Cleveland Typograhical Union 53

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 583 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

CLEVELAND TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 53
Cleveland Typographical Union 53, International Ty-
pographical Union, AFL-CIO and The Sherwin-
Williams Company I and Cleveland Printing and
Graphic Communications Union 56, AFL-CIO
Case 8-CD-326
June 10, 1976
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , PENELLO, AND WALTHER
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing the filing of charges on January 6, 1976, by The
Sherwin-Williams Company, herein called the Em-
ployer, alleging that the Cleveland Typographical
Union 53, International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Typographical Union, has vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening,
coercing, and restraining the Employer with an ob-
ject of forcing the Employer to continue its original
assignment of certain work to employees represented
by the Typographers rather than to salaried manage-
ment personnel or employees represented by the
Cleveland Printing and Graphic Communications
Union 56, AFL-CIO, herein called the Printing
Union
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Rufus L Warr on March 11 and 12,
1976 All parties appeared at the hearing and were
afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues Thereafter, the Employer, the
Typographical Union, and the Printing Union all
filed briefs
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error They are hereby affirmed
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the parties, the Board makes the following
findings
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer, an Ohio
corporation with its principal office located in Cleve-
land, Ohio, has a facility in North Olmsted, Ohio,
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
583
where it produces various printed materials primarily
for use within the Company Annually, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, the Employer
ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its
North Olmsted facility directly to points located out-
side the State of Ohio Accordingly, we find that the
employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing 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 Typo-
graphical Union and the Printing Union are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
III THE DISPUTE
A Background
The Employer owns and operates a printing plant
in North Olmsted, Ohio The plant produces various
printed materials primarily for use within the Com-
pany and employs approximately 180 salaried and
hourly employees on two shifts Four unions repre-
sent the hourly employees The United Steelworkers
Union represents the production and maintenance
employees, the Typographical Union represents the
compositors, the Printing Union represents the press-
men, and the Graphic Arts International Union, Lo-
cal 36-124B, represents the bindery employees Only
the Typographical Union and the Printing Union are
involved in the current dispute
The Employer currently utilizes both a hot metal
printing process and a coldtype process It is engaged
in converting its hot metal and rubber platemaking
procedure to the more sophisticated photo-Polymer
platemaking system as well as adding an offset plate-
making capability As the first step in this conversion
process, the Employer has installed Mergenthaler
photocomposition equipment which is used to con-
vert raw data to coldtype ready for pasteups After
pasteups are prepared, they are sent to outside sup-
pliers of metal printing plates because the Employer
does not presently have the equipment to prepare its
own plates Upon receipt of the printing plates in the
plant, the Employer's compositors evaluate them to
determine if they are of a suitable quality to utilize
The compositors then use the hot metal plates to
mold rubber plates which are sent to the pressroom
for printing, or in some cases the metal plates are
sent directly to the pressroom for printing At the
present time employees represented by the Typo-
224 NLRB No 77
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
graphical Union perform all the work in the compo-
sition room including the operation of the Mergen-
thaler equipment and preparing the pasteups for the
camera There is no dispute over the jurisdiction of
this work
As a second and third step in its conversion pro-
cess, the Employer intends to install a Brown Com-
modore camera and Nu-Arc equipment This new
equipment will enable the Employer to make all of its
own printing plates and eliminate the need to utilize
outside suppliers The new equipment will also create
new work which will involve stripping of copy, cam-
era work, Polymer platemaking, and offset platemak-
ing In anticipation of the newjob functions, the Em-
ployer by letter dated October 30, 1975, assigned the
work to employees represented by the Typographical
Union In response, by letter dated November 3,
1975, the Printing Union disputed the Employer's as-
signment of the work The Employer then notified
both Unions that because of the dispute over the
work it intended to assign the work to salaried man-
agement personnel On December 5, 1975, the Typo-
graphical Union notified the Employer by letter that
any deviation from the Employer's original assign-
ment of the work to employees represented by the
Typographical Union would be met by strike action
if necessary At present the equipment has not been
installed and the work in question is still performed
by outside companies
B Work in Dispute
The parties are in agreement that the disputed
work consists of work performed by the Employer
solely at its North Olmsted facility and involves (1)
stripping of copy, (2) camera work, (3) Polymer
platemaking, and (4) offset platemaking
C Contentions of the Parties
The Printing Union claims that the work should be
awarded to employees it represents by virtue of its
collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer,
the skills of its members, and the industry and area
practice Both the Employer and the Typographical
Union contend the disputed work should be awarded
to the employees represented by the Typographical
Union They argue that such an award is proper be-
cause of the Employer's assignment and preference,
economy and efficiency of operation, the skill and
training of typographical employees, industry and
area practice, and because the new work is a substi-
tution for work done by typographical employees
D Applicability of Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of 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 there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary
settlement of the dispute As to the latter, the record
does not show the existence of any private means of
adjustment of the dispute 2
As set forth above, the Typographical Union by
letter dated December 5, 1975, threatens strike action
if necessary if the Employer does not reassign the
work in dispute to employees represented by the Ty-
pographical Union Accordingly, we are satisfied
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the
dispute is properly before us for determination
E Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of the disputed work af-
ter giving due consideration to various relevant fac-
tors
1 Collective-bargaining agreements
The Employer's contract with the Printing Union
contains a section which provides in pertinent part
that "all work in connection with offset plate making
including camera operation, all dark room work,
stripping, opaquing, layout and plate making" is
within that Union's jurisdiction However, the
Employer's contract with the Typographical Union
also contains provisions which define that Union's
jurisdiction as, inter alia, "full jurisdiction over all
offset plate making operations from and including
camera work to the presses in those plants which
have not offered offset plate making services at the
effective date of this Agreement" and "any new pro-
cess , equipment, or machinery to be used as an evo-
lution of or a substitution for current composing
room processes, equipment, or machinery " Our re-
view of the agreements between the parties reveal
that both contracts contain jurisdictional language
that supports each of the two Unions' claims that the
2 The Printing Union contends that the proceeding should be deferred
pending the determination of the dispute by the internal dispute procedure
of the AFL-CIO However the record discloses that the Employer , a neces-
sary party to any voluntary settlement , has not agreed to be bound by any
such settlement Accordingly there is no agreed-upon voluntary method
available to resolve the dispute by a decision binding upon all parties The
matter is properly before the Board for determination
CLEVELAND TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 53 585
work belongs to its members Accordingly , we find
under these circumstances the agreements of the par-
ties are not helpful to a determination of this dispute
2 Employer 's assignment and preference
The Employer 's original assignment of the disput-
ed work to employees represented by the Typograph-
ical Union , and the Employer 's present preference of
assigning the work to those employees favor an
award of work to such employees
4 Area and industry practice
The evidence on area and industry practice is in-
conclusive The Typographical Union presented evi-
dence that employees represented by that Union
presently perform work similar to the work in dispute
in a number of shops both locally and nationally
The Printing Union presented similar evidence Inas-
much as the factor of area and industry practices is
mixed, it favors the assignment of work to neither
group of employees
3 Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer introduced evidence which estab-
lishes that the new equipment the Employer intends
to install (which will create the work in dispute) will
be physically located in the composition room adja-
cent to the Mergenthaler equipment The Mergen-
thaler equipment is presently operated by employees
represented by the Typographical Union, and the
natural flow of work will require the employees per-
forming the work in dispute to work between the
Mergenthaler equipment and the new equipment
The Employer's testimony further indicates that its
printing operations will run more smoothly if all the
work in the composition room is performed by em-
ployees in the same craft Such an assignment would
eliminate the problems of transferring work from one
craft to another, coordinating supervision over two
crafts, and determining where the responsibility lies
in the event a problem develops The Employer also
pointed out that if employees represented by the
Printing Union performed the work, such employees
would be idle for substantial periods of time on the
second shift, and further inefficiencies in the press-
room and composition room would be created when
the pressmen would be pulled off the presses to do
the new work Conversely, if the work is performed
by typographical employees, the variety of skills pos-
sessed by those employees would give the Employer
more flexibility and efficiency in operation and no
loss of working time
Finally, the Employer testified that the assignment
of the disputed work to typographical employees
would permit it to perform the work with one less
employee than if the work is assigned to the printing
employees Although both groups of employees earn
approximately the same hourly wages , the need for
one less employee will entail a savings amounting to
approximately $25,000 a year Accordingly, we find
efficiency and economy of operations favor assign-
ment of the work to employees represented by the
Typographical Union
5 Skills and training
The Employer presented testimony which estab-
lishes that neither group of employees possess the
skills to perform the new camera work, and a new
employee would be hired for that work As to the
other work , both groups of employees possess suffi-
cient skills to do the work The Employer , however,
was of the opinion that the skills possessed by the
typographical employees are more integrally related
to skills needed for the new work In fact the disput-
ed work is a refinement and replacement for work
presently being performed by the composition room
employees, and thus they will be better able to do the
new work
In addition , if the work is assigned to the typo-
graphical employees , the Employer will be able to
use the training center operated by the International
Typographical Union The Employer has already
used this facility for other training and is of the opin-
ion that it will offer the most suitable training needed
for the new equipment We find therefore that the
factors of skill and training favor an assignment to
employees represented by the Typographical Union
Conclusion
Upon the entire record and after full consideration
of all relevant factors here involved , we find that em-
ployees represented by the Typographical Union are
entitled to perform the work in dispute The award is
supported by the Employer' s assignment and prefer-
ence , the skills and training of the typographical em-
ployees, and the economy and efficiency of opera-
tions which would result if the typographical
employees rather than the printing employees per-
form such work In making this award, we are assign-
ing the work to employees represented by the Typo-
graphical Union rather than to that organization
itself or to its members Our present determination is
limited to the particular dispute which gave rise to
this proceeding
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Employees of The Sherwin-Williams Company,
who are represented by Cleveland Typographical
Union 53, International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO, are entitled to perform the disputed work per-
formed by the Employer solely at its North Olmsted,
Ohio, facility involving stripping of copy, camera
work, Polymer platemaking, and offset platemaking
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 pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following Determination of Dispute