Chicago Web Printing Pressmen's Union 7

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 320 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chicago Web Printing Pressmen 's Union No. 7, I.P.P.
& A.U. and Metropolitan Printing Company and
Field Enterprises, Inc., Newspaper Division and
Chicago Typographical Union No . 16, I.T.U. Case
13-CD-228
February 28, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed jointly by Metropolitan Printing
Company (Metropolitan) and Field Enterprises, Inc.,
Newspaper Division (Field) on November 10, 1972,1
alleging that Chicago Web Printing Pressmen's
Union No. 7, I.P.P. & A.U. (Pressmen),' had violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held
pursuant to notice at Chicago, Illinois, on January 10
and February 5, 6, and 8, 1973, before Hearing
Officer Michael J. Rybicki. Field and Metropolitan;
the Pressmen; and Chicago Typographical Union
No. 16, I.T.U. (Typographers), 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. All parties
have filed briefs with the Board.
The rulings that the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Field Enterprises, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
engaged at Chicago, Illinois, in the business of
publishing newspapers, the printing business, and
other aspects of communication. During the past
calendar year, Field had an annual gross revenue in
excess of $10 million.
Metropolitan Printing Company, a Delaware cor-
poration, all of whose stock is owned by Field
Enterprises, Inc., is a separately run corporate entity,
engaged at Elk Grove, Illinois, in the printing
business. During the past calendar year, Metropoli-
tan purchased goods and materials in the course and
conduct of its business operations valued in excess of
$250,000, which goods and materials were transport-
ed directly to its facility at Elk Grove from outside
the State of Illinois.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged
1 All dates in 1972, unless otherwise indicated
2 Although the term of the latest agreement between Metropolitan and
the Pressmen had expired during the relevant period, the parties were
engaged in bargaining negotiations and had agreed to be bound by the
in 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 herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find, that the
Pressmen and the Typographers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Newspaper Division of Field Enterprises, Inc.,
is a member of the Chicago Newspaper Publishers
Association (CNPA) which has a current collective-
bargaining agreement with the Typographers which
covers all composing room employees employed by
Field. The agreement, in addition to granting
Typographers exclusive jurisdiction over all compos-
ing room work and providing that Field "shall make
no other contract covering said work," also sets out a
binding procedure for settlement of any dispute over
the interpretation or enforcement of the various
provisions of the agreement through a grievance and
arbitration machinery.
Metropolitan has a collective-bargaining relation-
ship with the Pressmen 2 recognizing its exclusive
jurisdiction over production employees engaged in
the various aspects of composition work preparatory
to offset printing. Metropolitan is not a member if
CNPA, nor does it have a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Typographers.
In June, negotiations began between Joe McA-
dams, president of Metropolitan, and corporate
officials of Field for the purchase of a publication to
be prepared and printed by Metropolitan for
insertion into the daily newspapers published by
Field.3 In August the parties signed a contract for the
production of Suburban Week which provided that
Metropolitan would do all the printing and compos-
ition as well as the editorial work on Suburban while
Field would solicit all advertising. Also according to
the contract, Metropolitan is to he paid a fixed rate
based on the quantity of pages provided, while Field
is to receive all revenues from the advertising
appearing therein.
On August 26, the Typographers became aware of
the arrangement between Field and Metropolitan
through an announcement in a Field newspaper.
Subsequently, on August 30, after some communica-
tion between the Typographers and both Field and
terms of the previous agreement during negotiations
R The newspaper division of Field Enterprises publishes the Chicago
Sun-Times and the Chicago Daily News.
209 NLRB No. 53
CHICAGO WEB PRINTING PRESSMEN 'S UNION 7
Metropolitan concerning this matter, Typographers
acting president, Donovan, wrote a letter4 to the
executive director of CNPA, taking the position that
according to its contract with the Association the
composition work for Suburban Week had to be
performed by members of the Typographers em-
ployed by Field.
Field took the position that the Typographers
claim raised no arbitrable issue under the contract
and therefore refused to go to arbitration on the
matter.
The day after Donovan sent the grievance letter he
was contacted by the Pressmen who, having learned
of the grievance, threatened to picket both Field and
Metropolitan if any move was made to take the work
away from Metropolitan. In response to this and
other threats, Metropolitan and Field together filed
the charges herein against the Pressmen under
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
B. The Work in Dispute
The instant dispute involves the assignment of
composition work in the production of a weekly
publication called Suburban Week which is inserted
in the daily editions of both newspapers published by
Field.
Field contracted with Metropolitan for the pro-
duction of Suburban Week including all the compo-
sition work, which Metropolitan assigned to its
employees represented by the Pressmen according to
its collective-bargaining agreement with that Union.
