Local No. 289, Graphic Arts

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 981 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

LOCAl. NO 289. (iRAPHI(' ARTS
Local No. 289, Graphic Arts International Union,
AFL-CIO and The Detroit News and Detroit
Newspaper Printing and Graphic Communications
Union, Local No. 13, International Printing and
Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO
The Detroit News and Detroit Newspaper Printing
and Graphic Communications Union, Local No. 13,
International Printing and Graphic Communica-
tions Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Local No.
289, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO.
Cases 7 CD-365 and 7 UC 173
December 14, 1979
DECISION, DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE,
AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENEI.I.O, MURPHY, AND TRUESIAI.
This is a consolidated proceeding under Section
9(b) and 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. Detroit Newspaper Printing and
Graphic Communications Union, Local No. 13, In-
ternational Printing and Graphic Communications
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 13. filed the
petition in Case 7-UC 173, seeking unit clarification.
The Detroit News, herein called the Employer, filed
the charge in Case 7-CD-365, alleging that Local No.
289, Graphic Arts International Union. AFL-CIO,
herein called Local 289, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain pro-
scribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring
the Employer to continue to assign certain work to
employees represented by it rather than to employees
represented by Local 13.
On June 1, 1979, the Regional Director for Region
7 issued an order consolidating Cases 7-UC-173 and
7-CD-365 for purposes of hearing and decision by
the Board, a notice of consolidated hearing, and an
order transferring Case 7-UC-173 to the Board fol-
lowing the hearing. Thereafter, a combined hearing
was held before Hearing Officer George Alexander on
June 20 and 21 and July 30, 1979. All parties ap-
peared at the hearing and were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.
Thereafter, the Employer, Local 13, and Local 289
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 Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made 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. 1111 BSINESS O()F: it FMPI.OYER
The parties stipulated that the Employer, a Michi-
gan corporation with its principal place of business in
Detroit, Michigan, is engaged in the publication of
The Detroit News, a daily and Sunday newspaper of
general circulation. During the calendar year ending
December 31, 1978, 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 $500,000 from the publication of advertise-
ments for nationally sold products.
Based on the foregoing, we find that The Detroit
News is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effec-
tuate 'the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II. TE L.ABOR OR(iANIZArlON INVOEI()-D
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local 13
and Local 289 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. i DI)SPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
For many years, the Employer printed its daily
newspaper, The Detroit News, on letterpresses at its
Detroit, Michigan, facility. Then, on March 15,
1979,' the Employer began using the offset printing
process on an experimental basis. On May 23, the
Employer announced its intention to convert the en-
tire pressroom to the offset process. At the time of the
hearing, the Employer was utilizing 52 letterpresses
and 2 offset presses to print its newspaper. It expects
to complete the conversion to offset presses by late
1980.
Under the letterpress process, photoengravers rep-
resented by Local 289 produce a negative of each
newspaper page. These employees then inspect the
negative for imperfections. If the quality of the nega-
tive is acceptable, the photoengravers trim the nega-
tive and place it with a I-pound aluminum plate.
known as a dycril plate, in an exposure unit. During
this photochemical process, the light-sensitive coating
on the dcril plate hardens as light passes through the
I All dalte herein are In 1979. unless )therie indica.ted
246 NLRB No. 155
981
I)F('ISIONS OF NA IIONAL I.ABOR REL.ATIONS BOARI)
exposed portions of the negative. Then, a photoen-
graver represented by Local 289 puts the dycril plate
in a machine which washes away the unexposed por-
tions of the plate with a caustic soda. Although some
publishers employing this process print their newspa-
pers directly from the dycril plates, the Employer
does not do so because these lightweight plates would
not withstand the pressure of its large press run. In-
stead, stereotypers represented by Local 13 prepare a
mold of each dycril plate, which they then use to cast
a 44-pound lead stereotype plate in the foundry. The
lead stereotype plates travel from the foundry on a
conveyor system to the pressroom. There, the press-
men, who are also represented by Local 13 in a sepa-
rate bargaining unit, mount the lead stereotype plate
on the presses to complete the production process.
Photoengravers represented by Local 289 perform
similar functions under the offset process. They again
prepare a full-page negative of each newspaper page:
they next trim the negative and place it with a light-
sensitive offset plate, made of aluminum and weigh-
ing approximately 6 ounces, in an exposure unit: and
then they rinse the exposed plate with a chemical to
remove its light-sensitive coating in the nonprinting
areas. Unlike the dycril plate produced during the
letterpress process, however, the offset plate is capa-
ble of withstanding the demands of the Employer's
press run. Consequently, the stereotype function is
eliminated under the offset process as it is no longer
necessary for employees represented by Local 13 to
cast lead stereotype plates.
