St. Louis Ptg. Pressmen & Assist. Local 6, Inc., Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 628 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. Louis Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 6, Inc.,
affiliated with International Printing Pressmen & Assistants
Union of North America , AFL-CIO and Nordmann Printing
Company and St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, affiliated
with International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO . Case No.
14-CD-172. March 12, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by the Nord-
mann Printing Company, herein called the Company, alleging that
St. Louis Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 6, affiliated
with International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Pressmen, had violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Frank E. Wallermann, on Au-
gust 24, 25, and 26, 1964. The Company, the Pressmen, St. Louis
Typographical Union No. 8, affiliated with International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 8, ITU, and St.
Louis Stereotypers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Stereotypers,
appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs before the
National Labor Relations Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the follow-
ing findings :
1. The business of the Company
The parties stipulated that the Company, a Missouri corporation,
has its sole office and printing facilities at St. Louis, Missouri, and
is engaged in the business of commercial and newspaper printing
and that it annually purchases goods valued in excess of $50,000,
which are shipped to it from points outside the State of Missouri.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Pressmen, Local 8,
ITU, and the Stereotypers, and their affiliated Locals herein, are
151 NLRB No. 71.
ST. LOUIS PTG . PRESSMEN & ASSIST. LOCAL 6, INC., ETC. 629
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. The dispute
A. The work in dispute; background facts
The disputed work which gave rise to this proceeding concerns
all preparatory work related to offset platemaking, including camera
operation, darkroom work, stripping, opaquing, and plate burning,
which is performed in connection with the Company's offset print-
ing of newspapers. Seventy percent of the Employer's income is
derived from the printing of 6 weekly community newspapers
having a total circulation of approximately 340,000, 20 or more
newspaper type publications, 7 school papers, and a number of
house organs and organizational journals. It is only this portion
of the Company's operation that is affected by the newly installed
offset process.
Prior to the change which gave rise to this dispute, the newspapers
were printed by a letterpress process. Under this process, com-
posing room employees, represented by Local 8, ITU, performed
the necessary typesetting, made up the page forms, pulled proofs,
made corrections, and then locked the type in a chase or metal frame,
to maintain the type in a rigid, upright position. Employees
represented by the Stereotypers would then roll the locked page
of type into a mat or matrix which served as a mold on to which
hot lead was poured to form the finished curved plate. After
removing any imperfections, the stereotypers delivered the plates
to the letterpress operators, represented by the Pressmen, who locked
them on a rotary newspaper letterpress for final printing.
Under the instant assignment, employees represented by Local
8, ITU, continue to markup the copy, set the type, pull proofs, and
make up the pages using the same skills, up to that point, which are
employed in preparing page forms for stereotypers under the letter-
press process. Instead of delivering locked forms of raised type to
the stereotypers, however, a final reproduction proof is made on
clay-coated paper which is photographed. The resulting negative,
after correction of any defects by opaquing, is placed in contact
with a thin, sensitized metal sheet. The negative is "burned" in a
special machine; i.e., the negative image is transferred to the metal
by a 2-minute exposure under are lights. The metal plate contain-
ing the photographed print is then prepared for locking to an offset
press and delivered to the press operators. The time required for
making such an "offset plate" is about half the time required for
making a "stereotype plate."' All of the work involved in the prepa-
ration of the offset plate is currently performed by members of
Local 8, ITU, under an assignment from the Company.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the'summer of 1963, in order to meet competition, the Company
had examined the economic feasibility of a changeover from letter-
press to offset printing methods. Late in August or early in Sep-
tember the decision was made to make the change. In reaching this
decision the Company considered, among other things, its daily
production schedules, relative costs, including the comparative costs
of operating the new process with employees represented by the
Pressmen, by Local 8, ITU, and by the Stereotypers, and the most
economical manpower utilization in light of the differing shifts
worked by these groups.
In December 1963, the Company placed its order for a Goss Ur-
banite rotary offset press, and, in accordance with its contracts with
the three Unions, thereupon notified each of this fact. Thereafter,
in the early part of 1964, the Company met with representatives of
each Union to discuss the changeover. At these meetings each
Union requested that the offset preparatory work be assigned to
employees which it represented and offered to train employees of
the Company in offset processes.
