Bay Area Typographical Union, Local 21

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 381 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

BAY AREA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, LOCAL 21
Bay Area Typographical Union , Local 21, AFL-CIO
and San Francisco Progress and Stereotypers',
Electrotypers' & Platemakers' Local Union No. 29.
Case 20-CD-421
January 30, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following charges filed by San Francisco Progress
(hereafter called the Charging Party or Employer),
alleging that Bay Area Typographical Union, Local
21, AFL-CIO (hereafter called Respondent or
BATU), violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by
engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object
of forcing or requiring the assignment of work
described below to employees represented by Re-
spondent rather than to employees represented by
Stereotypers', Electrotypers' & Platemakers' Local
Union No. 29 (hereafter called Intervenor or Stereo-
typers). A hearing was held on September 11, 1974,
before Hearing Officer Bernard T. Hopkins. All
parties 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 Charging Party, the
Respondent, and the Intervenor filed briefs in
support of their positions.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and 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 California corporation with its
principal' office and place of business in San
Francisco, California, is a biweekly newspaper with
gross revenues in excess of $200,000 annually. It
publishes nationally syndicated features and receives
revenues in excess of $50,000 for advertising nation-
ally sold products. Accordingly, we find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
All parties stipulated , and we find, that Bay Area
Typographical Union, Local 21 , AFL-CIO, and
Stereotypers ', Electrotypers ' & Platemakers' Local
216 NLRB No. 68
381
Union No. 29, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
Prior to April 1974, the San Francisco Progress was
printed by means of the traditional hot metal
method. In April, the printing system was changed to
a coldtype printing or composition process coupled
with a Letterflex plate production system. A camera
is utilized as part of the new coldtype system. The
Employer assigned the operation of the camera to
BATU.
Prior to the installation of the new equipment and
the assignment of its work, there was a lengthy
exchange of correspondence between and among the
parties beginning in September 1973. Each Union
claimed the work under the terms of its collective-
bargaining agreement with the Employer. The
Employer and the Stereotypers submitted the matter
to an arbitrator who on June 26, 1974, rendered a
decision in which he found that the Stereotypers has
jurisdiction over the production of full-page nega-
tives and BATU has jurisdiction of all remaining
camera work. However, BATU stated that, as it was
not part of the arbitration proceedings, it was not
bound by the decision and it insisted that all camera
work be performed by its members. On July 22, 1974,
the president of BATU demanded assignments of
such work to his labor organization, threatening
economic action should his request be denied.
The operation of the camera involves two distinct
functions. The first is the process by which the
pasteup process is converted into a film negative
representation of the newspaper page that is ulti-
mately printed. The second function is the pro-
duction of "mechanicals" such as photographic
reproductions, reverses, positives, halftones, and
veloxes of advertising, illustrations, or new copy.
Ninety percent of the camera work involves pro-
duction of the mechanicals, whereas only ten percent
involves production of the full-page negatives. The
Stereotypers protests only BATU's claims to the
production of the full-page negatives.
The conversion from the hot type system to the
present system has resulted in a reduction of
personnel represented by BATU, but with an
increase in the number of personnel represented by
the Stereotypers.
B. The Work in Dispute
The dispute concerns the operation of the camera
and processor used in the preparation of full-page
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negatives employed in the publication of the newspa-
per.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Stereotypers contends that an affirmative
award of the disputed work should be made in its
favor primarily on the basis of its collective-bargain-
ing agreement with the Employer and an arbitration
award, based upon such agreement, which was
favorable to Stereotypers.
BATU contends that an affirmative award should
be made in its favor on the basis of its collective-
bargaining agreement with the Employer, its mem-
bers' superior skills and training involving the work
in issue, the factor of job loss impact, and the
economy and efficiency effected by utilization of its
members.
The Employer contends that its assignment of the
disputed work to employees who are members of
BATU was properly made and that the Board should
award the work in dispute to members of BATU in
conformity with its assignment on the basis of the
factors of employer preference, efficiency and
economy of operations, area and industry practice,
job loss impact, and the relative skills of the
competing groups of employees as to the disputed
work. Concerning the factor of collective-bargaining
agreements, the Employer contends that, since its
agreement with each union supports a claim to the
disputed work, this factor is entitled to no weight in
resolving' the dispute. As to the arbitration award
which was favorable to Stereotypers, the Employer
notes that BATU was not a party to'such proceed-
ings so that the award does not resolve the dispute
nor release the NLRB of its responsibility to resolve
the dispute.
I Section 8(a) of a collective-bargaining agreement dated September 8,
1973, between Printing Industries of Northern California and BATU
provides in pertinent part that:
This jurisdiction includes but is not limited to all work (including
camera and darkroom operations) necessary in the copy for offset and
letterpress plates up to the camera used in the platemaking process.
By a memorandum of agreement dated September 3, 1974, between the
Employer and BATU, the above-described agreement between BATU and
PINC is made binding as between BATU and the Employer. The
memorandum of agreement was made in addition to, and, where
conflicting, a substitute for, the provisions of the master agreement with
PINC. Par. VII, p. 4, of the supplemental agreement states in pertinent part
that:
Section 8(a) of the contract (Jurisdiction) is amended to add the
following new fourth paragraph:
In addition to the jurisdiction as contained in this section, it is
specifically understood that the jurisdiction includes but is not limited
to all camera work and post-camera work. The Employer, for reasons
of operating efficiency, will assign composing room employees with the
responsibility for operating its camera equipment.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to
determine a dispute out of which an 8(b)(4)(D)
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. As heretofore
noted, after being advised of the arbitrator's award
of June 26, 1974, BATU's president demanded that
the Employer assign the work of producing full-page
negatives to employees who are members of BATU
and threatened economic action should his request
be denied. 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 determi-
nation under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
1. The collective-bargaining agreements
BATU relies on section VII of its agreement with
the Employer and section 8(a) of its master agree-
ment with the Printing Industries of Northern
California (hereafter PINC).1 The Stereotypers Local
29 relies on section 28 of its contract with the
Employer.2 After the Employer assigned the camera
work to the employees represented by BATU, the
Stereotypers filed a grievance under its collective-
bargaining agreement with the Employer, claiming
that all of the camera work should have been
assigned to stereotypers. The arbitrator ruled that the
Employer should have assigned the use of the camera
to make full-page negatives to the stereotypers.
In considering the collective-bargaining agree-
ments herein we conclude that both contracts
arguably cover the disputed work so that this factor
7 Sec. 28 of the collective-bargaining agreement dated March 28, 1972,
between Henry F. Budde Publications, Inc. (then the publisher of the
Employer), and the Stereotypes states in pertinent part that:
(e) It is mutually agreed all processes of offset platemaking, photo-
polymer processes such as Letterflex and/or similar processes shall be
the jurisdiction of Stereotypers ', Electrotypes', and Platemakers'
Union No . 29. The processes referred to above shall include all
operations related to the manufacture of printing plates for the
Employer's use ; all designated and associated work necessary includ-
ing, but not limited to the cameras, stripping, opaquing, presensitized
platemaking as known to offset and other processes. The jurisdiction of
the Union shall include, but not be limited to, the preparatory work
necessary for the press ready plate such as half tones, screens , veloxes,
and color separation processes.
It is further agreed the jurisdiction of the Union shall include the
operation and normal maintenance of the equipment and associated
devices used to manufacture such plates.
The Employer recognizes the jurisdiction of the Union over such
equipment and processes and shall make no other agreement covering
such work.
BAY AREA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, LOCAL 21 383
is entitled to no weight in resolving the present
dispute.3 As BATU did not participate in the
aforementioned arbitration proceeding, we conclude
that the arbitrator's award is not binding upon
BATU and does not resolve the disputed camera
work. Nor is such award binding upon the NLRB .4
2. Skills and training
Eight employees who are represented by BATU
have completed necessary schooling and on-the-job
training to be able to use the camera and other
equipment required to make a full-page negative. All
stereotypers who desire to perform such work would
have to receive such schooling and obtain at least 1
month of on-the-job training to be able to perform
such work. Based on these facts, we conclude that
the factor of skills and experience supports the
assignment of the disputed work to employees who
are represented by BATU.
3. The Employer' s assignment and efficiency
and economy of operations
The Employer assigned the disputed work to
employees represented by BATU to obtain economy
and efficiency in its operations. Had the Employer
assigned such work to stereotyper employees, an
additional employee would have had to be hired for
at least two shifts a week to perform a task which
requires less than 2 hours' work per week, but for
which stereotypers, by the terms of their collective-
bargaining agreement , would be paid for 2 full days'
work. Moreover, had the Employer assigned the
disputed work to stereotyper employees, two differ-
ent unions would have jurisdiction over one camera,
and would both perform work within the composing
room under different supervision. Based on the
foregoing facts we conclude that the factors of the
Employer's preference, efficiency, and economy of
operations favor an assignment of the disputed work
to employees represented by BATU.
4. Area and industry practice
BATU employees perform the disputed work in the
San Francisco Bay area at the Palo Alto Times, the
San Mateo Times, the Hayward Review, and the
Redwood City Tribune and at commercial printing
operations in the area. Moreover, as the Board noted
in Bakersfield, supra, "[T]here are over 50 newspa-
pers throughout the country in which the Typogra-
phers members perform camera work. . . . Only one
newspaper was identified as one in which Stereotyp-
ers members did work similar to that in dispute."
Based upon these considerations , we conclude that
the factor of area and industry practice favors an
award of the disputed work to employees who are
represented by BATU.
5. Job loss
As a result of the Employer's conversion from hot
type to coldtype printing, the number of BATU
employees has been reduced from 24 employees
working 32 hours per week, to 16 employees, working
30 hours per week. Conversely, the number of
stereotyper employees has increased to two addition-
al shifts per week. Thus, we conclude that the
Employer's assignment of the disputed camera work
to employees who are members of BATU is
supported by the fact that job loss, caused by the
Employer's conversion from hot type to coldtype
printing, is greatest among BATU employees.
Conclusion
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after
full consideration of all relevant factors, especially
the factors of BATU employees' training and skills in
performing the disputed work, the superior efficiency
and economy with which BATU employees can
perform the disputed work, the Employer's prefer-
ence that BATU employees perform such work, area
and industry practice which indicate that typogra-
pher employees usually perform the work in dispute,
and the job loss among BATU employees which is
partially offset by the Employer's assignment of the
disputed work to such employees, we conclude that
the Employer's employees represented by Bay Area
Typographical Union, Local 21, AFL-CIO, are
entitled to the work in dispute, and we shall
determine the dispute in their favor. We do not,
however, award the work to BATU, Local 21, or its
members.
DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, and 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 San Francisco Progress who are
currently represented by Bay Area Typographical
Union, Local 21, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform
the operation of the camera and processor used in
the preparation of full-page negatives employed in
the publication of the newspaper at San Francisco,
California.
5 Bakersfield Typographical Union *439, International Typographical * Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No. 23, AFL-CIO
Union, AFL-CIO (Bakersfield Californian, Inc.), 213 NLRB No. 16 (1974). (Williams Press, Inc.), 166 NLRB 693 (1967).