Local 74, Denver Newspaper Guild

34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 74, Denver Newspaper Guild and The Denver Publishing Company, Inc. (Rocky Mountain News) and Denver Mailer's Union, Number 8. Case 27- CD-140 September 14, 1972 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, fol- lowing a charge filed by the Employer, The Denver Publishing Company, Inc., alleging that Local 74, Denver Newspaper Guild, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held May 30, 1972, before Hearing Officer Albert A. Metz. All par- ties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-exam- ine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs in support of their respective positions. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error. They are here- by affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER III THE DISPUTE A. Background In June 1971 the Employer started an experi- mental program using computers to prepare address labels for newspaper bundles and individual papers. The experimental program, limited to the Sunday co- mic section, was assigned to the Guild with the per- mission of the Mailers. In July the Employer notified the Mailers that it intended to extend the system to the complete daily and Sunday papers and the Mailers asserted the work was its and requested arbitration of the assignment under its contract. The Employer in- formed the Guild that the Mailers had requested arbi- tration, and that the Guild would not be represented at the arbitration. Thereafter, the Guild wrote the Employer that any move to assign Guild work to an- other union would violate its contract and might re- sult in a work stoppage. Before the introduction of the computer system, Guild employees had prepared all labels on a contin- uous roll of paper, using an addressograph machine. The roll was placed in a Dick machine to apply glue by Mailers, who then separated the labels manually and glued them to sheets of kraft paper which were attached to bundles or individual newspapers. Any last minute changes were made manually by the Mailers. Under the present system, Guild employees computer print the labels on large sheets of paper, separate the bundle labels on a "bursting" machine, and make any changes on the computer. The bundle labels are still affixed to the papers by the Mailers; no gluing is required. Although printed by the computer, labels for individual newspapers are otherwise pro- cessed as before by Mailers. The Denver Publishing Company, Inc., pub- lishes Rocky Mountain News, a daily and Sunday newspaper in Denver, and is a member of the Scripps Howard Newspapers chain. The Employer is a mem- ber of, or subscribes to, interstate news services, pub- lishes nationally syndicated features, advertises nationally sold products, and has an annual gross volume of business in excess of $200,000. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce, or an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The labor organizations involved are labor or- ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute is the computer printing and machine bursting of the labels. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Mailers contends that the alleged violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) was contrived by the Employer and the Guild to secure determination of the dispute by the Board, that the Board should refuse to make a determination here, and that , in any event, there is no probable cause to believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. The Mailers also contends that the work should be assigned to employees it represents since in large part it is work which it traditionally has done, employees it represents are as efficient as those 199 NLRB No. 7 LOCAL 74, DENVER NEWSPAPER GUILD represented by the Guild, little training is involved, and industry practice favors such an assignment. The Guild contends that the printing of labels has always been done by employees it represents un- der the contract, that the computer is operated under that contract, and that essentially all that is involved is an addition to the work performed by its member who operates the computer. The Guild also contends that past practice, training, economy, and efficiency favor an award to the employees it represents. The Employer asserts that the dispute is properly before the Board and that the work in dispute should be awarded to employees represented by the Guild on much the same basis as that union asserts. D. Applicability of the Statute The charge alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. On April 3, 1972, Richard Wan- ek, administrative secretary of the Guild, wrote the Employer, noting that the Mailers was claiming the work in dispute, asserting that it was covered by the Guild contract, and threatening that "any move to give another union jurisdiction over Guild work would be a violation of the contract, and might result in a work stoppage by Guild members.... " There is no evidence of collusion between the Employer and the Guild. On the entire record, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that there has been a vio- lation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- tion pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute 1. Board certification and collective bargaining agreements The Board has not certified either Union as collective-bargaining representative of employees per- forming the work in dispute. Nor do the collective- bargaining agreements shed much light on the dis- pute. Both contracts contain clauses which favor one union or the other. However, in sum they cancel each other out. Neither contract provides for the operation of the equipment in question. The Guild contract in- dicates that Union has jurisdiction over the addresso- graph and that work under its jurisdiction shall not be assigned to another union. The Mailers contract pro- vides that it has jurisdiction over addressing done in the mailroom and that in the event new machines or processes are introduced for work within its jurisdic- tion the work will be performed by employees covered by the Mailers contract, subject to arbitration. We conclude that this factor does not favor an assignment to either union. 35 2. Company and industry practice As already noted, the work of printing the labels was previously done by the employees represented by the Guild, and the work of placing glue on the labels, separating them, affixing them to kraft paper, and attaching them to bundles was performed by those represented by the Mailers. Under the present system the work of placing glue on the bundle labels and affixing them to kraft paper has been eliminated. The Guild contends that past practice favors it, since oper- ation of the computer and the bursting machine has always been performed by employees it represents. This argument amounts to no more than the assertion that at its inception the work was assigned to it: how- ever, the dispute arose at the time the assignment was made. Nevertheless, in large measure the work in dis- pute is work previously under Guild jurisdiction. Bursting is the manual separation of labels previously done by mailers. Ralph Valero, an employee of the International Mailers' Union, testified that, among those newspa- pers he was familiar with, computer printing of labels was performed by employees represented by the Mailers. However, those involved situations where la- bels had been printed in the mailroom before the introduction of a computer and apparently did not involve work previously performed, in whole or part, by another union. In these circumstances, we do not find sufficient evidence of industry practice in a sim- ilar context to warrant the conclusion that it favors an award of the work in dispute to the mailers. We conclude that, on balance, company and in- dustry practice favors an award to neither union. 3. Skills and training Employees represented by the Guild have been trained for and now have experience performing the work in dispute. The employees represented by the Mailers have neither. This factor can be accorded only minimal weight since it appears from the record that no great amount of training is required. However, it does favor an award to employees represented by the Guild. 4. Economy and efficiency of operation The printing and bursting of the labels are done by a single employee in the computer room where both machines are located. The work normally begins at 3:30 p.m. but may begin as late as 6 p.m. The printing takes approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes, bursting approximately 45 minutes. Since bursting be- 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gins before the printing is completed , the entire opera- tion takes approximately 1-1/2 hours. The Mailers' contract requires that the work schedule be posted a week in advance . It would be necessary, if a mailer performed the work , to schedule him to report no later than 3:30 p.m. Mailers normally report at 8:15 p.m . The record reveals that other than the printing and bursting there would be no work for a mailer until 8:15 p.m. Guild employees, however, are working during this period and no dislocation of hours or lost time is required. We conclude that economy and efficiency of op- eration favor an award of the work in dispute to em- ployees represented by the Guild. Conclusions Based on the entire record and after full consid- eration of all relevant factors, we shall assign the work in dispute to employees represented by the Guild. We reach this conclusion particularly in view of the Employer's preference, economy and efficiency of op- eration, and the fact that the greater part of the work involved-the printing of the labels-had been per- formed previously by employees represented by the Guild. In making this determination we are assigning the disputed work to employees who are represented by Local 74, Denver Newspaper Guild, but not to that Union or its members. 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 pro- ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of the Dispute: Employees employed by The Denver Publishing Company, Inc. (Rocky Mountain News), who are cur- rently represented by Local 74, Denver Newspaper Guild, are entitled to the computer printing and ma- chine bursting of labels.