New York Lithographers Union No. I-P

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 425 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

NEW YORK LITHOGRAPHERS UNION NO. I-P
New York Lithographers and Photo-Engravers' Union
No. l-P, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-
CIO and The New York Times Company and New
York Stereotypers' Union No. 1, International
Printing and Graphic Communications Union,
AFL-CIO. Case 2-CD-526
June 24, 1977
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by The New York Times
Company, herein called the Employer or The Times,
alleging that New York Lithographers and Photo-
Engravers' Union No. I-P, Graphic Arts Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Photo-
Engravers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an
object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign
certain work to employees it represents rather than to
employees represented by New York Stereotypers'
Union No. I, International Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Stereotypers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Clifford P. Chaiet on December 16,
1976, and January 6, 10, and 11, 1977. All parties
appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding 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 affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in the publication of a daily
and Sunday newspaper, with its principal place of
business in New York. During the past year, the
Employer purchased goods from outside the State
having a value in excess of $50,000. The parties also
stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
230 NLRB No. 58
(7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Photo-
Engravers and the Stereotypers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
From 1962 until August 1975, The Times printed
certain sections of its Sunday newspaper in advance
at its West Side plant on West End Avenue and 65th
Street in New York City. The work performed at this
plant consisted, in part, of the production of press-
ready printing plates by employees represented by
the Stereotypers. These plates were then delivered to
the presses at the plant for use in printing the real
estate, drama, and resort sections of the newspaper.
When, in August 1975, the West Side plant was shut
down, the operations involved were moved to the
main plant on West 43d Street in New York City,
where stereotypers continued to produce press-ready
printing plates for the above-noted sections in the
same manner. The operations at both the West Side
plant and the West 43d Street plant involved the
letterpress method of printing.
The letterpress method involves the combining of
raised metal type with raised-face engravings in a
frame or chase. The chase is then used to produce a
matrix or mat by placing a plastic sheet on the chase
and applying heavy pressure to transfer the image of
the raised type to the mat. The mat, which is an exact
image of the page itself, is then used to produce a
heavy lead printing plate, which is put onto the press
to print the paper.
In producing certain of the material in the chase,
the photoengraving department creates a raised-face
engraving. This process involves the photographing
of a paste makeup of the copy which is produced by
other employees of The Times. The negative is then
exposed on a light-sensitive metal plate by photoen-
gravers. The plate is then developed and etched by
others in the photoengraving department and the
resulting engraving is mounted on a heavy metal
base to raise it to the level of the other type in the
chase.
The chase itself is composed by composing room
employees who are represented by a typographical
union. The matrix or mat, taken from the chase, is
produced by stereotypers. Prior to the shutdown of
the West Side plant, the mat was delivered there and
stereotypers at that plant produced the press-ready
printing plate from the mat. Following the shutdown,
425
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the mat was delivered to the foundry at the 43d
Street plant where stereotypers produced the press-
ready printing plate.
In September 1976, The Times commenced opera-
tions at its Carlstadt, New Jersey, plant. This
operation consists of the printing of sections in
advance for the Sunday newspaper. These are the
same sections formerly printed at the West Side
plant.
Prior to commencement of the Carlstadt operation,
The Times assigned the work of producing the
printing plates to stereotypers. These plates are
produced by the offset method from negatives
prepared by photoengravers at the 43d Street plant.
On September 24, 1976, employees represented by
the Photo-Engravers engaged in a temporary work
stoppage by refusing to produce the negatives used in
the Carlstadt operation. Simultaneously, the Photo-
Engravers forwarded a letter to The Times demand-
ing that the work of producing the offset printing
plates at Carlstadt be assigned to its members.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the production of
press-ready offset printing plates to be used to print
certain sections of the Sunday Times at the Carlstadt,
New Jersey, plant. The process involves taking a full-
page negative prepared by photoengravers at 43d
Street; superimposing the negative on a light-sensi-
tive thin aluminum plate and exposing the two to
intense light; developing and preserving the plate;
and bending or crimping the plate to fit the press.
There are five machines used in the process. The first
is a hole-punching machine. This is used to punch
holes in the plates in order to allow them to be fitted
into the presses. Where a plate has not been
presensitized, it is run through a coating machine
which coats it to produce a light-sensitive surface.
The plate is then lined up with the negative in an
exposure machine and the two are exposed to intense
light. The exposed plate is then placed in a
developing machine which develops the plate and
coats it with a preservative. This plate is then bent
and crimped on a final machine to put it into the
shape needed for mounting on the press.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the work in dispute
should be assigned to employees represented by the
On November 15, 1976, The Times and the Photo-Engravers participat-
ed in an arbitration proceeding concerning the assignment of the work.
Although invited to participate, the Stereotypers declined. The award,
issued on November 23, 1976, found the work should have been assigned to
members of the Photo-Engravers.
Stereotypers on the basis of Employer preference,
economy, and efficiency of operation.
The Stereotypers asserts that The Times' assign-
ment of the work in dispute to employees represented
by the Stereotypers should not be overturned, and
that this assignment is supported by past practice at
The Times and by industrywide practice in Metro-
politan New York.
The Photo-Engravers takes the position that The
Times' assigment of the disputed work to employees
represented by the Stereotypers was in derogation of
the contract between The Times and the Photo-
Engravers. The Photo-Engravers also bases its claim
to the work on an arbitration award.'
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of the 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) the parties have not agreed upon a
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As to (1), the record herein reveals that on
September 24, 1976, the photoengravers engaged in a
temporary work stoppage by refusing to produce the
negatives used in the Carlstadt operation. Simulta-
neously, the Photo-Engravers forwarded a letter to
the Employer demanding that the work of producing
the offset printing plates at Carlstadt be assigned to
its members. In view of this temporary work
stoppage and the letter sent to the Employer by the
Photo-Engravers, we find that there is reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
has occurred. 2
As to (2), we find that there is no agreed-upon
method for voluntary adjustment of this dispute. The
contract between the Stereotypers and the Employer
provides that differences arising under the contract
shall be referred to the Joint Conference Committee
for resolution if representatives of the two parties
cannot resolve the matter informally. There is no
provision for tripartite arbitration.
The Photo-Engravers contract provides that differ-
ences arising under the contract shall be referred to
the Joint Standing Committee for resolution. As in
the Stereotypers contract, there is no provision for
tripartite arbitration.
In San Diego Stereotypers' Union No. 82, affiliated
with the International Stereotypers and Electrotypers
2 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, Local 348, AFL-CIO (Dick Tile and Marble Company, Inc. J, 193
NLRB 769, 770 (1971).
426
NEW YORK LITHOGRAPHERS UNION NO. I-P
Union of North America (Union-Tribune Publishing
Company),3 the Board was faced with a similar
situation where "the arbitration provisions of their
respective contracts do not provide an agreed-upon
method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute
which could culminate in a single determination
binding on all parties." 4 The Board found that the
unions were bound only by their respective contracts
and therefore would not be affected by arbitration
initiated under another union's contract. In Local
1184, Southern California District Council of Laborers
(H. M. Robertson Pipeline Constructors), 5 the Board
concluded that "the voluntary adjustment must bind
all disputing unions as well as the Employer in order
to come within the meaning of voluntary settlement
as set out in Section 10(k)." In that case, the fact that
each union's contract provided for arbitration of
disputes arising between the contracting parties did
not "support the conclusion that all parties have
agreed to be bound by a single tripartite arbitration
proceeding, or to a means by which a final and
binding adjustment could be reached." 6
On the basis of the entire record, we conclude that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists
no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment
of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of
the Act. Accordingly, we find that this dispute is
properly before the Board for determination.
E. 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 factors. 7 The Board has
held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute
is an act of judgment based on common sense and
experience reached by balancing those factors
involved in a particular case.8
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Stereotypers contract, agreed upon December
4, 1975, and effective March 31, 1975, to March 30,
1978, covers all employees doing stereotype work at
the newspaper. Section 5 of the Stereotypers contract
pertains to jurisdiction. Section 5(b) lists the various
craft designations and work processes covered by the
contract, and includes "such other designations as
may be applied to any process for duplicating plates,
3 201 NLRB 893 (1973).
4 Id. at 895.
5 192 NLRB 1078(1971).
6 Id at 1079.
7 N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia
Broadcasting System], 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
cylinders or any other duplicate method for print-
ing." Section 5(e) states that the Employer will
recognize the jurisdiction of the Stereotypers over
"any system, process, method or equipment-and
will make no other contract covering such work-
which the publisher may adopt or install within the
jurisdiction of the union as a substitute for or as an
addition to any system, process, method or equip-
ment now being manned by its stereotypers." In
addition, by stipulation dated October 25, 1975, the
Employer and the Stereotypers agreed that the
Stereotypers jurisdiction under the contract already
included platemaking by the offset process, and it
was therefore unnecessary to add any additional
language to the contract to cover the Carlstadt
operation. The Stereotypers contract also contains a
provision preventing any decrease in the number of
regular full-time stereotypers due to the introduction
of automation.
The Photo-Engravers contract was entered into
December 4, 1975, and is effective March 31, 1975, to
March 30, 1978. In section 21, photoengraving is
defined as all operations pertaining to the production
of photoengraving plates, offset plates, and gravure
cylinders. There is also a clause stating that the
Photo-Engravers will have jurisdiction over any new
machines or processes for work covered in the
jurisdiction clause of the contract. In a separate
memorandum, the Employer agreed to recognize the
Photo-Engravers jurisdiction over the making of
offset plates which are used in the production of the
newspaper.
The jurisdictional provisions of both contracts on
their face indicate that the Stereotypers and Photo-
Engravers each has a colorable claim to offset
platemaking at the Carlstadt plant. Accordingly, we
find that this factor is neutral.9
2. Company and industry practice
Only employees represented by the Stereotypers
have ever made press-ready printing plates for the
Employer, either in the offset printing operation or
the traditional typesetting process. Under the tradi-
tional process, photoengravers made engravings for
photographs and advertisements. The engravings
were mounted on a lead base and placed in a page
chase with hot metal type. The chase was then sent to
the stereotype department, and the image of the
entire chase was transferred under heavy pressure to
a International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J.
A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
9 Graphic Arts Union No. 67, a/w International Printing and Graphic
Communications Union (New Bedford Standard Times Publishing Compan,).
220 NLRB 1167(1975).
427
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a cardboard mat. Stereotypers used this mat to make
the press-ready printing plates.
There was uncontradicted testimony that the other
major New York newspapers employ stereotypers to
make press-ready printing plates. At the New York
Post, stereotypers produce Hercules plastic plates
from negatives in the course of producing letterpress
printing plates. Stereotypers at the New York Daily
News make all of the printing plates for that
newspaper. John Vaughan, a stereotyper at The
Times, testified that both the Morristown Record
and the Village Voice, which are printed in Morris-
town, New Jersey, employ stereotypers to make
plates for the offset printing process. He testified
further that the Hudson Dispatch, printed in Union
City, New Jersey, uses a process whereby the printing
plate is produced from a negative and this plate is
made by stereotypers.l? Accordingly, we find that
these factors support an award to employees repre-
sented by the Stereotypers.
3. Relative skills
John Mortimer, senior vice president of the
Employer, testified without contradiction that the
degree of skill required for the offset process was
such that stereotypers or photoengravers could easily
learn it. The Employer provided training for the
stereotypers in the offset process prior to beginning
production at Carlstadt. Stereotyper foremen were
also sent to various installations to learn the offset
process, and stereotypers received additional training
at a printing school in New York. We find that this
factor favors an award of the work to employees
represented by the Stereotypers.
4. Economy and efficiency of operation
The assignment of the work in dispute to stereotyp-
ers involves significant advantages in efficiency. John
Mortimer testified that there is full employment
among the photoengravers, and the assignment of the
disputed work to them would necessitate the hiring
of additional employees. By contract, the stereotyp-
ers cannot be laid off if their jobs are eliminated due
to automation or new production processes. Thus,
the assignment of the work in dispute to the
photoengravers would require the Employer to
continue to employ unneeded stereotypers. We
'o This process, known as the Napp process, involves making a relief
plate, whereas a flat plate is made for offset printing.
therefore find that these factors favor assignment of
the work in dispute to employees represented by the
Stereotypers.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full
consideration of all relevant factors involved, we
conclude that employees who are represented by the
Stereotypers are entitled to perform the work in
dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on Em-
ployer preference, company and industry practice,
relative skills, and economy and efficiency of
operation. In making this determination, we are
awarding the work in question to employees who are
represented by Stereotypers, but not to that Union or
its members. The present determination is limited to
the particular controversy 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
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of The New York Times Company,
who are represented by New York Stereotypers'
Union No. 1, International Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
perform all work relating to offset platemaking at the
Employer's Carlstadt, New Jersey, plant.
2. New York Lithographers and Photo-Engrav-
ers' Union No. I-P, Graphic Arts International
Union, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscrib-
ed by Section 8(b)(4XD) of the Act to force or
require The New York Times Company to assign the
disputed work to employees represented by that
labor organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, New York Lithogra-
phers and Photo-Engravers' Union No. l-P, Graphic
Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, whether
or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the
Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)
(D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work in a
manner inconsistent with the above determination.
428