Local 74, Denver Newspaper Guild

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 34 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 74, Denver Newspaper Guild and The Denver
Publishing Company, Inc. (Rocky Mountain News)
and Denver Mailer's Union, Number 8. Case 27-
CD-140
September 14, 1972
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, fol-
lowing a charge filed by the Employer, The Denver
Publishing Company, Inc., alleging that Local 74,
Denver Newspaper Guild, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held May 30,
1972, before Hearing Officer Albert A. Metz. 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, all parties filed briefs in support of
their respective positions.
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 rulings of the hearing officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error. They are here-
by affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
III THE DISPUTE
A. Background
In June 1971 the Employer started an experi-
mental program using computers to prepare address
labels for newspaper bundles and individual papers.
The experimental program, limited to the Sunday co-
mic section, was assigned to the Guild with the per-
mission of the Mailers. In July the Employer notified
the Mailers that it intended to extend the system to the
complete daily and Sunday papers and the Mailers
asserted the work was its and requested arbitration of
the assignment under its contract. The Employer in-
formed the Guild that the Mailers had requested arbi-
tration, and that the Guild would not be represented
at the arbitration. Thereafter, the Guild wrote the
Employer that any move to assign Guild work to an-
other union would violate its contract and might re-
sult in a work stoppage.
Before the introduction of the computer system,
Guild employees had prepared all labels on a contin-
uous roll of paper, using an addressograph machine.
The roll was placed in a Dick machine to apply glue
by Mailers, who then separated the labels manually
and glued them to sheets of kraft paper which were
attached to bundles or individual newspapers. Any
last minute changes were made manually by the
Mailers. Under the present system, Guild employees
computer print the labels on large sheets of paper,
separate the bundle labels on a "bursting" machine,
and make any changes on the computer. The bundle
labels are still affixed to the papers by the Mailers; no
gluing is required. Although printed by the computer,
labels for individual newspapers are otherwise pro-
cessed as before by Mailers.
The Denver Publishing Company, Inc., pub-
lishes Rocky Mountain News, a daily and Sunday
newspaper in Denver, and is a member of the Scripps
Howard Newspapers chain. The Employer is a mem-
ber of, or subscribes to, interstate news services, pub-
lishes nationally syndicated features, advertises
nationally sold products, and has an annual gross
volume of business in excess of $200,000. We find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce, or an industry
affecting commerce, within the meaning of the Act
and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The labor organizations involved are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the computer printing and
machine bursting of the labels.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Mailers contends that the alleged violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(D) was contrived by the Employer
and the Guild to secure determination of the dispute
by the Board , that the Board should refuse to make
a determination here, and that , in any event , there is
no probable cause to believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
been violated. The Mailers also contends that the
work should be assigned to employees it represents
since in large part it is work which it traditionally has
done , employees it represents are as efficient as those
199 NLRB No. 7
LOCAL 74, DENVER NEWSPAPER GUILD
represented by the Guild, little training is involved,
and industry practice favors such an assignment.
The Guild contends that the printing of labels
has always been done by employees it represents un-
der the contract, that the computer is operated under
that contract, and that essentially all that is involved
is an addition to the work performed by its member
who operates the computer. The Guild also contends
that past practice, training, economy, and efficiency
favor an award to the employees it represents.
The Employer asserts that the dispute is properly
before the Board and that the work in dispute should
be awarded to employees represented by the Guild on
much the same basis as that union asserts.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The charge alleges a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. On April 3, 1972, Richard Wan-
ek, administrative secretary of the Guild, wrote the
Employer, noting that the Mailers was claiming the
work in dispute, asserting that it was covered by the
Guild contract, and threatening that "any move to
give another union jurisdiction over Guild work
would be a violation of the contract, and might result
in a work stoppage by Guild members.... " There is
no evidence of collusion between the Employer and
the Guild.
