Pressmen, Union No. 23

506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Albany Printing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset Workers Union No. 23, AFL-CIO and Boyd Printing Company, Inc. and Albany Typographical Union No. 4, AFL-CIO. Case 3-CD-402 March 20, 1973 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow- ing charges filed by Boyd Printing Company, Inc., (hereinafter Boyd), alleging that Albany Printing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset Workers Union No. 23, AFL-CIO (hereinafter Pressmen) violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A duly scheduled hearing was held before Hearing Officer Francis J. Novak, Jr., on August 21 and 22, 1972. 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.' Thereafter, Boyd, the Pressmen, and the Albany Typographical Union No. 4, AFL-CIO (hereinafter ATU or Typogra- phers) filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds they are free from prejudicial error . They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case , including the aforementioned briefs, the Board makes the follow- ing findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The parties stipulated, and we find, that Boyd Printing Company, Inc., is a New York corporation located at Albany, New York, engaged in printing as a commercial printer. The Company, during the past 12-month period, has purchased materials from outside the State of New York in excess of $50,000 for use at its Albany, New York, plant and has sold final printing work valued in excess of $50,000 destined for points outside the State of New York. The parties stipulated, and we find, that Boyd Printing Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in I International Typographical Union intervened at the hearing. 2 The offset printing method sought by Boyd was not intended to eliminate all of its traditional letterpress printing , which it retained, but was to be a supplement to or an additional method of punting 3 The Employer's assignment in dispute was as follows All work [offset preparatory ] up to the burning of the offset plate would be accomplished by the employees of Boyd Punting Company, Inc, who are members of commerce within the meaning of the Act. We find it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that both the Pressmen and the Typographers are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE This case involves certain offset preparatory work described more fully below. A. Background and Facts of the Dispute Boyd, until approximately 1 year prior to the dispute herein, was strictly a letterpress commercial printer. However, because of a decreased volume of business due to customer loss and the fact that it was informed by its largest customer that in 5 years all of the customer's work would have to be of the coldtype variety (offset), Boyd started investigations in early 1971 to determine which offset method would best suit its needs.2 After making its decision to go partially into offset printing, Boyd purchased an offset press, a platemaker, a camera, a film processor, and related accessory items and laid out a floor plan for the proposed transition. On or about November 23, 1971, after discussions with representatives of the Pressmen and Typogra- phers, the Employer made a tentative assignment in relation to its future offset printing to the typogra- phers of all work up to the burning of the offset plate.3 During the discussions, the Pressmen objected to the assignment.4 The Employer gave the two Unions 10 days in which to file alternatives to the tentative assignment. On or about November 29, 1971, the Typographers by letter accepted the assignment. The Pressmen failed to offer any written alternatives. On or about December 29, 1971, the Employer sent letters to the presidents of both Unions setting forth the work assignment, identical in terms to the tentative assignment, and, on or about the same date, posted the work assignment notice in its plant. In February 1972, the Employer received delivery of the offset printing equipment. In April or May 1972, the Employer started trial runs on its offset equipment and on or about June 1, 1972, it began full operations, assigning tasks to its employ- Albany Typographical Union No 4, AFL-CIO 4 The Pressmen's objection is limited to only that part of the Employer's assignment which assigned to the members of Typographers the preparatory work encompassing the preparation of the negatives of the individual pages, e, operation of the camera and the imposing of these negatives on the "goldenrod" in preparation for the burning off of the plate See In 6, infra, for a more complete description 202 NLRB No. 66 PRESSMEN, UNION NO. 23 507 ees in accordance with its previously announced work assignment. No pressmen lost work as a result of the Employ- er's assignment. In fact, additional pressmen were hired as a result of increased business. Nor did any typographer lose work as a result of the assignment. However, if the assignment had been made to the pressmen, a layoff of typographers would have been necessary while additional pressmen would have had to have been hired. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute essentially covers a technologi- cal change in work traditionally performed by typographers and crossing the line with work previously performed by pressmen. As the Employer originally operated, it was a letterpress operation. In this operation, known as "hottype," the customer's copy, after being marked for style and page width, is turned over to a typographer who in turn prepares it for the linotype operator to set the type in accord- ance with the preface style and size as indicated.5 Upon customer approval of pageproof, a high quality reproduction proof of each metal page is made on a proof press by a typographer and sent to a pasteup area where it is pasted on a carrier sheet, allowing for proper margain and space position, and imposed in groups in such a manner as to have proper pagination. A photograph of the high quality proofs is then taken by a typographer and converted into film negatives with eight pages on each negative and impositioned, allowing for margins and accurate spacing at top and bottom of the page, on a carrier or flat known as a "goldenrod."6 When this is done, the flat or "goldenrod" is turned over to the pressmen for platemaking. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the assignment to the employees represented by Typographers was com- pelled by the pertinent collective-bargaining agree- ments; that this type of work newly evolved from work theretofore performed by employees represent- 5 The linotype machine is a mechanical device with a keyboard operated by a typographer When he depresses the proper keys the machine forms a line of letters or works which automatically by hot metal makes a line of raised letters or words properly spaced on a lead base so as to make it type high The line of type or slugs, including typographers' errors if any, are placed on a galley or proof press, which is manually operated A galley proof is taken to a typographer who checks with the customer's copy as to errors or omissions If there are errors , they are corrected , if none, copies are sent to the customer who approves them or makes additions When the customer and the typographer are fully satisfied as to the proof copies, that is all changes and corrections having been made, the pages in final form are set up in a form on a large steel table (stone) and laid within what is called a chase The chase then is turned over to the pressmen The pressmen then take off a mat from the chase from which they cast a metal plate All of the work described above, except the making of the mat and the casting of the ed by the Typographers Union; that its assignment caused no job losses to employees represented by the Pressmen and preserved jobs for employees repre- sented by the Typographers; that the assignment of the disputed work to the typographers resulted in greater efficiency, quality, and cost control; and that the change was necessitated by its response to its customers' demands. The Typographers contends that its contract clearly calls for the assignment of the work to employees represented by it. Other factors relied upon by the Typographers are industry practice; that the employees represented by it exercise the same work skills employed in the letterpress process as are required in the offset process, up to the actual printing; that in many cases the employees represent- ed by it needed no retraining; that the work tasks in connection with the offset process were substitutes for tasks in the letterpress process; that the task in dispute is composing room work; that it maintains a training program for its members for the purpose of becoming more skilled in the substitute processes; that if the assignment were made to the pressmen, Typographers members would suffer a layoff while the number of pressmen would be increased; that the composing room at the Employer's plant is an integrated one within which typographers from different areas therein are transferred from one work area to another in accordance with workflow; that the assignment to typographers is more economical and makes for a more steady and even workflow and permits a high degree of quality control; and that the interpretation of the jurisdictional clauses of the outstanding contracts between the Employer and the two Unions at the time of the assignment gave the right to the Employer to assign the disputed work to the typographers. The Pressmen contends that the work of preparing the negatives of the individual pages, i.e., operation of the camera and the imposing of these negatives on the goldenrod in preparation for the burning of the plate, is properly within its jurisdiction; that the employees represented by it were awarded this type of work by contractual agreement with Boyd; that its metal plate, is performed by typographers 6 These high quality proofs are sent to the "pasteup" area where they are pasted on a carrier with proper margin and space positions and laid out, usually in groups of 32 so they will be in proper page sequence when they come off the punting press After the high quality proofs are placed on tamers, a photograph is taken by a typographer, in the instant case, of such pages in order The 32 high quality reproduction proofs, thus photographed, are converted to 4 film negatives with 8 pages being contained on each of such negatives The 4 negatives are then placed on the "goldenrod" by a typographer in such a position that the 32 pages are in proper page sequence when they come off the folder after being printed. The "goldenrod" is then taken to the pressmen for platemaking. All of the above work, up to the platemaking, was performed by the Employer's typographical employees 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD members possess the necessary skills to perform this work which they do in other area printing plants; that pressmen can do it as efficiently and economi- cally as the typographers; and that an award of the disputed work to the typographers will certainly result in a reduction in the employment of pressmen at Boyd's, as the Company will probably phase out the inefficient costly letterpress method and become an offset operation. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion 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 facts show that the Employer assigned the disputed work to its employees who are members represented by the Typographers and that they desire to continue to perform the work. The record herein gives reasonable cause to believe that Respondent continually protested the Employ- er's assignment of the disputed work to the typogra- phers from the date of the original assignment by the Employer on December 31, 1971. On or about March 30, 1972, the Pressmen through its president, Charles Moore, by letter, notified Carl Johnson, Boyd's vice president, that the Pressmen would be forced to strike if Boyd violated the terms of their contract and awarded the disputed work to the typographers. Thereafter, the pressmen refused for a time to operate the offset presses when the typogra- phers had performed the above-described preparato- ry work assigned to them by,the Employer. On the basis of the above description of the Pressmens conduct, we find reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction Company,7 we shall determine the appropriate assignment of the disputed work in each case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act only after taking into account and balancing all relevant factors. In our judgment, the following factors are relevant here: 1. The collective-bargaining agreements At the time the Employer made the assignment to the typographers, the contract between the Employer and ATU No. 4 provided in relevant part that the typographers shall "perform all composing work" and that the Employer agrees to supply journeymen and apprentices full opportunity to become proficient on all new equipment, machinery or processes which are a substitute for, evolution of, or which replaces present equipment, machinery or proc- esses and the union agrees to supply when possible partially trained journeymen and appren- tices for that purpose. The Employer will give the union sufficient advance notice of his intention to install any new equipment machinery or processes to enable the contracting parties to implement the provisions of this section. On the other hand, the contract between the Employer and the Pressmen had expired on Septem- ber 30, 1971, prior to the Employer's assignment. A new contract was under negotiation but was not consumated until May 1972, several months after the Employer made a final assignment of the work here in dispute.8 There is some indication that the parties carried over the terms of the expired contract while negotiating over the terms of a new agreement. But this is only a supposition. The jurisdictional clause of the expired contract provides in pertinent part that: ... the jurisdiction of the Union for work to be performed shall set forth in language different from the red book but the jurisdiction in the red book shall not be diminished. The "red book" referred to provides: It is understood that the jurisdiction of this contract extends over all printing presses, includ- ing offset and letter press printing presses, and associated devices, all work in connection with offset platemaking, including camera operation, all dark room work, opaquing and platemaking. While these jurisdictional clauses of the expired contract would appear to cover part of the work that the Employer has assigned to the typographers, it does not appear to cover the work that immediately precedes the burning off of the plate, i.e., the impositioning of the film negatives on the "golden- rod" which is delivered to the pressmen for the making of the plate. In all circumstances, the contracts of both Unions, including the Pressmen's expired contract, if it had been extended during the negotiation period, would r International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J stripping and platemakmg " Thus, it would appear to cover part of the work A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 the typographers previously had been assigned by the Employer However, 8 This contract was negotiated between the Pressmen and the Albany these terms offer little guidance as a factor to be weighed in a determination Area Commercial Printers, an employer group including Boyd Under its of this dispute, as they were agreed upon long after the Employer made the terms it includes " all camera operation , all darkroom work, opaquing, work assignment here in question PRESSMEN, UNION NO. 23 509 appear to cover part of the work assigned by the Employer to the typographers . We cannot find that either of the contracts clearly favors an award to one party over the other with respect to work designated as "from the camera to press." On balance , however, the ATU No. 4 contract appears to cover a greater part of the tasks actually encompassed by the Employer's work assignment favoring the typogra- phers. 