Providence Stereotypers Union No. 53

902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Providence Stereotypers' Union No. 53, a/w Interna- tional Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North America, AFL-CIO and The Evening Call Publishing Company and Woonsocket Typographi- cal Union No. 245, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CD-318 April 4, 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 The Evening Call Publishing Company, hereinafter called the Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) by the Providence Stereotypers' Union No. 53, a/w International Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North Ameri- ca, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Stereotypers. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on June 29, 1972, at Boston, Massachusetts, before Hearing Officer Thomas J. Flynn. The Employer, the Stereo- typers, and Woonsocket Typographical Union No. 245, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Typographers, appeared at the hearing and were offered full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues . Thereafter, the Employer, the Stereotypers , and the Typogra- phers filed briefs with the National Labor Relations Board. 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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the basis of the briefs and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Employer, a Rhode Island corporation located at 75 Main Street, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, is engaged in the publishing of a daily newspaper six times a week which realizes a gross revenue exceed- ing $200,000 annually. The Employer also subscribes to interstate news services, publishes nationally syndicated features, and advertises nationally sold products. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in a business affecting I Unless otherwise indicated, all events occurred in 1972 commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Stereotypers and the Typographers are labor organi- zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer is engaged in the publication of a daily newspaper 6 days per week. Among the unions with which the Employer has contractual relations are the Stereotypers, which represents employees in the stereotype room, and the Typographers, which represents employees in the composing room. As part of its business, the Employer manufactures advertisements which appear in its newspaper. Sometime prior to August 8, 1972,1 the Employer told the Stereotypers that it would change over to the Dynaflex process of manufacturing advertisements. The record shows that the Employer performed some experimental work with the Dynaflex process prior to August 8 and that it used employees represented by the Typographers for this purpose. On August 4, a meeting was held between the Employer and the Stereotypers concerning the assignment of the Dynaflex work. At this meeting, Charles Walker, president of the Stereotypers, threatened the Em- ployer with a possible work stoppage if the Stereo- typers was not given jurisdiction over the disputed work. On August 8, the Employer permanently assigned the work on the Dynaflex process to employees represented by the Typographers. Immediately there- after, President Walker of the Stereotypers ordered an employee represented by that Union not to perform his work. Also, on the same day, none of the stereotypers regularly employed by the Employer showed up for work and it was not until much later in the day that the Stereotypers sent replacements. Prior to August 8, two basic processes were used to manufacture advertisements. One process, account- ing for approximately 20 percent of the Employer's advertisement work, involved the manufacture of a zinc engraving by an outside photoengraving compa- ny. The other process, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the Employer's advertisement work, involved the manufacture of "hot-type" advertise- ments. This latter process was divided into two categories: i.e., line advertisements (containing only type) and advertisements which contained both type 202 NLRB No. 141 PROVIDENCE STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 53 903 and illustrations. The former were manufactured exclusively in the composing room; whereas the latter, insofar as it involved illustrations, were prepared in the stereotype room. The Dynaflex process involves only the intermedi- ate steps in the preparation of a newspaper advertise- ment. The preliminary procedures remain the same. Thus, a layout of an ad is sent from the advertising department to the composing room. The markup man in the composing room then determines the face, type, size, and length of line and forwards these instructions to the photocomposition machine opera- tor. The photocomposition machine operator types out the copy on either a copygraphic or photocompo- sition machine, depending on the size and face of the type, to produce a picture of a character or letter on a piece of photosensitized paper. It is at this point that the Dynaflex process begins with a camera operator who takes a picture of the photomechanical which usually includes several ads at one time. This film is then fed into the Log E machine where it is developed and the negative is opaqued. The opaqued negative is then placed on a Dynaflex plate and both are exposed to ultraviolet light thereby transferring the image from the negative to the Dynaflex plate. The Dynaflex plate is then washed and baked in an oven to harden the plate. The finished plate is then transferred to the tramming table to be cut up into individual ads. Following the Dynaflex process, the ads are processed in the regular manner. The individual ads are placed in a page form which is then locked together in a metal frame, called a chase. The page form is then sent to the stereotype room where a stereotype plate (sometimes called a pressplate) is made for each page of the newspaper. Finally, the pressplates are sent to the pressroom where they are mounted on a press and the paper is printed. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves the manufacturing of Dynaflex plates by means of the Dynaflex process at the Employer's plant in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.2 C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that its assignment to the Typographers is based on economy and efficiency of operations, the effect on its employees in terms of work and job loss, and the special training received by members of the Typographers . Further, the 2 It appears from the entire record that the Stereotypers concedes the work related to the preparation of the photomechanical and the operation of the camera and the Log E machine to employees represented by the Typographers The Stereotypers appears to claim only the work related to the platemaking part of the Dynaflex process Employer asserts that there is no evidence of area or industry practice which would be inconsistent with the assignment of work to employees represented by the Typographers. The Typographers predicates its claim on essential- ly the same factors relied on by the Employer. The Stereotypers contends that employer prefer- ence is not entitled to significance here, that the Employer's stereotype department has traditionally made plates at the Employer's plant,3 that area practice is inconclusive, and that the comparative skills, relative to producing a plate, are equal between the two unions. Finally, the Stereotypers makes its most vigorous contention in terms of the potential loss of work to employees represented by the Stereotypers as a result of the changeover to the Dynaflex process. D. Applicability of the Statute The charge herein alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The record shows, and the Stereotypers concedes, that on or about August 4, 1972, Charles Walker, president of the Stereotypers, threatened the Employer with a possible work stoppage if it were not given jurisdiction over the work here in dispute. Also, there is evidence that when, on August 8, the Employer permanently assigned the work in dispute to the employees represented by the Typographers, Walker carried out his threat and caused a work stoppage by members of the Stereotypers. On the basis of the entire record, we conclude 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 determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.4 E. Merits of the Dispute As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction Company,5 we shall determine the appropriate assignment of 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. We shall set forth below those factors which we find relevant in determining the dispute herein. 