On June 4, 1964, by letter to each of the three Unions, the Com-
pany notified them that it had assigned the operation of the offset
press to employees represented by the Pressmen, and the operation
of the camera, platemaking, and other offset preparatory work to
employees represented by Local 8, ITU. All stereotype equipment
was sold. Two full-time and three part-time stereotypers were
thereafter dismissed. There was no loss of jobs among the 7 to 10
pressmen or the 38 employees represented by Local 8, ITU.1 The
first offset production job was run on or about June 10, 1964.
On June 11, 1964, William F. Nordmann, the Company's president
was notified that employees represented by the Pressmen had held
a chapel meeting that day at the plant, which meeting had been
attended by John J. Ilewski, president of the Pressmen's Local 6,
and by John H. Myers of the International Pressmen's Union.
Nordmann was informed by an employee who had attended the
meeting that the employees were advised that there was to be a
Pressmen's Union meeting the next night to consider, among other
things, a strike vote in protest against the instant work assignment.
The following day, in a letter to Nordmann acknowledging the
notice of June 4, Ilewski demanded that the Company comply with
the jurisdictional requirements of its contract with the Pressmen
by assigning the offset preparatory work to employees represented
by Pressmen's Local 6. Further, he said, "If you persist in a work
1 The record demonstrates that the Company also weighed the potential job losses of
each group prior to making the work assignment herein. The Company contends that
any other assignment would have incurred a larger total reduction of personnel.
ST. LOUIS PTG. PRESSMEN & ASSIST. LOCAL 6, INC., ETC. 631
assignment contrary to the terms thereof, your act will be willful
rather than as the result of any misunderstanding on your part
of the terms of your contract with Local 6 in respect of offset
preparatory jurisdiction." Later the same day, union members
met and voted to authorize a protest strike. The Company re-
sponded to this demand on June 15, 1964, by filing charges against
the Pressmen as heretofore noted. Meanwhile, the disputed work
has been performed by employees represented by Local 8, ITU,
with the apparent acquiescense of the Pressmen and the Stereo-
typers although the Pressmen's strike authorization is not shown
to have been withdrawn.
B. Contentions of the parties
The Company and Local 8, ITU, are satisfied with the work
assignment and contend that it should be upheld. The Pressmen
contends that the assignment of the disputed work was contrary
to the terms of its contract with the Company. The Stereotypers
argues that its contract with the Company gives it the right to
claim any new work which would supplement the work of stereo-
typers upon that Union's establishing the competency of its members
through a union training program. It contends that the disputed
work is functionally a substitute for stereotype platemaking.
C. 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. The Pressmen's insistence that the
assignment violated the provision of its contract with the Company
and the latter's refusal to accede to its demands to assign the dis-
puted work to it occasioned its threat to strike and the strike
authorization vote.
Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, we find that there
is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D)
of the Act has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination.
D. Merits of the dispute
Section 10 (k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirma-
tive award of disputed work after giving due consideration to the
various relevant factors. As the Board has stated, its determination
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in, a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon
common sense and experience and a balancing of such factors 2
In this case, the relevant factors are as follows :
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
It is clear that the Pressmen's current contract with the Company
covers the work here in dispute. Except with respect to the burn-
ing of offset plates, the same is true of the contract with Local 8,
ITU. The Stereotypers' agreement, however, does not specifically
mention offset printing operations or offset platemaking. It is
confined to it requirement that the Company shall notify the Stereo-
typers of any decision to order or install "any new plate-making
machinery or equipment which would supplant or supplement the
work now being done by members of this Union." The purpose
of such notification is to enable the Stereotypers to claim jurisdiction
over such new process or the operation of any such new machinery s
The Pressmen's contract was executed by the Union on January 17,
1964, and by President Nordmann on behalf of the Company on
January 31, 1964. In addition to covering the operation of all
printing presses, the jurisdictional clause covers "all work in con-
nection with offset platemaking, including camera operation, all
dark room work, stripping, layout,, opaquing and plate making."
The same language is found in the Pressmen's 1961-63 contract,
which, by informal agreement or understanding between the Press-
men and the Company, governed their relations in the interim
between the expiration of that contract and the signing of the
current 1963-65 agreement. The Company's first contract cover-
ing most of the offset preparatory work (arguably including the
disputed work) was signed with Local 8, ITU in 1956, a full year
before any such work was included in its contract with the Press-
men. The Company's current contract with Local 8, ITU, was
executed by both parties on September 30, 1963. It does not spell
out in detail, as prior agreements did, the scope of jurisdictional
coverage.4 Rather, it is described in all inclusive terms as follows :
Jurisdiction of the Union begins with the markup of copy
and continues until the material is ready for the printing
2 N.L R B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, etc (Colum-
bia Broadcasting System ), 364 U.S . 573; International Association of Machinists, Lodge
No 1743 (J. A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402, 1411
3 Prior agreements with the Stereotypers did not specifically mention offset prepara-
tory work
*Jurisdiction in prior contracts was defined in terms of composing room job classifica-
tions, including , among others, hand compositors , typesetting machine operators , makeup
men, bank men , proofpress operators , "and employees engaged in proofing, waxing and
paste-makeup with reproduction proofs [ required for offset plate making ] processing the
product of photo -typesetting machines , including development and waxing ; paste - makeup
of all type . . and imposition of the paste -makeup serving as the completed copy for
the camera used in the plate -making process . .11
ST. LOUIS PTG. PRESSMEN & ASSIST. LOCAL 6, INC., ETC. 633
press (but excluding the making of stereotypes and the burn-
ing of the offset plates), and the appropriate collective-bargain-
ing unit consists of all employees performing any such work.
Clearly, this language covers all composing room operations, except
plate burning, in connection with either letterpress or offset print-
ing processes. According to the negotiator of the contract on
behalf of the Company, it was a "short form" expression of jurisdic-
tional coverage in the Company's prior contracts with Local 8, ITU,
and was intended to continue the original coverage relating to
offset preparatory work.
Considering the integrated nature of the offset platemaking
process, the contractual assignment of most of it to ITU well prior
to the contractual assignment of any of it to the Pressmen, and the
intent of the parties with respect to the coverage of the jurisdictional
clause in the current Local 8, ITU contract, we do not regard the
expressed exclusion of offset plate burning from the jurisdictional
clause of that contract as necessarily requiring that the employees
represented by Local 8, ITU, be deprived of the right to perform
this final step in the production of an offset plate, which is, of
course, the end product of all composing room operations. It would
be unrealistic, under all the circumstances, to separate this portion
of the disputed work from the entire integrated operation. Nor has
Local 8, ITU, declined to perform this portion of the disputed
work.
From an analysis of the Company's contracts with the Pressmen
and with Local 8, ITU, it is apparent that they are in conflict with
regard to the assignment of the work in question, except as noted
above. Under these circumstances, as we have pointed out in simi-
lar situations, neither contract is persuasive; and neither can consti-
tute the controlling basis for an award of the disputed work,,'
although we have noted that such work was first covered in the
agreements between the Company and Local 8, ITU. The stereo-
typers' contract as noted above, does not specifically apply to the
work in question.
2. Efficiency of operation
In the case before us, the Company employs 38 men represented
by Local 8, ITU, in its composing room. Most, if not all of them,
are thoroughly experienced in preparing copy for the press or
presses. They work as an integrated composing room unit in two
shifts, 5 days a week from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Ten employees are
represented by the Pressmen. They work one shift per day, either
day or night, depending upon production schedules. The volume of
5Warehousemen's Union Local 6, etc. (Puget Sound Tug d Barge Company, et al.),
144 NLRB 1489. 1493.
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
large press work varies greatly. Two employees in the Pressmen's
unit work on smaller presses in the "job department" on a steady
single shift per day, 5 days per week.
Under these circumstances by assigning the disputed work to
employees represented by Local 8, ITU, the Company has man-
power constantly available for offset preparatory work and plate-
making daily from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. This would not be the case
were the work assigned to the Pressmen.6 Further, when such work
is not required, the typographers currently assigned to perform off-
set work, can, unlike the pressmen, perform their regular composing
room duties in the area immediately adjacent to the darkroom and
platemaking machinery. Therefore, by assigning the work to com-
posing room employees represented by Local 8, ITU, the Company
avoids the separate supervision of the different aspects of the entire
operation preceding the use of the presses.
