Local Union 124, Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 13, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1091 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

LOCAL "UNION 12 4, -ELECTRICAL WORKERS - 1091
Local Union 124 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO and The Kansas City Star Company. Case
17-CD-60. September 13,1966
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND AMENDED
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
On March 1, 1965, the National Labor Relations Board issued a
Decision and Determination of Dispute in the above-entitled proceed-
ing,' pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, in which the Board made an affirmative award on the
merits, based on the record evidence before it, of the disputed work of
electrical and electronic maintenance and repair of the Linofilm,
Autosetter, and Teletypesetter equipment as well as all other electrical
and electronic equipment in the Employer' s newspaper composing
room, to maintenance electricians represented by Local Union 124 of
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
herein called the IBEW.
Thereafter, on May 3, 1965, the Employer moved the Board to
reopen the proceeding, redetermine the work assignment dispute, and
award the disputed work to employees represented by Kansas City
Typographical Union No. 80, herein called the ITU. In support of its
motion, the Employer alleged that following its assignment of the
maintenance on its Linofilm, Autosetter, Teletypesetter, and Electron
equipment 2 to the maintenance electricians on March 29, 1965, there
were repeated and numerous occasions when an electrician was called
upon to repair malfunctions in this equipment and was unable to do
so, thereby causing substantial delays in publication; that it there-
upon called upon the ITU machinists who then repaired the malfunc-
tions in a relatively short time; and that in the circumstances, the
Employer reassigned the electrical maintenance work in dispute to the
ITU composing room machinists on April 23, 1965. The ITU joined
in the Employer's motion. The IBEW filed opposition to the motion
and supporting affidavits denying that delays were attributable to
maintenance electricians, and further stating that they were due in
many instances to improper conduct and the lack of cooperation on
the part of composing room employees.
The Board, on June 25, 1965, issued an Order remanding the pro-
ceeding for a further hearing before a Trial Examiner for the purpose
3151 NLRB 350.
2 The Employer included in his assignment to the electricians of March 29, main-
tenance of four Electron typesetting machines acquired shortly after the earlier hearing
on the grounds that the Board 's award would be applicable to the new equipment, and
none of the parties voiced objections to its inclusion.
160 NLRB No. 81.
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of receiving evidence and making findings of fact and conclusions
with respect to the ability of maintenance electricians to perform the
required maintenance and repair on the Linofilm, Autosetter, Tele-
typesetter, and Electron equipment. A further hearing upon due notice
to all parties was held before Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr
on September 8 to 10, 1965. All parties who appeared at the hearing
were afforded fall opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses and to adduce evidence.
On February 3, 1966, the Trial Examiner issued a Supplemental
Decision. He found, as set forth in his attached Decision, that on
seven specific occasions, between March 29 and April 23, the mainte-
nance electricians either were unable to repair the specified equipment
or required an "excessive" amount of time to do so.3 The Trial Exam-
iner further found that the evidence taken at the reopened hearing
disclosed no overt lack of cooperation or other improper conduct on
the part of composing room employees. Thereafter, the IBEW filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief,4
and the Employer and the ITU filed cross-exceptions and briefs in
support thereof.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Supplemental Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in this case, and makes the following additional findings
of fact.
As fully set forth in our prior Decision and Determination of Dis-
pute, composing room machinists represented by the ITU have for
many years performed mechanical maintenance and repair of the
electrically powered linecasting machines in the Employer's compos-
ing room, whereas IBEW maintenance electricians have had the
responsibility for maintaining and repairing electrical and electronic
portions of the same equipment. Under the Employer's practice,
machinists stationed in the composing room would attempt initial
repairs, but if the malfunction concerned electrical parts of the equip-
ment, they would call for an electrician to make such repairs. This
division of maintenance work was applied to certain electronically
controlled Teletypesetters which the Employer introduced in its plant
in 1950. The Employer's described practice continued until Novem-
ber 1962, when, on the demand of the ITU, the Employer permitted
'The Trial Examiner did not, however , find that publication was thereby abnormally
delayed.
* The Board hereby denies the IBEW's request for oral argument as the record, excep-
tions , and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1093
the machinists to make certain relatively minor adjustments on newer
and more sophisticated electronic Teletypesetters and Autosetters a
which the Employer had installed in the composing room the pre-
vious May. However, consistent with the earlier practice, the mainte-
nance electricians continued to service the electric motors, switches,
lights, fuses, and electronic pot controls of the older linecasting equip-
ment as well as the older electronic Teletypesetters. Thereafter, in the
summer of 1963 the Employer installed additional Teletypesetters,
Autosetters, and new electronically controlled photocomposition
equipment called Linofilm,e and assigned the maintenance work on
this equipment to the ITU machinists. The IBEW's subsequent threat
to strike or picket the Employer in support of its claimed right to
perform the electrical and electronic portions of this maintenance
work prompted the filing of the instant charge.
The dispute before the Board was centerd on the ITU's claim to
the "overall" maintenance of the new electronically operated Tele-
typesetters, Autosetters, and Linofilm on the one hand,7 and the
IBEW's claim, in part resting on the Employer's long-established
practice of dividing the maintenance function between the two
groups, to the electrical and electronic maintenance of the new equip-
ment., On the original record, the Board concluded that the mainte-
nance electricians were "entitled to perform the work of electrical
maintenance and repair on the Autosetter and Linofilm equipment as
well as all other electrical and electronic equipment" in the Employ-
er's composing room. In so doing the Board gave controlling weight
to evidence that (1) the electricians possessed electronic skills and
had maintained all other comparable electronic devices in the Employ-
er's plant, (2) the machinists' experience with the equipment was
limited to day-to-day cleaning and replacing of components, circuit
panels, and reader heads,' (3) the more difficult repairs were handled
5 This equipment differs from old fashioned linecasting machines by the presence of
vacuum tubes, transistors, solenoids, diodes, and removable panels containing involved
wired or printed circuits It is attached to and actuates the linecasting equipment
electronically.
6 Unlike the Autosetter, Linofilm is a different method for producing type. It consists of
a keyboard and a completely automatic photo unit which converts electronic tape emanat-
ing from the keyboard into a negative upon which printed characters appear The negative
is then developed into a positive, and the resulting product is "cold type" which is a sub-
stitute for hot metal type such as that produced by Linotype
4 The ITU indicated a willingness to follow the Employer's division of maintenance func-
tions practice between the two groups as to the remaining composing room equipment.
8 The Employer, notwithstanding its assignment to the ITU machinists, took a neutral
position before the Board in the earlier proceeding regarding the merits of the dispute.
9 While the evidence in the earlier proceeding showed that some machinists, in anticipa-
tion of the Employer's assignment, were given specialized training in electronics, it did not
reveal that the machinists had acquired adequate skill or experience to support an award
of the work of electronic maintenance to them.
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by an electrician possessing an understanding of electronic circuits,10'
and (4) the Employer's long-established practice of dividing the
maintenance duties on composing room equipment in the manner
sought by the electricians.
