Providence Stereotypers Union No. 53

PROVIDENCE STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 53 535 Providence Stereotypers Union No. 53 and The II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Providence Journal Company and Providence 1 Case Photoengravers Union A I No. 39-P G U. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the . , . . . , S d h Ph l 1-CD-419 tereotypers an t e otoengravers are abor organizations within the meaning of the Act. February 11, 1975 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE . III. THE DISPUTE Background and Facts of the Dispute BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing charges filed by The Providence Journal Compa- ny, hereinafter called the Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) by Providence Stereo- typers Union No. 53, hereinafter called the Stereo- typers. A duly scheduled hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert C. Rosemere on October 31 and November 1, 4, and 5, 1974. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The parties waived the filing of briefs and argued orally on the record at the hearing. 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 Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Providence Journal Company is engaged in the publication of daily newspapers in Providence, Rhode Island. During the past 12 months, the Employer had a gross volume of business in excess of $200,000, and it purchased and caused to be shipped directly in interstate commerce from suppliers outside the State of Rhode Island goods valued in excess of $50,000. The Employer also subscribes to interstate news services . Accordingly, we find, as the parties have stipulated, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. The Employer is engaged in publishing a morning and evening daily newspaper in Providence, Rhode Island. Among the unions representing its employees are the Photoengravers, which represents photoen- gravers, and the Stereotypers, which represents stereotypers. Traditionally, the Employer has used hot- and cold-type processes to print its newspapers, with the cold-type processes predominating and expected eventually to supplant the hot-type processes com- pletely. In the cold-type processes, a cameraman, who is a photoengraver, produces a film negative. Once the negative is produced, it is fed into an automatic processor, the Log E machine, to produce a devel- oped negative. After this, the developed negative is examined in the distribution or stripping department by photoengravers who check it for dot structure and density. Following this check, the negative is opaqued, i.e., pin holes and shadows are painted out. Thereafter, the negative goes to a printing or vacuum frame where it is placed on a photosensitive magnesium plate. Using a very high intensity light the image from the negative is transferred onto the photosensitive material. The magnesium plate is placed in a developing tank. After its removal, a descumming process takes place, followed by an acid bath in the etching machine. During this process, the bare metal areas are etched away. At this point, the plate becomes a photoengraved relief plate. The magnesium plate is washed, dried by an air hose, and placed in a gas oven to make sure it is completely dry. The plate must be examined to determine dot structure and depth of the etch. Finally, the magnesi- um plate is proofed and cut to correct size. At this stage, the completed magnesium plate is transferred to the composing room for inclusion in a page form or chase. The composing room sends it over to the stereotyping department. Stereotypers first transfer the copy from the magnesium plate to a moist papier mache mat by placing the matrix against the plate and subjecting it to the proper amount of pressure using a mat roller. The matrix is then removed, trimmed, and formed. It is put in a scorcher where it is dried. The relief matrix I Providence Photoengravers Union, G.A.I.U, No 39-P, herein called 216 NLRB No. 98 Photoengravers, intervened at the hearing. 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD is then placed in a casting box where molten lead is poured against it, thus producing, after cooling and hardening, a semlcylindrical lead plate containing a raised image of what is to be printed. The plate is milled and cooled, and then sent to the pressroom where it is mounted on the press. In August 1974, the Employer made the decision to purchase and operate a W. R. Grace Company Letterflex platemaking system. This system involves a process of producing photoengraved relief printing plates for direct placement and printing on a newspaper printing press. The Letterflex system eliminates the use of the traditional magnesium plates and lead casts in a newspaper's production of printing press plates. The Letterflex process is preceded by the making of a negative in the traditional manner. The completed negative is inserted into the tower section where it is exposed by ultraviolet light to a photosensitive polymer-coated plate for a predetermined 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 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. The Employer agreed to assign the work of Letterflex platemaking to employees represented by the Photoengravers during contract negotiations in May 1974.2 The agreement giving