Minneapolis Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 20

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1982

261 N.L.R.B. 789 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

MINNEAPOLIS PRINTING, LOCAL 20
Minneapolis Printing and Graphic Communications
Union, Local 20 and Johnson Printing Compa-
ny, Inc. and Graphic Arts International Union,
Local 1B, Twin Cities.' Case 18-CD-269
May 10, 1982
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS FANNING AND HUNTER
This a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed by Johnson Printing Company, Inc.
(hereinafter the Employer), alleging that Minne-
apolis Printing and Graphic Communications
Union, Local 20 (hereinafter the Pressmen), violat-
ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in
certain proscribed activity with an object of forc-
ing or requiring the Employer to continue assign-
ing certain work to employees represented by it
rather than to employees represented by Graphic
Arts International Union, Local I B, Twin Cities
(hereinafter the Bookbinders).
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Frank E. Kapsch, Jr., on Septem-
ber 16, 1981. 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 on the issues. Thereafter,
the Employer, the Pressmen, and the Bookbinders
filed briefs, which have been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Johnson
Printing Company, Inc., a Minnesota corporation
with its principal place of business in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, is engaged in commercial printing and
packaging. During the past 12 months, the Em-
ployer, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, shipped from its Minneapolis, Minneso-
ta, facility goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to customers located outside the
State of Minnesota.
' The name appears as amended at the hearing.
261 NLRB No. 103
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that both the
Pressmen and the Bookbinders are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer's business operations are divided
about equally between manufacturing folding car-
tons and printing books, catalogues, business
papers, letterheads, and advertising folders. Em-
ployees represented by the Pressmen and the Book-
binders work as a composite crew in producing
folding cartons. During this process, employees
represented by the Pressmen set up and operate
die-cutting presses, platen presses, gluer-folder ma-
chines, and a roller coater. The Employer has as-
signed the work of removing and stacking the fin-
ished products of all these machines, except the
roller coater, to employees represented by the
Bookbinders.
In March 1981,2 the Employer expanded its
packaging operations by purchasing a Brown 2025
Thermo-Former machine. The thermo-former pro-
duces molded plastic trays in which to package
such objects as pen and pencil sets and cigarette
lighters. When this machine commences its produc-
tion cycle, the operator feeds sheets of rolled plas-
tic into the thermo-former's heating element. The
machine places the plastic on a mold and applies
vacuum pressure to stretch the heated material into
its desired shape. The operator then forms the pe-
rimeter of the plastic box using the machine's die-
cutting press. Finally, the machine ejects the fin-
ished product into a receiving station for removal
by another employee.
In July, the Employer installed at its facility a
Finester Windowing Machine, Model D, which
places a cellophane or acetate window on a folding
carton. To accomplish this task, the operator ini-
tially puts a carton containing a precut window on
the machine's automatic feeder. The carton is fed
to a type of letter press which applies an adhesive
around the window area. During the next step in
this process, the windowing machine places a cello-
phane square on the carton and then exerts pres-
2 All dates are in 1981, unless otherwise indicated.
789
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sure to ensure that the cellophane adheres to the
surface. A second employee subsequently removes
the finished product from the machine.
Consistent with its practice regarding the oper-
ation of other packaging machines, the Employer
has assigned the production work on each machine
to a composite crew of one employee represented
by the Pressmen and one or more employees repre-
sented by the Bookbinders. Employees represented
by the Pressmen are totally responsible for the
setup and operation of these machines during pro-
duction runs. When the machines have concluded
their production cycle, employees represented by
the Bookbinders remove the finished products and
inspect them for defects.
While the Pressmen expressed no disagreement
with the Employer's work assignments, the Book-
binders claimed jurisdiction over the work present-
ly performed by the pressmen. The Bookbinders
thus filed a grievance allegedly to enforce the pro-
visions of its collective-bargaining agreement with
the Employer. Thereafter, on August 7, Jess
March, the Pressmen business representative, sent a
letter to the Employer stating that the Pressmen
would cause a work stoppage if the Employer reas-
signed the operation of the thermo-former or the
windowing machine to employees represented by
the Bookbinders.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute, as described in the notice
of hearing, involves the operation of (1) the Brown
2025 Thermo-Former Machine and (2) the Finester
Windowing Machine, Model D, at the Employer's
facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the Pressmen vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening
to engage in a work stoppage if it reassigned the
disputed work to employees represented by the
Bookbinders. Additionally, the Employer urges
that its assignment of the disputed work to employ-
ees represented by the Pressmen should be upheld
in view of their skills, efficiency and economy of
operations, industry practice, company practice,
job impact, the contract between the Employer
and the Pressmen, and the Employer's assignment
of the work. The Pressmen also contends that such
work should be awarded to employees it represents
for these reasons.