2. Efficiency, customers demands, quality and cost control, and historical evolution The Employer's witness testified that it was found with a declining business because of the Company's failure to adopt the faster offset method of printing as requested by its customers and in particular it had been warned by its largest customer that the customer had certain work that was more adaptable to the faster offset method. The same customer indicated to the Company that unless it could receive certain of its orders via the faster offset method, the Company might lose part of its business. The Employer in an effort to forestall a further decline in its business, about a year and a half prior to the installation of offset printing equipment, commenced an extensive study of the types of offset printing that would best suit the Company's and its customers' needs.9 After completion of its study, the Company purchased an offset press, a platemaker, and accessory equipment, and laid out floor plans for the placing of the new equipment, most of which was placed in the composing room area. In addition, the Company, in its study of offset printing, determined that its typographical employ- ees possessed the skills and training necessary to perform the preparatory work prior to the burning off of the plate and that such preparatory work, to some extent, requires the same skills as work tasks performed in the letterpress method. Further, it determined that the work to be assigned to the typographers was a substitute for tasks in the letterpress method and was composing room work. The Employer also determined that if the work assignment were made to the pressmen it would result in a layoff of typographers, but more pressmen would be required. An assignment to the typogra- phers, however, would require no layoff of typogra- phers, but would require more pressmen.io The Employer's witnesses testified that the com- posing room is an integrated one in which typogra- phers from different areas in the composing room are transferred from one area to another in accordance with work needs; that the assignment to the typographers is more economical, makes for greater efficiency because of a more steady and even flow of work, and allows for a higher degree of quality control. Finally, the Employer furnished credible evidence that there was no clear-cut area practice by its competitors in the offset printing field which conflicts with the work assignment here in dispute.ii Upon consideration of the entire record, we find that the above-described factors favor an award to employees represented by ATU. 3. Skills There was no convincing evidence presented that either group of craftsmen is more skilled than the other to perform the disputed preparatory offset work. There was evidence that in other offset printing establishments in the area both pressmen and typographers perform equally well some of the work in question. This factor is, therefore, of no assistance in resolving the dispute. 4. Other factors 12 Other factors normally considered as relevant, such as prior awards, area and industry practice, and past practice of the Employer, are of little aid in the resolution of these disputes. None of the Unions involved in this case has been certified. It appears, from the record herein, that the Employer's assign- ment of the preparatory offset work up to the making of the plate more closely follows the historical pattern of work tasks performed by typographers in the composing room of the printing plant as operated by the Employer herein. The record is entirely silent with respect to any evidence that would justify a conclusion that the work assigned by the Employer to the typographers was historically an evolution or substitute for skills and tasks performed by press- men. 5. Conclusion as to merits On the basis of the foregoing, it is clear that the relevant factors favor an award of the disputed work to the typographers. The Employer's assignment, efficiency of operation, similarity of tasks to work 9 During the I 1/2-year period that the company made its survey, business at the Company dropped by about 25 percent due to the lack of "offset printing" capability 10 It appears that if the preparatory offset work had been assigned to the pressmen it would have necessitated the layoff of four to eight typographers and it would have been necessary to hire new pressmen to supplement the laid-off typographers 11 This is evidenced by Board decisions covering offset work in the same area Such work is similar to, but not in all cases the same as the work in question here In each decision , the Board limited the award to the particular work in dispute See Williams Press, Inc, 186 NLRB No 114, Williams Press, Inc, 166 NLRB 693, J R Condon & Sons, Inc, 148 NLRB 356 12 It does not appear from the record that the parties have agreed upon voluntary methods for the adjustment of jurisdictional disputes 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD previously performed by typographers, job preserva- tion, and customer demands, all indicate such a result. Accordingly, we shall determine the dispute herein by confirming the Employer's assignment to its employees who are represented by the ATU No. 4. In making this determination, we are assigning the work in question to employees represented by ATU No. 4, and not to ATU No. 4 or its members. This award is limited to the work in dispute in this case. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees employed by Boyd Printing Co., Inc., as typographers and currently represented by Albany Typographical Union No. 4, AFL-CIO, are entitled to the following work in relation to offset printing : all preparatory effort work including camera work and preparation of the "goldenrod" and delivery of the "goldenrod" to pressmen in the platemaking area. 2. Albany Printing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset Workers Union No. 23, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the Employer to assign the above-described work to pressmen who are represented by that labor organization. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute , Albany Printing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset Workers Union No. 23, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 3 whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed in Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by the Pressmen 's Union rather than to those represented by Albany Typo- graphical Union No. 4, AFL-CIO.