On the basis of the reopened record in this matter, the Trial
Examiner has found instances where electricians were unable to effect
timely repairs despite their claimed ability to handle the new equip-
ment. On the other hand, he found that the ITU machinists were able
to make the repairs expeditiously. This finding of the Trial Exam-
iner, in our opinion, leads to the conclusion that the claimed superior
competency or training of the electricians in dealing with problems
arising from the installation and operation of new and sophisticated
composing equipment was more assumed than factual." The reopened
record also shows that the ITU's original claim to the work, based on
its insistence that proper maintenance of the equipment in question
requires a printer's skill and knowledge of the printing process in
order to- locate the source of difficulty and that the machinists alone
possess such knowledge, takes on a persuasiveness not apparent in the
earlier hearing.12
It is now clear from the evidence of actual job performance that
the ITU machinists have the ability, acquired through their training
program, to deal with the overall maintenance of the Autosetter, Tel-
etypesetter, Electron, and Linofilm equipment. It is also apparent
that assignment of the disputed work to the ITU machinists who are
stationed and thus immediately available in the composing room to.
perform required maintenance tasks, as compared with maintenance
electricians who must be summoned by telephone and dispatched
from the electrical shop or other parts of the plant, promotes effi-
ciency of the Employer's operations.
Accordingly, as we are now of the opinion that the machinists.
represented by the ITU have a more cogent claim to the disputed
work, we shall reverse our prior work assignment determination and
award the work of electronic maintenance and repair of the Autoset-
ter, Fairchild Teletypesetter, Electron, and Linofilm machines to the
ITU machinists. However, the award of this specified work is not to
be taken as encompassing work traditionally performed by the
11 The record in the earlier proceeding showed that because of the existing dispute, elec-
tronic repairs of the new composing room equipment were in fact made by the electrical
maintenance foreman, Betts, so that the electricians' ability to maintain the specific wort.
In dispute had not been actually put to the test prior to the incidents giving rise to the
Employer' s motion.
"We note that the Employer conceded that It did not have any basis earlier for ques-
tioning the ability of the electricians.
12 We note that sometime prior to the Employer 's assignment of the disputed work
to the electricians , Foreman Betts, whose electronic skills were known, was promoted to
a management position.
LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS - 1095
IBEW electricians, such as maintenance and repair of the electric
motors, switches, lights, fuses, and electronic pot controls on the older
linecasting equipment and maintenance of the older Teletypesetters.
That work remains with the electricians. In making this determina-
tion, iw,e are assigning the work to the composing room machinists
represented by the ITU, but not to that union or its members.
AMENDED DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and upon.the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire 'record in this proceeding, the
National Labor Relations Board makes the following amended deter-
mination of dispute :
1. Composing room machinists, represented by Kansas,City Typo-
graphical Local Union No. 80, are entitled to perform mechanical
and electronic maintenance and repair of Autosetter, Teletypesetter,
Electron, and Linofiim equipment as well as mechanical maintenance
of all other linecasting equipment at present in the composing ,room
of The Kansas City Star Company, Kansas City, Missouri.
2. Local Union 124 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, to
force or require The Kansas City Star Company to assign the above-
described work to maintenance electricians. '
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Amended
Determination of Dispute, Local Union 124 of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Re-
gional Director for Region 17, in writing, whether it will refrain
from forcing or requiring The Kansas City Star Company, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the above-described
work to maintenance electricians rather than to composing room
machinists.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On March 1, 1965, the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Dispute
in the above-entitled proceeding,' awarding the disputed work of electrical main-
tenance and repair on the Autosetter and Linofiim equipment as well as other
electrical and electronic equipment in the composing room of the Employer, The
Kansas City Star Company, to the maintenance electricians represented by Local
Union 124 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
referred to herein as the IBEW, rather than to composing room employees repre-
sented by the International Typographical Union, referred to herein as the ITU.
On May 3, 1965, the Employer moved the Board to reopen the proceeding and
redetermine the work assignment dispute. It alleged that on March 29, 1965, it
assigned the maintenance work to the IBEW maintenance electricians pursuant to
the Board 's decision . Specifically , it alleged that "there have been repeated and
numerous occasions when Linofilm , Autosetter, Teletypesetter and Electron equip-
ment have malfunctioned and an electrician called upon to repair it has been unable
1151 NLRB 350.
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to do so," thereby resulting in substantial delays in publication, and that ITU
machinists were thereafter able to repair the malfunction in a relatively short time.
Accordingly, the Employer alleged further that it was compelled to reassign the
electrical maintenance work to the ITU composing room machinists on April 23,
1965. The ITU joined,in the Employer' s motion . The IBEW filed an opposition to
the motion and supporting affidavits alleging that the assignment of the mainte-
nance work 'did not, in view of all the circumstances, result in undue delays and
that delays were due in many instances to improper conduct and the lack of
cooperation on the part of composing room employees. The IBEW therefore
requested that the Employer's motion be denied.
On June 25, 1965, the Board, after having duly considered the matter, issued
an order reopening record and remanding proceeding to Regional Director for
further hearing, in which it ordered that a further hearing be held before a Trial
Examiner for the purpose of adducing evidence with respect to the specific issues
of fact raised by the allegations of the parties as set forth above. The Board's
Order further provided that the Trial Examiner prepare and serve upon the parties
a report resolving questions of credibility, if any, and make findings of fact and
conclusions relating to the issues ordered litigated.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Kansas City, Kansas, on Septem-
ber 8, 9, and 10, 1965, before Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr. All parties were
represented by counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received
from all parties and they have been carefully considered.2
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Prefatory statement
The Board has already noted in its Decision and Determination of Dispute the
type of equipment in the Employer's composing room which is the subject of this
dispute. However, to bring this matter up to date, it may be noted that the com-
posing room equipment which the Employer assigned to the IBEW electricians for
electrical maintenance and repair subsequent to the said Board Decision included
the following: (1) The Linotype (also referred to as Linofilm) equipment, which
consists of two photo units, five keyboards, and one photo composer; (2) 10 or 12
linecasting machines and 10 Star Parts autosetters. Additionally, and subsequent to
the initial hearing herein, the Employer acquired four Electrons which were
installed in the composing room. The Employer also assigned the maintenance and
repair work of this equipment to the electricians, deeming this to be in accord with
the Board's determination. Like the Linotype, but of a different type, the Electron is
a typesetting machine. Fred Adsel, midwest manager of the Mergenthaler Com-
pany, the manufacturer of the Linotype and Electron, testified that the Electron is
principally a mechanical device, it having only "some [electrical] switches and
other devices to permit the functioning of certain safety devices on the machine."
It is undisputed that the Company, in compliance with the Board's Decision and
Determination, assigned the disputed work to the IBEW maintenance electricians
on March 29, 1965. It is further undisputed that it reassigned the work to the ITU
machinists on April 23, 1965.
In considering the entire evidence and the rather complex problem involved in
this proceeding, it is important to bear in mind that all of the equipment involved
in the disputed work is subject to electrical and mechanical failure. Thus, during
the period from March 29 to April 23 when the electricians were assigned the work
of electrical repair, the ITU machinists were still responsible for the maintenance
and repair of any breakdown of a mechanical nature on the same pieces of equip-
ment. As to the procedure followed by the Employer' when breakdowns occurred
during this period, Richard Miller, the composing room superintendent, testified
that "a machinist would be called in first . . . if the machinist would find nothing
wrong it would be assumed that it was an electrical problem and an electrician
2 I hereby grant 'the motion of the Employer and the ITU to correct the transcript,
not including the proposed corrections objected to by the dBEW which are marked with
an asterisk. The document containing these corrections has been placed in the formal file
of this proceeding.
LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1097
would then be called." While this may have been generally true, the record dis-
closes that in some instances the electricians were summoned first and that on some
such occasions they found the trouble to be mechanical rather than electrical.
2. The testimony relative to the ability of the electricians to perform
the disputed work
a. Witnesses for the Employer
Irvin Baird, the production manager of the Kansas City Star, has general overall
supervision of the composing room. In addition to matters not relating to the topic
under discussion, Baird's testimony was chiefly limited to reports received by him
from Don Kitts, the assistant production manager, concerning incidents alleged
involving the inability of the electricians to perform the work assigned to them.
Since Baird's testimony concerning these incidents was based entirely on hearsay,
such testimony is incompetent evidence and therefore will not be set forth here.
This testimony does reflect, however, that as head of the composing room Baird
did receive reports from Kitts to the effect that at various times the electricians
were not able to repair the equipment in question and that on such occasions they
were replaced or assisted by the ITU machinist. Baird also corroborated Kitts to
the effect that after receiving a report concerning an incident occurring on or about
the evening of April 21, he specifically instructed Kitts to keep detailed reports of
any further occurrences concerning breakdowns of equipment which the electricians
were unable to repair. Baird also testified that during the period March 29-April 23
he personally observed instances where "the electricians would be attempting to
repair this machine . . . and they repeatedly could not fix this equipment." Baird
did not, however, give any details as to the times when this occurred or as to the
electricians and equipment involved.
Don Kitts, the assistant production manager, is in charge of the composing room
on the night shift. Kitts testified as to three specific incidents which I enumerate
below.
1. Kitts testified that 2 or 3 days after March 29 when the electricians were
assigned to the disputed work a photo unit went down .3 Kitts testified that Saxton,
an electrician, was not able to perform the repair after working for an hour. He
(Kitts) thereupon called in Harvey Atwood, a machinist, who put the unit in
operating condition in 14-15 minutes.
2. The next specific incident, which Kitts said took place after "a series of bad
nights," occurred on April 21.4 Kitts testified that on this evening six pieces of
equipment went down, these including four Electrons and two photo units. Kitts
testified that the electricians worked on this equipment for approximately 3 hours
and had no success in putting it in operating condition .5 He thereupon summoned
the electricians and the ITU machinists to his office and told them "we had to get
up there . . . we had to work together and get it running any way they could."
Kitts testified that after the meeting the machinists and electricians "apparently"
worked together, and that about 20 minutes later all of the down equipment was
put in running order. However, Kitts was not present to observe who made the
repairs.
3. The last incident concerning which Kitts testified occurred on the following eve-
ning, April 22. Kitts testified that he went to the Linofilm room at approximately
7:30 or 8 o'clock and found that keyboard No. 3 was down. Kitts said that he
remained in the area and that "keyboard No. 2 went down at 8:18, photo unit
No. 1 was down, which went in, photo unit No. 2 was not giving us suitable prod-
uct off of it. Virtually we had 2 keyboards and 2 photo units down." Kitts further
8 The term "down equipment" refers to equipment which developed a malfunction or
which did not function at all
' Kitts did not elaborate as to what happened on the alleged "series of bad nights."
While there was some confusion in Kitts' testimony as to exact dates, the entire record,
including his written report and the testimony of other witnesses, reflect that the above
incident occurred on the night of April 21 and that the next incident, related below,
occurred on the night of April 22.
'Kitts said that "over the period" of the 3 hours time there were three or four electri-
cians working on the Electrons (linecasting equipment) and the photo units. He identified
them as Saxton, Paul Parks, and Don Gossett. He stated further that "if I remember
correctly, Mr. McKee was down there this night."
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified that electricians Saxton and Gossett started to work on the equipment
about 8 p.m. and,that.they worked on it until about 11:10 p.m. without succeeding
in getting any of the equipment in operating condition. It is undisputed that Kitts
thereupon called George McKee, a journeyman electrician and the IBEW steward,
at the latter's home. Kitts advised McKee of the difficulty. McKee suggested that
he call a Mr. McDonald, the service man for the Mergenthaler Company. Kitts
said he called McDonald's home and received no answer. He thereupon instructed
Sidney Lida, foreman of the composing room, to send in the machinists. According
to Kitts, the machinists (later identified by Foreman Hanssen as Atwood and John-
son) started working at 11.35 p.m. and succeeded in getting all four pieces of
equipment in operating condition by 12:16 p.m.6
In addition to the incidents cited above, Kitts testified that there were other
occasions during the period between March 29-April 23 when the electricians
could not repair the equipment and it was necessary to call in the machinists.?
However, this testimony was of a generalized nature, Kitts stating that he was not
able to recall any of the details as to the equipment or employees involved. Kitts
further testified that the electricians were able to repair the equipment some of the
time . . . but that frequently this took too long and resulted in too much down
time. Again, this latter testimony was largely conclusionary and was not supported
by any probative detail.
Richard Miller, the composing room superintendent, testified to the following
incidents:
1. Miller testified that about 9:30 a.m. on April 21 or 22, 7 of the 10 linecasters
with Star Part autosetters went down at about the same time. Three electricians
were called in and each began working on one machine. Miller than called in
machinists to work on the four machines. The culmination of this testimony simply
was that the electricians and the machinists proceeded to put in operating condition
the respective units they were working on. I cite this incident merely because it is
part of the evidence which I have considered. If anything, it reflects only that the
electricians were successfully able to perform the work on this occasion. There is
no evidence to reflect that they took an excessive amount of time in so doing.
2. Miller credibly testified to another incident which he said occurred about 10
days after the one cited above. On this occasion, according to Miller, electrician
Donald Saxton worked on a down keyboard in the Linofilm room from about 7
a.m. until 12 noon. Miller said that at noontime he asked Saxton if he was making
any progress and that Saxton said it was getting past his lunchtime. Saxton then
went to lunch. Miller testified that the faulty keyboard was then bottlenecking 20
percent of the productive capacity in the Linofilm room, so he assigned Jack Hart,
a machinist, to work on the machine. Miller testified that Hart restored the key-
board to operating condition in about 10 minutes. Miller further testified that Hart
advised him that the difficulty was corrected by the replacement of a faulty tube.8
3. Miller testified to another incident which occurred at about the same time as
that in paragraph 2, above. Miller testified that on this occasion electrician Saxton
worked on a down photo unit for approximately 2 hours without success. Accord-
ing to Miller, the down photo unit constituted "50% of our productive capacity."
He thereupon relieved Saxton and assigned machinist Ed Wilson to the job. Miller
testified that Wilson repaired the machine within 5 minutes.9 Miller further testified
that Wilson, in making this repair, did not perform a mechanical adjustment but
that he observed him work on the electrical relay in the panel.
4. Other than the specific instances cited above, Miller testified that he recalled
"numerous times when equipment was down for long periods of time when in my
mind I didn't feel like it should have been because we didn't have this problem
8 Kitts utilized a typewriter memorandum addressed to Assistant General Manager Speer
to refresh his memory as to the specific time the machinists started to work on each piece
of equipment, as well as the specific time each was put by them in operating condition.
This memorandum (Employer's Exhibit 1) was prepared by Kitts pursuant to Baird's in-
struction on the preceding day that he make a detailed report as to any future occurrences
when equipment went down Kitts testified that he prepared the memorandum from his
handwritten notes at the end of the shift on the night in question.
7 Kitts testified that he reported these incidents, either orally or by notes, to Baird on
the following morning. He testified that he did not keep copies of these notes.
8 Miller estimated that there was a thousand tubes in this piece of equipment.
8 Miller testified that he remained at the machine until Wilson put it in operating
condition.
LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1099
before." According to Miller, the electricians were able to repair the equipment
about 20 percent of the time; in the instances when they were unable to make the
repairs, he said, the ITU machinists were called in.10
LeRoy Hanssen, who is the assistant night foreman of the Linofilm room, testi-
fied concerning the following incidents:
1. Hanssen testified that on or about April 1, shortly after the electricians took
over, he called in an electrician to repair a malfunctioning Linotype photo unit.
This electrician was identified as George McKee. Hanssen said that McKee took
the panels off, and stood for about 30 minutes looking at the machine. McKee
then left and returned with another electrician. Hanssen said that he (Hanssen) ran
tapes through the unit to demonstrate the malfunction. According to Hanssen, the
two electricians stood by and discussed the problem between themselves for another
30 minutes and then left. Hanssen thereupon reported the matter to his superior,
Sidney Lida, who assigned machinist LeRoy Johnson to the job. Hanssen testified
that Johnson put the machine in operating condition "in a matter of minutes." He
said that the machine was down for 2 hours from the time McKee first started to
work on it.
2. This incident occurred shortly after the one related above and also involved a
malfunctioning photo unit., Hanssen testified that in this instance, as in the other
involving the photo unit, he decided that an electrician should be called because
the malfunction did not appear to be mechanical.'1 Electrician Saxton was sum-
moned to make the repair. Hanssen testified that Saxton worked on the photo unit
"a good four hours altogether" without success. Lidia, upon being advised by Hans-
sen, thereupon assigned machinist Johnson to the job. According to Hanssen, John-
son had the machine in operation "in a very short period of time."
3. Hanssen also testified concerning the breakdown of the two Linofilm key-
boards and the two photo units which occurred on the evening of April 22. His
testimony concerning this incident was substantially corroborative of Kitts, who
testified concerning this matter,12 and need not be detailed here.
Finally, Hanssen testified that there were other instances during the period
March 29-April 23 when the electricians were called to repair Linofilm equipment.
Hanssen said that he could not recall further specific incidents, but that in these
other instances the electricians "at times" successfully performed the repair work,
but that "most of the time" they did not. According to Hanssen, in the latter
instances the machinists would be called in and they were able to repair the equip-
ment in a relatively short period of time.
Sidney Lida, night foreman of the composing room, testified merely that on the
evening of April 22 he observed two electricians working on two down photo units
and two down keyboards in the Linofilm room. His other testimony was either
conclusionary or consisted of hearsay and need not be set forth here.
b. Witness for the IBEW
William Stack has been employed by the Company for 5112. years as a journey-
man electrician. Stack, who said that from March 29 to April 23 most of his time
was spent on maintenance repair in the composing room, testified that he could
recall only two instances when he failed to get an Electron linecasting machine run-
ning. On the first occasion, Kitts advised him that there was a schematic manual for
the machine and helped him find it. Stack said that he then worked on the machine
for "some time" and found a defective solenoid. Thereafter he and Kitts looked for
a part and failed to find one. He left that evening without repairing the machine.
When he returned the next evening he found the machine operating. According to
Stack, machinist Johnson at this time advised him that he had found a "board"
which had been locked up and that he had repaired the machine.
On the second occasion, he reported for duty one evening and was told by
another electrician that an Electron was down. Stack testified that he worked on
10I shall comment upon these latter statements by Miller when making my concluding
findings herein.
11 In this regard Hanssen testified, "I know three mechanical things to check which are
readily visible, and I just told Air Lida that the machine was not operating, what I
thought or why it had stopped . . . . They are not the only mechanical parts that could
be the matter with it, but I could possibly say these three things are more readily seen.
It could have been that something else mechanical was the matter with it."
12 See paragraph 3 of Kitts' testimony, supra
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the machine for a considerable period of time ("roughly a couple of hours") and
finally found a bad clutch. Stack testified, "All I could do was disengage the clutch
and we didn't have any parts and that part had to be ordered, so I didn't fix the
machine at that time." 13
Stack testified that there were three times when he could not repair a Linofilm
keyboard. Concerning these occasions, Stack testified, "In each one of these instances
I would have had to spend a lot of time on that machine, possibly." 14
Stack testified that he also worked on down Linofilm photo units on four or five
occasions. He testified that in one such instance he worked together with electrician
Don Saxton and that "we didn't get it fixed."
Don Gossett, an electrician whose shifts overlapped, testified that there was not
much trouble on the day shift but that the machines broke down repeatedly on the
night shift. After first asserting that he "never failed to fix anything," Gossett con-
ceded that there were occasions when he worked on equipment that "was down all
night" but claimed that in these instances he finally found the trouble to be of a
mechanical nature. Citing three such instances, he referred first to an occasion
when he and electrician Parks worked most of the night on an Electron, the fault
being that the elevating mechanism was out of order. He testified that they checked
"the electrical part of the machine" but that toward the end of the shift they found
"a shear pin on the mechanical activator . . . there was a clutch with a shear pin
on it and the pin was broken." Gossett next testified to an occasion when he
checked the circuits on a down Electron and finally found, "there was a little push
rod with a mechanical activator that activates the line switch, [which] I found to
be out of adjustment." Finally, Gossett referred to an occasion when he and elec-
trician McKee worked on a typecasting machine (apparently an Electron) which
did not quad properly. He said that they worked overtime on this problem, check-
ing the electrical circuit, until the next shift came in. At this point they asked a
machinist whom he identified as "Buddy" to check the machine. Gossett testified
that this machinist promptly found that an arm was out of adjustment. "He
adjusted the arm," Gossett testified, "and it ran all right."
Gossett was present on the night of April 21 when there were four Electrons
and two photo units down. (See testimony of Kitts.) Gossett, who appeared to be
somewhat confused as' to the events of this evening, testified that he recalled there
were an unusual number of breakdowns and that he worked on the Electrons
"getting them running as fast as they could get in a down state." He testified that
to his knowledge, he, McKee, and Parks succeeded in repairing this equipment.
When asked if any machinists gave them assistance this evening, Gossett responded,
"not in my presence, no." As to the evening of April 22, Gossett testified that he
worked intermittently on the various pieces of machinery that were broken down.15
He testified that after working on the equipment for about 21/2 hours, Kitts came
over and told the electricians to leave, that the machinists would take over. Accord-
ing to Gossett, the machinists put all the equipment- into operating condition after
working on it for 11/2 hours 16
Paul Parks, an electrician, worked on the late shift from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Much
of Parks' testimony is confused or came into the record on a fragmentary basis.
However, he testified to the effect that there were several instances when he was
called upon to perform alleged electrical repair, only to find, after working for
awhile, that the difficulty was of a mechanical nature.
Parks testified that he worked on the evening of April 21 but that he did not
attend or know of any meeting called by Kitts.17 With reference to the Electrons
and photo units that were down that night, Parks testified, "We got them going
18 Concerning this incident Stack testified that he disassembled the wires and that a
machinist took the clutch off.
16 In rather confused testimony, Stack indicated that in these instances he went on to
"more pressing things" after apparently having been informed by the keyboard operator
that the down keyboards were not needed because there were enough operators on the third
shift to man the five keyboards.
zs Gossett did not dispute Kitts as to the pieces of equipment which were down on this
occasion.
'('Gossett testified that he and the other electricians stood by until the machinists
finished putting all the equipment in operating condition.
17 See Kitts' testimony, supra, re the evening of April 21. I credit Parks' testimony that
he did not attend.
LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1101
as we would work on them, they weren't all working all the time, but they weren't
all down, either." Parks testified that he was not assisted by any of the machinists
on this evening. With reference to the evening of April 22, Parks said that he did
not work on the equipment that was down in the Linofilm room that night. He said
that on this occasion he was working on Electrons and Comets and that Gossett
came over to assist him several times. It is undisputed that Parks was replaced
by a machinist late that evening.
Leo Gash, a lead electrician, worked on the first shift from 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Gash testified concerning an incident when he assisted in the repair of Linofilm
equipment, this occurring 2 or 3 days after the electricians took over on March 29.
According to Gash, he was called up to assist electrician Saxton who was working
on two or three down keyboards and a down photo unit. They began checking
from the schematics. In a short time, members of the composing room supervisory
staff appeared, including Baird, Speer, Betts, and a Mr. Hatten, the latter
Bett's assistant. Also present were Jim Wills, the composing room superintendent,
and Jack Hart, a machinist. Gash testified that "we worked on it an hour or more,"
that they finally succeeded in putting the machine in operation.18
Gash testified that on other occasions he worked on Electrons and that whenever
he did so he succeeded in repairing the equipment. Other than the incident related
above, Gash did not work on the Linofilm keyboards or photo units.
George McKee, an electrician, is also the IBEW steward. He worked on the
evening shift with Gossett from 3 to 11 p.m.
McKee, when asked, first testified that he never started to repair any machine
which he was not able to repair. However, in effect he contradicted this statement
by immediately thereafter testifying to an occasion when he was summoned to
repair a Linotype machine. McKee said that he removed the panels from the
machine and "looked for something visible to cause the machine to stop." After
30 minutes he called Saxton, who was at home. Apparently Saxton came in to
work on the equipment. McKee did not succeed in repairing the equipment on this
occasion.19
With reference to the evening of April 21, McKee testified that he, Gossett, and
Saxton were working on the equipment that was down at this time. McKee acknowl-
edged that he was called to a meeting in Kitts', office where a number of machinists
were also present 29 According to McKee, Kitts at this time stated that "we are in
a tight spot" and that he asked all those present to go up and work together to
get the equipment in operating condition. However, McKee said that by the end of
the meeting it was quitting time and that he went home.
McKee testified that he recalled that four pieces of Linofilm equipment went
down on the evening of April 22.21 He said that he was notified about this diffi-
culty by either Harvey Atwood or LeRoy Johnson, electricians, but that he and
Don Gossett were working on Electrons in the composing room at the time. He
testified further that he went to the Linofilm room to look for "any visual mal-
functions" and that Gossett then told him to call electrician Saxton (at home) as
quickly as he could. McKee testified that he left and went home at 10:30 p.m. and
that Kitts telephoned him later that evening. Confirming the testimony of Kitts,
McKee testified that at this time he suggested that Kitts call McDonald, the latter
the Mergenthaler service representative in the Kansas City area.
On cross-examination, McKee testified that the Linofilm equipment was unfamil-
iar to him on March 29 and that "it still is." Asked if he felt competent to repair
this equipment , McKee replied, "Not without some instructions and some manuals
and some proper schooling . I do not without the proper instructions."
Donald Saxton, an electrician, spent most of his time during'the relevant period
working on the Linofilm equipment 22 Although assigned to the day shift, he was
'- The quoted portion of Gash's testimony is as specific as he was as to who actually
worked on the equipment at this time. Gash said that Hart ran a tape through the machine
but that there was "no assistance from him from the electrical standpoint."
m McKee testified that this was the first time he was called upon to work on the Lino-
type equipment.
"McKee testified that he was the only electrician present at this meeting. I credit this
testimony over that of Kitts' who indicated that other electricians were also present.
21 This included the same equipment referred to in Betts' testimony, supra.
33 Saxton was hired by Betts on March 23, 1965. Before that he was employed for 13
years as an electronics technician at the Lake City Arsenal.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
frequently called back during the evening. Saxton testified that about the middle of
April he worked on a down Linofilm•keyboard for several hours. Hart, a machinist,
assisted by operating the controls. Saxton finally left for his regular lunch period and
returned 30 minutes later to find that the keyboard had been restored to operating
condition. He said he did not know who made the repair.
With reference to the evening of April 21, Saxton testified that he was called
back to the plant to work on the down Linofilm photo units. He said that he worked
on this equipment for between 1 and 2 hours and succeeded in putting, it in operat-
ing condition. He also said that machinist LeRoy Johnson was present but that to
his knowledge Johnson did not perform any electrical work on the down equipment.
Saxton testified that on the evening of April 22 he was again called at home and
on this occasion returned to the plant around 9:30 p.m. In accord with Kitts' testi-
mony concerning this evening, Saxton testified that two Linofilm photo units and
two Linofilm keyboards were down. He testified further that when he arrived he
observed that Gossett and McKee were having considerable difficulty with the Elec-
tron equipment. According to Saxton, he worked on photo unit No 1 for approxi-
mately 20 minutes and put it in working order.23 He said he worked on photo unit
No. 2 for about the same period of time with the same result. He testified that he
then began to work on the keyboards; and that after working for about 1 hour
checking the tubes and adjusting the voltages, Kitts came up and advised that the
electricians were being taken off the job and that the machinists would take over.
According to Saxton, the machinists repaired keyboard No. 1 in 10-15 minutes and
then went on to repair keyboard No. 2. After repairing the latter, keyboard No. 1
went down again and they returned to it. He testified that the machinists worked
for approximately 2 hours before all the equipment was operating properly.
3. Conclusions as to alleged occasions when electricians were,
unable to repair the equipment
In view of the conflicting interests of the various parties hereto, I have little
doubt that various witnesses on each side tended to exaggerate their testimony in a
light most favorable to their cause. For example, I do not credit the testimony of
electricians McKee and Gash to the effect that they never worked on any machine
which they were not able to repair; or that of Saxton and Parks to the extent that
they never received the assistance of a machinist . On the other hand , neither do I
credit the testimony of Foreman Lida and Hanssen, both members of the ITU, to
the effect that the electricians never were able to put a machine in operating con-
dition by themselves or without the assistance of a machinist. Superintendent Rich-
ard Miller, an ITU member, testified that the electricians were able to repair the
equipment only about 20 percent of the time when they were called upon to do so.
While I believe Miller to the extent that there were some occasions when he ob-
served electricians having difficulty in finding a malfunction or were unable to repair
certain equipment, I regard his testimony to the effect that this occurred approxi-
mately 80 percent of the time as an exaggerated guess.
Based upon the credible testimony and the entire evidence, I find that the elec-
tricians were unable to repair the equipment in question or engaged in excessive
downtime in the repair of such equipment , in the following instances:
1. The instance of Saxton being unable to repair a down photo unit 2 or 3 days
after March 29. (See paragraph 1, testimony of Kitts.)