The Bookbinders argues that its contract with
the Employer, industry and area practice, relative
skills, and efficiency and economy of operations
favor an award of the disputed work to employees
it represents.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the
Act, it must be satisfied that (1) there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated, and (2) there is no agreed-upon method
for the voluntary resolution of the dispute.
With respect to (1), above, it is uncontested that
in a letter dated August 7, 1981, Jess March, the
Pressmen business representative, informed the Em-
ployer that "[i]f you assign the [disputed] work that
the Bindery Union Local IB has been demanding
that they receive, our Local will have no other re-
course than to strike Johnson Printing Company."
This threat to strike clearly constitutes a threat of
serious economic harm and is coupled with the
stated intention of forcing the Employer to contin-
ue assigning certain work to employees represented
by the Pressmen rather than to employees repre-
sented by the Bookbinders. We therefore find that
there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
With respect to (2), above, there is no evidence
in the record and no party otherwise contends that
there is an agreed-upon method for the voluntary
resolution of the dispute. Accordingly, we find that
the dispute is properly before the Board for deter-
mination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
after giving due consideration to various relevant
factors.3 As the Board has frequently stated, the
determination in a jurisdictional dispute case is an
act of judgment based on commonsense and experi-
ence in weighing these factors. The following fac-
tors are relevant in making a determination of the
dispute before us.
1. Board certification and relevant collective-
bargaining agreements
There is no evidence that either of the labor or-
ganizations involved herein has been certified by
the Board as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive for a unit of the Employer's employees.
It is clear that neither Union's existing collective-
bargaining agreement with the Employer specifi-
cally mentions operation of the Brown 2025
Thermo-Former Machine or the Finester Window-
s N.LR.B. v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Colum-
bia Broadcasting System]. 364 U.S. 573 (1961); International Association of
Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, .FL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Compa-
ny), 135 NL.RB 1402 (1962).
790
MINNEAPOLIS PRINTING, LOCAL 20
ing Machine, Model D. The record also contains
no evidence that the parties contemplated the Em-
ployer's purchase of these machines when they ne-
gotiated the respective contracts. Nevertheless, the
Employer and the Pressmen argue that their agree-
ment covers the disputed work, while the Book-
binders raises a similar contention concerning its
contract with the Employer.
Section 2(a) of the Bookbinders contract pro-
vides that "[a]ll employees engaged in bindery de-
partment production work and work incidental and
supplemental thereto including shipping room shall
be covered by this agreement." We find that this
provision is vague with respect to the issues before
us and thus provides no assistance in determining
the instant dispute.
The work jurisdiction of employees represented
by Pressmen is defined in Section 2(a) of the con-
tract between the Employer and the Pressmen as
follows:
This contract applies to pressrooms operated
by the Employer . . . including but not limited
to letterpresses, all offset presses, all gravure
presses, all analine presses, all presses of a spe-
cialty nature used for scoring, die-cutting, per-
forating or cornering, all heat-set presses . . .
all proofing and all miscellaneous pressroom
employees .... Nothing in this clause shall
be construed to apply to employees or work
which is now covered by contracts with any
other union.
While the Employer and the Pressmen point out
that "die-cutting" is an integral function involved
in operating the thermo-former, we are not con-
vinced that the quoted provision is sufficiently
broad so as to cover this work. They further assert
that the windowing machine falls within the Press-
men's jurisdiction clause because it constitutes a
press "of a specialty nature." It does not appear
from the record, however, that the machine is
"used for scoring, die-cutting, perforating or cor-
nering." Thus, we conclude that the Pressmen's
contract does not specifically cover operation of
the windowing machine.
Accordingly, we conclude that the factors of
Board certification and relevant collective-bargain-
ing agreements are inconclusive and do not favor
an award of the disputed work to either group of
employees.
2. Relative skills and efficiency and economy
of operations
The Employer argues for an award of the disput-
ed work to employees represented by the Pressmen
because of their experience in performing work
similar to that in dispute here and the resulting effi-
ciency and economy of operations. The record dis-
closes that it is essential for the thermo-former op-
erator to possess die-cutting skills such as employ-
ees represented by the Pressmen have acquired in
operating the Employer's other die-cutting presses.