In early 1979, the Employer's employee relations
manager, Robert Higdon, informed representatives of
Local 13 and 289 of the Employer's intention to ex-
periment with the offset production process. Each
Union then attempted to secure an assignment of the
offset platemaking work for the employees it repre-
sents. Thereafter, in a letter dated February 15, Hig-
don informed Local 289's president, John Carlson,
that the photoengravers it represents would receive
this work both during the testing period and there-
after if the Employer decided to make a complete
conversion to the offset process. As the proposed
changes in the Employer's printing operations would
require an expansion of the work force in the photo-
engraving department, Higdon asked Carlson if Local
289 would be willing to waive the referral provision of
their collective-bargaining agreement for the purpose
of accepting about 8 of the 33 displaced stereotypers
into the photoengraver unit. Carlson did not object to
this proposal. The Employer and Local 289 subse-
quently agreed that any former stereotypers trans-
ferred into the photoengraving department would re-
ceive 95 percent of the photoengraver wage scale
during the training period.
On March 9, Local 13 filed a written grievance al-
leging that the Employer had violated the jurisdic-
tional provisions of its contract by assigning offset
platemaking work to employees represented by Local
289. On March 14, Local 13 notified the Employer of
its intent to arbitrate that grievance. hereafter, on
March 19, Local 289 sent a letter to Hligdon in which
it threatened to strike if the Employer submitted the
work assignment issue to an arbitration proceeding.
The Employer then filed an unfair labor practice
charge against Local 289, but withdrew the charge
when Local 13 decided not to pursue its grievance
against the Employer. Then, on May 10, Local 13
filed the instant petition for unit clarification. One
week later, Local 289 called a brief strike of the pho-
toengravers it represents, thereby closing down the
Employer's printing operations for about 2 hours.
The Employer filed the instant charge on May 18.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the operations of
platemaking equipment under the offset process at
the Employer's facility in Detroit. Michigan.
C. Contentions. of the Parties
Local 13 contends that the primary issue here is
which of two competing labor organizations should
represent those employees of the Employer engaged
in the production of offset plates. It points out that
the employees who will perform this function will be
composed of the stereotypers it represents and pho-
toengravers represented by Local 289. According to
Local 13, this proceeding involves the question of
which of the two Unions should represent the Em-
ployer's platemaking employees drawn from the two
employee groups and, thus, must be resolved on the
basis of its unit clarification petition. Assuming that
the Board concludes that the issue presented here is
appropriate for resolution pursuant to Section 10(k)
of the Act, Local 13 argues that the complaint should
be dismissed as there is no reasonable cause to believe
that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. Finally, Lo-
cal 13 asserts that, in any event, its collective-bargain-
ing agreement with the Employer, area practice, and
efficiency and economy of the Employer's operations
favor an award of the disputed work to the employees
it represents.
The Employer and Local 289 contend that the unit
clarification petition filed by Local 13 is inappropri-
ate for the purposes of resolving a work assignment
disputed and, thus, should be dismissed. They further
submit that the assignment of the disputed work to
employees represented by Local 289 should be upheld
on the basis of employer preference, their collective-
982
OC(Al. NO. 289. (RAPHit( AR S
bargaining agreement, etficiency and economy of op-
erations. job impact industry practice. and the pre-
requisite skills required to perform the work in dis-
pute.
I). Aplicabi/liv ofi/lhe' S/a/h'1
Befitre the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section IO(k) of the Act.
it must be satisfied that (I) 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 resolution 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 289 shortly after it decided
to convert its printing operations to the offset process
in early 1979. Local 13 then filed a grievance wherein
it sought a determination by an arbitrator that em-
ployees it represents are entitled to perform the work
in dispute. Thereafter, on March 19, Local 289 made
clear its intent to strike in the event that the Em-
ployer submitted the work assignment issue to an ar-
bitration proceeding involving l.ocal 13 and the Em-
ployer. Thereafter, Local 13 withdrew its grievance
and filed a unit clarification petition with the Board.
Local 289 then struck the Employer for several hours
on May 17, shutting down the Employer's printing
operations during this time. Based on the fobregoing
and the record as a whole. we find that Local 289
sought to force or require the continued assignment
of the disputed work to employees represented by it.
rather than to employees represented by Local 13.
