Norway Pressmen Local 663

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 438 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Norway Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union,
Local 663, International Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, AFL-CIO and Norway
Gravure and Tri-Cities Local 382, Graphic Arts
International Union, AFL-CIO
Norway Gravure and Tri-Cities Local 382, Graphic
Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases 30-CD-92 and 30-UC-170
September 30, 1981
DECISION, DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE, AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Norway Gravure, herein
called the Employer, alleging that Norway Print-
ing Pressmen and Assistants Union, Local 663, In-
ternational Printing and Graphic Communications
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 663, had
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, by engaging
in certain proscribed activity with an object of
forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain
work to employees represented by it rather than to
employees represented by Tri-Cities Local 382,
Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called Local 382.'
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Paul Bosanac on January 23 and
February 3 and 4, 1981. All parties appeared and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing on the issues. 2 Thereafter, the
Employer, Local 382, and Local 663 filed briefs.
The 10(k) proceeding was consolidated for hearing with the petition
for unit clarification filed by Local 382. Local 382 contends that the pres-
ent dispute concerns to which bargaining unit certain operations belong.
The petition here seeks, in effect, to have certain work on particular
equipment assigned to employees represented by Local 382. Such an at-
tempt is not an appropriate subject for a petition for clarification. It is not
the Board's responsibility in representation proceedings to decide wheth-
er employees in the bargaining unit are entitled to do any particular
work. See Local No. 289, Graphic Arts International Union. AFL-CIO
(The Detroit News), 246 NLRB 981 (1979); Pacific Telephone and Tele-
graph Company, 237 NLRB 1470 (1978); The Gas Service Company. 140
NLRB 445, 447 (1963). We shall dismiss the petition.
I On April 13, 1981, the General Counsel filed a motion to abate pro-
ceedings, and/or consolidate cases. The General Counsel stated, inter
alia, that complaint had issued alleging that the Employer had made
work assignments for discriminatory reasons in violation of Sec. 8(a)(3)
and (I) of the Act. Thereafter, the Employer and Local 382 filed opposi-
tions to the General Counsel's motion.
On August 24, 1981, the General Counsel filed a request to withdraw
the motion to abate proceedings and/or consolidate cases. The General
Counsel states that the outstanding unfair labor practices have been re-
solved and that the parties have expressly agreed that they desire the
Board to resolve the issues in Cases 30-CD-92 and 30-lJC-170. Accord-
ingly, we grant the General Counsel's request to withdraw the motion to
abate and/or consolidate cases.
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 proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, a Wisconsin corporation with a place of
business in Norway, Michigan, is engaged in the
manufacture and nonretail sales and distribution of
labels. During the past year, the Employer sold
and shipped products, goods, and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 from its Norway, Michigan, fa-
cility directly to points located outside the State.
The parties also stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert ju-
risdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local
663 and Local 382 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Norway Gravure is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and selling labels at its facility in
Norway, Michigan. Until May 1980, the labels
were printed in sheets or rolls on the press ma-
chines, carried to a separate machine where they
were cut into individual labels, and finally put into
a third machine which sealed and wrapped the
labels. Employees represented by Local 663 han-
dled the press machines and employees represented
by Local 382 operated the sealer and wrappers.
The intermediate step, the cutting machine, was
performed by employees represented by each
Local.
In May 1980, the Employer purchased the
"Chambon" in-line cutting machine. The Chambon,
a relatively new technological development, is
powered by the printing press machine and makes
it possible to consolidate the functions of printing
and cutting. To facilitate the in-line process, the
Employer set up the UE-6 sealing and wrapping
machine in the pressroom next to the Chambon.
The Employer assigned all the work on the new
integrated process to employees represented by
Local 663. Subsequently, Local 382 filed griev-
258 NLRB No. 60
438
NORWAY PRESSMAN LOCAL 663
ances, deemed untimely by the Employer, asserting
jurisdiction over the Chambon and related devices.
On or about November 16, 1980, the president of
Local 663 sent a letter to the Employer indicating
that Local 663 had authorized a strike if the Em-
ployer reassigned the work.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the operation of
the Chambon machine and ancillary equipment at
the Employer's facility in Norway, Michigan.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and Local 663 contend that be-
cause of the technological integration of functions
made possible by the Chambon, the complete in-
line process can best be performed by employees
represented by Local 663 who have the ability to
operate each machine. Specifically, the Employer
argues that because the Chambon dramatically in-
creases production potential, a team of employees,
all of whom are experienced on each machine,
must rotate among the different machines in order
to alleviate the fatigue which results from one
worker's sole operation of the press machine.
