New Orleans Typographical Union No. 17, ITU

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 191 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

NEW ORLEANS TYPOGRAPHICAL,UNION NO. 17,•ITU 191
employees in the appropriate unit , with respect to wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment , including Christmas bonuses, wage in-
creases, job classifications , labor grades, and all fringe benefits incident to
employment.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally . terminate or change the nature or amount of
Christmas bonuses, wages , fringe benefits, or other terms or conditions of em-
ployment of our employees within the appropriate unit without bargaining col-
lectively with the aforesaid certified representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner ' interfere with , restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
to form , join, or assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all of such activities.
WE WILL pay to each eligible employee within the appropriate unit a 1962
Christmas bonus amounting to the full amount due and payable for a full
workweek of 40 hours at the highest hourly wage actually paid to such em-
ployee during the month of. December 1962 , plus interest at 6 percent per
annum from December 21, 1962, until paid.
The appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees , including working leadmen,
employed by the Employer at its Paragould , Arkansas , plant , excluding
office clerical employees , professional employees , engineering department
employees , watchmen , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Seventh
Floor, Falls Building 22 North Front Street , Memphis, Tennessee , Telephone No.
527-5451 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
New Orleans Typographical . Union No. 17, International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO and E . P. Rivas, Inc. and Local
No. 53, Amalgamated Lithographers of America . Case No.
15-CD-33. June 1, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act follow-
ing charges filed by E. P. Rivas, Inc., herein called the Employer,
alleging that New Orleans Typographical Union No. 17, Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the ITU, had,
in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, induced and encour-
aged employees to strike for the purpose of forcing or requiring the
Employer to assign certain work to employees who are members of
the ITU, rather than to employees who are members of Local No. 53,
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, herein called the ALA, to
whom the Employer had assigned the work in dispute and who are
now performing the work.
147 NLRB No. 21.
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Fred A. Lewis on Au-
gust 29 and 30 and September 16, 1963. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
.findings :
1. The business of the Employer
The Employer is a Louisiana corporation engaged in the printing
and distribution of various types of printed materials from plants
located at 615 Bienville Street and 2117 Chartres Street, New Orleans,
Louisiana. During the past year, the Employer received goods and
materials from outside the State valued in excess of $50,000. During
the same period, the Employer performed services for, and shipped
printed matter to, customers located outside the State valued in excess
of $50,000. The Employer concedes, and we find, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate,
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved
As stipulated by the parties, the ITU and the ALA are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The" dispute
A. Basic facts
The dispute herein arose as a result of the Employer's purchase of
an ATA photographic typesetter, herein, called typesetter, and the
assignment of its operation to employees represented by ALA.
The Employer's two plants are located approximately 181/2 blocks
apart in `;' etiv Orleans. The employees • at the Chartres Street plant,
an offset plant, are represented by the ALA. The employees at the
Bienville Street plant, a letterpress plant, are represented by three
separate labor organizations. The ITU represents the composing
room employees, the employees in the pressroom are represented by
the Pressmen's Union, and the bindery employees are represented by
the Bookbinder's Union. -None of the four units has been certified by
the Board.
The Employer's Bienville Street letterpress plant utilizes Linotype
and Ludlow machines which prepare type by casting molten letters
with a raised letter form which is then locked up and sent to the letter-
NEW ORLEANS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 17, ITU 193
presses for printing.' These Linotype and Ludlow machines are
referred to as "hot metal" machines and are operated by employees
represented by ITU. The newer typesetters, such as the typesetter
involved herein, are referred to as "cold type" machines.
The Employer purchased its first offset press in 1948 and installed.
it at the Bienville Street plant where it was operated by a nonunion
employee. Subsequently, the Employer obtained additional space at
the Chartres Street location and transferred its offset operation to that
location. In 1955 the Employer entered into an agreement with the
ALA covering all lithographic employees at the Chartres Street plant.