With respect to windowing machine operations,
there is evidence that the pressmen perform similar
tasks when they produce a finished carton from
precut cardboard blanks on the gluer-folder ma-
chine. Furthermore, the employee represented by
the Pressmen who has been assigned this work pre-
viously operated windowing machines for other
employers. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that
employees represented by the Pressmen have dem-
onstrated the skills required to perform all the dis-
puted work. By contrast, the record contains no
evidence that any of the Employer's employees
represented by the Bookbinders has experience in
operating packaging machines.
Accordingly, we find that the factors of relative
skills and efficiency and economy of operations
favor an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by the Pressmen.
3. Area practice
The Employer established that Mankato Carton
Company, located about 85 miles from the Em-
ployer's facility, has assigned the entire operation
of an identical thermo-former machine to employ-
ees represented by the Pressmen. There is no evi-
dence, however, that Mankato Carton also employs
employees represented by the Bookbinders. The
record also discloses that Brown & Bigelow Com-
pany of Minneapolis has assigned the operation of
"two vacuum-forming machines" to employees rep-
resented by the Bookbinders rather than to its
Pressmen-represented employees. It is clear, how-
ever, that this type of thermo-former is dissimilar
to the Employer's machine since it does not per-
form any die-cutting operations. We therefore con-
clude that area practice regarding the thermo-
former is inconclusive and does not favor an award
of this work to either group of employees.
With respect to the windowing machine, the
Bookbinders presented evidence that three Minne-
apolis companies utilize employees represented by
the Bookbinders, rather than their Pressmen-repre-
sented employees, to operate machines which insert
a cellophane window on paper envelopes. None of
these companies, however, is engaged in manufac-
turing folding cartons. In these circumstances, we
find that area practice relative to the windowing
machine does not favor an award of such work to
either group of employees.
791
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Employer's assignment and past practice
The Employer has assigned all the work in dis-
pute to employees represented by the Pressmen
and has expressed its preference that such work be
performed by those employees. The Board has held
that where an employer institutes a new production
process, "company practice" regarding a work as-
signment will be determined by comparing the
nature of the tasks involved in the new process to
the work traditionally performed by competing
groups of employees. 4 It is undisputed that the
Employer consistently has assigned the setup and
operation of die-cutting presses, platen presses,
gluer-folder machines, and the roller coater utilized
in producing folding cartons to employees repre-
sented by the Pressmen. We have noted that the
tasks such employees perform in operating these
machines are closely analogous to those involved
in the disputed work. The Employer's Bookbind-
ers-represented employees, by contrast, traditional-
ly have been responsible only for handling the fin-
ished products of packaging machines. They pres-
ently are performing this function on the thermo-
former and windowing machine under the Employ-
er's work assignment.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Em-
ployer's present assignment and past practice favor
an award of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by the Pressmen.
5. Job impact
The Employer and the Pressmen contend that an
award of the disputed work to employees other
than those represented by the Pressmen will result
in the elimination of jobs for employees represent-
ed by the Pressmen. Contrary to their argument,
the evidence discloses that the Employer did not
hire any new employees when it commenced oper-
ations on the newly installed machines. Further-
more, the Employer presently is not utilizing either
machine at full capacity. When its projected expan-
sion of these operations occurs, the Employer an-
4 Paper Handlers' and Sheet Straighteners' Union Local No 1. Interna-
tional Printing & Graphic Communications Union. AFL-CIO (American
Bank Note Company), 255 NLRB 261 (1981).
ticipates hiring additional employees regardless of
which employee group is awarded the disputed
work. Thus, under the circumstances present here,
it appears that the Employer would not dismiss any
of its present Pressmen-represented employees if
the disputed work is awarded to employees repre-
sented by the Bookbinders.
Accordingly, we find that this factor does not
favor an award of the disputed work to either
group of employees.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full con-
sideration of all the relevant factors involved, we
conclude that the Employer's employees who are
represented by Minneapolis Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, Local 20, are entitled to
perform all the work in dispute. We reach this con-
clusion based on the Employer's present assign-
ment and past practice, relative skills, efficiency
and economy of operations, and the similarity of
the disputed work to the tasks that employees rep-
resented by Pressmen previously have performed
for the Employer. Accordingly, we shall determine
the instant dispute by awarding all the disputed
work to employees represented by Minneapolis
Printing and Graphic Communications Union,
Local 20, but not to that Union or its members.
The scope of our award is limited to the facts of
the instant dispute.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of
the foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees of Johnson Printing Company, Inc.,
who are represented by Minneapolis Printing and
Graphic Communications Union, Local 20, are en-
titled to perform the work involved in operating
the Brown 2025 Thermo-Former Machine and the
Finester Windowing Machine, Model D, at the
Employer's facility located in Minneapolis, Minne-
sota.
792