New York Stereotypers' Union No. 1

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 58 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

I)8t(ISIONS OF NA IO()NAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOAR[)
New York Stereotypers' Union No. 1, affiliated with
International Printing and Graphic Communica-
tions Union, AFL-CIO and The New York Times
Company and New York Lithographers & Photoen-
gravers Union, lacal No. I-P, affiliated with Graph-
ics Arts International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 2
CD 564
May 8, 1979
DECISION AND) DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY( CHAIRMAN ANNIN( ANI) MItMBRS S JI!NKINS
AND) MIRPIIY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a
charge filed by the New York Times Company,
herein called the Employer, alleging that New York
Stereotypers' Union No. I, affiliated with Interna-
tional Printing and Graphic Communications Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called Stereotypers, had violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requir-
ing the Employer to assign certain work to its mem-
bers rather than to employees represented by New
York Lithographers & Photoengravers Union, Local
No. I P, affiliated with Graphic Arts International
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Photoengravers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer Leonard K. Herman on November 16, 21,
and 30 and December 5, 14, and 19, 1978. 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 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:
1. TilE BUSINESS (); FIE EMPI()YER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, a New York corporation with its principal
place of business in New York City, is engaged in the
publication of The New York Times, a daily and
Sunday newspaper of general circulation. During the
past year, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, the Employer derived gross revenues in
excess of $1 million and purchased goods and sup-
plies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources
outside the State of New York. The parties also stipu-
lated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
11. IE IAB()R OR(ANIZAII()NS INV()IVtl)
The parties stipulated, and we find, that New York
Lithographers & Photoengravers Union, Local No.
I P, affiliated with Graphic Arts International
Union, AFI. CIO, and New York Stereotypers'
Union No. 1, affiliated with International Printing
and Graphic Communications Union, AFL CIO, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
111. lit )ISPU'EL
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
In July 1978, the Employer completed the conver-
sion of its newspaper production from the hot type
process to the coldtype process. As part of this con-
version the Employer introduced certain equipment
in the platemaking department of its West 43rd
Street, New York City, facility, designed to produce
press-ready photopolymer printing plates. The Em-
ployer assigned the operation of this equipment to its
employees in its platemaking department represented
by the Stereotypers.
Under the hot type process, photoengravers pro-
duced metal engravings of photographs and artwork,
and employees represented by New York Typo-
graphical Union No. 6, International Typographical
Union, AFL CIO, produced raised metal type. In the
composing room, other typographers assembled both
the metal type and engravings, in a frame or "chase,"
to resemble a full newspaper page. The chase was
then used by stereotypers to produce a papier-mache
matrix. This matrix was used by stereotypers in the
basement platemaking department to cast lead print-
ing plates.
Under the coldtype process, typographers produce
paper print in column form, rather than raised metal
type, and photoengravers produce paper "velox"
prints of photographs and artwork, rather than metal
engravings. Typographers in the composing room
then paste up both the paper type and prints in the
form of a newspaper page, which they then photo-
copy. The photocopy is next placed into a machine
called a "LogEscan reader." The reader scans, digit-
izes, and transmits the newspaper copy to a
"LogEscan writer" location in the basement plate-
making department. The writer produces a "laser
242 NLRB No. 4
5R
NFW YORK SIE'.R-OI'YPIRS' NIO(N NO I
mask negative." which stereotypers remove and place
in a Grace Letterflex machine. The Letterflex ma-
chine produces the desired number of photopoly mer
relief printing plates which, after being crimped and
finished by stereotypers. are given to pressroom em-
ployees for placement on the presses.
Subsequent to the Employer's assignment of the
work of making the photopolymer printing plates to
its platemaking department employees represented by
the Stereotypers, the Employer and the Photoengrav-
ers, on the Photoengravers demand, arbitrated the
Employer's assignment. On August 8, 1978, the arbi-
trator issued a decision finding, inter alia, that the
Employer had violated its contract with the Photoen-
gravers by assigning the platemaking work to its em-
ployees represented by the Stereotypers.
The Stereotypers did not participate in the arbitra-
tion. Moreover, by a letter dated July 11, 1978, John
Kennedy, Stereotypers president, informed the Em-
ployer that any action taken by the Employer adverse
to, or inconsistent with, the Stereotypers jurisdiction
over the work would result in job action or other eco-
nomic action as the Stereotypers deemed appropriate.
Subsequently, the Employer filed the charge in this
proceeding.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the production of
photopolymer printing plates and the work related
thereto in the basement platemaking department of
the Employer's facility at 229 West 43rd Street, New
York, New York. It includes the operation of the
LogEscan writer and Grace Letterflex machine, as
well as the finishing and crimping of the printing
plates for placement on the presses.
C. The Contentions of the Parries
The Photoengravers claims that both the LogEscan
writer and the Grace Letterflex perform, and are sub-
stitutes for, work traditionally performed by their
craft; i.e., the production and use of a negative to
produce a relief plate. It further contends that its col-
lective-bargaining agreement covers the disputed
work and that industry practice favors an award to
employees it represents.
The Employer and the Stereotypers contend that
the assignment of the disputed work to employees
represented by the Stereotypers should be upheld on
the bases of skill, area practice, and economy and
efficiency of operation, and their collective-bargain-
ing agreement. They further contend that the work is
a substitute for work historically perfiormed by em-
ployees the Stereotypers represents.
D1). .4pplicahilitv oflit' St.at ut
Before the Board may proceed s ith a determina-
lion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the
Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D)) has been violated
and that the parties have not agreed upon a method
fbr the voluntary adjustment of' the dispute.'
It is uncontradicted that the Stereotypers threat-
ened that any action taken by the mployer adverse
to, or inconsistent with, its jurisdiction over the work
in dispute would result in 'job action or other eco-
nomic action" as the Stereotypers deemed appropri-
ate. Accordingly. we find reasonable cause to believe
Section 8( B)(4)( )) has been violated and that this dis-
pute is properly before the Board for determination.
2
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 relevant factors.' Ihe Board has
held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute
is an act of judgment based on commonsense and
experience reached by balancing those factors in-
volved in a particular case.4
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
1. Employer assignment and preference
The Employer has assigned the work in dispute to
its employees in its platemaking department repre-
sented by the Stereotypers and prefers that assign-
ment. This factor favors those employees.
2. Employer and area practice
The Employer's current method of producing
press-ready printing plates eliminates the need for the
papier-mache matrices and lead plates formerly pro-
duced by stereotypers as well as the need for the met-
I There is no evidence that an agreed-upon method for soluntar adijust-
ment of the dispute exists.
I Member kMurph, finds the situation here tactuall? distinguishable from
International Brolherhid o! Teamsters, ('haufleurs. H arehoulemtn and 11 t1
eri oJ America. General f/oal 's;. State o.1 Alaska (kodiak O/eld Itlaulers.
Inc). 233 NLRB 66 (1977). in which she dissented from the conclusion that
there was reasonahle cause to helise that a jurisdictional dispute existed
simpli because the union assigned the work appeared to hare "threatened"
some vague action if the work were taken from the employees it represented
Here she finds the threatened "joh actin" constituted a genuine threat.
International Asseiatoiln of Muthinists and Aerospace lfirker AH-L. ('10
(Brown and 4 illiamson hobacco ( orporatirsi. 242 Nl RB No. 2 1979).
' N L R B s Radio & 7Tlelvori. Br ,adalct lnginers I n.ol . I o/i 1212.
International Brotherhood ol Electrical 14 i,err, 4Fl. ( l( t 'olutihia Broad-
casting Sismlm/. 364 S 573 ( 1961)
Interndionl A osssi'ooi1n it tf(hinir, i.1..dge s t \] '4 , 4 It' (' to (. .4
Jrs' (ontrutison (mpils Lt, Isi Nl RH 141)2 1962)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
al raised-relief engravings formerly produced by pho-
toengravers. The new process therefore merges work
previously performed by both groups of employees.
However, only the employees represented by the
Stereotypers have ever produced press-ready printing
plates for the Employer. By contrast, the negatives
and relief plates produced by employees represented
by the Photoengravers were merely part of a now ob-
solete process precedent to the stereotypers' produc-
tion of press-ready plates.
Moreover, employees represented by the Stereotyp-
ers currently produce offset printing plates at the Em-
ployer's printing facility in Carlstadt, New Jersey.5
Like the photopolymer plates involved in this pro-
ceeding, such plates are produced by applying a nega-
tive to a light-sensitive surface.
Finally, both the Employer and the Stereotypers
introduced evidence to show that other New York
area newspaper employ stereotypers to produce
press-ready printing plates by either the Letterflex
process or other processes which involve the use of
negatives.
This factor, therefore, favors assignment of the
work in dispute to employees represented by the Ste-
reotypers.
3. Relative skills
The employees represented by the Stereotypers
who currently perform the work in dispute have re-
ceived training in the operation of the LogEscan
writer and Grace Letterflex, and the Employer has
been fully satisfied with their work.
However, both machines are fully automated and
require little skill to operate. Thus, employees repre-
sented by the Photoengravers can also capably per-
form the work in dispute.6 Therefore, this factor fa-
vors neither party.
4. Collective-bargaining agreements
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the Photoengravers protects the tradi-
tional jurisdiction of the Photoengravers and further
states that:
Should the publisher install any equipment or
adopt any work process designed as a substitute
The Board, in a previous Decision and Determination of Dispute,
awarded the work of producing offset printing plates at the Employer's Carl-
stadt, New Jersey, facility to employees represented by the Stereotypers
rather than to employees represented by the Photoengravers. New York Lirth-
ographers and Phoro-Engravers' Union No. I-P, Graphic Arts International
Union, AFL-CIO (The New York Times Company), 230 NLRB 425 (1977).
The Photoengravers claims that employees it represents are particularly
skilled in inspecting negatives and relief plates. However, the Employer's
satisfaction with the stereotypers' work shows that these employees can also
capably perform those duties.
for, or the evolution of, work now being done by
photoengravers, the publisher agrees to recog-
nize the jurisdiction of the G.A.I.T.U. over such
equipment and work-process.
The arbitration award interpreting this provision,
issued August 8, 1978, finds that the Employer's pre-
sent assignment of the work in dispute violates its
collective-bargaining agreement with the Photoen-
gravers.7 Therefore, we conclude that the Photoen-
gravers contract covers the disputed work.
However, the Stereotypers collective-bargaining
agreement provides that:
The publisher will recognize the jurisdiction of
the union 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 equipment now being
manned by its stereotypers.
Since the Employer's new platemaking process re-
places stereotypers' former duties in producing press-
ready printing plates, the Stereotypers contract like-
wise covers the work in dispute. Therefore, this factor
favors neither party.
5. Gain or loss of jobs
Joseph Tarrer, director of manufacturing for the
Employer, testified without contradiction that the as-
signment of the work to employees represented by the
Photoengravers would eliminate the need for the ste-
reotypers who currently perform the work. Con-
versely, the Employer's photoengravers are currently
fully utilized and, therefore, assignment of the work
to them would necessitate additional employees. This
factor, thereofore, favors the employees represented
by the Stereotypers.
6. Economy and efficiency of operation
The Photoengravers claims that assignment of the
disputed work to employees it represents would be
most efficient since they possess the skills to perform
the work and can therefore be shifted between operat-
ing the LogEscan writer and Grace Letterflex and
their other duties. In fact, negatives of full newspaper
pages produced by photoengravers are currently used
in place of the laser mask negatives produced by the
LogEscan in the event of failure of that equipment.
However, John Mortimer, senior vice president of
the Employer, testified to the close working relation-
ship that the Employer's stereotyper employees, who
' The Stereotypers was not a party to the arbitration proceeding.
60
NEW YORK STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. I
have always made press-ready printing plates, have
developed with pressroom employees. That relation-
ship is important, Mortimer testified, since both
groups of employees work under a deadline, and the
presses do not begin to run until the last printing
plate is cast and inserted.
Also, the stereotypers have lifetime job guarantees.
Therefore, assignment of the disputed work to pho-
toengravers would deprive the Employer of the re-
maining use of the stereotypers' services without re-
lieving it of its obligation for their wages.
This factor, therefore, favors the employees repre-
sented by the Stereotypers.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full consider-
ation of all relevant factors, we conclude that employ-
ees who are represented by the Stereotypers are enti-
tled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying on gain or loss of jobs, employer
preference, economy and efficiency of operation, and
area practice. In making this determination, we are
awarding the work in question to employees who are
represented by New York Stereotypers' Union No. 1,
affiliated with International Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, AFL-CIO, but not to that
Union or its members. This determination is limited
to the particular controversary which gave rise to this
proceeding.s
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 makes
the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees of The New York Times Company who
are represented by New York Stereotypers' Union
No. , affiliated with International Printing and
Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, are en-
titled to perform the production of photopolymer
printing plates and the work related thereto in the
basement platemaking department of the Employer's
facility at 229 West 43rd Street, New York, New
York.
I The Photoengravers cites other Decisions and Determination of Disputes
in which the Board awarded work similar to that in dispute in this proceed-
ing to photoengraver employees rather than employees in other crafts. The
fact that determinations in favor of photoengravers may have been made in
other proceedings is. in itself, not controlling. In each case, the factors relied
on by the Board, especially skills, economy. and efficiency of operation, and
employer preference, led to a result different from that reached here. The
Board did not make a determination that any particular category of employ-
ees was entitled to perform the work in dispute, only that particular employ-
ees of particular employers were entitled to particular work based on the
factors in each case.
61