New York Paper Cutters (Franklin/Rapid/Dart)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 3 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

NEW YORK PAPER CUTTERS (FRANKLIN/RAPID/DART)
New York Paper Cutters and Bookbinders Union No.
119, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders,
AFL-CIO and District 65 , National Council of Distrib-
utive Workers of America ,and Franklin/Rapid/Dart
Organization , Incorporated . Case 22-CD-163
April 15; 1970
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges
filed by Franklin/Rapid/Dart Organization, Incorporated,
hereinafter called Employer, alleging that New York
Paper Cutters and Bookbinders Union No. 119, and
District 65, National Council of Distributive Workers
of America, hereinafter called Local 119 and District
65, respectively, had each violated Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (D) of the Act, by threatening, coercing, or
restraining officials of the Employer, for the purpose
of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the work
to employees in a particular labor organization rather
than to employees in another labor organization. A
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert M.
Schwarzbart on December 3, 8, and 11, 1969.
All parties were present and represented by Counsel
at the initial hearing. However, only the Employer and
District 65 appeared on the two subsequent dates when
the testimony concerning the facts was received by
the Hearing Officer. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.
None of the parties filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
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 EMPLOYER
The Employer and District 65 stipulated that Franklin/
Rapid/Dart Organization, Incorporated, is engaged in
the business of lithographing and mailing commercial
publications and advertising material and other related
matter; that during 1969, the Employer has shipped
from its production facility in Weehawken, New Jersey,
printed material -valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to points outside the State of New Jersey; and that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
3
The parties stipulated that New York Paper Cutters
and Bookbinders Union No. 119, and District 65, Nation-
al Council of Distributive Workers, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The dispute arises from the assignment of work on
two papercutting machines at the Employer's Weehawk-
en, New Jersey, plant.
On January 1, 1969, three firms, Franklin/Rapid, Ard-
lee, and Dart, merged to form the present Employer.
Prior thereto Franklin/Rapid was engaged in lithograph-
ing and direct mailing of printed matter and employed
about 125-150 employees. Franklin/Rapid belonged to
the Metropolitan Lithographers Association, which had
a labor agreement with Local 1 of the International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, and to Direct Mail
Master Contract Association, Inc., which had a labor
agreement with District 65. Franklin/Rapid had two
papercutting machines and employed two papercutters
who were represented by District 65.
Ardlee was engaged in the same type of business
and had about 70 employees. Ardlee also belonged to
the above-named employer association through which
it had labor agreements with the same two labor organiza-
tions. Ardlee had two papercutting machines and one
papercutter who was a member of Local 1, International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO; however this employee
retired in the spring of 1969 subsequent to the merger.
Dart was engaged in lithography and had approximate-
ly 60-70 employees. It once belonged to the Printers
League Section, Printing Industries of Metropolitan New
York, Inc., an employer association ,' which had a labor
agreement with Local 119, one of the parties herein.
At the time of the. merger this employer did not have
any employees classified as papercutters on its payroll.2
However, Local 119 did represent one paper handler
who at the time of the hearing was still working in
Dart's New York City operation and has never worked
at the New Jersey plant here involved.
The record shows that all of the New York City
facilities of all three employers will be closed down
and that all operations will be housed in one plant
at Weehawken, New Jersey. At the time of the hearing
the Employer was operating two papercutting machines
and had one other machine not being used. The Employer
assigned the work of operating the machines to papercut-
ters who are members of District 65.
' Hereinafter referred to as the Printers League The record shows
that Dart resigned from the Printers League in July 1968, prior to
the above-mentioned merger in 1969
2 One papercutter employee was laid off in January 1968, I year
prior to the merger
182 NLRB No. 3
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 4, 1969, Arthur Grossman, a representative
of Local 119, stated that if the Employer did not employ
a member of Local 119 as a papercutter and assign
him papercutting work, his Union would tie up the
Employer so that nothing would move in the plant
The Employer's attorney David Arvan advised Gross-
man that the Employer had a contract with District
65 for this work On October 16, 1969, Grossman again
told the Employer that a Local 119 papercutter was
to be put to work
On October 27, 1969, a representative of District
65 told the Employer that all papercutting work must
be assigned to employees covered by the labor agreement
with District 65 and that the Employer would face
an immediate strike by District 65 in the event the
Employer assigned the work to employees of any other
union
Thus in summary, the Employer, through its member-
ship in the above -named employer associations, has
a contract with District 65 which includes the classifica-
tion of papercutters Papercutters were in the employ
of Franklin /Rapid and Ardlee at the time of the merger
On the other hand, at the time of the merger Dart
had a contract with Local 119 which included papercut-
ters But at the time of the merger Dart had no papercut-
ters in its employ , and moreover had already resigned
from the employers association Thus Local 119's claim
is based upon a contract with an employer no longer
in existence and no longer belonging to the association
with which Local 119 has its contract
B The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the operation of papercutting
machines at the Employer ' s Weehawken plant
