Cleveland Newspaper Guild

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 236 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Cleveland Newspaper Guild , Local 1 of the Ameri-
can Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO-CLC and E. W.
Scripps Company , as Publisher of the Cleveland
Press, and Cleveland Typographical Union No. 53,
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO.
Case 8-CD-206
June 16, 1971
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a
charge filed by E. W. Scripps Company, as publisher of
the Cleveland Press, herein called the Employer, alleg-
ing that the Cleveland Newspaper Guild, Local 1 of the
American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein
called the Guild or Respondent, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A duly scheduled hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Myron G. Hill, Jr., in
Cleveland, Ohio, on December 10, 1970. The Em-
ployer, the Guild, and Cleveland Typographical Union
No. 53, International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO, herein called CTU,1 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 Employer, the
Guild and CTU all 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 powers
in connection with this case 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. They are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the entire record in this case,
including the briefs of the parties, and hereby makes
the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer is an Ohio
corporation engaged in the publishing of three newspa-
pers, including the Cleveland Press, the only newspaper
involved herein. The Cleveland Press subscribes to
various interstate news services, including the Chicago
Sun Times News Services and United Press Interna-
tional and advertises nationally sold products. The
gross revenues derived from its business annually ex-
ceed $200,000. Accordingly, 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
I The Hearing Officer permitted the CTU to intervene in the proceeding
191 NLRB No. 57
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Guild
and CTU are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Background Facts
The instant dispute involves the function of storing
certain pasteup boards which are reused when a par-
ticular advertisement is run a second time. Prior to
1969, the Employer's newspaper was printed in the
traditional manner, using the hot metal process, and
the zinc engravings which were to be used again were
stored in the composing room and handled by em-
ployees who are represented by CTU. In May 1969, the
Employer received delivery on a new photon machine
and other equipment designed to permit a changeover
from metal plates to pasteup board. The new equip-
ment was used on a limited basis from September 1969
to late January or early February 1970, but thereafter
the photon machine was installed in the composing
room and the Employer began using the cold type pro-
cess on a regular basis and with the expectancy that the
use of metal plate's would eventually be phased out.
During the period from September 1969 to April 13,
1970, the Employer made no formal assignment of the
work in question. However, as a matter of practice, the
pasteup boards were principally stored in a wooden
cabinet in the advertising service department where
they were handled by employees who are represented
by the Guild. Meanwhile, during contract negotiations
between CTU and the Employer, CTU claimed that the
pasteup boards should be in the composing room under
the jurisdiction of its members, and in the collective-
bargaining agreement, executed on April 13, 1970, it
was agreed that the storage of pasteup boards would be
handled by employees represented by CTU, but that
the Employer would have 6 months from the date of
the contract in order to fully implement this work as-
signment. In the early summer of 1970, the Employer
advised the Guild of the assignment and its future im-
plementation. Thereafter, on October 9, 1970, the Em-
ployer transferred the storage cabinet from the adver-
tising service department to the composing room and
that same day Personnel Manager Holcombe called
Jack Weir, the executive secretary of the Guild, and
informed him that commencing October 12, 1970, all
pasteup boards would be handled and stored by em-
ployees represented by CTU. Weir replied that the Em-
ployer was going to have trouble over the matter and
that he (Weir) intended to discuss the situation with the
CLEVELAND NEWSPAPER GUILD 237
employees in the advertising service department. On
October 12 , 1970 , Weir visited Holcombe and told him
that he had informed the Guild 's members in the adver-
tising service department not to transfer the pasteup
boards to the composing room . Holcombe then sug-
gested that he would use supervisors to perform this
function and Weir replied that he had told the members
that if the pasteup boards were transferred to the com-
posing room , they were not to process any work at all
in their department . Later, Weir posted a notice in-
forming the Guild members of his conversation with
Holcombe and the Employer responded by filing the
instant charge.
