Cincinnati Stereotypers Union No. 5

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 729 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

CINCINNATI STEREOTYPERS UNION NO 5
Cincinnati Stereotypers and Platemakers Union No. 5,
of the International Printing and Graphic Communi-
cations Union , AFL-CIO and The Cincinnati Post
and Times -Star and Graphic Arts International
Union, Local 508, O-K-I, AFL-CIO. Case
9-CD-296
December 16, 1974
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed by the Cincinnati Post and Times-Star
(hereinafter referred to as Employer), alleging that the
Cincinnati Stereotypers and Platemakers Union No. 5,
of the International Printing and Graphic Communica-
tions Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called Stereoty-
pers) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engag-
ing in certain proscribed activity with an object of
forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain
work to employees represented by Stereotypers rather
than to employees represented by the Graphic Arts
International Union, Local 508, O-K-I, AFL-CIO
(hereinafter called Photoengravers).
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 6
and 7, 1974, at Cincinnati, Ohio, before Hearing Offi-
cer J. Michael Fischer. All parties appeared at the hear-
ing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present
evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer, Stereotypers, and Photoengravers filed timely
briefs with the Board.'
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 that they are free
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the entire record in this case
and hereby makes the following findings:
I Later Stereotypers filed a "Supplemental Memorandum" and the Em-
ployer filed a "Response" to the Stereotypers supplemental memorandum
However, Sec 102 46(g) of the Board 's Rules and Regulations provides that
parties must request special leave from the Board to file additional briefs,
and neither of the parties requested such leave here Accordingly, we reject
these briefs and have not considered them in the determination we reach in
this case
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
729
The Employer is an Ohio corporation engaged in the
business of printing and publishing a newspaper in Cin-
cinnati, Ohio. It has annual revenues in excess of
$200,000 and, during the past 12 months, which is a
representative period, the Employer purchased goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from firms
located outside the State of Ohio for delivery at its
facility in Cincinnati, Ohio. 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 policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Stereotypers
and Photoengravers are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE DISPUTE
A. Background Facts
The Employer is in the business of publishing an
afternoon daily newspaper in Cincinnati, Ohio. Stereo-
typers and Photoengravers have for some time repre-
sented separate units of employees at the Employer's
plant, Stereotypers representing employees in the Em-
ployer's stereotype department, and Photoengravers
representing the employees in the engraving depart-
ment. The present dispute arises out of the Employer's
decision to convert to the automatic Grace Letterflex
system for producing photoengraved relief printing
plates. The nature and history of the conversion at the
Employer's plant is described below.
Prior to the Employer's introduction of the Letter-
flex process in its plant in July 1972, printing plates
were developed through the following process: The em-
ployees in the engraving department, represented by
Photoengravers, received copy from the composing
room, photographed it on a camera copy board, and
developed the negative which, after inspection for pin-
holes and opaquing out any that were found, was
placed by them on a platemaking machine. In the plate-
making machine the negative was positioned between
a source of ultraviolet light and a photosensitive mag-
nesium plate. When the machine lid was closed, the
activated light "burned" the image of the negative onto
the photosensitive magnesium plate, making the ex-
posed portions of the surface of the magnesium plate
harder than the unexposed portions. After exposure, a
photoengraver inserted the magnesium plate into a
developing machine to further develop the image burnt
onto the plate. When this was done, a photoengraver
handscrubbed the developed plate with acid to remove
215 NLRB No. 128
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any foreign matter from the surface . The cleaned plate
was locked into place on a revolving board for dipping
into an acid bath which etched away the material that
had not been hardened by exposure to ultraviolet light
in the platemaking machine . The etching process pro-
duced a relief plate (that is, the hardened portions are
somewhat raised in comparison to the portions etched
away ; and it is the raised portions which reproduce
copy onto the newspaper page ). Photoengravers com-
pleted the pre-Letterflex photodevelopment process by
drying the etched plate over a gas heating machine and
trimming it to page size on another machine . The fin-
ished plate was then forwarded to the stereotype de-
partment.
