Central Valley Typographical Un. No. 46

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 726 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46 and Mc-
Clatchy Newspapers , d/b/a Sacramento Bee I and
Graphic Arts International Union , Local 280. Case
20-CD-405
July 31, 1974
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, following
the filing of a charge by McClatchy Newspapers,
d/b/a Sacramento Bee, herein called the Employer,
alleging that Central Valley Typographical Union
No. 46, herein called the Typographers or the Respon-
dent, 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 assign the
work in dispute to employees who are members of the
Respondent rather than to employees who are mem-
bers of Graphic Arts International Union, Local 280,
herein referred to as the Photoengravers or the In-
tervenor.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in San Fran-
cisco, California, before Hearing Officer John C.
Montoya on March 8 and April 10, 1974. All parties
appeared at the hearing and were given full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.
Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employer, the Re-
spondent, and the Intervenor in support of their posi-
tions.
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 rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds them free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the entire record in this case,
including the briefs, and hereby makes the following
findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer publishes the "Sacramento Bee," a
daily and Sunday newspaper, at its newspaper pub-
lishing plant in Sacramento, California. The parties
stipulated that, during the past calendar year, the
Employer's gross revenue exceeded $200,000 and that
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
the Employer advertised nationally advertised prod-
ucts and subscribed to national wireservices. Accord-
ingly, the parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in a business affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Typog-
raphers and the Photoengravers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The dispute herein arises out of the Employer's
purchase of an "AGFA" Repromaster vertical cam-
era and the assignment of its operation to employees
represented by the Typographers.
For a considerable period of time perior to the in-
stant dispute , the Employer had been engaged in the
process of converting its plant from the "hot-type"
method of newspaper production to the new "cold-
type" process. Under the hot-type method, lines of
type are cast in molten metal on a Linotype machine
operated by a typographer . The Linotype , however, is
limited to the production of letter print in standard
sizes. When letter print of unusual size is required in
the hot-metal process, it is produced on a Ludlow
typecasting machine which, like the Linotype, is a
metal-casting device operated by members of the Ty-
pographers. Other components of an advertisement
such as illustrations , halftones , or type reverses, which
cannot be produced by Linotype, Ludlow , or other
typecasting machines, are furnished by members of
the Photoengravers . A large horizontal camera, locat-
ed in the Employer's photoengraving department, is
regularly used for making a negative of the entire page
of the newspaper . Prior to the events in this case, the
horizontal camera was also used for making enlarge-
ments, reductions , and reverses of components of ad-
vertisements . Within the past year, the Employer has
converted , to the "cold-type" process with respect to
all advertisements, but has retained its letterpress
which requires the performance of photoengraving
work . The cold-type method does not involve the use
of typecasting machines, such as the Linotype and the
Ludlow . With the new process , type is produced by
keyboard equipment which puts out a perforated pa-
per tape that becomes input , following hyphenation
and justification by a computer , for a photocompos-
ing machine . To implement this system , the Employer
212 NLRB No. 112
CENTRAL VALLEY TYPOGRAPHICAL UN. NO 46 727
has purchased a TXT photocomposition machine
which produces a positive of type in galley form. The
type and other components of the advertisement are
then pasted into place, and the pasted-up page is de-
livered to the photoengraving department for prepa-
ration for the press.
On January 17, 1974, the Employer purchased a
small vertical camera to be used in the composition of
advertisements. The function of the vertical camera is
to make enlargements, reductions, and reverses of
components of advertisements. As noted above, some
of this work has been performed in the photoengrav-
ing department. Under the hot-type printing method,
composing room employees were able to perform
some of the vertical camera's functions by casting the
appropriate size type on the Ludlow machine. As pre-
viously mentioned, the vertical camera is located in
the composing room, and has at all times material
herein been assigned to composing room employees.
The vertical camera is currently being used by several
employees in the composing room, and not by any
single typographer.
The vertical camera does not use film, but rather a
sensitized paper. Due to its limited capacity, the verti-
cal camera cannot accommodate a full newspaper
page. Thus, the entire ad will ultimately be shot by the
photoengravers utilizing the horizontal cameras. The
record shows that the camera work performed in the
photoengraving department is complex, and that it
requires a high degree of skill. The operation of the
vertical camera, however, is simple, requiring less
than a half hour's instruction.
The vertical camera was installed pursuant to an
agreement between the Employer and the Typogra-
phers dated November 20, 1973. On January 22, the
Intervenor filed a grievance over the work assign-
ment, claiming that the vertical camera properly be-
longs in the photoengraving department, and that the
assignment of its operation should be made to em-
ployees represented by the Photoengravers. On Janu-
ary 28, the Typographers informed the Employer that
if there was any possibility the vertical camera work
would be taken away from its members and reas-
signed to those of the Photoengravers the Employer
could expect economic action. There has been none
to date.
B. Work in Dispute
The dispute in this case concerns the assignment of
vertical camera work.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and the Typographers contend that
the Employer 's assignment of the disputed work to
employees represented by the Typographers should
be upheld . They urge the following factors in support
of their position : employer preference , efficiency and
economy of operations , effect of introduction of new
processes in the composing room on work opportuni-
ties for crafts involved , contract provisions , and cus-
tom and practice at other newspapers which use the
vertical camera.
