Bakersfield Typographical Union #439

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 57 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

BAKERSFIELD TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #439
Bakersfield Typographical Union #439 , International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO and Bakersfield
Californian , Inc. and Bakersfield Printing and
Graphic Communications Union #264.' Case 31-
CD-117
August 26, 1974
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed by Bakersfield Californian, Inc., hereaf-
ter referred to as the Employer, alleging a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) by Bakersfield Typographical
Union #439, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, hereafter referred to as Typographers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Trudi Ferguson on April 4, 5, 18, and May 7,
1974. The Employer, Typographers, and Bakersfield
Printing and Graphic Communications Union #264,
hereafter called Stereotypers, appeared at the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer, Typographers, and Stereotypers 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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the basis of the briefs and the entire record
in this case, the Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Employer, a California corporation, publishes
a daily newspaper and does commercial printing.
During the preceding calendar year, the Employer
had gross revenues in excess of $200,000 and pur-
chased goods and supplies worth in excess of $50,000
from sources outside the State of California. The par-
ties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is en-
gaged 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 juris-
diction herein.
'Caption appears as amended at the hearing.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
57
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Typogra-
phers and Stereotypers are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Until early 1973, the Employer prepared plates for
its rotary presses entirely by the so-called "hot-type"
process. In that process, composing room and pho-
toengraving employees, both represented by Typogra-
phers,2 used linotype machines and photoengraving
techniques, respectively, to prepare lead-type col-
umns and photoengraved reproductions. These were
assembled by composing room employees into a met-
al frame known as a chase to form a reverse image of
a newspaper page. Although that image was a printa-
ble surface, it was flat and thus would not fit the
Employer's rotary presses. The task of creating a
curved lead reproduction of the form in the chase
capable of being attached to the rotary presses was
performed by employees represented by Stereotyp-
ers.3
Beginning in February or March 1973, the Employ-
er began a gradual changeover of its newspaper print-
ing operation to the Napp Platemaking Process, a
"cold-type" process. In this process, copy is typed on
a machine which encodes the copy onto a computer-
readable tape. This tape is fed into a computer which
encodes another tape with the copy in standard news-
paper column widths. The computer-produced tape in
turn is fed into a photocomposition machine, which
produces a photocopy of the type columns encoded
on the tape. The photocopy is waxed so that it will
adhere to cardboard, cut to the desired lengths, and
pasted, along with whatever photographs 4 may ac-
company it, onto a cardboard form. The form is
mounted on the copyboard of a Spartan Chemcho III
camera, a machine approximately 8 feet tall, and is
photographed. The resulting photographic negative,
which is the approximate size of the eventual newspa-
per page, is developed automatically. After being opa-
qued,s it is attached to a slightly hardened 6 NAPP
2 Hereafter, employees represented by Typographers are referred to as
typographers.
Hereafter, employees represented by Stereotypers are referred to as ste-
reotypers.
4 Photographs are first put through a process called screening which gives
them a dot surface; this is required so that the press-ready image of the
photographs will have a surface composed of discrete particles to which ink
will adhere properly.
5 Opaquing involves eliminating any unwanted clear portions of the pho-
tograph.
Before use, the plate is made more durable by a brief exposure to ultravio-
let light.
213 NLRB No. 16
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
photopolymer plate, which is basically a film of pho-
topolymer plastic mounted on a thin aluminum sheet.
The negative-photopolymer plate sandwich is then ex-
posed to strong ultraviolet light, which hardens photo-
polymer materials under the negative's nonopaque
portions.
After the exposure is completed, the plate is sepa-
rated from the negative and placed in a machine
which sprays it with water. The portions of the plate
that were not exposed to strong ultraviolet light and
thus not hardened are soluble in water and so are
washed away by the spray. The remaining portions
form a printable reverse image of a newspaper page.
The plate is again exposed to ultraviolet light to fur-
ther harden the printable surface. After excess materi-
al is trimmed from the plate, holes are punched in
each end and the ends are bent at right angles so that
the plate will fit into fastening devices on the press
bed. The plate is then ready for the press.
Before bringing the cold-type processing equip-
ment on line, the Employer, in conjunction with Ty-
pographers, established a training program to prepare
composing room and photoengraving employees to
use the new equipment properly. While many of the
employees involved were trained to perform several
steps in the cold-type process, composing room em-
ployees were principally trained to use the computer
and photocomposition machines, do pasteup work,
and develop NAPP plates, and photoengravers were
principally trained to do the photographic work re-
quired. Stereotypers made no effort to prepare the
employees it represented to perform the disputed
work.
In January 1974, the Employer completed its con-
version to the cold-type process and disposed of all its
hot-type machinery, including that in the stereotyping
department. Six of the 10 employees who had worked
in the stereotype department were given the opportu-
nity to transfer to other departments; 4 transferred, 1
retired, I became permanently disabled as a result of
an auto accident, and 4 were laid off.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the camera , platemaking,
and processing work involved in the NAPP photopo-
lymer platemaking process at the Employer's Bakers-
field, California, plant.
C. Applicability of the Statute
In September 1973, Stereotypers filed a grievance
concerning the Employer's assignment of the disputed
work to employees represented by Typographers. Ty-
pographers learned of the grievance and, by a letter
dated December 7, 1973, informed the Employer that
"... in the event the work claimed by the Stereotyp-
ers is assigned to the Stereotypers , Bakersfield Typo-
graphical Union #439 will consider this a breach of
its labor agreement with you, and will refuse to permit
its members to work while such a misassignment of
the work in dispute continues ." The Typographers
letter appears to constitute a threat to strike the Em-
ployer should it assign the disputed work to employ-
ees represented by Stereotypers . Accordingly , we find
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dispute is proper-
ly before the Board for determination under Section
10(k) of the Act.'
D. Contentions of the Parties
Typographers and the Employer contend that the
award of the disputed work to employees represented
by Typographers is supported by industry and area
practice, the superior skills and experience of typogra-
phers in performing the work, increased efficiency
attendant upon their performing it, the existence of
training centers operated by Typographers for prepar-
ing its members to perform the disputed work, and the
Employer's preference. The Employer also contends
that its collective-bargaining contract with Typogra-
phers favors award of the disputed work to employees
represented by Typographers.
Stereotypers contends that its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Employer, area practice, the skills
and experience of its members in performing plate-
making work, factors of efficiency and economy, and
the need to prevent severe job losses in the stereotype
department favor award of the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by Stereotypers.
E. Merits of the Dispute
As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction
Company,' we shall determine the appropriate assign-
ment of disputed work in each case presented for
resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act only after
taking into account and balancing all relevant factors.
We find the following factors relevant in determin-
ing the dispute herein:
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
At the time of the hearing herein, the Employer had
no collective-bargaining contract with either Typog-
1 The record contains no evidence of an agreed-upon method for resolving
the dispute herein that would be binding on all parties.
8 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL_CIO (J. A.
Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
BAKERSFIELD TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #439 59
raphers or Stereotypers. Its previous contracts with
both Unions had been executed in March 1972 and
terminated in March 1974. The contract with Typog-
raphers provided that Typographers jurisdiction "be-
gins with the markup of copy and continues
(excepting work normally performed in the Stereotyp-
ing department), until the material is ready for the
printing press, including the making of photo-engrav-
ings and the making of plates and the appropriate
bargaining unit consists of all employees performing
such work." The contract with Stereotypers provided
that Stereotypers had jurisdiction over "all work in
the stereotyping department . . . now in practice,
necessary for the production of the newspaper .. .
and the casting, finishing and mounting of all such
plates including plastic, rubber and electrotype plates,
shall be done by journeymen and apprentice stereo-
typers." The contract further stated that the Employer
had the sole right to make "such technical and other
changes in operations as it deems necessary," but pro-
vided that such changes must be explained to the
Stereotypers representative, and that if new equip-
ment should be installed or new processes introduced
the contract could be reopened for negotiating new
provisions for the operation of such equipment. The
contract then provides that "(s)hould the company
install any equipment or adopt any process designed
as a substitute for or evolution of work previously or
presently performed by members of the Union, the
company recognizes the jurisidiction of the Union
over such equipment and processes and shall make no
other agreement, written or oral. Covering such
work."
The Employer's previous contract with Typogra-
phers recognized that platemaking, unless it was
"work normally performed in the Stereotyping de-
partment," was to be performed by employees repre-
sented by Typographers. The agreement between the
Employer and the Stereotypers, on the other hand,
recognized that the Union had jurisdiction over
"work in the stereotyping department . . . now in
practice" and any processes designed as a "substitute
for or evolution of" that work. When the contract was
executed, no photopolymer or photographic work of
any sort was "in practice" in the stereotyping depart-
ment. However, inasmuch as the NAPP process pro-
duces direct printing plates, the new process can to
some extent be called a substitute for the production
of lead plates formerly performed by Stereotypers.
Accordingly, we find that both contracts arguably
cover the disputed work but that neither specifically
refers to photopolymer platemaking. Therefore, we
cannot, and do not, accord controlling weight to
either of the collective-bargaining agreements in mak-
ing our determination.
2. Skills, training, and availability of training
facilities
The four employees now doing the bulk of the work
on the Employer's Spartan Chemco III camera were
formerly photoengravers. The amount of training re-
quired to enable them to use the Spartan camera was
sharply reduced by their previous camera experience
in the photoengraving department. The stereotypers
did no photographic work in the stereotyping depart-
ment and therefore would have required considerably
more training than that provided the former photoen-
gravers. We therefore conclude that, insofar as the
operation of the camera in the printing process is
concerned, the factor of skills favors an award to em-
ployees represented by Typographers.
The development of the NAPP photopolymer plate
is a semiskilled process in which neither typographers
nor stereotypers had previous experience. However,
from the moment that introduction of the NAPP pro-
cess was contemplated, Typographers cooperated
with the Employer in training its members to perform
it, while Stereotypers made no effort to provide its
members with such training. Further, Typographers
has sufficient training facilities to ensure the Employ-
er an ample corps of trained personnel. We therefore
conclude that the typographers' superior training in
the NAPP process and the availability of Typogra-
phers training facilities favor award of the disputed
work to typographers.
3. The Employer's assignment and efficiency and
economy of operations
Under the Employer's assignment, typographers
are responsible both for preparing the pasteup of the
newspaper page and for performing the processes
needed to produce a press-ready plate from it. Since
many typographers are capable of performing a num-
ber of steps in the process, the Employer is able to
concentrate workers wherever the workload is heavi-
est or most pressing and is thus able to obtain maxi-
mum use of each employee. Were the disputed work
assigned to stereotypers, the work process would be
arbitrarily segmented by jurisdictional boundaries
and the Employer might thus be required to let stereo-
typers stand idle while there was other work to be
done. Further, the Employer's former contract with
Stereotypers required it to pay stereotypers for a full
shift if they worked any portion of it. The Employer
would therefore have been required to hire sufficient
stereotypers to perform the disputed work during
peak hours and would have had to pay them for a full
day's work even though they did nothing the remain-
der of the day. For these reasons, we conclude that an
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assignment to stereotypers would have been both in-
efficient and uneconomical, and that the factors of
efficiency and economy favor an award of the disput-
ed work to typographers.
therefore conclude that the factor of job loss favors
assignment of the work neither to typographers nor
stereotypers.
Conclusion
4. Industry practice
The record reflects that there are over 50 newspa-
pers throughout the country in which the Typogra-
phers members perform camera work , and at least 5
in which they also process photopolymer plates. Only
one newspaper was identified as one in which Stereo-
typers members did work similar to that in dispute.
We therefore conclude that industry practice supports
award of the disputed work to typographers.
5. Job loss
Three employees worked in the Employer's pho-
toengraving department prior to the introduction of
the NAPP process, and 10 worked in the stereotyping
department . As a result of the assignment of the dis-
puted work to typographers, the stereotyping depart-
ment was eliminated. However, only four employees
lost their jobs, one because he refused to transfer to
another department. Had the disputed work been as-
signed to stereotypers, there would very probably
have been an equivalent job loss among typographers,
since those employees now performing the disputed
work would have had sharply reduced work to per-
form. As it was, approximately 11 composing room
employees were laid off as a result of the introduc-
tions of the photocomposition process even though
much of the disputed work was assigned to them. We
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after
full consideration of all relevant factors, especially the
factors of the typographers' skills in performing the
disputed work, the availability of training facilities for
typographers, the superior efficiency and economy
with which typographers can perform the disputed
work, and the Employer's preference that typogra-
phers perform it, we conclude that the Employer's
employees represented by Typographers are entitled
to the work in dispute, and we shall determine the
dispute in their favor. We do not, however, award the
work to Typographers or its members.
DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, upon the basis
of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding , the Board hereby makes the following
Determination of Dispute:
Employees of Bakersfield Californian, Inc., who
are currently represented by Bakersfield Typographi-
cal Union #439, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the camera and
platemaking work , including the preparation of a
press-ready plate , involved in the NAPP photopolym-
er platemaking process at the Employer's Bakersfield,
California, plant.