Danville Printing Pressmen, Etc., Union No. 257

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 1619 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

DANVILLE PRINTING PRESSMEN , ETC., UNION NO. 257 1619
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute , Bricklayers , Masons and Plasterers ' International Union
of America , Local No . 26, shall notify the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region, in writing , whether or not it will refrain from
forcing or requiring the Employer , by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to its members,
rather than to employees represented by Operative Plasterers' and
Cement Masons' International Association of the United States and
Canada , Local No. 638.
Danville Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union No . 257, Inter-
national Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union of North
America, AFL-CIO and Danville Typographical Union No. 230,
International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO and Recording
& Statistical Company, Division of Sperry Rand Corporation.
Case No. 13-CD-135. July 15, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act following
a charge filed by Recording & Statistical Company, Division of Sperry
Rand Corporation, herein called the Employer, against Danville
Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union No. 257, International Printing
Pressmen & Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Pressmen, alleging that the Pressmen induced and en-
couraged employees of the Employer to engage in a strike and refusal
to perform services and have threatened and restrained the Employer
with the object of forcing the Employer to assign negative filing, nega-
tive opaquing, and plate proofreading work to employees represented
by the Pressmen rather than to employees who are currently perform-
ing the work and who are neither represented by, nor are members of,
the Pressmen. Danville Typographical Union No. 230, herein called
the ITU, intervened and asserted its right to perform the work in dis-
pute. A duly scheduled hearing was held before Hearing Officer Hy-
men Bear on April 7 and 24, 1964, in Danville, Illinois, at which all
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon the
issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs were filed by
the Employer, the Pressmen, and the ITU.
147 NLRB No. 172.
1620 `;DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- Upon the 'entire record in this proceeding, the Board': makes -the
'following findings :
1: The business of the Employer .
The Employer is a Delaware corporation and is engaged in com-
,mergial printing in Danville, Illinois. During the past calendar year,
a representative period, the Employer shipped and sold-printed matter
directly outside the State of Illinois in an amount in excess of $50,000.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved
Danville Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union No. 257, Inter-
national Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, and Danville Typographical Union No. 230, Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute
A. The work in dispute
the Employer is engaged in commercial printing utilizing both
'lithographic and letterpress processes. All of the presses are operated
by employees who are members of the Pressmen. Members of the
Pressmen also handle lithographic preparatory work including nega-
tive layout, camera work, and commercial and manual negative filing.
Members of the ITU perform composing room work incident to the
letterpress,operatidn and also original layout or "pasteup' work prep-
aratory to the lithographic operation. The disputed categories of
work are related to the lithographic printing operation and - include
negative filing, 'negative opaquing, and plate proofreading. The per-
sonnel currently performing the disputed work are unrepresented.
'The Employer maintains a standard offset preparatory operation
utilizing three standard lithographic cameras and one Itek camera.
The lithographic cameras produce negatives from pasteup copy that is
prepared by employees in the original layout department represented
by the ITU. The operation of the cameras and the subsequent dark-
room work is performed by employees represented by the Pressmen.
After the negative is completed, it is taken into an "opaquing" room
where five female employees perform the operation known as "opaqu-
'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 [ Members Leedom , Fanning,
and Brown]
DANVILLE PRINTING PRESSMEN, ETC., UNION NO. 257 1621
ing." This operation involves the removal of blank spots on the nega-
tives by the application of a solution to help produce a clean printed
surf ace 2
After the negative leaves the "opaquing" room, it is sent to the
negative layout department where members of the Pressmen perform
additional opaquing of a more skilled type and perform the work
necessary to prepare the negatives for the platemaking process. From
the negative layout department the negatives are sent to the plate-
making department where they are placed on presensitized offset
plates. Images are burned into the plate and the plate is developed.
This step in the preparation of the plate is also performedby members
of the Pressmen. The developed plate is then taken to the plate proof-
reading room for the proofing operation.
