Detroit Stereotypers Union No. 9

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 1972

196 N.L.R.B. 42 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Detroit Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union No. 9, In-
ternational Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of
North America, AFL-CIO and Bell Printing Plate
Company and Detroit Lithographers & Photoengrav-
ers International Union Local No. 12-P, Lithogra-
phers and Photoengravers International Union,
AFL-CIO.' Case 7-CD-258
April 3, 1972
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, fol-
lowing a charge filed by the Employer, Bell Printing
Plate Company, alleging that Detroit Stereotypers &
Electrotypers Union No. 9, International Stereotypers
& Electrotypers Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing
was held August 26, 27, and 31, and September 1 and
2, 1971, before Hearing Officer Marc M. Pekay. All
parties appeared at the hearing and all were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs in
support of their respective positions.
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 rulings of the hearing officer made at the hear-
ings are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Bell Printing Plate Company is a Michigan corpo-
ration with a plant in Detroit which makes printing
plates and some reproduction material from originals.
During the calendar year ending December 31, 1970,
it shipped printing plates, mats, proofs, and other
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to custom-
ers outside the State of Michigan from its plant in
Detroit, Michigan. We find that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
1 The names of the labor organizations appear as amended at the hearing
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The labor organizations involved are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Before 1968 the majority of the Employer's work
consisted of the production of electrotype printing
plates, for use in flatbed presses, which were made by
employees represented by the Electrotypers. Begin-
ning in 1966, however, the Employer started to receive
orders for reproduction proofs, faithful reproductions
made from a photoengraving plate which may be used
in turn for producing other photoengraving plates and
have a distinct advantage over the plates themselves
for shipping purposes. All proofs were made by the
electrotypers from 1966 to 1968 on Vander Cook
presses. In August 1968 the Employer purchased the
photoengraving department of the Detroit Gravure
Corporation and moved it to its own plant, retaining
all employees and assuming Detroit Gravure's con-
tract with the Photoengravers. Since 1968 and the
purchase of Detroit Gravure, both the electrotypers
and the photoengravers have made reproduction
proofs. Around 1969 customers began requesting long
runs of over 100 reproduction proofs which could not
be printed economically on the Vander Cook presses;
some of these runs in excess of the Employer's capaci-
ty were subcontracted to Pollak Printing, which had
an automatic Heidelberg press. In 1968, 1969, and
1971, the Employer met with representatives of the
Printing Pressmen's Union and the Electrotypers Un-
ion to discuss the possibility of the Pressmen sup-
plying a printer to operate an automatic press it was
considering purchasing. The Pressmen refused. In
April 1971 the Employer discovered that one of its
employees, a member of the Photoengravers, had pre-
viously been a printing pressman with experience in
operating a Heidelberg press. It purchased a Heidel-
berg press and installed it in the photoengraving de-
partment. Since then it has been used for most long
runs under the jurisdiction of the Photoengravers.
Thereafter the Electrotypers sought to have the op-
eration of the Heidelberg press and all proofing work
assigned to it. A series of letters from the Electrotyp-
ers to the Graphic Arts Association of Michigan and
to the Employer asserted that the work was covered
by its collective-bargaining agreement and requested
a meeting of the conciliation committee provided for
in the contract as a means of resolving disputes. The
general manager of the Association replied by letter
that both contracts, those of the Photoengravers and
the Electrotypers, provided for jurisdiction over
196 NLRB No. 9
DETROIT STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 9 43
proofing and that arbitration of separate sections of
separate contracts could result in conflicting awards
and suggested resolution of the dispute by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board under Section 10(k) of
the Act. The Electrotypers responded that it had not
threatened to picket, that it was merely request-
ing implementation of the collective-bargaining
agreement's provision for a conciliation committee to
resolve disputes and that, absent an agreement to ar-
bitrate, it would picket to secure enforcement of the
arbitration clause of the contract.
Thomas Bonino, the Employer's president, testified
that on May 24, 1971, he talked on the phone with the
Electrotypers President Hein who threatened to strike
and picket unless he signed an agreement to arbitrate
the dispute and to revert to the work assignments as
they existed before May 18 pending such arbitration.
