Buffalo Printing Pressman Local 27

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 29, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 1537 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

BUFFALO PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 27
Buffalo Printing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset
Workers, Local Union No. 27 and Arcata Graphics,
Buffalo Division and Graphic Arts International
Union, Local 17-B. Case 3-CD-516
February 29, 1980
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENEI.LO, AND
TRUESDALE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
a charge filed by Arcata Graphics, Buffalo Division
herein called the Employer or Charging Party, alleg-
ing that Buffalo Printing Pressmen, Assistants an(
Offset Workers, Local Union No. 27, herein called the
Respondent or Pressmen, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscrib-
ed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the
Employer to maintain the assignment of certain work
to its members rather than to employees represented
by Graphic Arts International Union, Local 17-B,
herein called the Intervenor or Bookbinders.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Margaret J. Quinn on August 29 and
30, 1979. All parties appeared and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-exam-
ine 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 Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, including
the briefs filed by Charging Party and Intervenor, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer, a New York corporation with its principal
place of business in Depew, New York, is engaged in
the business of printing books and magazines. During
the past year, the Employer purchased goods and
materials from outside the State of New York having a
value in excess of $50,000, and shipped goods and
materials from its Depew, New York, plant valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points outside New York.
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 jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Pressmen
and Bookbinders are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
As noted above, the Charging Party is engaged in
the printing of books and magazines. In about August
1978, the Charging Party entered into a contract with
the National Enquirer newspaper to print, pack, and
distribute the Enquirer. To facilitate production of the
Enquirer, the Charging Party made modifications and
:.Iditions to its existing buildings to accommodate
presses which were purchased from the National
Enquirer. The National Enquirer operation is a
continuous conveyor belt system which runs through
two rooms, a press area and a delivery area, which are
separated by a fire wall. Two conveyors which, in
turn, subdivide into two further lines, pass through
two openings in the fire wall from the press area to the
delivery area. Of the four ultimate conveyor lines, two
can produce bulk or newsstand newspapers and the
others produce subscription newspapers. After the
printing is completed and the products are passed into
the delivery area, equipment such as an Avery labeler,
a counter stacker, a plastic tier, a plastic shrink wrap,
a shrink wrap tunnel, and a second plastic tier may be
used depending on whether bulk or subscription
papers are being produced. The newspapers then move
along further in the delivery room to four other
conveyor lines which go outside the building and into
trailers.
The Charging Party, which has collective-bargain-
ing agreements with both Pressmen and Bookbinders
(both running from March 1, 1979, to February 28,
1981), assigned the delivery room work, i.e., operating
the above-described wrappers, tiers, labelers, etc., in
the production of the National Enquirer to the junior
helper classification of Pressmen.
In the fall of 1978, prior to the assignment of the
work, the Bookbinders president asked the Charging
Party's industrial relations manager if members of
Bookbinders were going to be assigned the delivery
room portion of the production of the National
Enquirer. The Charging Party replied that the work
would not be so assigned and, in early 1979 during
collective-bargaining negotiations, Bookbinders pro-
247 NLRB No. 194
1537
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posed inclusion of signode plastic tiers and automatic
counter stackers within the work jurisdiction clause of
the collective-bargaining agreement. The aforemen-
tioned language was ultimately included in the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, after the Charging Party at
first objected because it might be confused with the
National Enquirer equipment, with the understanding
that Bookbinders had the right to grieve if equipment
were installed in other areas of the plant which fell
under its jurisdiction. On May 22, 1979, the Bookbin-
ders president requested information about the new
National Enquirer equipment and the classifications
assigned to it, and the following day the Charging
Party responded and reconfirmed that members of
Pressmen would run the equipment.
Thereafter, on June 11, 1979, the Bookbinders
president demanded that the work be assigned to
member of Bookbinders. The Charging Party refused
the demand and, after another request by Bookbinders
and a refusal by the Charging Party, Bookbinders
requested arbitration of its grievance over the issue.
Pressmen, however, would not submit to arbitration of
the issue and, on July 6, 1979, threatened a work
stoppage if the work were assigned to Bookbinders.
The instant charge against Pressmen was then filed by
the Charging Party on July 13, 1979.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute, as described above, involves
the operation of the aforementioned delivery room
equipment in the production of the National Enquirer
newspaper.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Charging Party contends that the work was
properly assigned since it is accepted industry practice
that Pressmen has jurisdiction over a press line from
the beginning of the presswork until the finished
product comes off the production line and that the
operation herein is one continuous operation involving
the press and delivery room. The Charging Party
notes in this regard that there are controls in both the
press and delivery areas which can stop the entire
press line. The Charging Party also contends that the
assignment is more economical and efficient since
Pressmen junior helpers can perform work on the
delivery room machinery and, when necessary, assist
the pressroom personnel, which bookbinders would be
unable to do. In addition, Pressmen junior helpers
perform other work, unrelated to the National Enquir-
er which, in part, is similar to the disputed work
' N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineen r Union, Local 1212.
