Detroit Mailers Union 4; Int'l Mailers Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 3, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 226 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer, exclud-
ing office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
5. We have considered the Regional Director's reports and the ex-
ceptions thereto, and hereby adopt the findings and recommendations
of the Regional Director.'
Accordingly, we shall set aside the election and direct that a new
election be held.
[The Board set aside the election conducted herein on September
24, 1963.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
IIn its exceptions to the supplemental report the Employer objects to the Regional
Director's action in treating the exceptions to his first report as a "motion for reconsidera-
tion " The Employer contends that the Board should have passed upon its exceptions to
the first report and ordered a hearing on the factual issues raised . We find no merit in
this contention . The Regional Director in effect decided to supplement his consideration
of objection No 1 before the Board passed upon his recommendations , and no prejudice
is shown to have resulted therefrom , as the Employer has had opportunity to file excep-
tions to the supplemental report. The Employer contends that the Regional Director
erred in concluding that, because the Employer had no established plan for periodic or
merit wage increases , the wage adjustments granted to five employees 12 days before the
election were given to influence the results In support of this contention it alleges that
Freund, the Employer's new plant manager , had announced to employees at the time he
assumed his duties on May 2, 1963 , that a survey of the wage structure would be under-
taken in order to correct any wage inequities , that the employees knew this survey was
in progress, and that by the nature of the survey wage adjustments would not be effectu-
ated according to a regular or periodic plan. However, in our opinion , because of the
flexibility of the survey and the absence of an explanation of why the increases were
granted before instead of after the election , we do not believe that the Employer has
satisfied the burden of showing that the granting of the increases was timed for reasons
other than to influence the election results. See Glosser Bros ., I11c, 120 NLRB 965,
966-967.
Detroit Mailers Union No. 4, International Mailers Union and
Detroit Gravure Corporation . Case No. 7-CD-92. March 3,
1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION' OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act following a
charge filed by Detroit Gravure Corporation, herein called the Em-
ployer, alleging that Detroit Mailers Union No. 4, International
Mailers Union, herein, called the Mailers, had violated Section
8(b) (4) (D), by threatening, coercing, or restraining the Employer
for purposes of compelling it to assign certain work to employees
represented by the Mailers, rather than to employees represented by
Detroit Paper Handlers' and Plate Handlers' Union No. 10, Inter-
146 NLRB No. 23.
DETROIT MAILERS UNION 4,` INT'L MAILERS UNION 227
national Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Paper Handlers. Pursuant to notice,
a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Brian S. Ahearn on Sep-
tember 9 and 10, 1963, at which all parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The rulings by the Hear-
ing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. Briefs were filed by the Employer and the
,Mailers. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board 1
makes the following findings :
1. The business of the Employer
The Employer is a Michigan corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Detroit, Michigan. It is engaged in
rotogravure printing, photoengraving, and related operations. Dur-
ing the calendar year 1962 the Employer, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, purchased and received directly from sup-
pliers in States other than Michigan newsprint and other printing
supplies valued in excess of $50,000. The parties stipulated and we
find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Detroit Mailers Union
No. 4, International Mailers Union and Detroit Paper Handlers'
and Plate Handlers' Union No. 10, International Printing Pressmen
and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, are labor organ-
izations within the meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute
A. The basic facts
The Employer does rotogravure printing and produces newspaper
'supplements, magazines, inserts, and catalogues. In its normal op-
eration, rolls of paper weighing upwards of 2 tons are brought into the
plant by the Paper Handlers sand delivered to the presses, where the
pressmen put the rolls in place on the press. As the printed paper
comes off the press it is cut and folded into booklets. The booklets
are taken by a "flyboy" and stacked on wooden-skids or pallets. Then
the function of the Mailers begins. They secure the booklets to the
1Pursuant 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 , Brown,
and Jenkins].
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
skids with metal bands, tag or label the bound stacks, move the bound
skids from the pressroom with a forklift, and store and ultimately
ship the bound stacks to Gravure's customers.
In April 1963, Gravure started a new process to supplement its
existing operations. In this new process only the work of the Mail-
ers is altered. Thus the rolls of newsprint are delivered to the presses
in the same manner by the Paper Handlers and the actual printing
operation is the same. However, instead of being cut, folded, and
bundled, the printed newsprint is rolled up again on a new machine
(rewinder) placed at the end of the press. Further, the roll has
printing only on one side, or on only a portion of a side . This roll,
called "preprint," is a finished product as far as Gravure is con-
cerned, in that Gravure does no more printing on it. But the roll
has blank space, and this space is utilized by newspapers, which print
additional material on the roll, doing this by running the roll through
their presses just as they do with' their other newsprint rolls. The
roll of preprint is "decored" 2 at the end of its run by a pressman.
At this point, the new operation now in dispute starts. After decor-
ing, the roll of preprint is rolled onto a low dolly or shuttle cart and
then wheeled down a 40-foot track which is slightly inclined so the
heavy roll can be pushed with a minimum of effort. Then the roll
is pushed off the cart and onto a wrapping ramp. Wrapping paper
is first laid out with its forward edge glued. The preprint roll is
rolled onto the wrapping paper, and since the glue on the wrapping
paper sticks to the roll, the roll is wrapped as it revolves over the
wrapping paper. The ends of the wrapping paper, which extend 5
inches, beyond the end of the roll, are then crimped or folded tightly
against the end of the roll. After crimping, the roll is rolled man-
ually to the "header," a large clamping device which secures a glued
paper disc to the crimped end of the roll of preprint. The wrapped
preprint is then rolled manually 20 feet to the "lowerater," an eleva-
tor designed specifically to handle rolls of newsprint. Labels are
then affixed and the roll is lowered to the floor below where it is
either stored or shipped.
The decision to begin the preprint operation was made in 1961, and
the machinery was ordered and installation commenced in 1962. On
January 11, 1962, the Employer and the Paper Handlers executed
a manning agreement giving the disputed work to the Paper Handlers,
and this agreement was subsequently incorporated in their most
recent contract. Experimental use of the new process commenced in
April 1963 with full usage planned for September 1963. Employees
currently assigned the work underwent a 5-day training period to,
learn how to use the new equipment as well as the labeling procedure.
The training program was conducted by employees of a paper mill.
2 The pressman removes the iron rod onto which the paper web is rolled.
DETROIT MAILERS UNION 4, INT'L MAILERS UNION 229'
Respondent Mailers was certified in 1958 in a unit 3 which included
"All employees doing work appertaining to mailing, such as address-
ing, tagging, stamping, labeling, bundling, or wrapping...." The-
Paper Handlers was never certified.
The Mailers' contract contains a jurisdictional clause which in part
covers "Work appertaining to mailing : such as addressing, tagging,.
stamping, labeling, bundling or wrapping...." and its constitu-
tion contains similar jurisdictional language.
The Paper Handlers' contract states that "Employees shall do such.
work as is designated by the Employer either in connection with
the handling of paper, press-room supplies and/or plates, at the pub-
lishing plants where they are employed, or any designated work in
connection with the handling of paper and supplies." Its constitu-
tion provides that "Paper Handlers shall have jurisdiction over all
operations of paper handling in terminals, warehouses, storehouses,.
warerooms and press-rooms."
B. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute pursuant
to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reason-
able cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated.
Upon the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to the Paper-
Handlers, the Respondent informed the Employer by letter that "the
instant such disputed work is performed by any individual not a
member . . . of this local union, we shall establish a picket line .. .
advertising the fact that you have given our work to others. . .
Respondent admits it sent this letter in order to force and require
the Employer to assign the disputed work to its members rather-
than to members of the Paper Handlers. After receiving this noti-
fication, the Employer filed charges against the Mailers alleging a
violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D).
On the basis of the foregoing conduct and the entire record, we
find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly-
before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
C. Contentions of the parties
Respondent's basic contention is that the work in dispute is clearly-
part of its wrapping, labelling, and shipping function, though it is
wrapping, labeling, and shipping of heavy rolls rather than of-
bundles. Respondent contends that the job of moving and handling
the preprint requires no particular skill or judgment, and that what-
ever skills are necessary can be easily and quickly learned. Re--
8 American PubZi8hing Corporation, 121 NLRB 115, 123.
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent further contends that its certification and contract give it
jurisdiction over labeling,and wrapping without regard to whether
or not the items to be wrapped and labeled are bundles or rolls. In-
dustry practice, according to Respondent, is that paper handlers feed
the press and mailers take from the press, and that the disputed
work is, in effect, taking from the press. Because the Employer as-
signed the disputed work to the Paper Handlers without first notify-
ing the Respondent, the Respondent asserts that Gravure was acting
in bad faith and the resulting assignment was improper. Finally,
Respondent contends that either union can perform the disputed work
with equal efficiency.
Paper Handlers contends that it should perform the entire operation
because (1) its contract gives it general jurisdiction, and the manning
agreement gives it specific jurisdiction; (2) trade practice is such that
paper handlers normally handle rolls of paper both in the industry
and at Gravure; (3) the job of paper handling requires a higher de-
gree of skill in order to do an efficient job, minimize damage to the ex-
pensive rolls of paper and maintain safety standards; and (4) in its
view, the disputed work is essentially -a paper-handling function re-
quiring paper-handling skills and tools.
