St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30

ST. PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30 107 St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30 , AFL-CIO and Webb Publishing Company and St . Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 29, AFL-CIO St. Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 29, AFL-CIO and Webb Publishing Com- pany and St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30, AFL-CIO. Cases 18-CD-84 and 18-CD-85 June 30, 1970 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing the filing of charges under Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The above-entitled cases were con- solidated pursuant to an order of the Regional Director for Region 18 on July 31, 1969, and a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Kenneth W. Hann on September 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9, 1969. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs filed by the Employer, the St. Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 29, and the St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30 have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer, Webb Publishing Company, is a Min- nesota corporation engaged in the printing and publishing of telephone directories , magazines, and other printed material at its plant located in St. Paul, Minnesota. During the 12-month period im- mediately preceding the filing of the charges herein the Employer made sales of goods outside the State of Minnesota in an amount in excess of $50,000, and its gross sales during this period amounted to more than $5 million. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The parties further stipulated, and we find, that Respondents, St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30, AFL-CIO ( hereinafter referred to as the ITU or as Typographers ), and St . Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No. 29, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the IPP or as Pressmen), are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 3. The disputes: Two disputes are involved in this proceeding . The issue to be determined in Case 18-CD-84 is whether members of the IPP or the ITU are entitled to perform certain work in connec- tion with the One-Up Vandercook Press and the Six-Up Vandercook Press. The issue in Case 18-CD-85 is whether members of the IPP or the ITU are entitled to perform certain work in connec- tion with the operation of the Cronapress Clarifier No. 3. For the sake of clarity, these disputes are separately analyzed and determined. 1. THE ONE-UP AND SIX-UP VANDERCOOK PRESSES A. Work at Issue The One-Up and Six-Up Vandercook Presses (hereinafter referred to as the One-Up and the Six- Up, respectively) are offset presses used by the Em- ployer as "preparatory" or "pre-proof" presses. They produce paper plates which are sent to the pressroom for a "production run" whereby nu- merous copies of the finished product are made. Both machines are located in the composing room and there was no indication at the hearing that the Employer intends to use either of them as a produc- tion press. The plates produced on the One-Up and Six-Up are used primarily to print directories for various telephone companies. Two basic types of jobs are printed: a "daily" addendum, which is a collection of new numbers installed during a 30-day period and updated nightly; and a monthly "reprint," which is an accumulation of all new numbers in- stalled during that month (and which replaces the dailies that were compiled during the month). As it is currently performed, the process involv- ing the One-Up begins with the receipt in the com- posing room of a list of new numbers installed dur- ing the day. There a linotyper sets each line on a lead slug. If preliminary proofing reveals no errors, the lines are given to a floorman for insertion into the daily. The type making up a daily page is in a "galley" (which resembles a three-sided cookie pan) which is stored in a rack. The floorman takes the appropriate galley and inserts the new lines in alphabetical order. He then puts the galley on a "truck" (a table with wheels), wheels it over to the One-Up, and places the type on its bed. He "justi- 184 NLRB No. 12 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fies" the type ( makes certain that the columns are the same length ) and locks it onto the bed so that it will stay in position. A paper plate is inserted into grippers attached to the rollers on the machine . By turning a crank, the rollers are activated , distribute the ink over the typeface , and bring the plate into contact with the inked type . Almost simultaneously , a "galley proof" (a proof on a sheet of paper ) and the paper plate are pulled from the machine . The galley proof is sent to the proofroom where it is checked to see that the new inserts are legible , correct, and in the proper place . At the same time, the paper plate is put into an infrared machine to dry for about 15 seconds, after which it is removed and "gummed" ( treated with a liquid to sensitize it) by a pressman. If an error is found when the galley proof is proofread in the proofroom , the type must be reset and the aforementioned process repeated. If the check of the galley proof reveals no errors, the paper plate is given to the pressmen for a high- speed production run in the pressroom. After an acceptable paper plate has been produced , a member of the ITU removes the form from the One-Up 's bed , replaces it on the truck and puts it back in its storage rack. Except for the gumming , members of the ITU perform all of the aforementioned tasks. The operation of the Six-Up differs somewhat from that of the One-Up . The former machine is capable of producing six plates at a time while the latter can produce only one . Due to the larger printing surface and the fact that each F. of lead type weighs about 40 pounds , certain devices which are not necessary for the operation of the One-Up are used in connection with the operation of the Six-Up . Except for these differences attributable to the relative size of the machines , the two presses are the same. The Six-Up produces the plates for the monthly "reprint," a directory which contains the accumula- tion of "dailies" for the previous month. Once a month, a typographer inserts into the "standing" directory type forms the 30-day accumulation of new lines and removes therefrom the discontinued telephone numbers . He spreads the type forms for six pages on a truck and justifies them . The typog- rapher places a "chase" ( metal frame ) around the type to hold it in and places "furniture " (wooden blocks ) inside of the chase to provide proper spac- ing and margins . He then locks the chase with a "quoin " which serves the function of a key. A typographer rolls the truck with the type over to the Six-Up and, with the aid of a pressman , slides the type onto the bed . If it is needed , the pressman applies ink to the rollers with a wooden knife (this needs to be done about five times in an 8-hour day). The pressman inserts a blank paper plate into the grippers of the machine and presses a button to start the rollers, which are powered by a motor on the Six-Up. The rollers distribute ink over, and bring the paper plate into contact with , the type face, thereby creating an impression on the paper plate. When this has been done, the pressman pulls the plate. After the plate has been pulled, a pressman sub- jects it to various treatments and delivers it to the pressroom , where it is prepared for a production run. At the same time , the type is slid off of the bed of the press and onto the truck. The typographer cleans the ink off of the type face , unlocks and removes the chase, and places the new page of "standing" directory type in the proper storage bin. At the hearing , the IPP claimed "all work tasks necessary to the operation of the Vandercook Proof Press, except locking and unlocking type edges." This claim related to both the One-Up and Six-Up and, while not very specific , presumably in- cludes inking the rollers , placing the plate in the grippers, turning the rollers, and pulling the plate. The IPP did not claim the work of aiding a typog- rapher in sliding the type form on and off the Six- Up, work which pressmen are currently doing. The IPP did concede , however, that the pulling of the galley proof on the One-Up is within the ITU's ju- risdiction. The ITU claims all work on each press through and including the pulling of the paper plate and concedes that the operations performed thereafter are within the IPP 's jurisdiction. B. Background of the Dispute When the One-Up process was installed around 1960, Damie Gruber, the then night superinten- dent, orally assigned all of the work on it to mem- bers of the ITU. They have performed this work, in- cluding the pulling of the plate, through the time of the hearing. The IPP claims that as early as 1962 its chapel chairman, Kenneth Hughes, demanded this work of Damie Gruber and another management official, Blaine Sargent . Hughes testified that in 1962 and 1963 he temporarily acceded to Sargent 's request not to press his claim because the One-Up was being used for but 2 hours per night . Since then, the volume of work on the One-Up has increased, and in 1969 Hughes requested the work from Gruber, who was then the Employer's vice pres- ident for manufacturing. Admittedly, these were informal requests, never reduced to writing. ST. PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30 109 Although he based his claim for the work on the contract, Hughes admitted that he never attempted to utilize the grievance machinery provided for therein. The IPP, however, emphatically claimed jurisdiction over this work at the hearing. The Employer bought the Six-Up in January 1969. Prior to the purchase, Plant Engineer 0'- Boyle traveled to a plant in Lowell, Massachusetts, where he observed that the Six-Up was operated by a mixed crew of ITU and IPP members. Based lar- gely on these observations, on January 29, Gruber sent a memorandum to Foreman Ayd (of the com- posing room) and Ritchhart (of the pressroom) which stated that the "manning " of the Six-Up would "consist of a pressman who will operate the proof press and a printer, or printers, to lock and unlock the type pages." The Six-Up was installed in March 1969, but, due to required adjustments, it was not put into opera- tion until April or May. Around June 20, 1969, President Rodgers of ITU Local 30 informed Gruber by telephone that if the pressmen pulled the plates on the Six-Up as planned, he would order the typographers to stop work because of what he regarded as a breach of contract. In a letter dated June 26, which he sent to the Employer's personnel director, Stig Larson, Rodgers claimed all the work on the Six-Up for his Union and reiterated his strike threat. In the same month, however, representatives of the ITU and the IPP met with the Employer's representatives and the ITU agreed not to strike pending the resolution of this dispute by the Board. C. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board proceeds with determination of a 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. The record furnishes reasonable cause to believe that St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30, AFL-CIO, through its president, Paul Rodgers, twice threatened to strike if members of the IPP were permitted to perform certain tasks on the Six- Up Vandercook Press, which tasks had been as- signed them by the Employer. Rodgers made these threats in a telephone conversation with Damie Gruber on June 20, 1969, and in a letter to Stig Larson dated June 26, 1969. There is reasonable cause to believe that the purpose of these threats was to force the Webb Publishing Company to as- sign the work in dispute to employees represented by the ITU instead of to employees represented by the IPP. While there has been no picketing by the ITU, the threat has not been withdrawn but merely held in abeyance pending the outcome of the present proceeding. The parties stipulated that they have not ad- justed, or agreed upon a voluntary method for the adjustment of, this dispute. The ITU does not con- test the Board's jurisdiction in this case. 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) has occurred, and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- tion under Section 10(k) of the Act. D. Contentions of the Parties The IPP contends that it has a right to the work in dispute on the One-Up and the Six-Up by virtue of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Em- ployer, skill, and company practice; in addition, it buttresses its claim to the Six-Up work by reference to Damie Gruber's assignment of January 29, 1969. The ITU denies that the IPP contract covers the work in dispute on either machine and supports its own claim to the disputed work on the One-Up by reference to its contract, company practice, skill, and economy. The ITU minimizes the Employer's assignment of the Six-Up tasks to the IPP as merely a temporary expedient to avoid friction. The Employer prefers that ITU members con- tinue to perform the disputed tasks on the One-Up for reasons of efficiency and economy of operation. Despite its assignment of certain tasks on the Six- Up to the IPP, the Employer maintains a neutral position on them in its brief. The Employer denies that its contracts with the ITU and the IPP cover the pulling of offset paper plates. E. Merits of the Dispute As stated in the J. A. Jones case,' we shall, pur- suant to the Supreme Court's C.B.S. decision,2 determine in each case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act the appropriate as- signment of the disputed work only after taking into account the evidence supporting the claims of the parties and balancing all relevant factors. 