B. Contentions of the Parties
Respondent contends that the type of controversy
presented here does not involve a jurisdictional dispute
within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(D) and Section
10(k) of the Act and therefore it argues that the Board
should quash the notice of hearing issued in this pro-
ceeding . However , in the event that the Board should
conclude that a jurisdictional dispute exists, Respond-
ent contends that the work in dispute should be
awarded to its members employed in the advertising
service department based upon the Employer 's assign-
ment , past practice , its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer , and efficiency of operations.
The Employer and CTU both assert that a jurisdic-
tional dispute exists and they contend that the disputed
work should be assigned to employees represented by
CTU based upon the contractual assignment, past
practice, area practice , efficiency of operations , and job
attrition.
C. The Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k), it must be satisfied
that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
As previously indicated , the uncontroverted tes-
timony of the Employer' s personnel manager, Hol-
combe , establishes that Respondent 's executive secre-
tary, Weir, threatened Holcombe with a work stoppage
if the Employer went through with its plans to transfer
the pasteup boards from the advertising service depart-
ment to the composing room . Although Respondent
does not deny that it threatened a work stoppage, it
takes the position that the controversy involved here is
not a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) and Section 10(k) of the Act . In support
of this position , Respondent argues that the dispute is
of the Employer's own making in that it arose out of
the Employer's action in removing the work from the
employees legally entitled to perform it and the reas-
signing of it to other employees . Respondent argues
further than in such circumstances the Employer can-
not be viewed as a neutral caught between the conflict-
ing claims raised by the competing groups of em-
ployees, but rather the dispute can only properly be
described as one involving the Employer and the Guild
over the issue of employee job rights.
In our opinion , Respondent's position is based upon
a faulty premise ; namely, that the employees repre-
sented by the Guild had established the right to per-
form the disputed work prior to the time the Employer
formally assigned the work to employees represented
by CTU. Although employees in the advertising service
department actually performed a substantial portion of
the work in question , all parties were aware that the
Employer's operations were undergoing a major reor-
ganization in converting from hot metal to the'cold
type process, and that a period of several months would
elapse before the new equipment was installed and
functional . The Employer made no formal assignment
of the work at that time because it considered opera-
tions involving the new process to be on an experimen-
tal and a temporary basis. Although the Employer be-
gan to convert to the cold type process in September
1969 , it was not until February 1970 that such opera-
tions were being performed on a regular basis. Further-
more , even though the Employer formally assigned the
disputed work to CTU in April 1970, , it required a
period of 6 months in order to implement the assign-
ment.
In these circumstances, we find insufficient evidence
to support Respondent 's contention that the employees
in the advertising service department acquired the right
to perform the disputed work on a permanent basis. On
the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that a typical
jurisdictional dispute situation is presented with com-
peting groups of employees claiming the right to per-
form work which is part of a new process or operation.
Accordingly, we conclude that the instant controversy
is a jurisdictional dispute and, that there is a reasonable
cause for believing that a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) has occurred . The dispute is therefore prop-
erly before us for determination.
D. The Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work after
giving due consideration to the various relevant factors.
The following factors are relevant in making a deter-
mination of the dispute before us:
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Employer's assignment and past practice
As indicated earlier, the disputed work is part of a
new operation which has been in effect at the Em-
ployer's newspaper only since September 1969. Al-
though employees represented by the Guild were per-
forming the work in question during the period when
the Employer was attempting to implement its decision
to convert its operations from hot metal to the cold type
process, it seems clear that the parties recognized that
the new operations were being performed on a tempo-
rary basis and that permanent work assignments would
not be made until the new work was being performed
on a regular basis. It was not until February 1970 that
the Employer began using the cold type process on a
regular basis and approximately 2 months later it for-
mally assigned the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by CTU, although the implementation of this
assignment was delayed for 6 months thereafter.
Accordingly, we conclude that there is no meaning-
ful past practice which would be of assistance to the
Board in determining the merits of this dispute. With
respect to the Employer's assignment, however, the
record shows that the disputed work was by contract
assigned to'CTU members on April 13, 1970, and that
this was the Employer's only formal assignment of the
work in question. Therefore on the basis of this evi-
dence, we find that the Employer's assignment favors
the CTU's claim to this work.
2. Collective-bargaining agreements
Both CTU and the Guild have collective-bargaining
agreements with the Employer. The collective-bargain-
ing agreement covering employees represented by the
Guild was executed on October 15, 1969, and effective
for a period from May 1, 1969, to May 31, 1972. Article
I, section 4, of this agreement provides, in substance,
that work which is being performed by bargaining unit
employees or work which may in the future be assigned
to such employees will not during the term of the con-
tract be assigned to employees who are outside the
Guild's jurisdiction. CTU's contract with the Em-
ployer was executed on April 13, 1970, and is effective
from June 1, 1969, to August 31, 1972. Article I, sec-
tion 6(a), of this agreement provides as follows:
(a) Complete paste-ups, once used and stored by
the Publisher for future use, shall be stored by
employees who are covered by this agreement.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the CTU contract
specifically provides for the assignment of the disputed
work to employees represented by CTU. The Guild
contract on the other hand makes no specific reference
to the work in dispute and only by giving the broadest
interpretation to the words, "work now being per-
formed" can the contract be said to extend coverage
over the disputed work . Accordingly , we find that this
factor supports CTU's claim to the disputed work.
3. Area practice
The only record evidence with respect to area prac-
tice shows that there is only one other daily newspaper
in Cleveland, Ohio, the- Cleveland Plain Dealer, and
that the storage of pasteup boards at this newspaper is
performed by employees represented by CTU. Accord-
ingly, we find that the area practice favors CTU's
claim.
4. Efficiency of operations
The pasteup boards are made available to composing
room employees as needed and there seems to be no
question that it is more convenient to store the materi-
als at the location where they will be used, rather than
elsewhere. Here, the storage of pasteup boards in the
composing room would eliminate the necessity of re-
questing the delivery of such materials from the adver-
tising service department and, by eliminating an un-
necessary cause for delay, allow the Employer more
flexibility in meeting its time deadlines. Accordingly,
we find that it would be more efficient to have the work
performed by the composing room employees by CTU.
5. Job attrition
Although the record does not disclose any reduction
in jobs as a result of the Employer's action in convert-
ing to the cold type process, there is testimony showing
that at the time of the hearing the Employer was ex-
periencing a saving of about 700 hours a week in com-
posing room worktime under the new method and that
when the changeover is complete and the newspaper is
printed entirely in cold type, an even greater saving in
work hours is expected. Hence, the potential for a re-
duction in force among composing room employees is
a very real possibility. The record does not indicate
clearly what, if any, job loss would be experienced by
employees in the advertising service department if they
were not permitted to perform the disputed work.
However, the record does indicate that the Employer
promised the Guild that none of the employees it repre-
sents would be laid off as a result of 'the assignment of
the disputed work to CTU. Accordingly, we find that
this factor supports CTU's claim.
6. Conclusions
Based upon the entire record and after full considera-
tion of all the relevant factors, we conclude that the
employees represented by CTU, rather than, those
represented by the Guild , are entitled to perform the
work in dispute . In making this determination, we are
CLEVELAND NEWSPAPER GUILD 239
assigning the disputed work to the employees of the
Employer who are represented by CTU, but not to
CTU or its members . Also, the present determination
is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise
to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes
the following determination of dispute:
1. Employees of E. W. Scripps Company, as publish-
ers of the Cleveland Press, currently represented by
Cleveland Typographical Union No. 53, International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to the
work in connection with the storage of pasteup boards
which are retained for future use.
2. The Cleveland Newspaper Guild, Local 1 of the
American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO-CLC, is not
entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act, to force or require E. W. Scripps Company, as
publisher of the Cleveland Press, to assign the above-
described work to employees represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, the Cleveland Newspaper
Guild, Local 1 of the American Newspaper Guild,
AFL-CIO-CLC, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 8, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from
forcing or requiring E. W. Scripps Company, as Pub-
lisher of the Cleveland Press, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in
dispute to employees represented by it, rather than to
employees represented by Cleveland Typographical
Union No. 53, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO.