Graphic Communications International Unions, Afl-Cio

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1989

295 N.L.R.B. 32 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

32 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Graphic Arts Union No. 67, a/w Graphic Communi-
cations International Union, AFL-CIO and
Bowne of Boston , Inc. and Local Union No.
600, a/w Graphic Communications International
Union, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CD-842
June 15, 1989
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed June 24 , 1988, by the Employer , alleging that
the Respondent , Graphic Arts Union No. 67, a/w
Graphic Communications International Union,
AFL-CIO (Local 67), violated Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging
in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the
Employer to assign certain work to employees it
represents rather than to employees represented by
Local Union No. 600, a/w Graphic Communica-
tions International Union , AFL-CIO (Local 600).
The hearing was held July 27 and August 2, 1988,
before Hearing Officer Fay G. Kaufman.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings,
finding them free from prejudicial error. On the
entire record , the Board makes the following find-
ings.
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, a Massachusetts corporation, is
engaged in the printing of various financial docu-
ments at its facility in Boston, Massachusetts,
where it annually purchases and receives goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points located outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts . The parties stipulate , and we find,
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
that Local 67 and Local 600 are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer, a financial printer, purchased a
Harris V-25 Web offset press (Web press) in early
1988.1 Prior to the Employer 's acquisition of the
Web press, the pressroom operated with presses
that were fed with single sheets of paper.2 After
the paper had passed through the press, it was
stacked on pallets and transported to the bindery
area. On some occasions the Employer would ship
this material to a subcontractor for binding; al-
though on other occasions, the employees in the
bindery area would perform the folding, cutting,
gluing , and shipping of the product.
The Web press prints on a continuous roll of
paper, rather than on individual sheets. The Web
press has two attachments. One attachment per-
forms an integrated cutting and folding operation,
and the other functions as a conveyer belt to trans-
port the finished product. The process of printing,
folding , cutting, and stacking is a continuous oper-
ation. The Web press and attachments pull the roll
of paper through the entire process. The tension of
the roll as it threads through this system of ma-
chines must be constantly monitored and adjusted;
otherwise, the press will not print properly.
The Employer has a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Local 67, which represents the press-
men. The pressmen operate the Employer 's print-
ing presses . In 1987, the Employer successfully ne-
gotiated a new collective -bargaining agreement
with Local 67. The Employer planned to purchase
the Web press and, accordingly, included provi-
sions relating to the press in the new agreement.
The scale of wages and manning of equipment sec-
tions of the agreement both specifically refer to the
Web press and the three employee positions re-
quired to operate the press.
Local 600 also has a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Employer covering the Employer's
binders. The binders operate the Employer's book-
binding equipment and perform shipping functions.
A team of three employees operate the Web
press and attachments. Each employee has specific
duties, but they share and exchange responsibilities
when setting up and operating the press. The em-
ployees function as an integrated team because
each employee is conversant with the operation of
the Web press and its attachments.
In February, after the Employer assigned the
work in dispute to employees represented by Local
67, Local 600 sent the Employer a letter claiming
the work in dispute and stating that it wanted to
negotiate . The Employer's written response to
Local 600 stated that the work would be per-
formed by employees represented by Local 67. The
Employer and a representative of Local 600 met to
discuss the dispute , but matters were not resolved.
' All subsequent dates refer to 1988 unless otherwise specified.
z After the Web press was introduced, the Employer continued to use
the single sheet presses
295 NLRB No. 3
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS (BOWNE OF BOSTON) 33
Local 600 then requested the Employer to submit
the dispute to arbitration.
During a phone conversation in June, Local 67's
business representative informed the Employer that
it would strike if the assignment of the work in dis-
pute was submitted to arbitration or if the work
was assigned to Local 600. Local 67 also sent a
letter to the Employer repeating these statements.
B. Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the folding, cutting,
stacking , and bundling in conjunction with the op-
eration of the Web press and its attachments at
Bowne of Boston , Inc.'s facility in Boston, Massa-
chusetts.3
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and Local 67 contend that the
disputed work should be awarded to the employees
represented by Local 67 on the basis of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement , relative skills , area prac-
tice, employer preference , economy and efficiency
of operation , and safety.
Local 600 contends that there is not reasonable
cause to believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has
been violated because the statements made by
Local 67 were not genuine threats . Local 600 fur-
ther contends that , in the event the Board asserts
jurisdiction, the work should be awarded to em-
ployees represented by Local 600 on the basis of its
collective-bargaining agreement, relative skills, area
practice , past practice , and economy and efficiency
of operation.
D. Applicability of the Statute
As noted above, Local 67 threatened on two oc-
casions that it would strike if the Employer as-
signed the disputed work to Local 600 or submit-
ted the assignment issue to arbitration .4 No party
claims that there is an agreed -on method for the
voluntary adjustment of this dispute.
We find reasonable cause to believe that a viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that
there exists no agreed method for voluntary adjust-
ment of the dispute within the meaning of Section
10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the dis-
pute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an af-
firmative award of disputed work after considering