On the entire record, we conclude that there is
reasonable cause to believe that there has been a vio-
lation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, and that the
dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
1. Board certification and collective bargaining
agreements
The Board has not certified either Union as
collective-bargaining representative of employees per-
forming the work in dispute. Nor do the collective-
bargaining agreements shed much light on the dis-
pute. Both contracts contain clauses which favor one
union or the other. However, in sum they cancel each
other out. Neither contract provides for the operation
of the equipment in question. The Guild contract in-
dicates that Union has jurisdiction over the addresso-
graph and that work under its jurisdiction shall not be
assigned to another union. The Mailers contract pro-
vides that it has jurisdiction over addressing done in
the mailroom and that in the event new machines or
processes are introduced for work within its jurisdic-
tion the work will be performed by employees covered
by the Mailers contract, subject to arbitration.
We conclude that this factor does not favor an
assignment to either union.
35
2. Company and industry practice
As already noted, the work of printing the labels
was previously done by the employees represented by
the Guild, and the work of placing glue on the labels,
separating them, affixing them to kraft paper, and
attaching them to bundles was performed by those
represented by the Mailers. Under the present system
the work of placing glue on the bundle labels and
affixing them to kraft paper has been eliminated. The
Guild contends that past practice favors it, since oper-
ation of the computer and the bursting machine has
always been performed by employees it represents.
This argument amounts to no more than the assertion
that at its inception the work was assigned to it: how-
ever, the dispute arose at the time the assignment was
made. Nevertheless, in large measure the work in dis-
pute is work previously under Guild jurisdiction.
Bursting is the manual separation of labels previously
done by mailers.
Ralph Valero, an employee of the International
Mailers' Union, testified that, among those newspa-
pers he was familiar with, computer printing of labels
was performed by employees represented by the
Mailers. However, those involved situations where la-
bels had been printed in the mailroom before the
introduction of a computer and apparently did not
involve work previously performed, in whole or part,
by another union. In these circumstances, we do not
find sufficient evidence of industry practice in a sim-
ilar context to warrant the conclusion that it favors an
award of the work in dispute to the mailers.
We conclude that, on balance, company and in-
dustry practice favors an award to neither union.
3. Skills and training
Employees represented by the Guild have been
trained for and now have experience performing the
work in dispute. The employees represented by the
Mailers have neither. This factor can be accorded
only minimal weight since it appears from the record
that no great amount of training is required. However,
it does favor an award to employees represented by
the Guild.
4. Economy and efficiency of operation
The printing and bursting of the labels are done
by a single employee in the computer room where
both machines are located. The work normally begins
at 3:30 p.m. but may begin as late as 6 p.m. The
printing takes approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes,
bursting approximately 45 minutes. Since bursting be-
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gins before the printing is completed , the entire opera-
tion takes approximately 1-1/2 hours.
The Mailers ' contract requires that the work
schedule be posted a week in advance . It would be
necessary , if a mailer performed the work , to schedule
him to report no later than 3:30 p .m. Mailers normally
report at 8:15 p.m . The record reveals that other than
the printing and bursting there would be no work for
a mailer until 8:15 p.m . Guild employees , however,
are working during this period and no dislocation of
hours or lost time is required.
We conclude that economy and efficiency of op-
eration favor an award of the work in dispute to em-
ployees represented by the Guild.
Conclusions
Based on the entire record and after full consid-
eration of all relevant factors , we shall assign the work
in dispute to employees represented by the Guild. We
reach this conclusion particularly in view of the
Employer 's preference , economy and efficiency of op-
eration , and the fact that the greater part of the work
involved-the printing of the labels-had been per-
formed previously by employees represented by the
Guild. In making this determination we are assigning
the disputed work to employees who are represented
by Local 74, Denver Newspaper Guild, 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 the Dispute:
Employees employed by The Denver Publishing
Company, Inc. (Rocky Mountain News), who are cur-
rently represented by Local 74 , Denver Newspaper
Guild, are entitled to the computer printing and ma-
chine bursting of labels.