Lithographic plate proofreading is performed in an area located in a
soundproof room adjacent to the platemaking department by a num-
ber of female employees who also do proofreading for the Employer's
letterpress operation. Approximately 25 female employees constitute
the proofreading department and it is their function and duty to per-
form all the proofreading for the Employer. Of this number 19 em-
ployees have at one time or another performed offset proofreading 3
As is the Employer's practice, approximately two to four girls from
the proofreading department are assigned on a system of rotation,
to lithographic proofreading for 3-month periods as necessary. It is
estimated that 10 percent of all proofreading in the plant involves
lithographic plate proofreading.
When the offset plate has been prepared and is ready for proof=
reading, the negatives that were used in making the plate are returned
to the files. Originally, the Employer filed all its negatives in the
same group of files:' However, for reasons of efficiency, it was found to
be more advantageous to separate the "commercial" and "manual"
negatives from the "policy" .negatives 4 ' Approximately one-third of
all negatives are "policy" negatives. Originally all of the negative
filing was performed' by employees represented by the Pressmen's
Union in the negative layout department. Currently, the "commercial"
and "manual" negatives are still filed by employees in the negative
layout department, but now the "policy" filing is done by one man who
is unrepresented.5 Both sets of negative files are in a common area
between the negative layout and original layout departments.
2 At the time of the filing of the charge herein these employees were not union mem-
bers However , on the evening of April 7, 1964, the first day of the hearing, these em-
ployees were admitted to membership in the Pressmen.
3 No evidence was introduced to indicate whether these employees were members of any
union although it appears that the ITU had recently been engaged in an effort to organize
the members of this department.
4 "Policy" negatives are negatives of, or related to, certain insurance policy material
and apparently often require more use and attention.
5 Evidence was introduced to indicate that this employee had performed this work for
several years and had been a member of ITU for the last 1 % years.
1622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Both unions have been recognized by the Employer for many years
although no Board -certification regarding either has ever been issued.
The original ITU unit, with subsequent changes, dates back to 1925
and the Pressmen unit dates back to 1946.
The latest contracts for both unions expired on January 31, 1964.
Neither contract specifically mentioned the work categories in ques-
tion. The Pressmen's contract stated, in part, that it covered ". . . all
work in connection with offset platemaking, including camera opera-
tion, all darkroom work and stripping, negative layout, platemaking
and graining . . . ." The ITU contract stated that "Jurisdiction of
the union and the appropriate unit for collective bargaining is defined
as including all composing room work . . . and the imposition of the
paste makeup serving as the completed copy for the camera used in
the platemaking process."
During negotiations for renewal of their contracts, the unions noti-
fied the Employer of their desire to "represent" the disputed categories.
On September 17,1963, the ITU advised the Employer, by letter, of its
interest in the.negative filing department, which at that time consisted
of two men, and on October 21 again wrote to express its intention to
exercise jurisdiction over the opaquers. A contract proposal mailed
to the Employer on November 29 included a proposal to amend the
jurisdictional provision to add the categories of "proofreading, nega-
tive opaquing, and negative filing."
The Pressmen had demanded, during its contract negotiations, that
the Employer assign to its jurisdiction the categories of negative filing,
opaquing, and plate proofreading. A threat to shut down the Em-
ployer if the work were assigned to the ITU was made as early as
October 1963.
On February 14, 1964, the Employer filed a petition (Case No. 13-
RM-722) with the Board requesting an election regarding a unit com-
posed of "miscellaneous file clerks and opaquers without prejudice to
the Company's right to challenge the appropriateness of the bargain-
ing unit in question." The petition named the ITU and the Pressmen
as organizations asserting claims to represent the employees in ques-
tion. On February 18 the Pressmen filed a petition (Case No. 13-
RC-9936) seeking an election to determine representation of a unit
consisting of "all letterpress, rotogravure and lithographic production
employees" and naming the ITU as the other organization which had
claimed recognition in the same group. The charge herein was filed
by the Employer on February 28, 1964. .