1. Collective-bargaining agreements The Stereotypers and the Typographers both have collective-bargaining agreements with the Employer. However, neither agreement makes specific reference ' See in 2, supra 4 The parties stipulated , and we find , that there is no agreed-upon method, binding on all the parties, for resolving the dispute herein. 5 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the type of work in dispute in this proceeding. On the basis of our evaluation of these agreements, we conclude that this factor does not support the claim of either Union.6 2. Area practice The record reveals that only two other newspapers in the New England area currently use the Dynaflex process. At one newspaper, employees represented by the Typographers perform the pasteup work and pressmen perform the camera work and make the full page Dynaflex plates for the presses. At the second newspaper, employees represented by the Typographers perform the pasteup work and also operate the camera and make the full page Dynaflex plates for the presses. There is no evidence of area practice which would support the Stereotypers claim. Accordingly, while the area practice is of a limited nature, due to the fact that Dynaflex is a relatively new process, we find that the existing area practice favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by the Typographers. 3. The Employer's assignment, preference, and efficiency of operations Under the existing assignment by the Employer, the composing room foreman is responsible for the manufacture of the page form ad from its beginning to its end, including, of course, the Dynaflex process. Under this system, the typographers who are performing the Dynaflex work are also available to perform other assignments in the composing room. On the other hand, it would appear unlikely that the composing room foreman would have other work which could be performed by the stereotypers. Accordingly, inasmuch as the assignment of the Dynaflex work to the composing room employees, who are represented by the Typographers, contrib- utes to the effective utilization of those employees and to the expeditious completion of page form ads, we find that this factor favors an assignment to the Typographers. 4. Skills and training The record shows that the typographers assigned to perform the Dynaflex work have successfully com- pleted a course of instruction in the camera and platemaking skills used in the Dynaflex process. As a result of classroom study and practical application, these employees were able to perform the Dynaflex work with little or no on-the-job training. While the fi The Stereotypers contends that the general laws of the international are incorporated by reference into their collective -bargaining agreement Assuming arguendo that this is true, we find nothing in the general laws of Stereotypers contends that it also has members who have had such training, the record shows that a foreman in the stereotype room is the only regular employee of the Employer who has had any training in the Dynaflex process. Accordingly, we find that the skills and training possessed by employees represented by the Typogra- phers, as employed in the Employer's current operations, favor an assignment to the employees represented by the Typographers. 5. Job impact The record shows that the introduction of the Dynaflex process has resulted in the closing down of three of the four linotype machines in the composing room. Since each of these machines had an individu- al operator; three linotype operators have been reassigned to other jobs in the composing room. The composing room employees are represented by the Typographers. The record also reveals that the number of stereotypers has not declined, even though their department is no longer doing illustrations for "hot- type" ads. The immediate explanation for this appears to be that the Dynaflex process has created a need to make a base on which to set a Dynaflex plate in order to bring it up to type level. However, the Stereotypers contends that the necessity of making such bases will decline after familiarity with the Dynaflex process increases and a supply of bases is developed and maintained. Further, the Stereotypers contends that the potential for loss of jobs is far greater in the stereotype room than in the composing room. Finally, the record reveals that there has been no need to add any employees in the composing room to perform the Dynaflex work. However, according to the testimony of the Employer's production manag- er, more employees would have to be added to the stereotype department if the Dynaflex work were assigned to employees represented by the Stereotyp- ers. From this evidence, we conclude that the Employ- er's use of the Dynaflex process has had a direct and adverse effect upon composing room employees by the elimination of the jobs of three linotype opera- tors. While it is true the Employer was able to reassign the employees affected to other fobs in the composing room, there is no showing that the impact from this job loss was minimized by a corresponding gain in the composing room functions. On the other hand, the use of the Dynaflex process has not the International which would limit the Employer 's assignment of the disputed work in this proceeding PROVIDENCE STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 53 905 resulted in any immediate job loss to the stereotyp- ers' unit and the likelihood of future impact on this unit is purely speculative in nature. Accordingly, we find that the factor of job impact favors an assignment to employees represented by the Typog- raphers. Conclusion Having considered all the pertinent factors herein, we conclude that employees represented by the Typographers are entitled to perform the work in dispute. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to the employees of The Evening Call Publishing Company, who are repre- sented by Woonsocket Typographical Union No. 245, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, but not to the Union or its members. Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dis- pute: 1. Employees of The Evening Call Publishing Company, who currently are represented by Woon- socket Typographical Union No. 245, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of manufacturing Dynaflex plates by means of the Dynaflex process at the Employer's plant in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. 2. The Providence Stereotypers' Union No. 53, a/w International Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require The Evening Call Publishing Company, to assign the above-described Dynaflex work to its members or employees whom it repre- sents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, the Providence Stereotypers' Union No. 53, a/w International Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North Ameri- ca, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to stereotypers represented by the Providence Stereotypers' Union No. 53, a/w International Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, rather than to employees represented by Woonsocket Typographical Union No. 245, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO.