International Printing Pressmen, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 356 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS" BOARD
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, the Respondents named above shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 27, in writing, whether they will or will not re-
frain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed
by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work iri dispute to carpenters.
rather than lathers.
'International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North
America and Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
No. 23 and J . R. Condon & Sons, Inc.' Case No. 3-CD-111. Au-
gust 18, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act, following a
charge filed by J. R. Condon & Sons, Inc., herein called the Company,
alleging that International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America and Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union No. 23, herein called Pressmen, had violated Section 8(b) (4)
(D) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer Arthur E. Neubauer on March 25, 26, and 27 and April 2
and 3, 1964. The Company; the Pressmen; Albany Typographical
Union No. 4, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein
called Local 4, ITU; and Albany, Troy and Vicinity Stereotypers'
and Electrotypers' Union No. 28, International Stereotypers' and Elec-
trotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Stereo-
typers,2 appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, all parties filed briefs before the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) -of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Company
The parties stipulated that J. R. Condon & Sons, Inc., a New York
corporation , has its principal office and sole place of business at Albany,
New York, where it is engaged in the business of commercial and news-
1 The name of the Company appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Local 4, ITU, and the Stereotypers are parties to the dispute. The International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called ITV, intervened on the basis of its local's.
being a party to the dispute and participated jointly with Local 4.
148 NLRB No. 39.
INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN, ETC. 357
paper printing , all for other firms ; that its annual gross volume of
business exceeds $1 million; and that it annually purchases and re-
ceives goods from directly outside the State of New York valued in
excess of $50,000. We find that the Company 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.
2. The labor organizations involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Pressmen, Local 4, ITU,
and the Stereotypers are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act. '
3. The dispute
A., The work in dispute; background facts
The disputed work which gave rise to this proceeding concerns all
work related to offset platemaking, including camera operation, dark-
room work, stripping and opaquing , and platemaking, which is per-
formed in connection with the Company's offset printing of news-
papers. About 48 percent of the Company's gross volume of business
is the printing of monthly and weekly newspapers , and the remainder
is largely job work , such as the printing of letterheads , booklets, and
brochures . It is only the newspaper portion of the Company 's opera-
tions that is affected by the new process.
Prior to the change which gave rise to this dispute , the newspapers
were printed by a letterpress process . Under this process, the com-
posing room employees , represented by Local 4, ITU, performed the
necessary typesetting , made up the page forms , and then locked the
type in a chase to maintain the type in a rigid, upright position. Em-
ployees represented by the Stereotypers would then roll a mat from
the chase' from•which the metal plate of raised print was molded. Any
imperfections were removed, and Fairchild cuts were made and in-
serted in the plate. This latter machine made reproductions of pho-
tographs or proofs of other printed materials on a plastic surface.
The completed page cast was delivered to employees represented by
the Pressmen, who set the plates on a rotary newspaper letterpress
and printed the newspapers.
On October 3, 1963, in order to meet competition, the Company
signed a contract for the purchase of a Goss Urbanite Offset Press,
which is a web offset press. Under the offset method, instead of using
-raised type for the plate,- a smooth aluminum plate of photographed
print is utilized. Under the new process, as before, 'the employees
represented by Local .4, ITU , would set 'the type , make up a reproduc-
tion proof, and then perform a "paste-up operration,',"'which involves
the pasting on of ads, picture proofs, other printed matter, and black
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
patches where other pictures will be inserted after the camera opera-
tion. The dispute arises over work done at the next step, when the
complete reproduction proof is sent to the camera and platemaking
room. Under the Company's present assignment, employees in the
Pressmen's unit place the reproduction proof into the camera, take
a photograph, and develop the film. These employees then add any
elements previously omitted, primarily negatives or half-tones of
glossy pictures and of printed matter, and any necessary opaquing
and stripping is done.3 When the negative is completed, they use a
plate-burning and a developing machine to burn the negative onto a
sensitized aluminum plate, which is the offset printing plate. The
entire time required to perform this disputed work is approximately
20 hours per week, although the Company's estimates, at the time of
the hearing, were not- certain because of its limited experience with
the new process. The plate is then taken to another building where
the customary printing operation is performed by the Pressmens'
unit. Prior to the change the'e Company employed 38 typographers,
3 stereotypers, and 8 pressmen. After the change it employed the
same number of typographers, no stereotypers, and 12 pressmen.
By letters to the three Unions, dated January '6, 1964, the Company
assigned all; work up to operation of the camera to employees rep re-
sented by Local 4,ITU; it assigned all work from and including the
camera to the final printing to employees represented by the Press-
men; and it informed the •Stereotypers that it'would employ all its
members in the unit represented by the Pressmen in order to prevent
the layoff of, any men. Two days thereafter Local 4, ITU, informed
the Company that it considered the assignment a violation of the
jurisdictional clause of their agreement and that it was,askirig the ITU
to declare a "lockout.'?' 'The', Company then petitioned the State
courts for an order compelling arbitration, and 'thereafter Local 4,
ITU, indicated it was willing to arbitrate. On February 6, 1964, the
Pressmen's Union informed the Company that if it proceeded to
arbitration with Local 4, ITU, the Pressmen would call a strike, and
Pressmen also informed its members of this decision. On the next
day the Company filed the charge, in this case against the Pressmen,
alleging violations of Section '8(b) (4) (i) and '(ii) (D)'.
,On March 1, 1964, the Company changed to the new process, putting
into effect,the assignments announced in its letters of January 6.
As a result of the arbitration proceedings, an award was made on
March 11, 1964, declaring that the assignment by the Company was
in violation of its contract with Local 4, ITU. The Company peti-
a Opaquing is the touching up of the plate negative to correct scratches or other defects
I. the negative, Stripping involves the positioning of negatives so that four pages of a
newspaper + will be centered on one offset plate.
INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN , ETC. 359
tioned the Supreme Court of the State of New York for an order
setting aside the award-,-but on June 10, 1964, the court entered
judgment enforcing the award 4 Although;. the' other Unions herein
received notice of, the arbitration proceeding, only Local 4, ITU, and
the Company were parties to that proceeding.'
B. Contentions of the parties
The Company and the Pressmen are satisfied with the .work assign-
ment, which gives all the work in dispute to the employees represented
by the Pressmen, and contend that' it should be upheld. Local 4,
ITU, claims all work from and including the camera up to, but not
including, the platemaking. The Stereotypers claims all the work
from and including the camera to the completed platemaking. Each
of the Unions contends, inter alia, that its contract with ,the Company
covers the disputed work. .
C. Applicability of the statute
, The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director,
alleges a vviolation of Section.8 (b) (4) (D) of, the Act. The Regional
Director-was satisfied Ripon the-,basis of-such. investigation,that ,there
was reasonable' cause to believe, that a 'violation had 'been. committed
'and.'-directed that a-hearing be held-in accordance -with Section 10,(k)
of the Act. r, Although employees represented -by the Pressmen are
currently assigned'the-disputedtoffset printing preparatory work,. the
Company's willingness to arbitrate with Local 4, ITU,'bver•this• work
created-the Pressmen's fear of a- reassignment and occasioned. its threat
to^strike. --The fact,thatthe arbitration, award favored Local',4, ITU,
could-only serve to substantiate the above-mentioned apprehension.'
Accordingly, on the_ basis of the entire record,, we, find that there is
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has occurred and
that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination. , ,
* On July 13, 1964, Local 4, ITU, moved to reopen the instant record to receive into
' evidence the State court ' s decision , order, and judgment enforcing the arbitrator 's, award.
Copies , of said motion were duly , served on all other, parties herein, but . no opposition; to
such, motion has been filed . Accordingly , the aforesaid documents are hereby received
into evidence and made a part of the record herein.
5Because neither the Stereotypers nor the Pressmen consented to or participated In -the
arbitration proceeding , the award cannot bind them. We have considered the arbitration
award only for the limited purpose of interpreting Local 4's contract with the Company.
New Orleans Typographical Union No. . 17, International Typographical . Union, AFL-CIO
(E: P. Rivas„ Inc.), 147 NLRB 191 ;,Philadelphia Typographical Union , Local No. 2
.(Philadelphia Inquirer , Division of Triangle Publications , Inc., 141 NLRB 36, 41 , footnote 7.
Further, , under the circumstances , here, the court's action enforcing the award does not
,bind the Board or require the Board to give any different ,effect to the award. See Carey
v. Westinghouse Electric Corp ., 375 U.S. 261, 271-272.
9 Philadelphia Typographical • Union, ; Local -.No. 2 ( Philadelphia Inquirer, Division of
Triangle Publications, Inc.), 142 NLRB ,36, 40.
