Bay Area Typographical Union, Local 21

BAY AREA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, LOCAL 21 Bay Area Typographical Union, Local 21, AFL-CIO and San Francisco Progress and Stereotypers', Electrotypers' & Platemakers' Local Union No. 29. Case 20-CD-421 January 30, 1975 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by San Francisco Progress (hereafter called the Charging Party or Employer), alleging that Bay Area Typographical Union, Local 21, AFL-CIO (hereafter called Respondent or BATU), violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the assignment of work described below to employees represented by Re- spondent rather than to employees represented by Stereotypers', Electrotypers' & Platemakers' Local Union No. 29 (hereafter called Intervenor or Stereo- typers). A hearing was held on September 11, 1974, before Hearing Officer Bernard T. Hopkins. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Charging Party, the Respondent, and the Intervenor filed briefs in support of their positions. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer, a California corporation with its principal' office and place of business in San Francisco, California, is a biweekly newspaper with gross revenues in excess of $200,000 annually. It publishes nationally syndicated features and receives revenues in excess of $50,000 for advertising nation- ally sold products. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED All parties stipulated, and we find, that Bay Area Typographical Union, Local 21 , AFL-CIO, and Stereotypers', Electrotypers' & Platemakers' Local 216 NLRB No. 68 381 Union No. 29, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute Prior to April 1974, the San Francisco Progress was printed by means of the traditional hot metal method. In April, the printing system was changed to a coldtype printing or composition process coupled with a Letterflex plate production system. A camera is utilized as part of the new coldtype system. The Employer assigned the operation of the camera to BATU. Prior to the installation of the new equipment and the assignment of its work, there was a lengthy exchange of correspondence between and among the parties beginning in September 1973. Each Union claimed the work under the terms of its collective- bargaining agreement with the Employer. The Employer and the Stereotypers submitted the matter to an arbitrator who on June 26, 1974, rendered a decision in which he found that the Stereotypers has jurisdiction over the production of full-page nega- tives and BATU has jurisdiction of all remaining camera work. However, BATU stated that, as it was not part of the arbitration proceedings, it was not bound by the decision and it insisted that all camera work be performed by its members. On July 22, 1974, the president of BATU demanded assignments of such work to his labor organization, threatening economic action should his request be denied. The operation of the camera involves two distinct functions. The first is the process by which the pasteup process is converted into a film negative representation of the newspaper page that is ulti- mately printed. The second function is the pro- duction of "mechanicals" such as photographic reproductions, reverses, positives, halftones, and veloxes of advertising, illustrations, or new copy. Ninety percent of the camera work involves pro- duction of the mechanicals, whereas only ten percent involves production of the full-page negatives. The Stereotypers protests only BATU's claims to the production of the full-page negatives. The conversion from the hot type system to the present system has resulted in a reduction of personnel represented by BATU, but with an increase in the number of personnel represented by the Stereotypers. B. The Work in Dispute The dispute concerns the operation of the camera and processor used in the preparation of full-page 382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD negatives employed in the publication of the newspa- per. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Stereotypers contends that an affirmative award of the disputed work should be made in its favor primarily on the basis of its collective-bargain- ing agreement with the Employer and an arbitration award, based upon such agreement, which was favorable to Stereotypers. BATU contends that an affirmative award should be made in its favor on the basis of its collective- bargaining agreement with the Employer, its mem- bers' superior skills and training involving the work in issue, the factor of job loss impact, and the economy and efficiency effected by utilization of its members. The Employer contends that its assignment of the disputed work to employees who are members of BATU was properly made and that the Board should award the work in dispute to members of BATU in conformity with its assignment on the basis of the factors of employer preference, efficiency and economy of operations, area and industry practice, job loss impact, and the relative skills of the competing groups of employees as to the disputed work. Concerning the factor of collective-bargaining agreements, the Employer contends that, since its agreement with each union supports a claim to the disputed work, this factor is entitled to no weight in resolving' the dispute. As to the arbitration award which was favorable to Stereotypers, the Employer notes that BATU was not a party to'such proceed- ings so that the award does not resolve the dispute nor release the NLRB of its responsibility to resolve the dispute. I Section 8(a) of a collective-bargaining agreement dated September 8, 1973, between Printing Industries of Northern California and BATU provides in pertinent part that: This jurisdiction includes but is not limited to all work (including camera and darkroom operations) necessary in the copy for offset and letterpress plates up to the camera used in the platemaking process. By a memorandum of agreement dated September 3, 1974, between the Employer and BATU, the above-described agreement between BATU and PINC is made binding as between BATU and the Employer. The memorandum of agreement was made in addition to, and, where conflicting, a substitute for, the provisions of the master agreement with PINC. Par. VII, p. 4, of the supplemental agreement states in pertinent part that: Section 8(a) of the contract (Jurisdiction) is amended to add the following new fourth paragraph: In addition to the jurisdiction as contained in this section, it is specifically understood that the jurisdiction includes but is not limited to all camera work and post-camera work. The Employer, for reasons of operating efficiency, will assign composing room employees with the responsibility for operating its camera equipment. D. Applicability of the Statute Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to determine a dispute out of which an 8(b)(4)(D) charge has arisen. However, before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. As heretofore noted, after being advised of the arbitrator's award of June 26, 