Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1504 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 542, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , Independent , is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. All Respondent 's San Diego stamp redemption facility employees , excluding
supervisors as defined by the Act, constitute , and during all times material herein
constituted , a unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Since April 21, 1959, the Union has been the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the above -described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing on June 10, 1959 , and at all times thereafter, to
bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the
appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By polling its employees as to whether they desire to be represented by the
Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO and Central
Typesetting and Electrotyping Company. Case No. 13-CD-76.
June 24, 1960
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10(k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that, "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of
section 8(b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter-
mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen, . .."
On November 5 and December 8, 1959, Central Typesetting and
Electrotyping Company, herein called the Employer, filed with the
Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region a charge and amended
charge alleging, in substance, that Chicago Typographical Union
No. 16, AFL-CIO, herein called the Typographers, had induced and
encouraged its members to refuse to work in the Employer's Brightype
department for the purpose of forcing and requiring the Employer to
assign the camera and film development work in that department,
which had previously been assigned to members of Chicago Photo-
engravers, Union No. 5, herein called the Photoengravers, to members
of the Typographers in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Sections
102.89 and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, the
Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice to all the parties. The hearing
127 NLRB No. 172.
CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16, AFL-CIO 1505
was held before Benjamin K. Blackburn, hearing officer, on January
21 and March 7, 1960. All parties 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. The rulings
of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. All parties filed briefs which have
been duly considered by the Board.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 1 makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Typographers and the Photoengravers are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute :
A. The facts
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of photoengravings,
type composition, and electrotype and stereotype plates. For many
years it has bargained with the Typographers, which represents
composing room employees, and the Photoengravers, which represents
all employees engaged in the process of photoengraving, including
photography, and the handling and processing of all negatives and
positives of photocomposed type film, etc. In the case of the Typog-
raphers, by oral agreement, the Employer follows the Typographer's
contract with the Franklin Association although it is not a member
of that association. With respect to the Photoengravers, the Em-
ployer is a member of a multiemployer association, which has had a,
continuous series of contracts with the Photoengravers, which gives
it jurisdiction, in general terms, over camera work.
In February 1958, the Employer installed a Brightype machine in
the building which it shares with W. F. Hall Printing Co., its parent
corporation, herein called Hall. Brightype is a new process in the
graphic arts industry which involves photography directly from
the face of the type, thus eliminating the need for bronze or acetate
proofs. The process is as follows: A type form is prepared and
locked into a frame or pan and fastened to the bed of the Brightype
machine. The form is then covered with alcohol mixed with lamp-
black until all areas are covered with the dull black substances. An
eraser is then used to polish the raised or printing portion of the type
form so that it will reflect light. The type is then raised to a.
vertical position before a fixed focus camera and a picture is taken
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
560940-81-vo1. 127-86
1506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of it. The film is then developed in the darkroom. If the operator
finds that any areas of the type form have not reproduced satis-
factorily, he lampblacks those areas again, uses his eraser again, and
takes another film. The final product is a transparency, either nega-
tive or positive, similar to an acetate proof and, like an acetate proof,
is used in various processes such as rotogravure for the making of
printing plates.
From February 1958, when the Brightype machine was first in-
stalled, to July 12, 1958, nonunion employees of Hall operated the
Brightype on an experimental basis. In June 1958, the Photo-
engravers indicated to the Employer that it considered the camera
work and the development of negatives and positives as historically
,the work of the photoengravers, and insisted that a photoengraver be
used in the darkroom as soon as the job became a two-man operation.
The Employer agreed to honor this request. In July 1958, when the
Employer began operating the Brightype on an experimental pro-
members of the Typographers performed all operations,Auction basis,
jincluding the operation of the camera and the development of film 2
Early in January 1959, the Photoengravers again called the
Employer's attention to its June request for the assignment of a
-photoengraver to the darkroom, and was assured that a photoengraver
would be assigned in addition to the typographer the next time the
Brightype was operated. On January 13, 1959, the Employer as-
signed a photoengraver to the Brightype machine, but he was unable
,to function because the Typographer's chapel chairman insisted that
pursuant to its June 7, 1958, contract, the entire Brightype process was
under its jurisdiction.' On January 26, 1959, the Employer discussed
the jurisdictional aspects of the dispute with representatives of the
Typographers, indicating that the Photoengravers had claimed the
,camera and film development phases of the Brightype process, and
sought an agreement on a plan whereby members of the Typographers
would perform all the preliminary work, including the composition
and preparation of the Brightype form up to the camera, and a mem-
ber of the Photoengravers would be used for the camera and develop-
ment of the film. When no settlement was reached, the Employer
filed a petition with the Board seeking an election to determine juris-
diction in the Brightype department. This petition was subsequently
,dismissed by the Regional Director because the unit sought was inap-
2 It appears that the Brightype was not operated on a regular basis Between July 12,
-1958 , and January 32, 1959, only 4 separate jobs involving approximately 241 man hours,
or 30 working days, were assigned to the Brightype operation.
3 The June 7, 1,956, to June 6, 1958 , contract between the Typographers and the
.I, ranklin Association assigned jurisdiction over the Brightype process to the Typographers,
-with a parenthetical exception of the camera work in the case of those employers having
contracts with other unions covering camera work. The June 7 , 1958, to June 6, 1960,
,contract eliminates the parenthetical exception and gives the Typographers unqualified
jurisdiction over the Brightype process.
CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16, AFL-CIO 1507
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining and no appeal was
taken from the dismissal. Thereafter, on October 14, 1959, the Em-
ployer advised both Unions, by letter, that pursuant to the decision of
the Board it would thereafter assign all the preliminary work, includ-
ing the composition and preparation of the Brightype to members of
the Typographers, and that it would assign the camera and develop-
ment of Brightype positives to members of the Photoengravers.
On November 2 and 10, 1959, members of the Typographers were
assigned to perform the preparatory work on the Brightype but the
Typographer's chapel chairman 4 refused to permit them to perform
this work because a photoengraver had been assigned to the camera,
and the Typographers claimed jurisdiction over the entire operation.
B. Contentions of the parties
The Employer contends that the Typographer's refusal to permit
its members to work on the Brightype in conjunction with members
,of the Photoengravers was designed to force a change in the assign-
ment of work to which it was not entitled, in violation of Section
.8(b) (4) (D) of the Act.
The Typographers contends that the episodes relied on do not
constitute inducement, that no refusal to work by its members has
occurred, and, further, that its contract with the Franklin Association
gives it jurisdiction over the work in dispute.
The Photoengravers also contends that it has a contractual right
to the work in dispute.
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, and the Re-
gional Director was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that
there was reasonable cause to believe that a violation had been
committed.
In a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, the Board is
required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated before proceeding with a determination
Of the dispute out of which the unfair labor practice has arisen. On
the basis of all the evidence, we find that there is reasonable cause to
believe that the Typographers engaged in and induced and encour-
aged employees of the Employer to refuse to perform the work
assigned to them with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer
to assign the camera and film development part of the Brightype
process to its members, although the Employer had assigned such work
to employees who were members of the Photoengravers.
4 No contention is made by the Typographers that it is not responsible for the action
of its chapel chairman.
1508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly before the Board'
for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
We view the dispute presented as essentially a disagreement between
two unions as to which of the existing bargaining units appropriately
includes the disputed work. It is therefore a dispute which may be
determined by making an appropriate unit determination.'
As indicated above, the installation of the Brightype equipment,
in effect, combined the skills of two crafts-the Typographers and
the Photoengravers-for the completion of the process. The prepa-
ration of the type form is basically the same as that employed in the
usual printing procedure except that here a special process of lamp-
blacking and erasing is employed. The use of this procedure, as
stated above, avoids the necessity of making an acetate proof from the
type. Instead, a photograph of the type is taken from which printing
plates may be made.
As an integral part of their craft photoengravers, including the
Employer's employees represented by the Photoengravers, have his-
torically, and in accordance with long custom and usage, operated
cameras, processed positives and negatives, developed photographs,
and performed all the operations in connection therewith, and the
Photoengravers' contract with the Employer covers camera work. On
the other hand, the typesetting involved in this process, except for
the lampblacking and erasing procedures, is no different from that
traditionally performed by typesetters, including the Employer's
employees represented by the Typographers. However, photography
and film development clearly have not been encompassed within the
duties of such typographical employees. In these circumstances, we
find on the basis of the entire record that employees operating the
camera and performing the film development involved in the
Brightype process are appropriately included in the unit represented
by the Photoengravers.'
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record
in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
6 Meredith Publishing Company, 125 NLRB 391 ; Window Glass Cutters League of
America, AFL-CIO (Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company), 123 NLRB 1183 (Members
Rodgers and Bean dissenting) ; Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America, Local 556, AFL (Safeway Stores, Incorporated), 101 NLRB 181; Local 26,
International Fur and Leather Workers Union etc. (Winslow Bros . & Smith Co.),
90 NLRB 1379.
O As the,record shows that the Employer's contract with the Photoengravers predated
the Typographers' contract of June 7, 1958, we find, contrary to the contention of the
Typographers', that it could not in any event have had a contractual claim to the camera
and film development work involved in the Brightype process.
ILLINOIS MALLEABLE IRON COMPANY, ETC. 1509
1. Employees of the Employer operating the camera and perform-
ing the film development work involved in the Brightype process are
appropriately included in the bargaining unit presently represented
by the Photoengravers and not in the bargaining unit now represented
by the Typographers.
2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, the Employer, the Typographers, and the Photo-
engravers shall notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region, in writing, of the steps each has taken to comply with the
terms of this Decision and Determination of Dispute.
Illinois Malleable Iron Company and Appleton Electric Com-
pany and Local No. 788, International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, Charging Party and Local 1031 , Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Party
to the Contract . Case No. 13-CA-1866. June 24, 1960
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On April 16, 1958, the Board issued its Decision and Order in the
-above-entitled proceeding.' Thereafter, on March 27,1959, the Board
decided to reopen the record for the purpose of receiving evidence
bearing upon the status of the Foundry Department (UAW-AFL-
,CIO), as a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and the
necessity for it to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9(f),
(g), and (h) of the Act for purposes of this case. Pursuant thereto,
a supplemental hearing was held before Trial Examiner David Lon-
don, in which all parties named in the caption were represented by
counsel.
On February 17, 1960, the Trial Examiner issued a Supplemental
Intermediate Report, copy attached hereto, finding that the said
Foundry Department (UAW-AFL-CIO) is an internal and admin-
istratively created part of the International Union, and was not, dur-
ing all times relevant to this proceeding, a separate labor organization
within the meaning of the Act, requiring compliance with filing pro-
visions, and recommending that the Board proceed with the final
disposition of the case. Thereafter, the Respondent Companies filed
exceptions to the conclusions of the Trial Examiner.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the supplemental hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has con-
sidered the Supplemental Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and
1120 NLRB 451.
127 NLRB No. 173.