Employees of Field represented by the Typographers
claim all of this work pursuant to the collective-
bargaining agreement between the Typographers and
the CNPA, of which Field is a member.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Intervenor, Typographers, takes the position
that there is no jurisdictional dispute in this case as
contemplated in Section 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k) of the
Act. The real issue, it contends, involves a question
of interpreting its contract with the CNPA concern-
ing Field's right to subcontract the composition work
for Suburban Week. It has therefore moved to
dismiss and to quash the notice of hearing under
Section 10(k) of the Act.
The Employers contend that there is a dispute
between the Pressmen and Typographers over the
assignment of composition work for Suburban Week
and that factors such as economy and efficiency of
operation as well as the Employer's preference
4 The letter was sent pursuant to the gnevance and arbitration provisions
in the contract between the CNPA and the Typographers and constitutes
the initiation of a formal "issue" or grievance under the contract.
321
require a finding that the disputed work should be
assigned to the members of the Pressmen.
In essence, the Pressmen takes an identical position
to the Employers.
D. The Applicability of the Act
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
of dispute under 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. We are not
satisfied that any such violation has occurred in this
case.
The evidence here is insufficient to establish a
traditional jurisdictional dispute between two groups
of employees. The Typographers has never claimed
the right to any work properly in Metropolitan's
shop, which it concedes is the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Pressmen. On the contrary, Typographers has
from the outset asserted that its dispute is with Field,
as a member of the CNPA, over its interpretation of
the subcontracting proscriptions in their agreement
relative to composition work done on the various
sections of the newspapers published by Field.
Although Field, as well as the CNPA, has taken the
position that there is no subcontracting involved in
their "purchase" of Suburban Week from Metropoli-
tan and therefore there exists no arbitrable issue
under its contract, we note that Typographers has
filed suit in District Court under their contract to
compel arbitration and that the court and not the
Board is the proper forum for determining the issue
of contract interpretation.
What is involved here is a transfer of work from
one Employer at one location to another Employer
at a different location, whether by subcontracting, as
Typographers asserts, or by purchase and sale, as
Field contends. All parties agree that if the work
were properly transferred to Metropolitan's shop it
should be performed by employees represented by
Pressmen, and that if it is to be done in Field's shop
it should be performed by employees represented by
Typographers. Thus the dispute turns upon the
transfer of alleged unit work from one Employer to
another, rather than upon any assignment of work
from one group of employees to another by either
Employer. In this respect, the transfer of work here is
unlike the usual subcontracting in the construction
industry, where the selection of a subcontractor is
equivalent to an assignment of work because the
general contractor would not have performed the
work himself and separate sites are not involved.
Separate locations are involved here, and there are
s Typographers has filed suit in District Court in Chicago to compel
Field to go to arbitration
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no competing claims to the work at the same
location.
In short, the disagreement here stems from a claim
to unit work and the allegedly improper transfer of it
out of the unit, rather than from the competing
claims on "jurisdictional" grounds of groups of
employees to work which need never have been unit
work. It is the separate locations here and the "unit
work" nature of the claim which distinguishes this
case from those relied on by our dissenting col-
leagues. The standards for judging unit work, and the
statutory limitations on action to assert claims to unit
work, differ from the standards for determining
jurisdictional disputes and from the action which
may be taken to support or resolve such jurisdiction-
al claims. To apply jurisdictional dispute principles
to a unit work claim would distort the statute, cf.
Local No. 447, United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industiy of
the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Malbaff
Landscape Construction), 172 NLRB 128, and we
shall therefore quash the notice of hearing.
In addition, we note that although the record
establishes certain threats made by the Pressmen
over the possible reassignment of the composition
work on Suburban Week, we find that this fact, of
itself , is not determinative of the question as to
whether or not a dispute exists under Section
8(b)(4)(D) and Section 10(k) of the Acts Further-
more, our ruling in this case is in no way intended to
pass upon the possible legality of the Pressmen's
actions under any other section of the Act or
otherwise.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this case be. and it hereby is, quashed.
CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBER KENNEDY, dissent-
ing:
We disagree with our colleagues' conclusion that
the evidence herein is insufficient to establish a
traditional jurisdictional dispute between two groups
of employees cognizable under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
r, In Highway Truckdrners & Helpers, Local 107, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Independent (Safeway Stores, Incorporated), 134 NLRB 1320, the Board held
that although the facts of a particular case "might he deemed to fall within
the literal terms of the Section 8(b)(4)(D) proscription" (at 1322), that
proscription was not designed to authorize the Board to arbitrate disputes
between an employer and a umon See also International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union Local 8 (Waterway Terminals Company), 185
NLRB 186. 188. We are of the opinion that the legal principle established in
those cases is valid and remains applicable to the instant case, notwithstand-
ing the attempt by the dissent to distinguish them In both of those cases,
the fact that a work assignment was involved was determined to be
incidental to the real dispute over whether the employer had somehow
The facts show that Field began publication of
Suburban Week, a new supplement to its daily
newspapers. It contracted with Metropolitan to
prepare and print the supplement. Pursuant to that
agreement, Field assigned the printing and compo-
sition work for Suburban Week to Metropolitan's
employees represented by the Pressmen . Field did
not consult with or give prior notice to the Typogra-
phers, who represented Field's composing room
employees.
When the Typographers learned that Metropoli-
tan's employees were doing the composing room
work for Suburban Week, the Typographers wrote a
letter, on August 26, 1972, to Field, as a member of
the CNPA, declaring its "position" that Field's
intention "to have the composing room work
required to produce this new section of the newspa-
pers performed by other than those employees
recognized in the current contract in effect between
the Union and the Association" was in violation of
the contract's jurisdictional requirements that "all
composing room work necessary to produce Subur-
ban Week is to be performed by employees recogniz-
ed by that contract." The Typographers, pursuant to
the contract's grievance-arbitration procedure, re-
quested discussion and requested the maintenance of
the status quo, that is, "that all composing room
work necessary to produce the several sections (of
the newspapers), including Suburban Week, be
performed by employees governed by the current
contract . . . ." When Field took the position that
the Typographers claim raised no arbitrable issue
under the contract and therefore refused to go to
arbitration, the Typographers filed suit in the United
States District Court in Chicago to compel Field to
go to arbitration. The Pressmen, upon learning of the
Typographers attempts to force Field to arbitrate its
assignment of the composing room work, threatened
to picket Field and Metropolitan if Field participated
in any arbitration proceedings or made any move to
reassign the work away from Metropolitan.
In our opinion, these facts establish that a
jurisdictional dispute exists between the Typogra-
phers and the Pressmen over the assignment of the
composing room work for Suburban Week. The
Pressmen's claim for the disputed composing room
violated its agreement with the Union . It is true that in the above -cited cases
the employer 's action led to certain employees being discharged , which is
not the situation here But the significant fact , here as in those cases , is that
the employer 's action went beyond merely assigning work to one group of
employees rather than another and that the union 's concern is grounded
upon the alleged breach of contract That another group of employees
thereby ends up with the work does not automatically turn a basic contract
dispute into a jurisdictional one. We also fail to see what contrary
conclusion may be drawn from the second Waterway decision. It was
carefully pointed out in that opinion that a determination was being made
in that case pursuant to the order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
which was to be considered only the law of that particular case.
CHICAGO WEB PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION 7
work is not contested by the majority. The Typogra-
phers claim for the work is stated explicitly in its
letter to the Association that all such work "is to be
performed by employees recognized by that con-
tract." Moreover, Typographers insisted that its
members perform the work until a determination was
made by an arbitrator as to the propriety of Field's
prior assignment of the work to Metropolitan's
employees. The Pressmen, by threatening to strike in
the event that Field allowed the matter to proceed to
arbitration, converted this dispute over the assign-
ment of composing room work into a jurisdictional
dispute.
The fact that the Typographers has couched its
claim for the disputed composing room work in
terms of a request for arbitration is not adverse to a
finding that a jurisdictional dispute exists. In
Williams Press, Inc.,7 the Board held, under facts
virtually identical to the case at bar, that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D)
has been violated when one union (the Pressmen)
threatens to strike in the event that the employer
submits that union's work assignment to arbitration
with another union (the Typographers).8 Likewise,
the Typographers contention that the real issue
herein is whether Fields violated the subcontracting
provisions of their contract is not dispositive under
our case law . Thus, the Board has rejected such
arguments where, as here, a concurrent or ultimate
objective of the union in attempting to force changes
in the employer's subcontracting practices is to force
or require a reassignment of the disputed work to the
employees represented by it.9 In short, by initiating
arbitration to determine whether Field' s assignment
of the disputed work violated the contract, the
Typographers implicitly is claiming the work in
dispute as its own, and is presenting a jurisdictional
7 Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No 23, AFL-CIO
(Williams Press, Inc), 166 NLRB 693
8 See also Printing Trades Specialty Local No 531 , International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO (George Banta
Company, Inc), 201 NLRB 255.