1. Certifications Neither the IPP nor the ITU has been certified by the Board with respect to any of the employees in- volved in the instant case. i International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J Y N L R B v Radio and Television Broadcasting Engineers Union, Local A Jones Construction Co ), 135 NLRB 1402 1212 , IBEW, AFL-CIO [ Columbia Broadcasting System] , 364 U S 573 110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The contracts The IPP and the ITU each has a collective-bar- gaining agreement with the Employer which un- dertakes, inter alia, to define its work jurisdiction. Neither contract specifically mentions the One-Up or the Six-Up Presses. The IPP contends that its agreement confers ju- risdiction over the disputed work on both machines . The ITU denies this and contends that the aforementioned contract is, at best, too am- biguous to be determinative . The Employer sup- ports this ITU position and also contends that nothing in its contract with the ITU confers ju- risdiction on that union. The IPP bases its claim to both machines on sec- tion 2 (a) of its contract, which includes within its jurisdiction "all offset presses" and "all workers employed in the field of offset platemaking."3 It contends that this language confers jurisdiction over the making of offset paper plates. The ITU denies that the IPP contract applies to the work in dispute . It points out that the IPP con- tract specifically "applies to pressrooms " while the ITU contract defines its jurisdiction as "including all composing room work ."4 It argues therefore that because the One-Up and the Six-Up are located in the composing room , the IPP contract is inapplica- ble. The ITU also notes that the Employer and the IPP knew, when they executed their last contract, that typographers had made virtually all paper off- set plates in the plant for 9 years . The ITU con- tends that the parties' failure to be more specific in the face of this plant practice means that they did not intend that the contract alter that practice. Thus, it argues , IPP jurisdiction over "all offset presses" and "all workers employed in the field of offset platemaking" does not apply to paper plates because the parties did not so specify. The ITU buttresses its contention that the IPP contract is inapplicable , and that the IPP knew this, by noting that the IPP did not attempt to utilize the grievance procedure provided by its contract dur- ing the 9 years that members of the ITU pulled the paper plates on the One-Up. Based on a review of the contract terms and bar- gaining history , we agree with the ITU and the Em- ployer that the IPP contract is too ambiguous to be determinative of the dispute before us. The ITU claims that , because both machines are located in the composing room , all work thereon is "composing room work" within the meaning of its jurisdictional clause, see footnote 4, supra . The Em- ployer contends that that term is too general to be determinative. While the record does not establish the meaning of "composing room work ," it does indicate that that phrase does not encompass all work performed in the composing room . For example , it was not disputed that the Hacher Gauge, which is located in the composing room , is within the IPP 's jurisdic- tion. While this fact does not define the phrase "composing room work" with great precision, it does indicate that the broad construction urged by the ITU is unwarranted. We conclude that the ITU contract does not favor an award of the work in dispute to typographers. 3. Skills On the basis of the record , we find that both typographers and pressmen are equally capable of performing the work in dispute on both the One-Up and the Six-Up. 4. Efficiency and economy The Employer maintains that it is more efficient and economical to have a crew of ITU members ex- clusively pull the plate on the One-Up, but that the cost and efficiency would be the same regardless of which craft pulled the plate on the Six-Up. A major difference in the operation of the two machines is responsible for this disparity of result. The One-Up is used primarily to produce plates for the daily addendum which, because it is used by telephone operators , must be accurate . In order to assure accuracy, a galley proof is pulled at the same time as the paper plate . The galley proof is read in the proofroom and, if an error is detected , typog- raphers will immediately reset the page and produce a correct version. The Employer contends that the same craftsman should pull both the paper plate and the galley proof on the One-Up. Because pulling the galley proof is indisputably within the ITU's jurisdiction, the Employer prefers that a member of the ITU pull the paper plate also. The record testimony shows in this respect that, if the work in dispute is assigned to the IPP, when a pressman pulls the paper plate , a typographer would have to be at the machine to pull the galley proof. The typographer would either have to be ' Sec. 2(a) provides that "This contract applies to pressrooms operated by the Employer . Said pressrooms, including ... all offset presses and all workers employed in the field of offset platemaking...." ' Sec 4 provides that "Jurisdiction of the Union is defined as includ- ing all composing room work of employers covered by this contract " ST. PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30 called over from another department , at least 50 feet away, to perform this operation , or he could stay at the One-Up just to perform this task. In the first instance , there would be frequent interruptions in the job he was performing in the other depart- ment; in the second , he would have dead time while he stood around the One -Up waiting to perform this one operation . Vice President Gruber testified that, if the work was split in this manner , "[ t]wo men would be doing the work of one." In addition, it is probable that two men performing these opera- tions simultaneously on the same machine would get in each other's way. On the basis of the record before us, we find that it is more efficient and economical to have a crew composed of exclusively ITU members perform the work in dispute on the One-Up. The Employer contends that the cost and effi- ciency of operating the Six-Up would be the same whether members of the ITU or the IPP pull the plate. The Six-Up is used to produce the monthly reprint. Because accuracy is not of primary im- portance , a galley proof need not be pulled. Thus, the most convincing argument against allowing members of the IPP to pull the plate is, in the case of the Six-Up, inapplicable . The record does not otherwise indicate that there is any meaningful dif- ference between using members of the ITU and the IPP in terms of cost and efficiency . We therefore find that it would be equally efficient and economi- cal to have members of the ITU or the IPP perform the work in dispute on the Six-Up. 5. Area and industry practice The record does not indicate the existence of an area or industry practice which would favor the claim of either union for the work in dispute on the One-Up or the Six-Up. 6. Company practice The record indicates that members of the ITU have made and pulled all offset paper plates produced on the One-Up for approximately 10 years. Members of the IPP made paper plates on another machine for a very brief period about 18 years ago but they have not done so since. We find that company practice supports an award of the work on the One-Up to the Typog- raphers. We are not, however, convinced that this prac- tice, established during the ITU's lengthy steward- ship of the One-Up, necessarily favors the ITU's claim to the work on the Six-Up. While the latter 111 machine is similar to the former in many respects, the difference in size has caused significant dif- ferences in operation. The Six-Up's larger type capacity is such that a chase must be used to en- close the type, more than one man is needed to slide the form onto the bed, and it is probable that more adjustments must be made on the type in the larger form while it is there. These operations require more men and it would appear that they will occupy more of the time of the typographer as- signed to the machine. The lessened requirement of accuracy also renders unnecessary the constant state of readiness that must be maintained to achieve an instant reset and rerun on the One-Up, should the galley proof reveal inaccuracies. These differences affect the entire tempo of the operation and are, in our opinion , so great as to preclude the application of company practice on the One-Up to the establishment of a practice which favors the ITU's operation of the Six-Up. For the above reasons, we do not find that there is a company practice favoring the award of the work in dispute on the Six-Up to either of the Unions. 7. Conclusion Having considered the criteria set forth in J. A. Jones, supra, we conclude, with respect to the One- Up Vandercook Press, that inasmuch as it is more efficient and economical to use typographers, a well-established company practice favors such an award, and no factors favor the pressmen, typog- raphers employed by Webb Publishing Company are entitled to perform all of the work in dispute relating to the One-Up Vandercook Press. With respect to the Six-Up Vandercook Press, none of the factors we have considered favors an award of the work in dispute exclusively to either of the Unions. The Employer has assigned the work on this press to a mixed crew of pressmen and typographers, each performing work not clearly un- related to his craft; there is precedent in at least one other plant for .!-is assignment; and the Em- ployer appears to be satisfied with it. Under all the circumstances, we conclude that on the Six-Up Vandercook Press, pressmen employed by Webb Publishing Company are entitled to ink the rollers, place the plate in the grippers, turn the rollers, and pull the plate from the press. Typographers are en- titled to perform the rest of the press operation. 8. The scope of the determination In making the foregoing determinations, we are assigning the disputed work, as indicated, to the 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees of Webb Publishing Company, who are respectively represented by the ITU and the IPP, but not to such unions or their members. These determinations are limited to the particular con- troversy giving rise to the dispute. II. THE CRONAPRESS CLARIFIER A. Work at Issue The Cronapress Clarifier No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the Cronapress ) is a flatbed press which operates without ink or paper . It has two beds, each of which can hold eight pages of type. By transferring an impression from metal type onto film, the Cronapress produces a clarified film or negative. Pages of type are slid onto the Cronapress bed, locked in a chase, and snugged up and planed down so that the type surface is level . Pressure-sensitized blank film is laid over the typeface . A mylar sheet in a metal frame is then pulled down and placed over the film and type . By means of a switch, a pump is started , creating a vacuum between the blank film and the face of the type, which holds the film firmly against the type face. Suspended' over the bed is a carriage which con- tains a belt with approximately 40,000 minute pins protruding from it. When a switch is turned the car- riage is automatically activated and the belt vibrates up, down, and sideways over the type and film, creating pressure. In this manner , the film is "clarified" (ruptured) whenever the pins come into contact with the raised portion of the type . The im- pression of the type is thus transferred directly to the film . The clarification process takes about 7 or 8 minutes per bed, at the end of which the carriage stops automatically ; the mylar sheet is released by letting air into the space between the film and typeface , and the frame is raised. The clarified film is removed from the Cronapress and placed in a sink , where it is treated with a bluing or densifier . The clarified portion of the film , which is transparent, does not absorb the bluing but the remainder does, and a negative is produced . The film is left to dry and , after a few minutes, a stabilizer is applied to harden the nega- tive, which is then washed and hung on a clothesline for further drying. The negative is then sent to the nearby monotype department where it is inspected by a member of the ITU who does any necessary preliminary "opaquing" ( dyeing or darkening areas which are not to be printed, such as scratched areas of the negative ) or "scribing" (using a fine point instru- ment to draw in characters that are not legible or to remove foreign objects ).5 If the inspector finds that something was left out, he returns the film and the operators correct the type form and run it again on the machine. The operation is performed at the Employer's plant in such a way that , while the carriage is clari- fying the type in one Cronapress bed, type is being arranged and locked in the other bed in preparation for clarification there. After the negative has been removed from the Cronapress, the typeform that was used is un- locked , removed from the bed , and filed away for future use. Presently , ITU members perform all of the afore- mentioned tasks . On large jobs , such as telephone books, two men are used: one man locks up the form and planes it down while the other helps him, watches the carriage , and dyes the finished prints. On smaller jobs , such as religious missals, which in- volve less columns and less print , only one man is used. After the completion of the aforementioned processes , the negative is delivered to the press- room where a member of the IPP does such further opaquing and scribing as is necessary . Plates are then made from the negatives and used for a production run. The IPP claims all of the work now being per- formed by the Typographers except for the setting, arranging , locking, and unlocking of type . The IPP thus seeks to have its members insert the blank film, move the carriage across the typeface, remove, densify, and stabilize the film , and scribe and opaque it. The ITU claims all of the steps that it is now performing. B. Background of the Dispute The present Cronapress was purchased in August 1968, and put into production late that month or early in September 1968. It is the third in a series of machines that the Employer has used to make film negatives from hot metal . From 1962 through 1965, a Bright Type was used for this purpose. In 1965, the Bright Type was replaced by the Cronapress Clarifier No. 2, an earlier model of the present machine . While the Cronapress Clarifier No. 2 produced the same product as the present machine, it proved to be unsatisfactory for telephone company work and was taken out of production within a year. Members of the ITU per- formed all of the work on the Bright Type and 5 Another name for this process is "touching up " ST. PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30 Cronapress Clarifier No. 2. Pressmen did not work on these machines and there is no record of a for- mal demand by them for this work. When the present Cronapress was purchased, the work now in dispute was assigned to the ITU and six of its members were trained to operate it by the machine's manufacturer . Damie Gruber , the Em- ployer's vice president for manufacturing , testified that he made this assignment because the work in- volved was traditionally ITU work and it would be more economical and efficient to perform the work with an ITU crew. There is some question as to when the IPP first claimed the work in dispute in the instant case. IPP Chapel Chairman Kenneth Hughes testified that he made a demand of Foreman Louis Ayd in May 1968; IPP Secretary-Treasurer Donald Daly stated that he demanded the work from Ayd in August 1968, and from Gruber on numerous occasions. Both Ayd and Gruber deny receiving such requests. Director of Personnel Stig Larson testified that in the collective-bargaining negotiations of February 1969 there was some discussion of scribing and opaquing but no IPP request for the work in dispute on the Cronapress, which machine was not men- tioned in the resultant contract . It is undisputed, however, that during the period from August 1968 through July 11, 1969, the IPP submitted no writ- ten request nor did it file a grievance over the matter of who was to perform the work in dispute. On July 11, 1969 , Donald Daly, secretary-trea- surer of IPP Local No . 29, sent the Employer a written demand for the work in dispute and threatened a work stoppage unless such an assign- ment was made . While the ITU is continuing to do the work pending a determination by the Board, the IPP has not withdrawn this demand and the accom- panyine threat. C. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board proceeds with determination of a 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. Since August 1968 , the ITU has performed all of the work in dispute on the Cronapress . On July 11, 1969, the Employer received a letter from Donald Daly, secretary-treasurer of the IPP, claiming ju- risdiction over the work in dispute and threatening to strike unless the work was given to his union. By letter of July 22, the ITU claimed the Cronapress work for its members . While the IPP has not International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J A. Jones Construction Co.), 135 NLRB 1402. 113 picketed as yet, it has not withdrawn its threat to strike and picket . Presently , the ITU's members are performing the disputed work ; the IPP has agreed not to strike pending determination of the dispute by the Board. The parties stipulated that they have not agreed on any voluntary method of adjustment. 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 ) has occurred, and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- tion under Section 10(k) of the Act. D. Contentions of the Parties The IPP bases its claim to the work in dispute on the interpretation of various contractual clauses. It contends that the Cronapress is a letterpress and therefore within its contractual jurisdiction to operate . It further contends that the Cronapress produces a reproduction proof which is within the IPP's historical jurisdiction to make, and claims that this jurisdiction was recognized by the Board in a prior dispute between the same parties . The IPP also claims the work of scribing and opaquing the negative by virtue of its contract with the Em- ployer. The ITU denies the IPP's contention that the Cronapress produces a reproduction proof or that it is a letterpress covered by the IPP contract. The ITU contends that it should be awarded the work in dispute on the bases of plant practice , efficiency, economy, and a clause in its contract with the Em- ployer. The Employer desires that the ITU continue to perform the work in dispute , including scribing and opaquing the negative . It contends that this is more efficient and economical than using a mixed crew, which would cause "dead time" for members of each craft . The Employer denies that the Board award cited by the IPP is applicable and contends that its own contract with the ITU covers all of the work the ITU is now performing. E. Merits of the Dispute As stated in the J. A. Jones case ,6 we shall, pur- suant to the Supreme Court's C.B.S. decision,7 determine in each case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act the appropriate as- signment of the disputed work only after taking into account the evidence supporting the claims of the parties and balancing all relevant factors. N L R B v Radio and Television Broadcasting Engineers Union, Local 1212, IBEW, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broadcasting System], 364 US 573 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Certifications Neither the IPP nor the ITU has been certified by the Board with respect to any of the employees in- volved in the instant case. 2. The contracts The ITU claims the entire Cronapress operation by virtue of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer. The IPP contends that the provision relied on is void because it was negotiated prior to the installation of the Cronapress, and itself claims jurisdiction over the Cronapress on the ground that it is a "letterpress" which it has a con- tractual right to operate. In addition, the IPP claims the exclusive right to scribe and opaque the nega- tive by virtue of its own contract with the Em- ployer. The Employer supports the ITU's contrac- tual claims and denies that the IPP contract's clause relating to scribing and opaquing applies to the preliminary work of this description which is presently being done on the Cronapress negatives by members of the ITU. The collective-bargaining agreement between the ITU and the Employer, effective June 1, 1968, through May 31, 1970, specifically recognizes ITU jurisdiction over the Cronapress.8 The IPP contract, negotiated after the ITU agreement and effective March 1, 1969, through March 1, 1972, does not mention the Cronapress. The IPP, however, claims the work in dispute on the ground that the Cronapress is "constructed in a manner similar to all other letterpresses," which machines are within its jurisdiction pursuant to its agreement with the Employer.9 We do not agree. It is not necessary to decide whether the Cronapress is a "letterpress" because, even if it is, the Cronapress is clearly outside the scope of the IPP agreement. The ITU contract specifically assigns it jurisdiction over the Cronapress. The contract between the IPP and the Employer was negotiated later. Taking the facts in the posture most favorable to the IPP, that is, as- suming that the Cronapress is a "letterpress," it is nonetheless removed from the IPP contract's ju- risdictional clause by that section's proviso stating that: Nothing in this clause shall be construed to apply to employees or work which is now covered by contracts with any other union. We conclude that the ITU has a contractual right to perform the work in dispute on the Cronapress operation. We find no merit in the IPP's contention that the ITU contract provision relating to the Cronapress is "illegal" because the contract was entered into prior to the installation of the Cronapress. The IPP also claims jurisdiction over the prelimi- nary scribing and opaquing which is now performed by members of the ITU on the film before it is sent to the pressroom. The IPP bases its claim upon sec- tion 2(a) of its contract with the Employer, which provides in pertinent part that "the jurisdiction of the union shall include all scribing, touch up of image, and opaquing of finished, processed film used in the preparatory operation." Presently, a typographer inspects the film after it has been hung up to dry, opaquing and scribing it when necessary. This preliminary operation is per- formed to detect and correct errors before the film is sent to the pressroom; once it is in the pressroom, IPP members repeat the process. The ITU agrees to the IPP's performing these tasks in the pressroom but asserts its own right to continue performing these operations itself before delivery. The Employer contends that section 2(a) of the IPP contract does not apply here because the preliminary scribing and opaquing is part of the Cronapress operation assigned by its own contract with the ITU. It contends that its assignment of the Cronapress to the ITU "includes all tasks necessary to the operation of the Cronapress . . . including the preliminary inspection, touch up and opaquing of the Cronapress negatives prior to its delivery to the pressroom." Under this construction, the two preliminary operations would be removed from the scope of the IPP contract's jurisdictional clause by the proviso to that clause, noted above, that: Nothing in this clause shall be construed to apply to employees or work which is now covered by contracts with any other union. Supporting the Employer's construction, Person- nel Director Stig Larson, who helped to negotiate the 1969 agreement with the IPP, testified that the phrase relied on is entirely new. With regard to its intended scope, he stated that, at the bargaining sessions "[w]e were talking ... about film coming in from outside, and the idea was who was going to process that film, was it going to bypass the com- posing room or was it going directly into the s Sec 4 provides that "Jurisdiction of the Union .. is defined as includ- ing all composing room work of employees covered by this contract, and includes classifications such as.. Cronapress.. The Employer shall not enter into a contract with any other union covering work as described above " Sec 2(a) provides that "This contract applies to pressrooms operated by the Employer Said pressrooms, including but not limited to letter- presses ... Nothing in this clause shall be construed to apply to employees or work which is now covered by contracts with any other union." ST PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30 115 preparatory department." Further, there is nothing in the record to indicate that film produced by the Employer 's Cronapress was regarded during the negotiations as being within the scope of this lan- guage. In addition , as noted above , the IPP contract in- cludes no reference to the Cronapress operation, although the parties were aware that ITU members were performing these tasks as part of the Cronapress operation . This omission is, in our opinion , a weighty factor in assessing the parties' intentions : First, if we accept the IPP 's interpreta- tion of the clause , ITU members would be dis- placed from two jobs they were then performing. Second, there was testimony that a prior dispute relating to opaquing had been settled by allowing both crafts to do the job , as they were at the time of the hearing . Third, the parties were aware of the above-quoted proviso to section 2(a) and the im- pact thereon of the earlier contract between the Employer and the ITU. We find that the parties did not intend that the phrase in question apply to the preliminary opaquing and scribing presently