Electrical Workers, Local 1527

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 128 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
since has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act
5 By refusing to recognize Barbara Wright the duly selected grievance chairlady
or steward and thereby refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act
6 By refusing to employ Kathleen Lewis on May 25 1965 and Beulah Wilson
on September 14 1965 the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
7 By the foregoing conduct the Respondent has interfered with restrained and
coerced employees in their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 9(a)(1) of the Act
8 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommended Order omitted from publication ]
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1527,
AFL-CIO and McCall Corporation and Dayton Typographical
Union, Local No 57, International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO Case 9-CD-80-2 October 19,1966
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 McCall Cor
poration, herein called the Company, alleging that the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No 1527, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Respondent or IBEW, had violated Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by inducing or encouraging employees of the
Company to cease work for the purpose of forcing or requiring the
Company to assign the work in dispute to employees who are mem-
bers of the Respondent rather than to employees who are represented
by the Dayton Typographical Union, Local No 57, International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the ITU A hearing
was held on June 7, 1965, before Hearing Officer Donald G Logsdon
All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross examine witnesses, and to
adduce evidence bearing on the issues Thereafter, briefs were filed
by the Company, the Respondent, and the ITU
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following findings
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The McCall Corporation, a Delaware corporation , is engaged in
the publishing and printing business , employing 5,600 people repre-
161 NLRB No 10
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1527 129
sented by 15 unions , at its Dayton , Ohio, plant In addition to its own
publications , McCalls, Redbook , and Saturday Review , the Company
prints some 50 or 60 other publications by contract with other pub
lishers, principally Readers Digest, Newsweek , U S News and World
Report, and Popular Science The plant prints and distributes on the
average of 4,500 ,000 magazines daily During the 12 month period
preceding the hearing , it performed services to customers outside the
State of Ohio valued at more than $50,000, and during this same
period it also shipped goods and materials valued at more than
$50,000 directly to points outside the State of Ohio The parties stipu
lated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, tnd that it will
ef[ectuite the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The IBEW and the ITU are both labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
III THE DISPUTE
A The work in issue
The work in dispute is the maintenance of the "electronic" 1 por
tions of electro mechanically operated Elektron and Monarch type
setting machines at the Company's Dayton, Ohio, plant
B Facts as to the dispute
Since 1924, when the Company established its plant in Dayton,
Ohio, it has dealt with both the IBEW and the ITU unions and has
had formal bargaining agreements with them dating from 1937 Dur
ing this period, ITU machinists have performed all the mechanical
maintenance of the Employei's typesetting machines The Employer's
maintenance electricians, members of the IBEW, have performed
certain maintenance functions such as the repair or replacement of
the electric motors which drive the machines, the lights, the electric
heater elements which provide the heat for melting the metal used in
casting the type, and the temperature controls The maintenance elec
i The record does not indicate that vacuum tubes transistors or other semiconductor
devices or other components of an electronic nature are in fact employed in the operations
of the typesetting machines here involved However the term electronic has been used
in this record to designate the electrically activated type of operation which distinguishes
these newer typesetting machines from the older machines in the Company s composing
room We shall likewise use the term electronic to designate the electric devices which
activate the machine functions in the Company s newer machines which are the subject
of this dispute
264-188-67-vol 161-10
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tricians have also done the necessary wiring to connect the machines
to the sources of electric power in the Employer's plant
In May 1964, the Company installed two Elektron and one Mon
'irch typesetting machines These are essentially the same as the tra
ditional Linotype machines which have long been used, but are
"electronically" rather than mechanically operated, and incorporate
certain electronic, or electric, safety devices to warn of any malfunc
tion From May until October 1964, the new machines were maintained
by the ITU machinists, including maintenance of the electronic oper
,tting and safety controls At some time in October, a machinist took
in electronic component, such as a resistor or capacitor, but not posi
ti%ely identified in the record, to a maintenance electrician for testing
this incident led to the filing of a complaint by the IBEW with the
Emp'oyei in iihich it ch iiged thit the ITU machinists were doing
electrical maintenance work in the composing room which properly
belonged to the IBEW maintenance electricians The Company met
with the IBEW and suggested that the two Unions, ITU and IBEW,
get together and try to settle their differences But no agreement was
reached by the Unions, ind in January 1965 the IBEW, in a meeting
with the Company, charged that the ITU machinists were perform
ing not only the electrical maintenance on the three new typesetting
iachines, but also other electrical maintenance work which the
IBEW electricians had formerly done At a later date in January,
the Company met with the ITU, which refused to give up any of the
mainten'ince work, whether electrical or mechanical, on the new
machines
Following this impasse, the Company filed a charge against the
IBEW alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D), but this was sub
sequently withdrawn On April 30, the Company directed a letter to
the Unions, making a formal assignment of the typesetting machine
maintenance work, including the electronic or "electro mechanical"
work, to the ITU machinists, but excluding all electrical hookup
ii ork on drive motors, heaters, lights, temperature controls, and cer
tarn other work on the circuit breaker boxes for the temperature con
trols, which was assigned to the IBEW electricians Thereafter, on
May 3, the IBEW notified the Company that this assignment was
entirely unsatisfactory and that its members did not intend to per
form any work for the Company after May 28, 1965, unless a satis
factory assignment was made On Mty 10, the Company filed the
charge in this case Subsequently, the IBEW agreed that in the event
the Board issues a notice of hearing in this proceeding, it would not
engage in a strike There has been no ii ork stoppage
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1527 131
C Contentions of the parties
The IBEW contends that its contract and constitution, ' and the
Company's past practice, give it jurisdiction over all electrical
maintenance work in the plant, including all the electrical mainte
nance on the Company's typesetting machines
The ITU, on the other hand, contends that it has historically poi
sessed jurisdiction of the maintenance work on typesetting machines,
that both its conti act 9 and p tist pi actice in the Company's plant give
it this jurisdiction, and further contends that the functions of the elec
tronic components on the new machines are so intertwined with the
mechanical operation of these machines that the entire maintenance,
electronic as well as mechanical, belongs and should be assigned to the
machinists represented by the ITU
The Company, while agreeing with the ITU, further argues that
the electronic devices on the new machines are no more than secondary
to their mechanical aspects and hence that the knowledge and expert
ence of the ITU machinists make them fundamentally more qualified
foi their mainten ince The Company also asserts that the efficiency
of its operations demands that the work be assigned to the ITU
machinists because they ai e ilw ays stationed in the composing room,
tnd that a division of the maintenance work between that which is
electrical and that which is mechanical would be too costly because it
would require the permanent assignment of electricians to the coin
posing room , in addition to the ITU machinists who are already sta
tioned there
D Applicability of th e 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
2 Article III section I of the IBEW Bargaining Agreement sets forth its coverage as
follows
all employees engaged in work which comes under the jurisdiction of the above
named International Union
Article XXVIII of the IBEW constitution provides in pertinent part that
the jurisdiction of the IBEW be recognized as one covering
(a) The manufacture assembling construction installation or erection repair
or maintenance of all materials equipment apparatus and appliances required in
the production of electricity and its effects
3 The ITU Bargaining Agreement provides in pertinent part that
Jurisdiction is defined as including all composing room work and includes
operators and machinists on all mechanical devices which cast or compose type
A jurisdiction includes maintenance of all the foregoing equipment and
devices except that programming and maintenance which is provided by the manu
facturer or lessor or by experts not available from the employees covered by this
agreement
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was reasonable cause to believe that a violation had been committed
and directed that a hearing be held in accordance with Section 10(k)
of the Act
Before making a determination of the dispute, the Board is
required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b) (4) (D) has been violated We aie satisfied that there is adequate
support for such a finding in this case, particularly in the light of the
IBEW's letter dated May 3, 1965, rejecting the Company's April
assignment of maintenance R of k on typesetting machines in the com-
posing room and advising that its members did not intend to perform
any work after May 28 unless a satisfactory assignment was made
Upon the basis of the above and the entire record before us, we find
that there is reasonable cause to believe that the IBEW threatened
a strike with an object of forcing the McCall Corporation to assign
work to members of the IBEW rather than to member- of the ITU,
and that therefore a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) has occurred
Accordingly, we find that the work dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act
E Merits of the dispute
Section 10 (k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of the disputed work, after giving due consideration to vari
ous relevant factors The factors hereinafter set forth bear on the
issue of work assignment before us
1 Background facts as to the machines and operations involi ed
The traditional typesetting , or Linotype , machine is a complex
machine designed to mold lines of type in metal In it a mold is stored
for each letter or character These are released in proper order by the
pressing of keys on a keyboard and fall into an assembling elevator
from which, when a line has been properly assembled and justified,
they move to the molding area of the machine where the line is cast
with a molten alloy of lead The molds, or mats, are returned by a
second elevator and distributed back into the magazine of the
machine The various processes of the machine , in the traditional
Linotype, are activated mechanically by cams, or by a leer moved
by the operator of the machine
In the machines which are the subject of the dispute in this pro
ceeding, the steps in the process above described are brought about,
not mechanically by the use of cams, but electrically through the use
of solenoids which activate the moving parts Microsu itches are used
at various points in the machine as a safety device, causing the
machine to stop as the result of a malfunction in some part Also to
an increasing extent , these machines are being operated not directly
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1527 133
oy the pressing of keys on the keyboard, but by the use of prepunched
tape which has been prepared for that purpose on a separate machine
The general purpose of these various functional improvements, like
the invention of the Linotype machine itself, has been to increase the
speed ww ith which type can be set
2 The skills and training of the employees
From the time of the invention of the Linotype machine and
the first installation of the machine about 1886 or 1890 in ITU
ieprecented shops, ITU members hale both operated and maintained
these machines I he ITU had developed for the machinist apprentice
a separate course of apprenticeship which includes not only instruc
tion in the maintenance and repair of typesetting machines, but also,
in part, training such as is given to the typesetting machine operator,
including fnmilitirity with the keyboard, setting of type, and making
of forms Completion of this apprenticeship leads to journeyman
-tatus similar to that of the opeiator, and qualifying for an identical
pay scale ITU members hai e likewise prepared for and performed
the maintenance work on all the changes and improvements on the
Linotype or other typesetting machines since the beginning The ITU
operates a training center which provides courses of training in the
ad-, anted in i liine operations, including a special 3 week course on
the Elektron m ichine The ITU ilso operates throughout the United
States and Canada about 100 other training schools which use
instiuctois tiained it the training center
About the time of the installation of the new machines at the Com
p my s pl int, thiec machinists, one from each shift, were sent to a
'chool conducted bti the m inuf ictuiei of the machines for a special
2 -,seeh course of instruction in then maintenance'` Upon their return,
they used this ti iining is a basis for familiarizing the other machin
ists with the maintenance of the new equipment
The maintenance electricians also possess ability to perform mainte
mince upon the electric components involved in the functioning of
these machines At the hearing, the ITU stipulated that there is other
complicated equipment ha-ving similar "electronic" components in
the Company's plant that is maintained by the electricians And the
Company likes` ise conceded that the electricians have the ability to
do this work Howe\ er, both the ITU and the Company assert, and
the record appears to establish, that the ITU machinists are better
prepared to perform the necessary maintenance work on the electrical
operating controls of the new machines by virtue of their greater
familiarity with the mechanical processes involved and their general
Three machinists including at least one of the three above mentioned have also taken
a 9 month course in electronics set up by the Dayton Typographical Union
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
training in the setting of type. Repairs of components such as micro-
switches and solenoids in most cases involve no more than removing
the part and replacing it with a new one. The machinists ' knowledge
of the mechanical features of typesetting machines enables them more
quickly to locate and repair a malfunctioning part. In the case of
typesetting machines operated by prepunched tape, which includes
not only material to be converted into type but also various operating
instructions to the machine, the machinists are able more readily to
read the tape and apply the thus acquired information to locate the
source of the malfunction. Upon the entire record, we conclude that
because of their greater familiarity with the operations of the
machines and the setting of type, the factors of training and skill
appear to favor the ITU machinists.
3. Collective -bargaining agreements
The record shows that the Company has had collective -bargaining
contracts with both Unions for a number of years, beginning before
introduction of the electronically operated typesetting machines in
the plant. Both the IBE'W contract and constitution set forth in
footnote 2, supra, and the ITU contract set forth in footnote 3, supra,
can be said to be subject to an interpretation which would include
jurisdiction over the maintenance of electronic components of the
newly acquired typesetting machines. Accordingly, and as neither
contract provides any specific reference to the operations here in dis-
pute, we find that the factor of contract provisions favors neither
Union.
4. Company, area, and industry practice
The record establishes that the Company's practice has always been
to assign the mechanical maintenance work, and since the advent of
its three new machines also the electronic maintenance work, on its
typesetting machines to the ITU. Further , the record shows that
while there are no other known electro -mechanical typesetting
machines being utilized in the Dayton area, ITU machinists maintain
and repair similar electronic typesetting equipment throughout the
industry. We therefore find that the Company's past practice of
assigning the disputed work to the ITU, in accord with the practice
of other principal employers in the industry, favors awarding the
disputed work to the ITU.
5. Other pertinent decisions
There has been no arbitration decision concerning the work in dis-
pute at this plant. The record shows, however, that on February 16,
1965, pursuant to a complaint filed by the IBEW, David Cole, umpire
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1527 135
of the AFL-CIO Internal Dispute Plan, issued a decision concerning
the electrical maintenance of Elektron typesetting machines at the
New York Daily News. Cole found the ITU in violation of the AFL-
CIO constitution by performing electrical maintenance. We note,
however, that neither the Company nor the ITU appeared at the
hearing. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any showing
in the record as to its evidentiary basis, we can attach little weight to
that determination.5
6. Substitution of functions and job loss
As set forth above, for many years the ITU machinists have per-
formed all maintenance work relating to the mechanical operations of
the Company 's Linotype or other typesetting machines . Electricians
represented by the IBKW have performed tasks in connection with
replacement or repair of drive motors , heaters , lights, and tempera-
ture controls . It is clear , as indicated in our previous discussion of the
typesetting machines and their operation , that the electrical compo-
nents on the Elektron and Monarch machines whose maintenance is
here in dispute perform precisely the same functions as the mechanical
cams and levers on the earlier forms of typesetting machines and
hence are merely a more efficient substitute for these earlier mechani-
cal devices. If maintenance of the "electronic " portions or components
of the E]ektron and Monarch machines is awarded to the ITU
machinists , it would result in neither gain nor loss of work to either
of the competing groups of union members , but if the same work is
awarded to the IBEW electricians it would advantage them at
the expense of the machinists . Thus, this factor favors the ITU
machinists.
7. Efficiency of operations
The Company desires assignment of the disputed maintenance work
to the ITU machinists, asserting that such assignment promotes the
efficiency of its operations. The record discloses that in the conduct of
the Company's publishing business time is an important factor, as
there are constant deadlines to be met. It is evident that at least one
advantage in use of the improved machines here involved is their pos-
sible contribution to speed in production. The IBEW electricians are
stationed on a floor of the plant other than that on which the compos-
ing room is located. They are summoned by telephone and are dis-
patched, if available, from this location or from other parts of the
plant. The ITU machinists, however, are stationed in the composing
5 Carpenters District Council of Denver t Vicinity, AFL-CIO (J 0. Veteto and Son), 146
NLRB 1242 ; Local 964, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO (Carleton Brothers Company ), 141 NLRB 1138
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I oom, two on each of the three shifts, and are thus immediately avail
able to perform required maintenance tasks e We find that the factor
of efficiency favors the ITU
Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors appearmg in the rec-
ord, we shall assign the disputed work to the ITU machinists, who
possess sufficient skill, are more effective in the performance of such
work because of their broader knowledge of the machines and of the
typesetting process, and have performed the work in the past to the
satisfaction of the Company, which desires to retain them on the job r
The present assignment of the work in dispute to the machinists is
consistent with the Company's past practice, is in accord with that of
other employers in the industry, and results in neither gain nor loss
of jobs for either disputant The assignment of the disputed work to
the electricians would not promote the efficiency of the Company's
typesetting operations, and might result in adding unnecessary cost
to maintain them We, accordingly, determine the instant jurisdic
tional dispute by deciding that the ITU machinists, rather than the
IBEW electricians, are entitled to perform the electronic maintenance
work on the Company's Elektron and Monarch typesetting machines
How e-. er, the award of this specified work is not to be taken as encom
passing work traditionally performed by the IBEW, such as repair or
replacement of electric motors, lights, electric heater elements, tem.
perature controls, and the wiring connecting the machines to sources
of electric power In making this determination, we are assigning the
work to the machinists Hho are repiesented by the ITU, but not to
that Union or its members
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 makes
the following determination of dispute
1 The machinists employed by the McCall Corporation, who are
represented by the Dayton Typographical Union, Local No 57, Inter
national Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform
6 The record indicates that the very great majority of all maintenance work on the
typesetting machines is mechanical in nature Hence the Company is in any event required
to continue the full time assignment of ITU machinists to the composing room If the
IBEW electricians were to be assigned the maintenance of electronic components in the
typesetting machines the possibility of breakdown in these parts and necessity of speedy
repairs would the Company asserts require the assignment also of an IBEW electrician
to full time duty in the composing room on each shift a procedure which would involve
excessive cost
1Locai Union 1$4 of IBEW (Kansas City Star Company) 160 NLRB 1091 (Supple
mental Decision and Amended Determination of Dispute)
ELSA CANNING COMPANY 137
the disputed work of maintaining the electronic components on type-
setting machines located in the composing room of the McCall Cor-
poration plant, Dayton, Ohio.
2. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No.
1527, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Company to assign
the above-described disputed work to electricians.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision, and Determina-
tion of Dispute, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local No. 1527, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 9, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forc-
ing or requiring the Company, by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to electricians
rather than to machinists.
Elsa Canning Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America , General Drivers Local Union No. 657.
Case 23-CA-2109. October 20,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 31, 1966, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, all parties filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and supporting briefs. Respondent filed a brief in
answer to the Charging Parties' exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and briefs, the
General Counsel's and the Charging Parties' exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the fol-
lowing modification.
161 NLRB No. 9.