various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW
Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573
(1961). The Board has held that its determination in
a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based
on common sense and experience , reached by bal-
ancing the factors involved in a particular case.
Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction),
135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of this dispute.
1. Certifications and collective -bargaining
agreements
No party claims that there are certifications ap-
plicable to the work in dispute.
The Employer has collective-bargaining agree-
ments with both Local 600 and Local 67. The con-
tract with Local 600 generally refers to bookbind-
ing machinery, but does not refer to the Web press
or its attachments . Local 67's collective-bargaining
agreement with the Employer specifically includes
the Web press. Because Local 67 has a collective-
bargaining agreement covering the disputed work
and Local 600 does not, we find that this factor
favors awarding the work to the employees repre-
sented by Local 67.
3In the notice of hearing, the description of the work in dispute in-
cludes "shipping " Based on the parties ' briefs, it appears shipping is not
in dispute . The Employer 's brief states that "shipping belongs to the bind-
ery employees [employees represented by Local 600] [and] is really not
disputed , since the shipping aspect of the work commences when the
pallet is removed from the press ." Local 67 's brief states that "work in
dispute . . . involves only that portion of the operation which . ex-
tends to the placement of the twine -tied bundles on a skid " Because the
shipping work does not begin until the pallet is removed from the press-
room, and neither the Employer nor Local 67 continues to claim the
shipping is within the work in dispute in their briefs, we delete it from
this description of the work in dispute.
4 Through an offer of proof at the hearing , Local 600 attempted to in-
troduce evidence it claims would show that Local 67 cannot strike with-
out the consent of its International union , that Local 67 had not secured
such consent, and that bargaining unit members represented by Local 67
would not have voted to strike over the disputed work . Local 600 asserts
this shows Local 67's threats were not genuine. Even accepting the offer
of proof as true, the offer does not dispute that the threats were made. At
best, the offer of proof raises the possibility that a strike by Local 67
might subject Local 67 to discipline from the International or that Local
67-represented employees of the Employer might not participate in a
2. Relative skills
Because the Web press and attachments function
as an integrated system , an employee should be
able to perform the duties related to all aspects of
the machine's operation , including loading the rolls
of paper, adjusting the printing units, and operating
the attachments . Employees represented by Local
67 are trained on each aspect of the operation.
Local 600-represented employees are familiar
with machines that perform cutting and folding,
the type of work performed by the Web press at-
tachments. The evidence does not indicate they can
strike There is, however, no evidence suggesting that Local 67 was not
serious in making the threat. See Cincinnati Mailers Union No. 17, 265
NLRB 1052, 1053 (1982)
34 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
perform the work "in conjuction with the oper-
ation of the Web press." Accordingly, this factor
favors an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by Local 67.
3. Area practice
The evidence concerning area practice is too
limited to determine with certainty whether an
area practice exists for performing the work in dis-
pute. Therefore, this factor does not favor award-
ing the disputed work to a particular group of em-
ployees.
4. Employer preference
The Employer has assigned the work to employ-
ees represented by Local 67 and prefers that assign-
ment . Accordingly, we find this factor favors
awarding the disputed work to the employees rep-
resented by Local 67.
5. Past practice
The Employer did not own a Web press until
purchasing the press that is the subject of this dis-
pute . The Web press combines work previously
performed separately by employees represented by
Local 67 and employees represented by Local 600.
Because the evidence indicates that employees rep-
resented by both Locals previously performed vari-
ous aspects of the work incorporated in the Web
press system , this factor does not favor awarding
the disputed work to a particular group of employ-
ees.
6. Economy and efficiency
Evidence presented at the hearing shows that it
is more economical and efficient for the Employer
to use employees represented by Local 67. These
employees were trained to operate the Web press
and its attachments . This allows them to exchange
responsibilities while operating the press and at-
tachments and, accordingly , to function as an inte-
grated team.
The employees represented by Local 600 are fa-
miliar only with the functions of the attachments.
Local 600 did not present evidence that the em-
ployees it represents are able to perform other
work on the Web press. This prevents these em-
ployees from being integrated into the system of
teamwork necessary to operate the Web press and
attachments . If the disputed work were assigned to
employees represented by Local 600, the utility of
these employees would be severely limited. Using
employees represented by Local 67 provides the
Employer with greater flexibility in operating the
Web press and is a more efficient use of manpower.
This factor favors awarding the disputed work to
employees represented by Local 67.
7. Safety
Although the Employer contends that employees
represented by Local 67 were able to perform the
work in dispute safely, we find the evidence pre-
sented insufficient to establish that the safety factor
favors awarding the disputed work to a particular
group of employees.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that employees represented by Local 67
are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We
reach this conclusion relying on the collective-bar-
gaining agreements , relative skills , employer prefer-
ence, and economy and efficiency of operation.
In making this determination, we are awarding
the work to employees represented by Local 67,
not to that Union or its members . The determina-
tion is limited to the controversy that gave rise to
this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute.
Employees represented by Graphic Arts Union
No. 67, a/w Graphic Communications Internation-
al Union , AFL-CIO are entitled to perform the
folding , cutting, stacking , and bundling in conjunc-
tion with the operation of the Web press and its at-
tachments at Bowne of Boston , Inc.'s facility in
Boston, Massachusetts.