The first step in the lithographic process is the production of what
is known as "camera ready copy," which means that the proposed
copy is put into the form in which it will appear after it is printed.
The camera ready copy is then photographed and a negative is made.
The image contained on the negative is then imposed on a sensitized
plate, which is placed in the offset press for printing. This plate is
treated so that those portions which are not to receive ink will repel it.
Unlike the letterpress, where ink is applied directly to raised surfaces,
in the offset process ink applied to the plate is transferred to a rubber
blanket which comes into contact with the paper and prints the image.
Prior to the Employer's acquisition of the typesetter, "raw" or "new
copy" 2 was sent to the Bienville Street plant and prepared in the
composing room where it was marked up and given to the Linotype or
Ludlow operator. The operator would cast the necessary lines; then
forms would be prepared in chases and the chases sent back to the
letterpress to be run off. The forms would then be put in the "proof
press" and black and white reproduction or "repro" proofs would be
pulled. These proofs, which were "camera ready," would then be sent
from the Bienville Street plant to the Chartres Street plant for offset
reproduction.3-
In April 1963, after some investigation, the Employer purchased
and installed the typesetter at the Chartres Street plant. The type-
setter is a keyboard machine which produces reproduction proofs for
use on the offset presses by means of photographic processes. It con-
I For a fuller description of the operation of Linotype and Ludlow processes, see
Phototype. Inc., 145 NLRB 1268.
a The majority of the printing done at the Chartres Street plant is produced from copy
delivered by the customer which is "camera ready" for printing on the offset press. Some
of the production of the "camera-ready" copy is also prepared by trade shops, and the
Employer maintains a file of camera-ready copies of previous orders from customers which
are used at the offset plant. The purchase of the typesetter did not affect this aspect of
the Employer 's operations.
s For a representative period prior to the purchase of the typesetter, approximately 7.66
percent of the total production of.the composing room at the Bienville Street plant was
destined for offset production at the Chartres Street plant. Since the acquisition of the
typesetter, composing room employees at the Bienville Street plant are still producing some
"repro proofs" for use on the offset press at the Chartres Street plant . However, the
amount of this work has been reduced by approximately one-half.
756-236-65-vol. 147-14
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sists of two basic units, a keyboard unit and a photographic unit. ' The
keyboard is essentially a standard typewriter keyboard which is unlike
that of the Linotype machine. The keyboard unit cuts a tape which'
moves into the photographic unit of the typesetter, which photographs
each character individually. These characters are then transferred
onto sensitized paper which is contained in a canister on the -top of
the machine. The sensitized paper is then removed from the canister
and ' put through a developing unit which produces reproduction
proofs. The reproduction proofs are then taken to a layout table
where they are marked up, and they are subsequently used in another
camera operation to produce negatives which are in turn used in the
preparation of offset printing plates.
Shortly after the Employer purchased the typesetter, it notified the
ALA that the machine had arrived and that it desired to discuss a
wage scale for the employees who would operate the machine. On
April 26, 1963, the Employer and the ALA negotiated an addition to
their existing contract providing a wage scale for the two employees
hired to operate the typesetter. Upon learning of the acquisition of
the typesetter, the ITU protested the assignment of the work to the
ALA, contending that since the machine was a typesetting machine its
operation was covered by the jurisdictional clause of the ITU contract
with the Employer. Thereafter, there were a number of meetings be
tween representatives of the Employer and the ITU. The ITU de-
manded arbitration of the assignment of the typesetter work under the
terms of its contract with the Employer. The Employer refused to
arbitrate, however, on the ground that the ALA would not have par-
ticipated in the arbitration proceedings.
On June 14, 1963, the ITU struck and remained on strike until
August 8, 1963, when the strike was enjoined by a temporary injunc-
tion granted pursuant to Section 10 (1) of the Act by Judge Frank B.
Ellis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. In the meantime, the ITU filed a complaint for an injunc-
tion in the same court wherein it sought a mandatory injunction re-
quiring the Employer to arbitrate under its contract with the ITU
the assignment of the typesetter work. On August 8, 1963, Judge
Ellis also issued a mandatory injunction requiring the Employer to
arbitrate the assignment of the typesetter work under the terms of the
ITU contract. The arbitration was held and on November 14, 1963,
Arbitrator Lester E. Kabacoff issued an award finding that the ITU
contract required the Employer to assign the typesetter work to the'
ITU. He made it clear, however, that because the ALA was not a
party to the arbitration, it was not bound by his decision. On No-
vember 14, 1963, the ITU filed an action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking enforcement. of
the arbitrator's award. On December 6, 1963, the. Employer filed its
NEW ORLEANS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 17, ITU 195
opposition thereto and motion to dismiss. On December 9,1963, Judge
Frank B. Ellis ordered the award enforced. Thereafter, the Employer
filed a notice of appeal and motion to stay the effect of the injunction
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On
December 24,1963, the court of appeals denied the Employer's applica-
tion for a stay order.4
B, Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and the ALA contend that the disputed work should
be assigned to employees represented by ALA on the grounds that
(1) the Employer's contract with the ALA covers all work performed
at the Chartres Street plant; (2) the Employer has assigned the
typesetter work to the ALA; (3) this assignment promotes the effi-
cient operation of the Employer's plant while the assignment of the
work to the ITU would be unfeasible and impractical; and (4) the
operators of the typesetter perform photographic and camera work
of the same type performed by ALA members. The ITU initially
contends that this is not a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (4) (D) since its strike was over the Employer's un-
warranted refusal to arbitrate the assignment of the typesetter and
not over the assignment itself. As to the merits, the ITU contends
that the disputed work should be assigned to employees it represents
because (1) the Employer's contract with the ALA covers no type-
setting work but only the operation of offset presses; (2) the type-
setter produces reproduction proofs used on the offset presses, which
work linotype operators and other composing room employees rep-
resented by ITU produced in the past at the Bienville Street plant;
and (3) its contract with the Employer covers the typesetter work
wherever located.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to hear and deter-
mine the dispute out of which a Section 8 (b) (4) (D) charge has arisen.
Before making a determination of the dispute, however, the Board
is required to find there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated.
As indicated above, the ITU contends that its strike was solely
for the purpose of forcing the Employer to arbitrate the work dispute
under the terms of their contract and not for the purpose of forcing
4 On December 30, 1963, the ITU moved to reopen the instant record to incorporate into
the record various exhibits relating to the arbitrator's award. Copies of said motion were
duly served on all parties herein . On December 31, 1963, the Employer filed a memoran-
dum supporting the ITU's motion. On January 6, 1964, the ALA filed its opposition
thereto. The Board, having duly considered the matter, hereby ordered that the
aforesaid documents be, and they hereby are, made a part of the record herein, but only
for the limited purposes noted below . ( See footnote 8, infra.)
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer to assign the operation of the typesetter to employees
who are members of the ITU. Accordingly, the ITU moved to quash
the--notice, of ,hearing herein. We-find, however, contrary to the con-
tentions of the ITU, that the record establishes that "an object" of
the ITU conduct was to obtain assignment of the typesetter work.
Thus, E. P. Rivas, Jr., co,owner of the Employer, testified without con-
tradiction that when he and his brother met with ITU officials in
New Orleans on May 7, 1963, the latter` asserted a claim to the opera-
tion of the typesetter, and alluded to the possibility of strike action
to enforce their claim. In addition, ITU Local President Salterelli
admitted that "of course, ultimately we hoped to get the operation
of the machine." Rivas further testified without contradiction that
", . . as the meeting went on and things got a little hot," Mr. Water-
son, who was the ITU representative said, "We got ways and means
of whipping fellows like you in line," I said, "Well that's up to you."'
He then said, "You know, we just spent 5 million dollars in New York
whipping the newspapers in line and we can spend another million
whipping you in line."
