Pressmen, Local No. 1

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 501 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

PRESSMEN , LOCAL NO. 1
Local No. 1, Paper Handlers & Sheet Straighteners
Union, International Printing Pressmen 's & Assist-
ants Union of N.A. ' and American Bank Note
Company and New York Paper Cutters' & Book-
binders ' Union No. 119, International Brotherhood
of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO? Case 2-CD-445
March 20, 1973
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by American Bank Note Company,
hereinafter referred to as the Employer, alleging a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D) by the Paper
Handlers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on
July 27, 31, and August 16, 1972, in New York, New
York, before Hearing Officer Lawrence A. Diner-
stein. The Employer, the Paper Handlers, and the
Paper Cutters, 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that American Bank Note
Company is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business at Garrison Avenue and
Tiffany Street, Bronx, New York, and has plants
located in Massachusetts, Illinois, Canada, and
England, where it is engaged in the printing of
security documents, currencies and travelers checks.
During the past year the Employer received at its
New York place of business in excess of $1,000,000,
of which in excess of $50,000 was received from
customers for goods shipped outside the State of
New York. During the same period the Employer
purchased and had delivered to its New York plant
from suppliers located outside the State of New York
1 Hereinafter referred to as Paper Handlers
2 Hereinafter referred to as Paper Cutters The Board has been
administratively advised that the International Brotherhood of Bookbind-
501
supplies and materials valued in excess of $50,000.
We find, accordingly, that the Employer is engaged
in a business affecting commerce 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
in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Paper
Handlers and the Paper Cutters are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer is engaged in the printing of various
security documents, including stock certificates,
bonds, foreign currencies, government food coupons,
off-track betting tickets, and various other docu-
ments related to the printing of securities. The
printing of such securities is accomplished primarily
through the intaglio printing process. Although the
Employer has plants located in Massachusetts,
Illinois, Canada, and England, only its Bronx, New
York, plant is involved in this proceeding.
In view of the negotiability of the documents which
the Employer prints, some security measures are
required with respect to the work area, the material
printed, and the storage of the printed documents.
The Employer has had collective-bargaining agree-
ments with both the Paper Handlers and the Paper
Cutters for many years. The Employer first signed a
contract with the Paper Handlers in 1941. The
current agreement is effective June 1, 1971, to April
30, 1974. The latest agreement between the Employer
and the Paper Cutters is effective January 1, 1971, to
December 31, 1973. The Paper Handlers represents
those employees in the plant known as paper
handlers, while the Paper Cutters represents the
utility men. In the past, members of the Paper
Handlers have been responsible for the movement of
paper within the Employer's plate printing depart-
ment, while members of the Paper Cutters have been
responsible for the movement of paper within the
finishing department. Prior to the present dispute, all
the paper used in the plant was in sheet form rather
than in rolls, and members of the Paper Handlers
have never been engaged in the movement of sheet
paper within the finishing department or to and from
storage areas.
The Employer's printing process often begins with
the movement of paper to the plate printing
ers, AFL-CIO, and the Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union merged on September 4, 1972, to become the Graphic Arts
International Union
202 NLRB No. 63
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department or the finishing department. If the paper
is destined for the plate printing department, a paper
handler moves it to the press in the plate printing
department. If the paper is to be delivered directly to
the finishing department, a paper handler moves the
paper to a designated drop point within the finishing
department. Any further movement of the paper
within that department is performed by the utility
men represented by the Paper Cutters.
The paper handlers are in charge of the movement
of paper in the plate printing department and the
movement of rolls of waxed paper on which printed
stock is left to dry. After the printed matter is
removed from the rolls, it is usually moved by the
paper handlers to a drop point within the finishing
department. The utility men move the paper through
the various stages within the finishing department.
Whenever more sheet stock is left at the drop point
in the finishing department than can be processed
immediately, it is moved to a storage area within the
finishing department. If the drop point becomes
overcrowded, the utility men move the excess stock
to the storage area. Thereafter, the utility men
remove the stock from the storage area as needed.
In 1969, the Employer developed a new printing
process which provided for the use of rolls of paper
rather than sheet paper. Such change was a result of
the Employer's development of a new press and
finishing machine process called Web Rotary Intaglio
(Printing, hereinafter referred to as WRIP. The
need for printing on roll paper arose as the result of
computer printing units which required that securi-
ties be supplied in a form to be used in computer
printout equipment. The Employer assigned to the
paper handlers the work of moving rolls of paper to
and from the WRIP press in the plate printing
department. The work of moving paper rolls to and
from the WRIP finishing machine in the finishing
department was assigned to the utility men.
