New York Lithographers Union No. I-P

NEW YORK LITHOGRAPHERS UNION NO. I-P New York Lithographers and Photo-Engravers' Union No. l-P, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL- CIO and The New York Times Company and New York Stereotypers' Union No. 1, International Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO. Case 2-CD-526 June 24, 1977 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by The New York Times Company, herein called the Employer or The Times, alleging that New York Lithographers and Photo- Engravers' Union No. I-P, Graphic Arts Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Photo- Engravers, 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 certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by New York Stereotypers' Union No. I, International Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Stereotypers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Clifford P. Chaiet on December 16, 1976, and January 6, 10, and 11, 1977. 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. 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 Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in the publication of a daily and Sunday newspaper, with its principal place of business in New York. During the past year, the Employer purchased goods from outside the State having a value in excess of $50,000. The parties also stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 230 NLRB No. 58 (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Photo- Engravers and the Stereotypers are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute From 1962 until August 1975, The Times printed certain sections of its Sunday newspaper in advance at its West Side plant on West End Avenue and 65th Street in New York City. The work performed at this plant consisted, in part, of the production of press- ready printing plates by employees represented by the Stereotypers. These plates were then delivered to the presses at the plant for use in printing the real estate, drama, and resort sections of the newspaper. When, in August 1975, the West Side plant was shut down, the operations involved were moved to the main plant on West 43d Street in New York City, where stereotypers continued to produce press-ready printing plates for the above-noted sections in the same manner. The operations at both the West Side plant and the West 43d Street plant involved the letterpress method of printing. The letterpress method involves the combining of raised metal type with raised-face engravings in a frame or chase. The chase is then used to produce a matrix or mat by placing a plastic sheet on the chase and applying heavy pressure to transfer the image of the raised type to the mat. The mat, which is an exact image of the page itself, is then used to produce a heavy lead printing plate, which is put onto the press to print the paper. In producing certain of the material in the chase, the photoengraving department creates a raised-face engraving. This process involves the photographing of a paste makeup of the copy which is produced by other employees of The Times. The negative is then exposed on a light-sensitive metal plate by photoen- gravers. The plate is then developed and etched by others in the photoengraving department and the resulting engraving is mounted on a heavy metal base to raise it to the level of the other type in the chase. The chase itself is composed by composing room employees who are represented by a typographical union. The matrix or mat, taken from the chase, is produced by stereotypers. Prior to the shutdown of the West Side plant, the mat was delivered there and stereotypers at that plant produced the press-ready printing plate from the mat. Following the shutdown, 425 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the mat was delivered to the foundry at the 43d Street plant where stereotypers produced the press- ready printing plate. In September 1976, The Times commenced opera- tions at its Carlstadt, New Jersey, plant. This operation consists of the printing of sections in advance for the Sunday newspaper. These are the same sections formerly printed at the West Side plant. Prior to commencement of the Carlstadt operation, The Times assigned the work of producing the printing plates to stereotypers. These plates are produced by the offset method from negatives prepared by photoengravers at the 43d Street plant. On September 24, 1976, employees represented by the Photo-Engravers engaged in a temporary work stoppage by refusing to produce the negatives used in the Carlstadt operation. Simultaneously, the Photo- Engravers forwarded a letter to The Times demand- ing that the work of producing the offset printing plates at Carlstadt be assigned to its members. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves the production of press-ready offset printing plates to be used to print certain sections of the Sunday Times at the Carlstadt, New Jersey, plant. The process involves taking a full- page negative prepared by photoengravers at 43d Street; superimposing the negative on a light-sensi- tive thin aluminum plate and exposing the two to intense light; developing and preserving the plate; and bending or crimping the plate to fit the press. There are five machines used in the process. The first is a hole-punching machine. This is used to punch holes in the plates in order to allow them to be fitted into the presses. Where a plate has not been presensitized, it is run through a coating machine which coats it to produce a light-sensitive surface. The plate is then lined up with the negative in an exposure machine and the two are exposed to intense light. The exposed plate is then placed in a developing machine which develops the plate and coats it with a preservative. This plate is then bent and crimped on a final machine to put it into the shape needed for mounting on the press. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the work in dispute should be assigned to employees represented by the On November 15, 1976, The Times and the Photo-Engravers participat- ed in an arbitration proceeding concerning the assignment of the work. Although invited to participate, the Stereotypers declined. The award, issued on November 23, 1976, found the work should have been assigned to members of the Photo-Engravers. Stereotypers on the basis of Employer preference, economy, and efficiency of operation. The Stereotypers asserts that The Times' assign- ment of the work in dispute to employees represented by the Stereotypers should not be overturned, and that this assignment is supported by past practice at The Times and by industrywide practice in Metro- politan New York. The Photo-Engravers takes the position that The Times' assigment of the disputed work to employees represented by the Stereotypers was in derogation of the contract between The Times and the Photo- Engravers. The Photo-Engravers also bases its claim to the work on an arbitration award.' D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of the 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), the record herein reveals that on September 24, 1976, the photoengravers engaged in a temporary work stoppage by refusing to produce the negatives used in the Carlstadt operation. Simulta- neously, the Photo-Engravers forwarded a letter to the Employer demanding that the work of producing the offset printing plates at Carlstadt be assigned to its members. In view of this temporary work stoppage and the letter sent to the Employer by the Photo-Engravers, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. 2 As to (2), we find that there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of this dispute. The contract between the Stereotypers and the Employer provides that differences arising under the contract shall be referred to the Joint Conference Committee for resolution if representatives of the two parties cannot resolve the matter informally. There is no provision for tripartite arbitration. The Photo-Engravers contract provides that differ- ences arising under the contract shall be referred to the Joint Standing Committee for resolution. As in the Stereotypers contract, there is no provision for tripartite arbitration. In San Diego Stereotypers' Union No. 82, affiliated with the International Stereotypers and Electrotypers 2 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 348, AFL-CIO (Dick Tile and Marble Company, Inc. J, 193 NLRB 769, 770 (1971). 426 NEW YORK LITHOGRAPHERS UNION NO. I-P Union of North America (Union-Tribune Publishing Company),3 the Board was faced with a similar situation where "the arbitration provisions of their respective contracts do not provide an agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute which could culminate in a single determination binding on all parties." 4 The Board found that the unions were bound only by their respective contracts and therefore would not be affected by arbitration initiated under another union's contract. In Local 1184, Southern California District Council of Laborers (H. M. Robertson Pipeline Constructors), 5 the Board concluded that "the voluntary adjustment must bind all disputing unions as well as the Employer in order to come within the meaning of voluntary settlement as set out in Section 10(k)." In that case, the fact that each union's contract provided for arbitration of disputes arising between the contracting parties did not "support the conclusion that all parties have agreed to be bound by a single tripartite arbitration proceeding, or to a means by which a final and binding adjustment could be reached." 6 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 there exists no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that this dispute is properly before the Board for determination. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due consideration to various factors. 7 The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense and experience reached by balancing those factors involved in a particular case.8 The following factors are relevant in making the determination of the dispute before us: 1. Collective-bargaining agreements The Stereotypers contract, agreed upon December 4, 1975, and effective March 31, 1975, to March 30, 1978, covers all employees doing stereotype work at the newspaper. Section 5 of the Stereotypers contract pertains to jurisdiction. Section 5(b) lists the various craft designations and work processes covered by the contract, and includes "such other designations as may be applied to any process for duplicating plates, 3 201 NLRB 893 (1973). 4 Id. at 895. 5 192 NLRB 1078(1971). 6 Id at 1079. 