being performed by members of the ITU. It is in our opinion highly unlikely that the parties would , by means of such imprecise language, deliberately change a work as- signment which would be expected to provoke a ju- risdictional dispute or, at the least, to reopen an old one. If the parties so intended , it is reasonable to assume that the Employer would have sought to in- clude a reference to the Cronapress operation in the phrase so as to avoid the present uncertainty. Instead , there was little or no discussion of the Cronapress at the bargaining sessions and the record indicates that the Employer was taken by surprise by the IPP's demands in July. Further support for this finding of intent is found in the fact that, although the ITU continued to per- form these operations for more than 4 months after the effective date of the IPP contract , the Pressmen did not attempt to file a formal grievance but only objected to the Typographers scribing and opaquing in the context of its broader claims in the instant case. 3. Skills Training and skills are required to operate the Cronapress . Damage to the machine and imperfec- tion of product can result from improper operation of the Cronapress , as when the carriage runs over unnoticed protrusions in the bed. Foreman Ayd, for example, testified that an attempt to modify the bed's normal type capacity caused the carriage to be broken. Members of the ITU have had experience in producing negatives from hot metal on the Bright Type and Cronapress Clarifier No. 2, see supra. It is undisputed that members of the IPP have not had this experience in the plant , that six members of the ITU were trained by the manufacturer to operate the Cronapress Clarifier No. 3 when it was in- stalled, and that these six were the only qualified operators at the plant at the time of the hearing. The film used on both of the Cronapresses is "pressure-sensitive," that is, insensitive to light. While the IPP introduced some evidence that its members had worked with film, there is no indica- tion that the film was "pressure-sensitive" or that the skill acquired in those operations is relevant to the operation of the machine in dispute. As the record thus indicates that by virtue of the special training and experience , typographers pos- sess the skills required to operate the Cronapress Clarifier No. 3, and that the pressmen do not have such skills , and would require training to acquire them, we find that the factor of skills favors assign- ment of the operation of the Cronapress to typog- raphers. No evidence was introduced to prove whether the ITU or the IPP members are more skilled in scribing and opaquing negatives , or indeed, the skill and training' required for such operations . Because of this state of the record , we make no finding as to the relative ability of the members of the two unions to perform this part of the work in dispute. 4. Efficiency and economy The Employer contends that it is more efficient and economical to have members of the ITU exclu- sively operate the Cronapress and perform the preliminary inspection , scribing, and opaquing. This contention is based largely on the undisputed fact that the ITU has exclusive jurisdiction over setting type, placing it on the bed, locking , justifying, un- locking, and removing it. Presently, one typographer is used for small jobs and two are used for large ones on the Cronapress. In the latter case , both beds are used : one man ar- ranges type on one bed while the other helps, ob- serves the clarification process on the other bed and dyes the finished negatives . On smaller jobs, where only one bed is in use, a single typographer performs all of these jobs himself. Because the type used must be slid on and off, locked and unlocked , and arranged by a typog- rapher , he is intimately involved in the Cronapress process, regardless of who superintends the clarifi- cation and prepares the finished negative . Because clarification takes 7 to 8 minutes, it is advisable to 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have the typographer present, especially if the type form must be removed quickly and replaced with another one. Foreman Louis Ayd of the composing room testified that it is more efficient and economical to have an exclusively ITU crew perform the Cronapress operation. The typographer must come to the machine to perform the type-related opera- tions mentioned above. On a one -man job he would then merely turn the switch and start the clarifica- tion process ; on a two-man operation he can prepare the type on one bed while the other typog- rapher helps him and observes the clarification process on the other. Mr. Ayd testified that the use of a pressman to operate one side of the press after the typographer had put on and arranged the type (but before he has taken it off) would be uneconomical. He testified that "there wouldn't be enough work for two pressmen or one pressman to stand there while the compositor is preparing the form, locking it up, correcting, sliding on and off, taking it off . . . ." He noted that the operation involves a continuous changing of type forms; a pressman added to the crew would have frequent periods of dead time while the typographers were working with the forms. Ayd estimated that, if a pressman was to perform the work in dispute, it would "take at least 40 percent longer" and the effect would be to "add another man to the operation." He testified that the use of such a mixed crew in the past, on the Hacker machine, proved unsatisfactory in that each craftsman was looking for the other one when it was his turn to perform a step in the process. We note that if the IPP was awarded the steps it claims, one-man operations , discussed above, would no longer be possible. Vice President Gruber corroborated Ayd's testimony and added that it is more efficient and economical to have typographers perform the preliminary inspection , scribing, and opaquing. He noted that the monotyper, who now performs this operation , can run his machine and inspect the film at the same time . This typographer's time is "non- productive," that is, the time he spends inspecting and correcting the film is not charged to the job ticket . By having him perform this operation, the Employer is utilizing his nonproductive time that would otherwise be lost. Any time spent by press- men in correcting the negative is charged off to the job. Gruber also noted that, because typographers in- spect the film anyway for errors, the Employer feels that they should correct those they find so as to deliver as perfect a negative as possible to the pressroom. On the basis of the record, we find that it is more efficient and economical to have typographers ex- clusively operate the Cronapress and perform the preliminary inspection, scribing, and opaquing of the negative produced thereby. 