San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 275 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND MAILERS' UNION NO. 18
San Francisco-Oakland Mailers ' Union No. 18 , Inter-
national Typographical Union and Arcata Graphics
Corporation and Bookbinders & Bindery Workers
Union of Northern California, Local No. 3, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Bookbinders. Case
20-CD-322
September 21, 1971
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed by Arcata Graphics Corporation,
hereinafter called the Employer, alleging a violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by San Francisco-
Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, International Typo-
graphical Union, hereinafter called the Mailers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 26 and
27, 1971, in San Jose, California, and on June 2, 1971,
at San Francisco, California, before Hearing Officer
David F. Sargent. The Employer, the Mailers, and
Bookbinders & Bindery Workers Union of Northern
California, Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of
Bookbinders, hereinafter called Bookbinders, ap-
peared at the hearing and were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. Both Mailers and Bookbinders filed briefs with
the National Labor Relations Board.
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 connection 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 basis of the briefs and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Employer is a New York corporation engaged
in the business of printing, binding, and mailing
magazines, catalogues, telephone books, and other
items at its San Jose, California, plant. During the
preceding year the Employer sold and shipped
directly to customers located outside of the State of
California goods valued in excess of $50,000. We find,
accordingly, that the Employer is engaged in a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will
275
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Mailers
and the Bookbinders are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer is engaged in the printing, binding,
and mailing of magazines, catalogues, and similar
items. The work in dispute concerns (1) the work of
operating "in-line mailing heads" which affix address
labels onto magazines and other publications and (2)
the tying, sorting, and bagging operation associated
with the Employer's "tipon" machine.
The work involved in (1) above has heretofore been
performed by Mailers on machines called Cheshires.
The publications produced by the Employer are cut,
folded, assembled, glued, or stitched on bindery
machines operated by employees represented by
Bookbinders. After completion of the bindery work,
the publications are manually stacked and moved to
the mailroom. The mailing head operation on
Cheshires involves the hand feeding of publications
beneath a mailing head which affixes labels contain-
ing names and addresses. Upon completion of this
operation, Mailers separate magazines according to
zip codes, tie them in bundles, and place them in
mailbags.
To eliminate the carrying of publications from the
bindery to the mailing department and the hand
feeding of the Cheshires, the Employer introduced an
in-line mailing operation. Under this arrangement,
the mailing head is attached directly to the bindery
line. Thus, instead of stacking and transferring
publications to the mailing area for labeling, the in-
line procedure accomplishes the labeling as part of a
single operation.
The in-line mailing head used in the instant dispute
is called a Magnacraft. At the time of the hearing,
there was no formal training program involving the
operation of Magnacraft machines, but, rather,
individuals were trained on the job.
Regarding the disputed work in (2) above, the
Employer's tipon machine has been used to affix
address labels twice since it was installed in 1970. Its
labeling use is limited to occasions when the Employ-
er's customer, the publisher, wishes to affix a notice or
letter to the outside cover of a publication. The tipon
machine, like the mailing head operation, requires
that publications coming off the machine be sorted,
tied, and bagged according to zip code regulations.
193 NLRB No. 38
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Mailers concedes the feeding and operation of
the tipon machine to employees represented by the
Bookbinders but claims for its members the sorting,
tying, and sacking operation when the machine is
used for the purpose of labeling.
In early 1968 the Employer began operating at its
San Jose facility, site of the instant dispute. It advised
both labor organizations involved herein that the
employees represented by the Mailers would be
assigned the operation of the in-line mailing head
when address labels are being affixed to publications.
The Employer stated that members of the Bookbin-
ders were to perform the operation and feeding of the
tipon machines. When the tipon machine was being
used to affix an address label, however, employees
represented by the Mailers would perform the
disputed work.
In early 1971 the Employer began using the
Magnacraft. Anticipating its plans for 1971, addition-
al work assignments were made in December 1970.
