Central Valley Typographical Un. No. 46

726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46 and Mc- Clatchy Newspapers, d/b/a Sacramento Bee I and Graphic Arts International Union, Local 280. Case 20-CD-405 July 31, 1974 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 the filing of a charge by McClatchy Newspapers, d/b/a Sacramento Bee, herein called the Employer, alleging that Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, herein called the Typographers or the Respon- dent, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the work in dispute to employees who are members of the Respondent rather than to employees who are mem- bers of Graphic Arts International Union, Local 280, herein referred to as the Photoengravers or the In- tervenor. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in San Fran- cisco, California, before Hearing Officer John C. Montoya on March 8 and April 10, 1974. All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full opportu- nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employer, the Re- spondent, and the Intervenor in support of their posi- tions. 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 Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds them free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the briefs, and hereby makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer publishes the "Sacramento Bee," a daily and Sunday newspaper, at its newspaper pub- lishing plant in Sacramento, California. The parties stipulated that, during the past calendar year, the Employer's gross revenue exceeded $200,000 and that 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. the Employer advertised nationally advertised prod- ucts and subscribed to national wireservices. Accord- ingly, the parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in a business affecting com- merce 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. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Typog- raphers and the Photoengravers are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The dispute herein arises out of the Employer's purchase of an "AGFA" Repromaster vertical cam- era and the assignment of its operation to employees represented by the Typographers. For a considerable period of time perior to the in- stant dispute, the Employer had been engaged in the process of converting its plant from the "hot-type" method of newspaper production to the new "cold- type" process. Under the hot-type method, lines of type are cast in molten metal on a Linotype machine operated by a typographer. The Linotype , however, is limited to the production of letter print in standard sizes. When letter print of unusual size is required in the hot-metal process, it is produced on a Ludlow typecasting machine which, like the Linotype, is a metal-casting device operated by members of the Ty- pographers. Other components of an advertisement such as illustrations, halftones, or type reverses, which cannot be produced by Linotype, Ludlow, or other typecasting machines, are furnished by members of the Photoengravers. A large horizontal camera, locat- ed in the Employer's photoengraving department, is regularly used for making a negative of the entire page of the newspaper. Prior to the events in this case, the horizontal camera was also used for making enlarge- ments, reductions, and reverses of components of ad- vertisements. Within the past year, the Employer has converted, to the "cold-type" process with respect to all advertisements, but has retained its letterpress which requires the performance of photoengraving work. The cold-type method does not involve the use of typecasting machines, such as the Linotype and the Ludlow. With the new process, type is produced by keyboard equipment which puts out a perforated pa- per tape that becomes input, following hyphenation and justification by a computer, for a photocompos- ing machine. To implement this system, the Employer 212 NLRB No. 112 CENTRAL VALLEY TYPOGRAPHICAL UN. NO 46 727 has purchased a TXT photocomposition machine which produces a positive of type in galley form. The type and other components of the advertisement are then pasted into place, and the pasted-up page is de- livered to the photoengraving department for prepa- ration for the press. On January 17, 1974, the Employer purchased a small vertical camera to be used in the composition of advertisements. The function of the vertical camera is to make enlargements, reductions, and reverses of components of advertisements. As noted above, some of this work has been performed in the photoengrav- ing department. Under the hot-type printing method, composing room employees were able to perform some of the vertical camera's functions by casting the appropriate size type on the Ludlow machine. As pre- viously mentioned, the vertical camera is located in the composing room, and has at all times material herein been assigned to composing room employees. The vertical camera is currently being used by several employees in the composing room, and not by any single typographer. The vertical camera does not use film, but rather a sensitized paper. Due to its limited capacity, the verti- cal camera cannot accommodate a full newspaper page. Thus, the entire ad will ultimately be shot by the photoengravers utilizing the horizontal cameras. The record shows that the camera work performed in the photoengraving department is complex, and that it requires a high degree of skill. The operation of the vertical camera, however, is simple, requiring less than a half hour's instruction. The vertical camera was installed pursuant to an agreement between the Employer and the Typogra- phers dated November 20, 1973. On January 22, the Intervenor filed a grievance over the work assign- ment, claiming that the vertical camera properly be- longs in the photoengraving department, and that the assignment of its operation should be made to em- ployees represented by the Photoengravers. On Janu- ary 28, the Typographers informed the Employer that if there was any possibility the vertical camera work would be taken away from its members and reas- signed to those of the Photoengravers the Employer could expect economic action. There has been none to date. B. Work in Dispute The dispute in this case concerns the assignment of vertical camera work. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer and the Typographers contend that the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the Typographers should be upheld . They urge the following factors in support of their position : employer preference, efficiency and economy of operations , effect of introduction of new processes in the composing room on work opportuni- ties for crafts involved , contract provisions, and cus- tom and practice at other newspapers which use the vertical camera. The Photoengravers contends that the work should be assigned to employees which it represents because of the following factors: contract provisions , industry and area practice , efficiency and economy of opera- tions, and loss of photoengravers' Jobs in the event of an award to employees represented by the Typogra- phers. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may determine 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, and that there is no agreed-upon method of the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. In the instant case, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been vio- lated, in view of the fact that the Typographers threat- ened to take economic action against the Employer should the disputed work be reassigned to employees represented by the Photoengravers. Furthermore, based on the record before us, there is at present no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of this dispute. Under these circumstances, we find that it will effectuate the policies underlying Sections 10(k) and 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act for us to determine the merits of the dispute. Accordingly, we find that this dispute is appropriate for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction Company,' we shall determine the appropriate assign- ment 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. 1. Employer preference The Employer assigned the work, and prefers an award, to employees represented by the Typogra- 2 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pliers. This factor favors an award to employees rep- resented by the Typographers. 2. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements There are no outstanding certifications covering the employees involved in the instant dispute. In addi- tion, there are no agreements between the competing unions with respect to jurisdiction over a vertical cam- era. Although the Photoengravers contends that the language of its contract with the Employer requires assignment of the disputed work to employees repre- sented by it, we find that neither the Typographers contract nor the Photoengravers contract clearly cov- ers the disputed jurisdiction over the operation of the vertical camera. However, on November 20, 1973, as mentioned above, the Employer entered into a "Memorandum of Agreement" with the Typogra- phers. The agreement covers a large number of sub- jects, but one of the most important provisions is the undertaking by the Employer to install, within 60 days after execution, "a vertical camera for ad components to process the increased volume of cold type resulting from the installation of photocomposition equip- ment." Since the "Memorandum of Agreement" spe- cifically refers to the vertical camera, we find a comparison of the collective-bargaining agreements that this Employer has with the two labor organiza- tions supports the assignment of the operation of the vertical camera to employees represented by the Ty- pographers. 3. Efficiency and economy of operation The Employer prefers to assign the operation of the vertical camera to the composing room for efficiency reasons, claiming reductions, enlargements, and re- verses are an integral part of ad component work and it is much more efficient to perform such work at the point of assembly rather than have to send it to anoth- er department on another floor, photoengraving in this case. An assignment to photoengraving depart- ment employees would involve further delay and con- fusion as it would result in the introduction of a third department, the service department, and a third labor union, the American Newspaper Guild, representing employees in the service department. It was also not- ed that in recent years labor-saving devices have shrunk work opportunities in the composing room. Installation of the vertical camera in the composing room has provided needed work for typographers while not diminishing work for photoengravers. This factor favors assignment of the work to employees represented by the Typographers. 4. Skills of employees Operation of a vertical camera requires very little training or skill. When the camera was installed, a manufacturer's representative spent about 15 minutes instructing certain composing room employees in its operation following which these employees were able to satisfactorily operate the camera. Other employees learned simply by watching someone else for a few minutes. There are no special schools employees at- tend to learn how to operate the vertical camera. The cameras in the photoengraving department, however, appear to be much more complicated, with courses offered by the Photoengravers to train its members in the various camera skills and techniques. According- ly, we find that the factor of skills involved does not favor either of the two competing unions. 5. Employer, industry, and area practice The vertical camera in the composing room is used in connection with components of ads that appear in the newspaper. Specifically, the camera is used to make reductions , enlargements, and reverses of type, art work, and any other individual segment of an ad. Prior to the installation of the vertical camera in the composing room, all reductions, enlargements, and reverses were done in the photoengraving depart- ment, using a horizontal camera. At present , about 80 percent of such work can be and is performed by typographers on the vertical camera with the rest, consisting primarily of oversized material, sent to photoengraving, where all other photo work is still performed. Until January 17, 1974, the Employer had never utilized a vertical camera and since its installa- tion only composing room employees have operated it. Testimony concerning area and industry practice revealed that where a vertical camera is utilized it is operated by composing room employees belonging to a Typographical union local. Each newspaper differs somewhat in its operation and printing method, but it appears that the trend is to let the composing room make its own ad components on a vertical camera where one exists. Accordingly, we find that this factor favors an award of the work in dispute to employees repre- sented by the Typographers. Conclusions We have found that in each instance where a factor favored the assignment of, the work in dispute to em- ployees represented by one of the parties, it favored the assignment of the work to employees represented CENTRAL VALLEY TYPOGRAPHICAL UN NO. 46 729 by the Typographers. Absent any compelling reason, therefore, for disturbing the Employer's assignment of the work to employees represented by the Typogra- phers, we shall determine the instant dispute by awarding the vertical camera work to employees rep- resented by the Typographers rather than to employ- ees represented by the Photoengravers. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to employees who are represented by the Typographers and not to the Typographers or its members. Our present determination is limited to the particular dis- pute 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 hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees employed by the Employer who are rep- resented by Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, are entitled to perform the vertical camera work which is performed in connection with the Employer's operation at its plant in Sacramento, California.