Photoengravers jurisdiction over the operation of the Letterflex machine was incorporated in a side agreement as an addendum to the contract. Representatives of the Stereotypers met with the Employer on May 13, 1974. The Stereotypers informed the Employer that the Stereotypers Inter- national Union was aware of the work assignment agreement the Employer had entered into with the Photoengravers. The Stereotypers stated that it had been instructed by its International Union to tell the Employer that, if plastic plate technology was assigned to photoengravers, the Stereotypers did not know who would print the Employer's newspapers. Thf Stereotypers representative met with the Employer again on May 23, 1974, and charged that the Employer had assigned duplicate jurisdiction over the Letterflex platemaking system. The Employ- er rejected the Stereotypers contention of duplicate jurisdiction and denied the Stereptypers request to open its collective-bargaining contract with the Employer. On July 26, the Employer and the Stereotypers held a third meeting. The Stereotypers representative told the Employer that its International Union had set out three alternative courses of action: (1) the Stereotypers could strike the Employer, and, if so, it had 100-percent support of the Pressmen's Union, both internationally and locally; (2) the matter could be arbitrated; and (3) the Stereotypers could adjudi- cate the matter before the Labor Board. The Stereotypers stated that its preference was to arbi- trate. The Employer rejected the arbitration propos- al. The Stereotypers then reiterated its May 13 statement. Thereafter, on July 30, the Stereotypers filed a grievance. On August 20, at a meeting with the Stereotypers the Employer informed the Stereotypers that it was filing a charge with the Board in view of the Stereotypers threats. During this meeting, the Em- ployer asked the Stereotypers if it was still threaten- ing to strike the Employer. The Stereotypers an- swered affirmatively and added that instructions received from its International Union was to "strike 'em." The Employer filed its unfair labor practice charge with the Board the following day. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves the production of photoengraved relief printing plates by the Letterflex prpcess. C. Contentions of the Parties The Stereotypers contends that the matter is not ripe for determination and reasonable cause does not exist to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated. It argues that statements made by its representative could not be a threat because there could not have been a realistic expectation of the implementation of these statements inasmuch as there was no local affiliation between the Stereotyp- ers and the Pressmen's Union. Further, the Stereo- typers contends that its bargaining contract includes a substitution clause that grants it jurisdiction over any equipment or processes designed as a substitute for work being performed by stereotypers. Finally, the Stereotypers contends that the issue of jurisdic- tion should be submitted to arbitration as a grievance matter because its bargaining contract provides for this agreed-upon method in resolving the issue. The Employer contends that statements made by the Stereotypers representative were threats . It denies 2 The Photoengravers contract was to remain in effect from January 1, 1974, to December 31, 1976. PROVIDENCE STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 53 537 that the Stereotypers bargaining contract establishes an agreed-upon method to resolve the dispute. The Employer and the Photoengravers both con- tend that work assignment to employees represented by the Photoengravers is based on the contract clause and related skills, economy, and efficiency of operations. Both the Employer and the Photoengrav- ers also assert that certain photoengraving work and the Letterflex process are functionally similar and only an extension of the work photoengravers have been performing. In addition, the Employer claims that the traditional stereotyping functions of casting and molding lead plates are eliminated, thereby making the substitution clause in the Stereotypers contract inapplicable. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to the determina- tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that: (1) there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and (2) the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. As to (1), above, the record shows that after the Stereotypers learned of the Employer's work assign- ment the Stereotypers on several occasions made the statement to the Employer "we do not know who will print your paper" if Letterflex work was assigned ,to photoengravers. The undisputed testimony of the Employer's representative shows that at a meeting on August 20, a representative of the Stereotypers reaffirmed the Stereotypers intention to strike the Employer should the Employer persist in its assign- ment of the disputed work to the photoengravers. In addition, Stereotypers representative informed the Employer that Stereotypers had 100-percent support from the Pressmen's Union if the Stereotypers should act upon these threats. The record further reveals that the Stereotypers and the Pressmen's Union have merged internationally. The merger of these two Unions would indicate that the Stereotypers had the support and ability realistically to make actionable its threats. We find on these facts that reasonable cause exists to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated. As to (2), above, it is clear from the record that neither labor organization's collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer provides for tripartite arbitration; the Photoengravers is not party to, or bound by, the arbitration agreement in the Stereo- typers collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer. Thus, we find that no agreed-upon method exists for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute which is binding upon all of the parties. Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute 1. Collective-bargaining contracts In pertinent part, the contract between the Em- ployer and the Photoengravers reads: Section 2. The process of photoengraving and its attendant work thereto is defined as being, and is all operations of, the process pertaining to the production of, photoengraving plates, plates for offset, and gravure cylinders and plates of any substance or material from copy of all descrip- tions, or from originals and/or subjects when furnished in lieu of copy, up to the finished product. a. Material to be reproduced for print- ing purposes by the photoengravers shall serve as copy for the camera and shall be processed and completed by employees covered by this Agreement. b. The jurisdiction of the G.A.I.U. over the process of photoengraving as defined includes masking; photography; color scan- ning; stripping; printing; etching; finishing; engraving; tint laying; routing; blocking and mounting on any material; proofing; making of offset plates; dot etching; operation of step and repeat machines; making of masks by photographic processes for color separa- tions and other purposes including drop-out on plates or negatives; retouching on posi- tive and negative film; opaquing of negative and positive film; the marking of proofs and papers to indicate color and other photoen- graving corrections to be made on plates; all correctidns and re-etching of plates; the operation of electronic platemaking devices and machines; the exposure, development and making of auto-positives or film and plates of similar nature used in photoengrav- ing as defined; the making of acetate color proofs; the making and processing of blue, silver, ozalid prints to be used in photoen- graving and velox prints. c. The making from copy of film nega- tives or positives of type, hand-lettering, illustrative and decorative material by pho- tographing the copy, as well as stripping and printing of these negatives and positives, is recognized as part of the process of photoen- graving as defined ... . d. Should the Company install any equipment, or adopt any work processes, 538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD designed as a substitute for, or evolution of, work now being done by photoengravers, the Company agrees to recognize the juris- diction of the G.A.I.U. over such equipment and work processes. An Addendum to the Photoengravers present collective-bargaining contract reads: It is agreed that Article 4, paragraph 3 of Section 2 of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties which sets forth jurisdiction of the Union over work performed is amended to include production of plastic plates regardless of the trade name or technological process by which they are produced within the framework of the known technology available in the industry. The collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Stereotypers3 in pertinent part reads: Section 1. 3. The jurisdiction of the Union over such work being performed immediately prior to the signing of this Agreement shall be preserved while this Agreement is in force, and the Publisher shall make no other agreement covering the same. This work shall include the preparation, molding, trimming, packing, and finishing of all matrices. The registration of all matrices. The preparation and casting of all job work matrices, to include sawing; the operation of any platebending ma- chine, shaving, routing, morticing, finishing and inspection of said work. The mounting on stereotyped base of plastic, electrotype and stereotype plates. The mounting of all material requiring registration. The casting, routing, shav- ing, boring and milling of curved stereotype or plastic plates. The nickeling and further finishing of said plates in preparation for their operation on the press. The mounting of plates on press saddles as used in "direct" printing process. 