7 N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broadcasting System], 364 U.S. 573 (1961). cylinders or any other duplicate method for print- ing." Section 5(e) states that the Employer will recognize the jurisdiction of the Stereotypers over "any system, process, method or equipment-and will make no other contract covering such work- which the publisher may adopt or install within the jurisdiction of the union as a substitute for or as an addition to any system, process, method or equip- ment now being manned by its stereotypers." In addition, by stipulation dated October 25, 1975, the Employer and the Stereotypers agreed that the Stereotypers jurisdiction under the contract already included platemaking by the offset process, and it was therefore unnecessary to add any additional language to the contract to cover the Carlstadt operation. The Stereotypers contract also contains a provision preventing any decrease in the number of regular full-time stereotypers due to the introduction of automation. The Photo-Engravers contract was entered into December 4, 1975, and is effective March 31, 1975, to March 30, 1978. In section 21, photoengraving is defined as all operations pertaining to the production of photoengraving plates, offset plates, and gravure cylinders. There is also a clause stating that the Photo-Engravers will have jurisdiction over any new machines or processes for work covered in the jurisdiction clause of the contract. In a separate memorandum, the Employer agreed to recognize the Photo-Engravers jurisdiction over the making of offset plates which are used in the production of the newspaper. The jurisdictional provisions of both contracts on their face indicate that the Stereotypers and Photo- Engravers each has a colorable claim to offset platemaking at the Carlstadt plant. Accordingly, we find that this factor is neutral.9 2. Company and industry practice Only employees represented by the Stereotypers have ever made press-ready printing plates for the Employer, either in the offset printing operation or the traditional typesetting process. Under the tradi- tional process, photoengravers made engravings for photographs and advertisements. The engravings were mounted on a lead base and placed in a page chase with hot metal type. The chase was then sent to the stereotype department, and the image of the entire chase was transferred under heavy pressure to a International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). 9 Graphic Arts Union No. 67, a/w International Printing and Graphic Communications Union (New Bedford Standard Times Publishing Compan,). 220 NLRB 1167(1975). 427 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a cardboard mat. Stereotypers used this mat to make the press-ready printing plates. There was uncontradicted testimony that the other major New York newspapers employ stereotypers to make press-ready printing plates. At the New York Post, stereotypers produce Hercules plastic plates from negatives in the course of producing letterpress printing plates. Stereotypers at the New York Daily News make all of the printing plates for that newspaper. John Vaughan, a stereotyper at The Times, testified that both the Morristown Record and the Village Voice, which are printed in Morris- town, New Jersey, employ stereotypers to make plates for the offset printing process. He testified further that the Hudson Dispatch, printed in Union City, New Jersey, uses a process whereby the printing plate is produced from a negative and this plate is made by stereotypers.l? Accordingly, we find that these factors support an award to employees repre- sented by the Stereotypers. 3. Relative skills John Mortimer, senior vice president of the Employer, testified without contradiction that the degree of skill required for the offset process was such that stereotypers or photoengravers could easily learn it. The Employer provided training for the stereotypers in the offset process prior to beginning production at Carlstadt. Stereotyper foremen were also sent to various installations to learn the offset process, and stereotypers received additional training at a printing school in New York. We find that this factor favors an award of the work to employees represented by the Stereotypers. 4. Economy and efficiency of operation The assignment of the work in dispute to stereotyp- ers involves significant advantages in efficiency. John Mortimer testified that there is full employment among the photoengravers, and the assignment of the disputed work to them would necessitate the hiring of additional employees. By contract, the stereotyp- ers cannot be laid off if their jobs are eliminated due to automation or new production processes. Thus, the assignment of the work in dispute to the photoengravers would require the Employer to continue to employ unneeded stereotypers. We 'o This process, known as the Napp process, involves making a relief plate, whereas a flat plate is made for offset printing. therefore find that these factors favor assignment of the work in dispute to employees represented by the Stereotypers. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full consideration of all relevant factors involved, we conclude that employees who are represented by the Stereotypers are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on Em- ployer preference, company and industry practice, relative skills, and economy and efficiency of operation. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees who are represented by Stereotypers, but not to that Union or its members. The present determination is limited to the particular controversy 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 makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of The New York Times Company, who are represented by New York Stereotypers' Union No. 1, International Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform all work relating to offset platemaking at the Employer's Carlstadt, New Jersey, plant. 2. New York Lithographers and Photo-Engrav- ers' Union No. I-P, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscrib- ed by Section 8(b)(4XD) of the Act to force or require The New York Times Company to assign the disputed work to employees represented by that labor organization. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, New York Lithogra- phers and Photo-Engravers' Union No. l-P, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 2, 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 disputed work in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. 428