This would appear to be the most effective economic utilization of
manpower, and it was said by the Company to have been the major
economic reason for assigning the disputed work to employees rep-
resented by Local 8, ITU. Other economic reasons justifying such
assignment are also present in the instant case. For example, the
manning requirements of the Pressmen's contract can force the shut-
down of a press if the minimum number of operating pressmen
required is not available to man it. Assignment of the disputed
work to employees in this group, therefore, would mean that a
pressman called to prepare an offset plate or plates (or to burn a
plate) could reduce the required number of press operators below
the number required by the contract, thereby causing the press to
be shut down. The alternative of increasing the size of the group
represented by the Pressmen would result in new employees stand-
ing idle for substantial periods of time when no offset work was
required.
3. Area practice
The record is inconclusive with respect to the assignment of offset
work in other printing plants in the St. Louis area. In 10 plants
it was shown that employees represented by the Pressmen performed
some or all offset preparatory work and, of course, manned various
types of offset presses. None of the plants, however, printed news-
papers. At the only two plants, other than the Company's, which
print weekly or community newspapers, employees represented by
Local 5 of the Amalgamated Lithographers, not an interested party
herein, performed all offset preparatory work. Under these circum-
6 The Company no longer employs any stereotypers.
ST. LOUIS PTG. PRESSMEN & ASSIST. LOCAL 6, INC., ETC. 635
stances, we cannot say that area practice preponderantly supports
the claim of any of the competing Unions with respect to the dis-
puted work.
4. Prior shop practice
In 1957, or shortly thereafter, the Company installed a small
multilith press which is considered an offset piece of equipment. It
is used in the Company's job, or commercial, department with three
other presses printing from raised type. Two employees repre-
sented by the Pressmen operate the commercial department presses.
At the time the multilith press was installed, the Company's con-
tract with the Pressmen also covered all offset operations, but the
multilith press was the only equipment then in use which was related
to offset printing. Its printing area is 11 by 17 inches. It is used
primarily for printing letterheads, brochures, folders, and other
small jobs. The fact that two employees represented by the Press-
men are qualified to operate a single multilith press is by no means
persuasive in determining the assignment of the vastly larger and
more complicated offset preparatory work involved in the Com-
pany's newspaper printing operations.
5. Comparative work skills
More than half of the Company's employees represented by
Local 8, ITU, have attended regular camera and darkroom instruc-
tion courses at the Union's local training center. Many have had
additional training at other plants during their spare time. None
of the Company's press operators, with the exception of the press-
room foreman, and none of the stereotypers, has received com-
parable training.
Employees represented by Local 8, ITU, therefore, appear to be
better qualified by virtue of training to perform offset preparatory
work, including camera work and platemaking.
6. Other considerations
Other factors usually considered by the Board in cases involving
jurisdiction provide no assistance in determining the instant dispute.
None of the Unions involved in this case has been certified. There
is little similarity between prior work and the disputed work pri-
marily because of the more elaborate camera, darkroom, and plate-
making operations. The traditional jurisdictions of the three Unions
provide no sure guide in resolving their respective claims to the
work here in dispute.
Based upon the entire record and after full consideration of all
relevant factors involved, including the integrated nature of the
disputed work, the most economical and efficient operation of the
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant and utilization of manpower, as well as the superior skills of
the Company's employees represented by Local 8, ITU, we shall
determine the dispute before us by awarding all offset preparatory
work, including offset camera operation and all of the steps and
processes involved in offset platemaking, to those employees repre-
sented by Local 8, ITU, but not to the Union or its members. This
determination is limited to the particular controversy giving rise
to this dispute.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire
record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following Determi-
nation of Dispute, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Printers employed by the Nordmann Printing Company, who
are represented by the St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, affili-
ated with International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are en-
titled to perform all offset preparatory work, other than in connec-
tion with the multilith press, including offset camera operation and
all of the steps and processes involved in offset platemaking, at the
Company's plant in St. Louis, Missouri.
2. St. Louis Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 6, Inc.,
affiliated with International Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, is not entitled to force or require the
Nordmann Printing Company, its successors or assigns, to assign
any of the above work to employees represented by such Union.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, St. Louis Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union
No. 6, Inc., affiliated with International Printing Pressmen & Assist-
ants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 14, in writing, whether it will or will not
refrain from forcing or requiring the Nordmann Printing Company,
its successors or assigns, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4)
(D) of the Act, to assign the above-described work to employees
of such Company represented by such Union.
Ely & Walker and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO . Cases Nos. 26-CA-1688 and 26-RC-.2075. March 12,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 4, 1964, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Decision and Report on Challenges and Objections in the above-
entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint in Case No.
151 NLRB No. 72.