Detroit Newspaper Printing

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 533 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DETROIT NEWSPAPER PRINTING
Detroit Newspaper Printing and Graphic Communica-
tions Union, Local No. 13, I.P.G.C.U., AFL-CIO
and Detroit Free Press, Inc. and Detroit Paper
Handlers and Plate Handlers Local Union No. 10,
I.P.G.C.U., AFL-CIO. Case 7-CD-366
November 21, 1979
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed by Detroit Free Press, Inc., herein called
the Employer, alleging that Detroit Newspaper Print-
ing and Graphic Communications Union, Local No.
13, I.P.G.C.U., AFL-CIO, herein called Local 13,
had 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 continue to as-
sign certain work to employees represented by it
rather than to employees represented by Detroit Pa-
per Handlers and Plate Handlers Local Union No.
10, I.P.G.C.U., AFL-CIO, herein called Local 10.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer Mark D. Rubin on June 28, 1979. All par-
ties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-exam-
ine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. Thereafter, the Employer, Local 10, and Local
13 filed briefs which have been duly considered.
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 made by the
Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, a Michigan corporation with its principal
place of business in Detroit, Michigan, is engaged in
the publication of The Detroit Free Press, a daily and
Sunday newspaper of general circulation. During the
past calendar year, a representative period, the Em-
ployer held membership in and subscribed to the As-
sociated Press and the United Press International,
which are interstate news services, and derived gross
revenues from its publishing operations in excess of
$1 million. The Employer also had gross revenues in
excess of $50,000 from the publication of advertise-
ments placed from outside the State of Michigan.
Based on the foregoing, we find that Detroit Free
Press, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local 10
and Local 13 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer prints and publishes a daily newspa-
per, The Detroit Free Press, at two facilities located
in Detroit, Michigan. For many years, the newspaper
was printed on letterpresses at the Employer's Lafa-
yette Street facility. Then, in February 1979, the Em-
ployer opened its new Riverfront facility which uses
the offset printing process. At the time of the hearing,
the Employer was utilizing both facilities to print its
newspaper. The record shows, however, that the Em-
ployer intends to cease printing operations at the
Lafayette Street plant in the immediate future.
Under the letterpress process, printers represented
by the International Typographical Union produce a
negative of each newspaper page. These employees
then prepare a dycril plastic plate from the negative.
Although some publishers employing this process
print their newspaper directly from the dycril plates,
the Employer does not do so because these light-
weight plates would not withstand the pressure of its
large press run. Instead, at the old Lafayette Street
facility, stereotypers represented by Local 13' prepare
a mold of each plastic plate which they then use to
cast a 40-pound lead stereotype plate in the foundry.
The lead stereotype plates travel from the foundry on
a conveyor system through a loop around seven press
units in the pressroom. An employee represented by
Local 10 sits in a pit at the exit of the foundry and
controls the movement of the conveyor system. As
the plate leaves the foundry, this employee marks the
plate with a paint brush to indicate the number of the
press unit on which the plate will be used. One em-
ployee represented by Local 10 is stationed at each of
the first six presses on the conveyor loop. The func-
tion of these employees is to remove all plates desig-
nated for their assigned press unit and to place them
on the pressroom floor. Two other employees repre-
t At the Employer's Lafayette Street plant, Local 13 represents both the
stereotypers and the pressmen in separate bargaining units.
246 NLRB No. 77
533
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sented by Local 10 handle those plates destined for
the last press unit to prevent the destruction of "good
plates" in the remelt pot at the end of the conveyor
system. After the platehandlers remove the lead ste-
reotype plates from the conveyor belt, other employ-
ees, known as "fly boys," position the plates on the
pressroom floor near the designated press unit. Press-
men represented by Local 13 then mount the lead
plates on the press units. When they have finished
with the press run, the pressmen remove the plates
and place them on the floor near the conveyor. Fi-
nally, the platehandlers put the plates back on the
conveyor system for recycling in the remelt pot.
Under the offset process, printers working at the
Employer's Lafayette Street facility again produce a
full-page negative of each newspaper page. Currently,
these negatives are physically transported from that
plant to the platemaking room at the Riverfront facil-
ity. In the immediate future, however, the plate-
makers, who are represented together with the press-
men at the Riverfront plant in a single bargaining
unit by Local 13, will receive the negatives by laser
beams transmitted over telephone lines. These em-
ployers then use the negatives to prepare an offset
plate, made of aluminum and weighing approxi-
mately 6 ounces, for each newspaper page. The plate-
maker usually places the finished plates on a table
outside the platemaking room. The Employer has as-
signed to pressmen represented by Local 13 the work
of carrying the 6-ounce plates to the presses, the most
distant one being about 100 yards from the platemak-
ing room. However, when it is more expedient to do
so, the platemaker may simply carry the offset plate
to the appropriate press unit.2 The pressman then
mounts the plates on the presses. After he has finished
with the press run, the pressman discards the offset
plate in a wooden box. The Employer sells the used
plates as scrap material.
