Athens Printing Pressmen, No. 269

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 154 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Athens Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No.
269, affiliated with the International Printing and
Graphic Communications Union , AFL-CIO and
Thompson Brush-Moore Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a
The Portsmouth Times ' and Portsmouth
Typographical Union No. 637, International
Typographical Union , AFL-CIO. Case 9-CD-304
January 15, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
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 Thompson Brush-Moore News-
papers, Inc. d/b/a The Portsmouth Times, herein
called the Employer, alleging that Athens Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 269, affiliated
with the International Printing and Graphic Commu-
nications Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Pressmen,
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A duly
scheduled hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Eric D. Fields on September 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.2 Thereaft-
er, the Employer and the Pressmen filed briefs; no
brief was filed by Portsmouth Typographical Union
No. 637, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called Typographers.
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,
including the aforementioned briefs, the Board
makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Thompson
Brush-Moore Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Ports-
mouth Times, is a Delaware corporation located in
Portsmouth, Ohio, engaged in producing a daily
newspaper which is distributed primarily in the local
Portsmouth, Ohio, area. During the past 12 months,
the Employer had a gross volume of business in
' At the hearing the Employer's name was corrected to delete the
abbreviation "Inc." after "The Portsmouth Times."
At various places in the record the first word in the Employer's name
excess of $200,000, and it Purchased and causod to
be shipped directly in interstate commerce from
suppliers outside the State of Ohio goods valued in
excess of $50,000. The Employer advertises national-
ly sold products for national companies, such as
Sears , Roebuck and Company, and subscribes to
national wire services. The parties stipulated, and we
find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that both the
Pressmen and the Typographers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
As of the time of the hearing, the Employer
employed 30 composing room employees who were
represented by the Typographers, and 19 pressroom
and stereotype employees represented by Respon-
dent Pressmen. In June or July 1974, the Employer
installed photocomposition equipment in preparation
for converting from a hot metal type process to a
coldtype process for producing newsprint, which it
planned to begin on October 1, 1974.
Under the Employer's hot metal system, editorial
copy came to the composing room employees as
typed pages or perforated tape from an Associated
Press wire machine. If it was in written form, the first
function of the composing room employees was to
translate it into perforated tape for use on a TTS
Linecaster which produced lines of type or slugs, and
these were assembled by composing room employees
in page form inside a metal frame, known as a chase.
The chase was then transferred from the compos-
ing room to the stereotype employees represented by
Respondent Pressmen. It was placed on a mat roller,
where it was planed, cleaned, and rolled under
pressure to form an impression on a page mat. The
page mat was transferred from the stereotype
department to the pressroom, where it was visually
inspected for imperfections and dried in a scorcher.
After being trimmed and hardened, it was placed
into a page-casting box, where molten lead was
pumped in to form a molded page or stereoplate. The
stereoplate was then trimmed and cooled and placed
on a press cylinder ready for printing.
Illustrative work was converted to an engraving
form using a Fairchild Scan-A-Graver; the scan-a-
graving was affixed to the stereoplate just prior to
appears differently as "Thomson" and as "Thompson," but the correct
spelling is not clearly specified.
2 The International Typographical Union intervened at the hearing.
216 NLRB No. 27
ATHENS PRINTING PRESSMEN, NO. 269
going to press . The Fairchild Scan-A-Graver was
located in the newsroom and was operated by a
member of a bargaining unit represented by the
Typographers , distinct from the composing room
employees.
Under the new coldtype system a photographic
composition process would replace the lead molding
process . A Merigraph plastic platemaking system
would be used instead of the stereoplatemaking
process . As in the old process, news copy would be
converted into perforated tape . All perforated tape
would be fed into a new photocomposition machine,
operated by composing room employees, which
would produce a picture of a galley of type called a
photocopy. The photocopy would be composed into
an assembled page known as a pasteup.
Under the new system, the pasteup would be
delivered to the stereo-pressmen for conversion into
a printing plate . The first step in the conversion
would be the production of a negative by a
Robertson 500 camera and associated darkroom
equipment . Next the negative would be inspected
and imperfections corrected . The negative would
then be placed on the Merigraph plastic platemaking
machine and covered by a plastic sheet on which a
photosensitive emulsion would be deposited. The
product would be exposed to ultraviolet rays, which
harden the emulsion that would contain the final
print. After washing and inspecting, the plate would
be trimmed and mounted on a press cylinder, ready
for printing.