International Brotherhood of lectrical Workers. AFL-CIO [Columbia Bnrod-
casting Sysee,n. 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
herein (the tie system used on several other presses).
Finally, the Charging Party also relies on its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Pressmen.
Bookbinders contends that the relevant factors
favor an award of the work to employees represented
by it. In support, it relies inter alia on: (1) its
collective-bargaining agreement; (2) its contention
that the disputed work is not a part of one continuous
operation; and (3) its argument that its members have
performed work involving the same type of machinery
on other publications of the Charging Party.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed 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 and
that the parties have not agreed upon a method for the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute. It is not disputed
that the Charging Party assigned the work in dispute
to employees represented by Pressmen and that
Pressmen later threatened to strike if the work were
reassigned to members of Bookbinders. Based on the
foregoing, and the record as a whole, we find that an
object of the threat to strike by Pressmen was to force
or require the Charging Party not to reassign the
disputed work to employees represented by Bookbin-
ders.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that at the time
of the instant dispute there did not exist any agreed-
upon or approved method for the voluntary adjust-
ment of the dispute to which all parties to the dispute
were bound. On the 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
there exists no agreed-upon method for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of
Section 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that
this dispute is properly before the Board for determi-
nation.
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.' The Board has held
that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an
act of judgment based on commonsense and experi-
ence reached by balacing those factors involved in a
particular case.'
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
International Association of Machinists. Lodge No. 1743. AFL-CIO (J.A.
Jones Construction Company). 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
1538
BUFFAL() PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 27
I. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
There are no outstanding Board certifications cover-
ing the work in dispute.
The Charging Party presently has contracts with
both Pressmen and Bookbinders. In the contract with
Pressmen, the following jurisdictional language ap-
pears:
It is understood that this agreement applies to
the Union pressroom operated by the Company
and that the jurisdiction of this agreement ex-
tends over all printing presses employed in said
pressrooms including, but not limited to gravure,
offset and letterpress printing presses and associ-
ated devices, all work in connection with offset or
Rotogravure camera operations. all darkroom
work, stripping, layout, opaquing, color correct-
ing, dot etching on film, proofing, offset, plate-
making, duplicate assembly and multi-color proof
press. It is understood that nothing in this
paragraph is to apply to: (1) existing operations
which are manned under agreement with any
other union so long as such other agreement or
renewal thereof continues in effect; (2) such work
now performed by any other department of the
Company; or (3) such material as is furnished to
the Company from outside sources.
Based on this contract language, the Charging Party
contends that the disputed work is clearly within the
jurisdiction of Pressmen. The Charging Party notes
that the disputed work is an integral part of the
operation of the National Enquirer rotogravure
presses and that it can be performed only when the
presses are running. Further, the press can only
operate when the disputed work is being performed.
This, the Charging Party maintains, reinforces the
conclusion that the work is within the jurisdictional
language of the Pressmen contract.
The Bookbinders contract with the Charging Party
contains the following jurisdictional language:
The Agreement shall cover employees in the
Bindery Department working on binding pro-
cesses and operations, including preparation,
movement, and storage of in-process materials for
bindery processes and operations, and including
jurisdiction over all machines that wrap, package,
wire tie, string tie, insert, affix address labels,
electronically stencil, mailing and imprinting
machines, signode plastic tyers [sic], automatic
counter stackers and automatic carton formers,
all work connected to mailing and imprinting
whether it be hand or machine operated, packing
book odds, Forward Movement Room, banding,
wrapping, sorting, labeling and all Calendar
operations.
The Charging Party contends that the various opera-
tions listed in the Bookbinders contract fall within the
Bookbinders jurisdiction only when it is work per-
formed "in the Bindery Department." The Charging
Party further contends that it is "indisputably" clear
from the bargaining history of the 1979-81 Bookbin-
ders collective-bargaining agreement that Bookbinders
was not to have jurisdiction of any portion of the
National Enquirer operation. It notes in this regard
that its predecessor contract with Bookbinders did not
contain jurisdictional language specifically identifying
signode plastic tiers or automatic counter stackers.
However, in negotiations for the new contract which
began in January 1979, Bookbinders requested inclu-
sion of this language. After bargaining about this
matter, the Charging Party agreed to jurisdictional
language detailing the aforementioned machinery with
the understanding that inclusion of the language
would not prejudice either party's position respecting
the National Enquirer operation. The Charging Party
also notes that the negotiations for the Bookbinders
contract were completed in March 1979, after the
assignment of the disputed work had already been
made to Preesmen.