Thus, in a letter dated December 15, 1970, the
Employer's director of industrial relations stated that
the Employer would continue to comply with its 1968
commitment to assign employees represented by the
Mailers work involving the operation of the mailing
head, as well as the sorting, tying, and sacking of
publications, when mailing labels were affixed on an
in-line machine. In the same letter all work associated
with the tipon machine was assigned to members of
Bookbinders except that, when this machine was used
to affix material containing names and addresses for
mailing, mailers were to perform the disputed work.
Subsequent to this December 15 letter, the Bookbin-
ders claimed for its members the performance of all
the disputed work. The Bookbinders also sought
arbitration under its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer. The instant charge, however, was
filed with the Board before arbitration could be held.'
B. The Work in Dispute
This dispute concerns the assignment of the work
involved in the following operations: (1) the operation
of the in-line mailing head machine located in the
Employer's bindery department and the sorting,
tying, and sacking of publications to which address
labels have been affixed by this machine; and (2) the
sorting, tying, and sacking of publications from the
tipon machine, when that machine is used to affix
address labels.
C. Contentions of the Parties
At the hearing the Employer , while taking a neutral
position with respect to the assignment of the disputed
' None of the parties to the instant proceeding contends that the act of
the Bookbinders in seeking arbitration constitutes an agreement on a
work, stated that it would prefer that bookbinders
perform the work since its San Jose operation had yet
to show a profit and since the Employer anticipates a
substantial reduction in labor costs should members
of the Bookbinders be awarded the work.
The Bookbinders contends, first, that its contractual
claim is at least equal to that of the Mailers since its
agreement with the Employer gave "mailing" in the
bindery departments to employees represented by the
Bookbinders. Secondly, the Bookbinders argues that
the commitments made by the Employer in 1968 and
1970 to members of the Mailers should not prejudice
the integrity of the Bookbinders contract. Thirdly,
although members of the Bookbinders have limited
experience in performing the work in question,
Bookbinders stated that it could successfully train
employees to perform the disputed work. Finally,
Bookbinders asserts that it would be more economical
and would provide for greater flexibility to assign the
work to its members.
The Mailers contends that its members have
traditionally performed the work of affixing labels
and sorting, tying, and bagging publications. It also
argues that consideration of skill, competency, and
training favors employees represented by the Mailers
and that Mailers presently supplies trained personnel
to perform the disputed work. Finally, the Mailers
states that the Board in Washington Mailers' Union
No. 29 (McCall Printing Company, Mid-Atlantic
Division), 178 NLRB No. 28, determined a dispute in
favor of its members on facts indistinguishable from
the instant case.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The charges herein allege a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The record shows, and the
Mailers concedes, that on or about March 4, 1971,
Mailers threatened to slow down work and possibly
strike if the disputed work were reassigned to
employees represented by the Bookbinders.
We find, therefore, 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. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after taking
into account the evidence supporting the claims of the
parties and balancing all relevant factors.2
We shall set forth below those factors which we find
relevant in determining the dispute herein.
voluntary method of adjustment of this dispute
2 N L R B. V Radio Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212,
SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND MAILERS' UNION NO. 18 277
1. Certification and bargaining agreements
The parties stipulated at the hearing that there is no
Board certification relative to the disputed work. The
Bookbinders contends, however, that its collective-
bargaining agreement with the Employer covers the
work in issue and defines itsjurisdiction.3 The Mailers
also claims the work for its members on the basis of its
collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer
which, in effect, provides that only mailers may
perform the disputed work.4 Thus, we find that the
disputants' contracts do not favor the contentions of
either labor organization.
2. Company and industry practices
The evidence offered at the hearing shows that there
is limited use of the Magnacraft in-line mailing head
in the industry. The Bookbinders research director
testified that, of the 13 contracts it has with employers
in the country performing mailing operations, only 3
or 4 of these employers use the Magnacraft mailing
head. The president of the Mailers testified that the
Wall Street Journal, Olympic Press, and Steele's
Mailing Service use Magnacraft machines and em-
ploy its members to operate this equipment.
While the evidence pertaining to area and industry
practice favors assignment to members of the Mailers,
it is not sufficiently widespread to establish a general
practice in the industry. However, the record does
establish that the Employer's practice has been to
assign the work in dispute to its employees represent-
ed by the Mailers, and this factor favors them.