In the cold type process illustrative work would be
incorporated directly onto the page pasteup without
further processing . News photos would be directly
mounted on the plastic plate and covered with a
screen for printing . The Robertson 500 camera
would also be used for photo reduction work.
The Employer estimated that the conversion to the
coldtype process would necessitate reducing by 2 the
number of employees in the press -stereo department
represented by Respondent Pressmen , and by ap-
proximately 19 the number of composing room
employees represented by the Typographers. The
Employer planned to train all the employees repre-
sented by Respondent in the photocomposition
process so that they would operate under a single
supervisor as dual -function employees performing
camera work and platemaking , as well as manning
the presses.
By letter dated May 23, 1974, the Employer
notified both the Pressmen and the Typographers of
its intention to install the new coldtype process and
to assign the related camera and platemaking work
to employees represented by Respondent Pressmen.
On June 12, 1974, the Typographers replied to the
Employer's letter, claiming the camera work, the
155
related darkroom work , and the inspection and
opaquing for the composing room unit and asserting
that the Employer was obligated under the contract
to bargain over the introduction of new machines or
printing methods necessitating use of nonunit em-
ployees . At a subsequent meeting on the question, a
representative of the Typographers stated that the
Employer's assignment of the disputed work to
Respondent 's unit did not preclude a jurisdictional
strike by the Typographers . By letter dated July 17,
1974, Respondent Pressmen stated that , unless the
disputed work was assigned to its unit pursuant to
section 2 of its existing contract with the Employer,
the Respondent would call a strike to ensure
compliance therewith.
B. The Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated that the work in dispute is
the operation of the Robertson 500 camera, the
associated darkroom work (i.e., developing), and the
inspection and correction of the negative, but
excluding the actual process of plastic platemaking.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contended that its assignment of the
disputed work to employees represented by Respon-
dent Pressmen was based primarily on considera-
tions of economy and efficiency. The Robertson 500
camera and Merigraph plastic platemaking machine
have been located on the first floor adjacent to the
pressroom for efficient flow of work. The Employer
contended that since the Typographers did not claim
the Merigraph platemaking work, it would be neither
feasible nor efficient to have composing room
employees, who are located on the second floor,
performing camera work adjacent to and under
common supervision with employees represented by
the Pressmen and performing platemaking work on
the first floor. The Employer contended its assign-
ment would be necessary to allow the pressroom
employees to maintain sole control over the quality
of the plate. It is further claimed that assignment to
the press-stereo group would utilize otherwise unpro-
ductive time by making them multifunction employ-
ees.
The Employer noted that the press-stereo employ-
ees have traditionally performed all work from
platemaking to printing and contended that the
disputed work is functionally a substitute for much
of the initial rolling of the unprocessed mat per-
formed by those employees. It was further contended
that the Pressmen's contract covers the disputed
work and supports the Employer's assignment.
The pressmen concurred in the contentions of the
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer and stressed the functional equivalency of
its present work and the work in dispute.
The Typographers contended that the Employer
was obligated to assign the disputed work to
members of its unit under section 2a of the contract.
It further contended that it would be no more
difficult for the Employer to instruct and train its
members than those of Respondent.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to
determine a dispute out of which an 8(b)(4XD)
charge has arisen . However, before the Board
proceeds with a determination of dispute , it must be
satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
After becoming aware that the Typographers was
claiming the work in dispute herein , Respondent
Pressmen by letter dated July 17, 1974, informed the
Employer that if the disputed work were not assigned
to members of its unit, the Pressmen would call a
strike to insure compliance with its view of its
contract with the Employer.
On the basis of the above-described threat, we find
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dispute
is properly before the Board for determination under
Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
1. The collective-bargaining agreements
In pertinent part, the contract between the Em-
ployer and the Pressmen in its jurisdictional clause
provided:
(1) It is understood that this contract applies to
the union pressrooms operated by the Employer,
and that the jurisdiction of this contract extends
over all printing presses employed in said press-
rooms, including but not limited to gravure, offset
and letterpress printing presses and associated
devices... .
