Daytona Beach Printing Pressmen, Local 444

90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Daytona Beach Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union, Local 444, subordinate to International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO,' and News-Journal Corp. and Lithographers & Photoengravers Interna- tional Union , AFL-CIO, Party to Dispute. Case 12-CD-102 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated , and we find, that the Pressmen and the Lithographers are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE November 3,1967 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow- ing a charge filed by News-Journal Corporation, herein called the Employer, alleging that Daytona Beach Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local 444, subordinate to International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Pressmen, had vio- lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Daytona Beach, Florida, on June 20, 1967, before Hearing Officer Herbert N. Watterson of the National Labor Rela- tions Board. The Employer, the Pressmen, and Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the Lithographers, appeared at the hearing and were afforded full op- portunity to be heard , to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues . Thereafter, the Pressmen and the Lithographers filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, 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 entire record in this case , the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated that the Employer is a Florida corporation engaged at Daytona Beach, Florida, in the publication of morning, evening, and Sunday newspapers. It is a member of the As- sociated Press , does national advertising , and has a gross volume of business exceeding $200,000. We find, accordingly, that the Employer is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. ' The name of the Respondent-Union appears as amended at the hear- ing 2 The parties stipulated that the Board take official notice in considering A. The Work in Dispute; Background Facts Prior to January 9, 1967, the Employer's printing operations were divided into three departments, known as the pressroom, composing room, and photoengraving department. On January 9, 1967, the Employer began printing its newspaper on an "offset" printing press rather than on a "letter- press" printing press as it had done formerly. How- ever, it has continued its operation with the same employees working in the same departments, but after the change, the photoengraving department became known as the graphic arts department. Before the change, the making of letterpress plates involved, in general, photographing copy prepared in the composing room, then developing the film, and subjecting it and a photosensitive plate to light and chemicals, thereby bringing an image onto the plate. This work was performed by em- ployees who are currently represented by the Lithographers. Also before the change, the plate produced was flat and rigid and the employees represented by the Pressmen "bent" the plate into a semicylindrical "stereotyped" plate for use on the presses. After the change, the employees represented by the Lithographers continued to per- form platemaking work, which remained basically the same as before. The stereotyping (bending) process, however, was eliminated, as a thinner, more flexible plate, ready for insertion into the press cylinder, was sent to the pressroom from the graphic arts department. Both before and after the change to offset, the Pressmen have represented' the pressroom em- ployees. On January 11, 1967, that Union filed an election petition for a unit of pressroom and graphic arts department employees, and on January 23, 1967, the Lithographers filed an election petition for a unit limited to the graphic arts department em- ployees. Following a hearing,2 the Regional Director for Region 12, on March 3, 1967, issued his Decision and Direction of Election, in which he found "a unit limited to the graphic arts department employees appropriate, whether considered on the basis of a residual unit or a departmental unit." As the Pressmen had an insufficient showing of interest among the employees of the graphic arts depart- ment, the Direction of Election did not provide for its appearing on the ballot in the election for such this case of the record at such hearing, including the transcript and all documents and exhibits. 168 NLRB No. 17 DAYTONA BEACH PRINTING PRESSMEN , LOCAL 444 _ 91 employees. The Pressmen filed a request for review of the Regional Director's Decision. On March 27, 1967, the Board denied the request. An election was held on March 29, 1967, and the Lithographers received a majority of the votes cast. On April 6, 1967, it was certified as the exclusive representative of the Employer 's employees in the following unit: All graphic arts department employees em- ployed at Employer's Daytona Beach, Florida, newspaper plant, but excluding all other em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Thereafter, on May 4, 1967, the Pressmen notified the Employer that unless it assigned the work of making offset plates, which the employees of the graphic arts department were performing, to the pressroom employees , the pressmen would take strike action against the Employer. The Employer, on May 15, 1967, filed a charge alleging that this threat violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. B. The Contentions of the Parties (a) The Pressmen contends that the making of offset plates from camera work to completion should be assigned to the pressroom employees on the basis of the jurisdictional clause of the