The WRIP finishing machine was installed in a
caged area in the finishing department and was put
into operation in February or March 1970. A drop
area was designated next to such machine and within
the caged area. The first major test of the WRIP
machines included a three-part order that required
nearly 8 months to complete. The present dispute did
not arise until more than half of this order was
completed, in October 1970, when a storage area for
rolls of paper was created in the finishing depart-
ment. The necessity for such area arose when the
sales of securities fell off and the Employer was
instructed to slow down its production.
When the WRIP process was first instituted, the
Paper Handlers claimed the work of placing the
shafts through the core of the rolls of paper and
thereafter mounting the rolls on the WRIP finishing
machine. As a result of the Paper Handlers insist-
ence, and to avoid a halt in production, the
Employer made the assignment. The dispute between
the Paper Handlers and another affiliate of the same
International became the subject of an attempted
settlement which failed. Thereafter, the Employer
filed a charge with the Board and the dispute was
settled when the Paper Handlers withdrew its claim
to the shafting work.
The storage area which was created to accomodate
the pileup of work in the finishing department in the
fall of 1970 was a small room located around the
corner from the WRIP finishing line. Thereafter, the
paper handlers were permitted to deliver the rolls
directly to the new storage area because it was only
15 or 20 feet away from the drop area. The Employer
permitted the paper handlers to continue to move the
rolls into the new storage area after it met with the
Paper Handlers representative who insisted that its
jurisdictional demands had to be met. The Employer
thereafter filed a charge with the Board in a dispute
which involved the Paper Handlers and another
affiliate of the same International. However, the
Paper Cutters was not involved. After settlement of
the dispute, the Employer notified the Paper Han-
dlers by letter that any further movement of paper
within the finishing department after the paper
handlers had moved the paper to the drop area
would be performed by the utility men who were
members of the Paper Cutters. The temporary
storage area near the WRIP finishing machine was
discontinued in March 1970. The Employer has
subsequently designated permanent storage areas for
rolls on floors different from that on which the
WRIP finishing machine is located. It has designated
these storage areas as part of the finishing depart-
ment. The utility men represented by the Paper
Cutters have always performed the work of moving
the rolls of paper from the drop point in the finishing
department to the various storage areas and from
those same storage areas back to the drop point. At
hearing time, the Employer had nearly 300 rolls of
paper located in those storage areas designated for
use by the finishing department.
B. The Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the assignment of the
handling of rolls of paper after delivery to the drop
point in the finishing department of the plant in
Bronx , New York, including the movement of rolls
of paper within the finishing department from the
drop point to storage areas and from the storage
areas to the drop point.
PRESSMEN , LOCAL NO. 1
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Paper Handlers contends that the Board
should award the work to its members because they
are perfectly competent to perform the work as they
did for a period of 9 months with no harmful effects
to the Employer; that its contract gives it jurisdiction
over the work; that the Employer seeks to assign the
disputed work to the Paper Cutters because its
members receive lower rates of pay; that, after the
Paper Handlers dispute with another affiliate of the
same International over the right to shaft the roll, a
dispute which was resolved through settlement in the
latter part of 1969, it was the understanding of the
Paper Handlers that, while they had conceded the
shafting work to the affiliate, they would still handle
the paper to and from the presses and any depart-
ments within the plant as in the past; that it had been
within the jurisdiction of Paper Handlers to distrib-
ute paper from department to department and for
the Paper Cutters to move paper solely within its own
finishing department; that because of the introduc-
tion of the new WRIP process, the members of the
Paper Cutters go from floor to floor moving rolls of
paper from so-called storage areas in various parts of
the building; that initially the designated area was
close to the WRIP finishing line and Paper Handlers
was assigned the work of bringing the rolls to that
area; and that after the permanent storage areas were
designated the Paper Handlers was stripped of the
work.
The Employer contends that the language of the
contract favors the assignment of the work to the
Paper Cutters because the Paper Handlers contract
does not mention the finishing department; that
Employer's Bronx plant is unique because the WRIP
process and machines used there were invented by
the Employer; that because of the negotiability of the
certificates, currencies, and travelers checks printed
by the Employer, security is an important element in
the planning of product flow in the plant and,
therefore, rolls of paper within the finishing depart-
ment should be stored by the members of the Paper
Cutters because they will remain in the finishing
department for the rest of their shift; and that the
Paper Cutters members, or utility men, have always
been responsible for the movement of paper within
the finishing department, while the paper handlers
moved paper within the plate punting department,
and therefore the Employer's assignment of the
disputed work is consistent with past practice at its
plant.