Employees represented by Stereotypers took the
magnesium relief plate as received and used it as a
pattern to mold a mat into which they cast hot metal
to produce a press plate . Several such plates were deve-
loped for use directly on the Employer 's presses.
In July 1972, the Employer introduced the Grace
Letterflex I system into its printing process, and as-
signed its operation to the employees represented by
Photoengravers . The Letterflex I system substituted an
aluminum backed , polymercoated plate for the mag-
nesium plate which had been used previously . In other
respects , however , the steps described above for devel-
oping the pattern relief plate were essentially the same
except that the Letterflex system automated some of
the work which was previously performed manually by
photoengravers . Although the finished relief plates
produced by the Letterflex I could be used directly on
the presses, the Letterflex I could not turn out enough
of the finished plates to satisfy the Employer 's needs.
Consequently , the Employer continued to forward the
Letterflex I relief plates to the stereotype department to
use as a pattern plate in molding the requisite number
of press plates needed by the Employer.
In early 1973 , the Employer discontinued using the
Grace Letterflex I, which by then had been in use about
6 months , and reverted back to its magnesium plate-
making process purportedly because the magnesium
plates held their image better when used as a pattern
plate.
On January 10, 1974,2 the Employer notified both
Photoengravers and Stereotypers that it intended to
introduce the more advanced Grace Letterflex 290 sys-
tem into its plant on or about July 24. The Letterflex
290 operates for the most part along the same princi-
ples as the Letterflex I. It differs, however, in that it is
fully automated and can produce a larger number of
finished relief plates in a given period of time. Indeed,
the Employer expected the Letterflex 290 to have the
capacity to produce enough of the finished relief plates
2 All dates hereinafter refer to 1974 unless otherwise specified.
so that it would no longer be necessary to have addi-
tional plates made by the stereotype department.
At a meeting between the Employer and Stereotyp-
ers held on March 29 , the president of Stereotypers,
William Rottner, claimed jurisdiction over the opera-
tion of the Letterflex 290, and further told the Em-
ployer 's personnel and labor relations manager,
Thomas Conlon , that Stereotypers would take "drastic
action" if it was not assigned this work.
On April 9, in the course of a conversation between
Rottner and the Employer 's plant manager, Ted Feld-
mann, Rottner expressed his concern over who would
be assigned the work of operating the Letterflex 290,
and further stated that if Conlon did not give him an
answer he "would meet Mr. Conlon on Egleston Ave-
nue [street immediately behind the Employer's
plant] and he'd have the pressmen and paperhandlers
with him."
On April 25, the Employer notified both Photoen-
gravers and Stereotypers that it was assigning the work
of operating the Letterflex 290 to the employees repre-
sented by Photoengravers . At a meeting that day be-
tween the Employer and Stereotypers , Rottner told
Conlon that what he had told him at the March 29
meeting "still holds." When Conlon asked him what he
had meant by "drastic action" at the previous meeting,
Rottner responded, "You know exactly what I mean."
On July 29, the Employer placed two Letterflex 290
units into operation in its plant and assigned the work
related to their operation to the employees represented
by Photoengravers.
Meanwhile, on April 24, the Employer filed the in-
stant charge alleging that Stereotypers violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening economic action
and labor strife if it did not assign operation of the
Letterflex 290 to the employees represented by that
labor organization.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the operation of the two
Grace Letterflex 290 system platemaking machines at
the Employer's Cincinnati, Ohio, plant.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of
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 . As noted above,
Stereotypers told the Employer it would take "drastic
action," and would see the Employer on the street
immediately behind the plant if it were not assigned the
work in dispute . In context, there can be no
question-and Stereotypers does not contend
otherwise-that by those remarks Stereotypers was
CINCINNATI STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 5
threatening the Employer with a work stoppage or
picketing with an object of forcing the Employer to
assign the disputed work to employees represented by
it rather than to employees represented by the Photoen-
gravers. Accordingly, we find reasonable cause to be-
lieve that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
has occurred.'
