Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (The Evening News Association, The Detroit News)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO and The Eve- ning News Association, The Detroit News and Local 289, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CD-424 March 22, 1983 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND HUNTER This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing the filing of a charge by The Evening News Association, the Detroit News, hereafter the Em- ployer. The charge alleges that the Detroit Typo- graphical Union No. 18, International Typographi- cal Union, AFL-CIO, hereafter DTU, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in cer- tain proscribed conduct with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to continue to assign certain work to employees represented by DTU rather than to employees represented by Local 289, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, hereafter GAIU. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Joseph Canfield on November 9, 1982,' in Detroit, Michigan. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, briefs were filed on behalf of the Employer, DTU, and GAIU. 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 Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated and we find that the Em- ployer is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business at Detroit, Michigan, where it en- gages in the publication of the Detroit News, a daily and Sunday newspaper of general circulation. During the calendar year 1981, a representative period, the Employer was a member of and sub- scribed to the Associated Press and United Press International which are interstate news services, and derived gross revenues from its publishing op- i Except as noted, all dates are 1982. 266 NLRB No. 99 eration in excess of $1 million. During the same period, the Employer had gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for the publication of advertisements placed from outside the State of Michigan. Ac- cordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that DTU and GAIU 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 consists of the color separa- tion of ads by the pasteup method. B. Background and Facts of the Dispute Prior to July, the color separation of ads was performed for some years by the Employer's en- graving room employees, who are represented by GAIU, utilizing the film stripping method. This method essentially involved the making of negative images from which the color was separated. In July, the Employer changed its procedure and in- stituted the pasteup method for most of its color separation work. 2 Essentially this method entails the pasting of separate portions of the ads to photo- graphic mats. The Employer assigned this work to its composing room employees who are represent- ed by DTU. Shortly thereafter, GAIU filed a grievance protesting the assignment of this work to composing room employees and requesting its return to engraving room employees. In accord- ance with contractual procedures, this grievance was processed through at least one step of the grievance/arbitration procedure and was scheduled for presentation to the joint standing committee. This meeting was canceled and the Employer filed the present charge following its receipt of a letter from the president of DTU wherein he threatened "immediate economic action" if any attempt were made to remove the work from composing room employees. It is undisputed, and the parties stipulat- ed, that there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute which would bind all parties. I Four color ads continue to be separated by the film stripping method. These multicolor ads are a very small percent of the ad business. 548 DETROIT TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 18 C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that its assignment of the work to composing room employees represent- ed by DTU should not be changed because it is based on contract provisions, efficiency, economy, past assignment, the need for additional work in the composing room, and the absence of any ad- verse impact on the photoengravers represented by GAIU. DTU contends that the Employer is con- tractually obligated to assign all pasteup work to employees it represents and argues that the assign- ment of color separation work to composing room emp'loyees has had little impact on either unit. DTU notes also that composing room employees previously performed color separation work by the metal-form method prior to the Employer's con- version some years ago to the "cold type" film stripping method of color separation and its result- ing assignment of this work to the photoengravers. GAIU argues that the Employer should return to the traditional method of color separation by film stripping. This method, GAIU argues, enables the color separation work to be performed more effi- ciently and more accurately as compared to the pasteup method. GAIU notes that it has contrac- tual jurisdiction over film stripping. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of 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 dis- pute. As noted above, the DTU threatened the Em- ployer with "immediate economic action" with the object of forcing the Employer to continue assign- ing the work to employees it represents rather than to those represented by GAIU. It is undisputed, and the parties stipulated, that there is no agreed- upon method of voluntary adjustment of the dis- pute which would bind all of the parties. It is well established that grievance or arbitration proceed- ings which do not involve all of the parties to the dispute are not an adequate method of adjustment within the meaning of Section 10(k). 3 Upon the entire record, we find that there is rea- sonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated; that there is no agreed-upon method for the resolution of this dispute; and thus that the I Warehouse Employees' Union Local 169, a/w the International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Frankford Quaker Grocery Company, Inc.), 218 NLRB 310, 312 (1975), and cases cited therein at fn. 8. dispute is properly before the Board for determina- tion. 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. We have considered the following factors in making our determination.4 1. Collective-bargaining argreements DTU's contract, with the Employer at section 7(a), defines that Union's jurisdiction and classifica- tions as including, inter alia, "all composing room work," "paste makeup with reproduction proofs," and "employees processing the product of photo- typesetting machines, including . . . paste makeup of all type," and "paste makeup serving as the completed copy for the camera." This section also prohibits the Employer from making "any other agreement" covering this work, however, it recog- nizes and permits the continuation of a certain volume of "promotional advertising paste makeup" by "persons in other departments." Article II of GAIU's contract provides that the Union's position as to its proper jurisdiction is: "the process of photoengraving and its attendant work" including, inter alia, stripping. It makes no refer- ence to pasteup work. We find that this factor favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by DTU. 2. Relative skills, company practice, and employer preference Composing room employees traditionally have performed all of the Employer's pasteup work with the apparent exception of certain promotional ad- vertising work. There is no evidence that the pho- toengravers ever have performed pasteup work. The Employer has assigned the color separation work to composing room employees and is satisfied with their performance. Accordingly, we find these factors favor an award of the disputed work to em- ployees represented by DTU. 3. Possible job loss and efficiency of operation According to the Employer's undisputed testimo- ny, there has been little impact on photoengraving department employees following its assignment of this work to the composing room. There has been no reduction in the number of photoengravers em- 4We note here that the Employer has chosen to have color separation work performed by the pasteup method. We will not determine whether, as GAIU argues, film stripping is the more appropriate method for color separation. Rather, we determine only which group of employees should perform this work using the pasteup method. 549 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployed and no layoffs are contemplated. The as- signment to the composing room has resulted in a more efficient use of employees. The Employer notes that many of its DTU-represented employees received a lifetime job guarantee at the time of its conversion to a "cold type" operation and that there currently is insufficient work to keep all of these employees busy. Thus, the assignment of the color separation work to the composing room somewhat offsets this problem. Thus, we find these factors favor an award of the disputed work to em- ployees represented by DTU. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- sideration of all relevant factors, we conclude that composing room employees who are represented by DTU are entitled to perform the work in dis- pute. In making this determination, we are award- ing the work in question to employees who are represented by the DTU 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 hereby makes the following Determination of Dis- pute: Employees employed by The Evening News As- sociation, The Detroit News, who are represented by Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are enti- tled to perform color separation by the pasteup method. 550