contract with the Employer, the custom and practice in the area, and the promotion of efficiency at the plant. The Pressmen further asserts that the graphic arts department employees do not have effective representation. The Pressmen alternatively requests that the pressroom employees should be awarded the making of offset plates subsequent to camera work. (b) The Lithographers contends, first, that its recent certification for the graphic arts department disposes of the case . It further argues that the present assignment of the work to the graphic arts employees is proper in view of the collective-bar- gaining background which establishes the graphic arts department as an appropriate unit and the as- serted fact that the pressroom employees could not bring skills comparable to those of the graphic arts employees to the making of offset plates. Also, the Lithographers contend that the awarding of work subsequent to camera work to the pressroom em- ployees would represent an arbitrary partition of an integrated operation. C. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to a determination of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. As indicated above, the Pressmen on May 4, 1967, threatened strike action against the Employer with the object of forcing it to assign the disputed work to employees represented by the Pressmen rather than to employees represented by the Lithog- raphers. Accordingly, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. IV. MERITS OF THE DISPUTE As indicated above, the Lithographers was cer- tified as the collective-bargaining representative of all graphic arts department employees. As these employees performed the entire operation of mak- ing offset plates at the time of the certification, and as their duties were described in detail in the representation proceedings, we find that the certifi- cation clearly supports the Lithographers' claim to the disputed work of making offset plates. In addition, the Employer has assigned all the disputed platemaking work under both its previous letterpress and current offset operations to the em- ployees who are represented by the Lithographers. These employees possess skills with respect to the operations here in dispute superior to those of the employees represented by the Pressmen, who have not performed the disputed work and would be in- capable of performing it without a lengthy training period. Furthermore, although an offset plate which has reached the pressroom must be returned to the adjacent graphic arts department if corrections are needed, we find on the basis of the superior skills possessed by employees represented by the Lithog- raphers and the location of all platemaking equip- ment in the graphic arts department, that, as the Employer contends, the present assignment promotes efficiency of operations. We, furthermore, find the contract between the Pressmen and the Employer at best inconclusive with respect to coverage of the graphic arts depart- ment, as it expressly refers only to the pressroom, and pressroom employees have not performed the disputed work during the term of the contract. We also find industry practice inconclusive, as the record indicates that though the Pressmen represent employees who perform offset platemak- ing work in certain plants in the Southeast , in other plants the Lithographers or other unions represent employees who make offset plates. Finally, on the basis of the foregoing factors and the entire record, and particularly the integrated nature of the platemaking operation, we find no reason for divid- ing the operation into camera and subsequent platemaking work, to be performed by different groups of employees. Accordingly, on the basis of the certification, the Employer's assignment of all the disputed work to the graphic arts department employees, the superior skills of those employees over employees represented by the Pressmen with respect to the 92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operations here in dispute , and the fact that the present assignment promotes efficiency , we shall determine the dispute before us by awarding the work of making offset plates , including the processing subsequent to camera work , to those employees represented by the Lithographers, but not to that Union or its members .3 This determina- tion is limited to the particular controversy giving rise to this dispute. 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 dispute: 1. Employees currently represented by the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union , AFL-CIO, and employed by the News- Journal Corporation in its graphic arts department, are entitled to perform the work of making offset plates, including work subsequent to camera work, at the Employer's plant in Daytona Beach, Flordia. 2. Daytona Beach Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local 444, subordinate to Inter- national Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is not entitled to force or require the News-Journal Corporation to assign the aforementioned work of making offset plates to employees represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Daytona Beach Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local 444, subordinate to International Printing Press- men and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring News-Journal Corpora- tion, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. S United Association , Pipe Fitters Local 533 (J F Pritchard & Co.), 153 NLRB 1180 Member Fanning finds that the certification of the Lithographers to per- form the disputed work is controlling in this case and that no award con- trary to that certification can be made by the Board