Graphic Arts In'l Union

GRAPHIC ARTS INTL. UNION Graphic Arts International Union, Local2No. 280, and San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company, ,Inc. and San Francisco Web Pressmen and Platemakers Union Local No. 4 Graphic Arts International Union, Local No. 280 and Northwest Publications, Inc. and San Francisco Web Pressmen and Platemakers Union Local No. 4. Cases 20-CD-413 and 20-CD-414 December 4, 1974 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of separate charges by Northwest Publications, Inc. (Northwest), and San Francisco Newspaper Print- ing Company, Inc. (the Publishing Company), the Em- ployers herein, alleging that the Graphic Arts Interna- tional Union, Local No. 280 (Photoengravers) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requir- ing both Northwest and the Publishing Company to assign certain work to employees represented by the Photoengravers, rather than to employees represented by San Francisco Web Pressmen and Platemakers Union Local No. 4 (Stereotypers). Pursuant to an order consolidating Case 20-CD-413 with Case 20-CD-414, and notice to the parties, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Stephen H. Booth, on June 21 and 24, 1974, in San Francisco, California. All par- ties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to present evidence bearing on the is- sues. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs. 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 that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in this proceeding and makes the following findings: 0 I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Northwest is a Delaware corporation with its princi- pal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.It,maintains a branch office in San Jose, California, where it pub- lishes two daily newspapers, the San Jose Mercury and the San Jose News. The Publishing Company is a 243 Nevada Corporation with its principallplace of business in San Franciso,' California, where it performs the me- chanical, circulation; advertising, accounting, and col- lection functions "for the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle. During the past calendar year, each corpo- ration has purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 outside the State of California, which goods, were shipped directly to the corporations from points out- side the State of California. During the same period of time, each corporation has had total sales in excess of $500,000. Accordingly, the parties have stipulated, and we find, that each corporation 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. 11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS The parties stipulated, and we find , that the Photo- engravers and the Stereotypers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute includes all platemaking and developing, and all other postcamera operations, in- cluding, but not limited to, stripping, opaquing, dot etching, or any other substitute processes or functions of the foregoing. , B. Background and Facts of the Dispute For some time Northwest and the Publishing Com- pany have been engaged in joint collective bargaining with the Photoengravers and the Stereotypers. Histori- cally, photoengravers have performed traditional photoengraving work at both Employers' places of business. Under that system a photoengraver operating as a cameraman takes a picture of the copy for the paper and develops a negative. After the negative is trimmed and inspected to insure it is in proper form, an image of it is burned onto the zinc plate to which the negative is held. The plate is then transported to the etching area and weighed in order that it may be deter- mined what amount of acid must be used to remove foreign material. After the plate is bathed in acid (for the removal of foreign matter) it is inspected for proper depth, then trimmed, labeled, and sent to the stereotype department. In the stereotype department the employees prepare the plate for a routing machine. The plate is then routed to the pressmen in proper form to be affixed to the saddles of the printing presses. 215 NLRB No. 40 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In 1973, both companies began to work with a new advanced photopolymer plate (herein referred to as the NAPP process). This is a technologically advanced sys- tem of printing which can eliminate the need for the traditional zinc or magnesium pattern plates. It can also be used to produce direct press plates. In this process a cameraman prepares a negative and places it on a photosensitive plastic plate where it is exposed to a light source. At this point the-judgment factors in- volved in the NAPP process are the same as those involved in the traditional process which used a mag- nesium plate. After the plate is exposed, it is placed in a washout unit where only water (as opposed to acid under the old system) is used. The NAPP plate is next inserted in an ultraviolet oven and hardened. After the product is finished, it is, inspected by a photoengraver for quality and then routed to the stereotype depart- ment and is used as a pattern plate in a manner identi- cal to the traditional zinc or magnesium plate. The NAPP plate, however, is capable of being used without any structural changes, other than bending, as a direct press plate, thus bypassing the stereotype de- partment and the casting of semicylindrical lead print- ing plates. Both Companies at the time of the hearing were utilizing the NAPP system to produce pattern plates and simultaneously using the traditional photo- engraving system to produce zinc or magnesium direct plates. Although both Companies contemplate the eventual conversion of the NAPP system to direct press plate use, no date had been fixed for such conversion at, the time of the hearing. On March 29, 1973, and in June of the same year, Northwest and the Publishing Company respectively informed both Unions that the work associated with the NAPP system would be performed by the photoen- gravers. In anticipation of the possible impact on the stereoty- pers caused by the introduction of the NAPP system, the two Companies jointly developed a "phase out pro- gram" to guarantee that efforts would be made to relo- cate stereotypers in other jobs if they were replaced and to establish a program of severance pay. When the program was submitted to the Stereotypers Union as a written proposal and discussed at a January 10, 1974, meeting, spokesmen for the Stereotypers assured the Companies they would study the proposal, consult with their membership, and develop counterproposals. At a later meeting between the Companies and the Stereotypers, a spokesman for that Union proposed to expand the jurisdictional language in 'their contract to include the platemaking operations of the NAPP pro- cess, and submitted a written proposal to each company to that effect. Pursuant to this submission the Stereoty- pers argued that the Companies had no right to unilat- erally award jurisdiction of the NAPP platemaking process to the employees represented by the Photoen- gravers and asserted that the jurisdictional clause in their collective-bargaining agreement should be ex = panded to extend to and embrace "all platemaking and developing, and all other post-camera operations, in- cluding but not limited to stripping, opaquing, dot etching or any other substitute processes or functions of the foregoing." When the Companies met with the Photoengravers and discussed with them the potential jurisdictional dispute presented by the Stereotypers demands, the Photoengravers took the position that the work was encompassed by its own jurisdictional language. A few days later the Photoengravers by letter reiterated to each company that Union's intention to engage in im- mediate economic action against the Companies if any part of the work on the NAPP platemaking process was assigned to any employees other than those represented by that labor organization. The letters further advised that the Photoengraver Union had requested strike sanction in the event that the work was reassigned. In early 1974 each Company filed charges against the Photoengravers, alleging that the Union's threat to strike unless the work involving the NAPP platemak- ing process remained assigned to photoengraving em- ployees violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act. Thereafter, the cases were consolidated for hearing. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employers contend that their respective assign- ments of the disputed work to the photoengravers are proper on the basis of employer preference and assign- ment, the relevant collective-bargaining agreements, the superior skills of the photoengravers, reasons of efficiency and economy, and the fact that the impact of job loss will be mitigated by the assignment of the work to the photoengravers. In its brief, the Photoengravers takes basically the same position as the Employers. The Stereotypers takes the position that there is not, in this case, a jurisdictional dispute as contemplated,by Sections 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k) of the Act. The thrust of this argument is that the work presently being per- formed by the photoengravers, the use of the NAPP system to produce pattern plates, rightfully belongs to the photoengravers and has never been claimed by the stereotypers. It further contends that its counter- proposal to the Employers related only to the making of the direct press plate by use of the NAPP system and was not to be operative until that time. Thus, it con- cludes, inasmuch as there is no dispute regarding the photoengravers' use of the NAPP system to produce pattern plates, and since the Stereotypers' jurisdictional contentions relate only to making plates for the print- ing presses in the future, the filing of charges by the GRAPHIC ARTS INTL. UNION Employers is premature, and the notice of hearing should be quashed. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to the determination 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) that 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 Employers informed both Unions that the work in con- nection with NAPP process would be assigned to photoengravers, in a subsequent bargaining session, the Stereotypers submitted a proposal that all postcamera work involved in platemaking be assigned to employees represented by that Union. When the Employers in- formed the Photoengravers of the position taken by the Stereotypers, the Photoengravers advised both Em- ployers, orally and in writing , that it would resort to economic action against the Employers if any part of the NAPP work were reassigned to any employees other than its own members . The record further shows that the Photoengravers informed the Employers it had requested strike sanction from its International in the event the work were reassigned . From the foregoing, and the entire record in this case, we believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D ) has occurred and that this case is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.' E. Merits of the Dispute As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction Company,2 we shall determine the appropriate assign- ment of disputed work in each case presented for reso- lution 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 rele- vant in determining the dispute herein. 1. Collective-bargaining agreements The Photoengravers and both Employers contend that the jurisdictional provisions of the Photoengrav- ers' collective-bargaining agreement with the Employ- ers encompass the NAPP platemaking process whether a pattern or direct plate is produced. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the Photoengravers and Northwest provides, in relevant part: I There was no evidence that there is any agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. 2 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). 245 The jurisdiction of the Union over the process of photoengraving as defined includes ... the pro- cessing of all copy of reproductive platemaking purposes . . . stripping, etching . . , dot etch- ing . . . opaquing of positives and negatives; stripping and positioning necessary and re- quired for the completion of the process.... The most recent contract between the Photoengrav- ers and the Publishing Company embodies in the juris- dictional clause: All operations of the process pertaining to the production of photoengraving plates . . . [including] the operation of electronic platemak- ing devices and machines . . . [and] the making from copy of all photoengravings.. . . The jurisdictional clauses in each contract further state: . . . should the Company install any equipment or adopt any work processes designed as a substitute for, or evolution of, work now being done by its photoengravers , the Company agrees to recognize the jurisdiction of the [photoengravers] over such equipment and work processes. The Stereotypers Union has the following clause in its contract with Northwest: (d) The Publisher shall give the Union sixty (60) days advance notice of intent to install new equip- ment, or adopt new processes designed as a substi- tute for or evolution of work now being done by the stereotype personnel under this Agreement, so that the Union may have an opportunity to train men therefor. It is further agreed that if any jour- neymen are displaced by new processes and/or new equipment in the Stereotype Department qualified stereotype journeymen shall have first opportunity to be employed at the new work. The Stereotypers contract with the Publishing Com- pany is similar except it provides for 90 , rather than 60, days of notice. In its brief, the Stereotypers does not seriously argue that its members are entitled to the disputed work by virtue of its contracts with the Employers. We note, however, that the language relied upon by the Stereoty- pers concerns equipment and processes related to work presently being performed by stereotype personnel and the evidence adduced at the hearing shows that none of the NAPP processes has ever been performed by stereotype personnel . Nor is any of the NAPP equip- ment located in the stereotype department, which is separate and apart from the photoengraving depart- ment. While the Photoengravers contracts do not explicitly cover the NAPP process, they do clearly cover any new equipment or process designed as a substitute for, or evolution of, work done by photoengravers . In our view 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the NAPP system which is installed in the photoen- graving department constitutes an evolution of tradi- tional photoengraving work. ,On the other hand, however, inasmuch as the Em- ployers plan to use the NAPP process for direct print- ing plates, the new process can to some extent become a substitution for or evolution of work now done by stereotypers; at least some aspect of the disputed work is arguably covered by the Stereotypers contract. Therefore, we do not accord controlling weight to ei- ther collective-bargaining agreement in making our determination. 2. Skills, efficiency, and employer assignment and preference The evidence shows that the work performed by photoengravers in preparing the magnesium plate is similar to that involved in the NAPP process and that it takes a minimum of 4 years of training for an in- dividual to acquire proficiency as a photoengraver. Al- most all employees in the department are capable of performing the various NAPP functions. While there is some evidence regarding the skills and experience the stereotypers have in doing some work analogous to that involved in the NAPP process, they do not receive the same training that photoengravers receive. Nor does it appear that they have had the same experience in eva- luating negatives and inspecting the dot structures of the etched plates as have photoengravers. The record reveals that the judging of the quality of negative is a critical factor in the ultimate quality of the plate and will often necessitate consultation between the photo- engravers in various stages of the platemaking process. It is apparent that the integration of the camera and postcamera operations will contribute to the efficiency of the Employers' operations. The Employers adduced testimony that in each case the work involved in the NAPP process was assigned to photoengravers because photoengravers have tradi- tionally performed almost identical functions in pro- ducing magnesium plates and were deemed the best qualified employees for doing this work. Both Employ- ers have been satisfied with the photoengravers' perfor- mance and prefer that the work remain assigned to them. We conclude that all the foregoing factors favor an award to photoengravers. 3. Area, craft, and; industry practice The NAPP system is still relatively new and the hearing did not establish any comprehensive area, craft, or industry practice which would favor one Union over the other. - 4. Job impact At the time of the hearing the introduction of the NAPP process had neither caused an increase in the work force of the photoengraving department, nor had it caused a decrease in the stereotype department. The Employers, however, contemplate that they will even- tually switch to the direct press plate use of the NAPP process. This probably will eliminate all of the stereo- type department with the exception of the few em- ployees required to fit the NAPP plates to the saddles in the printing presses. On the other hand, however, if the stereotypers were assigned jurisdiction over the NAPP process and all postcamera work, all present photoengravers except cameramen would likely be eliminated. On these facts consideration of the job impact factor does not favor either Union over the other. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole and after full considera- tion of all relevant factors, we conclude that the North- west employees and the Publishing Company em- ployees who are represented by the Photoengravers are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion upon the basis of the Employers' preference and assignment of the disputed work to these em- ployees; the fact that these employees possess the requi- site skills to perform the work; and the fact that such assignment will result in greater efficiency and con- tinuity of operations. Accordingly we shall determine the dispute before us by awarding the disputed work at Northwest Publications, Inc.'s, San Jose, California, place of business and at the San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company, Inc.'s, San Francisco, California, place of business to the employees represented by Photoengravers but not to that Union or its members. Our present determination is limited to the particular controversies which gave rise to this proceeding. GRAPHIC ARTS INTL. UNION DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceed- ing, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees of Northwest Publications , Inc., of San 247 Jose, California, and employees of San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company, Inc., of San Francisco, California, who are represented by Graphic'Arts Inter- national Union, Local No. 280, are entitled to perform all platemaking and developing, and all other postcam- era operations, including but not limited to-stripping, opaquing, dot etching, or any other substitute processes or functions of the foregoing , at the places of business of their respective Employers involved herein.