Philadelphia Stereotypers Union # 7

492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Philadelphia Stereotypers Union # 7, a/w Internation- al Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO and Southern New Jersey Newspapers, Inc. and Camden Typographical Union Local #132, a/w International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO. Case 4-CD-331 June 12, 1974 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 Southern New Jersey Newspa- pers, Inc., hereinafter called the Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) by the Philadelphia Stereotypers Union #7, a/w International Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Stereotypers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 13, 1973, and January 10, 1974, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, before Hearing Officer Harold Bernard, Jr. The Employer, the Stereotypers, and Camden Typo- graphical Union Local #132, a/w 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 Typographers 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 EMPLOYER The Employer is a newspaper publishing company located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, with gross revenue exceeding $200,000 annually. The Employer subscribes to interstate news services, publishes nationally syndicated features, and advertises nation- ally sold products. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section I Unless otherwise indicated, all events occurred in 1973. 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 the Camden Courier-Post, a daily newspaper, in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Among the unions representing employees of the Employer are the Stereotypers, which represents employees in the stereotype room, and the Typographers, which represents employees in the composing room, including photoengravers. In early summer 1973,1 the Employer told the Stereotypers and the Typographers that it would soon change over to the Letterflex system of producing printing press plates. Thereafter, in Sep- tember, the Employer determined to assign the work of Letterflex platemaking to employees represented by the Typographers. By letter dated September 24, the Stereotypers threatened the Employer with economic sanctions if employees which it represent- ed were not assigned the work of Letterflex plate- making. Further discussions followed and the Em- ployer reiterated its intention of assigning the Letterflex platemaking to employees represented by the Typographers. On October 10, the Stereotypers reiterated its position stated in its September 24 letter and on October 11 carried out the threat and struck and picketed. The Employer has been using two processes to print its newspaper. News and editorial items are marked-up in a hot-type process using linotype machines which produce lines of type formed in relief on hot lead slugs. This process will eventually be phased out completely by the Employer. Adver- tisements and stock market quotations, on the other hand, are pasted-up in a cold-metal process using phototypesetting and photoengraving methods to produce an engraved zinc plate in relief form. Both hot type and cold type are locked up in a page form or "chase" in the composing room and sent to the stereotype room where plates are manufactured for direct application to the presses. The cold-metal process is performed by employees in the composing room, including photoengravers, who are represented by the Typographers. The process begins with the pasteup of a "mechanical," a composite of photographic proofs of type and 211 NLRB No. 68 PHILADELPHIA STEREOTYPERS UNION #7 493 illustrations arranged on a white paper backing. The production of the photographic negative begins with a cameraman who, among other things, measures the mechanical, mounts it on the copy board of the camera, makes time and lens adjustments, and selects the proper size film. The cameraman then uses a special camera, 8 feet high with a carriage 19 feet long, to make an exposure. The exposed film is then fed into a film processor, the Log-E machine, to produce a developed negative. The cameraman then examines the negative to determine whether it will reproduce in the zinc engraving process. After this examination the negative is opaqued; i.e., any pin holes and shadows are painted out. In some instances, a stripping operation (cutting apart and pasting up the negative) is required. Thereafter, a flat sheet of sensitized zinc is placed in a vacuum frame, and is exposed to light through the negative. The zinc plate is then weighed and placed in a tank of developer for about 3 minutes after which it is transferred to a sink where a water pressure spray is used to wash off any loose developer. The zinc plate is then placed on a flat surface and blown dry with an air hose. A descumming process takes place next followed by an acid bath in the etching machine. The zinc plate is then scrubbed, dried, and weighed again. Finally, the zinc plate is examined, with particular attention to the dot structure, to determine whether the engraved zinc plate will reproduce properly. In the stereotype room a matrix of semiwet cardboard is placed against the chase or relief page form which contains the hot type and cold type. Pressure is applied and the image is transferred from the page form to the matrix, which is then dried in a semicylindrical shape. Molten lead is next poured against the matrix and when cooled the lead casting is a stereotype plate ready for the printing operation in the pressroom. The Employer's new Letterflex machine is a two- component system consisting of a tower section and a processor section. The input in the Letterflex process is a photographic negative. This negative is produced in the exact manner as those prepared for use in the production of zinc engraving plates, supra. The completed negative is inserted into the tower section where it is exposed by ultraviolet light to a photosensitive polymer coated plate for a predeter- mined amount of time. The plate is then transferred to the processor section where it goes through an etching cycle and is then exposed once again to ultraviolet light to complete the chemical reaction. After the plate is removed from the processor section, the operator examines and evaluates the plate under a magnifying glass to determine, among other things, the quality of the dot structure. The Letterflex plate is then punched, bent, and trimmed and sent to the pressroom for direct application to the printing press. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves press platemaking by the Letterflex process at the Camden Courier-Post in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that its assignment to employees represented by the Typographers is based on the availability of related skills, economy and efficiency of operations, and the functional similarity of the Letterflex process and certain photoengraving work that employees represented by the Typogra- phers have been performing for the Employer. The Employer further contends that there is no area practice, but that industry practice supports its assignment to members of the Typographers. Finally, the Employer contends that the job impact on employees represented by the Stereotypers will be offset by its policy and offer to keep and retrain these employees for work in the Employer's composing room. The Typographers contends that the Employer's assignment and preference for its members is supported by its collective-bargaining agreement, the skills and training of its members, and the economy and efficiency of the Employer's operations. The Typographers further contends that area and indus- try practice, as well as certain related Board decisions, support an award to employees represent- ed by the Typographers. The Stereotypers predicates its claim for the. work on the traditional division of work jurisdiction at the Employer's plant, the skills of its members, its apprenticeship program, area and industry practice, and the job impact on its members. 