The Paper Cutters contends that, with the excep-
tion of a 3-month period in the fall of 1970, the work
503
in dispute has always been done by its members; that
such members have always moved all paper within
the finishing department, both sheet and roll paper;
that most of the paper in the department is sheet
paper and only a small fraction of the paper is in roll
form; that the Employer's assignment of the disputed
work to the Paper Handlers' for the 3-month period
was a variance from normal, a result of the threat by
the Paper Handlers that was involved in another
work dispute with the Employer; and that after such
dispute was settled the Employer reassigned the
disputed work herein to the Paper Cutters.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion 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 at a meeting held on June
19, 1972, and attended by representatives of the
Employer and the Paper Handlers, McConnin, the
Employer's director of labor relations, stated that the
Employer would not change the assignment of the
disputed work, notwithstanding that the Paper
Handlers insisted that it be given jurisdiction of all
movement of the partially printed rolls of paper
within the finishing department up to the point
where the paper emerged, fanfolded, from the WRIP
finishing machine. When the Employer's representa-
tives remained firm in their determination not to
reassign the work, Hunt, the Paper Handlers repre-
sentative, stated that unless the work was reassigned
to the Paper Handlers he would call a work stoppage.
We find that the Paper Handlers, through its
Business Representative Hunt, threatened to cause a
work stoppage with an object of forcing or requiring
the Employer to assign the disputed work to
members of the Paper Handlers rather than to
members of the Paper Cutters. On the basis of the
entire record, we conclude that there is reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
has occurred and that the dispute is properly before
the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of
the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after giving
consideration to various relevant factors. The Board
has held that its determination in a jurisdictional
dispute is an act of judgment based on commonsense
and experience, reached by balancing those factors
involved in a particular case.3
3 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A
Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402.
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
There is no evidence in the record that any of the
unions involved herein, nor any other labor organiza-
tion, has been certified to represent any of the
Employer's employees.
Although both the Paper Handlers and the Paper
Cutters have had contracts with the Employer for
many years, it is clear from the record that, although
these contracts cover workers who move paper, none
of the contracts specifically covers the work in
dispute.
It is clear from the record that the factors of
certification and contract are not relevant herein.
2. Company and industry practices
The record shows that there is no uniform pattern
with respect to the movement of paper in other shops
in which both Unions represent employees. In view
of the facts that the Employer designs many of its
machines, including the WRIP machines, the Em-
ployer's operation is unique and, therefore, industry
practice would not be a relevant factor herein.
As to company practices, the record shows that the
movement of paper within the finishing department
has been performed by the utility men, members of
the Paper Cutters, for more than 12 years. The Paper
Handlers, or its members, has been responsible for
the movement of paper within the plate printing
department. However, the record also shows that for
a period of approximately 3 months, from October
1970 to January 1971, part of the disputed work was
performed by members of the Paper Handlers. There
is testimony in the record that this temporary
variance from the Employer's customary practice
was a result of the Paper Handlers threat to stop
work on the first large order involving the WRIP
process if the Paper Handlers did not handle the rolls
for the WRIP finishing machine. When the Employ-
er filed charges with the Board, the dispute between
the Paper Handlers and another affiliate of the same
International was settled, and the Employer termi-
nated the paper handlers' practice of moving paper
to and from the temporary storage room in the
finishing department. During this period, the tempo-
rary storage area was approximately 20 feet from the
previously established drop area and constituted no
more than an extension of the drop area. Moreover,
there is testimony that none of the security problems
involved in the movement of the paper to the present
storage areas, which are within the finishing depart-
ment though on floors different from the one on
which the WRIP finishing machine is located, existed
during this short period when the members of the
Paper Handlers were handling the rolls.
The record also shows that in August 1970 large
numbers of rolls of paper piled up in the plate
printing department until the general superintendent
of printing returned from Europe. Upon his return to
the plant, he ordered that the rolls be delivered to the
finishing department, and the members of the Paper
Handlers took the rolls directly to the temporary
storage area next to the WRIP finishing machine.
There is further testimony that this action was
necessary because there were too many rolls involved
to allow them to be accumulated in the usual drop
area.
