Chicago Stereotypers' Union No. 4

412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Chicago Stereotypers ' Union No . 4, and its President , Guy De Vito and Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 , AFL-CIO. Case 13-CD-168. May 8, 1967 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., hereinafter called the Employer, alleging that Chicago Stereotypers' Union No. 4, and its president, Guy De Vito, had threatened a strike to force a particular work assignment to employees represented by Respondent rather than to employees represented by Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO, herein designated CTU, and thereby had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A duly scheduled hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert P. Henderson on December 12 through 15, 1966. All parties appeared and 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 Respondents, Chicago Typographical Union, and the Employer filed briefs which have been duly considered by the National Labor Relations Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board' makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is a Delaware corporation with plants located in the States of Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, and Texas where it is engaged in publishing, inter alia, the Wall Street Journal, a daily newspaper distributed throughout the United States. During the past 12-month period it had a gross volume of business in excess of $200,000, and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly in interstate commerce. During such period, the Employer held membership in, and subscribed to, interstate news services and advertised nationally sold products in its publications. The parties further stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and we also find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. i 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 H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Chicago Stereotypers' Union No. 4, herein referred to as the Respondent, and Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO, designated herein as CTU, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The Work at Issue This dispute arises out of the installation of a Vandercook Universal IV proof press in the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant. When the proof press was installed in the composing room on October 7, 1966, the Employer assigned the operation and maintenance of it to composing room employees represented by the CTU rather than to employees represented by the Respondent. Both unions have been parties to collective-bargaining contracts with the Employer for many years. Prior to the installation of the Vandercook IV proof press, the Employer used a manually run proof press which was also located in the composing room and operated by employees represented by the CTU. The new Vandercook is basically the same machine as the older proof press, except that it is power driven instead of manually operated, and is capable of creating a finer quality reproduction proof. This finer quality reproduction proof is necessary for use in the platemaking process at the new offset process plant that the Employer will open in the spring of 1967 at Highland, Illinois. The parties stipulated that the disputed work is limited to: Operation of Vandercook Universal IV proof press installed and operating in the composing room of the Company's plant located at 711 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois, insofar as the operation of said proof press relates to the pulling of reproduction proofs from metal stereotype casts, electrotypes, molded rubber plates, plastic plates, combination molded rubber and plastic plates, zinc and copper engravings, stereotype plates containing line cast key numbers and/or corrections. In addition, the Stereotypers claim the maintenance2 and cleanup of the machine when operated by a stereotyper. In essence, the Respondent claims the operation, maintenance, and cleanup of the press only when reproduction proofs are being pulled from the metal stereotype casts and other materials prepared by stereotypers. No dispute exists concerning the remaining operation of the proof press presently being performed by employees represented by the CTU. % The "maintenance" referred to in the description relates to maintenance which does not require a machinist such as lubrication of press, cleaning, and adjustment of ink rollers 164 NLRB No. 63 CHICAGO STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 4 B. Evidence of Conduct Violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D) Upon learning of the installation of the new press, Guy De Vito, president of the Respondent, and the Employer's production manager, Gene Arehart, engaged in preliminary discussions concerning the proposed use of the equipment and the work assignment . Arehart informed De Vito that the Employer intended to run reproduction proofs for use in its new Highland , Illinois, plant, and that the operation of the machine was being assigned to employees represented by the CTU. On October 28, 1966, De Vito told Arehart that it was the Respondent's position that "you have committed a breach of contract [in the work assignment] and that we will strike you." De Vito further stated that the Respondent did not have a picket line around the plant at that time only because the plant was not in production on Friday. Arehart then said, "I take it this is not a threat, but a promise to strike." De Vito replied, "that is correct, this is a promise." After discussing possible legal recourse available, Arehart concluded by inquiring, "then this is very definitely a threat to strike us?" And De Vito said, "Yes, it is a threat to strike, and we will let you know when our men will be called out of the plant." On the same day, the charge in this case was filed. 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 parties to the dispute have not submitted to the Board any evidence that they have adjusted or agreed upon methods for voluntary adjustment of the dispute. On the basis of the entire record, including the Respondent's threat to strike to force the Employer to assign the disputed work to its members, we find 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 under Section 10(k) of the Act. D. Contentions of the Parties The Employer and the CTU take the position that the assignment of the disputed work to the employees represented by the CTU was proper on the basis of their collective-bargaining agreement allegedly covering the disputed work, past and S "Section 7 It is further agreed when required by the Publisher in the Stereotype Department that the pulling of proofs from metal stereotype casts , electrotypes, molded rubber and/or 413 current practice of the Employer , area and industry practice, skill of the printers assigned to the work, and the economy and efficiency of the operations. In support of its claim , the Respondent contends that the disputed work is an integral part of work which currently requires stereotypers ' skill; that any loss of jobs by reason of work assignment falls upon the stereotypers rather than the printers ; that it is the custom and practice in Chicago for stereotypers to proof their own work; that they have the necessary skill to perform such work ; and that a more efficient operation of the proof press requires a stereotyper to operate it during the performance of the specified functions. E. Merits ofthe 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. The following factors are asserted in support of the claims of the parties herein: 1. Collective-bargaining agreements The existing contract between the Employer and CTU, in material part, provides : "Jurisdiction of the Union and the appropriate unit for collective bargaining is defined as including all composing room work and includes classifications such as:.. . proof press operators ...." It also provides that Dow Jones "shall make no other contract covering work as described above .. .. .. All of the CTU contracts since 1953 contain substantially the same provisions . Any claim of the Respondent is somewhat dubious in light of the qualifying language in its contract3 and proceeding bargaining history. Thus, the record shows that when a like provision was included in the 1958 contract for the first time, the Employer was told that the language was merely to conform with the contract language previously agreed upon by the Stereotypers and Chicago Newspaper Publishers Association but would have no effect upon the operations of the Employer. 