28, 1967
nually ships manufactured products valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly to persons and firms out-
side the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It was
stipulated, and we find, that The Cuneo Eastern
Press, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act. We further find that it will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceed-
ing.
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTES
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
This is a consolidated proceeding under Section
10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, following the filing of amended charges
by The Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc., of Pennsylvania
(herein called the Employer), alleging that Printing
and Paper Trades Auxiliary Workers, Local No.
520, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 520), and
Philadelphia Mailers Union, Local No. 14 (herein
called Mailers) violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(D) by inducing or encouraging employees to en-
gage in a strike, and threatening, coercing, or
restraining the Employer with an object of forcing
or requiring the Employer to assign certain work to
employees represented by one union , rather than to
employees represented by the other.
A hearing was held on various dates between
February 23 and May 15, 1967, before Hearing Of-
ficer Alfred Vitarelli. All parties appeared and were
aforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
hearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer,
Local 520, Mailers, and the Intervenor have 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
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc. of Pennsylvania
is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the print-
ing of magazines and newspaper supplements and
other types of commercial printing at its Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, plant, which is the only plant in-
volved in the instant proceeding. This plant an-
I This name appears as contained in the charges in Case 4 -CD-I65.
2 This name appears as corrected at the hearing
3 Bookbinders and Bindery Women's Union , Local No. 2, International
168 NLRB No. 75
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Printing and Paper Trades Auxiliary Workers
Local No. 520, AFL-CIO, Philadelphia Mailers
Union Local No. 14, and Bookbinders and Bindery
Women's Union, Local No. 2, International
Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, are labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTES
The notice of hearing defines the disputed work
as "(1) Piling of publications on skids where publi-
cations are not to be immediately mailed; (2)
bagging publications when such are soft wrapped
in the bindery; and (3) hand feeding publications
into a counter-stacker attached to the Heyssen
Wrapping Machine."
A. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
of a 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.
B. The Dispute Over Piling
This dispute arose in October 1966 when the Em-
ployer assigned the work in dispute on "Name
Brands" catalogs to employees represented by the
Mailers. As a result of such assignment, Local 520
protested to the Employer, threatened to call a
strike, and instructed employees represented by it
to strike unless the work in dispute was done by em-
ployees represented by Local 520.
It is not controverted and we conclude, on the
basis of the entire record, that there is reasonable
cause to believe that the conduct of Local 520, as
described above, in connection with the above
dispute violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) and that this
dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion under Section 10(k) of the Act.
C. The Dispute Over Bagging
This dispute arose as the result of the Employer's
assignment on December 6, 1966, of the disputed
Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, ( herein called Intervenor), was
permitted to intervene based on its contract with the Employer and its
claims to certain work
336-845 0 - 70 - 35
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
work in connection with the mailing of a supple-
ment to "Harper's Bazaar," called "One Hundred
Great Beauties of the World," to employees
represented by the Mailers. Local 520 protested to
the Employer and threatened to strike unless the
work of bagging was done by employees
represented by Local 520.
Local 520 moved to quash the notice of hearing
as to this dispute on the basis of a union authoriza-
tion election which it won in 1950 in a unit which in-
cluded the "bagging" classification. We deny this
motion as it affords no bar to our taking jurisdiction
over the dispute. Cf. The Cuneo Eastern Press. 4
We conclude, on the basis of the entire record,
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that
this dispute is also properly before the Board for
determination.