Since the record contains no evidence that the parties
have an agreed-upon procedure for resolving the dis-
pute which would be binding on all the parties, we
further find that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
D. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and Photoengravers contend that
company and industry practice, relevant skills, effi-
ciency and economy of operation, job impact, the Em-
ployer's assignment, and the respective contracts the
Employer has with Photoengravers and Stereotypers
all support awarding the work in dispute to employees
represented by Photoengravers.
Stereotypers contends that its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Employer, the history of platemak-
ing at the Employer's plant, and job impact favor
awarding the work to the employees represented by it.
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 relevant factors . The Board
has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dis-
pute case is an act of judgment based upon common-
sense and experience and a balancing of such
factors .' We find the following factors relevant in de-
termining the dispute herein:
1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements
The record contains no evidence with regard to
Board certification of either of the labor organizations
to represent employees involved in the dispute herein.
The Employer has current collective-bargaining
agreements with both Stereotypers and Photoengrav-
ers. Its contract with Stereotypers provides, in relevant
part, that stereotypers
. . . shall perform work in the Stereotype depart-
ment. . . . [including] all molding, packing, dry-
ing, finishing, sawing, trimming, routing, and
3 See New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers' Union Number One-P,
Photo-Engravers International Union, AFL-CIO (Sterling-Regal Engraving
Co., Inc.), 169 NLRB 606 (1968).
'International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO
(J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
731
mortising of Stereotype plates, and the casting,
finishing and mounting of all such plates, includ-
ing plastic plates, rubber plates, photopolymer
plates, Union Carbide Hylox as presently con-
stituted, and electrotype plates. . . . This con-
tract shall neither take away from nor add to the
jurisdiction of the Union. [Emphasis supplied.]
The Employer's contract with Photoengravers pro-
vides in relevant part that Photoengravers has jurisdic-
tion over:
The process of photoengraving and its attendant
work thereto is defined as being and is all parts of
the process pertaining to the production of photo-
engraving plates, plates for offset and gravure cyl-
inders and plates of any substance or material
from copy or from originals and/or subjects when
furnished in lieu of copy up to the finished prod-
uct.
Stereotypers contends that the term "photopolymer"
in its jurisdictional clause in its contract with the Em-
ployer was intended to cover plates produced by the
Grace Letterflex process. It further argues that its juris-
dictional clause covers any process including the Grace
Letterflex process which results in a finished direct
printing plate.
The Employer and Photoengravers contend that
their contract on its face clearly covers the work of
operating the Letterflex 290 and that this interpretation
is supported by its past practice of assigning the Letter-
flex I to photoengravers to operate. They further con-
tend that the Employer's contract with Stereotypers
clearly does not cover the work in dispute; that, con-
trary to Stereotypers contention, the term "photopo-
lymer," when properly read in context, merely covers
a situation where a stereotype plate is made from a
photopolymer substance; and finally, that the history of
negotiations between the parties supports this interpre-
tation.
We find that the jurisdictional clauses of both con-
tracts on their face appear to preserve the traditional
work performed by the employees represented by the
disputing labor organizations in their respective depart-
ments. We further find that neither of the contracts
expressly covers the work in dispute herein, viz. opera-
tion of the Grace Letterflex 290 machines.5 Accord-
ingly, since the Grace Letterflex 290 machines have
automated, and in some respects eliminated, the work
previously performed by employees in both depart-
5 The record contains extensive evidence with regard to the bargaining
history of the jurisdictional clauses in both contracts. However, we find it
unnecessary to consider that evidence at any length here inasmuch as we
are satisfied that, at best, it only confirms our finding that both jurisdictional
clauses were apparently intended to preserve work functions for the em-
ployees which they had traditionally performed.
