Daytona Beach Printing Pressmen, Local 444

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 3, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 90 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Daytona Beach Printing Pressmen & Assistants'
Union , Local 444 , subordinate to International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North
America , AFL-CIO,' and News-Journal Corp.
and Lithographers & Photoengravers Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO, Party to Dispute. Case
12-CD-102
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find, that the
Pressmen and the Lithographers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
November 3,1967
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow-
ing a charge filed by News-Journal Corporation,
herein called the Employer, alleging that Daytona
Beach Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union,
Local 444, subordinate to International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Pressmen, had vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act. Pursuant to
notice , a hearing was held at Daytona Beach,
Florida , on June 20, 1967, before Hearing Officer
Herbert N. Watterson of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board. The Employer , the Pressmen, and
Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the Lithographers,
appeared at the hearing and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard , to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing
upon the issues . Thereafter , the Pressmen and the
Lithographers filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case 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 entire record in this case , the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer is a
Florida corporation engaged at Daytona Beach,
Florida , in the publication of morning, evening, and
Sunday newspapers. It is a member of the As-
sociated Press , does national advertising , and has
a gross volume of business exceeding $200,000.
We find , accordingly, that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
' The name of the Respondent-Union appears as amended at the hear-
ing
2 The parties stipulated that the Board take official notice in considering
A. The Work in Dispute; Background Facts
Prior to January 9, 1967, the Employer's printing
operations were divided into three departments,
known as the pressroom, composing room, and
photoengraving department. On January 9, 1967,
the Employer began printing its newspaper on an
"offset" printing press rather than on a "letter-
press" printing press as it had done formerly. How-
ever, it has continued its operation with the same
employees working in the same departments, but
after the change, the photoengraving department
became known as the graphic arts department.
Before the change, the making of letterpress
plates involved, in general, photographing copy
prepared in the composing room, then developing
the film, and subjecting it and a photosensitive plate
to light and chemicals, thereby bringing an image
onto the plate. This work was performed by em-
ployees who are currently represented by the
Lithographers. Also before the change, the plate
produced was flat and rigid and the employees
represented by the Pressmen "bent" the plate into
a semicylindrical "stereotyped" plate for use on the
presses. After the change, the employees
represented by the Lithographers continued to per-
form platemaking work, which remained basically
the same as before. The stereotyping (bending)
process, however, was eliminated, as a thinner,
more flexible plate, ready for insertion into the
press cylinder, was sent to the pressroom from the
graphic arts department.
Both before and after the change to offset, the
Pressmen have represented' the pressroom em-
ployees. On January 11, 1967, that Union filed an
election petition for a unit of pressroom and graphic
arts department employees, and on January 23,
1967, the Lithographers filed an election petition
for a unit limited to the graphic arts department em-
ployees. Following a hearing,2 the Regional
Director for Region 12, on March 3, 1967, issued
his Decision and Direction of Election, in which he
found "a unit limited to the graphic arts department
employees appropriate, whether considered on the
basis of a residual unit or a departmental unit." As
the Pressmen had an insufficient showing of interest
among the employees of the graphic arts depart-
ment, the Direction of Election did not provide for
its appearing on the ballot in the election for such
this case of the record at such hearing , including the transcript and all
documents and exhibits.
168 NLRB No. 17
DAYTONA BEACH PRINTING PRESSMEN , LOCAL 444 _ 91
employees. The Pressmen filed a request for review
of the Regional Director's Decision. On March 27,
1967, the Board denied the request.
An election was held on March 29, 1967, and the
Lithographers received a majority of the votes cast.
On April 6, 1967, it was certified as the exclusive
representative of the Employer 's employees in the
following unit:
All graphic arts department employees em-
ployed at Employer's Daytona Beach, Florida,
newspaper plant, but excluding all other em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Thereafter, on May 4, 1967, the Pressmen
notified the Employer that unless it assigned the
work of making offset plates, which the employees
of the graphic arts department were performing, to
the pressroom employees , the pressmen would take
strike action against the Employer. The Employer,
on May 15, 1967, filed a charge alleging that this
threat violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
B. The Contentions of the Parties
(a) The Pressmen contends that the making of
offset plates from camera work to completion
should be assigned to the pressroom employees on
the basis of the jurisdictional clause of the contract
with the Employer, the custom and practice in the
area, and the promotion of efficiency at the plant.
The Pressmen further asserts that the graphic arts
department employees do not have effective
representation. The Pressmen alternatively
requests that the pressroom employees should be
awarded the making of offset plates subsequent to
camera work.
(b) The Lithographers contends, first, that its
recent certification for the graphic arts department
disposes of the case . It further argues that the
present assignment of the work to the graphic arts
employees is proper in view of the collective-bar-
gaining background which establishes the graphic
arts department as an appropriate unit and the as-
serted fact that the pressroom employees could not
bring skills comparable to those of the graphic arts
employees to the making of offset plates. Also, the
Lithographers contend that the awarding of work
subsequent to camera work to the pressroom em-
ployees would represent an arbitrary partition of an
integrated operation.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
of the 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 indicated above, the Pressmen on May 4,
1967, threatened strike action against the Employer
with the object of forcing it to assign the disputed
work to employees represented by the Pressmen
rather than to employees represented by the Lithog-
raphers. Accordingly, we conclude that there is
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that the dispute is
properly before the Board for determination under
Section 10(k) of the Act.
IV. MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
As indicated above, the Lithographers was cer-
tified as the collective-bargaining representative of
all graphic arts department employees. As these
employees performed the entire operation of mak-
ing offset plates at the time of the certification, and
as their duties were described in detail in the
representation proceedings, we find that the certifi-
cation clearly supports the Lithographers' claim to
the disputed work of making offset plates.
In addition , the Employer has assigned all the
disputed platemaking work under both its previous
letterpress and current offset operations to the em-
ployees who are represented by the Lithographers.
These employees possess skills with respect to the
operations here in dispute superior to those of the
employees represented by the Pressmen, who have
not performed the disputed work and would be in-
capable of performing it without a lengthy training
period. Furthermore, although an offset plate which
has reached the pressroom must be returned to the
adjacent graphic arts department if corrections are
needed, we find on the basis of the superior skills
possessed by employees represented by the Lithog-
raphers and the location of all platemaking equip-
ment in the graphic arts department, that, as the
Employer contends, the present assignment
promotes efficiency of operations.
We, furthermore, find the contract between the
Pressmen and the Employer at best inconclusive
with respect to coverage of the graphic arts depart-
ment, as it expressly refers only to the pressroom,
and pressroom employees have not performed the
disputed work during the term of the contract. We
also find industry practice inconclusive, as the
record indicates that though the Pressmen
represent employees who perform offset platemak-
ing work in certain plants in the Southeast , in other
plants the Lithographers or other unions represent
employees who make offset plates. Finally, on the
basis of the foregoing factors and the entire record,
and particularly the integrated nature of the
platemaking operation, we find no reason for divid-
ing the operation into camera and subsequent
platemaking work, to be performed by different
groups of employees.
Accordingly, on the basis of the certification, the
Employer 's assignment of all the disputed work to
the graphic arts department employees, the superior
skills of those employees over employees
represented by the Pressmen with respect to the
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations here in dispute , and the fact that the
present assignment promotes efficiency , we shall
determine the dispute before us by awarding the
work of making offset plates , including the
processing subsequent to camera work , to those
employees represented by the Lithographers, but
not to that Union or its members .3 This determina-
tion is limited to the particular controversy giving
rise to this dispute.
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
proceeding , the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following determination of
dispute:
1. Employees currently represented by the
Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union , AFL-CIO, and employed by the News-
Journal Corporation in its graphic arts department,
are entitled to perform the work of making offset
plates, including work subsequent to camera work,
at the Employer's plant in Daytona Beach, Flordia.
2. Daytona Beach Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union, Local 444, subordinate to Inter-
national Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, is not entitled to
force or require the News-Journal Corporation to
assign the aforementioned work of making offset
plates to employees represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Daytona Beach
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local
444, subordinate to International Printing Press-
men and Assistants' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 12, in writing, whether or not it will refrain
from forcing or requiring News-Journal Corpora-
tion, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to
assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent
with the above determination.
S United Association , Pipe Fitters Local 533 (J F Pritchard & Co.),
153 NLRB 1180
Member Fanning finds that the certification of the Lithographers to per-
form the disputed work is controlling in this case and that no award con-
trary to that certification can be made by the Board