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. 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 the various
relevant factors, and as the Board has stated, its determination, in a
jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon common
sense and experience and a balancing of such factors? In this case
the factors discussed below are determinative.
1. Provisions of collective-bargaining agreements: The most com-
pelling feature of this case is the labor agreements between the Com-
pany and each of the three Unions. It is clear that the Pressmen's
contract with the Company s was intended to cover offset preparatory
work. Thus, it provides that :
It is understood that the jurisdiction of this contract extends
over all printing presses including offset and letterpress printing
presses and associated devices, all work in connection with offset
platemaking, including camera operation, all darkroom work,
opaquing, and platemaking. [Emphasis supplied.]
This constitutes a specific assignment of the disputed work to the
Pressmen, prior to the time at which the dispute herein arose. We
find no merit in the contentions of Local 4, ITU, and of the Stereo-
typers that their contracts also cover, at least in part, the disputed
work, and that therefore they are entitled to the work covered by their
contracts. In the alternative the two Unions argue that all three con-
'tracts touch upon the specific work in dispute, andhence, none of them
can be controlling. . .
Local 4's contract clearly refers to the steps prior to the use of an
offset camera and specifies that Local 4's jurisdiction is ended when
such preliminary paste-makeup of the reproduction proof is com-
pleted.9 It should be noted that such preliminary paste-makeup was
7 N.L R.B. v. Radio d Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, IBEW, AFL-
CIO (Columbia Broadcasting System ), 364 U.S. 573; International Association of Ma-
chinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company ), 135 NLRB
1402, 1411.
8 The Company is a member of a multiemployer bargaining association , which was clearly
authorized to reach an agreement on behalf of the Company The current contract be-
tween the association and the Pressmen has been honored by the Company since its execu-
tion in November' 1962.
e Local 4's contract provides in relevant part*
Jurisdiction of the Union and the appropriate unit for 'collective bargaining is de-
fined as including all composing room work such as . . . operators of all photo-
typesetting machines . . . employees engaged in processing the product (either paper
or film ) of photo-typesetting machines, including development; proofing, correcting,
waxing, and makeup ; and employees engaged tin paste -makeup with reproduction
proofs and /or the product of photo-typesetting machines . Paste-makeup is the assem-
bly and makeup of the completed copy for the camera used in the plate-making
process, including waxing or pasting into position on.fiats ' of all type, reproduction
proofs, art work, photostats, product of photo-typesetting machines, photographs,
illustrations, and hand-lettered illustrative"border and decorative material '; ' pen-
INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN, ETC. 361
not performed at the Company's plant prior to'the adoption of the new
process. -
The Stereotypers' agreement'lo refers to types of work involved in
letterpress operations and does not mention offset printing operations.
Although it might be construed to be broad enough to cover all plate-
making performed at the Company's plant, there is no doubt that the
provision contemplated only the traditional casting of a hot metal plate
used in the letterpress process and did not encompass such matters as
camera operation, darkroom work, or stripping and opaquing. There-
fore, we conclude that the Stereotypers has no contract claim to the
disputed work.
2. Efficiency and economy of operation: The work in dispute is
integrated in nature. It is all performed in one room. Because of
the-somewhat delicate nature of the negative and of the aluminum
plate, it is necessary to perform the entire process in the shortest
possible time. As noted above, with three or four employees simul-
taneously performing, on an assembly line basis, the various stages
involved in the preparation of the plates, the entire operation requires
approximately 20 hours per week. Most of the newspaper printing
is done on only 3 days of the week, and most of the plates are made
on a single day; therefore, it is more efficient' for the Company to be
able to have its offset preparatory work done by a• larger group of
employees that have sufficient -duties to perform during an entire.
week. In the Company's plant the typographers and the pressmen are
such groups, whereas the stereotypers are not. An assignment of
the disputed work to stereotypers would result in their working only
part-time. Local 4, ITU, does not assert any claim to the actual
platemakin , but it' is difficult to sever this portion of the disputed
ruling, photoproofing , correction , alteration and imposition of the completed copy for
said camera . The aforementioned photostats , [ sic] photographs will be used in paste-
makeup when they can be so used without sacrifice of quality or duplication of effort.
Paste-makeup copy must be complete and ready for the camera used in the plate-
making process before being sent to any other department. -
No employer shall make any other contract covering any of the above work, espe-
cially no contract using the word "stripping " to cover any of the work above-,
mentioned . [ Emphasis supplied.]
to Although the Stereotypers ' contract with the Company expired on February 28, 1964,
no party denies that this contract is a relevant consideration in this case . Furthermore,
the Company -made its work assignment at a time when the contract was still in effect.
It provided in relevant part: - -
All work in the plate-making departments , other than janitor or clerical work„
necessary for the production of newspapers and other printed matter . . . shall be,
done [by] journeymen and apprentice members of the Union The operation of all '
stereotype machinery , including all autoplate machines or similar machines and their
shavers, trimmers , [ and] coolers , the complete operation of all color work and the
entire operation of all work connected with the Fairchild machine or similar equip-
ment including Dycril plate processes , shall be done by members of this ' Union. It is
agreed that no work which properly belongs in the plate making departments shall
be assigned to any other department , except that the widening of mortises in plates
which have been finished in the platemaking department, may be done by others.
[Emphasis supplied ]
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work from the integrated operation. In addition, it is possible that
a division of the functions might result in separate supervision of
different aspects of,an integrated, process. , On the other hand, by its
assignment of the disputed work to pressmen, the Company is,able
to have the work done under a.single supervisor who, can coordinate
the various steps, and it can use, these employees in the operation of .
its presses when there is no offset preparatory work-,to be performed.
Therefore, on the basis of the integrated nature of the offset prepara-
tory work and of the most efficient operation of the Company's plant,
we conclude that the Pressmen asserts the most compelling claim.
3. Prior practice in the shop: Prior to the change which gives rise
to the dispute in this case, employees represented by the Pressmen
operated small offset presses and performed the offset preparatory
work of opaquing and stripping. There was no camera involved in
this work; instead, the Company had the negative prepared outside
its plant. Although the other two unions were not aware of this
practice, and although the work was performed on only a small scale,
it is nevertheless an element to be considered, and it is significant
herein because some of the employees represented by the Pressmen
are qualified to perform at least part of the work in dispute.
4. Other. considerations: Other factors usually considered by the
Board in cases involving jurisdictional disputes provide little assist-
ance in determining the instant dispute. None of the Unions involved
in this case has been certified. The parties generally conceded that
there is little similarity between prior work and the disputed work,
primarily because of the use of the camera and darkroom. None of
the members of the Unions were trained to operate this camera, and
only because of the prior practice mentioned above were any of the
employees skilled in any of, the aspects of offset preparatory work.
However, all three unions maintain local schools at which they pro-
vide the necessary training for their members in the operation of the
camera and in related offset preparatory work, and'the ITU and the
Pressmen also maintain national training schools that have courses
in offset work. There is no loss of jobs in this case. The traditional
jurisdictions of the three unions provide no sure guidance in deter-
mining which is most entitled to the disputed work, since the partic-
ular camera process used by the Company in connection with its offset
preparatory work is a relatively recent development in the field of
offset printing. Finally, although there was considerable testimony
as to industry and area practice, we cannot give much weight to this
consideration because, due to the recent development of this operation,
no definite pattern has developed.
BRUNS GARAGE, INC. 363
E. Conclusion
Upon consideration of all the pertinent factors in this case, and
with particular emphasis being placed upon the terms of the various
collective-bargaining agreements covering the work in dispute, the
integrated nature of the work and its most efficient operation, and
the prior practice at the plant, we shall not disturb the Company's
assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the
Pressmen's Union. Accordingly, we shall determine the existing juris-
dictional dispute by awarding the offset preparatory work of camera
operation, darkroom work, opaquing and stripping, and platemaking
to the pressmen, represented by the Pressmens' Union, rather than the
compositors, represented by Local 4, ITU, or the stereotypers, rep-
resented by the Stereotypers' Union. In making this determination,
we are assigning the work in question to employees represented by
the Pressmen's Union, and not to the Pressmen's Union or its members.
,Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy
which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record
in this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of
dispute, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
Pressmen employed by the Company who are represented by Al-
bany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23, International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, are en-
titled to perform the offset preparatory work of camera operation,
darkroom work, stripping and opaquing, and platemaking which is
performed in connection with newspaper work at the Company's plant
in Albany, New York.
Bruns Garage , Inc. and International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, and its Local 443. Case No. 30-CA-17 (formerly
13-CA-5598). August 19, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 4,1963, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act and recommending that it cease and
148 NLRB No. 42.