Cleveland Stereotypers' Union No. 22

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1219 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

CLEVELAND STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 22 1219
Employer did not accurately predict the number of employees it would
shortly have at the plant. However, this fact, we believe, does not
impair the validity of an election which was valid when held.
Under these circumstances, and on the record as a whole, we find
that, because of the valid election held on May 11, 1965, the statute
precludes us from directing a, new election to be held before the expira-
tion of 12 months from that date. We shall, therefore, in accord with
Board policy, dismiss the petition herein.4
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
* Fedders -Qusgan Corporation , 88 NLRB 512, cited in Ray Brooks v. N.L.R.B., 348 U S.
96, 101-102 . In Fedders - Quigan, the Board held that an increase in employment from
15 to 167 employees in slightly over 4 months did not impair the validity of an election
for the purpose of applying the bar of 9(c) (3).
Cleveland Stereotypers' Union No. 22, International Stereotypers'
and Electrotypers ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO and
Western Press Incorporated . Case No. 8-CD-68. February 2,
1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Western Press
Incorporated, herein called the Employer, alleging a violation of Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (D) by Cleveland Stereotypers' Union No. 22, Interna-
tional Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Stereotypers. Pursuant to notice, a hear-
ing was held on November 4 and 5, at Cleveland, Ohio, before Hearing
Officer John P. Falcone. The Employer, the Stereotypers, and Cleve-
land Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local 56, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Pressmen, appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine wit-
nesses, 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. The Employer and the Pressmen filed briefs
which have been duly considered by the National Labor Relations
Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
156 NLRB No. 110.
217-919-66-vol. 156-78
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, an Ohio corporation with its principal office and
business establishment located in Cleveland, Ohio, is engaged in com-
mercial printing. The Employer annually purchases and receives
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of
Ohio. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is
engaged 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 Stereotypers and Press-
men are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(,5) of
the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background
Prior to August 1965, the Employer was engaged primarily in the
operation of letterpress equipment for the publication of magazines
and circulars. This operation did not require the making of plates, the
printing being done by the Pressmen directly from type prepared by
members of the Cleveland Typographical Union. It was also engaged
in the publication of suburban newspapers. In doing so, mats were
prepared by the only stereotyper in its employ, and the mats were then
sent to the Cleveland Shopping News where the stereotype plates were
made and printing was done.
In October 1964 the Employer ordered a Web offset press. This fact
was announced in the daily newspapers in February 1965. Shortly
thereafter, the Employer's president, Hogling, met with the Press-
men's secretary-treasurer, Boehnlein, to discuss the operation of the
offset press. Boehnlein assured Hogling that trained pressmen would
be available to operate the offset press and make the offset plates, and
Hogling, in accordance with his interpretation of the Employer's con-
tract with the Pressmen, assigned the work of operating the press and
making of the plates to the Pressmen.
In March 1965, Hogling met with the Stereotypers' president, Pus-
tai. Pustai asserted that platemaking for the new offset press came
within the terms of the Stereotypers' contract with the Employer.
Hogling replied that the work came under the Pressmen's contract and
that the Employer intended to honor that contract. At several meet-
ings thereafter, representatives of the Stereotypers reiterated their
demand for the work and each time the Employer reiterated its posi-
tion that the work would be assigned to the Pressmen.
CLEVELAND STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 22 1221
In June 1965, parts for the Web offset press began to arrive and the
Employer hired additional pressmen to help with installation of the
press and to learn how to operate it. Installation was sufficiently com-
plete by the end of August to make the press usable. On September 1
or 2, Frank Krutch, president of the Cleveland Typographical Union,
called at the Employer's office and informed Hogling that Pustai had
told him the Stereotypers intended to strike the Employer and that
members of his union would not honor any picket line set up by the
Stereotypers. Similar assurances came from the Pressmen and the
Mailers Unions. On September 9 the Employer began the operation
of the press with members of the Pressmen assigned to the work of
making the offset plates. On September 10 the Stereotypers mailed a
letter to the Employer threatening to take all steps, "including cessa-
tion of work and picketing of your company," if the work of offset
platemaking was not assigned to members of the Stereotypers Union.
