Local 162, Machinists

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 399 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LOCAL 162, MACHINISTS
Local Lodge No. 162 affiliated with District 34 of
the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO; Arnold Tucker,
Business Representative; Gordon Rodgers, Chief
Steward' and The Cincinnati Enquirer , Inc.2 and
Cincinnati Typographical Union No. 3,
International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO.3
Case 9-CD-127
February 10, 1969
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CLARIFY AND MODIFY and AMENDING
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On September 11, 1968, the National Labor
Relations Board issued a Decision and
Determination of Dispute,4 in the above-entitled
proceeding in which it was concluded that the
Respondent was not entitled to perform the disputed
work. The Decision described the work in dispute as
11. . . the electrical maintenance and repair of
typesetting and subordinate equipment located in the
composing room ..."5 of the Employer, and stated,
in the "Conclusions as to the Merits of the
Dispute," that on . . all pertinent factors
appearing in the record, we shall assign the disputed
work to the ITU machinists .."6 Nevertheless,
that decision stated that we "... determine the .. .
dispute by deciding that the ITU machinists, rather
than the IAM electricians, are entitled to perform
the electronic maintenance work on the Company's
Elektron II typesetting machine. However, the
award of this specified work is not to be taken as
encompassing work traditionally performed by the
IAM, such as repair or replacement of electric
motors, lights, electric heater elements, temperature
controls, and the wiring connecting the machines to
sources of electric power."7
On October 23, 1968, the Charging Party filed a
Motion, and Argument in Support of Motion,
requesting the Board to modify and clarify its
Decision and Determination of Dispute by: (a) a
specific definition of the term "The Work in
Dispute" awarded to the machinists represented by
ITU, and (b) in the next to the last sentence of the
section of the Decision entitled "Conclusion as to
the Merits" deleting the words "electric heater
elements, temperature controls." The Charging
Party contended that the IAM, on the basis of the
'Herein called IAM or Respondent
'Herein called Employer or Charging Party.
'Herein called ITU or Intervenor
1172 NLRB No 226
'Id., sec. III, A.
"Id sec . entitled "Conclusions as to the Merits of the Disputes"
'Ibid
399
Board's Decision herein, is now taking the position
that the work awarded was only the electrical and
mechanical maintenance repair of the Elektron If
machines rather than of all composing room
equipment of the Employer. The Employer argues
that on the basis of the complaint, record, and briefs
of all the parties, it is apparent that the work in
dispute involved all electrical and mechanical
maintenance and repair work on all equipment in
the composing room, that it is reasonably clear that
the Board so found, and that it was this work which
was awarded to the ITU machinists. It is further
argued by the Employer that the award of work on
"electric heater elements and temperature controls"
to electricians who are represented by IAM is
inconsistent with the remainder of the Board's
decision.
On October 29, 1968, having considered the
Charging Party's motion, the Board, in the interest
of facilitating the disposition of the matter, notified
the parties, that it deemed it desirable that each of
the parties file a statement of position with respect
to the Charging Party's motion. In response thereto,
ITU International filed a reply in which it adopted
the Charging Party's motion as its own, and the
Intervenor filed a Statement of Position supporting
and adopting the Employer's motion. The
Respondent filed a motion in opposition and moved
for dismissal of the Charging Party's motion.
Respondent contended that the testimony of Larry
Nash, Employer's Director of Operations, showed
that electric maintenance work had traditionally
been performed by electricians for 12 years and they
had performed "The same job as we now have."
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 Dane].
Having fully reviewed the entire record herein and
the present arguments of the parties, we find merit
in the contention of the Charging Party. The
position of all parties to this proceeding, as
demonstrated by their statements on the record, and
in their briefs, reveal that the work in dispute
included all electrical and mechanical work on all
the composing room equipment. Further, the record
shows this was fully litigated. While the original
decision herein contained the inadvertent deviation
set forth above, it is clear that the scope of the work
in dispute which was under consideration included
all electrical and mechanical work on all composing
room equipment. It is also clear that the decision
was intended to assign to the machinists represented
by the ITU the performance of such work, but it
was not intended to reassign work traditionally
assigned by the Employer to electricians represented
by the IAM.
In view of this ambiguity or possible
inconsistency, we shall grant the Charging Party's
174 NLRB No. 66
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motion to clarify and deny the "Respondent's motion
to dismiss said motion. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Charging Party's
motion for modification and clarification be, and it
hereby is, granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following
changes be made:
1. In the section entitled "Conclusion as to the
Merits of the Dispute," the fourth and fifth
sentences be deleted and the following be
substituted: "We, accordingly, determine the instant
dispute by deciding that the ITU machinists, rather
than the IAM electricians, are entitled to perform
the electrical maintenance and repair of the
typesetting and subordinate equipment located in the
composing room of the Company. However, the
award of this specified work is not to be taken as
encompassing work traditionally performed by the
IAM electricians, such as repair or replacement of
electric motors, lights, and the wiring connecting the
machines to sources of electric power."
2. In the Determination of Dispute, paragraph
numbered 1, delete the words: "of maintaining the
electronic components on typesetting machines
located" and substitute the following: "of electrical
maintenance and repair of the typesetting and
subordinate equipment located"
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Decision and
Determination of Dispute issued on September 11,
1968, as printed, be, and shall appear as hereby
amended.