4. Should the Publisher install any equipment or adopt any processes designed as a substitute for, or evolution of, work now being done by stereotypers, the Publisher recognizes the jurisdic- tion of the Providence Stereotypers' and Electro- typers' Union No. 53 over such equipment and process. The record shows that during negotiations for the Employer's current contract with the Photoengravers there was discussion of the possible use in the future by the Employer of a plastic platemaking system. The Photoengravers claimed jurisdiction and re- quested that contract language agreeing to such jurisdiction be incorporated in a side agreement as an addendum to the contract. The Employer testified that this action was taken rather than amending the jurisdiction clause because an amendment might indicate that the Photoengravers evolutionary clause did not include jurisdiction over this system.. The Photoengravers evolutionary clause, section 2(a), (b), (c), and (d), defines the jurisdiction of the process of photoengraving and, although Letterflex is not mentioned specifically, the process of photoen- graving does encompass the process of producing Letterflex plates. A comparison of the processes involved in photoengraving and Letterflex shows a functional similarity in production procedure. In photoengraving, the engraver receives a negative and, in the Letterflex process, the Letterflex operator also receives a negative. The photoengraver inserts the negative into a vacuum printing frame, while the negative is inserted into the vacuum frame of the Letterflex tower. In both processes, a light source transfers the image from the negative to a plate. In photoengraving, a photosensitive magnesium plate is used; in the Letterflex system a photosensitive polymer plate is utilized. The image on the magnesi- um plate is formed in a developing tank; the image on the polymer plate is formed in a developing place in the Letterflex tower. In photoengraving, the magnesium plate then goes into an acid bath, forming the relief plate. In the Letterflex system, it goes under an air knife etch, the equivalent of the acid bath, and the relief plate is formed. The excess materials are then blown off in photoengraving and blotted off in the Letterflex process. The plate is then trimmed to page size in photoengraving; in Letterflex it goes into the punch, bend, trim machine where it is also trimed to page size. After the completed process, the Letterflex plate is ready for direct press mount- ing. Although the magnesium plates produced by the photoengravers have never been affixed directly to the presses and used for printing by the Employer, the record indicates that such plates can be bent for direct application to presses and that this in fact is done in some printing operations. The Stereotypers points to section 1, paragraphs 3 and 4, of its collective-bargaining contract as justification of its claim for jurisdiction. However, the negotiations which led to the adoption of this clause provide reason for concluding that it was not intended to cover Letterflex. The record shows that the Stereotypers has tried to negotiate for jurisdiction over offset, photopolymer, and other forms of 3 The Stereotypers contract is effective from January 1, 1973, to December 31, 1975. PROVIDENCE STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 53 539 photosensitive platemaking since 1966. Each of the Stereotypers proposals for jurisdiction in this area was rejected by the Employer. Moreover, the record reveals that portions of the Stereotypers jurisdiction clause are composed of standard language which was written and in effect at other newspapers 25 years ago,4 before the Letterflex system was developed. In addition, the reference to "direct printing" is con- cerned with mounting rather than production of plates and thus provides no basis for application of the clause to the Letterflex system. Also, the plastic, electrotype, or stereotype plates are materials that national advertisers send the Employer for mounting. Thus, the process involved in plastic platemaking has never been encompassed in Stereotypers work jurisdiction. Therefore, Stereotypers cannot claim jurisdiction over the operation of the Letterflex machine on grounds that it is a substitution for work stereotypers have performed in the past. In The Washington, D. C. Stereotypers' Union No. 19 (The Evening Star Newspaper Company), 181 NLRB 784 (1970), a case involving the Letterflex process, the Board stated at 786: The functional similarity of the traditional photo- engraving and Letterflex processes is undeniable. Each includes analogous, discrete steps, begin- ning with the projection of a negative onto a plate, proceeding with the hardening of the image and etching . . . . The Stereotypers attaches great significance to the fact that the end product of the Letterflex process is a printing plate, whereas the end product of photo-engraving . . . has been a "photo-engraved" plate." The validity of this distinction, however, is questionable, for while it is true that the magnesium plates produced by the Photo-engravers have never been affixed directly to the presses and used for printing by the Employer, the record indicates that such plates can be bent for direct application to presses and that this in fact is done in some printing operations. Thus, it would not be inaccurate to describe such plates as printing plates also. We conclude, therefore, that the Letterflex process has evolved from traditional photo-engraving Based upon the foregoing facts and considering what we believe is a fair interpretation of the pertinent contract provisions described above, we conclude that contract provisions favor assignment of the disputed work to photoengravers. The following language in the Stereotypers contract is referred to: "The casting, routing, shaving, boring and milling of curved stereotype or plastic 2. Area, craft, or industry practice The Letterflex process, only recently developed, is not in widespread permanent use in the newspaper industry. The two Unions introduced testimony to support their respective contentions relative to the assignment of the Letterflex work. We find, however, that the evidence introduced by the parties does not establish any clear and consistent area or industry practice which would assist us in making our determination. Accordingly, we find that this factor does not support either claimant. 