Hogling received the letter on September 13 and on the same day
filed the charge which is the subject of this proceeding. The Press-
man have continued to do the work of offset platemaking. No strike
has occurred, the Stereotypers having agreed to take no affirmative
action pending a resolution of the dispute by the Board.
B. The work in dispute
The record shows that offset plates are prepared by making a photo-
graphic negative which is placed in a vacuum frame and through the
use of an arc lamp the image is transposed to a sheet of sensitized alumi-
num alloy. A developing chemical is applied and the resulting plate
is then ready for installation on the offset press. The making of the
photographic negative is being done by members of the Cleveland
Typographical Union and their work is not in dispute in this case. The
placing of the negative in the vacuum frame and the are light trans-
position process, known as burning or exposing, is the work in dispute.
C. Contentions of the parties
The Employer, in assigning the work of making offset plates to
pressmen, relies primarily on its contract with the Pressmen's Union.
It also argues that custom and practice in the area supports its assign-
ment of the work to pressmen. In addition, the Employer takes the
position that having both the platemaking and the printing done by
pressmen will result in greater efficiency of operation in its establish-
ment.
The Pressmen contends that the express language of its contract with
the Employer requires that the work be assigned to pressmen. Like
the Employer, it also contends that area practice and efficiency of opera-
tion support the assignment of the work to pressmen.
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Stereotypers maintains that platemaking traditionally belongs
to stereotypers and that the difference in the preparation of offset
plates is not sufficient to justify the assignment of this work to other
crafts. The Stereotypers points out that it was not a party to the
agreement assigning the work to the Pressmen and that prior to the
assignment of the work in this case it negotiated a supplemental
agreement with Prompt Printing and Publishing Company, a mem-
ber of the same multiemployer bargaining unit to which the Em-
ployer belonged, assigning such work to its members. This, it claims,
shows that area practice favors assignment of the work to
Stereotypers.
The Stereotypers further contends that its members have the requi-
site skills to perform the work and that efficiency will not be jeopard-
ized since the crafts work side by side at Prompt Printing, a situation
that also obtains throughout the printing industry.
IV. 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. The Regional
Director was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that there
was reasonable cause to believe that a violation had been committed,
and therefore directed that a hearing be held in accordance with Sec-
tion 10(k) of the Act. On the basis of the entire record, including the
Stereotypers' threat to strike because of the assignment of the dis-
puted work, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a vio-
lation of the Act has occurred and that the dispute is properly before
the Board for determination.
V. THE 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 rele-
vant factors.'
Certain of the usual factors considered by the Board in these cases,
such as Board certification, skills, and area and industry practice, in
our opinion, provide little basis for determining the instant dispute.
Thus, neither the Stereotypers nor the Pressmen has been certified by
the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative for any of the
Employer's employees. As to skills, although pressmen are now satis-
factorily performing the work, it is clear that stereotypers are also
1 N L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U.S.
573; International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones
Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402, 1411.
CLEVELAND STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 22 1223
capable of doing the work, as evidenced by their performance of the
work at Prompt Printing. Although it appears from the record that
pressmen in the Cleveland area are frequently assigned to offset plate-
making work, nevertheless it also appears that some of the area
employers utilize the services of stereotypers to perform such work.
And although there was evidence that the assignment of the work of
both offset platemaking and offset press operation to pressmen would
contribute to efficiency of operation, there was also evidence that these
functions had been shared by the two crafts under similar circum-
stances. Unlike the foregoing factors, however, we regard the fac-
tors discussed below as determinative.
The provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements: In negoti-
ating with the Pressmen's Union, the Employer is represented by the
Printers Trade Association of Cleveland. The agreement thus nego-
tiated for the period October 1, 1962, to September 30, 1965, provides
in pertinent part :
Part I
Jurisdiction :
It is understood that this contract applies to the union press-
rooms operated by the Employer, and that the jurisdiction of this
contract extends over all printing presses in said pressrooms,
including but not limited to gravure, offset and letterpress print-
ing presses and associated devices; all work in connection with
offset platemaking including camera operation, all darkroom
work, stripping, opaquing, layout and platemaking.
The foregoing provision clearly constitutes an assignment of the
disputed work of offset platemaking to the Pressmen, and it is appar-
ent that it was in effect at all times relevant herein.
