Albany Printing Pressmen, Loc. 23

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 693 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

ALBANY PRINTING PRESSMEN, LOC. 23 693
Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No.
23, AFL-CIO and Williams Press, Inc. Case
3-CD-176
June 30, 1967
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE '
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Williams Press, Inc., herein
called Williams or the Company, alleging a violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by Albany Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Pressmen. Pursuant
to notice, a hearing was held on December 13 and
14, 1966, and January 3, 4, and 5 and February 14
and 15, 1967, before Hearing Officer Nelson G.
Ross. The Company, the Pressmen, Albany Typo-
graphical Union No 4, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Typographers, the International Typographical
Union, and Albany, Troy and Vicinity Stereo-
typers' and Electrotypers' Union Local No. 28,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Stereotypers, ap-
peared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. I The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs
which have been duly considered by the National
Labor Relations Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three-member panel.
Upon 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 Com-
pany, a New York corporation with its principal of-
fice and business establishment located in Albany,
New York, is engaged in the business of commer-
cial and periodical printing, including the printing of
magazines, directories, and periodicals, all for other
firms. During the past 12 months, the Company
received a gross revenue from the sale of products
valued in excess of $12 million. In the same
period, the Company has purchased materials, sup-
plies, and/or merchandise valued in excess of
$2,550,000, which were shipped directly to the
Company from outside the State of New York, and
has sold goods and/or merchandise valued in excess
of $8 million, which were shipped to points outside
the State of New York.
Consistent with a prior finding of the Board,2
the parties further stipulated, and we find, that
Williams Press, Inc., and Capital Electrotype Com-
pany, Inc., herein called Capital or the Company,
constitute a single employer for the purposes of the
hearing in this case.
We find that the Company is engaged in com-
merce 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 herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Pressmen, the Typographers, and the Stereotypers
are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background
Prior to 1963, the Company operated exclusively
as a conventional letterpress printing house. Em-
ployees represented by the Typographers per-
formed the traditional composing room work, end-
ing with the production of chases containing locked-
up type. Employees represented by the Stereo-
typers prepared these chases for the making of elec-
trotype plates, made the plates, and then turned
them over to members of the Respondent Press-
men, who put the plates on the presses prior to
operating them.
In the latter part of 1963, the Company
purchased a press from the Meahley, Goss, and
Decker Company. At the same time, the Company
began producing dycril plates on a limited basis for
use on the Meahley press. Members of the Typog-
raphers and the Stereotypers worked on the manu-
facture of the dycril plates.3 Sometime during 1965,
the Company abandoned the dycril platemaking
process and converted the Meahley press from a
letterset to an offset press. The press became opera-
tive as an offset press in January 1966. Members of
the Typographers performed the preparatory work
prior to the making of the offset plates, which work
was substantially the same as that performed by
I The Typographers and the Stereotypers are parties to the dispute The
International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO , herein called ITU, inter-
vened on the basis of its local's being a party to the dispute and par-
ticipated jointly with the local.
L Local 28, International Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers ' Union of
North America , AFL-CIO (Capital Electrotype Company, Inc.), 137
NLRB 1467
166 NLRB No. 71
3 The Company asserts that this work was undertaken on an experi-
mental basis, but concedes that in the 2-year period it used this process,
which it calls "letterset ," some of the plates were used in the production
and printing of magazines for its customers
308-926 0-70-45
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them in connection with the manufacture of the
dycril plates. However, as the Company lacked the
facilities to make the offset plates and perform the
work incidental thereto, this work was contracted
out to another firm. Approximately 50 percent of
the plates produced by this operation were used in
publications.
By the summer of 1966, however, the Company
had decided to replace the Meahley press with new
offset presses and to create a separate offset
preparatory section containing approximately 26
c mployees. This new section, which will also make
the offset plates, will supplement and not replace
the older letterpress operation.
During this period, the Company also reviewed
its work assignments to determine which of its em-
ployees would be transferred to the new section. It
is the work of this section which is here in dispute.
Following conferences between the Company
and the several unions lasting through the summer
of 1966, the Company, on September 7, 1966,
awarded substantially all of the work in dispute,
hereinafter described, to members of Respondent
Pressmen. Thereafter, the Typographers requested
that the Company arbitrate its failure to assign the
disputed work to them. The Company agreed to ar-
bitrate. The Respondent Pressmen informed the
Company that if it proceeded to arbitration with the
Typographers the Pressmen would call a strike. On
the following day, the Company filed a charge in
this case against the Pressmen alleging violations of
Section 8(b)(4)(D).