Accordingly. we find reasonable cause exists to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
With respect to (2), above, the parties stipulated at
the hearing, and we find, that no agreed-upon method
exists for the voluntary adjustment of this dispute to
which all parties are bound.
In its petition for unit clarification. Local 13 seeks
to represent those employees of the Employer en-
gaged in producing "press-ready plates" under the
offset process. It is clear, however, that throughout
these proceedings Local 13 has claimed the disputed
work itself rather than any right to represent the de-
partment employees who perform the disputed work.2
Although it is sometimes difficult to draw a distinc-
tion between work assignment disputes and contro-
versies over which of two unions should represent cer-
2 The record discloses that, on February 8, Xocal 13 urged the Employer to
assign the disputed work to stereolypers represented by it Then, after the
Employer had assigned this work to employees represented by Local 289
Local 13 filed a greivance based upon its demand for the disputed work
Although Ltocal 13 subsequentll ithdrew the grievance and filed unit
clarification petition, the evidence present herein plainly shows that Local 13
continues to seek the disputed work for its members.
tain employees.l the record in this case establishes
that the core of this controversy is a work dispute.
Such a dispute may he solved by the Board only in a
proceeding under Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. 4 We
therefore find that the instant dispute is properly be-
lore the Board fbr determination under Section 10(k)
of the Act and, accordingly, we shall dismiss the peti-
tion for unit clarification.
F. Merits o lhe Disptc'
Section IO(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work after
giving due consideration to various relevant factors.'
As the Board has frequentl stated, the determination
in jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based
on commonsense and experience in weighing these
f;actors. The following factors are relevant in making
a determination of the dispute before us.
I. Collective-bargaining agreements
Article II, section 1, of the existing collective-bar-
gaining agreement between the mplover and Local
289 provides, in pertinent part, as f)llows:
The process of photoengraving and its attendant
work thereto is defined as being and is all parts
of the process pertaining to the production of
photoengraving and kindred processes from the
copy, original, or subject up to the finished prod-
uct. including Photograph), Color Scanning,
Stripping. Printing, Etching, Finishing Engrav-
ing, Tint aying. Proofing, Routing, Blocking.
Making of Masks for drop out purposes on
plates or negatives. the operation of electronic
plate-making devices or machine.s, the processing
and handling of all negatives and positives of
photo-composed type film or other material for
reproductive purposes, and making of blue, sil-
ver or velox prints. [Emphasis supplied.]
However, Local 13 argues that section 20 of its cur-
rent agreement with the Employer protects the tradi-
tional work jurisdiction of the employees Local 13
represents and. thus, restrains the Employer from as-
signing the work in dispute to employees represented
by Local 289. Section 20 of that contract states that:
Ca(res v. Weringhouse Elecric- Corp., 375 U.S 261 (1964): T E
D(.. In. 225 NLRB 1175 (1976): cf. cDonnell (ompantv, 173 NLRB 225
(1968).
4 Harl/es Dadtison woi,,r (, Inc. 234 NLRB 121 (19781) Pacfic North-
wetl Bell Telephone (Compaln. 211 NI.RB 021 (19741. and cases cited
therein
:'. 1. R B Radio & Televiion Broldcast Engineer 'nmon. Ilsal 1212.
Inernatonal Brrotherhsd of Elesctrical X orA err, 4 FI (0 {(ohJmbia Broad-
casting S rtert], 364 :.S 573 1961) Internatio nal 4srwiatton ,/ Ma hxts.
lxdget V, 143. AFI (10 (J 4 Jone (nstruction Con ,ampns. 135 NL.RB
1402 (1962)
9X3
I)C('ISIONS OF NATIONAL. I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
Should the Employer install any machinery or
equipment as a replacement for, or as an addi-
tion to, the machinery or equipment now being
manned by stereotypers, such Employer shall as-
sign the operation of such equipment to employ-
ees covered by this contract and shall make no
other agreement coverning such work.
We have noted, however, that the only equipment
employees represented by ocal 13 operate under the
letterpress process is that required for the production
of lead stereotype plates. The conversion to the offset
method of printing eliminates the need for producing
stereotype plates.
Accordingly, we find that this factor favors neither
group of employees.
2. Employer assignment and preference
The Employer has assigned the work in dispute to
its employees who are represented by Local 289, and
has manifested a preference to continue this assign-
ment. We therefore find that this factor favors an
award of the disputed work to employees represented
by Local 289.
3. Relative skills
The Employer, in converting to the offset process,
will install new platemaking equipment which none
of its employees have previously operated. Neverthe-
less, inasmuch as the production of offset plates in-
volves a photochemical process similar to the work
photoengravers represented by Local 289 have per-
formed in connection with making dycril plates, the
Employer estimates that these employees can be re-
trained on the offset machinery in about 6 weeks. By
contrast, the stereotypers represented by Local 13
have no experience in working with the photochemi-
cal process under the letterpress system. One of' the
stereotypers employed by the Employer testified.
however, that virtually all the employees represented
by Local 13 had worked part time producing offset
plates at a commercial printing shop which ceased
operations in 1973.
In view of the foregoing, it appears that both
groups of employees will require at least some train-
ing on the offset platemaking equipment. We there-
fore find that this factor does not favor an award of
the disputed work to employees represented by either
Local 13 or Local 289.
4. Industry and area practice
John Gabbard, International vice president of the
Graphic Arts International Union, testified that 22
other newspapers have assigned to photoengravers
the work of preparing "press-ready" printing plates.
Only three of' these newspapers, however, utilize off'-
set plates in their printing operations. Furthermore,
there was 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 three other newspaper publishers is sufficient
to establish the industry practice throughout the
country.
With respect to area practice, there is evidence that
the Detroit Free Press, another publisher in Detroit,
Michigan, has assigned the work of producing offset
plates to employees represented by Local 13. How-
ever, the record shows that Local 289 does not repre-
sent any employees of this employer.
Therefore, we conclude that both industry and area
practice are inconclusive and do not favor an award
of the work in dispute to employees represented by
either Local 13 or Local 289.
5. Job impact
During construction of its plant in 1969, the Em-
ployer guaranteed all production employees then em-
ployed that they would not lose their jobs as a result
of technological changes in printing operations. Local
13 also has a job-guarantee clause in its current col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the Employer.
Thus, it is clear that none of the employees repre-
sented by Local 13 will be laid off due to our award of
the disputed work herein.
With respect to the photoengravers represented by
Local 289, the record shows that eight of these em-
ployees were hired prior to 1969 and, thus, are pro-
tected by the Employer's 1969 job commitment to its
production employees. However, the other 14 pho-
toengravers currently employed by the Employer
were hired after 1969. Inasmuch as Local 289's con-
tract with the Employer does not contain a job-secu-
rity provision, these 14 employees could be laid off in
the event that we award the disputed work to employ-
ees represented by Local 13.
Accordingly, we conclude that this factor favors an
award of the work in dispute to employees repre-
sented by Local 289.
6. Economy and efficiency of operations
On February 14, 1979, Raymond Eby, the Employ-
er's production manager, recommended assignment
of the work in dispute to photoengravers represented
by Local 289. In so doing, he stated: "This recom-
mendation is based on a logical and tighter workflow
984
ILO('AI. NO. 289. (iRAPIC(' ART'S
and the type work that is now being perfbrmed hi
Engravers as compared to Stereotvpers. The Engrav-
ing Department is photographic/chemical orientated
as is the offset platemaking process." Thus, under the
current assignment of the disputed work, photoen-
gravers represented by Local 289 operate the camera
which produces a negative of each newspaper page.
These employees then trim the negative. place the
negative with an offset plate in an exposure unit, and
rinse the exposed plate with a chemical in the plate
processor to remove the light-sensitive coating from
the unexposed portions of the plate. Local 13, by con-
trast, claims only that work involved in operating the
exposure unit and plate processor. In view of the fore-
going, it is evident that an award of the disputed work
to employees represented by Local 13 would disrupt
the integrated photochemical process the Employer
has created by its assignment of this work.
Therefore, we find that the factors of economy and
efficiency of operations favor awarding the work in
the dispute to employees represented by Local 289.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of all the relevant factors, we
conclude that the Employer's employees who are rep-
resented by Local No. 289, Graphic Arts Interna-
tional Union, ALF-CIO, are entitled to perform the
work in dispute. We reach this conclusion based on
the l.mploNer's preference and current practice of as-
signing the disputed work to these employees. job im-
pact, and the fact that such an assignment will result
in greater efficiency and econom of the F.mploer's
operations. Accordingl\. we shall determine the in-
stant dispute by awarding the disputed work to em-
ploees represented b Local No. 289. Graphic Arts
International Union. AFLI. '10, 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 abor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees of The Detroit News, who are repre-
sented by Local No. 289. Graphic Arts International
Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of
operating all platemaking equipment used in connec-
tion with the offset printing process at the Employer's
facility in Detroit, Michigan.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition for clarifica-
tion in Case 7-UC 173 be. and it hereby is, dis-
missed.