Graphic Arts Local 139B (Sullivan Bros.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 1294 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Graphic Arts International Union, Local 139B and
Sullivan Bros., Printers and Lowell Printing and
Graphic Communications Union, No. 109. Case 1-
CD-503
December 19, 1977
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Sullivan Bros., Printers, herein
called the Employer, alleging that Graphic Arts
International Union Local 139B, herein called the
Respondent or Bookbinders, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
requiring the Employer to assign certain work to
employees it represents rather than to employees
represented by Lowell Printing and Graphic Com-
munications Union, No. 109, herein called Pressmen.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Francis X. McDonough on April 27,
1977. All parties appeared 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 Bookbin-
ders filed briefs which have been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer, a Massachusetts trust with its principal
place of business in Lowell, Massachusetts, is
engaged in the business of commercial printing.
During the past year, the Employer purchased paper,
ink, and related products from outside the State
having a value of $50,000 and annually ships finished
products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside
Massachusetts. The parties also stipulated, and 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 purposes of the Act to
assertjurisdiction herein.
233 NLRB No. 182
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Respon-
dent and Pressmen are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Prior to November 1975, the trimming of the
Employer's printed matter was performed by a
journeyman member of Respondent using a "guillo-
tine" or "flat-bed" trimmer which was operated by
hand. The items such as booklets were first printed
by the Employer's web presses (operated by mem-
bers of Pressmen) and then picked up manually by a
bookbinder helper and carried to the trimmer. There
the journeyman bookbinder used a trimmer, contain-
ing a straight-edged knife, to trim the product.
During the time period in which the trimming was
done in the above-described fashion, the Employer
had two journeymen pressmen assigned to its presses
with a pressman helper assigned when necessary.
In November 1975, the Employer replaced the
"guillotine" trimmer with a "three-knife rotary
trimmer." The new trimmer, unlike the one it
replaced, is connected to and powered by the
Employer's printing presses. The trimmer operates
only when the presses are operating and is controlled
by the senior pressman who must push a button
located on the press to start it. After paper passes
through the presses, resulting in finished printed
matter which has been slit, folded, and cut, it passes
through the "three-knife rotary trimmer" where
further trimming is performed automatically.
When the new trimmer was installed, the Employer
instituted several personnel changes. The job of the
bookbinder helper who formerly manually carried
printed matter to the guillotine trimmer was abol-
ished. The assignment of the journeyman bookbinder
who formerly operated the guillotine trimmer was
changed to the tying of bundles of booklets. The
Employer at this time also added a pressman helper
to its personnel. The pressman helper takes the
trimmed books off the conveyor after the trimming
has been completed and hands them to the journey-
man bookbinder for tying. Additionally, however,
the pressman helper performs other tasks on the
press normally performed by journeymen pressmen
while the presses are not operating. These include
helping to move and change rolls of paper, filling the
ink fountains, and changing the plates.
The effect of the above personnel changes was
therefore the elimination of a bookbinder helper
1294
GRAPHIC ARTS, LOCAL 139B
position; change in job assignment of a journeyman
bookbinder; and addition of a pressman helper.l To
the extent that the new trimmer is "operated," its
operation was assigned to employees represented by
pressmen.
In late December 1976 and in early January 1977,
Bookbinders President William McAneney threat-
ened to strike the Employer if it did not reassign the
work of operating the machine to employees repre-
sented by Bookbinders.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute, as described above, involves
the operation of the Employer's three-knife rotary
trimmer.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the work should be
awarded in accordance with its assignment to
employees represented by Pressmen. This, it is
asserted, is consistent with the Employer's contract
with Pressmen. The Employer also asserts that other
factors including efficiency and industry practice
support the assignment.
Bookbinders contends that the relevant factors
favor an award of the work to employees represented
by it. In support, it relies on its contract with the
Employer, industry practice, economy of operation,
and prior Board decisions. Bookbinders further
contends that efficiency of operation does not clearly
favor an award as made by the Employer.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of the 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 the parties have not agreed upon a method
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. It is not
disputed that the Employer assigned the work in
dispute to Pressmen and that Bookbinders later
threatened on two occasions to strike if the work was
not reassigned to employees represented by it. Based
on the foregoing, and the record as a whole, we find
that an object of the threat to strike by Bookbinders
was to force or require the Employer to assign the
disputed work to employees represented by it.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that at the time
of the instant dispute there did not exist any agreed-
upon or approved method for the voluntary adjust-
1 The testimony revealed that when the present journeyman bookbinder,
now assigned to tying the booklets, leaves the Employer's employ he will be
replaced by a bookbinder helper. The net effect of all the changes will
therefore eventually result in the elimination of one journeyman bookbinder
position.
ment of the dispute to which all parties to the dispute
were bound.
Based on the above, we find that there is
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has occurred and that
the dispute is properly before the Board for determi-
nation under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
I. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
There are no outstanding Board certifications
covering the work in dispute.
The Employer presently has contracts with both
Pressmen and Bookbinders. In the portion of the
Employer's contract with Pressmen which covers
jurisdiction the following appears:
It is understood that this contract applies to the
Union pressrooms and related departments, as
described hereinafter, operated by the Company
and that the jurisdiction of this contract extends
over all printing presses operated in said press-
rooms, including, but not limited to gravure,
offset and letterpress printing presses and associ-
ated devices.
The Employer notes that the work performed by the
three-knife rotary trimmer is part of one continuous
operation of printing, cutting, folding, and trimming.
Indeed, it further states that the three-knife rotary
trimmer is powered by the press and can only be
operated when the presses are operating. Therefore,
it contends, the trimmer must be considered an
"associated device" within the meaning of the above-
quoted contract language and must, in accordance
with the contract, be awarded to employees repre-
sented by Pressmen. 2
In support of its construction of the contract, the
Employer cites the slitter operation of its "tote-ticket
press" which has been assigned to employees
represented by Pressmen for many years. Like the
three-knife rotary trimmer, the tote-ticket trimmer
uses rotary slitters which are powered directly by the
press.
Bookbinders contests the Employer's construction
of the Pressmen contract and contends that its own
contract covers the disputed work. Bookbinders also
questions the Employer's analogy of the three-knife
rotary trimmer to the tote-ticket trimmer.
2 At the heanng the International representative for Pressmen concurred
in the contention that the tnmmer is part of the press equipment.
1295
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bookbinders contract with the Employer, after
listing the wage scale for the "Journeyman I"
position, states:
Includes Folding Machine Operators, Sheet
Stock Cutters, Book Trimmers (3 Knife Ma-
chines), Combination Bindery Machine, Sheridan
Inserting Machine, Hamilton Collator Machine.
In addition, article 3-03 of the same contract, after
listing wage rates for the "Helper" category, states:
"Includes helpers on cutting machines, folding
machines .... " Bookbinders contends that the
contract language, referring specifically to "three-
knife machines" and "cutting machines" clearly
defines the disputed work as being under its
jurisdiction.
With respect to the Employer's argument concern-
ing the tote-ticket trimmer, Bookbinders counters
that this is merely a slitter which splits a single role of
paper into two rolls and a similar slitter is contained
in the press which eventually feeds into the three-
knife rotary trimmer in dispute herein. Thus, it
contends that the tote-ticket trimmer and three-knife
rotary trimmer are not analogous.
Bookbinders further contends that its operation of
two other "three-knife" machines, one connected to
an automatic inserter and the other hooked up to a
hand-fed stitcher, represent further support for its
construction of the contract.
The Employer, on the other hand, argues that the
language relied on by Bookbinders has been in the
Bookbinders contract for about 20 years while the
three-knife rotary trimmer is a recent invention.
Secondly, the three-knife cutters presently operated
by employees represented by Bookbinders do not
have rotary serrated trimmers; are not powered by
presses; and are used in conjunction with machinery
which, in any event, is under Bookbinders jurisdic-
tion. Therefore, the Employer maintains the con-
struction of the Employer-Bookbinders contract
sought by Bookbinders with respect to the work in
dispute is incorrect.
Consideration of the express language of the
contracts and the testimony explaining the applica-
tion of the contracts, as well as the record as a whole,
leads to the conclusion that the respective contracts
herein do not favor an award to employees represent-
ed by either Union.
2. Industry practice
The Employer maintains that industry practice
supports an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by Pressmen. In support thereof, it cites
testimony of a conversation between its trustee and
the representative of a publisher in Rochester, New
York. That company had a three-knife rotary
trimmer, manufactured by the same firm which
produced the machine which is the source of the
dispute herein, and had assigned its operation to
pressmen. The Employer further notes that Bookbin-
ders president was unaware of an instance where
operation of the same machine was assigned to
employees represented by Bookbinders International
(Graphic Arts International Union).
Bookbinders maintains that industry practice
favors an award to employees it represents. It cites
the conversation which Bookbinders president had
with one of his International representatives; and
Bookbinders president's knowledge, as chairman of
the New England Joint Conference Board (all
bookbinder locals in the New England area)-all to
the effect that he did not know of any instance where
three-knife trimmers were assigned to any union
other than bookbinder locals. Bookbinders president
admitted, however, that he was not referring to three-
knife trimmers which were powered by a press.