The Company and the Typographers did ar-
bitrate the grievance and an award was made on
March 23, 1967, declaring that the assignment by
the Company of a substantial amount of the work in
dispute was in violation of the Company's contract
with the Typographers.' Although the other unions
here involved received notice of the arbitration
proceeding, only the Typographers and the Com-
pany were parties to that proceedings
B. The Work in Dispute
The dispute which gives rise to this proceeding
concerns certain of the work involved in converting
hot type to a film negative, the positioning,
stripping , and opaquing of these negatives onto
completed flats, as well as the tasks involved in
transferring the images contained on the completed
flats to aluminum plates used on the offset presses.
i On March 24, 1967, the Typographers moved to reopen the instant
record to receive into evidence the arbitrator 's award Copies of said mo-
tion were duly served on all of the parties herein, but no opposition to such
motion has been filed Accordingly , the aforesaid documents are hereby'
received into evidence and made a part of the record herein.
Because neither the Stereotypers nor the Pressmen consented to or
participated in the arbitration proceeding, the award cannot bind them
We have considered the arbitration award only for the limited purpose of
The Company assigned to its employees
represented by the Typographers all the work
which is performed in advance of the camera, in-
cluding the operation of the chronopress. The
operation of this machine results in a film negative.
Under the Company's assignment, these employees
are also assigned the operation of the scotch-print-
proof press, up to and including the removal of the
print sheet from the press. All other offset prepara-
tory work, including platemaking, was assigned by
the Company to its employees represented by the
Pressmen. The Typographers, however, claim all
camera and darkroom work and the Stereotypers
claim the platemaking.6
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Company contends that its contract with the
Pressmen compels the assignment of the work here
in dispute to the employees represented by that
Union. In support of this contention, the Company
relies on the Condon case in which identical con-
tract language was interpreted by the Board.7 It also
contends that its work assignment is supported by
custom and practice in the area. It contends further
that greater efficiency in its operation will result if
both platemaking and printing are performed by a
single unit of employees. Referring to its original as-
signment of certain offset preparatory work to em-
ployees represented by the Typographers, the
Company claims that such work was performed on
an experimental basis and that the arrangement did
not prove satisfactory.
The Pressmen contends that its contract with the
Company contains express language covering the
assignment of the disputed work; that employees
whom it represents have the necessary skills to
satisfy the Company's requirements, and that the
Company's assignment reflects Board policy in
grouping the employees who perform offset
preparatory work and who operate the offset
presses into a single bargaining unit.
The Typographers also relies on its contract in
support of its claim to the disputed work. It con-
tends, moreover, that the Company's original as-
signment of the disputed work reflects the correct
interpretation of its contract. The Typographers
also claims that industrial practice supports assign-
ment of the disputed work to the employees whom
it represents.
The Stereotypers maintains that platemaking
traditionally belongs to the Stereotypers and,
interpreting the Typographers ' contract with the Company .nternational
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America (J R Con-
don & Sons, Inc), 148 NLRB 356
n At the hearing , the Stereotypers apparently claimed the operation of
the camera and the work following However, in its brief to the Board, it
has restricted the scope of its claim to platemaking.
7 J. R. Condon & Sons, Inc., 148 NLRB 356.
ALBANY PRINTING PRESSMEN, LOC. 23 695
further, that the similarity between the work in-
volved in the preparation of offset plates and dycril
plates, which work was previously done by its
members, compels the assignment of offset
platemaking to the employees it represents. The
Union also relies on its contract in support of its ju-
risdictional claim.
IV. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
The charge, which was duly investigated by the
Regional Director, alleges a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The Regional Director was
satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that
there was reasonable cause to believe that a viola-
tion had been committed and therefore directed that
a hearing be held in accordance with Section I0(k)
of the Act. On the basis of the entire record. includ-
ing the Pressmen's threat to strike over any applica-
tion of the arbitration provisions of the contract
between the Company and the Typographers, we
find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of the Act has occurred and that the
dispute is properly before the board for determina-
tion.
V. THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
Section I0(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of disputed work, after
giving due consideration to various relevant fac-
tors.' 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.9 In this case , we consider
" N L R B v Radio and Television Broadcasting Engineers Union,
Local 1212 , IBEW ( Columbia Broadcasting System ), 364 US 573
9 international Association of Machinists , Lodge No 1743 (J A Jones
Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402
Q J. R Condon & Sons, Inc, 148 NLRB 356
1 The Typographers ' contract provides in relevant part
Jurisdiction of the , Union and the appropriate unit for collective
bargaining is defined as including all composing room work and in-
cludes operators of all photo -typesetting machines . employees
engaged in processing the product (either paper or film ) of photo-
typesetting machines including development, proofing, correcting,
waxing, and makeup , and employees engaged in paste-makeup with
reproduction proofs and/or the product of photo -typesetting
machines Paste-makeup is the assembly and makeup of the
completed copy jot the camera used in the plate-making process,
including waxing or pasting into position on flats of all type , reproduc-
tion proofs , art work , photostats , product of photo-typesetting
machines , photographs . illustrations , and hand- lettered illustrative
border and decorative material , pen-ruling, photoproofing, cor-
rection , alteration and imposition of the completed copy for said
camera . The aforementioned photostats . [sic] photographs will he
used in paste-makeup when they can he so used without sacrifice of
quality or duplication of effort- Paste-makeup copy must he complete
and ready for the camera used in the platemaking process before
being sent to any other department
the following factors to be determinative of the is-
sues here involved:
A. Provisions of the Collective- Bargaining
Agreement
As we have said in the Condon case , 10 it is clear
that the Pressmen ' s contract with the Company is
intended to cover offset preparatory work. This
contract provides that:
It is understood that the jurisdiction of this
contract extends over all printing presses in-
cluding offset and letterpress printing presses
and associated devices, all work in connection
with offset platemaking, including camera
operation, all darkroom work, opaquing and
platemaking . [Emphasis supplied.]
This contract , effective October 1, 1965, and con-
tinuing to the present time, constitutes a specific as-
signment of the disputed work to the Pressmen
prior to the occasion of the dispute herein . Again,
for the reasons stated in the Condon case (supra),
we find no merit in the contention of the Typog-
raphers that its contract , which is identical to the
one previously considered , entitles that Union to
the work which it claims. i t Although the Stereo-
typers' contract differs from the one considered in
Condon, it contains no language which can be con-
strued as specifically assigning offset platemaking
to the Stereotypers . l' It is noteworthy , in this
respect, that the Stereotypers has on occasion
specifically included offset platemaking in the ju-
risdictional provisions of contracts negotiated with
other firms.
No employer shall, make any other contract covering any of the
above work , especially no contract using the word "strapping" to
cover any of the work above-mentioned [ Emphasis supplied ]
z The aforementioned contract provides in material part
The jurisdiction of this Union shall include all branches of
Stereotyping Electrotyping and all methods of printing plate making
and processing ( including , but not limited to, rubber and plastic), also
all duplication and reproduction processes requiring the use of
synthetic and photosensitive materials and their related machinery,
regardless of the location of such platemaking equipment in the Wil-
liams Press building.
All work that is required for any photosensitive process for the
manufacture of relief printing plates for printing presses, viz Dycnl,
Photopolymar , Nylon, Magnesium , Fairchild , Aluminum, etc .
and the manning of all machines required to produce all photosensi-
tive and relief printing plates shall be the work of the members of this
Union The [Company) shall not execute a contract at any time grant-
ing jurisdiction of the aforementioned work and processes to any
other group or Labor Union
[A] II work in the handling and conditioning of photosensitive
materials in the Dycnl platemaking process or similar processes, ex-
posing such materials to any type of light , the etching of such exposed
materials, and curing, all related operations pertaining to platemaking
shall be done by Electrotype molders. . [ Emphasis supplied ]
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
B. Other Con sides atroi ti
Other factors usually considered by the Board in
jurisdictional dispute cases provide little assistance
in determining the instant dispute None of the
unions involved in this case has been certitied. While
the parties concede a similarity between the
disputed work and the work previously done by the
Typographers and the Stereotypers it appears that
the original assignment did not prove satisfactory to
the Company The record is inconclusive with
respect to area practice. industrial practice. and the
degree of competence and skill held by the compet-
ing groups of employees.
In view of the foregoing. paiticularly the
evidence pertaining to the provision of the contract
between the Company and the Pressmen which ex-
plicitly grants jurisdiction over the disputed work to
employees represented by that Union and the fact
that the Company bases its assignment on what it
believes to be a more desirable assignment of work
and desires no change , we find that the employees
represented by the Pressmen are entitled to the
disputed work and we shall determine the dispute
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in their favor In making this determination, we are
assigning the disputed work to employees who are
represented by the Pressmen and not to the Press-
men or its members. Our present determination is
limited to the particular dispute which gave rise to
this proceeding.
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
hereby makes the following Determination of
Dispute:
Employees employed by the Company who are
represented by Albany Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union No. 23, AFL CIO. are entitled
to perform the offset preparatory work of camera
operation, darkroom work, stripping, opaquing, and
platemaking which is performed in connection with
the Company's operation at its plant in Albany.
New York.