New York Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 167 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

NEW YORK PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 51, ETC. 167
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint.
4. The Union's objections as set forth in the Regional Director's report on objec-
tions, are without merit and should be overruled.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Having concluded that Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as
alleged , and having found the Union's objections to conduct affecting the election to
be without merit, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety , that the
Board overrule the Union's objections , and proceed to issue a certification of results
of election.
New York Printing Pressmen's Union No . 51, International
Printing Pressmen 's Union and Assistants of North America,
AFL-CIO and Stuyvesant Press Corporation . Case No. 2-CD-
262. June 26, 1963
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, following a
charge filed by Stuyvesant Press Corporation, herein called the Com-
pany, alleging that New York Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51, In-
ternational Printing Pressmen's Union and Assistants of North
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Pressmen, had violated Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. A hearing was held before Carl G. Coben,
hearing officer, on April 10, 1963. All parties who appeared at the
hearing 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. The Pressmen filed a brief
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Company
Stuyvesant Press Corporation, New York, New York, is engaged in
the printing of books and publications. Annually, it sells printed
products and services valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located
outside the State of New York. We find that the Company is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
143 NLRB No. 24.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved
The Pressmen and New York Typographical Union No. 6, Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the ITU, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The dispute
The Work in Dispute; Background Facts
The disputed work which gave rise to this proceeding concerns the
offset preparation work of camera, stripping, and platemaking which
is performed in connection with the Company's offset printing opera-
tion. The Company, having assigned this work to an employee who
was a member of the ITU, was threatened with a work stoppage by
the Pressmen if the work were not reassigned to one of its members.
The Company's printing business includes both letterpress and off-
set operations and consists of two main departments referred to as the
composingroom and the pressroom. The employees in the composing-
room are represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the ITU
and those in the pressroom are represented by the Pressmen.
The Company is a member of Printers League Section, Printing In-
dustries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., herein called the League,
which represents employers in matters dealing with collective bargain-
ing. The League has master contracts with both the Pressmen and the
ITU. The unit covered by the contract with the Pressmen includes all
employees in the pressroom engaged as printing pressmen. Part XI
of this contract provides, as to offset operations, that an employer
member of the League may recognize "by signature New York Print-
ing Pressmen's Union No. 51 as the representative of employees of his
lithographic department in the operation of offset presses and/or re-
lated lithographic work such as camera, platemaking, and stripping."
Section 4 of the League's contract with the ITU covers a unit of all
employees engaged in composingroom work and provides as follows
with respect to offset operations :
The work involved in the operation of the camera used in the
platemaking process, opaquing, imposition-stripping and plate-
making operations shall be covered in a separate agreement for
wages, hours and working conditions. This agreement shall be
for those employers who recognize by separate signature New
York Typographical Union No. 6 as representative of its em-
ployees engaged on such work.
For many years, the Company's business was confined to letterpress
operations and the composingroom employees performed the nec-
essary "hot metal" preparation work; whereas the pressroom em-
ployees ran the letterpresses. In 1958, the Company installed offset
NEW YORK PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 51, ETC. 169'
printing presses and instructed the League to so notify the Pressmen.
By letter dated September 3, 1958, the League advised the Pressmen
that the Company, in accord with Part XI of the contract, rec-
ognized the Pressmen as "the representative of its employees in the
operation of its offset presses and such related lithographic work as
it may perform." Between 1958 and July 1962, the Company did
not perform offset preparation work of camera, stripping, and plate-
making, but subcontracted such work to other printing establish-
ments. During July 1962, it began using a composingroom employee,
represented by the ITU, to perform on a part-time basis simple offset
preparation duties in the Company's executive office area, rather
than in the composingroom. The more intricate offset work continued
to be sent to outside companies. On December 7, 1962, James S.
Kopernick, the Pressmen's president, having learned that the Com-
pany was using an employee-member of the ITU to perform offset
preparation work, visited the plant and told Alfred A. Manette, the
Company's president, that the Pressmen objected to the existing as-
signment of this work on the ground that the Company had contracted
with the Pressmen in September 1958 for the offset preparation work
as well as the offset presswork. Manette did not dispute this asser-
tion and requested Kopernick to send an applicant to be interviewed
for this work. On the same day that Kopernick visited Manette, the
latter checked with the secretary of the League, who confirmed
Kopernick's position; and Manette also wrote a letter to the president
of ITU's Local 6 in which Manette, a former member of that Local,
urged the ITU to assert jurisdiction over the disputed work. In
response to this letter, Harry S. Duffy, a representative of Local 6,
called Manette who told him that he had assigned the work to an
ITU man and that the Pressmen was claiming jurisdiction. Duffy
asked Manette whether he had a supplemental agreement with the
Pressmen for the offset preparation and Manette replied in the nega-
tive. Thereafter, on December 14, 1962, the Company and the ITU
entered into an agreement covering the disputed preparation work.