We find that the evidence of industry practice is
limited and provides an insufficient basis for deter-
mining industry practice respecting the jurisdiction
of the machine in dispute. We shall therefore not rely
on this factor in making an award in this proceeding.
3. Employer preference
The Employer has awarded the disputed work to
employees represented by Pressmen and this factor
favors an award to employees represented by
Pressmen.
4. Efficiency and economy of operations
As indicated above, with the introduction of the
three-knife rotary trimmer, the Employer made
several personnel and assignment changes, including
adding a pressman helper. The Employer maintains
that assignment of the work in dispute to employees
represented by Pressmen and the accompanying
personnel shifts constitute a basis for more efficient
operation than if the disputed work had been
assigned to employees represented by Bookbinders.
As already discussed, the pressman helper, in
addition to bringing printed materials to the book-
binder for tying, also performs numerous tasks on
the presses while they are not in operation which a
bookbinder could not do.
The actual amount of time spent by the helper
working on the press preparing for printing runs is
uncertain. The testimony revealed that the printing
runs themselves may last from 25 minutes to more
than an hour and that the changeover period
between runs may be from 12 to 18 minutes.
Bookbinders, in its brief, estimated that if the runs
1296
GRAPHIC ARTS, LOCAL 139B
were 1-1/2 hours, it would mean the press would be
running for 6 to 6-1/2 hours of a 7-1/2-hour shift,
leaving little time for the helper to work on the press.
While we do not necessarily agree with Bookbinders'
figures, we note that even assuming them to be
accurate the pressmen helper is still left with more
than minimal time to work on the press. Further, at
the beginning of each shift the pressmen spend
several hours preparing plates.
Bookbinders argues that it is also inefficient for the
Employer to assign the disputed work to pressmen
since a bookbinder helper would earn approximately
$2.40 per hour less than the pressman helper. We
note, however, that while we do not consider the
difference in wages to be a factor 3 in making an
award in a 10(k) proceeding, the pressman helper can
also perform other tasks which can not be performed
by a bookbinder helper.
In sum, we find that the factor of efficiency and
economy of operation favors an award of the
disputed work to employees represented by Press-
men.
5. Skills
The parties do not contend that the skills necessary
to operate the trimmer is a factor favoring either
Union in this dispute, as no specific skills are
required. The parties also agree that during the
operation of the trimmer little skill is required to take
printed matter from the conveyor and bring it to the
journeyman bookbinder for tying. We therefore find
that the factor of skills is not material to a resolution
of the dispute herein.
6. Prior Board cases
Bookbinders contends that the outcome in George
Banta Company, Inc., 200 NLRB 881 (1972), dictates
an award to Bookbinders herein. In Banta, the Board
awarded the operation of a Sheridan binder machine
to a sister local of Respondent herein. A sister local
of Pressmen contended therein that the work sought
was part of an integral operation characterized as a
"printing process." Bookbinders herein contends that
the Board in Banta pointed out that the operation
was not an overall printing process and the two
functions retained separate identities. It maintains
that similar rationale should be applied to the facts
herein and a like result should obtain.
We note, however, that in Banta the printing and
binding components could be and were operated
3 Cuyahoga, Lake, Geauga and Ashtabula Counties Carpenters District
Council, etc. (Midwest Exhibitors Service, Inc.), 217 NLRB 190(1975).
independently of each other. Here the three-knife
rotary trimmer cannot be operated without the press
and it cannot truly be said to maintain an indepen-
dent character. Consequently, we find that the factor
of prior Board law does not favor an award of the
disputed work to employees represented by Bookbin-
ders. In view of our findings with respect to other
applicable factors, however, we find it unnecessary to
rely on this factor in making an award.
CONCLUSION
Upon the record as a whole, and after full
consideration of all relevant factors involved, we
conclude that employees who are represented by
Pressmen are entitled to perform the work in dispute.
We reach this conclusion relying on the Employer's
preference and the efficiency of operation that will
result. In making this determination, we are award-
ing the work in question to employees who are
represented by Pressmen, but not to that Union or its
members. The present determination is limited to the
particular controversy which gave rise to this
proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings ahd the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Sullivan Bros., Printers, who are
represented by Lowell Printing and Graphic Com-
munications Union, No. 109, are entitled to perform
the work of operating the Employer's three-knife
rotary trimmer at the Employer's facility in Lowell,
Massachusetts.
2. Graphic Arts International Union, Local 139B,
is not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4XD) of the Act to force or require Sullivan
Bros., Printers, to assign the disputed work to
employees represented by that labor organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Graphic Arts Inter-
national Union, Local 139B, shall notify the Region-
al Director for Region 1, 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 disputed work in a manner
inconsistent with the above determination.
1297