2. Employer's practice It is clear from the record that proof presses at the Chicago plant have at all times "historically, [and] traditionally been operated exclusively by printers in the composing room." Prior to and since the installation of the Vandercook Universal IV press, all proofs including reproduction proofs have been pulled by the printers. At no time have stereotypers pulled any proofs even when the material was originally prepared by the stereotypers or when the proof press was being used to check stereotypers' work. plastic plates , and of proofs for the purpose of pre-registration of color stereotype plates is, and shall be , within the jurisdiction of the Union " [Emphasis supplied ] 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The record also shows that the practice in the Chicago plant is consistent with the practice at the Employer's other plants. The San Francisco, California, and White Oak, Maryland, plants also have Vandercook Universal IV presses, and the operation of those presses has been assigned to the printers. Also, the various contracts introduced into evidence between the Employer and both unions support the claim of the CTU. 3. Area and industry practice At the "Sun Times" and "Daily News," the reproduction proof presses are located in the composing rooms and are operated by the printers. Although the stereotypers make proofs of their color work, the proofs are not reproduction proofs and are only used by the stereotypers to check their own work. There are two proof presses in the "Tribune" and "American" stereotype departments. However, they are used by the stereotypers to check their color work done in the department, but are not used for pulling reproduction proofs. Further, the various collective-bargaining agreements are consistent with this area practice. With regard to industry practice, the parties entered into a stipulation concerning contractual claims for proof press operation by typographical and stereotyper locals in 29 cities. The terms "proof press operator" or "proof press operators" appear in each of the typographical union contracts with the exception of the contracts in Boston, Louisville, and New York City. In the same 29 cities, the Stereotypers' contracts contain no reference to proofing or the operation of a proof press, except New York, where the Stereotypers' contract conceded jurisdiction of certain kinds of proofing to the photoengravers. 4. Skills involved As indicated above, the Vandercook Universal IV is a motor-driven proof press. The mechanical operation is not difficult. In fact the employee to whom the operation of the press was first assigned, required only 10 minutes of instruction from the Vandercook representatives who installed the press. The skill involved is not in the operation of the machine but in the ability to acquire a technique in pulling proof which produces a high quality reproduction proof. This skill has been perfected by employees represented by the CTU since they have actually performed the work. Further, all journeymen printers in the Employer's composing room have received training and experience in the operation of proof presses, including the making of "overlays" and "underlays." This training is a standard part of the apprentice printers training at all printing plants, including the Employer's plant. The CTU also operates a local school, the curriculum of which includes the operation of proof presses and the pulling of quality reproduction and other proofs. In contrast, stereotypers have not operated the proof presses and have not received formal training in the operation of proof presses or in the techniques of pulling quality proofs. 5. Efficiency and economy of operation The evidence reveals that since the stereotypers are not claiming the exclusive operation of the proof press, if Respondent's claim were sustained, both printers and stereotypers would be performing work on the machine. The proof press is located in the composing room on the second floor and, except for the presence of a stereotyper doing mat production in the composing room , the stereotype department is confined to the first floor . Hence, dual operation would lead to fragmentation of work, scheduling problems, shuttling of employees between floors, congestion in the press area, and possible confusion as to which group should pull what proof. Further, the record shows that the dual operation would require the employment of at least one additional stereotyper and an additional supervisor for stereotypers since the composing room supervisor cannot direct stereotype personnel , whereas the complete function can be handled by the incumbent CTU crew. Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute In view of the foregoing, particularly the evidence pertaining to contract coverage, established area and Employer practice, work skills, the Employer's assignment of the work to the printers, and the efficiency and economy of operations achieved by such assignment, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional dispute by awarding the work in dispute to the employees represented by the CTU rather than to employees represented by the Respondent Union. In making this determination, we are not assigning the disputed work to Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO, or to its members. Further, our 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 makes the following determination of the dispute: 1. Printers employed by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Chicago , Illinois, who are represented by Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO, are entitled to the work of operating the Vandercook Universal IV proof press installed and operating in the composing room insofar as the operation of the proof press relates to the pulling of reproduction CHICAGO STEREOTYPERS' UNION No. 4 proofs from metal stereotype casts, electrotypes, molded rubber plates, plastic plates, combination molded rubber and plastic plates, zinc and copper engravings , stereotype plates containing line case key numbers and/or corrections, and the maintenance and cleanup of the machine excluding work requiring the services of a machinist. 2. Chicago Stereotypers' Union No. 4 is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign 415 the above work to stereotypers who are represented by Chicago Stereotypers' Union No. 4. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Chicago Stereotypers' Union No. 4 shall notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to stereotypers rather than to printers.