The Stereotypers contract, effective May 1, 1963, to April 30, 1966,
negotiated between the Stereotypers Union and four employers, in-
cluding Prompt Printing and the Employer herein, provides in per-
tinent part:
ARTICLE I-RECOGNITION AND JURISDICTION
Section 11. The Employer recognizes the Union as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of all its employees as follows :
(a) All work in the stereotype department, other than janitor,
clerical and maintenance work, including all molding (direct
pressure, rolled, acroplate), packing, drying and cooling of wet,
dry, rolled and direct pressure mats and plates; and the finishing,
sawing, trimming, flat or curved casting, flat or curved routing,
mortising, nickeling, mounting and finishing of all such plates
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including rubber, plastic, photopolymer, and cast aluminum; and
the registering of color mats and plates; and the cutting of all
mats.
ARTICLE XI-GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 113. Whenever the Employer introduces into the stereo-
typing department any new process, equipment, or machinery with
substantially different manual operations, the parties shall enter
into good faith negotiations on the method of operation and the
complement of men; provided, however, in the event these nego-
tiations fail to result in agreement within thirty (30) days after
at least twenty (20) days (consecutive or otherwise) of use of
such equipment under actual production conditions, as directed
by the Employer, the subject shall be resolved by utilizing the
grievance and arbitration procedure elsewhere provided for
herein.
It is apparent that the jurisdictional clause of the Stereotypers' con-
tract contains no language which can reasonably be construed as
assigning the offset platemaking to Stereotypers. This is in marked
contrast to the specificity of the clause in the Pressmen's contract which
sets forth that Union's jurisdiction over offset platemaking in detail.
That the Stereotypers' contract does not cover such work is demon-
strated by the fact that when Prompt Printing, a signatory to the
Stereotypers' contract, installed an offset press it was necessary for
Prompt and the Stereotypers Union to execute a supplementary agree-
ment to assign the work of offset platemaking to Stereotypers. There-
fore, contrary to the contention of the Stereotypers, we conclude that
the Stereotypers, unlike the Pressmen, has no contract claim to the
disputed work 2
Finally, the Board customarily includes offset preparation employ-
ees in a unit of offset press employees as it is clear such employees have
a close community of interest with offset press employees.3
VI. CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
In view of the foregoing, particularly the evidence pertaining to the
contract provisions between the Employer and the Pressmen which
explicitly gives jurisdiction over the disputed work to the Pressmen,
the fact that the Board normally includes offset platemaking employ-
ees in the same unit as offset press employees, and the fact that the
2lnternational Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, Local 104, AFL-CIO (The
Fresno Guide, Inc. ), 153 NLRB 333 ; International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union of North America and Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union NO. 23
(J. R. Condon & Sons, Inc. ), 148 NLRB 356, 360-361.
8International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, Local 104, AFL-CIO (The Fresno
Guide, Inc.), supra ; The Plimpton Press, 140 NLRB 975 , 977; The Meredith Publishing
Company, et al., 140 NLRB 509, 511.
AMERICAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF TEXAS 1225
Employer is satisfied by the results achieved and desires no change, we
find that employees represented by the Pressmen's Union are entitled
to the disputed work of offset platemaking, and we shall determine the
dispute in their favor. In making this determination, we are assign-
ing the disputed work to pressmen who are represented by the Press-
men's Union, but not to the Pressmen's Union or to its members. Our
present determination is limited to 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 Dispute.
1. Pressmen employed by the Employer who are represented by
Cleveland Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local 56, AFL-
CIO, are entitled to perform the offset platemaking operation which
is performed in connection with the work at the Employer's plant in
Cleveland, Ohio.
2. Cleveland Stereotypers' Union No. 22, International Stereotyp-
ers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is not
entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, to force or require Western Press
Incorporated to assign the work in dispute to employees engaged as
stereotypers who are currently represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Cleveland Stereotypers' Union No. 22, International Stere-
otypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, shall
notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, whether or not
it will refrain from forcing or requiring Western Press Incorporated,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the
work in dispute to Stereotypers rather than Pressmen.
American Manufacturing Company of Texas and Local 47, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America . Case No. 16-CA-1386. Febru-
ary 2, 1966
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On November 8, 1962, the National Labor Relations Board issued
its Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that
1139 NLRB 815.
156 NLRB No. 109.