The Photoengravers contends that the work should
be assigned to employees which it represents because
of the following factors: contract provisions , industry
and area practice , efficiency and economy of opera-
tions , and loss of photoengravers ' Jobs in the event of
an award to employees represented by the Typogra-
phers.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may determine a 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 there is no
agreed-upon method of the voluntary adjustment of
the dispute.
In the instant case, we find that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been vio-
lated, in view of the fact that the Typographers threat-
ened to take economic action against the Employer
should the disputed work be reassigned to employees
represented by the Photoengravers. Furthermore,
based on the record before us, there is at present no
agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of
this dispute. Under these circumstances, we find that
it will effectuate the policies underlying Sections 10(k)
and 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act for us to determine the
merits of the dispute. Accordingly, we find that this
dispute is appropriate for resolution under Section
10(k) of the Act.
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.
1. Employer preference
The Employer assigned the work, and prefers an
award, to employees represented by the Typogra-
2 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A
Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pliers. This factor favors an award to employees rep-
resented by the Typographers.
2. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
There are no outstanding certifications covering the
employees involved in the instant dispute. In addi-
tion, there are no agreements between the competing
unions with respect to jurisdiction over a vertical cam-
era. Although the Photoengravers contends that the
language of its contract with the Employer requires
assignment of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by it, we find that neither the Typographers
contract nor the Photoengravers contract clearly cov-
ers the disputed jurisdiction over the operation of the
vertical camera. However, on November 20, 1973, as
mentioned above, the Employer entered into a
"Memorandum of Agreement" with the Typogra-
phers. The agreement covers a large number of sub-
jects, but one of the most important provisions is the
undertaking by the Employer to install, within 60 days
after execution, "a vertical camera for ad components
to process the increased volume of cold type resulting
from the installation of photocomposition equip-
ment." Since the "Memorandum of Agreement" spe-
cifically refers to the vertical camera, we find a
comparison of the collective-bargaining agreements
that this Employer has with the two labor organiza-
tions supports the assignment of the operation of the
vertical camera to employees represented by the Ty-
pographers.
3. Efficiency and economy of operation
The Employer prefers to assign the operation of the
vertical camera to the composing room for efficiency
reasons, claiming reductions, enlargements, and re-
verses are an integral part of ad component work and
it is much more efficient to perform such work at the
point of assembly rather than have to send it to anoth-
er department on another floor, photoengraving in
this case. An assignment to photoengraving depart-
ment employees would involve further delay and con-
fusion as it would result in the introduction of a third
department, the service department, and a third labor
union, the American Newspaper Guild, representing
employees in the service department. It was also not-
ed that in recent years labor-saving devices have
shrunk work opportunities in the composing room.
Installation of the vertical camera in the composing
room has provided needed work for typographers
while not diminishing work for photoengravers. This
factor favors assignment of the work to employees
represented by the Typographers.
4. Skills of employees
Operation of a vertical camera requires very little
training or skill. When the camera was installed, a
manufacturer's representative spent about 15 minutes
instructing certain composing room employees in its
operation following which these employees were able
to satisfactorily operate the camera. Other employees
learned simply by watching someone else for a few
minutes. There are no special schools employees at-
tend to learn how to operate the vertical camera. The
cameras in the photoengraving department, however,
appear to be much more complicated, with courses
offered by the Photoengravers to train its members in
the various camera skills and techniques. According-
ly, we find that the factor of skills involved does not
favor either of the two competing unions.
5. Employer, industry , and area practice
The vertical camera in the composing room is used
in connection with components of ads that appear in
the newspaper . Specifically , the camera is used to
make reductions , enlargements , and reverses of type,
art work , and any other individual segment of an ad.
Prior to the installation of the vertical camera in the
composing room, all reductions , enlargements, and
reverses were done in the photoengraving depart-
ment , using a horizontal camera. At present , about 80
percent of such work can be and is performed by
typographers on the vertical camera with the rest,
consisting primarily of oversized material , sent to
photoengraving, where all other photo work is still
performed . Until January 17, 1974, the Employer had
never utilized a vertical camera and since its installa-
tion only composing room employees have operated
it.
Testimony concerning area and industry practice
revealed that where a vertical camera is utilized it is
operated by composing room employees belonging to
a Typographical union local. Each newspaper differs
somewhat in its operation and printing method, but it
appears that the trend is to let the composing room
make its own ad components on a vertical camera
where one exists.
Accordingly, we find that this factor favors an
award of the work in dispute to employees repre-
sented by the Typographers.
Conclusions
We have found that in each instance where a factor
favored the assignment of, the work in dispute to em-
ployees represented by one of the parties, it favored
the assignment of the work to employees represented
CENTRAL VALLEY TYPOGRAPHICAL UN NO. 46 729
by the Typographers. Absent any compelling reason,
therefore, for disturbing the Employer's assignment of
the work to employees represented by the Typogra-
phers, we shall determine the instant dispute by
awarding the vertical camera work to employees rep-
resented by the Typographers rather than to employ-
ees represented by the Photoengravers. In making this
determination, we are assigning the disputed work to
employees who are represented by the Typographers
and not to the Typographers or its members. Our
present determination is limited to the particular dis-
pute 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 pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees employed by the Employer who are rep-
resented by Central Valley Typographical Union No.
46, are entitled to perform the vertical camera work
which is performed in connection with the Employer's
operation at its plant in Sacramento, California.