Graphic Arts

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 366 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Graphic Arts International Union , Local Union No . 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
505, AFL-CIO-CLC' and Mid-America Printing
Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Daily Rec-
ord Company ' and St . Louis Paper Handlers' and
Electrotypers' Union No. 16, Subordinate to the In-
ternational Printing and Graphic Communications
Union, AFL-CIO.' Case 14-CD-509
September 16, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing the filing of charges on May 21, 1975, by Mid-
America Printing Company, a wholly owned subsid-
iary of Daily Record Company herein called the Em-
ployer, alleging that Graphic Arts International
Union, Local No. 505, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein
called GAIU, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act by threatening, coercing, and restraining the Em-
ployer with an object of forcing the Employer to as-
sign certain work to employees represented by GAIU
rather than to employees represented by St. Louis
Paper Handlers' and Electrotypers' Union No. 16,
subordinate to the International Printing and Graph-
ic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, herein called
Paper Handlers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Stanley R. Zawatski on June 12,
1975. All parties appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employer and
the GAIU each filed a brief, and the Paper Handlers
filed a motion to amend description of work tasks in
dispute.
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:
1 The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing.
The parties stipulated that the Employer, a Mis-
souri corporation, with its central offices located in
the City of St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in the op-
eration of printing presses for newspapers and other
commercial accounts. The Employer annually per-
forms services valued in excess of $500,000 and pur-
chases and causes to be transported and delivered to
its St. Louis, Missouri, place of business goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000, which goods
valued in excess of $50,000 are delivered directly to
its St. Louis, Missouri, facility from points located
outside the State of Missouri. Accordingly, we find
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the GAIU
and the Paper Handlers are labor organizations with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background
The Employer specializes in color printing on
newsprint and prints local and national tabloids,
Sunday supplements for newspapers, and other com-
mercial accounts. Until recently the Employer oper-
ated two presses-an Urbanite and a Suburban. The
parties stipulated that the dispute herein arises in
connection with the installation of a third press-a
Harris-Cottrell 1660. The Employer is signatory to
collective-bargaining agreements with the GAIU and
with the Paper Handlers.
Paperhandlers unload rolls of newsprint from
trucks and boxes, unload ink drums and miscella-
neous items, and handle paper storage. They also
take rolls of newsprint to the press area, line them up,
strip off the protective wrapping and end covers, and
leave them there. Feeders and pressmen represented
by the GAIU put the rolls of paper on the press reels,
or pasters, and print the product. In putting the pa-
per on the reels of the Suburban and Urbanite press-
es, the feeders take the rolls from where they were
left by the paperhandlers, put them on turntables and
dollies as necessary, and push them to where they
can be inserted in the reels.
The Employer began preparations for the installa-
tion of the Harris-Cottrell press in the spring of 1974.
The press has about twice the capacity of the Urban-
220 NLRB No. 66
GRAPHIC ARTS
ite and four times the capacity of the Suburban
presses . The method of movement of newsprint from
where it is stripped by the paperhandlers to where it
is put in the pasters or reels is different from that of
the other presses . The Harris-Cottrell press has four
pasters. Running perpendicular to each reel is an ap-
proximately 20-foot long trench to the area where the
rolls of newsprint are stripped. There is a dolly in
each trench and a turntable at one end to permit the
rolls of paper to be turned in alignment with the
press reels . At the reel end opposite the loading
turntable there is a skate which is used to move the
paper perpendicularly from the trench to where it is
put on the reel. Thus, once the paper is stripped it
must be rolled onto the dolly in the trench on the
turntable, the dolly must then be turned so the paper
is properly aligned, the dolly with the paper is pushed
about 20 feet to the skate area , and then the paper is
pushed, perpendicularly to the trench, into position
to be put on the reels.
On February 28, 1975, prior to the operation of the
Harris-Cottrell press, the Employer in a letter to the
GAIU assigned all work commencing with the roll-
ing of the newsprint rolls onto the dolly on the turn-
table to employees represented by the GAIU. In
May 1975, when the press was nearly completely in-
stalled , the Harris-Cottrell Company tested the oper-
ation of the reels . In so doing, they had paperhan-
dlers move the newsprint onto the dollies and along
the track to the reel. On May 20, 1975, a shop stew-
ard of the GAIU told the Employer's president that
if he gave away jurisdiction over handling the rolls of
newsprint on the dollies, GAIU would shut him
down. On May 21, 1975, the vice president of GAIU
confirmed that GAIU would shut the Employer
down under such circumstances.
B. Work in Dispute
The disputed work consists of the manual labor of
loading rolls of newsprint onto dollies in the trenches
of the Harris-Cottrell press, turning the loaded dol-
lies on the turntable in the trench, and moving the
loaded dollies to the area at which the newsprint is
loaded onto the presses. There was inconsistent testi-
mony by Paper Handlers witnesses with respect to
what point along the trench they no longer claimed
jurisdiction over the work. In any event, the disputed
work at least involves the moving of rolls of news-
print onto the dollies?
2 The Paper Handlers filed a motion to amend the description of work
tasks in dispute to include "the movement and delivery of imprinted news-
print . . . which includes the loading of said rolls of newsprint onto dollies
for delivery to the press ." We find it unnecessary to rule on said motion in
view of our disposition of this proceeding and because the record herein
367
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Paper Handlers claims that the disputed work
should be awarded to the employees it represents by
virtue of its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer which gives them jurisdiction over delivery
of newsprint "to and from the presses." The Paper
Handlers also argues that area and industry practice
favor award of the work to paperhandlers.
Both the Employer and the GAIU contend that
the disputed work should be awarded to feeders rep-
resented by the GAIU. They argue that such an
award is indicated by the Employer's past practice,
the Employer's assignment of the disputed work, and
the efficiency and economy of operations which
would result from such an award.
D. Applicability of the 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?
As set forth above , representatives of the GAIU
threatened on two occasions to shut down the Em-
ployer if the work in dispute were not assigned to the
GAIU. Accordingly , we are satisfied that there is
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Sec-
tion 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 disputed work after
giving due consideration to various relevant factors.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the Paper Handlers defines the juris-
diction of paperhandlers to include "stripping and
preparing rolls of newsprint both printed and un-
printed and delivery to and from the presses." How-
ever, delivery of newsprint "to the presses" is not a
makes clear that the dispute involves the pushing of rolls of newsprint onto
the Harris-Cottrell dollies The only question involves how far along the
trench the handling of the paper is claimed by the Paper Handlers
3 The Paper Handlers submitted evidence of internal AFL-CIO charges
which it brought against the GAIU. However, no evidence shows that the
Employer, a necessary party to any voluntary settlement , had agreed to any
such procedure. In fact, the evidence shows, to the contrary, that the Em-
ployer is not a party to any voluntary dispute settlement procedure.
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
precise term, especially in the context of the
Employer's operations. In taking rolls of newsprint
to the Urbanite and Suburban presses, the paperhan-
dlers line up the stripped rolls near where the rolls
are put onto the press reels . On one of the presses the
paper is left across an aisle or corridor from the past-
ers or reels . On both the Urbanite and Suburban
presses, pressmen, not paperhandlers, put the paper
rolls on turntables and dollies, as necessary, and
move the rolls the final distance to the reels. For
these reasons, the collective-bargaining agreement,
contrary to the Paper Handlers contention, does not
favor award of the disputed work to paperhandlers.
5. Economy and efficiency
The Employer's president testified without contra-
diction that assignment of the disputed work to pa-
perhandlers would require the Employer to hire an
additional paperhandler so that someone would be in
the immediate vicinity to supply the press with news-
print. He also testified that assignment of the work to
employees represented by GAIU would not require
an additional employee because feeders, who were
present to load and check the press reels, could do
the work. This factor favors award of the work in
dispute to employees represented by GAIU.
2. Employer assignment
The Employer's assignment of the disputed work
to employees represented by the GAIU, prior to the
actual operation of the Harris-Cottrell press, favors
award of the work to such employees.
3. Area and industry practice
The evidence on area and industry practice is in-
conclusive. The Paper Handlers introduced evidence
to show that employees it represents handled news-
print on dollies on a track at a St. Louis, Missouri,
newspaper. However, the record shows that the oper-
ation was significantly different in that it involved a
powered dolly on a track many times as long. In ad-
dition, the unions involved in this dispute are not the
same as at that newspaper. The Paper Handlers also
introduced evidence with respect to a Minnesota
newspaper. Not only is that company in a different
geographic area but the testimony was spotty and the
operations of that company not well described or, so
it appears , well remembered.
4. Skills and safety
The record shows that only minimal skills are re-
quired to perform the work in dispute. Either group
of employees can perform the work safely.
Conclusions
Upon the entire record, and after full consider-
ation of all relevant factors here involved, we find
that employees represented by the GAIU are entitled
to perform the work in dispute. This award is sup-
ported by the Employer's assignment of the work in
dispute and by the economy and efficiency of opera-
tions which would result if the feeders rather than the
paperhandlers perform such work. In making this
award, we are assigning the work to employees repre-
sented by the GAIU rather than to that organization
itself or its members. Our present determination is
limited to the particular dispute which gave rise to
this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and on 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 Dispute:
Employees of Mid-America Printing Company, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Daily Record Company,
who are represented by Graphic Arts International
Union, Local Union No. 505, AFL-CIO-CLC, are
entitled to perform the disputed work loading rolls of
newsprint onto dollies in the vicinity of the Harris-
Cottrell 1660 press at the Employer's St. Louis, Mis-
souri, plant.