5. Area and industry practice The Cronapress Clarifier No. 3 is a new machine; the Employer's is only the fifth in the United States. The parties stipulated, and we find, that there is no significant industry or area practice with respect to the operation of the Cronapress Clarifier No. 3. 6. Company practice Members of the ITU have been making negatives from hot metal for the Employer almost continu- ously since 1962. Members of the IPP have never operated any of the three machines which have been used for this purpose in the plant. Testimony relating to the Bright Type was sparse, but the record indicates that the Cronapress Clarifi- er No. 2 is very similar in operation to the present machine. Members of the ITU exclusively operated the first Cronapress for 1 year, just as they have ex- clusively operated the present machine since Au- gust 1968. The IPP contends, however, that the product of the Cronapress is a "reproduction proof" and that, therefore, company practice and a prior Board award compel assignment of the work in dispute to itself. If, indeed, this were a reproduction proof, company practice and the prior determination in a case between this Local and the Employer would favor such an award. In the prior case, the Board concluded that: ... the pressmen rather than the typographers are entitled to the work of pulling reproduction proofs by the proof press metal.10 In that case, a reproduction proof was defined as being: ... a high-quality proof that is taken from a page of type on a hand-operated proof press to be photographed, the photograph to be used for the manufacture of an offset plate." In the instant case, however, we agree with the Employer and the ITU that the negative produced by the Cronapress is not a reproduction proof. A reproduction proof is printed on paper or 10 St. Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No 29 (Webb Publish- 11 /bid, 215 ing Company), 148 NLRB 214, 219. ST PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30 117 Scotchprint with ink and later photographed; the Cronapress produces a negative from hot type without the use of paper or ink. Because the Cronapress does not produce a reproduction proof, company practice in that field and our prior award are of little weight in the instant case. We are satisfied from the record that the practice of the Employer is to use members of the ITU to operate machines which are used to produce nega- tives from hot metal and to densify and stabilize those negatives . The Cronapress Clarifier No. 3 is such a machine. The record does not, however, indicate whether members of the ITU scribed and opaqued negatives which they produced on the earlier machines. It is undisputed that they have done so for more than 1 year on the present Cronapress . It is also un- disputed that the pressmen perform the same operations in the pressroom, after they have received the negatives from the typographers. Because each craft has a history of performing these operations, we find that there is no clear com- pany practice favoring an assignment of scribing and opaquing the negatives to either union. 7. Conclusion Having considered the criteria set forth in J. A. Jones, supra, we conclude that typographers em- ployed by Webb Publishing Company are entitled to perform all of the work in dispute relating to the Cronapress. The ITU contract supports such an assignment. Typographers are more skilled and efficient than pressmen at operating the Cronapress, and an as- signment to them is more economical and in accord with past company practice. The ITU contract likewise supports the assign- ment of the disputed scribing and opaquing to typographers . In addition , such an assignment is more efficient and economical for the operation. Based on the foregoing , we determine that em- ployees represented by the St. Paul Typographical Union, rather than those represented by the St. Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, are entitled to the work in dispute. 8. The scope of the determination In making the foregoing determination, we are assigning the disputed work , as indicated, to the employees of the Webb Publishing Company, who are represented by the ITU, but not to such union or its members . This determination is limited to the particular controversy giving rise to the 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 the Dispute: 1. Employees engaged as typographers, currently represented by St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform all of the tasks on the One-Up Vandercook Press through and including the pulling of a paper plate therefrom for Webb Publishing Company of St. Paul, Min- nesota. Employees engaged as pressmen , currently represented by St. Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 29, AFL-CIO, are entitled to ink and turn the rollers of the Six-Up Vandercook Press, to place the plate in its grippers and pull the plate and aid a typographer represented by the Typographical Union in sliding the type form on and off of its bed. Employees engaged as typog- raphers currently represented by the St. Paul Typo- graphical Union No. 30, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the remainder of the tasks on the Six-Up Vandercook Press, such as setting and arranging the type and aiding in sliding the type form on and off its bed. Employees engaged as typographers currently represented by St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform all tasks necessary to the operation of the Cronapress Clari- fier No. 3, through and including the production of the negative in final form and including all prelimi- nary inspection, scribing, and opaquing of the nega- tive prior to the delivery of the negative to the plate department. 2. Neither of the above-named Unions is entitled to force or require the Webb Publishing Company to assign to it any of the above-mentioned work which we have found employees represented by the other union are entitled to perform. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Local No. 30 of the St. Paul Typographical Union and Local No. 29 of the St. Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union shall each notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing , whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring the Webb Publish- ing Company, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D ) to assign any portion of the work in dispute to employees other than those to whom we have awarded it. 427-835 0 - 74 - 9