2. The instance of April 21, as discussed in paragraph 2, testimony of Kitts.24
21 He testified that after running a tape through the machine and processing the film
"they said they would go ahead and use the machine."
u It will be recalled that on this evening Kitts found it necessary to call a meeting in
his office to point out the urgency of getting the equipment in operating condition Several
machinists and one electrician attended this meeting Although Kitts did not obseri-e which
employees put the equipment in operating condition after this meeting, machinist Harvey
Atwood testified that he attended this meeting and immediately thereafter repaired one
of the down photo units I credit this testimony of Atwood Although the electricians may
have ultimately succeeded in putting some of the equipment in operating condition on this
occasion, I am convinced and find that it took them an excessive amount of time to do so,
thus causing a disruption of production work in the composing room
LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1103
3. The occasion of the electricians being unable to repair the down'equipment on
the evening of April 22. (Paragraph 3, testimony of Kitts; paragraph 3, testimony of
Hanssen .) 25
4. The incident set forth in paragraph 2, discussion of Miller's testimony.
5. The incident set forth in paragraph 3, discussion of Miller's testimony.
6. The incident set forth in paragraph 1, discussion of Hanssen's testimony.
7. The incident set forth in paragraph 2, discussion of Hanssen's testimony.
Other than the specific incidents referred to above, •I have heretofore noted the
testimony of Kitts, Miller, and Hanssen to the effect that there were numerous
other instances, concerning which they could not recall the details, where they
observed that electricians either were unable to make the necessary repairs or
where they utilized an excessive amount of downtime in effecting such repairs. It is
difficult to accord much weight to this testimony, lacking as it is in any pertinent
detail. I do credit this testimony, however, to the effect that there were at least some
other occasions, in addition to those cited above, where the electricians encountered
difficulty in restoring down or malfunctioning equipment to operating condition.
But as far as the electricians are concerned , I also credit their testimony to the
extent that there were occasions when they were able to make the necessary repairs
without undue delay or without the assistance of the machinists.
As indicated above, I have found, contrary to the apparent contention of the
IBEW, that there were instances during the period while the electricians were
assigned to the disputed work where they were unable to repair the equipment in
question when called upon to do so. It may be noted, however, that the IBEW
admits that there were certain occasions when electricians "were obliged to use
an abnormal amount of time in making repairs on equipment in the composing
room." 26 The factors which the IBEW attributes to such delays, which I shall
regard as also pertaining to the other findings noted above, are discussed in the
succeeding sections herein.
4. Alleged improper conduct
On the basis of the testimony and the affidavits submitted to the Board by the
IBEW, I state my findings and conclusions with respect to the following incidents
which I assume are those alleged by the IBEW to have' involved improper conduct
by other persons or parties employed by the Company.
a. The cut wire incident
Donald Gossett stated in his affidavit that on April, 19, 1965, "we found a wire
had been cut with a sharp object in a location on the machine where such a cut
on a wire would not have been due to wear or accident." Gossett, however, offered
no testimony concerning this allegation. George McKee, who did not refer to this
matter in his affidavit, testified that on an occasion when he was tracing circuits to
repair a machine he found "a nick across a wire . the wire had been nicked
and was in two." He further testified, "I am not saying this was done intentionally
or by any certain one . ...
I think it is clear that the above testimony is insufficient to support any 'finding
of alleged misconduct. I so find and conclude.
b. The gum incident
McKee testified that on one occasion he worked on a down Electron and "finally
found a foreign substance on the worn gear out of the time clutch." McKee testi-
fied that he did not have, the, substance analyzed, but that it looked like chewing
v While there is testimony to suggest that there were an unusual number of breakdowns
on this evening, the fact remains that the machinists succeeded in putting this equipment
into operating condition within a short time after they replaced the electricians In this
latter regard, I credit the testimony of Kitts over that of,Gossett and Saxon as to the
length of time it took the machinists to repair the equipment. Kitts in some respects was a
poor witness and frequently was inclined to state conclusions rather than facts Never-
theless, I credit his testimony here as I do in the other instances specified herein I do
not believe that Kitts fabricated his testimony concerning his taking notes on the evening
in question as to the exact amount of time it took the machinists to make the repairs
after they replaced the electricians.
26 Page 11, brief of IBEW.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gum or heavy oil. On cross-examination , McKee further testified that the substance
possibly could have been congealed lubricating grease . Without belaboring this
matter further, I find and conclude that McKee 's testimony is insufficient to support
any finding of improper conduct insofar as this incident is concerned 27
c. The disconnected wire incident
Gossett and Parks testified concerning an evening when they spent approximately
2 hours working on a down Electron typesetting machine. They testified that sud-
denly, and while they were still working on the front of the machine , it com-
menced to run. According to these witnesses , they thereupon went to the rear of
the machine where they found machinist LeRoy Atwood with a screwdriver and
screw in his hand . Gossett and Parks testified that they asked Atwood what he was
doing and that Atwood replied the machine had been down long enough ; that he
wanted to see the machine run before he went home . Gossett testified , "We touched
the screw to fasten down the terminal , and that completed the circuit and the
machine started to function and it worked very well. That was an inaccessible
place and somebody had to remove the screw ." Atwood, who was called as a wit-
ness, testified that he was about to leave for home when he heard someone say
that a wire was loose on the Electron on which Gossett and Parks were working.
He said that he thereupon went over to the machine , found the wire and the screw
laying on the floor, and started to make the proper connection . He testified that the
two electricians "came around" as he was making the connection ; further that the
machine did not start running at this time 28 I credit Atwood's testimony that the
machine did not start running before the electricians came up to him. Indeed, this
is reflected in and consistent with that part of Gossett's testimony quoted above. In
any event, while the incident is not above suspicion, I am persuaded and find that
the evidence is insufficient to establish any deliberate or improper conduct by any
particular person or parties. While perhaps Atwood would have exercised better
judgment by calling the severed connection to the attention of the electricians who
were working on the machine rather than handle the matter himself , his failure
to do so did not contribute to any further delay in the repair of this equipment 29
5. Availability of schematics and manuals
During the bearing counsel for the IBEW appeared to raise an issue as to
whether the schematic diagrams and operational manuals pertaining to the equip-
ment in question , which was in the possession of the Employer, was made avail-
able to the IBEW electricians after their assignment to the maintenance and repair
of this equipment on March 29 , 1965 . After hearing the evidence , I doubt whether
the IBEW continues to make any serious contention that the Employer did not
make this data available . William Stack , the only electrician who testified concern-
ing this subject, conceded that the schematics and manuals for the Electrons and
other equipment, except for the Linofilm equipment , were made available on
March 29 . As to the data pertaining to the Linofilm equipment , he testified that
"about half way through the jurisdiction" he "was told" that the schematics were
kept in the Research and Engineering office. He further testified that three sets of
manuals pertaining to the Linofilm equipment were made available to him about
7 or 8 days after the jurisdiction was assigned to the machinists . However, Stack
conceded that he never asked any company supervisor whether any such data
existed . The fact is , according to the credited testimony of LeRoy Hanssen , assist-
ant Linofilm foreman, that a full set of schematics for the Linofilm equipment was
available in an unlocked cabinet in the Linofilm room at all times after March 29.
As respects any contention by the IBEW as to the unavailability of the sche-
matics and manuals applicable to the equipment in question , I can but conclude
ar Gossett did not testify concerning this incident , although he referred to it in his
affidavit.