As the offset process does not require the produc-
tion of any lead stereotype plates, there are no stereo-
typers employed at the Riverfront facility. The 10 ste-
reotypers currently employed at Lafayette Street will
be absorbed into Local 13's bargaining unit at the
Riverfront plant, where they will perform platemak-
ing and platehandling functions. Further, those em-
ployees represented by Local 10 now assigned the
platehandling work at Lafayette Street will eventually
join other employees also represented by Local 10 in
performing the paperhandling functions in a separate
area of the new building.
After the Employer had assigned to employees rep-
resented by Local 13 the work of carrying the 6-ounce
offset plates from the platemaking room to the presses
at its Riverfront facility, Local 10 filed a grievance in
2 The Employer does not have any plans for installing a conveyor system
to move offset plates at its Riverfront facility.
an attempt to secure an award that would change
that work assignment. On May 21, 1979, Local 13
sent a letter to the Employer's employee relations
manager in which it threatened to strike in the event
that the Employer submitted the work assignment is-
sue to an arbitration proceeding. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer filed the charge in this proceeding.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the delivery of 6-
ounce aluminum offset plates from the platemaking
department to the appropriate press in the pressroom
at the Employer's Riverfront facility.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Local 10 argues that this case should be dismissed
as there is no reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) had been violated. In the event that the
Board does make a determination of this dispute, Lo-
cal 10 contends that its collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Employer covers the disputed work
and that area practice favors an award to the employ-
ees it represents. Finally, it points out that the Em-
ployer's platehandling work is a function traditionally
performed by employees it represents.
The Employer and Local 13 contend that the as-
signment of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by Local 13 should be upheld on the basis of
employer preference, economy and efficiency of op-
eration, and their collective-bargaining agreement.
They further argue that the platehandling work per-
formed at Lafayette Street by members of Local 10
has been eliminated as the Employer does not utilize
lead stereotype plates at its Riverfront facility.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that: (1) there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated,
and (2) there is no agreed-upon method for the volun-
tary adjustment of the dispute.
With respect to (I), above, the record discloses that
the Employer assigned the work in dispute to employ-
ees represented by Local 13 when its Riverfront facil-
ity opened in February 1979. Local 10 then filed a
grievance wherein it sought a determination by an
arbitrator that employees it represents are entitled to
perform the work in dispute. Thereafter, on May 21,
1979, Local 13 made clear its intent to strike in the
event that the Employer submitted the work assign-
ment issue to an arbitration proceeding involving Lo-
cal 10 and the Employer. It is well established that
when a union threatens to strike in the event that the
534
DETROIT NEWSPAPER PRINTING
employer submits that union's work assignment to ar-
bitration with another union there is reasonable cause
to believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.3 Ac-
cordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
With respect to (2), above, the record further shows
that Local 13 is not a party to the arbitration pro-
ceeding initiated by Local 10. Accordingly, as there is
no evidence in this case that the disputants are party
to any procedure which could result in a determina-
tion of the instant controversy that would be binding
on all, we find that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
E. 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 various relevant factors.4
As the Board has frequently stated, the determination
in a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment
based on commonsense and experience in weighing
these factors. The following factors are relevant in
making a determination of the dispute before us:
1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements
Neither of the labor organizations involved herein
has been certified by the Board as the collective-bar-
gaining representative for a unit of the Employer's
employees.
Section 3 of the existing collective-bargaining
agreement between the Employer and Local 10 pro-
vides that:
Employees shall do such work as is designated
by the Publisher, either in connection with the
handling of paper, pressroom supplies. and/or
plates, at the publishing plant where they are
employed, or any designated work in connection
with the handling of paper and supplies.
Therefore, we conclude that Local 10's contract cov-
ers the work in dispute.
However, on January 23, 1979, the Employer and
Local 13 executed a supplemental agreement to their
current contract which states that: "The Publisher,
through its representatives, may direct platemaking
and/or pressroom employees to deliver plates to the
appropriate presses." Local 10 argues that this agree-
ment is invalid because it conflicts with section 25 of
Alban,, Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23, AFI.- CO (Wil-
ham Press Inc.), 166 NLRB 693 (1967).
4 N.LRB. v. Radio d Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A Fl CIO Columbia Broad-
casting System]. 364 U.S. 573 (1961); International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No 1743, AFL CIO (. A. Jones Construction Companvi. 135 NLRB
1402 (1962).
Local 10's current agreement with the Employer
which protects the traditional jurisdiction of the em-
ployees Local 10 represents and, thus, restrains the
Employer from entering into any agreement with an-
other labor organization covering the disputed work.
In this regard, section 25 provides in pertinent part as
follows:
It being understood that should the Publisher in-
stall any machinery or equipment as a replace-
ment tor, or as an addition to, the machinery
now being manned by the plate and paperhand-
ling departments, such Publisher shall assign the
operation of such equipment to employees cov-
ered by this contract and shall make no other
agreement covering such work.
We have noted, however, that the only equipment
employees represented by Local 10 operate in con-
nection with their platehandling duties at the Lafa-
yette Street facility is the conveyor system which
transports the lead stereotype plates from the foundry
to the pressroom. Therefore, as the Employer does
not intend to install a similar conveyor system at its
Riverfront plant, we conclude that Local 10's collec-
tive-bargaining agreement did not prevent the Em-
ployer from entering into a subsequent contract with
Local 13 covering the work in dispute.
In view of the foregoing, we find that both Unions
have legitimate contractual claims to the work in dis-
pute, and that the factors of contract and certification
do not favor an award of the disputed work to either
group of employees.
2. Employer assignment and preference
The Employer has assigned the work in dispute to
its employees who are represented by Local 13, and
has manifested a preference to continue that assign-
ment. We therefore find that this factor favors an
award of the disputed work to employees represented
by Local 13.
3. Relative skills
There are no special skills required in performance
of the disputed work. Accordingly, we find that this
factor does not favor an award to employees repre-
sented by either Local 10 or Local 13.
4. Industry and area practice
William Langman, the Employer's director of pro-
duction, stated that he was familiar with newspapers
in six other cities (San Diego and Sacramento. Cali-
fornia; Portland, Oregon; St. Louis, Missouri; St. Pe-
tersburg, Florida; and Livonia, Michigan) which uti-
535
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lize the offset method of printing. According to
Langman's testimony, these publishers assign to
pressmen the work of delivering offset plates from the
platemaking room to the presses. There was, how-
ever, no evidence presented that the employees of any
of these publishers were grouped in a fashion similar
to those here. Accordingly, we do not find that such
evidence regarding assignment of the disputed work
by six other newspaper publishers is sufficient to es-
tablish the industry practice throughout the country.
With respect to area practice, there is evidence that
The Detroit News, another newspaper publisher in
Detroit, Michigan, has assigned the work of handling
offset plates to employees represented by Local 10.
However, this employer presently uses both lead
stereotype plates and offset plates on the same
presses. Under these circumstances, employees repre-
sented by Local 10, who handle the 40-pound lead
stereotype plates, also handle the offset plates as a
matter of convenience. Thus, it is clear that the opera-
tions of The Detroit News are substantially different
from those of the Employer at its Riverfront facility.
Accordingly, we conclude that both industry and
area practice are inconclusive and do not favor an
award to employees represented by either Local 10 or
Local 13.
5. Job impact
Both Unions have job-guarantee clauses in their
respective collective-bargaining agreements with the
Employer. As a result, neither employees represented
by Local 13 nor employees represented by Local 10
will be laid off as a result of our award of the disputed
work. Accordingly, we find that this factor does not
favor awarding the work in dispute to employees rep-
resented by either Local 10 or Local 13.
6. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer maintained at the hearing that fac-
tors of economy and efficiency support assignment of
the disputed work to employees represented by Local
13. Under the present assignment of the disputed
work, employees represented by Local 13 receive
negatives of the newspaper pages made by printers
working at the Lafayette Street facility. These em-
ployees then prepare the offset plates from the nega-
tives, carry them to the pressroom, and operate the
presses. Thus, it is evident that employees represented
by Local 13 perform every function necessary to com-
plete the offset printing process at the Riverfront fa-
cility. Local 10, by contrast, claims only that work
involved in delivering the offset plates from the plate-
making room to the press units. Under the letterpress
process of printing newspapers employed at the Em-
ployer's Lafayette Street plant, the handling of the
40-pound lead stereotype plates is a function requir-
ing the use of a conveyor system and nine full-time
employees represented by Local 10. However, as the
pressmen or platemakers can easily carry the 6-ounce
offset plates to the pressroom of the Riverfront facil-
ity, it is clear that platehandling work under the offset
process is a function of minor significance and does
not require the employ of any full-time platehandlers
represented by Local 10.
Therefore, we find that the factors of economy and
efficiency of operations favor awarding the work in
dispute to employees represented by Local 13.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of all the relevant factors, we
conclude that the Employer's employees who are rep-
resented by Detroit Newspaper Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, Local No. 13, I.P.G.C.U.,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work in dis-
pute. We reach this conclusion based on the Employ-
er's preference and current practice of assigning the
disputed work to these employees and the fact that
such an assignment will result in greater efficiency
and economy of the Employer's operations. Accord-
ingly, we shall determine the instant dispute by
awarding the disputed work to the employees repre-
sented by Detroit Newspaper Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, Local No. 13, I.P.G.C.U.,
AFL-CIO, but not to that Union or its members.
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 of Detroit Free Press, Inc., who are rep-
resented by Detroit Newspaper Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, Local No. 13, I.P.G.C.U.,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of deliv-
ering offset plates from the platemaking department
to the appropriate press in the pressroom of the Em-
ployer's Riverfront facility located at 1801 West Jef-
ferson, Detroit, Michigan.
536