Bonino refused to sign the agreement and the next
day, May 25, the electrotypers picketed the plant with
signs that alleged that the Employer had refused to
arbitrate. On the 25th Bonino signed an agreement to
arbitrate, though without agreeing to revert to work
assignments as they existed before May 18, and the
picketing ceased.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute consists of all proofing from
original photoengraving plates printed on the Heidel-
berg press or otherwise.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Respondent contends that it did not violate
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act and that its actions al-
legedly in violation thereof, including the picket line,
were directed only toward persuading the Employer
to comply with the arbitration clause of their collec-
tive-bargaining agreement. The Respondent further
contends that the proofing work in dispute tradition-
ally has belonged to its members, that they are capa-
ble of performing it, that the introduction of new
equipment (the Heidelberg press) should not operate
to oust them from their jobs, and that its members
could be trained to operate the new equipment.
The Photoengravers contends that its contract
clearly covers the work in dispute, that it had been
certified as collective-bargaining representative of the
employees performing the work in question and that
the work was covered by the certification, that an
interunion agreement between the parent Internation-
als is binding on the locals here and concedes the
work to the Photoengravers' members, and that the
Employer's assignment and the factors of skill, effi-
ciency, area and industry practice, and traditional ju-
risdictional claims all support an award of the work
in dispute to employees it represents.
The Employer urges much the same arguments as
the Photoengravers and also contends that the work
in dispute should be assigned to its employees who are
represented by the Photoengravers.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The charge alleges violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act. The Respondent, by its president, sent a
series of letters to the Employer and to the Graphic
Arts Association of Michigan, of which the Employer
is a member, claiming that the work in dispute lay
within its jurisdiction and requesting that its assign-
ment be arbitrated pursuant to the terms of its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Employer. The
Employer refused to arbitrate and the Graphic Arts
Association replied that such arbitration might not be
final, since the same work was covered in a separate
collective-bargaining agreement between the Employ-
er and the Photoengravers, which could give rise to
conflicting arbitration awards in favor of both Un-
ions. The Employer's president, Bonino, testified that,
on May 24, 1971, he received a telephone call from
Respondent's President Hein during which Hein
threatened to strike and picket unless Bonino signed
an agreement to arbitrate the dispute and to reassign
certain work to Respondent's members pending arbi-
tration. Bonino refused and the next day, May 25,
Respondent's members struck and picketed the Em-
ployer. The strike and picketing stopped when Bonino
signed an agreement to arbitrate the dispute, though
without agreeing to an interim assignment of the work
to Respondent's members pending arbitration.
Based on the entire record we conclude that there
is reasonable cause to believe that there has been a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act and that the
dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion.
E. Merits of the Dispute
1. Board certifications
The Photoengravers contends that in October 1948
it was certified by the Board as collective-bargaining
representative of photoengraving employees of the
Employer's predecessor in Case 7-UA-1648.2 Contra-
ry to the Photoengravers contention, however, that
case did not involve a question concerning represent-
ation but was a union-shop referendum under Section
9(e)(1) of the Act, since amended to eliminate such
referenda. The purpose of union-shop referenda was
to determine whether or not employees wanted their
2 Not published in NLRB bound volumes.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union to enter into a type of union-security agreement
permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3). It did not
authorize a union to act as collective-bargaining rep-
resentative, and Board certification of the results is
not tantamount to certification of a collective-bar-
gaining representative in an appropriate unit under
Section 9(c) of the Act. See Baker Ice Machine Compa-
ny, 86 NLRB 385.
2. Collective-bargaining agreements
Both the Electrotypers and the Photoengravers
have collective-bargaining agreements with the Em-
ployer covering the proofing work in dispute. Addi-
tionally, however, the Photoengravers contract,
article 2, section 3, assigns jurisdiction of "operation
of presses for production" to that Union, and to the
extent that the Heidelberg press is used for production
work this factor favors its assignment to the photoen-
gravers. Otherwise, however, we find y ►'hat the collec-
tive-bargaining agreements favor the claims of neither
Union.
3. Interunion agreements
Article III of the Electrotypers collective-bargatn-
ing agreement with the Employer expressly incorpo-
rates and binds the parties to the general laws of the
International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union.