1974, BATU's president demanded that the Employer assign the work of producing full-page negatives to employees who are members of BATU and threatened economic action should his request be denied. On the basis of the above-described threat we find 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 determi- nation under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute 1. The collective-bargaining agreements BATU relies on section VII of its agreement with the Employer and section 8(a) of its master agree- ment with the Printing Industries of Northern California (hereafter PINC).1 The Stereotypers Local 29 relies on section 28 of its contract with the Employer.2 After the Employer assigned the camera work to the employees represented by BATU, the Stereotypers filed a grievance under its collective- bargaining agreement with the Employer, claiming that all of the camera work should have been assigned to stereotypers. The arbitrator ruled that the Employer should have assigned the use of the camera to make full-page negatives to the stereotypers. In considering the collective-bargaining agree- ments herein we conclude that both contracts arguably cover the disputed work so that this factor 7 Sec. 28 of the collective-bargaining agreement dated March 28, 1972, between Henry F. Budde Publications, Inc. (then the publisher of the Employer), and the Stereotypes states in pertinent part that: (e) It is mutually agreed all processes of offset platemaking, photo- polymer processes such as Letterflex and/or similar processes shall be the jurisdiction of Stereotypers', Electrotypes', and Platemakers' Union No. 29. The processes referred to above shall include all operations related to the manufacture of printing plates for the Employer's use ; all designated and associated work necessary includ- ing, but not limited to the cameras, stripping, opaquing, presensitized platemaking as known to offset and other processes. The jurisdiction of the Union shall include, but not be limited to, the preparatory work necessary for the press ready plate such as half tones, screens, veloxes, and color separation processes. It is further agreed the jurisdiction of the Union shall include the operation and normal maintenance of the equipment and associated devices used to manufacture such plates. The Employer recognizes the jurisdiction of the Union over such equipment and processes and shall make no other agreement covering such work. BAY AREA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, LOCAL 21 383 is entitled to no weight in resolving the present dispute.3 As BATU did not participate in the aforementioned arbitration proceeding, we conclude that the arbitrator's award is not binding upon BATU and does not resolve the disputed camera work. Nor is such award binding upon the NLRB .4 2. Skills and training Eight employees who are represented by BATU have completed necessary schooling and on-the-job training to be able to use the camera and other equipment required to make a full-page negative. All stereotypers who desire to perform such work would have to receive such schooling and obtain at least 1 month of on-the-job training to be able to perform such work. Based on these facts, we conclude that the factor of skills and experience supports the assignment of the disputed work to employees who are represented by BATU. 3. The Employer's assignment and efficiency and economy of operations The Employer assigned the disputed work to employees represented by BATU to obtain economy and efficiency in its operations. Had the Employer assigned such work to stereotyper employees, an additional employee would have had to be hired for at least two shifts a week to perform a task which requires less than 2 hours' work per week, but for which stereotypers, by the terms of their collective- bargaining agreement, would be paid for 2 full days' work. Moreover, had the Employer assigned the disputed work to stereotyper employees, two differ- ent unions would have jurisdiction over one camera, and would both perform work within the composing room under different supervision. Based on the foregoing facts we conclude that the factors of the Employer's preference, efficiency, and economy of operations favor an assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by BATU. 4. Area and industry practice BATU employees perform the disputed work in the San Francisco Bay area at the Palo Alto Times, the San Mateo Times, the Hayward Review, and the Redwood City Tribune and at commercial printing operations in the area. Moreover, as the Board noted in Bakersfield, supra, "[T]here are over 50 newspa- pers throughout the country in which the Typogra- phers members perform camera work. . . . Only one newspaper was identified as one in which Stereotyp- ers members did work similar to that in dispute." Based upon these considerations , we conclude that the factor of area and industry practice favors an award of the disputed work to employees who are represented by BATU. 5. Job loss As a result of the Employer's conversion from hot type to coldtype printing, the number of BATU employees has been reduced from 24 employees working 32 hours per week, to 16 employees, working 30 hours per week. Conversely, the number of stereotyper employees has increased to two addition- al shifts per week. Thus, we conclude that the Employer's assignment of the disputed camera work to employees who are members of BATU is supported by the fact that job loss, caused by the Employer's conversion from hot type to coldtype printing, is greatest among BATU employees. Conclusion Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after full consideration of all relevant factors, especially the factors of BATU employees' training and skills in performing the disputed work, the superior efficiency and economy with which BATU employees can perform the disputed work, the Employer's prefer- ence that BATU employees perform such work, area and industry practice which indicate that typogra- pher employees usually perform the work in dispute, and the job loss among BATU employees which is partially offset by the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to such employees, we conclude that the Employer's employees represented by Bay Area Typographical Union, Local 21, AFL-CIO, are entitled to the work in dispute, and we shall determine the dispute in their favor. We do not, however, award the work to BATU, Local 21, or its members. DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees of San Francisco Progress who are currently represented by Bay Area Typographical Union, Local 21, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the operation of the camera and processor used in the preparation of full-page negatives employed in the publication of the newspaper at San Francisco, California. 5 Bakersfield Typographical Union *439, International Typographical * Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No. 23, AFL-CIO Union, AFL-CIO (Bakersfield Californian, Inc.), 213 NLRB No. 16 (1974). (Williams Press, Inc.), 166 NLRB 693 (1967).