2' Atwood testified that the machine did not start "for the simple reason when a ground
is broken on one of those safety units It drops off K-8, which is a relay that runs the
driver clutch , and It never emerges until the ready button Is on."
2D Atwood denied telling the machinists that the machine had been "down long enough "
I am inclined to credit the testimony of Gossett and Parks in this regard. But even assum-
ing that he said this, any such statement would hardly constitute an admission that he
was responsible for the difficulty.
LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1105
that if anything the evidence indicates a certain disinterest on the part of the elec-
tricians to ascertain for themselves whether such data was available.
6. Training and instruction
While the IBEW has not clearly set forth its position concerning the matter
captioned above, it appears to contend that the Employer did not afford the elec-
tricians sufficient training and instruction concerning the maintenance and repair
of the equipment in question. In this regard, it may be noted that the Employer
takes the following position: (1) that it is under no contractual or statutory obliga-
tion to provide training or schooling to the electricians or any other group of
employees; and (2) that the IBEW is estopped to now contend that the Employer
is under some obligation to provide training and schooling to the electricians in
the maintenance and repair of the equipment because the electricians in the
10(k) hearing represented that the electronic skills required by them as part of
the IBEW's apprenticeship program would enable them capably to handle the
disputed work.
The Board's Order reopening the record in this proceeding restricts me to making
the certain findings and conclusions concerning the contentions which are specified
therein and does not appear to encompass the issue noted above. However, I set
forth for the Board's consideration the testimony concerning this matter
As indicated in the Board's initial Decision herein, the ITU provided an elec-
tronic course for two machinists, a 4-week course in Linofilm circuitry in Kansas
City for 6 of the Employer's 17 ITU machinists, and 6 days of additional training on
Linofilm maintainence for the Employer's 2 leadmen machinists at the ITU's train-
ing school in Colorado Springs, Colorado. As previously noted, the Employer
acquired eight Electron linecasting machines subsequent to the initial hearing. About
March 14, 1965, the Employer sent two of its ITU machinists to an Electron school
maintained by the manufacturer of this equipment in Plainview, New York. There
they received approximately 2 weeks of training in the maintenance of the Electron
equipment. Two additional machinists, Chatfield and Atwood, were sent to the Plain-
view school on March 28, 1965, for similar training. The electricians were not
afforded a similar opportunity, although it also appears that they did not ask for it.
Baird testified that the electricians were not sent because "we saw no need for
it . they claimed competency as maintenance people." 30
Concerning the electricians, the record reflects only that on a Sunday morning
just prior to taking over the disputed work the electricians were taken to the Lino-
film room where they received an orientation or "brief rundown of the operation"
by Minford Betts, then the chief electrician, and other supervisory personnel.
7. The alleged lack of cooperation by the ITU composing room employees
As indicated in the Board's Order, the IBEW further alleges that any delay in the
maintenance and repair of the equipment in question by the electricians was in part
due to a lack of cooperation on the part of the ITU composing room employees. I
find a discussion of this allegation to be somewhat difficult because the IBEW has
not spelled out just what it has in mind when it charges the ITU employees with
failing to cooperate.31 However, I think we must start out with the obvious premise
30 Baird testified that the machinists were given "a minimum amount of instruction" at
the plant by a representative of the Linofilm manufacturer when the Linofilm equipment
was first installed. The electricians received no similar instruction, although Minford Betts
gave some vague testimony that at one point a Mr. McDonald of the Mergenthaler Com-
pany came to the plant after the electricians took over. He did not elaborate
311 note the following testimony of a general nature which was adduced at the hearing:
(a) McKee testified that he was present at the meeting on the night of April 21 at Kitts'
office which was attended by Kitts and a number of ITU machinists. McKee testified with-
out contradiction that when Kitts told the machinists and the electricians to work together
in repairing the down equipment, machinist Atwood stated, "We are not going to take
bread and butter out of our mouths ; we are not going to work with the electricians or give
them any assistance." (b) Baird testified that he heard "scuttlebutt" that the machinists
would not cooperate with the electricians, and (c) LeRoy Hanssen, assistant Linofilm
foreman, testified that he "heard" that the electricians were not receiving cooperation from
ITU employees, but that no electrician ever reported this to him.
257-551-67-vol. 160-71
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that if a machine fails to' function properly; the first one to notice the fault would
be the operator of the machine; i.e., a' production employee. I think I can safely
take judicial notice of the fact that as a general rule production employees are not
responsible for the maintenance or repair of the machinery which they operate nor
are they expected to be capable of analyzing the source of any difficulty which may
occur. As in the case here, the production employee ,will simply notify his foreman
when a malfunction occurs. To be sure, there may be some instances when the mal-
function may be readily apparent, even to the operator. However, although I will
discuss below the several instances wherein IBEW witnesses have charged ITU
employees with a failure to cooperate, there is no evidence of an ITU operator
having failed to disclose any such information when electricians were summoned to
repair the machines. 32 The evidence reflects that the operators did, however, cooper-
ate to the extent that was generally possible, such as demonstrating a malfunction
by feeding tape into the machine while an electrician was working on the machine.
I turn now to the testimony involving the alleged noncooperation of the ITU
machinists (as contrasted to the operators). William Stack testified that when he
first worked on an Electron he consulted a machinist whom he identified only as
"Leo." Stack testified, "He told me if I wanted to do something to show him what
I wanted to do he would do it. Otherwise, as far as he was concerned, that was as
far as he would go." Stack further testified: "On the second shift I did not have the
assistance or the cooperation of the ITU machinists, on the third shift I did " Stack
named machinists Harvey Atwood, LeRoy Johnson, and Mike Cowan as not being
cooperative. He did not elaborate, however, to illustrate the manner in which these
employees allegedly were not cooperative. In this regard he testified only that
"Cooperation is a matter of degree . I don't think I could list for you the
machinists and the way they cooperated, which was more or less. I have given my
impression . . . I think I did my work effectively. I think I could have done better
had I had cooperation."
Don Gossett testified that on one occasion he spent quite a bit of time checking
the electrical circuit of an Electron. He finally found a mechanical actuator out of
adjustment. Gossett testified that he thereupon told a machinist named Mike, who
came up while he was working, that the problem was mechanical and that he asked
Mike which one of them should make the adjustment. According to Gossett, the
machinist "smiled" and he thereupon made the adjustment. Gossett testified that on
another occasion he and McKee worked most of the night checking the electrical
circuit on a down Electron that did not quad properly. He testified that finally a
machinist came in and they asked him to check the machine. According to Gossett,
the machinist "looked . . . and said, `this arm is out of adjustment. That is what
is the matter with it.' He adjusted the arm and it ran all right." 33
Paul Parks gave some rather confused and conclusionary testimony which I
assume was offered in support of the allegation of noncooperativeness by the ITU
machinists. I shall not burden this report with a recitation of this testimony since,
having considered it, I do not deem it of any probative value in resolving the issues
herein 34
Leo Gash conceded that the machinists cooperated with him to the extent of
running tape through the machines and by "running the machine and taking covers
and things off to make switches and wiring accessible." Gash, in fact, did not
charge any ITU members with noncooperation. He concluded his testimony by
stating, "I would like to restate that I don't need their [the machinists'] help to do
my work. I would maybe need their help to try to analyze what the fault is."
Se Don Gossett testified that on one occasion he asked the operator of a Comet machine
"what seemed to be the trouble" and that "all I got out of him was a shrug of his shoul-
ders." However, it developed that the operator in this case was a deaf mute. Moreover,
Gossett conceded that he was aware that the specific malfunction in this instance was a
failure of the machine to elevate. It would seem to me that it was Gossett's responsibility
to ascertain the source of the difficulty, not the operator's.
33 This incident is cited in the IBEW's brief as an example of " failure or refusal of ITU
employees to cooperate with the electricians." Insofar as this incident is concerned, I am
inclined to view the opposite as being true.
141 have also considered Parks' testimony concerning an incident where he found two
nylon wheels which should have been free but which were pinched together. Although this
is illustrative of an Occasion where an electrician found the trouble to be mechanical rather
than electricial , there is no evidence tending to prove that this difficulty was the result of
some deliberate misconduct.
LOCAL UNION 124, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1107
George McKee testified that shortly after March 29 he was assigned to a down
Electron. He said that he asked Mike Cowan, a machinist, what the trouble was
and the Cowan simply replied, "It won't run." He testified that when he thereupon
asked Cowan if he "would work with us," Cowan replied, "McKee, we have been
friends. I would like to work with you but I can't." McKee testified that neverthe-
less Cowan proceeded to run tape through the machine and that he and Gossett
proceeded to make the necessary repair. On cross-examination, McKee testified that
the problem was of an electrical nature; that he did not intend to criticize Cowan;
that he only inquired of Cowan because it could have saved time if Cowan advised
him of the source of the trouble, if he (Cowan) knew what it was.
I turn now to my conclusions. As indicated heretofore, the Board's Order directs
that findings be made with respect to the contention of the IBEW that "delays
were due in many instances to a . . . lack of cooperation on the part of the com-
posing room employees." Upon the basis of the testimony set forth above, and on
the entire record in this case, I find the evidence does not support this allegation.35
The conclusionary accusations in the testimony of the IBEW employees, as set
forth above, are meaningless unless supported by factual instances of alleged non-
cooperation. I find probative testimony of this nature to be lacking. True there
were instances, as noted above, where the electricians were called to make repairs
which they ultimately found to be a mechanical rather than an electrical malfunc-
tion. In some instances this was ultimately pointed out to them by a machinist who,
arrived on the scene. However, the evidence does not establish that in these instances
such information was deliberately withheld by the machinists. Indeed, the record in
the case reflects that it is not always a simple matter to determine initially whether
the problem is of a mechanical or electrical nature . . . and this is a problem
which is confronted by whoever is first assigned to a machine, be it an electrician
or a machinist.
I have no doubt that the ITU machinists resented having to give up the disputed
work to the electricians. In this regard I have considered the testimony cited in
footnote 31. However, this testimony in itself again does not establish that there
was in fact the type of noncooperation which the IBEW alleges.
Finally, I might add that any question of cooperation between two groups of
employees, particularly in the circumstances presented in this situation, is a nebu-
lous one and therefore one of difficult practical resolution. Basically, I have found
the evidence insufficient to establish any overt lack of cooperation by the ITU
machinist. Whether there were instances where these employees remained silent
when they should have spoken is, of course, a matter which the evidence simply
does not reveal 36
8. The alleged substantial delays in publication
The Employer concedes that there were no instances of missed editions or abnor-
mally delayed deadlines during the period March 29 to April 23. In fact, there is
3-5 There is perhaps one exception. Thus, machinist Harvey Atwood, when called by the
ITU as a witness , testified that on one occasion he observed electrician Stack working on a
machine which was not quading properly. Atwood testified that he knew what the trouble
was but that he did not volunteer this information to Stack. On the other hand, Atwood
credibly testified to several instances where he did give voluntary assistance to electricians
when they were in difficulty. I also credit the testimony of machinist Donald Chatfield,
which I need not detail here, concerning his voluntarily giving assistance to an electrician
who could not find the source of difficulty on a down Electron.
13 I further call to the Board's attention the following assertion of the Employer, as set
forth in its brief, concerning which there may be some merit:
IBEW suggests just such a course of action-the Employer is to "insist" that the
ITU machinists and operators "cooperate" with the electricians, and, if they fail to
do so, they are to be disciplined or discharged. We suggest that such a "solution" not
only ignores industrial realities but merely emphasizes the critical situation in which
the Employer will be placed if compelled to 4llow the disputed maintenance work to
be performed by IBEW electricians. No employee can be compelled to disgorge his
knowledge to another . Nor is it realistic to suggest that an industrial arbitrator would
uphold the discipline or discharge of an ITU machinist for failing to share his knowl-
edge with an IBEW electrician , especially in circumstances like the present, where
the electricians have consistently represented that they are possessed of the necessary
knowledge , skills and capabilities to perform the work.
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no evidence at all to reflect that there were any substantial delays in publication
during the period the machinists were assigned to maintain the equipment in the
composing room.
Kitts testified, in response to leading questions, that during this period advertise-
ments were omitted from the newspapers "at a greater frequency" than was the
case when the equipment was maintained by the machinists. I am constrained not
to accord any weight to this testimony, unsupported as it is by any documentary
evidence or other pertinent detail.87 Accordingly, I find that the Employer has not
established that the assignment of the work in question to the electricians caused
news items or other matter to be omitted from its publications.
There can be no doubt, however, that the electricians engaged in excessive "down
time" during the period they were assigned to the disputed work. In this regard I
need only refer to the instances cited earlier in this report where it has been found
that the electricians were unable to repair the equipment or engaged in excessive
downtime in effecting certain repairs. The evidence also reflects, and I find, that
during this period the Employer was required to pay overtime which would not
have been necessitated absent the failure of the electricians to promptly effect the
repair and maintenance work to which they were assigned. Indeed, it is undisputed
that on a number of occasions electricians were recalled from their homes to lend
assistance to electricians who were having difficulty at the plant.38
9. Concluding statement
From the entire evidence in this case, including the various incidents noted
herein, it seems quite apparent, and I think it appropriate so to note, that a chief
problem in determining this dispute is the absence of any clearly defined division of
work between mechanical maintenance and electrical maintenance of the Employer's
composing room equipment. As indicated in the testimony heretofore discussed,
there were some occasions when the electrician spent considerable time working on
a piece of down equipment, only to find the difficulty to be of a mechanical nature.
Similarly, there would be some inevitable duplication of effort if the machinists
were summoned first, only to find the problem to be of an electrical nature. It is
beyond my function to make any determination whether, with a view to eliminat-
ing or minimizing this problem, the machinists and electricians should be granted
further time to work together and/or whether the electricians should be afforded
time for additional training and experience in the maintenance of this equipment.39
27I find this applicable also to the generalized testimony of Superintendent Miller
es Baird testified that the Employer had an increase of over 400 percent in overtime
during the month of April. Although this testimony came in without objection, I do not
feel warranted in accepting this figure at its face value without some supporting records,
documentary data, or testimony shown to be predicated thereon.
.o In this connection , William J. Stack, the IBEW business representative, testified that
it may very well take 2 or 3 additional months for the electricians "to get familiar with
the functional operations of this equipment."
United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO ( Continental
Can Company, Inc. and Wade Laughrey. Case 8-CB-971.
September 14,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 4, 1966, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
160 NLRB No. 85.