The Photoengravers contends that the Respondent
and the Employer thereby bound themselves to a 1936
craft agreement between the Photoengravers and
Respondent's parent Internationals which provides in
pertinent part that "all work performed on Photo-
engravings properly belongs to and is conceded to the
members of the Photo-Engravers' Union ...... Exam-
ination of the "Constitution, By-Laws and General
Laws" of the International Stereotypers and Electro-
typers Union. however, indicates that craft agree-
ments are contained in a section separate and apart
from the bylaws and general laws and we conclude
that they are not considered general laws and were not
expressly incorporated into the contract between the
Employer and the Respondent. Nonetheless, it is un-
contested, and we conclude, that the agreement was
valid and is currently recognized. It is further uncon-
tested that the work in dispute is performed on pho-
toengravings. This factor favors assignment of the
work in dispute to the employees represented by the
Photoengravers.
4. Company and industry practice
The evidence in the record as to both employer and
industry practice is somewhat contradictory. Al-
though, as Respondent asserts, the record indicates
that the practice among members of the Graphic Arts
Association having a contract with Respondent (at
least with the exception of the Employer) is to have
proofing performed by the Respondent's members,
the record also indicates that the Employer is the only
member of the Association to employ both electrotyp-
ers and photoengravers; therefore, this fact is of little
or no significance.
The Employer's president, Bonino, testified that be-
fore the introduction of the Heidelberg press in or
around May 1971, proofing work was done by both
the photoengravers and the electrotypers, with the
electrotypers proofing 50 to 75 per cent of the "K
Mart" account and about half of the "Yankee" ac-
count. Cox, the electrotypers; foreman, testified that
all proofing of the "K Mart" account was done by
electrotypers to the best of his knowledge; he conced-
ed, however, that the photoengravers could have per-
formed proofing of which he was not aware.
Respondent's president from approximately 1967 to
1969 testified that all reproduction proofing was per-
formed by electrotypers from 1968 to 1970. This is
contradicted by the testimony of Bonino and another
of Respondent's own witnesses (Cox, who conceded
on cross-examination that the photoengravers had
done proofing of plates from the beginning), both of
whom were in better positions to know. The record
also establishes that some of the reproduction proof-
ing now performed on the Heidelberg press was previ-
ously subcontracted out to Pollak Printing as the
occasion demanded. Neither photoengravers nor
electrotypers customarily operate a Heidelberg press.
As the record suggests that the Employer's past
practice was to apportion proofing work based on
what it considered to be the dictates of a given situ-
ation and that portions of it were subcontracted out,
we find that this factor supports neither Union's claim
to all proofing work. Similarly, industry practice in
the area is of little help because the record indicates
no other employer with both photoengravers and elec-
trotypers. Nor are these factors of any great assistance
in relation to assigning the operation of the Heidel-
berg press, as distinguished from the work performed
on it.
5. Skills, efficiency, and availability of craftsmen
Making reproduction proofs from photoengrav-
ings is not a traditional electrotyper skill and the elec-
trotyper apprenticeship program does not provide
training in this area. There are individual electrotyp-
ers who are highly skilled at making reproduction
proofs, as the Employer concedes. The Employer as-
serts, however, that there is no sizable pool of trained
electrotyper-proofers from which it may draw, in con-
trast to the situation with respect to photoengravers.
DETROIT STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 9
The Employer also contends that on the average the
electrotypers' work is inferior to the photoengravers'
both as to speed and quality, in large part because
proofing is a recognized branch of photoengraving.
Photoengraver apprentices receive extensive training
in proofing and photoengraver proofers specialize in
it. The Employer contends that photoengravers attain
a higher level of performance than electrotypers who
must learn proofing without benefit of a formal train-
ing program.
The Employer's president, Bonino, testified that the
photoengravers' proofing was consistently of higher
quality, that they performed the work more rapidly
and hence more economically, that there were few or
no complaints about their work in contrast with that
performed by electrotypers, and that, although the
Employer had lost accounts or been forced to subcon-
tract out work performed by electrotypers because of
quality deficiencies, there were no such problems in
connection with the reproduction proofing performed
by photoengravers. Electrotyper witnesses testified
that there were a number of skilled electrotyper-
proofers, that there had been no recent complaints by
the Employer about the quality of electrotyper proof-
ing, and that they were not aware of any accounts lost
or subcontracted out because of the quality of the
electrotypers' reproduction proofing.