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 in a letter dated Septem- ber 24, 1973, it threatened the Employer with economic sanctions if it were not given jurisdiction over the work here in dispute. There is also evidence that on October 11, 1973, after the Employer had reiterated its intention of assigning the disputed work to employees represented by the Typographers on October 10, 1973, the Stereotypers carried out the threat and struck and picketed. The Stereotypers contends that the instant dispute involves a repre- sentation problem and that they were protesting bad- faith bargaining by the Employer. We note, however, 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that this contention by the Stereotypers is in direct conflict with the testimony of the Employer' s general manager, Gary Snyder, that the Stereotypers presi- dent, Thomas Hudson, told him that the employees represented by the Stereotypers would return to work if the Employer would agree to file a 10(k) charge with the Board. Snyder gave Hudson a letter to this effect and the stereotypers returned to work that same day. 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.2 E. Merits of the Dispute As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction Company,3 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 set forth below those factors which we find relevant in determining the dispute herein. 1. Collective-bargaining agreements The Employer's collective-bargaining agreements with the Typographers and the Stereotypers had expired at the time of the hearing herein. Neither of the most recent collective-bargaining agreements between the respective parties made specific refer- ence to the type of work in dispute in this proceeding. Accordingly, we conclude that this factor does not favor the assignment of the work in dispute to either Union. 2. The Employer's assignment, preference, and efficiency of operations The input to the Letterflex system is a photograph- ic negative which, whatever the assignment of the disputed work, will be produced by employees in the Employer's composing room who are represented by the Typographers. The judging of the quality of the negative is a critical step in the production process, affecting the ultimate quality of the Letterflex plate, and will often necessitate consultation between the employees who produce the negative and the employees who operate the Letterflex machine. It is apparent that the integration of these two processes will contribute to the efficiency of the Employer's operations. Under the Employer's existing assignment, the composing room employees who are performing Letterflex work are also available to perform other assignments in the composing room. On the other hand, it would appear that the Employer would lose this flexibility if the disputed work were assigned to the employees in the stereotype room in view of the fact that the introduction of the Letterflex process will substantially, if not totally, eliminate the existing work performed by employees in the stereotype room. Accordingly, inasmuch as the assignment of the Letterflex work to the composing room employees, who are represented by the Typographers, contrib- utes to the effective utilization of those employees and the efficient operation of the Employer's business, we find that this factor favors an assign- ment to the Typographers. 3. Employer, area, and industry practice The Employer, the Typographers, and the Stereo- typers each introduced evidence to support its respective contentions relative to the assignment of Letterflex and direct printing work by the Gannett newspapers,4 as well as area and industry practice. We find, however, that the evidence introduced by the parties does not establish any clear and consist- ent practice which would assist us in making our determination. Accordingly, we find that this factor does not support either Union. 4. Skill In comparing the specific skills required of a Letterflex operator with those skills currently utilized by the Employer's employees in its composing room and stereotype room, it appears that the skills possessed by employees working in the composing room are more closely related to the Letterflex process. In particular, employees in the composing room who are skilled at evaluating a negative and inspecting the dot structure of an etched plate possess skills required in the Letterflex process. Furthermore, a representative of the company that manufactured the Letterflex equipment involved here testified that it is easier to train persons to operate the Letterflex equipment who have had prior experience in the production of negatives. There is no evidence that employees in the Employer's stereotype room utilize skills related to the operation of a camera or the evaluation of negatives. Accordingly, we find that the skills possessed by employees employed in the Employer's composing room, who are represented by the Typographers, 2 The parties stipulated, and we find, that there is no agreed-upon A . Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402. method for resolving the dispute which is binding on all the parties . 4 The Employer is part of the Gannett newspaper chain. 3 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J. PHILADELPHIA STEREOTYPERS UNION #7 495 favor an assignment of the disputed work to such employees. present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. 5. Job impact The record shows that the introduction of the Letterflex process will eventually eliminate the manufacture of stereotype press plates by the eight employees in the stereotype room who are represent- ed by the Stereotypers. Several employees in the composing room have had their job assignments changed as a result of the assignment of the Letterflex work to the composing room. No new employees have been hired to perform the Letterflex work. The Employer claims that an assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the Stereotypers and the reduction of work caused by the automation of the photoengraving process would require under-utilized manpower in the composing room which it could not employ elsewhere in its business . On the other hand, the Employer has committed itself to offer the eight employees repre- sented by the Stereotypers other employment in the composing room in order to avoid actual loss of work for any employee. Inasmuch as there will be no job loss to the current employees no matter to whom the assignment is made, we find that this consideration is not determi- native. 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 Southern New Jersey Newspapers, Inc., who are represented by Camden Typographical Union #132, a/w International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, but not to the Union or its members. Our 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 Southern New Jersey News- papers, Inc., who currently are represented by Camden Typographical Union #132, a/w Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of press platemaking by the Letterflex process at the Camden Courier-Post in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. 2. The Philadelphia Stereotypers Union # 7, a/w International Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means pro- scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the Southern New Jersey Newspapers, Inc., to assign the above-described Letterflex work to its members or employees whom it represents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, the Philadelphia Stereotypers Union #7, a/w International Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 4, 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 Philadel- phia Stereotypers Union #7, a/w International Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, rather than to employees represented by Camden Typographical Union #132, a/w Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO.