Graphic Arts In'l Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 243 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

GRAPHIC ARTS INTL. UNION
Graphic Arts International Union , Local2No . 280, and
San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company, ,Inc.
and San Francisco Web Pressmen and Platemakers
Union Local No. 4
Graphic Arts International Union , Local No. 280 and
Northwest Publications , Inc. and San Francisco
Web Pressmen and Platemakers Union Local No. 4.
Cases 20-CD-413 and 20-CD-414
December 4, 1974
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following the
filing of separate charges by Northwest Publications,
Inc. (Northwest), and San Francisco Newspaper Print-
ing Company, Inc. (the Publishing Company), the Em-
ployers herein, alleging that the Graphic Arts Interna-
tional Union, Local No. 280 (Photoengravers) violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requir-
ing both Northwest and the Publishing Company to
assign certain work to employees represented by the
Photoengravers, rather than to employees represented
by San Francisco Web Pressmen and Platemakers
Union Local No. 4 (Stereotypers). Pursuant to an
order consolidating Case 20-CD-413 with Case
20-CD-414, and notice to the parties, a hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Stephen H. Booth, on June
21 and 24, 1974, in San Francisco, California. All par-
ties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine
witnesses , and to present evidence bearing on the is-
sues . Thereafter, all parties 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 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
proceeding and makes the following findings:
0
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Northwest is a Delaware corporation with its princi-
pal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.It,maintains
a branch office in San Jose, California, where it pub-
lishes two daily newspapers, the San Jose Mercury and
the San Jose News. The Publishing Company is a
243
Nevada Corporation with its principallplace of business
in San Franciso,' California, where it performs the me-
chanical, circulation; advertising, accounting, and col-
lection functions "for the San Francisco Examiner and
Chronicle. During the past calendar year, each corpo-
ration has purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000
outside the State of California, which goods, were
shipped directly to the corporations from points out-
side the State of California. During the same period of
time, each corporation has had total sales in excess of
$500,000. Accordingly, the parties have stipulated, and
we find, that each corporation is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find , that the Photo-
engravers and the Stereotypers are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute includes all platemaking and
developing, and all other postcamera operations, in-
cluding, but not limited to, stripping, opaquing, dot
etching, or any other substitute processes or functions
of the foregoing. ,
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
For some time Northwest and the Publishing Com-
pany have been engaged in joint collective bargaining
with the Photoengravers and the Stereotypers. Histori-
cally, photoengravers have performed traditional
photoengraving work at both Employers' places of
business. Under that system a photoengraver operating
as a cameraman takes a picture of the copy for the
paper and develops a negative. After the negative is
trimmed and inspected to insure it is in proper form,
an image of it is burned onto the zinc plate to which
the negative is held. The plate is then transported to the
etching area and weighed in order that it may be deter-
mined what amount of acid must be used to remove
foreign material. After the plate is bathed in acid (for
the removal of foreign matter) it is inspected for proper
depth, then trimmed, labeled, and sent to the stereotype
department.
In the stereotype department the employees prepare
the plate for a routing machine. The plate is then
routed to the pressmen in proper form to be affixed to
the saddles of the printing presses.
215 NLRB No. 40
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In 1973, both companies began to work with a new
advanced photopolymer plate (herein referred to as the
NAPP process). This is a technologically advanced sys-
tem of printing which can eliminate the need for the
traditional zinc or magnesium pattern plates. It can
also be used to produce direct press plates. In this
process a cameraman prepares a negative and places it
on a photosensitive plastic plate where it is exposed to
a light source. At this point the-judgment factors in-
volved in the NAPP process are the same as those
involved in the traditional process which used a mag-
nesium plate. After the plate is exposed, it is placed in
a washout unit where only water (as opposed to acid
under the old system) is used . The NAPP plate is next
inserted in an ultraviolet oven and hardened. After the
product is finished, it is, inspected by a photoengraver
for quality and then routed to the stereotype depart-
ment and is used as a pattern plate in a manner identi-
cal to the traditional zinc or magnesium plate.
The NAPP plate, however, is capable of being used
without any structural changes, other than bending, as
a direct press plate, thus bypassing the stereotype de-
partment and the casting of semicylindrical lead print-
ing plates. Both Companies at the time of the hearing
were utilizing the NAPP system to produce pattern
plates and simultaneously using the traditional photo-
engraving system to produce zinc or magnesium direct
plates. Although both Companies contemplate the
eventual conversion of the NAPP system to direct press
plate use, no date had been fixed for such conversion
at, the time of the hearing.
On March 29, 1973, and in June of the same year,
Northwest and the Publishing Company respectively
informed both Unions that the work associated with
the NAPP system would be performed by the photoen-
gravers.
In anticipation of the possible impact on the stereoty-
pers caused by the introduction of the NAPP system,
the two Companies jointly developed a "phase out pro-
gram" to guarantee that efforts would be made to relo-
cate stereotypers in other jobs if they were replaced and
to establish a program of severance pay. When the
program was submitted to the Stereotypers Union as a
written proposal and discussed at a January 10, 1974,
meeting, spokesmen for the Stereotypers assured the
Companies they would study the proposal, consult
with their membership, and develop counterproposals.
At a later meeting between the Companies and the
Stereotypers, a spokesman for that Union proposed to
expand the jurisdictional language in 'their contract to
include the platemaking operations of the NAPP pro-
cess, and submitted a written proposal to each company
to that effect. Pursuant to this submission the Stereoty-
pers argued that the Companies had no right to unilat-
erally award jurisdiction of the NAPP platemaking
process to the employees represented by the Photoen-
gravers and asserted that the jurisdictional clause in
their collective-bargaining agreement should be ex =
panded to extend to and embrace "all platemaking and
developing, and all other post-camera operations, in-
cluding but not limited to stripping, opaquing, dot
etching or any other substitute processes or functions
of the foregoing."
When the Companies met with the Photoengravers
and discussed with them the potential jurisdictional
dispute presented by the Stereotypers demands, the
Photoengravers took the position that the work was
encompassed by its own jurisdictional language. A few
days later the Photoengravers by letter reiterated to
each company that Union's intention to engage in im-
mediate economic action against the Companies if any
part of the work on the NAPP platemaking process was
assigned to any employees other than those represented
by that labor organization . The letters further advised
that the Photoengraver Union had requested strike
sanction in the event that the work was reassigned.
In early 1974 each Company filed charges against
the Photoengravers, alleging that the Union's threat to
strike unless the work involving the NAPP platemak-
ing process remained assigned to photoengraving em-
ployees violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.
Thereafter, the cases were consolidated for hearing.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employers contend that their respective assign-
ments of the disputed work to the photoengravers are
proper on the basis of employer preference and assign-
ment , the relevant collective-bargaining agreements,
the superior skills of the photoengravers, reasons of
efficiency and economy, and the fact that the impact of
job loss will be mitigated by the assignment of the work
to the photoengravers. In its brief, the Photoengravers
takes basically the same position as the Employers.
The Stereotypers takes the position that there is not,
in this case, a jurisdictional dispute as contemplated,by
Sections 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k) of the Act. The thrust of
this argument is that the work presently being per-
formed by the photoengravers, the use of the NAPP
system to produce pattern plates, rightfully belongs to
the photoengravers and has never been claimed by the
stereotypers. It further contends that its counter-
proposal to the Employers related only to the making
of the direct press plate by use of the NAPP system and
was not to be operative until that time . Thus, it con-
cludes , inasmuch as there is no dispute regarding the
photoengravers' use of the NAPP system to produce
pattern plates, and since the Stereotypers' jurisdictional
contentions relate only to making plates for the print-
ing presses in the future, the filing of charges by the
GRAPHIC ARTS INTL. UNION
Employers is premature , and the notice of hearing
should be quashed.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determination
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) that the parties have not agreed upon a method for
the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As to ( 1), above , the record shows that after the
Employers informed both Unions that the work in con-
nection with NAPP process would be assigned to
photoengravers , in a subsequent bargaining session, the
Stereotypers submitted a proposal that all postcamera
work involved in platemaking be assigned to employees
represented by that Union. When the Employers in-
formed the Photoengravers of the position taken by the
Stereotypers , the Photoengravers advised both Em-
ployers, orally and in writing , that it would resort to
economic action against the Employers if any part of
the NAPP work were reassigned to any employees
other than its own members . The record further shows
that the Photoengravers informed the Employers it had
requested strike sanction from its International in the
event the work were reassigned . From the foregoing,
and the entire record in this case , we believe that a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D ) has occurred and that
this case is properly before the Board for determination
under Section 10(k) of the Act.'
E. Merits of the Dispute
As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction
Company,2 we shall determine the appropriate assign-
ment of disputed work in each case presented for reso-
lution under Section 10(k) of the Act only after taking
into account and balancing all relevant factors.
We set forth below those factors which we find rele-
vant in determining the dispute herein.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Photoengravers and both Employers contend
that the jurisdictional provisions of the Photoengrav-
ers' collective-bargaining agreement with the Employ-
ers encompass the NAPP platemaking process whether
a pattern or direct plate is produced.
The most recent collective -bargaining agreement be-
tween the Photoengravers and Northwest provides, in
relevant part:
I There was no evidence that there is any agreed-upon method for the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
2 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J.
A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
245
The jurisdiction of the Union over the process of
photoengraving as defined includes ... the pro-
cessing of all copy of reproductive platemaking
purposes . . . stripping , etching . . , dot etch-
ing . . . opaquing of positives and negatives;
stripping and positioning necessary and re-
quired for the completion of the process....
The most recent contract between the Photoengrav-
ers and the Publishing Company embodies in the juris-
dictional clause:
All operations of the process pertaining to the
production of photoengraving plates . . .
[including ] the operation of electronic platemak-
ing devices and machines . . . [and] the making
from copy of all photoengravings.. . .
The jurisdictional clauses in each contract further
state:
. . . should the Company install any equipment or
adopt any work processes designed as a substitute
for, or evolution of, work now being done by its
photoengravers , the Company agrees to recognize
the jurisdiction of the [photoengravers] over such
equipment and work processes.
The Stereotypers Union has the following clause in
its contract with Northwest:
(d) The Publisher shall give the Union sixty (60)
days advance notice of intent to install new equip-
ment, or adopt new processes designed as a substi-
tute for or evolution of work now being done by
the stereotype personnel under this Agreement, so
that the Union may have an opportunity to train
men therefor . It is further agreed that if any jour-
neymen are displaced by new processes and/or
new equipment in the Stereotype Department
qualified stereotype journeymen shall have first
opportunity to be employed at the new work.
The Stereotypers contract with the Publishing Com-
pany is similar except it provides for 90 , rather than 60,
days of notice.
In its brief, the Stereotypers does not seriously argue
that its members are entitled to the disputed work by
virtue of its contracts with the Employers . We note,
however, that the language relied upon by the Stereoty-
pers concerns equipment and processes related to work
presently being performed by stereotype personnel and
the evidence adduced at the hearing shows that none of
the NAPP processes has ever been performed by
stereotype personnel . Nor is any of the NAPP equip-
ment located in the stereotype department, which is
separate and apart from the photoengraving depart-
ment.
While the Photoengravers contracts do not explicitly
cover the NAPP process , they do clearly cover any new
equipment or process designed as a substitute for, or
evolution of, work done by photoengravers . In our view
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the NAPP system which is installed in the photoen-
graving department constitutes an evolution of tradi-
tional photoengraving work.
,On the other hand, however, inasmuch as the Em-
ployers plan to use the NAPP process for direct print-
ing plates, the new process can to some extent become
a substitution for or evolution of work now done by
stereotypers; at least some aspect of the disputed work
is arguably covered by the Stereotypers contract.
Therefore, we do not accord controlling weight to ei-
ther collective-bargaining agreement in making our
determination.
2. Skills, efficiency, and employer assignment and
preference
The evidence shows that the work performed by
photoengravers in preparing the magnesium plate is
similar to that involved in the NAPP process and that
it takes a minimum of 4 years of training for an in-
dividual to acquire proficiency as a photoengraver. Al-
most all employees in the department are capable of
performing the various NAPP functions. While there is
some evidence regarding the skills and experience the
stereotypers have in doing some work analogous to that
involved in the NAPP process, they do not receive the
same training that photoengravers receive. Nor does it
appear that they have had the same experience in eva-
luating negatives and inspecting the dot structures of
the etched plates as have photoengravers. The record
reveals that the judging of the quality of negative is a
critical factor in the ultimate quality of the plate and
will often necessitate consultation between the photo-
engravers in various stages of the platemaking process.
It is apparent that the integration of the camera and
postcamera operations will contribute to the efficiency
of the Employers' operations.
The Employers adduced testimony that in each case
the work involved in the NAPP process was assigned
to photoengravers because photoengravers have tradi-
tionally performed almost identical functions in pro-
ducing magnesium plates and were deemed the best
qualified employees for doing this work. Both Employ-
ers have been satisfied with the photoengravers' perfor-
mance and prefer that the work remain assigned to
them. We conclude that all the foregoing factors favor
an award to photoengravers.
3. Area, craft, and; industry practice
The NAPP system is still relatively new and the
hearing did not establish any comprehensive area,
craft , or industry practice which would favor one
Union over the other. -
4. Job impact
At the time of the hearing the introduction of the
NAPP process had neither caused an increase in the
work force of the photoengraving department, nor had
it caused a decrease in the stereotype department. The
Employers, however, contemplate that they will even-
tually switch to the direct press plate use of the NAPP
process. This probably will eliminate all of the stereo-
type department with the exception of the few em-
ployees required to fit the NAPP plates to the saddles
in the printing presses.
On the other hand, however, if the stereotypers were
assigned jurisdiction over the NAPP process and all
postcamera work, all present photoengravers except
cameramen would likely be eliminated. On these facts
consideration of the job impact factor does not favor
either Union over the other.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole and after full considera-
tion of all relevant factors, we conclude that the North-
west employees and the Publishing Company em-
ployees who are represented by the Photoengravers are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion upon the basis of the Employers' preference
and assignment of the disputed work to these em-
ployees; the fact that these employees possess the requi-
site skills to perform the work; and the fact that such
assignment will result in greater efficiency and con-
tinuity of operations. Accordingly we shall determine
the dispute before us by awarding the disputed work at
Northwest Publications, Inc.'s, San Jose, California,
place of business and at the San Francisco Newspaper
Printing Company, Inc.'s, San Francisco, California,
place of business to the employees represented by
Photoengravers but not to that Union or its members.
Our present determination is limited to the particular
controversies which gave rise to this proceeding.
GRAPHIC ARTS INTL. UNION
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:
Employees of Northwest Publications , Inc., of San
247
Jose, California , and employees of San Francisco
Newspaper Printing Company, Inc., of San Francisco,
California, who are represented by Graphic'Arts Inter-
national Union , Local No. 280 , are entitled to perform
all platemaking and developing , and all other postcam-
era operations , including but not limited to-stripping,
opaquing , dot etching , or any other substitute processes
or functions of the foregoing , at the places of business
of their respective Employers involved herein.