Bonino, the Employer's president, testified that op-
eration of the Heidelberg press was assigned to the
photoengravers because one of its members had pre-
vious experience operating such a press and none of
the electrotypers had such experience. Respondent
contends that a second photoengraver is being trained
to operate this press and that an electrotyper could
have been selected for such training in his place. How-
ever, Bonino testified that the photoengraver is being
trained in his spare time and since the photoengravers
work on the second floor, while the electrotypers work
on the first floor, coordination of such a training pro-
gram for an electrotyper would be impractical. The
Respondent further contends that an electrotyper
could have been trained by the Pressmen's Union,
which has offered to do so, and thus there was no
necessity to make the original assignment to the pho-
toengravers. It clearly appears from the record, how-
ever, that the training process would be lengthy,
conceivably requiring as much as 4 years, the length
of the Pressmen 's apprenticeship program. The presi-
dent of the Pressmen's Union testified it would take
much less time to train someone already working in
the industry, but that this advantage would be offset
to some extent by the fact that the electrotypers work-
ing for the Employer are older men. Other testimony,
though hearsay, put the training period at 6 months
if the trainee were able to devote his full time to it.
We conclude from the foregoing that the factors of
45
skill, efficiency, and availability of craftsmen favor an
aware of the work in dispute to photoengravers.
6. Job losses
It appears from the record that electrotyping is a
declining industry and that therc has been a continual
decrease over the years in the demand for electrotyp-
ers to practice traditional skills. Respondent contends
that award of the work in dispute to photoengravers
will cost electrotypers jobs and that the work previ-
ously had been performed by electrotypers. The rec-
ord supports these contentions to varying degrees.
Thus it is clear that at least part of the work now
performed by photoengravers was performed by elec-
trotypers and that there has been a net decrease in
proofing work by electrotypers since the installation
of the Heidelberg press and the assignment of most,
if not all, longrun proofing to photoengravers. How-
ever, although an electrotyper-proofer was laid off in
February 1971, no electrotypers were laid off between
the advent of the Heidelberg press and September
1971 when the hearing was held-this, of course, is no
guarantee for the future. Additionally, the record in-
dicates that some of the work now performed in the
plant was previously subcontracted out and that even
before the installation of the Heidelberg press proof-
ing was performed by both electrotypers and pho-
toengravers. Further, the Employer asserts that since
the Electrotypers is unable to provide anyone capable
of operating the Heidelberg press, an award of its
operation to electrotypers will be futile as it will once
again be required to subcontract work out, resulting
in a net decrease in work for all employees.
It is apparent from the foregoing that an assign-
ment of the work in dispute to either craft may have
a detrimental effect upon the jobs of the other.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the entire record and after full considera-
tion of all relevant factors, we shall assign the work in
dispute to the photoengravers. We reach this conclu-
sion particularly in view of the Employer's preference,
the greater average skill of the photoengravers, the
availability of trained craftsmen, and the fact that the
only employee capable of operating the Heidelberg
press, a photoengraver, was assigned to it. The record
clearly establishes that none of the electrotypers pos-
sesses this skill nor could an electrotyper be trained in
the press' operation in a reasonable amount of time.
In making this determination we are assigning the
disputed work to employees who are represented by
Detroit Lithographers & Photoengravers Internation-
al Union Local No. 12-P, Lithographers and Pho-
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
toengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, but not
to that Union or its members. .
DFTERMINATION 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 pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following determination of the dispute:
1. Employees employed by Bell Printing Plate
Company, Detroit, Michigan, who are currently rep-
resented by Detroit Lithographers & Photoengravers
International Union Local No. 12-P, Lithographers
and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO,
are entitled to all proofing from original photoengrav-
ing plates printed on the Heidelberg press or other-
wise.
2. Detroit Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union No.
9, International Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, is not, and has not
been, entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the Employer
to award the above work to its members or to employ-
ees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, Detroit Stereotypers &
Electrotypers Union No. 9, International Stereotypers
& Electrotypers Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing
or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D), to award the work in dispute to its
members or to employees it represents rather than to
employees represented by the Photoengravers.