After Kopernick's visit of December 7, on two separate occasions,
Manette interviewed applicants referred by the Pressmen, found them
qualified to perform the camera, stripping, and platemaking duties,
but did not hire them. When Kopernick learned of this and that the
ITU employee-member was still performing the disputed work, he
notified Richard Lyons, the League's labor relations representative,
that the Pressmen would call a strike at the Company's plant, if a
member of the Pressmen was not put on the job. Lyons communi-
cated this threat to Manette, whereupon the Company filed the instant
unfair labor practice charge on March 4, 1963. Thereafter, the
Company ceased performing the disputed work, pending a determina-
tion by the Board.
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Applicability of the Statute
The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director,
alleges a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. The Regional
Director was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that there
was reasonable cause to believe that a violation had been committed
and directed that a hearing be held in accordance with Section 10(k)
of the Act. On the basis of the entire record, including the Press-
men's threat to strike because of the Company's assignment of the
disputed work, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that
a violation of the Act has occurred and that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination.
Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of disputed work after giving due consideration to various
relevant factors; and the Board has held that its determination in
a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon com-
monsense and experience and a balancing of such factors.'
Some of the usual factors considered by the Board in these cases,
such as job skills and the custom and practice in the industry, are
fairly balanced and consequently cannot be given significant weight
in determining which of the two competing unions is entitled to the
disputed work. Thus, it is clear, and the Company admitted, that
members of the Pressmen were as qualified to perform the job as
the employee-member of the ITU to whom the Company had as-
signed the offset preparation work. Regarding the custom and
practice within the geographical area covered by the League's re-
spective contracts with the Pressmen and the ITU, the essence of the
record evidence reveals that of the printing shops in the New York
City area that are engaged in letterpress and offset operations, more
employ members of the Pressmen to perform offset preparation work,
than employ ITU members for this work. However, as this evidence
does not show any predominant industry custom or practice in favor
of the Pressmen, we attach little significance to this factor.
Another usual factor considered relevant by the Board in these
cases is the contractual arrangements between the parties. As noted
above, the master contracts of both the Pressmen and ITU are subject
to an interpretation which would include offset preparation work.
However, in September 1958, at a time when the Company commenced
offset press work, it entered into an agreement with the Pressmen for
those employees doing offset press work "and such related lithographic
' N L.R B. v. Radio A Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local 1212, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( Columbia Broadcasting System ), 364 U.S. 573;
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Con-
struction Company), 135 NLRB 1402.
NEW YORK PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 51, ETC. 171
work as it may perform." Subsequently, in July 1962, when offset
preparation work was commenced by the Company, the work was
assigned to an employee of the composingroom represented by the
ITU z On December 14, 1962, only after a claim to this work was
asserted by the Pressmen on thebasis of their prior agreement, did the
ITU and the Company enter into an agreement for the disputed work.
The ITU, relying on this contract, asserts its right to this work, but
does not seek the offset press work itself. In these circumstances,3
we find that the factor of contractual claims favors the Pressmen.
The Board customarily includes offset preparation employees in a
unit of offset press employees as it is clear such employees have a close
community of interest with offset press employees .4 Applying this
principle to the instant case, we find that the offset preparation work
involved herein constitutes a normal accretion to the offset press work,
presently being performed by employees who have been hitherto
recognized and are currently represented by the Pressmen.
We conclude, therefore, on the basis of the foregoing evidence
and the entire record herein, that offset preparation employees, rep-
resented by the Pressmen, should be assigned the disputed work. Ac-
cordingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional dispute by
deciding that offset preparation employees, represented by the Press-
men, rather than compositors, who are represented by the ITU, are
entitled to the work in question.' In making this determination, we are
assigning the disputed work to employees represented by the Pressmen,
but not to the Pressmen or its members. Our present determination is
limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this
proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute,
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act.
Offset preparation employees, represented by New York Printing
Pressmen's Union No. 51, International Printing Pressmen's and As-
sistants of North America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to the camera,
stripping, and platemaking work at the Company's printing establish-
ment, 350 Hudson Street, New York, New York.
2 The Company's preference in assigning the work is relevant in the Board ' s determina-
tion as to who is entitled to it. However, although such assignment is one of the factors
which we have considered herein, it is not persuasive as the assignment to the ITII mem-
ber was made after the Company 's contract with the Pressmen.
8 we have noted that the ITII representative attempted to ascertain from Manette prior
to their agreement of December 14, 1962 , whether the Company had any other contract for
such work , and that Manette misinformed the ITU by stating that no such agreement
existed . We have also noted that Manette did not contradict Kopernick's claim of Decem-
ber 7 , 1962 , that the Company had agreed to recognize the Pressmen for the offset prepara-
tion work.
A The Plimpton Press, 140 NLRB 975 ; The Meredith Publishing Company, 140 NLRB
509; Allen, Lane & Scott, at al., 137 NLRB 223.
5 See St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 ( Bejae Printing Co.), 141 NLRB 1127.