9 Local Union 354, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (F G Johnson Company, Incorporated), 200 NLRB No. 92;
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No 753,
AFL-CIO (Blount Bros Corporation), 175 NLRB 496 ,497 and cases cited in
In. 3 therein ; Local 5, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO (Arthur Venneri Company), 145 NLRB 1580, 1589, Local 3,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Western Electric
Company, Incorporated), 144 NLRB 1318, cases cited in In 6 therein
10 F G Johnson Company, Incorporated supra
11 N LR B. v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia
Broadcasting System), 364 U.S. 573
12 Local Union No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO ( Western Electric Company, Incorporated), 141 NLRB 888; Sheet
Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 28, AFL-CIO (Deisel
Construction a division of Carl A. Morse, Inc), 196 NLRB 1065, International
323
claim cognizable under Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act.10
Furthermore, the Typographers contract with Field
is not by itself dispositive of the Typographers claim
for the disputed composing room work but is merely
one factor to be considered in making an award of
the disputed work.l i While the disputed work
involves composing room work and may arguably be
covered in its contract with Field, the fact remains
that this is new work which was not previously
performed by anyone. Thus, the Typographers
cannot claim that under its contract there is no doubt
that the work belongs to its members alone, and thus
that no jurisdictional dispute exists.
The fact that there are two employers, Field and
Metropolitan, is immaterial to the issue of whether a
jurisdictional dispute exists. The Board has long held
that jurisdictional disputes are not limited to compet-
ing groups of employees working for the same
employer, but also extend to attempts to force the
assignment of work from employees of one employer
to employees of another.12 It is also immaterial that
the Typographers do not seek to perform the
disputed work at Metropolitan's facilities since the
controlling factor is that they do expect to do it at
Field's composing room. 13
In light of the foregoing, it is difficult to see what
bearing Safeway Stores, Incorporated, supra, has on
the instant proceeding. In that case, the Board held
that there was no jurisdictional dispute where
displaced employees picketed in an attempt to regain
their jobs and where only one group of employees
claimed the disputed work. On the other hand, in the
instant proceeding the threat of picketing was made
by the employees who were performing the disputed
work14 for the purpose of preventing Field from
"unilaterally" arbitrating the Typographers claim for
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 145 (Comanche
Machine Tool Company, Inc), 188 NLRB 255; Local 804, Delivery and
Warehouse Employees, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Gimbel Brothers, Inc.), 168 NLRB
214; Local 19, International Longshoremen 's Association, AFL-CIO (Marine
Association of Chicago), 151 NLRB 89; Plumbers and Fitters Local 761 of the
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO(Matt J. Zaich
Construction Co ), 144 NLRB 133; International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and
Canada, Treasurers and Ticket Sellers Local No. 862, AFL-CIO (Allied
Maintenance Company of Pennsylvania, Inc), 137 NLRB 738, Local No. 48,
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO (Gadsden Heating
and Sheet Metal Company), 119 NLRB 287; N.L R B v. Local 825,
International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO [Burns and Roe, Inc
400 U.S. 297 (1971)
13 Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union 28 (Deisel
Construction), supra.
14 Such a threat by the union currently performing the disputed work is
proscribed by Sec. 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act Printing Trades Specialty Local No
531, supra, Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23, supra.
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the work which neither Union had performed in the
past.15
Thus, contrary to the majority, the dispute herein is
not "between an employer and a union" nor was the
dispute "created" by Field's assigning the work away
from one of the unions. Rather, the evidence clearly
establishes that the dispute herein is between the
Typographers and the Pressmen over which group of
employees is entitled to perform the composing room
work for Suburban Week. Fields, after assigning the
work to Metropolitan, whose employees are repre-
IS Likewise distinguishable is Waterway Terminals Company, supra
There, a majority of the Board found that no rival claim for the disputed
work was presented by Local 8's letter demanding continued employment
for its members who were displaced by the employer's reassignment of the
work performed by them There are no displaced employees here since, as
indicated above, the work in question was new work. In any event, the view
expressed by the dissent in Waterway was upheld by the court of appeals in
sented by the Pressmen, was presented with dual
claims over the disputed work and was thereafter
threatened with picketing by the Pressmen to prevent
a reassignment of the work to employees who were
members of Typographers. In our view, this is a
situation that Congress contemplated when it direct-
ed the Board to decide which of the conflicting
claims was meritorious.
Accordingly, we would find a jurisdictional dis-
pute, and would determine the merits of the dispute.
its remand of that case to the Board . Waterway Terminals Co v. N LR B,
467 F 2d 1011 (C A 9) The Board subsequently found , in accordance with
the court view, that even the facts in Waterway presented a jurisdictional
dispute cognizable under the Act International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen 's Union Local 8 (Waterway Terminals Company), 203 NLRB
No 126.