Intl. Stereotypers Un. of North America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 23, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 954 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers' Union
of North America, Pittsburgh Electrotypers Union
Local No. 68 , AFL-CIO and Engraving Service
Company and Service Electrotype Company.
Case 6-CD-217
OCTOBER 23, 1967
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Engraving Service Company
and Service Electrotype Company, herein called
the Employer , alleging a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) by International Stereotypers ' and Elec-
trotypers ' Union of North America, Pittsburgh
Electrotypers Union Local No. 68 , AFL-CIO,
herein called the Electrotypers . Pursuant to notice,
a hearing was held on May 25, 1967, at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania , before Hearing Officer Timothy P.
O'Reilly. The Employer , the Stereotypers , and the
Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union , Pittsburgh Photoengravers Union Local
No. 16-P , AFL-CIO , herein called Photoen-
gravers, appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard , to examine and to
cross-examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues. All parties filed briefs with
the Board.
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 Hearing Officer's
rulings made at, the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error . They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Pennsylvania corporation, with
its principal office and business establishment
located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is engaged in
the manufacture of original printing plates by the
photoengraving process at its Engraving Service
Company, and in the manufacture and the nonretail
sale of electrotypes, rubber and plastic plates for
use on printing presses, at its Service Electrotype
Company. The parties stipulated that Service Elec-
trotype Company and Engraving Service Company
are a single employer, located in the same building,
and have a common labor relations policy. The Em-
ployer annually purchases and receives goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The parties
stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is en-
gaged 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.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find , that Electro-
typers and the Photoengravers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
Pursuant to collective-bargaining contracts, the
two unions herein involved perform their traditional
and historical printing trades functions in the Em-
ployer's operations. The original platemaking is
performed by the Photoengravers, and the making
of duplicate plates is performed by the Electro-
typers. In making the original plates a photographic
camera is used to photograph the copy which is
received from an individual customer or advertising
agency. Through lithography, offset, photoengrav-
ing, intaglio, gravure, or other methods, the image
is reproduced onto sensitized plates of zinc, copper,
or magnesium, and through various chemical
processes and physical operations a final plate is
prepared. Thereafter, the Electrotypers reproduce
the impression on the original plate onto vinyl
plastic or rubber or other material and the impres-
sion is then transferred to a metal shell from which
a duplicate plate is prepared. The resulting
duplicate plate is the printing surface used in the
printing process.
The record shows that the volume of work nor-
mally performed by the electrotypers and the Em-
ployer's electrotyping work force has been con-
tinually declining since 1960. Thus, in 1960, the
Employer employed 25 electrotypers but currently
employs approximately 9. During the same period
of time, the number of photoengravers has been in-
creasing as the demand for original plates has in-
creased. There is no interchange between em-
ployees among the Photoengravers' unit and the
Electrotypers' unit, and each is under separate su-
pervision.
It appears that a major reason advanced for the
decline of electrotyping work is the increasing use
of the Dupont Dycril plate process which not only
has certain technical and economical advantages
over the traditional plates made by the Photoen-
gravers, but generally eliminates the need for
duplicate plates normally prepared by electro-
typers. The Dycril process entails placing a film
negative of the material desired to be printed over
a Dycril plate, exposing the plate to intensive light
through the negative, removing the negative and in-
serting the plate in a caustic soda bath which
167 NLRB No. 137
INTL. STEREOTYPERS UN. OF NORTH AMERICA 955
"washes out" portions of the plate that bear no
image, and trimming and mounting the plate for use
on a printing press. The resulting plate is a "press
plate" and printing can be made directly therefrom.
Dycril equipment was purchased by the Em-
ployer in October 1966, and was installed in a room
immediately adjoining the Electrotypers' operation
and some considerable distance from the work area
of the photoengravers. Immediately after the instal-
lation of this equipment, two electrotype employees
were trained to operate this new equipment by the
manufacturer at the site of the installation and at the
manufacturer's laboratory in Philadelphia. The total
days of formal training were approximately 5 days,
and in addition there was on-the-job training in the
plant. At the hearing, the Employer testified that
the preparation of Dycril plates by the Electro-
typers had been acceptable. It also appears that the
preparation of the film negative used in the Dycril
process, including the stripping and opaquing, is
currently assigned to the photoengravers, and the
Employer's intentions are that the film work will
continue to be performed by them. The latter film
negative work is not in dispute.
Although the first assignments to the electro-
typers of the processing of Dycril plates were given
verbally, the Employer formally committed itself in
writing on February 6, 1967, in a letter to the Elec-
trotypers assigning all processing of Dycril plates,
with the exception of the film and negative work
and related processes to the Electrotypers. Follow-
ing the written assignment, the Photoengravers filed
a grievance claiming jurisdiction over such
processing work, and the grievance was processed
to the point of arbitration. However, the Photoen-
gravers refused to permit the Electrotypers to par-
ticipate in the selection of an arbitrator, or in the ar-
bitration proceeding. Thereafter, on May 8, 1967,
according to Electrotypers President Herman, a
strike was called by the Electrotypers in order to
retain the original assignment of the disputed work
made by the Employer. The strike was halted when
the Employer filed the instant charge early in the af-
ternoon of the same day.
B. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer , in assigning the Dycril plate
processing work to the Electrotypers , relies on the
fact that the skill and the work involved is closely
aligned to the skill and work involved in electrotyp-
ing. The Employer contends that the Dycril process
and resulting plate is an evolution of letterpress or
electrotype plates. In this connection it points out
that the jurisdiction over making Dycril plates by
the Electrotypers is supported by that Union's con-
stitution and covered by their current collective-
bargaining contract with that Union . The Employer
also stresses that the electrotypers selected to per-
form the process were quickly trained, and per-
formed the work to the satisfaction of the Employs
and its customers. The Employer also contends that
local and industry practice appears to favor the
Electrotypers. For example, a competitive firm in
Pittsburgh, employing only electrotypers, makes
film negatives for use in making Dycril plates.
Moreover, according to the Employer, Electro-
typers have jurisdiction over making Dycril plates
in plants in Boston, Rochester, New York, and Cin-
cinnati. Finally, the Employer emphasizes that the
assignment of the work to the Electrotypers
prevents the imminent possibility of loss of jobs to
members of that Union and maintains the present
work force complement.
The Electrotypers agree with the position and the
arguments of the Employer. In addition, the Union
argues that the decision of the Employer in assign-
ing the work to the electrotypers is based on effi-
ciency. Thus, according to the Electrotypers, the
photoengravers are working at full employment and
to assign them this additional work would require
the employment of more photoengravers, the relo-
cation of the Dycril equipment, and a layoff of elec-
trotypers. They also point out that the Employer
prefers not to make any change in the Dycril
processing assignment.
The Photoengravers contends, contrary to both
the Employer and the Electrotypers, that the work
of processing Dycril plates is merely another
process by which images are transported to a plate
made of Dycril material, with the end result of a
new type of original plate. Accordingly, the
Photoengravers claims that the work involved is
more closely related to their work of making
original plates than to the work of the Electro-
typers, and that their skills are more easily trans-
ferable, and thus they can perform the work with
less training. The Photoengravers also asserts that
their International bylaws and current contract with
the Employer give them jurisdiction over the work.
The Photoengravers also points out that the only
other employer in the Pittsburgh area who uses the
complete Dycril process, as does this Employer,
has a collective-bargaining contract covering such
work with the Photoengravers, and that in other
metropolitan areas the Dycril process is performed
by Photoengravers.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Charges herein alleged a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act. The record shows, and the
Electrotypers do not deny , that , as noted above, on
May 8 , 1967, after the Photoengravers refused to
permit them to participate in the arbitration
proceeding to determine whether the Photoen-
gravers had jurisdiction over the processing of
Dycril plates pursuant to their collective -bargaining
agreement , the Electrotypers went on strike in
order to retain the original assignment of the
disputed work made by the Employer . On the basis
of the entire record , we conclude that there is a
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.
D. The 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 various relevant
factors.'
Certain of the usual factors normally considered
by the Board, such as Board certifications, skills,
area and industry practice, arbitration or jurisdic-
tional awards, and provisions of the collective-bar-
gaining agreements and provisions of International
constitutions, in our opinion, provide little basis for
determining the instant dispute. Thus, there is no
Board certification covering the disputed work.
Electrotypers have satisfactorily performed the
work after a short training period. However, it is
clear that Photoengravers could have similarly
taken over the work and performed it in an accepta-
ble manner. Although it appears from the record
that certain electrotypers in the Pittsburgh area
make film negatives for sale or for use in making
Dycril plates, the only other employer in the area
who utilizes the complete Dycril process employs
only members of the Photoengravers. However, in
each of the foregoing instances, unlike the present
case, the employers do not have collective-bargain-
ing contracts with both unions. As to industry prac-
tice, although there was testimony as to industry
practice in other areas, there appears to be no
definite pattern which indicates that the work
herein in dispute is primarily or usually performed
by either of the unions herein involved. Moreover,
the record shows no arbitration or jurisdictional
awards involving the assignment of the work in is-
sue. Finally, although the Employer has current col-
lective-bargaining agreements with each union,
under which each claims the disputed work, we
conclude that the relevant portions of each agree-
ment arguably encompass the disputed work, and
that the relevant provisions make no specific
reference to the Dycril process. Constitutions of
each International Union similarly provide little
basis for determining the dispute. Accordingly, the
factors discussed below are determinative.
As indicated above, the preparation of plates by
the Dycril process had been assigned to electro-
typers. The Employer contends that the work as-
signment was motivated by good business con-
siderations based upon economy and efficiency.
This appears to be supported by the record. In this
regard, the record shows that the photoengravers
are working at full employment and their work is
expanding, while the work of electrotypers has been
steadily declining. Thus, assigning the work to the
electrotypers means a more efficient use of the Em-
ployer's current labor force, and does not require
the hiring of additional photoengravers and avoids
the possible layoff of electrotypers. It appears that
the electrotypers learned the assigned work without
difficulty, and perform the processing of the Dycril
plates to the complete satisfaction of the Employer
and its customers. In addition, the Dycril equip-
ment has been installed in a room adjacent to the
area where the electrotypers perform the bulk of
their work. To assign the work to photoengravers
would require the photoengravers to walk through
the electrotypers' shop to gain access to the Dycril
room, and would clearly make for a less efficient
operation.
We have weighed all the factors favoring the
photoengravers' claim and those favoring the elec-
trotypers, and we conclude that the electrotypers
represented by the Electrotypers' Union are enti-
tled to the disputed work and we shall determine the
dispute in their favor. In making this work assign-
ment to the electrotypers, we are persuaded by the
record showing that the Employer is not thereby
required to hire additional photoengraving em-
ployees and at the same time is able to preserve the
existing jobs of the electrotypers.2 In addition, we
also rely on the fact that the electrotypers have
shown that they can acceptably perform the work
in dispute, and the Employer is satisfied with the
results achieved and desires no change.3 Moreover,
the geographical location of the equipment makes
for efficiency and economy in having electrotypers
perform the disputed work.
In making this determination, we are assigning
the disputed work to electrotypers who are
represented by the Electrotypers' Union, but not to
the Electrotypers Union or its members. Our
present determination is limited to the particular
dispute which gave rise to this proceeding.
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 the
dispute.
I N L R B v Radio Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Columbia Broad-
casting System) , 364 U S 573, International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135
NLRB 1402,1411
2 See Amalgamated Lithocraphers of America Loral 33 148 NLRB
650, 655, The Denver Photo-Engravers' Union No. 18, International
Photo-Engravers of North America, 144NLRB 1408, 1412-13
' Cleveland Steieotypers' Union No 22 , International Sterotypers' and
Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, 156 NLRB 1219,
1225
INTL. STEREOTYPERS UN. OF NORTH AMERICA 957
Electrotypers employed by the Employer who work of processing Dycril plates including the
are currently represented by the International printing and exposure of the photopolymer plate,
Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers ' Union of North washout, trimming, and mounting, but excluding the
America , Pittsburgh Electrotypers Union Local film and negative work , stripping, and opaquing.
No., 68 , AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the