Hutchinson Printing Pressmen

582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hutchinson Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union, No. 275 and Hutchinson Publishing Company and Hutchinson Typographical Union No. 243. Case 17- CD-166 August 16, 1973 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE By MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by Hutchinson Publishing Company, hereinafter called the Employer, alleging that Hutch- inson Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 275, hereinafter called the Pressmen, has violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hear- ing was held on May 8, 1973, at Hutchinson, Kansas, before Hearing Officer Max D. Hochanadel. The Em- ployer, the Pressmen, and Hutchinson Typographical Union No. 243, hereinafter called the Typographers, appeared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employer, the Pressmen, and the Ty- pographers filed briefs with the National Labor Rela- tions Board. 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 and are hereby affirmed. Upon the basis of the briefs and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer is engaged in the printing, pub- lishing, and distributing of a daily newspaper with an approximate circulation of 49,000 at its plant in Hutchinson, Kansas. During the 12 months preceding the hearing, a representative period, the Employer had gross revenues in excess of $500,000. It subscribes to interstate news services, publishes nationally syndi- cated features, and advertises nationally sold produts. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em- ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectu- ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Press- men and Typographers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The dispute concerns the assignment of the follow- ing work task: The operation of a Chemco Marathon roll film camera, including its attached automatic film pro- cessor, and subsequent related work, including opa- quing and stripping in the negative produced from this camera , all of which is referred to as final camera work, on the Employer's premises located at 300 West Second Street, Hutchinson, Kansas.' B. Background and Facts of the Dispute In late 1971 or early 1972 2 the Employer made the decision to change the production of its paper from a hot metal letterpress to a cold type offset system. At the time, the Employer was party to collective-bar- gaining agreements with both the Pressmen and Ty- pographers.' Prior to the conversion to the cold type offset system, the Employer began making prepara- tions for the changes that would be forthcoming. In February, a new roll film camera was installed to accommodate the predictable increase of camera work that would result from the conversion to the cold type offset system. The floor plan of the production area was altered to accommodate the new system, and the Employer began training its pressmen in the skills needed to handle the supplemental camera work that would result from the conversion. On August 28, the Employer instituted its conver- sion to cold type and assigned the supplemental cam- era work to the pressmen. Shortly thereafter, the Typographers demanded that the work be reassigned to members of that union. When the Employer re- fused this demand, the Typographers filed a grievance in accordance with the terms of its collective-bargain- ing agreement, asserting the right to jurisdiction over the work in question. A hearing was held before an arbitrator and, on October 11, an arbitration award issued finding that the Employer had agreed by con- tract to assign the work to the members of the Typog- raphers. The Pressmen was not a party to this proceeding and did not participate in the arbitration ' For a number of years the Employer has utilized two unrepresented photoengravers for work similar to that in dispute herein These employees were then assigned to the operation of the Chemco Marathon roll film camera and its related work and neither of the Unions nor the Employer is seeking to displace them The only work in dispute is the supplemental camera work created by the conversion to a cold type system as explained below 2 All dates referred to are 1972, unless otherwise indicated 3 The Employer's contract with the Pressmen expires on February 11, 1974. The Typographers contract expired on January 7, 1973, however, the parties agreed to extend the terms and conditions of the agreement for a reasonable length of time 205 NLRB No. 93 HUTCHINSON PRINTING PRESSMEN 583 in any way. Soon thereafter, the Employer reassigned the work to the employees represented by the Typographers, and they have been doing the work since then. By letter dated January 4, 1973, the Pressmen informed the Employer that it claimed the work in dispute and that, if the Employer assigned the work to any other union, the Pressmen would be forced to take econom- ic action. On March 29, 1973, the Employer filed the charge which initiated this proceeding. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer's position is that its original assign- ment of the work in dispute to the pressmen was cor- rect. The Employer contends that that assignment was based on economy and efficiency of its operation re- sulting from the arrangement of the production area floor plan, the availability of pressmen , and the una- vailability of typographers during peak production periods. The Employer also claims that the conversion to cold type created the work in dispute and that that work is similar in its function to work that had been done by the pressmen and which has been eliminated by the conversion, whereas the amount of work done by typographers has hardly been affected by the con- version . Finally, the Employer contends that its con- tract with the Typographers does not cover the work in dispute and that its original assignment of the work to the pressmen is consistent with the area practice. The Pressmen bases its claim on essentially the same factors relied on by the Employer ; in addition, it argues that its contract with the Employer gives it jurisdiction over the disputed work. The Typographers position is that the work in dis- pute should remain assigned to its members in accor- dance with the October arbitration award . It further contends that its members have been doing the work since the arbitration award and have demonstrated that they possess the requisite skills to do the work. The Typographers also argues that the factors of economy and efficiency, industry practice, and work preservation all support its claim to the disputed work. D. Applicability of the Statue Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied (1) that there is reasonable cause to believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and (2) that there is no agreed-upon method for the volun- tary adjustment of the dispute. As to (1), the record shows that after the arbitration award in October the Employer reassigned the work to members of the Typographers. Some time later, the Pressmen notified the Employer by letter dated Janu- ary 4, 1973, that, if the Employer assigned the work in dispute to any other union, the Pressmen would be forced to use economic pressure to