We are persuaded on the basis of the foregoing that there is rea-
sonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) has
occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for deter-
mination under Section 10 (k) of the Act. Accordingly, the ITU's
motion to quash the notice of hearing is denied.'
D. Merits of the dispute
The ITU and the ALA base their respective claims to the disputecT
work on the following factors : 6
1. Skills and work involved: As indicated above, the keyboard
unit on the typesetter is similar to that of an ordinary typewriter with
certain additional keys which may be used for justifying the line or
deleting all or a portion of the line. In addition, the operator of the
typesetter also must do certain photographic work. Although lithog-
raphers perform camera and film development work in connection
with the preparation of offset plates, the record shows that the photo-
graphic work in operating the typesetter is almost completely me-
chanical and requires no particular skills. Thus, the tape, after
s See Local 110 , Sheet Metal 'Workers International Assooaation , AFL-CIO, et al_
(Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation), 143 NLRB 947. We also find without
merit the ITV's contention that this is not a jurisdictional dispute because the ALA
never demanded the disputed work The evidence is clear that the Employer assigned
the work to the ALA and that at all relevant times, including at the hearing herein and
in its briefs to the Board, the ALA has contended that it is entitled to the disputed work.
'Certain other factors normally relied upon by the Board in making jurisdictional
awards, namely, Board certifications, the Employer's past practice, and awards of joint
boards , are not- present in this case Further , there is a paucity of evidence relating to
the customs and practices in the industry.
NEW ORLEANS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 17, ITU 197
:automatically running through the photographic unit, produces a
developed image of text either on highly sensitized paper or on film.
'The typesetter operator's only function in this regard is to load the
-canister, which is a part of the machine, with film or sensitized paper
in a darkroom, to remove film from the canister, and to place it in
.the Photorite developer, which. develops the film without the conven-
tional use of a darkroom. As to typing skills, the record discloses
that a good typist can effectively operate the machine, and that be-
tween 80 and 90 percent of the typesetters presently in use in various
:areas are being operated by persons with no previous typesetting
experience . Moreover, as the typesetter keyboard is quite different
from the keyboard of the Linotype machine, ability to operate the
Linotype would be of little, if any, assistance in the operation of the
typesetter. In these: circumstances, we find that employees represented
by either ITU or ALA possess . the skills to do the disputed work and
:that the factor of employee skills favor neither union.
,2. Contract clauses : The. Employer has collective-bargaining agree-'
ments with both unions claiming the work involved herein. The
language of the ITU contract may be construed to award the disputed
work to the ITU,° and has been so interpreted by an arbitrator s The
Employer and the ALA, however, contend that the ITU contract is
restricted in its coverage to employees at the Bienville Street plant.
In this connection, the record discloses that the ITU contract has never
been applied to employees working at the Chartres Street plant. Fur-
ther, although the ITU contract covers certain other work, such as
"stripping, proofing, waxing, paste-make up of all types, and hand-
lettering," the ITU at no time has protested the fact that ALA mem-
bers at the Chartres Street plant have been performing this work.
The ALA contract does not contain ally detailed definition of its bar-
gaining unit , but refers only to employees engaged in "lithographic
processes ." The evidence is clear, however, that the lithographic proc-
ess, which includes basically the making of offset plates and the offset
7 Article I, section 3, of the ITU contract covers the bargaining unit in great detail,
and reads as follows:
All composing room work including typesetting machine operators . . . opera-
tors . . . on all mechanical devices which . . . compose type . . . or film , operators
of tape perforating machines and recutter units for use in composing or producing
type , operators of all photypesetting [ sic] machines . . . and employees engaged im
. . . processing , the product of photypesetting [ sic] machines, including developing
and waxing. . . .
'This jurisdictional clause also covers , by name , various types of phototypesetting nma-
•chines. While it does not specifically refer to the ATF typesetter , this typesetter was not
on the market at the time this agreement was entered into.
'As the ALA was not a party to the arbitration proceeding and the award did not
purport to bind the ALA , we have admitted the arbitration award into evidence only for
the limited purpose of including In 'the record the arbitrator 's interpretation of the ITU
contract as reserving the disputed work for ITU members. See Philadelphia Typographical-
Union, Local No . 2 (Philadelphia Inquirer, Division of Triangle Publications, Inc.), 142
NLRB 3G.
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
printing process, does not include typesetting. Nor do we accord any
independent weight to the supplemental agreement which the Em-
ployer entered into with the ALA on April 26,1963, assigning the dis-
puted work to ALA, as this agreement merely reflects the assignment
of the work by the Employer to the ALA. Accordingly, we find that
the factor of contract clauses favors neither union.
3. The assignment made by the Employer and efficiency of opera-
tions : As indicated above, the Employer assigned the operation of the
typesetter to the ALA. The Employer contends that the assignment
was motivated by good business judgment, and that ease and conven-
ience of business operations dictated that the typesetter be located at
the Chartres Street plant. In this connection,' the record shows that
the typesetter is located at the Chartres Street plant where its product
will be used in the offset press operation, and where the camera, paste-
up, stripping, waxing, ruling, art, hand-lettering, platemaking, and
other work which precedes the offset press operations are performed.°
Further, as noted, only employees represented by the ALA work at
the Chartres Street plant. If the Board were to assign the disputed
work to employees represented by ITU, this would mean that such em-
ployees would be compelled to travel 181/2 blocks from the Bienville
Street plant to the Chartres Street plant to operate the typesetter. In
light of these circumstances, we find that the efficiency of operations
factor strongly supports the ALA's claim to the disputed work.
4. Other factors : In contending that it is entitled to the disputed
work, the ITU relies primarily on the Board's decision in Philadelphia
Inquirer.10 There, the Board assigned certain disputed photocomposi-
tion work to employees represented by ITU, relying particularly on
the fact that photocomposition is a substitute for the "hot metal"
process; that composing room employees represented by the ITU had
performed this "hot metal" work in the past; and that if the photocom-
position work were assigned to other employees, employees represented
by ITU might lose their employment. In the instant case, all type-
setting work for use in the offset plant now being done by employees
operating the typesetter at the Chartres Street plant was previously.
done by the linotype employees at Bienville Street. Further, as noted,
prior to the acquisition of the typesetter, approximately 7.66 percent
of the production of the composing room at the Bienville Street plant
was destined for offset production at the Chartres Street plant; and
since the acquisition of the typesetter, this work has been reduced by.
approximately one=half. In these circumstances, the ITU contends,
that the employees it represents should be awarded the disputed work
e The Employer has no present plans for utilizing the products of the typesetter in its
letterpress operations at Bienville Street.
"142 NLRB 36, Member Rodgers concurring separately , Members Leedom and Brown
dissenting . See also Photype, Inc., supra.
NEW ORLEANS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 17, ITU '199
since the typesetter is a substitute for the linotype work and "repro
proof" work previously done by employees represented by ITU, and
since linotype employees at Bienville Street have lost work as a result
of the introduction of the typesetter.
We have weighed the factors favoring the ITU claim and those
favoring the ALA claim and we conclude that the lithographers repre-
sented by the ALA are entitled to the disputed work and shall deter-
mine the dispute in their favor. We rely particularly on the fact
that the Employer assigned the work to employees represented by
ALA, that this assignment is supported by the geographical location
of the typesetter, the efficiency of the Employer's operations, and the
fact that the employees represented by ALA possess the skills to do the
disputed work. In making this determination, we are assigning the
controverted. work to lithographers represented by the ALA and not
to the ALA or its members."
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, and upon the basis of the fore-
going, the Board makes the following determination of dispute.
1. Lithographers in the unit represented by Local No. 53, Amal-
gamated Lithographers of America, are entitled to perform the work
of operating the ATF photographic typesetter presently located at the
Employer's Chartres Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, plant.
2. New Orleans Typographical Union No. 17, International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been lawfully entitled
to force or require E. P. Rivas, Inc., to assign the above work to em-
ployees engaged as compositors, who are currently represented by New
Orleans Typographical Union No. 17, International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, New Orleans Typographical Union No. 17, International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director
for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain
from forcing or requiring E. P. Rivas, Inc., by means proscribed by
Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to compositors
rather than to lithographers.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER FANNING, dissenting :
We agree with our colleagues that this dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. We do not
u See St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, affiliated with International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO (Bejae Printing Company), 141 NLRB 1127 , where the Board awarded
certain disputed work involving the use of cameras producing type from text materials to
employees represented by the Pressmen's Union rather than to employees represented by
the ITU even though in other circumstances such work may.have , been performed in "hot-
metal" by employees represented by the ITU.
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agree with our colleagues, after considering all relevant factors, that
the disputed work should be assigned to the lithographers represented
by ALA.
In our view, although the record does not establish that employees
represented by the ITU possess all requisite skills for operating the
typesetter, it does show that they have some, if not most. Operation
of the typesetter requires a knowledge of typing on a keyboard differ-
ent from that of a typewriter, and a certain amount of typographical
experience, as well as knowledge of the terms utilized in the makeup of
copy, or printers' terms. These are the very skills utilized in linotype
typesetting work. Further, the record clearly establishes that the
lithographers do not perform typesetting work of any kind, and have
none of the skills or training necessary to perform such work. Fi-
nally, the ITU, realizing that the typesetter as well as other "cold.type"
:machines to some extent will displace the Linotype, has been training
its members for work on these machines. The factor of employee
skills thus favors the ITU.
The majority members admit that the ITU's contract may be con-
strued to award the disputed work to the ITU. In fact, an arbitra
for has so construed the contract. The majority nevertheless deems
the contract inapplicable apparently because it had not theretofore
been applied to the Chartres Street plant. The ITU contract contains
nothing which would indicate that it was intended to be restricted in
Its coverage to the Bienville Street plant.12 If the contract had not
theretofore been applied to the Chartres Street plant, it was because
this was the first attempt to assign work: covered by the contract to that
plant.
In contrast, the ALA contract covers employees engaged in "litho-
graphic processes," which do not, either by tradition or practice, in.-
•clude the function of typesetting. The majority virtually concedes
that there is no basis for concluding that the ALA contract covers the
work in dispute.
It seems to us that the language of the ITU contract and the arbi-
tration award clearly and strongly favor the position taken by the
ITU on contract coverage.
With respect to the Employer's assignment of the work and the
efficiency of its operations, we have no doubt that the Employer's
decision to place the new typesetting machines at the Chartres Street
plant will result in a more efficient operation. But the dispute here
is not which plant will house the new machine, but which union shall
have jurisdiction over the work. The efficiency of the Employer's
12 Although awarding the disputed work to the ITU would result in the employees at
the Chartres Street plant being represented by two unions , we see nothing in this fact to
alter our determination . It is not unusual for employees in the printing industry work-
ing in a single plant to be represented by two or more unions. We note that the em-
ployees at the Bienville Street plant are represented by three unions.
NEW ORLEANS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 17, ITU 201
operation will remain unchanged no matter which union represents-.
the typesetter operators, as long as the typesetter is where the Em-
ployer wants it. Thus, we perceive no jurisdictional significance in
the placement of the machine. Nor can we find any evidence in the
record to substantiate the statement in the majority opinion .that
typesetter operators would be compelled to travel 181/2 blocks from
one plant to the other if the work were awarded to the ITU. The
record clearly establishes that the Employer hired two new employees
to operate the typesetter and stationed them at the Chartres Street
plant. We see no reason why the work of those employees cannot
come under the jurisdiction of the ITU without requiring ITU mem-
bers to travel 181/2 blocks daily. The efficiency of operations factor
favors neither union.
Nor, in the circumstances of this case, can we agree that the Em--
ployer's assignment of the work to the ALA warrants a different
result. The weight to be given to an employer's assignment neces-
sarily varies to the extent that its assignment accords with, and re-
flects, the balance of such other factors as the nature of the work,.
the. skills of the competing groups of employees, the scope of the com-
peting unions' jurisdictional grants, contract rights, efficiency of op-
erations, and the like. Were this not so, the assignment made by an
employer caught in a jurisdictional squeeze would be controlling and
there would be no need for a Board determination. In the instant
case, the Employer's assignment is not in accord with the balance
resulting from these other factors. Moreover, the Employer, although
not necessarily changing its position of favoring the ALA, has with-
drawn any objections to an assignment to the ITU, by filing with us
a statement reiterating its intention to be bound by the Board's
determination.
It is apparent that the work of operating the typeseter is a sub-
stitute for the linotype and "repro proof" work done by employees.
represented by the ITU. If the disputed work is assigned to the ALA,,.
the ITU will lose all or part of the typesetting and composition work
it traditionally performs, and the employees represented by the ALA
will be gaining a typesetting function they have not formerly had.
and which is not within the normal jurisdiction of the ALA. How-
ever, if the operation of the new machine is assigned to employees
represented by the ITU, the offset employees represented by the ALA,,
who have never before performed typesetting, will lose no work. This,
"substitution-of-function" test has heretofore been considered an im-
portant factor in determining jurisdictional disputes.13
As the terms of the existing collective-bargaining contracts, the-
skills of employees, and "substitution-of-function" favor the ITU,.
"Philadelphia Typographical Union , Local No. 6 ( Philadelphia Inquirer, Division of
Triangle Publication, Inc.), 142 NLRB 36.
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the efficiency factor favors neither union, we would assign the
disputed work to the employees represented by the ITU.14
14 In our opinion , St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 , affiliated with International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (Bejae Printing Company ), 141 NLRB 1127 , relied on by
the majority is distinguishable . There, the dispute related to the operation of "Compos-O-
Line," a sequential card camera . However, in rejecting the claim of ITU and awarding
this work to employees represented by the Pressmen 's Union, the Board noted that al-
though in other circumstances , the work performed by "Compos-O-Line" might be per-
formed in "hot-metal, " the employer planned to use it only for special orders which it was
not equipped to handle in the past ; that the ITU contract with the employer did not
cover the disputed work ; and that the skill factor favored neither of the competing unions.
Mayer Pollock Steel Corporation and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO
Reading Crane and Hoist Company, Petitioner and United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 4-RC-1379 and
4-RM-468. June 1, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On October 2, 1963, Reading Crane and Hoist Company ( Reading
Crane) filed a petition alleging a representation demand from United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (the Steelworkers), and seek-
ing an election in a unit of its production and maintenance employees.
On November 29, 1951, the Board had certified the Steelworkers as
the bargaining representative for a unit of production and mainte-
nance employees at Mayer Pollock Steel Corporation (Mayer Pollock
Steel) at Pottstown, Pennsylvania. Thereafter, on November 8, 1963,
the Steelworkers filed a motion to clarify and amend certification,
to include within the unit at Mayer Pollock Steel the production and
maintenance employees at Reading Crane, contending that these em-
ployees constitute an accretion to the existing unit. On November 13,
1963, Reading Crane filed a motion to dismiss and reply to the Steel-
workers' motion, alleging that there is no evidence upon which to
base a finding that the Reading Crane employee group is an accretion
to the Mayer Pollock Steel unit of employees, and that, to the contrary, .
the evidence indicates that these employees constitute a separate and
distinct bargaining unit.
Thereafter, on December 26, 1963, the Board ordered a hearing on
the issues raised by both the motion to clarify or amend certification
and the election petition, and authorized the Regional Director to
consolidate the proceedings. Pursuant to the Regional Director's
order of January 13, 1964, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hearing Officer H. Dawson Penniman on February 4 and 5, 1964.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from pre-
judicial error and are hereby affirmed.
147 NLRB No. 24.