ITU and Pueblo Typographical Union, Local 175

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 921 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

ITU AND PUEBLO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, LOCAL 175 921
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF HOD CARRIERS' AND CONSTRUCTION LABORERS' UNION
LOCAL 300, INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS'
UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed
by Universal, Wyco, Terich, their subcontractors, or any other employer, to
engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of such individual's employment
to use or handle any materials, or to perform any services or threaten, coerce,
or restrain Universal, Wyco, or Terich, their subcontractors, or any other em-
ployer by a strike or picketing, where in either case an object thereof is to force
or require these employers to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by
Section 8(e) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by
Universal, Wyco, Terich, their subcontractors, or any other employer, to
engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of such individual's employment to
use or handle any materials, or to perform any services, or threaten, coerce,
or restrain Universal, Wyco, or Terich, their subcontractors, or any other em-
ployer, by a strike or picketing, where in either case an object thereof is to force
or require said employers to cease doing business with Fiesta Pools, Inc.
HOD CARRIERS' AND CONSTRUCTION LABORERS'
UNION LOCAL 300, INTERNATIONAL HOD CAR-
RIERS', BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS'
UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By'-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of the
posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In-
formation regarding the provisions of this notice and compliance with its terms
may be secured from the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board,
849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204.
International Typographical Union and Pueblo Typographical
Union , Local No. 175, AFL-CIO and Rocky Mountain Bank
Note Company. Case No. 937-CD-43. January 10, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act following
charges filed by Rocky Mountain Bank Note Company, herein called
the Employer, alleging that International Typographical Union and
Pueblo Typographical Union, Local No. 175, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Typographical Union, had threatened, coerced, or restrained the
Employer with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to
assign certain work to members of the Typographical Union rather
than to members of Pueblo Printing Pressman and Assistants Union,
Local No. 163, AFL-CIO, herein called the Pressmen's Union. A duly
scheduled hearing was held before Hearing Officer Allison E. Nutt
145 NLRB No. 95.
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on August 20, 1963. 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 upon the issues. The rulings
of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer and the Typographical
Union filed briefs which have been duly considered.'
Upon the entire record, the Board 2 makes the following findings:
1. As stipulated by the parties, the Employer is a Colorado corpora-
tion, operating printing plants in Pueblo and Denver, Colorado. The
Pueblo plant ships goods directly to points outside of Colorado valued
at substantially more than $50,000 per year. The annual gross volume
of business of the Pueblo establishment is in excess of $500,000 per year.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The parties stipulated that the Typographical Union and the
Pressmen's Union are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The dispute :
A. The facts
The Employer is engaged in the business of printing bank checks
and other items in Pueblo, Colorado. The portion of the Employer's
operation which is relevant to this case consists of three divisions; a
composing room, a pressroom, and a transfer room, where offset plates
are made . The composing room employees have been represented for
many years by the Typographical Union and the pressroom employees
have been represented for many years by the Pressmen's Union. Since
1955, there has been a succession of individuals who worked in the
transfer room, none of whom was a member of any union.
Since 1955 also, the Employer's contract with the Pressmen's Union
has contained language indicating that the Pressmen's Union had
jurisdiction over transfer room work. In 1956, the Typographical
Union negotiated a contract with the Employer which gave jurisdic-
tion over a portion of the transfer room work to the Typographical
Union. The coverage of the jurisdiction clause in the Typographical
Union's subsequent contracts has been expanded so that the 1961-63
contract covered about 90 percent of transfer room work. All parties
admitted being aware of the overlapping jurisdictional provisions of
their contracts,but no effort was made by either Union to enforce them
with respect to the individual working in the transfer room.
1 Subsequent to the hearing , the Typographical Union requested oral argument before the
Board. As the record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties,
the request for oral argument is denied.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and
Members Leedom and Fanning].
ITU AND PUEBLO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, LOCAL 175 923
In April 1963, the sole employee in the transfer room joined the
Pressmen's Union.