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the Typographers specifically exclud-
ed the platemaking process from the jurisdiction of
the composing room employees in the following
language:
"Jurisdiction of the Union begins with the markup of
copy and continues until the material is ready for the
printing press (but excludes the making of stereo-
types and the Fairchild Scan-A-Graver) and the
appropriate collective bargaining unit consists of all
employees performing any such work."
Neither contract specifically covered use of a
device such as the Robertson 500 camera and related
darkroom work. The Typographers contract specifi-
cally excluded stereotype work and use of the
Fairchild Scan-A-Graver. The disputed work is the
functional equivalent of the stereotype work tradi-
tionally performed by the pressmen and of the Scan-
A-Graver work which is specifically excluded from
the Typographers composing room contract and
performed by a newsroom employee under a sepa-
rate and distinct contract.
We cannot find that the language of either contract
standing alone favors the claim of either Union.
However , when both contracts are considered in
terms of substitution of functions within the present
jurisdictional delineations , we find that assignment
to the press-stereo employees is favored.
2. Area, craft, or industry practice
The record contains no evidence advanced by the
parties concerning controlling area or industry
practice. Indeed , we find no indication that there
exists any controlling area, craft, or industry practice
that would favor assignment to either craft.
3. Job impact
For the hot type process the Employer employed
30 composing room employees who are represented
by the Typographers and 19 press-stereo employees
who are represented by the Pressmen. The Employer
estimated that conversion to the cold type process
would necessitate elimination of 2 press -stereo jobs
and 19 composing room jobs.
The Employer contended that the sizeable reduc-
tion in the number of composing room employees
would not be substantially affected one way or
another by the assignment of the disputed camera
work and would be due almost entirely to the change
from "hot" to "cold" type. We have, however, no
evidence as to exactly how many composing room
employees would have to be retained should they be
assigned the camera work.
The evidence shows that under the new process the
press-stereo employees would have several periods of
idle or down time during each day. Indeed, the
Employer contended that the necessity to fill the idle
time weighed heavily in its decision to assign the
work to the press-stereo group. Although the Em-
ployer contended that failure to assign the disputed
work to the press-stereo employees would require
further reduction of that department , we perceive no
basis for such a finding in the absence of other
evidence.
Thus, upon the evidence presented, we are unable
to find that the performance of the disputed work
ATHENS PRINTING PRESSMEN, NO. 269
would have a significant job impact on either of the
competing groups. Accordingly, we find this not to
be a determinative factor.
4. Economy and efficiency
The Employer and the Respondent Pressmen
presented evidence showing that considerations of
economy and efficiency favored assignment to the
press-stereo group . Such assignment would allow
these employees to fill otherwise idle time. The
camera, its related facilities, and the Merigraph
platemaking machine are located on the first floor
adjacent to and under common supervision with
employees performing platemaking work represented
by the Respondent Pressmen.
The employees represented by the Pressmen have
traditionally been solely responsible for the quality
of the plate and print. If they are to continue to be
responsible for quality control it is preferable for
them to perform all steps in the process including
camera work.
In the absence of any evidence that assignment to
the composing room employees would be more, or
even equally, economical and efficient as compared
to assignment to the press-stereo employees, we find
that this factor strongly favors assignment to the
press-stereo group. -
5. Skill
The Employer plans to use its own personnel and
manufacturers' representatives to train employees
represented by Respondent Pressmen . There is no
evidence that either group already possesses skills
that would facilitate their performance of the camera
work. Therefore, we find that skill factors do not
favor assignment to either craft.
6. Employer preference
In May 1974, the Employer assigned the disputed
157
work to the press-stereo employees based on consid-
erations of economy and efficiency. The record
indicates that the Employer maintains a preference
for this assignment. This is a factor which supports
an award of the work to the employees represented
by the Pressmen.
7. Conclusion
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors, we
shall assign the work in dispute to the employees
represented by the Pressmen. The factors of employ-
er preference, economy, and efficiency, and func-
tional equivalency of the new work to previous
functions are so favorable to that group as to be
dispositive.
In making this determination, we are assigning the
disputed work to press-stereo employees employed
by the Employer and represented by the Pressmen,
but not to the Pressmen 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:
Employees employed by Thompson Brush-Moore
Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Portsmouth Times, in
its press-stereo department and currently represented
by Athens Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
No. 269, affiliated with the International Printing
and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO,
are entitled to perform all work in connection with
the Robertson 500 camera.