Paper Workers, Local 148

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 840 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Paper Workers International Union , Local 148 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
and American Can Company 1 and Neenah-Mena-
sha Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union No. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
278.2 Case 30-CD-58 Pressmen and Paper Workers are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
January 31, 1974
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
.
III. THE DISPUTE
The Work in Dispute
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed August 8, 1973, by Ross R. Kinney
on behalf of American Can Company, hereinafter
called the Employer, alleging that the United Paper
Workers International Union, Local 148, hereinafter
called the Paper Workers, has violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
requiring the Employer to assign certain work to
employees represented by the Paper Workers rather
than to employees represented by Neenah-Menasha
Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union No. 298,
hereinafter called the Pressmen.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Ken-
neth N. Rock on October 9 and 10, 1973, at
Menasha, Wisconsin. 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding 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:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The parties stipulated that the Employer, a Con-
necticut corporation, manufactures paper packaging
products at its Menasha, Wisconsin, location, and
during 1972, a representative period, has purchased
and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 from
suppliers outside the State of Wisconsin. We find,
therefore, that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
The work in dispute is the operation of an in line
coater-laminator located at the Employer's Menasha,
Wisconsin, plant.
B. Applicability of the Statute
The parties stipulated that the Paper Workers
threatened to move a strike vote unless the coater-
laminator was operated by two of their members on
each shift. The parties further stipulated that the
parties are not joined to any procedure which
provides that all parties to this dispute would be
bound to an arbitration award on the matter.
Accordingly, we find that reasonable cause exists to
believe that the threat to move a strike vote violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
C. Background and Facts of the Dispute
In the latter part of 1972, the Employer made the
decision to move an idle Flexographic printing press
from its Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, location to
Menasha, Wisconsin, where it would be modified to
run in conjunction with the Menasha plant's wax
laminator. The conversion of the press primarily
involves the removal of the nine printing decks which
had accomplished actual printing and the substitu-
tion of two coating decks. Where one of the rollers
had printing plates mounted upon it, the coater-
laminator has a cylinder completely covered with an
exterior rubber layer. This machine can apply one
continuous layer of only one color onto the entire
surface of a paper web.
The result is a 30-foot coater placed in line (i.e.,
end-to-end) with a 20-foot laminator. The operation,
which entailed the conversion of the flexopress into a
coater and coupling the unit with the laminator
(waxer) to create the in line coater-laminator, cost
over $100,000.
Previously, coloring was applied to bacon board
(the cardboard in a package of bacon sold in retail
stores) on the maragraph press, flexopress, or gravure
press operated by pressmen. All the wax coating of
bacon board was done on the laminator by paper
workers. Once the in line coater-laminator is in
operation, the color will be applied to the bacon
1 Although Ross R Kinney filed the charge and was originally listed as a Company
party, it is apparent that the charge was filed on behalf of American Can 2 The name appears as amended at the hearing
208 NLRB No. 111
PAPER WORKERS , LOCAL 148 841
board on the coater, then the wax laminator will coat
wax onto the bacon board. The coater section of the
in line coater-laminator will be utilized only in
conjunction with the running of bacon board, but
not all the work done on the laminator involves the
running of bacon board . The in line coater-lamina-
tor, therefore, will run at times with only the
laminator section in operation.
D. The Contentions of the Parties
The Pressmen contends that the dispute centers
around a flexographic press and that the contract
specifically provides that they are to be given work
on "[a )11 production printing presses including .. .
flexographic . . . printing presses." The Pressmen
also contends that it currently runs bacon board on
the flexopress and maragraph and that the modified
flexopress would require slightly less skill than that
required to operate the unmodified flexopress.
Finally, the Pressmen argues that considerations of
efficiency dictate that the combination unit be
manned by at least one member of each Union.
The Employer and the Paper Workers contend that
members of the Paper Workers have historically
operated the laminator and that assignment to
members of the Pressmen of even one job on the in
line coater-laminator would result in giving substan-
tial work now covered by the Paper Workers
contract to pressmen since they would be working
solely on the laminator during the time the coater
will not be operating. The Employer and Paper
Workers argue, moreover, that a paper worker would
be laid off if one of the two positions on the in line
coater-laminator goes to a pressman because current-
ly there are two Paper Workers manning the wax
laminator. They further contend that if the paper
workers review the work then no pressman would be
laid off since the available time on the flexopresses
and maragraph resulting from loss of the coloring
work will probably be utilized to accomplish multico-
]or printing work. The Employer and Paper Workers
further contend that the work should be awarded to
them based on factors traditionally considered by the
Board.
