Atlantic Typographical Union No. 48

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48 and Dittler Brothers, Inc. and Atlanta Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 8. Case 10-CD-264 July 11, 1977 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND WALTHER This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Dittler Brothers, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging that Atlanta Typo- graphical Union No. 48, herein called the Respon- dent or Typographers, 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 adhere to its assignment of certain work to employees it represents, rather than to assign such work to employees represented by Atlanta Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 8, herein called Pressmen. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer George L. Card, Jr., on January 26, 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. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employer, Typographers, and Pressmen. Pursuant to the provisions of the 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: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer, a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia, is engaged in the commercial printing business. During the past year, the Employer purchased and received supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside of the State of Georgia. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assertjurisdiction herein. I The parties disagreed about the accurate name of the machine. The manufacturer's brochure alternatively refers to it as the Opti-Copy Full Size Imposer, the Programmable Opti-Copy Imposing Camera, and the Opti- 230 NLRB No. 113 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, the Typogra- phers and Pressmen are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer's composing room employees are represented by Typographers. The Employer's press- room employees are represented by Pressmen. In October 1976, the Employer purchased a new piece of equipment that is known as the opti-copy machine. The Employer placed the machine in the composing room. After work with the machine had been in progress for about 2 months, the employees in the pressroom, who are represented by Pressmen, filed grievances pursuant to their collective-bargain- ing agreement in which they contended that the disputed work must be assigned to them under the provisions of their collective-bargaining agreement. Upon receiving a copy of the grievance, the Employ- er's president notified Typographers of the grievanc- es. The president of Typographers indicated that his union claimed the work and, if any effort were made to change the work assignment, his union would strike. This prompted the Employer to file the instant charges with the Board. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves the assignment and operation of the opti-copy machine.' The opti-copy machine combines several aspects of the printing process and eliminates certain other steps. This is accomplished by utilizing a sophisticated electronic system that features an imposing camera and a computer. Specifically, the machine uses a camera to produce each page and thereby obviates the need to paste up the material that will appear on each page. This is particularly important in the Employer's portion of work which involves printing airline and train schedules. As agreed upon by the parties at the hearing, the work in dispute in this proceeding involves "the performance of the work relating to the use of the [opti-copy] machine up to the point where the film is complete, and prepared to the point where a plate for printing can be prepared." Copy System, and Opti-Copy. For purposes of this proceeding, we are concerned about the function of the machine and therefore will simply refer to it as the opti-copy machine. 732 ATLANTA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 48 C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the work in dispute should continue to be assigned to employees repre- sented by Typographers, as do Typographers. Both stress the ability of the typographers to perform the tasks involved and the loss of jobs if employees represented by Pressmen are assigned the work. The Employer is particularly concerned that the process be conducted by one department so that effective supervision may be maintained. It argues that this enhances the efficiency of the operation. It also argues that industry practice favors such assignment. Typographers further stresses its collective-bargain- ing agreement with the Employer. In contrast, Pressmen argues that its existing collective-bargain- ing agreement mandates that employees it represents should receive the work in dispute and that employ- ees it represents are qualified to do that work. 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 there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. 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. Typographers threat to strike should the work in dispute be removed from its jurisdiction provides this belief. Further, the record shows 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.2 The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on commonsense and experience and made by balancing various factors in each particular case.3 The following factors are relevant in making the determination of the dispute before us: 2 N.L. R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212, Inrernational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL CIO lColumbia Broadcasting Sittem], 364 U.S. 573 (1961). 1. Collective-bargaining agreements and certifications Both unions have entered into collective-bargain- ing agreements with the Employer. Typographers agreement (sec. 3) provides that all operation and maintenance of computers and com- puterized devices and all photocomposition, pasteup, and imposition will be assigned exclusively to Typographers. On the other hand, section 2 of Pressmen contract specifies that Pressmen jurisdic- tion includes, inter alia, offset camera, darkroom work on camera process materials, stripping, and opaquing. Since the opti-copy operation includes many of the aforementioned aspects of both collec- tive-bargaining agreements, we find this factor favors neither group of employees. There are not outstanding Board certifications covering the work in dispute and this factor favors neither group of employees. 2. Industry and area practice The record indicates that the opti-copy machine is still quite new. In fact, only three other companies in the United States are known to have purchased it. All three of these companies, which are nonunion, have installed the machine in their composing room departments. However, we find the small number of companies using the machine does not establish an industry practice. There is no other company in the Atlanta area using the machine and thus no area practice. Accordingly, the factors of industry practice and area practice favor neither group of employees. 3. Relative skills The Employer and Typographers contend that computer training is necessary in order to work with the opti-copy machine. Pressmen denies this but claims also that the employees it represents could be trained in time to perform such work. The Employer responds to this suggestion by stressing that it would take a considerable time to so train the employees. Certain other skills required in working with the machine appear to be possessed by employees in both the composing room and the pressroom. It is clear to us that knowledge of computer operation is essential to efficient performance of the work in dispute. We conclude therefore that this factor of skills favors assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by Typographers. It is clear from the record that these employees already I International Association of Machinists. Lodge No 1473, AFL CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). 733 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD possess the computer skills to perform the necessary operations. 4. Economy and efficiency of operation Loss of Jobs The Employer argues that it is more efficient to assign the disputed work to employees represented by Typographers than to those Pressmen represents. The record reveals that, if the work were assigned to employees represented by Pressmen, a member of Typographers would still be needed in order to monitor the minicomputer that will be used in connection with the logic unit. This would be difficult to implement because dual supervision would be necessary as well as dual management to communicate instructions to each department. This would, in turn, hamper the Employer in maintaining quality standards because accountability for the operation would be scattered. Furthermore, if the work is assigned to Typographers, the eight or nine employees who work in the composing room will be able to assume the new work without the need for any layoffs. In contrast, assigning the work to the pressmen in the pressroom may well cause layoffs in the composing room. Therefore, we conclude that these factors favor assignment of the work in dispute to employees represented by Typographers. 5. Employer's assignment The Employer assigned the work in dispute to, and prefers that it be performed by, the employees in the composing room who are represented by Typogra- phers; this factor favors an award to those employ- ees. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full consideration of all relevant factors, as noted above, we conclude that the employees who are represented by Typographers are entitled to perform the work in dispute in connection with the operation of the opti- copy machine. In making this determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees who are represented by Typographers, 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: Employees of Dittler Brothers, Inc., who are represented by Atlanta Typographers Union No. 48 are entitled to perform the work relating to the use of the opti-copy machine up to the point where the film is complete and prepared to the point where a plate for printing can be prepared. 734