Stamford Printing Pressmen, Etc., Local 317

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1758 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we would still quash the notice of hearing. In these circumstances, we
deem it appropriate to permit the parties to resolve this question by
continued resort to the Joint Board procedures. We therefore make
no finding on whether or not the Joint Board has finally decided the
dispute but shall instead quash the notice of hearing.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.)
Stamford Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union Local #317,
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of
North America; and International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of North America and The O'Brien Subur-
ban Press, Inc. Case No. d-CD-222. July 31, 1962
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act following a
charge filed by The O'Brien Suburban Press, Inc., herein called the
Employer, against Stamford Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union Local #317, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union of North America, and against International Printing Press-
men and Assistants' Union of North America, both Unions herein
called the Pressmen, alleging that the Pressmen illegally coerced the
Employer in an effort to change work assignments in favor of employ-
ees represented by the Pressmen. A duly scheduled hearing was held
before Marvin B. Morganbesser, hearing officer, on November 21, 1961.
The Employer, the Pressmen, and Norwalk Typographical Union
Local 529, International Typographical Union, herein called Local
529, appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing upon the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record the Board makes the following findings:
1. The Employer, a Connecticut corporation, maintains its principal
office and place of business at 116 Main Street, Norwalk, Connecticut,
where it is engaged in the printing and sale of publications. During
the past year the Employer performed services valued at an amount
in excess of $1,600,000 for firms located outside the State of Connecti-
cut. During this same period, the Employer received from directly
without the State of Connecticut goods valued at an amount in excess
of $200,000. Consistent with the stipulation of the parties, we find
that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
137 NLRB No. 196.
STAMFORD PRINTING PRESSMEN, ETC., LOCAL 317 1759
2. The Pressmen and Local 529 are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute :
A. The basic facts
The Employer employs approximately 200 employees including
about 70 in its composing room and 50 in its pressroom. For 22 years
Local 529 has represented the composing room employees and the
Pressmen have represented the pressroom employees.
Prior to May 1960, all the Employer's printing was performed on
flatbed presses. In May 1960, however, the first of two Cottrell rotary
presses was installed, the second being installed in December of the
same year. Because no employees were familiar with "plating up"
these presses, that is, the placing of plates on the presses, the Employer
solicited the aid and cooperation of all employees in integrating the
new presses into its operations. Thus, from May to December 1960,
approximately eight jobs were run on the Cottrell presses, each job
being of a nonrecurring nature; and, during this period, assignment
of the work of plating up the presses, which work was later to become
the source of the dispute herein, was made on a day-to-day basis to
both pressmen and compositors.
On December 14, 1960, the Employer notified the composing room
and pressroom superintendents that the pressroom employees only
should plate up and remove plates from the Cottrell presses. At this
time, Local 529 claimed the work under the provisions of its contract
and further invoked a provision for maintenance of the status quo
pending settlement of the dispute. From February to July 1961,
the Employer held a number of meetings with representatives of
Local 529 at which the Employer unsuccessfully sought acquiescence
in the assignment to pressmen.
In March 1961, the Pressmen, by letter of its local president to
the Employer, claimed jurisdiction over the disputed work and pro-
tested the Employer's decision to permit compositors, represented by
Local 529, to do the work. This position was reaffirmed by the Inter-
national president of the Pressmen Union in a letter to the Employer
dated August 21, 1961. This letter warned that an appropriate Inter-
national representative would be instructed "... to take any action
he deems advisable to enforce our jurisdictional rights in this matter."
At the hearing all parties stipulated that in fact Peter Tufo, Inter-
national representative of Pressmen, instructed members of his local
to refuse to operate the Cottrell presses if the Company assigned any
of the compositors to perform the disputed work.
Subsequently, on September 27, having received a new job for the
Cottrell presses, the Employer advised officials of both unions that it
intended to assign the work, as in the past, jointly to compositors and
pressmen. As a result, the pressmen stopped work while an official
1760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Local 317 sought instructions from his superiors. The Pressmen's
Union rescinded its previous instructions concerning a cessation of
work if the Cottrell presses were plated up by compositors, and the
employees returned to work, having been out for only a few hours.
The Pressmen Union informed the Employer, however, that on future
jobs its members would not operate the presses unless they were plated
up by pressmen.
B. Contentions of the parties
The Employer contends that its only official assignment of the dis-
puted work has been to pressmen. In support of such decision in assign-
ing the work, the Employer relies upon (a) custom and practice in
the industry, (b) precedent within its plant, (c) craft custom, and
(d) the factor of economy. The Employer, though stating that
neither Union's contract unequivocally covers the disputed work, con-
tends it is more reasonable to construe the Pressmen's contract as
covering the disputed work in view of its broader jurisdictional lan-
guage. The Pressmen claim the disputed work on the basis of (a)
traditions of the craft, (b) practice in the industry, (c) contractual
coverage, and (d) the practicality of pressmen performing the work
at the Employer's shop. Local 529 argues basically that the plating
up of the Cottrell presses is an extension of composing form "lockup,"
a function which has traditionally been performed by compositors.
C. Applicability of the statute
The charge alleges a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) and the rec-
ord reflects a brief work stoppage on September 27, 1961. The record
further shows a continuing directive by the Pressmen Union to its
members instructing them to refuse to operate the Cottrell presses
if they are plated up by compositors, represented by Local 529.
Further, the evidence shows the text of such directive to have been
communicated to the Employer by the Pressmen Union. Consider-
ing the foregoing, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of Section 8(b) (1) (D) has occurred and that the
dispute is, thus, properly before the Board for determination under
Section 10 (k) of the Act.
D. Merits of the Dispute
(1) All the parties stipulated that they have not adjusted the dis-
pute or agreed upon a method for its voluntary adjustment.
(2) NLRB certification: The record shows that neither un'on has
been certified by the Board.
(3) The contract provisions: Article 2 of the Pressmen's current
contract is relied upon as establishing jurisdiction over the disputed
work. In pertinent part this section recites the jurisdiction of that
STAMFORD PRINTING PRESSMEN, ETC., LOCAL 317 1761
union to include, "... all types of letter press printing presses and
offset presses and devices associated therewith...."
Article 1, section 3, of Local 529's contract frames that union's
jurisdiction to include ". . . all composing room work ..." and spe-
cifically includes, among others, the classification of "lockup" men.
The Pressmen point out that the shell and attached plates are
"devices associated with" the presses and claim jurisdiction on that
basis. To so construe the contract, however, is to oversimplify the
matter when it is considered that such a construction would allow the
Pressmen's jurisdiction to follow the shell into the composing room
where the jurisdiction of Local 529 is unquestioned.
Similarly, Local 529's reliance upon the term "lockup" in its con-
tract and the labeling of the disputed work as an extension of lockup
provides no ready solution.'
It appears clear from the above that no unambiguous basis for as-
signment of the disputed work is found in either contract.
(4) Employer's past practices: As previously noted, the use of the
Cottrell rotary press has only recently been instituted by the Employer.
Therefore, no practice exists which relates specifically to these presses.
However, it appears clear from the record that work functions iden-
tical in principle have been performed for years in the Employer's
"Patent base" flatbed presses. Thus the affixing of plates to a base
or plate carrier has been performed by compositors. After this func-
tion has been completed, however, it has been the practice for press-
men to take the carrier from the composing room to the pressroom
and to "plate-up" the press, that is, to fasten the carrier to the press.
The pressmen have also performed "shifts" while the presses are run-
ning and have removed the carriers upon completion of the run.
The evidence indicates that the disputed work, plating-up the Cottrell
presses and removal of the plates, is practically identical to the plating-
up of the Patent base presses, particularly the Wessel type.
We therefore find that the Employer's past practice with regard to
quite similar work is not inconsistent with its proposed assignment of
the disputed work to pressmen.
(5) Custom and practice in the industry: The uncontradicted testi-
mony of witnesses called by the Pressmen was that in shops similar
to the Employer's where both the Pressmen and the ITU have con-
tracts, pressmen perform the work functions in dispute in the instant
case. More specifically, the uncontradicted evidence indicates that, in
' Local 529 also relies upon a provision in its contract requiring the parties to maintain
the status quo pending disposition of any dispute concerning an interpretation of provi-
sions of the contract . It therefore reasons that , since both compositors and pressmen were
performing the disputed work prior to the dispute , such dual assignment should continue
We find , however, that the "status quo" provision is procedural in effect, intended only
to maintain conditions unchanged pending the disposition of grievances concerning such
conditions . It is thus not relevant to the resolution by the Board of substantive issues
involved in work assignments or jurisdictional disputes.
649856-63-vol . 137-112
1762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
approximately 40 such shops in the State of Connecticut and surround-
ing States, pressmen always perform the work which is here claimed
by Local 529. On the other hand, witnesses called by Local 529 were
unable to name a single shop in the industry where compositors per-
form such work. In addition, the record indicates that, while in-
struction and training in plating-up the Cottrell rotary-type presses
is required in the Pressmen's program, it is not taught in compositors'
school.
In view of the foregoing it appears clear, and we find, that per-
formance of the disputed work by pressmen is entirely consistent with
custom and practice in the industry and with the traditions of the
respective crafts.
(6) Economy : Though some disagreement exists as to the amount
of additional cost occasioned by performance of the disputed work
by compositors, the evidence is uncontradicted that considerable
"double-manning" will result, with attendant higher costs. We there-
fore find that the factor of economy favors assignment of the work
to pressmen.
CONCLUSIONS AS TO TILE MERITS OF TIIE DlsrurE
The great weight of evidence set forth under the above-enumerated
factors points persuasively to the conclusion that pressmen are en-
titled to the disputed work herein. Accordingly, we shall determine
the existing jurisdictional dispute by deciding that the pressmen,
represented by the Pressmen Union, rather than the compositors rep-
resented by Local 529, are entitled to the work in question. In making
this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to pressmen,
who are represented by the Pressmen Union, but not to the Press-
men Union or to its members.
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 :
Pressroom employees, currently represented by Stamford Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union Local #317, International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, and International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, are
entitled to plate up and remove plates from Cottrell rotary presses
at the Employer's establishment at 116 Main Street, Norwalk,
Connecticut.