E: 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 factors . The following
factors are relevant in making a determination of the
dispute before us:
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
Although the contract with the Pressmen provides
that they are to be given work on all production
printing presses , including the flexographic press, it is
far from clear that the modified flexopress remains a
flexographic printing press as envisioned in the
contract. Its modification to the coater section of the
in line coater-laminator necessitated the removal of
the nine printing4 decks. Where formerly one of the
rollers was a cylinder that had printing plates
mounted upon it, the coater's equivalent cylinder is
completely covered with an exterior rubber layer.
The Employer's project engineer agreed that the
principle and nature of the quality of the coloring
that could be accomplished via the coater is
somewhat analogous to the standard hand roller
utilized in homes to apply paint to a wall. We do not
believe that a coating operation of this type was
meant to fall under the limited classification of
"printing presses." Thus, it seems clear that a
flexopress ceases to be a flexopress when it becomes
a coater. Accordingly, we find the provisions in the
contract with the Pressmen which gives work on the
flexographic presses to employees represented by the
Pressmen provides little or no support for the
contentions of the Pressmen. The Paper Workers
contract provided that the Employer will not without
"sound business reason" assign traditional work of
the paper workers to any other bargaining unit. We
find the language too ambiguous to support the
Employer's and Paper Workers contentions` that the
work on the modified coater-laminator belongs to
paper workers.
2. Employer's assignment and past practice
The Employer has assigned the work to the
employees represented by the Paper Workers. Histor-
ically, the pressmen have colored bacon board on the
Menasha plant's maragraph press (over 90 percent of
it) and at times on a flexopress or gravure press. The
paper workers have performed all work on the wax
laminator . The laminator section of the in line
coater-laminator will perform much the same func-
tion as in the past, but the coating will be done by a
converted flexopress which no longer has the
capacity to perform any work other than coating
with one color. Thus, this factor favors an award to
the employees represented by the Paper Workers.
3. Relative skills, efficiency, and economy of
operation
Although the pressmen clearly have greater skills
regarding printing and coloring, it is apparent that
employees represented by both unions are qualified
to perform the relatively simple operation of running
the coater.
Although there is conflicting testimony as to
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whether or not problems would necessarily ensue if
the in line coater-laminator were operated by one
employee represented by the Pressmen and one
employee represented by the Paper Workers, it is
apparent that the operation would be most efficiently
performed if both employees are paper workers. The
laminator has historically been operated by paper
workers and we see no reason why they should not
continue to perform this work. The coater, however,
differs from the flexopress traditionally operated by
the pressmen. Moreover, since the power drive is in
the laminator, it will be run whenever the in line
coater-operator is in operation, but the coater cannot
run independently of the laminator. -Since present
operations call for the coater to be utilized only when
bacon board is produced, obviously the laminator
will be in use at times when the coater is idle. The
Employer designed the in line coater-laminator as an
economic measure whereby only two men would be
needed to operate the machine. If the coater is idle,
efficiency and economy require the coater-operator
to help run the laminator. This could best be
accomplished, it seems 'to us, if both employees are
members of the Paper Workers.
CONCLUSION
Having considered all pertinent factors, we con-
clude that employees represented by the Paper
Workers are entitled to perform the work in dispute.
We reach this conclusion based particularly on the
Employer's assignment of the disputed work to
employees represented by the Paper Workers, the
fact that members of the Paper Workers have
historically operated the laminator which is basically
unchanged , the fact that the coater is significantly
different from the flexopress historically operated by
pressmen, and the 'fact that such assignment will
provide for the most harmonious, efficient, and
economic operations. Accordingly, we shall deter-
mine the dispute before us by awarding the work in
dispute at the Employer's Menasha, Wisconsin,
location to those employees represented by the Paper
Workers but not to that union or its members. The
present determination is limited to the particular
controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
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
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis-
pute:
Employees of American Can Company, who are
represented by United Paper Workers International
Union, Local 148, are entitled to perform the work of
operating the in line coater-laminator at the Mena-
sha, Wisconsin, plant.