D. The Dispute Over Hand Feeding of the Coun-
terstacker Attached to the Heyssen Wrapping
Machine
This dispute arose in January 1967 when the Em-
ployer, in experimentation, utilized employees
represented by Local 520 to move bound and
trimmed "Family Circle" magazines from trucks on
to a conveyor leading to a counterstacker and check
weigher, also connected by conveyor to a new
wrapping and mailing machine, called the Heyssen
Wrapping Machine. At that time, the Mailers
protested to the Employer and threatened to strike
if the disputed work was not assigned to employees
represented by the Mailers. The record shows that
the Employer planned not to operate the coun-
terstacker until sometime in the future, estimated at
2 months from the date of the hearing, and that at
that time it would be automated with conveyors in
the bindery, obviating the need for handfeed. The
parties concede that there will be no future need to
handfeed the counterstacker. Under the circum-
stances, we shall grant the motions made by Local
520 and the Intervenor to quash the notice of hear-
ing as to the handfeeding of the counterstacker, as
we find that there is no active work dispute and that
the question is therefore moot. International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local 542 (Bell Telephone
Company).5
There remains for disposition the contention ad-
vanced by the Employer that the Board should
determine disputes raised by the parties at the hear-
ing over future work assignments, encompassing
the normal operations of the continuous process
from the gathering machines in the bindery through
the Heyssen Wrapping Machine to the shipping
room and abnormal operations in the event of a
change in the continuous process desired by the
LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
Employer or necessitated by a breakdown of any of
the component machines, because during the
course of the hearing, a representative of the
Mailers threatened a stoppage of work if the opera-
tion of the counterstacker and other work were not
assigned to the Mailers. The three unions oppose
our taking jurisdiction on the ground that there is no
prima facie case of an 8(b)(4)(D) violation as to
any future work assignment. We shall not deter-
mine any such dispute. The Employer has not yet
made any such work assignment. In any event, no
charge has been filed alleging that conduct relating
to any such future work assignment violates Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Disputes
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of disputed work after
giving due consideration to all relevant factors.
1. The dispute over piling
This dispute is confined to work in the mailing
area involving the removal of single machine-
wrapped catalogs from a table adjacent to a mailing
machine and the placing of such catalogs on pallets
or skids for removal to a storage area with the inten-
tion of later affixing individual addresses on the
wrappers for outside mailing.
Basic Facts: For at least a 5-year period prior to
October 1966, members of a mailing crew
represented by Mailers were engaged in work
identical to that now performed by employees
represented by Mailers, which led to this dispute.
This prior work was performed on the "Lafayette
Electronics" catalogs, and is characterized as "job
work."
Contentions of the Parties: The Employer, in the
interest of being neutral, now asserts that its assign-
ment to employees represented by Mailers, while
justified by the prior assignment in the case of the
"Lafayette Electronics" catalogs, involves un-
skilled work, which it would now be willing to have
assigned to either Mailers or Local 520, because
employees represented by Local 520 do most of the
piling in the plant.
Mailers predicates its claim to the work on a
number of factors, including (1) the above past
practice, and (2) section 2 (k) and (1) of its contract
with the Employer which reads:
Work of the Mailers shall consist of the follow-
ing operations in the mailing of magazines and
periodicals.
(k) Job work.
* *
(1) All positions on mailing machines.
Local 520 bases its claim to the disputed work
4 157 NLRB 779, 782.
5 144 NLRB 1351, 1357.
PRINTING & PAPER TRADES WORKERS , LOC. 520
largely on (1) the fact that no further mailing work
was performed on the "Name Brands" catalogs,
and (2) the Local 520 contract with the Employer
refers specifically to piling, whereas the Employer's
contract with the Mailers does not. Local 520 also
relies on testimony to the effect that the tables were
not part of the mailing machine. Local 520 con-
cedes, however, that work on catalogs is "job
work."
Conclusions
We have considered the various factors relied on
by the parties , and find that the determinative fac-
tors are the contract between the Employer and
Mailers which specifically covers the work in
question , i.e., "job work ," and the past practice
under which the Employer assigned the work in
question to employees represented by the Mailers.
We observe that Local 520 's contract with the Em-
ployer explicitly covers piling only in the bindery
and does not explicitly cover piling in the mailing
area. We also observe that the Employer does not
now express a preference as to the assignment of
the work in dispute , and that the work involved
does not require any special skills not possessed by
either group.
Based upon the foregoing , we determine that the
disputed work belongs to employees represented by
the Mailers . Newspaper and Mail Deliverers'
Union of New York City and Vicinity (New York
Times. ) 6 In making this determination , we are, of
course , assigning the disputed work to the em-
ployees represented by the Mailers , and not to that
Union or its members.
2. The dispute over bagging
This dispute is confined to the closing and placing
of mailbags containing hand-wrapped publications
on a conveyor which moves them to the shipping
room, and the affixing of empty mailbags in their
stead on hooks provided therefor on tables in the
bindery.
Basic Facts: For many years prior to 1966, it was
the practice of the Employer to have employees
represented by Local 520 bag hand-wrapped
magazines in the bindery area. With the advent of
new third-class postal regulations in 1966, the Em-
ployer decided to give such work to employees
represented by the Mailers, who also did bundling.
Thus, it directed bindery employees called "girl
mailers," who were represented by the Intervenor,
to make a "single-wrap" on the individual copies,
pass them across the table to employees
represented by the Mailers, who were directed to
segregate and tie the publications in bundles, insert
533
them and a mail tag into and tie each mail sack,
close the sack and place it on a conveyor, and at-
tach a new empty replacement sack.
Contentions of the Parties: The Employer con-
tends that the work in question is new and thus not
embraced by any contract or certification. It desires
that the work be assigned to bundlers represented
by the Mailers in order to have one employee do
bundling and bagging, thus making the operation
more efficient.
Mailers predicates its claim to all the work based
on the Employer's assignment and asserted greater
skills in performing all the operations, while con-
ceding that the dispute is limited to bagging only.
Mailers also relies on section 2(b) of its agreement
with the Employer which encompasses in the work
of the Mailers:
(b) Handling of the mailing machine - feeding
of books, attaching dick strips to machine, sort-
ing and bagging. [Emphasis supplied.]
Local 520 predicates its claim to the work on the
principal ground that the Employer's assignment
was in derogation of its current agreement with the
Employer, which specifically includes in Local
520's unit employees who do bagging for girl
mailers, which is the work in question.
Conclusions
We have considered the various factors relied on
by the parties and find that the determinative factor
is the contract between the Employer and Local
520, which explicitly includes under bindery clas-
sifications "Male Helpers ... bagging for girl
mailers." We also observe that in the 1950 union
authorization election in Case 4-UA-2134, as the
result of which a certification issued to Local 520,
the stipulated unit included the identical job classifi-
cation. Moreover, contrary to the Mailers and the
Employer, the work in question has been performed
in the past by employees under the Local 520 con-
tract, and thus the Employer's assignment is in
derogation of such contract. We observe that the
contract between the Employer and the Mailers ex-
plicitly covers bagging only as a part of the job of
handling a mailing machine; such provision has no
application to the work in question, which was per-
formed in connection with a hand operation, in the
bindery. Finally, there is no showing that it would
be more efficient to award the work to employees
represented by the Mailers and that such employees
alone possess requisite skills. Under these circum-
stances, we do not give the Employer's assignment
to employees represented by the Mailers con-
trolling weight. And, even if it were more efficient
6 142 NLRB 704.
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to use employees represented by the Mailers for the
work, observance of the contractual provisions,
above quoted, must be given paramount considera-
tion.
Based upon the foregoing, we determine that the
disputed work belongs to employees represented by
Local 520. In making this determination, we are, of
course, assigning the disputed work to the em-
ployees represented by Local 520 and not to that
Union or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES
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
hereby makes the following determination of the
disputes.
1. Mailing machine crew members employed by
The Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc. of Pennsylvania,
who are represented by Philadelphia Mailers
Union, Local No. 14, are entitled to perform in the
mailing area the work of piling catalogs from the
mailing machine on to skids, where the Employer
intends to have later mailing functions performed
by the mailing crew.
2. "Mail Helpers" employed by the Cuneo East-
ern Press , Inc. of Pennsylvania , who are
represented by Printing and Paper Trades Auxiliary
Workers, Local No. 520, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
perform in the bindery area the work of "bagging
for girl mailers."
3. Printing and Paper Trades Auxiliary Wor-
kers, Local No. 520 , AFL-CIO, is not entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act,
to force or require the Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc. of
Pennsylvania to assign the above -piling work to em-
ployees represented by it.
4. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Disputes , Printing and Paper
Trades Auxiliary Workers , Local No. 520,
AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 4 , in writing , whether it will or will not
refrain from forcing or requiring the Cuneo Eastern
Press , Inc. of Pennsylvaina , by means proscribed
by Section 8(b)(4)(D ), to assign the piling work in
dispute to employees represented by it rather than
to mailing machine crew members.
The Notice of Hearing herein, insofar as it relates
to "hand feeding publications into a counter -stacker
attached to the Heyssen Wrapping Machine," is
hereby quashed.