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ments, we do not accord controlling weight to either
contract.6
2. Employer and industry practice
The Employer's experience with the Grace Letter-
flex system is limited to an approximately 6-month
period after July 1972, when the Letterflex I was in
operation. At that time, the Employer assigned the
work of operating the Letterflex I to photoengravers,
who performed that work to the Employer's satisfac-
tion. Although the timespan covered is brief, to the
extent there has been any past practice by the Employer
here, it supports the assignment to employees repre-
sented by Photoengravers.'
With regard to area and industry practice, John
Gubbard, International vice president of the Photoen-
g avers, during the course of his testimony named more
than 15 newspapers around the country which have
assigned the work of operating the Grace Letterflex
system and other trade name plastic platemaking pro-
cesses to photoengravers. There is absolutely no evi-
dence in the record of any newspaper that has assigned
such an operation to stereotypers where photoengrav-
ers were also employed by the employer and had not
been merged with stereotypers into a new unit entirely.
Consequently, we find that industry practice over-
whelmingly supports assignment of the work to em-
ployees represented by Photoengravers.
3. Relative skills and economy of operations
Since the Letterflex 290 equipment is fully auto-
mated, the operator does not need to have any special
manual skills. However, the record shows that in order
to maintain quality control throughout the process of
developing the negative into a finished printing plate,
the operator, while monitoring the equipment, should
be able to analyze the quality of the plate at each step
of the process. Thus, at the outset the operator should
be able to inspect the negative for any defects and
communicate in the terminology of photography, to
6 Nashua Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 359 (Telegraph
Publishing Company), 212 NLRB 942 (1974); Bakersfield Typographical
Union # 439, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (Bakersfield
Californian, Inc.), 213 NLRB No. 16 (1974).
7 Cf. Nashua Printing Pressmen, supra, where similar work was claimed
by the Typographers and Pressmen. There we found that the photopolymer
plate was a substitute for the lead plates which had previously been cast by
the pressmen. And, since the typographers continued to develop the photo-
graphic negative from which the photopolymer plates were made, we found
the relative functions of the claiming groups of employees would be unaf-
fected by awarding the work to the pressmen. A Board majority thus found
that the factor of the employer's practice favored the Pressmen (Chairman
Miller dissented on other grounds). Here, however, we have already found
that the Grace Letterflex 290 eliminates the work of, and substitutes for,
work functions previously performed by both stereotypers and photoengrav-
ers. Consequently, unlike the circumstances in Nashua, here substitution of
work functions favors both groups of employees equally. See also fn. 8,
infra.
the appropriate individuals for correction , any defects
found. The operator should also be able to determine
whether the plate is being exposed the proper length of
time, and adjust the equipment for more or less expo-
sure as is determined appropriate . Finally , the operator
should be able to analyze the finished plate for quality,
and recommend the appropriate steps to be taken to
remedy any flaws detected in it.
Although Stereotypers claims that its people can be
trained in the same time that it took to train photoen-
gravers to operate the equipment satisfactorily , the rec-
ord makes it clear that the skills and experience of
photoengravers are more adaptable to the efficient op-
erations of the Letterflex equipment. Unlike photoen-
gravers, stereotypers have had no experience with nega-
tives, exposure time, or , for that matter , anything else
related to photography. Furthermore , the work being
performed by the automated Letterflex equipment is
the same work previously performed by photoengrav-
ers manually .' Consequently , through experience and
training they possess better credentials to assess the
quality of the plate as it progresses through the various
stages of development , and to be able to diagnose what
should be done about any defects that may appear or
problems that may arise.
With regard to economy of operations , the Employer
adduced ample evidence that by using photoengravers
to operate its Letterflex equipment its operational flexi-
bility is increased and its costs minimized. Since photo-
engravers have been cross-trained in substantially all of
the work functions of the engraving department, even
when nqt needed to operate the Letterflex equipment,
they can be assigned to other work in the department.