On March 12 the Pressmen again threatened the Employer regard-
ing the assignment of the work and on March 14 and 15 Pressmen em-
ployees refused to work overtime. On March 16 Pressmen began to
picket the Employer and other members of the Employer's collective-
bargaining association. The strike ended the following day subse-
DANVILLE PRINTING PRESSMEN, ETC., UNION NO. 257 1623
quent to an agreement among the parties to allow the Board to resolve
the jurisdictional problem. On March 17 the Employer wrote to the
Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region requesting that the peti-
tion that it had previously filed be withdrawn.6
A temporary injunction was entered by the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Illinois on March 19, pursuant to Section 10 (1)
of the Act and in accordance with a stipulation by the Pressmen, pro-
hibiting further picketing or interference with the Employer by the
Pressmen pending final disposition of the matter by the Board.
B. Contentions of the Parties
At the hearing, the Pressmen contended that its contract applied
to the work in issue, that industry practice generally and in the area
and at the Employer's plant supported its claim to the work, and that
an inappropriate unit would be created if the ITU demands were met.
The Pressmen demanded, therefore, that all the disputed work be as-
signed to its members in the negative layout department. Among other
grounds, the ITU based its claim to the disputed work on the ground
that the work was part of the "composition" and "imposition" work
covered by its contract, that the practice of the industry and the Em-
ployer supported its claim, and that it had first laid claim to the work.
The ITU does not ask that the work be reassigned but seeks to rep-
resent.those performing the work in dispute as well as the employees in
the proofreading department who are at present unrepresented.
The Employer contends that the Pressmen violated Section
8(b) (4) (D) by striking to force an assignment of the work, but takes
no position as to which union, if any, should be assigned the work in
dispute.
C. Applicability of the statute
Section 10 (k) of the Act empowers the Board to hear and determine
the dispute out of which a Section 8(b) (4) (D) charge has arisen. Be-
fore making a determination of the dispute, however, we are required
to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated.
An examination of the record reveals that although the Pressmen's
union has contended that the work in issue should be assigned to the
negative layout department, it is not asserting a claim based on juris-
dictional grounds, opposed to the employees now performing the work.
Indeed, it is clear that it is seeking a representation interest among
them and has, in fact, induced the opaquers to join its organization.
Similarly, in fact admittedly, the ITU is seeking to represent not only
the employees who are performing the work in dispute but the other
6 No evidence was introduced at the hearing , nor does any information appear in the
Board's records as to what action was taken regarding this request.
1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in the proofreading department who are not the subject of
any opposing claim. It is thus apparent that while the dispute has
been submitted in the form of a jurisdictional dispute, there is present
here no more than opposing claims to represent as part of respective
contract units, employees who up to the present have had no collective-
bargaining representative.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the record in its entirety does
not evidence a jurisdictional dispute between competing groups of
employees claiming the right to perform the work in dispute and that
therefore there is no dispute cognizable under Section 10(k) of the
Act. The facts do not lend themselves to decision under Section
8(b) (4) (D) but, rather, tend to present a problem of unit representa-
tion. Indeed, but for the advent of the picketing, it appears that the
parties themselves by filing the representation petitions have indicated
their satisfaction with allowing the case to proceed along these lines.
Although the record contains some evidence of the nature of the work
in issue, considerations of good practice dictate that the parties herein
present this matter to the Board in the form of a representation pro-
ceeding so that the unrepresented employees whose rights are most
intimately involved may be given the opportunity to express their
wishes on the question of their representation.
Accordingly, we find on the entire record that the facts in this case
do not present a jurisdictional dispute within the purview of Sections
8 (b) (4) (D) and 10 (k) of the Act. We shall therefore quash the
notice of hearing.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
Elgin Butler Brick Company and International Brotherhood of
Operative Potters, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 23-RC-2183.
July 15, 1964
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
executed on December 9, 1963, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on February 7,1964, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 23 among the employees in the stipulated
unit. At the conclusion of the balloting, the Regional Director fur-
nished the parties with a tally of ballots which showed that, of ap-
proximately 179 eligible voters, 161 cast valid ballots, of which 72 were
cast for and 89 cast against the Petitioner, and 12 were challenged.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election.
147 NLRB No. 170.