change the assign- ment. In view of this threat by the Pressmen, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a viola- tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. With respect to (2) above, the parties stipulated on the record that no voluntary means of adjusting the dispute exists. Furthermore, Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to hear and determine jurisdic- tional disputes unless the parties "have adjusted, or agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of, the dispute." Thus, unless all parties involved in the dispute bind themselves to voluntarily settle the juris- dictional dispute, the Board itself must determine the issue. As the Pressmen was neither a participant in the aforementioned arbitration nor bound by the agree- ment pursuant to which it was conducted, it is clear that the voluntary adjustment condition of Section 10(k) has not been met.4 In these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that all the parties have agreed to a voluntary means of adjustment, and we therefore find that this dispute is properly before the Board for determination.' E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors. As the Board has stated, its determination in ajurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon commonsense and experience in the weighing of these factors.' The following factors are relevant in making a determina- tion of the dispute before us. 1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements Neither of the labor organizations involved herein has been certified by the Board in regard to the dis- puted work. Consequently, certification is not a fac- tor. At the time the dispute arose, the Employer had collective-bargaining agreements with both Unions involved herein. After careful consideration of these agreements and the arbitration award in favor of the members of the Typographers,' we find that neither of 4 N L R B v Plasterers' Local Union No 79, 404 U S 116 See also Interna- tional Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union (J R Condon & Sons, Inc), 148 NLRB 356 5 We find that the Typographers claim that this Board should defer to the arbitration under Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837, is without ment. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO and its Local No 4454 ( Continental Can Company, Inc), 202 NLRB No 78 6 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402. 7 InternationalAssociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No 27 (Joseph E Seagram & Sons, Inc), 198 NLRB No 64, see also J R Condon & Sons, Inc, supra at 359, fn 5 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the agreements specifically covers the work in dispute and both might be read to include that work within their coverage. Therefore, we conclude that this factor does not lend support to either of the claims for the work. 2. Skills and experience The record indicates that both the employees repre- sented by the Pressmen and those represented by the Typographers have performed the work in a satisfac- tory manner. Accordingly, we find this factor favors neither party. 3. Industry and employer practice The industry practice is varied as to the disputed work. As to employer practice, the record reveals the Employer is a subsidiary of a company that owns a chain of newspapers . Of the four other newspapers in the chain that have converted to cold type press (three in Kansas and one in Iowa), members of the Pressmen have been assigned the final camera work created by the conversion. 4. The Employer' s assignment, preference, and efficiency of operation As indicated above, the Employer initially assigned the work in dispute to the employees represented by the Pressmen. However, pursuant to the October arbi- tration award, that work was reassigned to employees represented by the Typographers. From the very inception of its plans to convert to a cold type production system, the Employer has pre- ferred that the work be done by employees repre- sented by the Pressmen for reasons of economy and efficiency. In the latter connection, the record shows that, at the very time typographers are busy with their traditional composing work, the photoengravers are experiencing their peak need for aid with the final camera work. Thus, whereas pressmen are available to aid with the final camera work, typographers are unavailable due to the demands of their regular tasks. The nonutilization of pressmen under the present as- signment and the increased demand on the typogra- phers' time is reflected in their respective work loads. In the 3 months following the arbitration award, the typographers' overtime increased by 90 percent, whereas the pressmen have had only enough work to keep them busy for a half a day. In addition, the Employer hired two additional typographers to aid in the transition to cold type . These men were hired with the understanding that their jobs would terminate at the time the transition was completed. The transition process is now completed but these two extra typogra- phers must be retained in order for the Employer to have a complement large enough to perform both composition and final camera work. Therefore, as- signment of the final camera work to the employees represented by the Pressmen contributes to an effec- tive utilization of these employees and to a more ex- peditious completion of the work. 5. Job function and job impact The record reflects that at the Employer's plant final camera work is basically a substitution for the stereotype process that had been under the Pressmen's jurisdiction . The function formerly per- formed in the Employer's stereotype room has been replaced by final camera work. In fact, the area for- merly used for stereotype is now being used for final camera work . This is a factor favoring assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the Pressmen. As indicated earlier , the record shows the assign- ment of the work to the typographers has resulted in an increase in overtime to, and size of , the typogra- phers' work force. At the same time, employees repre- sented by the Pressmen have been idle or occupied with make-shift work for almost 50 percent of the time. Accordingly, the assignment of the work to ty- pographers has had a direct adverse effect on the pressmen, and there is no evidence to indicate that a reassignment of the work would adversely affect ty- pographers. Conclusion Having considered pertinent factors present herein, we conclude that employees who are represented by the Pressmen are entitled to perform the work in dis- pute . This assignment is consistent with the initial assignment, employer preference and practice, econo- my and efficiency, job function, and job impact. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees represented by the Pressmen but not to that Union or its members. The 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 pro- ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees of Hutchinson Publishing Company, who are currently represented by Hutchinson Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 275, are entitled to do the supplemental final camera work at the Employer's premises located at 300 West Second Street, Hutchinson, Kansas.