The Employer contends that it exercised its management preroga-
tive to assign the work,and that it violated no outstanding agreement
in doing so. In its view, economy and efficiency of operation, as
well as company and industry practice, dictate that the paper han-
dlers, who possess the requisite skills, do the work. The Employer
points out that the Mailers' certification does not mention the wrap-
ping of rolls of paper, and that the Mailers' contract specifically
provides that the Mailers' jurisdiction shall not be expanded-i.e., to
include paper-handling functions. Finally, the Company contends
that under its contract with the Paper Handlers that union has juris-
diction over the new work which is a paper-handling task, while
the Mailers, under its contract, has jurisdiction over the wrapping
and labeling of folded material coming from the presses. Thus the
Company claims on the basis of the jurisdictional clause in the Mail-
ers' contract that the Mailers has waived jurisdiction over any work
the Mailers had not previously performed-and the Mailers had
never wrapped or labeled rolls of newsprint.
D. Merits of the dispute
While it appears that the portion of the preprint operation in dis-
pute presents a paper roll handling problem, it also involves the
wrapping and labeling function. It thus combines come functions
of both mailers and paper handlers . The specific preprint operation
was learned inn 5-day training program.
DETROIT MAILERS UNION 4, INT'L MAILERS UNION 231
The Paper Handlers claims that theirs is a skill which requires
years of training and experience. However, therea is record evidence
to show that the so-called skill involved in handling rolls of paper
is relatively simple and easily earned. The Mailers' contention that
they can easily learn how to handle these rolls appears to be well
taken. Further, there 'is evidence that the mailers do handle large
rolls of paper, though it is wrapping and not newsprint. Thus the
skills involved do not weigh heavily in favor of either union.
Only the Mailers has been certified. Although the particular work
in dispute did not exist at the time of its certification and -therefore
is not precisely described therein, it would appear that the certifica-
tion was intended to establish the Mailers' right to represent a unit
of employees engaged in all wrapping, labeling, and mailing func-
tions. Furthermore, it is clear'that 'all these functions fall within
the Mailers' jurisdiction.
Company and industry practice, as a general rule, is that paper
handlers bring papers to the presses sand mailers take printed mate-
rial from the- presses. Mailers do handle rolls of wrapping paper,
but paper handlers have no occasion to wrap or label. There is evi-
dence that at newspapers in Detroit, paper handlers handle the rolls
of incoming preprint, just as they handle any other roll of newsprint
before it goes on the press.
There are conflicting claims in regard to 'an agreement between the
disputing unions. Respondent claims it agreed with the Paper
Handlers that mailers would wrap and label and paper handlers
would ship the preprint, but that the Paper Handlers reneged. Paper
Handlers claims it never entered into any such agreement. How-
ever, the Employer was not present when the alleged oral agreement
was made nor did he agree to be bound thereby. Such purported
agreement, even if it did exist, would not be controlling here.4
There are no awards of arbitrators, joint boards, AFL-CIO, or
others in evidence.
The Employer stated on the record that it does not care which
union gets the assignment, so long as only one union is chosen. Ac-
cordingly, the fact of the Employer's assignment to the Paper
Handlers and the claims that the efficiency of its operation would
be impaired if more than one employee were engaged in any of the
steps of preprint processing would appear to be of little or no im-
portance as factors to be considered by the Board in making its
determination. Each of the competing unions claims that it,can do
the job efficiently. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate
.the Employer's claim that it would be inefficient to split jurisdiction,
but commonsense dictates that a job which requires only ,2 hours out
of seven full-day shifts could probably best be done by only one man.
AEngineered Buildang Specaaltie8, Inc., 144 NLRB 1279.
M2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, should the very limited preprint production increase, as
appears to be inevitable, the "efficiency" picture is certain to change,
and on this aspect of the case the record is silent. The record is also
silent as to what economies, if any, would be realized by the assign-
ment of the disputed work to either of the unions.
In the final analysis it appears that this dispute grew out of the
Employer's introduction of a new process which prepares its product
in a different final form, albeit a form which now has a striking re-
semblance to part of the "raw material" used in producing the prod-
uct. Nevertheless, the wrapping, labeling, and shipping functions
must still be performed on that product. Those functions have tradi-
tionally been the functions of the employees of the Mailers unit.
Accordingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional dispute
by assigning the work of wrapping, labeling, and handling of pre-
print to the bargaining unit currently represented by the Mailers.
In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to
employees represented by the Mailers, but not to the Mailers or its
members. Our present determination is limited to the particular
controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute,
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
Employees classified as mailers, currently represented by Detroit
Mailers Union No. 4, International Mailers Union, are entitled to the
work of wrapping, labeling, and handling of rolls of printed news-
print known as preprint, from the point at which the preprint is de-
cored to the point at which it is removed from the floor of the building
and related duties at the Employer's plant located in Detroit,
Michigan.
Century Electric Company and Century Foundry Company and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner. Cases Nos.
14-RC-4659 and 14-RC-4664. March 3, 1964
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Joseph H. Solien. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
146 NLRB No. 25.