During negotiations for a new contract to become effective June 1,
1963, the Typographical Union proposed that the jurisdiction clause
of the expiring contract be incorporated into the new agreement. The
Employer rejected this demand and proposed instead that the clause
relating to jurisdiction over transfer room work be eliminated from
the Typographical Union contract. When no agreement could be
reached, the two composing room employees left their jobs on instruc-
tions of the Typographical Union. At no time has the Typographical
Union sought to represent the employee presently working in the
transfer room.
B. Contentions of the parties
The Employer and the Pressmen's Union contend that withdrawal
of the Typographical Union members from employment in support of
the demand for renewal of the jurisdiction clause in the expired con-
tract constituted a strike for an object of compelling the Employer to
assign the transfer room work to employees represented by the Typo-
graphical Union, within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the
Act.
The Typographical Union argues that it has a dispute with the
Employer over,the terms of a contract which does not come within
the ambit of Sections 8(b) (4) (D) and 10(k) of the Act. It relies on
the fact that it has made no demand for a change in any work assign-
ment and asserts that it has no intention of making such demand
and that it is willing to permit the current transfer room employee to
remain on the job without insisting that he join the Typographical
Union or that its contract be applied to him.
C. Applicability of the statute
We are of the opinion that the record in its entirety does not establish
that a jurisdictional dispute exists in this proceeding. We accordingly
find that there is no dispute herein which is cognizable under Section
10(k) of the Act.
The record shows that the Typographical Union has disclaimed any_
interest in the work now being performed in the transfer room, that
it does not seek to represent the employee performing that work, and
that it does not seek to apply the terms of its contract with the Em-
ployer to this individual. Rather, the Typographical Union is seek-
ing only to negotiate a contract clause relating to work jurisdiction.
Thus, the present dispute is between the Employer and the Typo-
graphical Union over the terms of their collective-bargaining agree-
ment and not over the assignment of specific work. This was rec-
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ognized by all parties when they stipulated at the hearing that the
strike of the Typographical Union was :
[O]ver the jurisdictional language and not a strike over work be-
ing done, one employee to another. In other word, this is a
strike caused by inability to negotiate jurisdiction contract
language . .. .
The Board has repeatedly held that Sections 8('b) (4) (D) and
10 (k) were intended to deal with disputes involving competing claims
for specific work and not to settle collective-bargaining disputes be-
tween a union and an employer.' As no such dispute is involved in the
instant case, we find, on the entire record, that the facts herein do not
present a jurisdictional dispute within the purview of Sections
8(b) (4) (D) and 10(k) of the Act. We shall therefore quash the
notice of hearing.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
3 Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers International Union, Local No. 828, AFL-CIO (Acoustics
& Specialties, Inc.), 139 NLRB 598; Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local
Union No. 272 ; et at. (Valley Sheet Metal Company ), 136 NLRB 1402; Brotherhood of
Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70, etc. ( Hills Transportation Co.), 136 NLRB
1086; Highway Truckdrivers & Helpers, Local 107, etc. ( Safeway Stores , Incorporated),
134 NLRB 1320. Although Member Leedom dissented in Safeway and Valley Sheet Metal,
he believes that the instant case is distinguishable . In those cases , it was conceded that
there was a dispute between the respondent union and the employer over specific work;
the only issue was whether the union which had been assigned the work was making a
competing claim. Under those circumstances , Member Leedom was of the view that there
was a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (D) and 10(k) re-
gardless of whether the union to which the work was assigned had actively asserted a
right to such work. Here, however, as noted, the dispute between the Respondent
Typographical Union and the Employer was solely over a contract clause and not over
any specific work in the transfer room.
Recipe Foods , Inc. and District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, Petitioner. Case No. 25-RC-1940. January 10, 1964
ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION OF
,,REPRESENTATIVES
After an election conducted pursuant to a stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election, the Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth
Region issued a certification of representatives in the above-entitled
proceeding on February 6, 1961, certifying District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, as the collective-bargaining representative for
a production and maintenance unit at the Employer's Terre Haute,
Indiana, plant, excluding "the temporary employee," inter alia.
Thereafter, in April 1961, and again in January 1963, the Employer
145 NLRB No. 98.