3. Job impact The record shows that, although the introduction of Letterflex will result in position "displacement" of stereotypers, it does not mean a "reduction" in the number of stereotypers presently working at the Employer's newspapers. The Stereotypers collective- bargaining agreement with the Employer includes an attrition clause. In accordance with the attrition agreement, the Employer has agreed that stereotyp- ers will be retrained and placed in new job assign- ments without a reduction in pay. Inasmuch as there will be no job loss to the stereotypers presently employed at Employer's news- papers, the factor of job impact is not determinative. 4. The Employer's assignment, preference, and efficiency of operations Operational efficiency, and the extent to which it results in reduction of production costs, favors an assignment to photoengravers. Letterflex operation by stereotypers would require the services of 20 stereotypers based on the number of workshifts per week. Although the Employer presently employs the 20 stereotypers required, it would also be necessary to employ approximately 13 photoengravers to perform the camera work, the stripping and opaqu- ing, and the photo print work. This would mean a total of 33 employees. On the other hand, the assignment of the disputed work to photoengravers reduces the number of employees required to 21 because the photoengravers would not only operate the Letterflex machine but also would perform the other photoengraving functions as well. Under the Employer's existing assignment, pho- toengravers who are performing Letterflex work are also available to perform other assignments in the photoengraving department. On the other hand, it would appear that the Employer would lose this flexibility if the disputed work were assigned to stereotypers in view of the fact the introduction of plates . . . . The mounting of plates on press saddles as used in 'direct' printing process." 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Letterflex process will substantially, if not totally, eliminate the existing work performed in the stereo- typing department. Further, a sudden work increase in the photoengraving department would require the Employer to hire additional personnel or assign overtime work to photoengravers if stereotypers operated the Letterflex machine. Accordingly, inasmuch as the assignment of the Letterflex work to photoengravers contributes to the effective utilization of those employees and the efficient operation of the Employer's business, we find that this factor favors an assignment to photoengravers. 5. Skill In comparing the specific skills required of a Letterflex operator with those skills currently utilized by photoengravers and stereotypers, it appears that the skills possessed by photoengravers are more relevant to the Letterflex process. Specifically, it appears that a photoengraver's skill in evaluating a negative and in inspecting the dot structure of an etched plate would be useful to a Letterflex operator. Furthermore, a representative of the company that markets the Letterflex equipment involved here testified to a greater aptitude for Letterflex training by those who had photoengraving backgrounds. Accordingly, we find that the skills possessed by photoengravers favor an assignment of the disputed work to such employees. Conclusion Having considered all the pertinent factors herein, we conclude that employees represented by Photoen- gravers are entitled to perform the work in dispute.5 In making this determination, we are assigning the S Philadelphia Stereotypers Union * 7, a/w Local Union No. 322, International Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO (Southern New Jersey Newspapers, Inc.), 211 NLRB 492 (1974). Nashua Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No 359 (Telegraph Publishing disputed work to the employees of The Providence Journal Company who are represented by Provi- dence Photoengravers Union, G.A.I.U., No. 39-P, but not to that Union or its members. Our present determination is limited to the particular dispute 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 employed by The Providence Jour- nal Company in its photoengraving department and currently represented by Providence Photoengravers Union, G.A.I.U., No. 39-P, are entitled to perform all work in connection with producing plastic relief plates by the operation of the Letterflex machine. 2. Providence Stereotypers Union No. 53 is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require The Providence Journal Company to assign the above-described Letterflex work to the employees whom it represents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute , Providence Stereo- typers Union No. 53 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 employees represented by it rather than to employees represent- ed by Providence Photoengravers Union, G.A.I.U., No. 39-P. Company), 212 NLRB 942 (1974). Kansas City Local 235, Graphic Arts International Union (The Kansas City Star Company), 215 NLRB No. 31 (1974).