In March 1971, the room adjacent to the WRIP
finishing machine was abandoned as a storage room,
and new storage areas were designated in various
locations in the plant including some that were
located several floors away. Although the Paper
Handlers claim that the Employer's superintendent
sent a letter to the Paper Handlers in which he stated
that there would be work for a paper handler when
the Employer operated three or more finishing lines,
the same superintendent testified at the hearing that,
in his letter, he was referring to the shafting of rolls,
not the disputed work, and that his letter was only a
suggestion of a possible settlement which was
rejected by the Paper Handlers.
Finally, the parties are in agreement that the factor
of area practice is not controlling herein in view of
the uniqueness of the Employer's operation, since it
invented the WRIP finishing machine which is not
used in any other plant.
It would appear that the factor of company
practice favors the assignment of the disputed work
to the Employer's employees who are utility men and
members of the Paper Cutters. Accordingly, we find
that company practice favors the continued assign-
ment of the work to the Employer's employees
represented by the Paper Cutters.
3. Relative skills, economy, and efficiency of
operations
The record reveals that no special skills are
necessary for the performance of the work and that
the employees represented by either labor organiza-
tion are capable of doing the work. Thus, the factor
of relative skills would not appear to be controlling.
As to the economy and efficiency of operations
factors, the record shows that the work shifts in the
plate printing department and the finishing depart-
ment are not the same, since the plate printing
department regularly runs on two 7-hour shifts
scheduled for 5 days per week, while the WRIP
finishing is usually accomplished on a rush basis,
with the WRIP finishing machine running around
the clock on two 12-hour shifts, and through the
PRESSMEN , LOCAL NO 1 505
weekend. Thus, if the paper handlers were assigned
the disputed work they would be required to work
when the plate printing department was closed,
through the night and on weekends. Also, the
assignment of the disputed work to the paper
handlers would result in their performing several
hours' work while moving the rolls of paper and
thereafter remaining idle since they would not be
permitted to perform other work in the finishing
department.
The record also shows that, because of the
negotiability of the certificates, currencies, and
travelers checks printed by the Employer, security is
an important element in the planning of product flow
in the Bronx plant. Many documents are transported
from place to place within the plant in locked boxes.
In the finishing department, both the sheet stock
finishing machines and the WRIP finishing machine
are completely enclosed in cages and protected with
alarms. The Employer has maintained strict account-
ability within the department in order to determine
in which department missing sheets may have been
lost. A system of blind counts, whereby paper leaving
any department is counted and the count is sent to a
central tracing department, has been used by the
Employer to avoid loss of securities. Clearly, the
record shows that the assignment of the disputed
work to the members of the Paper Handlers would
lessen the Employer's departmental control over the
securities, since the paper handlers would have
access to certain areas of the finishing department.
Thus, it would appear that the factor of efficiency
of operation favors the assignment of the disputed
work to the Employer's employees who are utility
men and members of the Paper Cutters.
Conclusions
Having considered all pertinent factors, we con-
clude that the factors, including company practice
and efficiency of operation, favor awarding the work
to the employees of the Employer who are presently
performing the disputed work, and we shall deter-
mine that they are entitled to perform the work in
dispute.
Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, we
shall determine the existing jurisdictional controver-
sy by awarding to the employees represented by the
Paper Cutters, rather than to the employees repre-
sented by the Paper Handlers, the handling of rolls
of paper after delivery to the drop point in the
finishing department of the plant in Bronx, New
York, including the movement within the finishing
department of rolls of paper from the drop point to
the storage areas and from the storage areas to the
drop point. In making this determination, we are
assigning the work to the employees who are
represented by the Paper Cutters and not to that
Union 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 Dis-
pute:
1. Employees of American Bank Note Company,
who are currently represented by New York Paper
Cutters' & Bookbinders' Union No. 119, Graphic
Arts International Union, are entitled to perform the
work of the handling of rolls of paper after delivery
to the drop point in the finishing department of the
plant in Bronx, New York, including the movement
within the finishing department of rolls of paper
from the drop point to the storage areas and from the
storage areas to the drop point.
2. Local No.1, Paper Handlers & Sheet Straight -
eners Union, International Printing Pressmen's &
Assistants Union of N.A., is not entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force
or require American Bank Note Company to assign
the disputed work to its members rather than to
employees represented by the Paper Cutters.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Local No. 1, Paper
Handlers & Sheet Straighteners Union, International
Printing Pressmen's & Assistants Union of N.A.,
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in
writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring American Bank Note Company, by means
proscribed in Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the
disputed work to its members rather than to
employees who are presently working for the
Employer and who are members of the Paper
Cutters.