Local 28, Int'l Stereotypers' & Electrotypers', Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1467 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

LOCAL 28, INT'L STEREOTYPERS' & ELECTROTYPERS', ETC. 1467
2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, International Longshoremen's Association and its Local
1291, shall notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in
writing, whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring
National, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to
assign the work in dispute to members of Local 1291.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing in this case, insofar as it
applies to Local 1332, International Longshoremen's Association.]
MEMBER BroWN took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Determination of Dispute, and Order.
Local 28, International Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO and Capital Electrotype Com-
pany, Inc. Case No. 3-CD-56. July 19, 1962
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act following a
charge filed by Capital Electrotype Company, Inc., herein called
Capital, alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (D) of the Act by
Local 28, International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Stereotypers or Respond-
ent. Specifically, the charge avers that the Stereotypers induced or
encouraged employees of Capital to engage in a refusal to perform
services for Capital with an object of forcing or requiring Capital to
assign certain printing plate work to its members rather than to
employees of Capital's customer, Williams Press, Inc., herein called
Williams. Williams' employees are represented by Albany Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23, International Printing Press-
men and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Pressmen. A duly scheduled hearing was held before Joseph I.
Nachman, hearing officer, on August 8 and 9, 1961, at Albany, New
York. All parties 1 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. The rulings of the hearing
officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Briefs filed by Capital, Stereotypers, and Pressmen
have been considered.
Upon the entire record, the Board makes the following :
1 Capital's attorney appeared for both Capital and Williams.
137 NLRB No. 164.
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Capital is engaged in manufacturing printing plates, and Wil-
liams in the operation of a printing plant, both in Menands, New
York. During the year preceding the hearing, Capital and Williams
each purchased goods valued at more than $50,000 from sources
outside the State of New York. We find that Capital and Williams
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Stereotypers and the Pressmen are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute.
A. The facts
Capital produces electrotypes for use on printing presses. The
plates are made by electrotypers, who are represented by Respondent.
Virtually all of Capital's work is done for Williams which operates a
printing plant and employs pressmen, who are represented by the
Pressmen.
An electrotype is a printing plate which is mounted on a printing
press which prints ink on paper. The conventional type of electro-
type is placed on a press individually by pressmen. It is then moved
around on the press cylinder to achieve position and register. That
is, it is moved around so the different images, or in the cases of color
work, different colors, meet precisely so as to give clear illustrations
of the image intended to be reproduced. The process of positioning
and registering, known as "makeready," consumes most of the time
of pressmen. In order to reduce the amount of this "makeready"
time, Capital and Williams have been experimenting with electrotypes
made from light materials such as nylon, rubber, and plastic, which,
instead of being affixed directly to the press, are first positioned and
registered on "carrying devices" which are then affixed to the press.
This method is more advantageous than affixing the electrotypes indi-
vidually to the press because several plates, four to eight, may be
attached to a single carrier, thus substantially reducing the amount
of "makeready" time needed in the pressroom for each printing run.
In the past Williams has used a tympan sheet as a carrier to which
its pressmen have affixed the electrotypes produced by Capital. Re-
spondent has not claimed jurisdiction over this affixing operation.
However, recently Williams began using a magnesium carrier and it
is the use of this carrier which precipitated the present dispute.
On April 21 and again on May 2, 1961, Capital received an order
from Williams for 12 plastic-back plates to be produced in accord-
ance with certain specifications. Under the terms of the order, the
plates were to be backed with "sticky back," showing that they were
intended to be affixed to a carrier in a series of multiple plates instead
of being affixed directly to a press. At the direction of Respondent,
LOCAL 28, INT'L STEREOTYPERS' & ELECTROTYPERS', ETC. 1469
Capital's employees refused to work on the order unless they were
also assigned the work of affixing the plates to the carrier. Thereafter
Capital filed 8(b) (4) (D) charges against the Respondent. These
charges were withdrawn while the parties attempted to work out an
adjustment of their difficulties. When the settlement attempts were
unsuccessful and Respondent's members refused to work overtime in
protest against Capital's failure to assign them the disputed work,
Capital refiled the charges. Thereafter, Respondent and Capital
agreed that Respondent's members would work on the plates pending
the Board's decision in this case, even though such members were not
being assigned the additional work of affixing the plates to the carriers.
B. Contentions of the parties
All parties concede that a jurisdictional dispute exists. Respondent
contends that at its members are entitled to the work of affixing the
electrotypes to carriers under the terms of its collective-bargaining
contract with Capital and that this contract is binding on Williams
.because Capital and Williams are a single employer within the mean-
ing of the Act.
The Pressmen contends that the two corporations are separate en-
tities and Williams, as a customer, is entitled to order plates to any
specifications, also that Pressmen now has and has had collective-
bargaining contracts with Williams covering the work in dispute, and
that it traditionally has performed such disputed work.
Capital denies that Respondent has any contract right to the work
of affixing electrotypes to carriers, and asserts that even if Respond-
ent does have such right under the existing contract, it has waived
the right by acquiescing for 10 years in Williams' assigning to press-
men the affixing of electrotypes to tympan sheets, work which is similar
to affixing thin electrotypes to a magnesium carrying device. It has
no objection to a one corporate entity finding for the purposes of this
case, or a separate entities finding involving no obligation to assign
work to the employees of a customer. Finally, Capital urges that the
disputed work should be assigned to pressmen because they are alone
qualified to perform it.
C. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute pursuant
to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reason-
able cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated. The
record shows that Respondent induced employees of Capital not to do
work on electrotypes intended for Williams and not to work overtime
with an object of forcing or requiring Williams to assign the work of
affixing electrotypes on, magnesium .carriers to electrotypers, who are
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represented by Respondent, rather than to pressmen, who are repre-
sented by the Pressmen. We find that the foregoing conduct estab-
lishes that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been committed and that the dispute is prop-
erly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
D. The merits
As noted, Respondent contends that Capital and Williams are a
single employer and, therefore, that its collective-bargaining contract
with Capital is binding upon Williams.
Capital and Williams are two separate corporations. Capital pro-
duces electrotypes for use on printing presses; Williams does printing
work. Substantially all Capital's work is done for Williams. The two
companies are located in the same building. The Barvoets family
owns the majority interest in each company. Capital's equipment is
owned by Williams. The directors of the two companies are inter-
related. The vice president in charge of production for Williams is
a member of the board of directors of Capital. Labor relations for
both companies are in the ultimate charge of the same individual. In
view of the foregoing, we find that Capital and Williams are a single
employer within the meaning of the Act,' and that therefore, for
purposes of work assignment , the collective-bargaining contract be-
tween Capital and Respondent is equally binding on Williams.
Respondent relies on the following jurisdictional clauses in the con-
tract to establish its right to the disputed work:
The jurisdiction of this Union [Respondent] shall include ...
all methods of printing, plate making and processing (includ-
ing, but not limited to rubber and plastic), .... The finishing,
including all color registration, premaking ready, preregistering,
and every process or operation for the perfecting and completing
such plates or reproductions for printing .... The mounting,
sealing or blocking of all plates, either on wood, metal, rubber,
plastic, paper, alloy bases or composition ... .
The record does not indicate that the positioning of a plate upon a
carrier is part of the platemaking process or the "perfecting and
completing" of plates. Rather, there was testimony that, depending
on the type of press used, the plates which were intended to be affixed
to a carrier could be placed directly upon the press without resort to
the carrying device. It thus seems clear that the plate is "complete"
and "perfect" before it is positioned upon the carrying device. Re-
spondent places the greatest stress of its argument upon the word
"mounting" in the jurisdictional clause of its contract. It asserts that
2 Thos. and Geo . if. Stone, Inc., et at., 120 NLRB 480; Gibbs Oil Company, et at.,
120 NLRB 1783.
LOCAL 28, INT'L STEREOTYPERS' & ELECTROTYPERS', ETC. 1471
positioning of a plate on a carrier is "mounting" work. In this con-
nection, it refers to a letter from Mr. Ashmead, president of Capital,
in which he referred to the disputed work as "mounting." However,
Ashmead testified that the jurisdictional clauses in the current bar-
gaining contract between Capital and Respondent did not cover the
work of positioning and registering electrotypes on carriers, the work
involved in the present dispute. Mr. Barvoets, an officer of Williams,
testified that the term "mounting" means different things to different
people. It includes the placement of a plate on a press, and the at-
tachment of an electrotype on a base such as a wood block. The
jurisdictional clause in the contract itself speaks of "mounting . . . on
wood, metal, rubber, plastic...." There was evidence that some
electrotypes require "mounting" on plastic as "back-up" to reach a
desired thickness. Some of the plates to be put on the magnesium
carrier were in fact first "backed-up" or "mounted" upon plastic.
There is no question but that this sort of "mounting" work is done by
electrotypers. It thus appears that the term "mounting" in the trade
does not have a precise meaning. In view of such ambiguity, we can-
not accord it significant or substantial weight as a factor in the decision
we must make.
Affixing electrotypes to a carrier involves skill in positioning and
registering. It is analogous to similar operations performed directly
on a press, work which is traditionally that of pressmen, and is in-
tended to reduce the amount of such direct positioning and registering
work. During the 10 years that Capital and Williams have been ex-
perimenting with carrying devices, pressmen have always performed
the work of affixing electrotypes to carriers. There is evidence that
when the carrying device was first introduced, members of Respondent
sought the disputed work, but quickly abandoned efforts to obtain it.
Until recently, the carrier used was a tympan sheet. Respondent does
not seek the work of affixing electrotypes to this kind of carrier. It
only wants such work when a magnesium carrier is used. Yet the work
of positioning and registering electrotypes on a magnesium carrier is
no different from similar work when a tympan sheet is used. The only
distinction that Respondent could draw between the two types of car-
riers to justify different work assignments was that plates to be posi-
tioned upon a magnesium carrier are of a different thickness than
those to be placed on a tympan sheet, and that the latter can carry eight
plates, whereas the former carries only four.
There is some inconclusive evidence as to the practice in the in-
dustry. A company,official testified that he had been informed that
pressmen performed the disputed work at two named printing plants.
Respondent's witness, on the other hand, testified that electrotypers
performed such work at one named plant.
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the entire record, we believe that pressmen employed by Wil-
liams are entitled to perform the work in dispute. Not only is this
work similar to that of positioning and registering plates on a print-
ing press, work which admittedly is within the jurisdiction of press-
men, but for approximately 10 years, pressmen have actually been
performing the very work which Respondent now seeks. We are
unable to perceive the significance in terms of work skills between
affixing electrotypes to a tympan sheet and to a magnesium carrier.
It seems to us that the work of positioning and registering is substan-
tially the same whether one or another type of carrier is used. As we
have indicated, Respondent's claim to the disputed work, based on its
collective-bargaining contract, is not well founded. Not only is the
language of the contract ambiguous, but the past practice and Re-
spondent's acquiescence therein for approximately 10 years indicate
affirmatively that Respondent waived whatever rights in this regard
it had under the contract.
Accordingly, we find that pressmen rather than electrotypers are
entitled to perform the work of positioning and registering electro-
types on magnesium carriers. We also find that Respondent was not
and is not entitled by methods proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to
force or require Capital or Williams to assign the disputed work to
electrotypers, who are represented by the Respondent, rather than to
pressmen, who are represented by the Pressmen.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Employees engaged as printing pressmen, currently represented
by Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23, Inter-
national Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to position and register electrotype plates on
magnesium carrying devices for Williams Press, Inc., at its plant in
Menands, New York.
2. Local 28, International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by
Section 8(b) (4) (D) to force or require Capital Electrotype Com-
pany, Inc., to assign plate positioning and registering work on mag-
nesium carriers to employees engaged as stereotypers, who are
currently represented by Local 28, International Stereotypers' and
Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO.
3. Within 10 days from the date of the Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Local 28, International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers'
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Direc-
tor for the Third Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain
GENERAL TEAMSTERS UNION, LOCAL 406, ETC. 1473
from forcing or requiring Capital Electrotype Company, Inc., by
means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dis-
pute to electrotypers rather than to printing pressmen.
MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Determination of Dispute.
General Teamsters Union , Local 406, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Snowhite Baking Company. Case No. 7-CD-59.
July 19, 1962
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act following a
charge filed by Snowhite Baking Company, herein called the Com-
pany, alleging that General Teamsters Union, Local 406, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, herein called the Respondent or the Teamsters,
coerced the Company for the purpose of compelling a change in work
assignment from one class of employees to another. A duly scheduled
hearing was held before Joseph I. Nachman, hearing officer, on Oc-
tober 24, 1961. 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 hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. None of the parties filed briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
findings:
1. Snowhite Baking Company is engaged at Muskegon, Michigan,
in the operation of a bakery, and in the course of its business, an-
nually purchases flour and related material valued at in excess of
$50,000 from points outside the State of Michigan; its annual gross
sales are in excess of $500,000. We find that the Company is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.
2. General Teamsters Union, Local 406, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
and Local 475, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-
CIO, herein called Local 475, are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute.
137 NLRB No. 163.
649856-63-vol. 137-94