3. Skill and training
As stated, members of the Mailers have previous
experience on Cheshires and possess knowledge of the
zip code system. The Mailers representative estimated
that it would take 6 months to train a novice in the
Employer's mailing operations. The Employer asserts,
however, that the disputed work is of a routine nature,
depending chiefly on the ability to recognize and
group publications with similar zip codes.
The Bookbinders, using substantially the same
arguments presented by the Employer, contends that,
although its members have limited experience in
performing the disputed work, it could successfully
train employees to perform this work with only 10-16
hours of training.5 The Bookbinders concedes that the
operation of the tipon and in-line machines, when
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Columbia Broadcasting
System), 364 U.S 573, International Association of Machinists, Lodge No
1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402,
1410-I1
3 The Bookbinders contract defines its jurisdiction as follows
jogging , tying by hand or machine of bindery or other products handled in
the bindery department and mailing and the loading, feeding , operating
used in mailing, "requires certain knowledge of the
postal system." We find, therefore, that considera-
tions of skill and training favor assignment of the
disputed work to employees represented by Mailers.
4. Job loss
Officials of the Employer testified that it was not
possible to specify the number of jobs which would be
affected by the assignment made herein but stated
that, if members of the Mailers were assigned the
disputed work, there would be a loss of jobs because
of increased efficiency. The Employer also asserted
that, if, on the other hand, the work is awarded to
employees represented by the Bookbinders, 40 to 41
of the 50 premium shifts now being paid to employees
represented by the Mailers would be eliminated, and
bookbinders would gain jobs presently assigned to
mailers. Consequently, this factor favors neither labor
organization.
5. Economy and efficiency
The Employer projected a savings of $54,000 if the
disputed work were assigned to members of the
Bookbinders. This projected saving is derived from
considerations of lower contractual wage rates paid to
bookbinders, as well as of fewer employees being
needed to perform the work. On the other hand, the
Mailers contends that the alleged economies are
misleading and speculative. In either case, this factor
does not favor assignment to members of either labor
organization.
6. National Labor Relations Board award
We find, as pointed out by the Mailers in its brief,
that the work involved in this dispute is identical to
that involved in McCall Printing, supra. The Board in
that case awarded the disputed work to members of
the Mailers. Although the Board did not have the
tipon machine under consideration in McCall Print-
ing, the disputed work on the in-line machine is
identical to the disputed work on the tipon. Thus,
factors considered in the determination of the award
in that case are applicable to both machines.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the
entire record, we conclude that the work in dispute
(the operation of the in-line mailing head machine
and taking of machines, equipment and other devices used in connection
thereto .11
4 The Mailers contract defines its jurisdiction as "All mailing work
addressing of wrappers . labeling."
5 The Board found in McCall Printing, supra, that a training period of
from 30 days to 6 months is required to operate the Magnacraft with
proficiency
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
located in the Employer's bindery department, and
the sorting, tying, and sacking of publications to
which address labels have been affixed by this
machine; and the sorting, tying, and sacking of
publications from the tipon machine when that
machine is used to affix address labels) should be
assigned to the employees represented by Mailers
rather than to those represented by Bookbinders. We
reach this conclusion relying on the established past
practice of the Employer of assigning the disputed
work to members of the Mailers, the degree of skill
and training required, the fact the work in dispute is
identical to work long performed by Mailers on
Cheshires, and the Board's decision in McCall
Printing, supra.
Accordingly, we shall award the disputed work to
those employees who are represented by Mailers, not
to those represented by Bookbinders. Our present
determination is limited to the particular dispute
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 foregoing
findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the
National Labor Relations Board makes the following
determination of dispute:
Employees of Arcata Graphics Corporation, San
Jose, California, currently represented by San Fran-
cisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, International
Typographical Union, are entitled to perform the
work of operating the mailing heads on Magnacraft
machines and the sorting, tying, and sacking of
publications to which address labels have been affixed
by this machine, as well as sorting, tying, and sacking
of publications emanating from the tipon machine
when that machine is used to affix address labels at
the Employer's San Jose, California, plant.