C Contentions of the Parties
Local 119' s claim for work is apparently based upon
its current contract with the Printers League This con-
tract includes operation of papercutting machines such
as those used by the Employer
District 65 bases its claim to the work on its current
contract with the Direct Mail Master Contract Associa-
tion, Inc
The Employer's position is that Franklin/Rapid and
Ardlee had a total of three papercutters in their employ
prior to the merger who were not covered by Local
119 contracts, that after the merger they have three
papercutters assigned to work two machines , 3 that Dis-
trict 65 had jurisdiction over the work on these machines
prior to the merger, and that it should continue to
maintain jurisdiction after the merger
D Applicability of the Statute
The charges herein allege a violation of Section 8(b)
(4) (D) of the Act The record shows that on August
' The Employer employs two employees as papercutters on day
shift and one employee on night shift
4 and October 16, 1969, Local 119 stated that if the
Employer did not employ one of its members and assign
him a papercutting machine then Local 119 would tie
up the Employer so that nothing would move in the
plant On October 27, 1969, District 65 informed the
Employer that there would be an immediate strike in
the event that the Employer assigned the work to employ-
ee members of another union
In view of the conduct described above, we find
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation
of Section 8(b) (4) (D) has occurred and that the dispute
is properly before the Board for determination under
Section 10(k) of the Act
E The 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 all relevant factors The
following factors are relevant in making a determination
of the dispute before us
The parties stipulated that there is no outstanding
Board certification as to the work involved herein
The record does contain a copy of a contract between
the District Mail Master Contract Association, Inc ,
and District 65 covering production employees including
the classifications of papercutter
The record also shows that Local 119 had a collective-
bargaining agreement with Dart through the Printers
League, mentioned above, prior to the 1969 merger
However, Dart had no papercutters in its employ at
the time of the merger and, prior to the merger, had
withdrawn from that Association In these circumstances
the agreement between District 65 and the Employer
is a factor which favors an award of the work to
employees represented by District 65
There is no showing that the disputed work requires
skill not possessed by employees represented by District
65
On the contrary the record shows that employees
who are members of and are represented by District
65 possess the necessary skills to perform the work
In the Employer's plant, the cutting machines are located
in the cutting and folding department All employees
in this department including papercutters are members
of District 65 and are under the supervision of the
foreman of the department The Employer's assignment
is not inconsistent with area practice The record shows
that employees represented by District 65 are employed
as papercutters in several other plants by other employers
with whom they have collective-bargaining agreements
Other factors provide little assistance in determining
the instant dispute Thus, the record shows that the
Printers League, pursuant to a grievance brought by
Local 119, against Dart, decided that Dart and its respec-
tive successors and/or assigns is bound by the contract
between Local 119 and the above-named association
Since the Employer was neither a party to the proceeding
nor a member of the Printers League it does not consider
itself bound by the award Furthermore, District 65
was not a party to the above-named proceeding and
NFR YORK P PER CUTTERS ( IIR 1NKI IN/RAPID/DAR r)
was not aware of the award Accordingly we find that
the award doe` not favor the assignment of work to
Loc it 119
In view of the foregoing on the basis of the record
as a whole and upon appraisal of all relevant consider
ations we believe, that the work in dispute should be
awarded to employees represented by District 65 The
fact that the Employer's assignment conforms to its
own and area practices and is consistent with its collec-
tive bargaining agreement the fact that papercutters
employed by the Employer not only have the requisite
skills but are familiar with all facets of the work in
dispute, and the attendant efficiency of operations lead
us to conclude that Employer's assignment of the work
is the proper one Therefore we shall determine the
dispute by assigning the work in question to employees
represented by District 65 On making this determination
which is limited to the controversy which gives rise
to this proceeding, we are not assigning the work to
Local 65 or its members
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act as amended and upon the basis of the forego-
ing findings and the entire record in this proceeding,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the
following determination of the dispute
5
I Lmployees employed by Franklin /Rapid/Dart
Organization Incorporated , who are represented by Dis-
trict 65 National Council of Distributive Workers of
America AFL-CIO rather than employees represented
by New York Paper Cutters and Bookbinders Union
No 119 International Brotherhood of Bookbinders
AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of operating
the papercutting machines at the Employers plant in
Weehawken , New Jersey
2 New York Paper Cutters and Bookbinders Union
No 119, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders,
AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4)(D ) of the Act to force or require the Employer,
Franklin/Rapid /Dart Organization Incorporated, to
assign the above work to papercutters represented by
it
3 Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , New York Paper Cutters
and Bookbinders Union No 119, International Brother-
hood of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO, shall notify the Region
al Director for Region 22, in writing , whether it will
or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Employ
er, Franklin/Rapid/Dart Organization , Incorporated, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4)(D ), to assign the
work in dispute to employees represented by District
119 rather than to employees of the Employer who
are represented by District 65