This would not be possible if stereotypers were assigned
the work , since they have had no training or experience
in the engraving department . For this reason , assign-
ment of the work to stereotypers would likely require
the Employer to retain more individuals to perform the
same amount of work , particularly since it would still
be necessary to retain photoengravers to develop the
negative as is conceded by Stereotypers.
Accordingly, we find the factors of relative skills and
economy of operation to favor assignment of the work
in dispute to employees represented by Photoengravers.
4. Impact on employment
Stereotypers claims that if the work is awarded to the
employees it represents at most only 50 percent of the
N Unlike the work functions previously performed by photoengravers
which have been for the most part automated by the Letterflex equipment,
the vast bulk of the work functions previously performed by stereotypers has
been eliminated entirely by the Letterflex system , there being no longer any
need for producing duplicate plates . Consequently , the skills acquired by
photoengravers over the years are more directly related to the work in-
volved in monitoring the operation of the Letterflex system than are those
of stereotypers. Cf. fn. 7, supra.
CINCINNATI STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 5 733
20 stereotypers presently employed by the Employer
will lose their jobs, but if it is awarded to the photoen-
gravers , the employment of all the stereotypers will be
terminated. The Employer and Photoengravers con-
tend that 50 percent of the 14 photoengravers could
lose their jobs if the work is awarded to stereotypers,
and that those photoengravers losing their jobs would
incur more hardship than would the stereotypers who
would be let go; because the Photoengravers contract
with the Employer does not contain the ameliorating
provisions providing for transfer to other jobs, early
retirement , and generous severance pay which are con-
tained in the Stereotypers contract.
It is clear here that no matter which group of em-
ployees eventually receives the work, the other group
will suffer a severe loss of employment . Nevertheless,
we find that in absolute number of jobs lost and impact
on the continuity of the craft unit employees employed
as stereotypers will suffer more in the way of job loss
than will those employed as photoengravers . We fur-
ther find that job impact adversity would be more
equally shared among the competing groups if the work
were awarded to stereotypers inasmuch as in that case
both of them would suffer an approximate 50 percent
loss in jobs . Although we recognize that the individual
photoengravers losing jobs would suffer most in the
transition period while attempting to obtain new jobs
because of the absence of softening provisions compara-
ble to those provided in the Stereotypers contract, we
find this factor insufficient to offset the quantitatively
larger impact on jobs and unit that the stereotypers
would suffer.
Accordingly , for the above reasons, we conclude that
job impact would appear to favor an award of the work
to stereotypers.
Conclusion
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after
full consideration of all relevant factors, we conclude
that the Employer 's employees who are represented by
Photoengravers are entitled to perform the work in
dispute . Although we have found that job impact
would tend to favor stereotypers, we do not find that
factor alone sufficient to outweigh those factors which
we have found favor assignment to the employees
represented by the Photoengravers, including employer
and industry practice , relative skills , and economy of
operations . We find relative skills and economy of op-
erations to be particularly strong factors favoring as-
signment to the employees represented by the Photoen-.
gravers on the facts before us here . In making this
determination we award this work to the employees of
the Employer represented by Photoengravers, but not
to that Union or its members. Our present determina-
tion is limited to the particular controversy which gave
rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF 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:
1. Employees of The Cincinnati Post and Times-Star,
who are currently represented by Graphic Arts Inter-
national Union, Local 508, O-K-I, AFL-CIO, are en-
titled to perform the work involved in operating the
Grace Letterflex 290 system equipment at the Em-
ployer's Cincinnati, Ohio, plant.
2. Cincinnati Stereotypers and Platemakers Union
No. 5, of the International Printing and Graphic Com-
munications Union, AFL-CIO, is not, and has not
been , entitled, by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer
to award the above work to its members or employees
it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute , Cincinnati Stereotypers and
Platemakers Union No. 5, of the International Printing
and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, shall
notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing,
whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring
the Employer, by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D), to award the work in dispute to its members
rather than to employees represented by Photoengrav-
ers.