Bookbinders maintains that the clear language of its
collective-bargaining agreement with the Charging
Party requires an award of the disputed work to it. It
notes further that, while it did agree that the contract
would not prejudice rights regarding the National
Enquirer operation, it never agreed that the work to be
performed under the aforementioned contract lan-
guage would not include the National Enquirer
operation.
After full consideration of the language of the
collective-bargaining agreements herein and the testi-
mony explaining the application of the Bookbinders
contract and its bargaining history, as well as the
record as a whole, we conclude that the respective
contracts do not favor an award to employees repre-
sented by either Union.
2. Industry practice
The Charging Party maintains that its assignment
accords with industry practice of assigning all work
along a press line to pressmen from the time the paper
is sent into the press to the time it is taken off the line.
It notes that, on other presses in its plant, pressmen
operate all equipment along the press, including
automatic tiers and counters similar to those in the
National Enquirer delivery area.
We note that while the Charging Party has present-
ed evidence of industry practice it is limited in nature
1539
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and does not provide sufficient basis for determining
industry practice respecting the jurisdiction of the
work in dispute. Further, the National Enquirer
operation is unique to the industry. Consequently, we
do not rely on this factor in making an award in this
proceeding.
3. Employer's assignment and preference
The Charging Party has awarded the disputed work
to employees who are represented by Pressmen and
favors maintaining that assignment. These factors
favor an award to employees represented by Pressmen.
4. Efficiency and economy of operations
As indicated above, the Charging Party has award-
ed the work in dispute to junior helpers who are
members of Pressmen. During bulk runs, two junior
helpers work along each delivery line. The first places
a smudge sheet on the bundles that are formed by the
counter stacker. The second monitors the conveyor
belt. When the Charging Party is producing subscrip-
tion runs, three junior helpers work on the production
lines. One monitors the Avery labeler and flips over
the last piece to signal the end of each zip code group,
the second group, the zip code bundles, and the third
acts as a general relief man.
In addition to performing the above-described tasks
in the delivery area, the junior helpers, since they are
members of Pressmen, also go into the press area to
assist the operator and assistants to make the press
ready for new jobs. The make-ready work is per-
formed once a week and takes approximately 2 to 2-
1/2 hours. The junior helpers assist with the cleanup
work during the make-ready operation. Further, the
junior helpers go into the press area to help reweb the
press, much like an assistant operator for whom
rewebbing constitutes a major portion of overall
responsibility. Further, the junior helpers perform
cleanup work whenever there is a web break.
The junior helpers also work in the press area, when
vacancies occur on the press equipment, at which time
they may be assigned to the press area and, in which
case, they are up-graded to assistant operator posi-
tions. Finally, the testimony disclosed that production
of the National Enquirer is further integrated by the
presence of controls on each side of the fire wall
separating the press and delivery area which can shut
down or slow down the entire operation.
Bookbinders responds to the Charging Party's
position with respect to efficiency and economy by
noting that the junior helpers had received no training
as to preparing the press and that there are so few
junior helpers that it would be uneconomical for the
Charging Party to use those junior helpers in prepar-
ing the press.
A full consideration of the testimony regarding
efficiency and economy supports the Charging Party's
contention. Therefore, we find that the factor of
efficiency and economy of operation favors an award
of the disputed work to employees represented by
Pressmen.
5. Skills and safety
With respect to the factor of skills and safety, the
Charging Party notes that the skills involved in the
disputed work herein can be learned in a matter of 2
weeks. Therefore, the Charging Party predominantly
relies on the fact that the junior helpers become skilled
in helping out in the press area, as more fully
discussed above, and can maintain a safe operation by
helping to clean up in the press room.
Bookbinders contends that, with regard to skill, its
members would need no further training on the
machinery except for perhaps a very brief orientation
session.
We note that the reliance by the Charging Party on
the ability of the junior helpers to assist in the press
area is a factor more appropriately considered as part
of efficiency and economy of operations, above. The
Charging Party's contention has in fact been so
considered. We note further that the factor of skills
and safety does not favor an award to either Union.
Consequently, we find that this factor is not material
to a resolution of the dispute herein.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full consider-
ation of all relevant factors involved, we conclude that
employees who are represented by Pressmen are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying on the Charging Party's assignment
and preference and the efficiency and economy of
operation that will result. In making this determina-
tion, we are awarding the work in question to
employees who are represented by Pressmen, but not
to that Union or its members. The present determina-
tion 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:
1540
BUFFALO PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 27
Employees of Arcata Graphics, Buffalo Division,
who are represented by Buffalo Printing Pressmen,
Assistants and Offset Workers, Local Union No. 27,
are entitled to perform the delivery room production
work in the production of the National Enquirer at the
Charging Party's facility in Depew, New York.
1541