Local 382 takes the position that the work on the
Chambon and UE-6 machine could be performed
by employees represented by it. It contends that
the UE-6 sealing and wrapping functions were tra-
ditionally performed by such employees.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of this 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 and that the parties have not agreed upon
a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute. It is clear that both Unions are disputing the
assignment of the work on the Chambon and asso-
ciated devices. The president of Local 663 indicat-
ed to the Employer that a strike had been author-
ized if the work was taken away from employees
represented by it. Local 382 filed grievances, alleg-
ing the machines were within its jurisdiction.
On the basis of the entire record, we conclude
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a vio-
lation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. Further,
there is no evidence that the parties have an
agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment
of the dispute. Accordingly, we find that this dis-
pute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion.
E. 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 factors.3 The
Board has held that its determination in a jurisdic-
tional dispute is an act of judgment based on com-
monsense and experience reached by balancing
those factors involved in a particular case. 4
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Employer has collective-bargaining agree-
ments with both Local 663 and Local 382. 5 These
contracts are both in evidence but we find that
they are not useful in making our determination.
Neither contract specifically mentions the Cham-
bon. While Local 382's contract refers to "wrap-
ping machine operators," Local 663's contract in-
cludes printing presses and "associated devices."
Thus, the collective-bargaining agreements favor
neither Local 663 nor Local 382 in this dispute.
2. Company and industry practice
As the Chambon is a technological innovation,
and is not yet widely used, there is little available
evidence concerning an industry practice of allo-
cating work on the in-line process. 6 Gerald Cart-
wright, representative for Local 663's International,
testified that the in-line process for the milk carton
industry is generally handled exclusively by press-
men.
Past company practice had been to generally
assign cutting and finishing work to employees rep-
resented by Local 382. However, this is not deter-
minative because employees represented by Local
663 have also performed some of the postpress ma-
chine work in the past.
3. Relative skills and efficiency of operation
The record indicates that a team of employees is
needed to operate the total in-line process. The in-
line process consists primarily of the operation of
'N. L.R.B. v. Radio d Television Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL-CIO (Columbia
Broadcasting System], 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
' International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743. AFL-CIO (J.
A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
5 For reasons unrelated to the present case, there has been a dispute
between the Employer and Local 382 concerning whether a collective-
bargaining agreement between them currently exists. However, the juris-
diction clause of the old agreement and the disputed agreement are sub-
stantially identical.
Cf. International Union of Operaring Engineers. Local 8 and/or 399.
AFL-CIO (Pabst Brewing Company). 238 NLRB 1302, 1304 (1978) (con-
tractual provision and past practice regarding assignment of tasks in-
volved in old method of water purification irrelevant to assignment of
different tasks required for a new method)
439
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the printing press, the Chambon, and the UE-6.
Employees represented by Local 663 have the req-
uisite skills to handle all the machines; Local 382
members would have to go through a lengthy
training procedure to learn to operate the Cham-
bon and the printing press.
It appears that optimum efficiency results from
the integration of all three functions (printing, cut-
ting, and wrapping). It is necessary for the employ-
ees on the in-line process to be skilled in all the
functions. For example, the Chambon operator
might make adjustments which would affect the
printing of the labels. In addition, each employee
also needs to be skilled on each machine because
efficient operation requires rotation of employees
from position to position. This is necessary because
of the so-called "fatigue factor." The introduction
of the Chambon has increased the Employer's pro-
duction potential; it now appears that if one em-
ployee works only the printing press he will
become fatigued by this dramatically increased pro-
duction. Thus, the employees need to move peri-
odically throughout the shift from one position to
another on the in-line process. It is apparent that
this rotation requires each member of the team to
spend some time on the printing press. Only em-
ployees represented by Local 663 are capable of
operating both the press and the other machines.
4. Employer assignment and practice
Robert Rodemich, vice president and general
manager of Norway Gravure, testified that the
Chambon has been operated approximately seven
times since its purchase. The Employer has utilized
employees represented by Local 663 to handle the
in-line process each time. The Employer is satisfied
with the results of its assignment. Thus, employer
assignment and practice clearly weigh in favor of
awarding the work in dispute to employees repre-
sented by Local 663.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full con-
sideration of all relevant factors involved, we con-
clude that employees who are represented by
Local 663 are entitled to perform the work in dis-
pute. We reach this conclusion relying on employ-
ee skills, economy and efficiency of operation, and
employer assignment and practice. In making this
determination, we are awarding the work in ques-
tion to employees who are represented by Local
663, but not to that Union or its members. The
present determination is limited to the particular
controversy 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
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees of Norway Gravure, who are repre-
sented by Norway Printing Pressmen and Assis-
tants Union, Local 663, International Printing and
Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, are
entitled to operate the Chambon and ancillary
equipment at the Employer's facility in Norway,
Michigan.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition for clarifi-
cation filed in Case 30-UC-170 herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
440