New York Typographical Union No. 6

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 54 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

I)t'( ISIO)NS ()1 NAI I()NAI. I \B()R R I AI()NS B()ARI)
New York Typographical Ulnionl No. 6, affiliated with
International Typographical Union, AFI-CIO and
The New York Tnimes Company and New York
Lithographers & Photoengravers Union cal I No.
1-P, affiliated with Graphic Arts International
Union, AF,-CIO. ('Case 2 CD 565
lMay 8, 1979
I)l'('ISION AND I)E'RMINATION OF
[)ISP)UTE
BY CIIAIRMAN IANNIN( ANI) MIM1L:RS JNKINS
AND) MURI'IY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional I.abor Relations Act, as amended, liollowing a
charge filed by The New York Times Company,
herein called the Employer, alleging that New York
Typographical Union No. 6, affiliated with Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFI, (CIO, herein called
the Typographers, 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 its members rather than to em-
ployees represented by New York Lithographers &
Photoengravers Union Local No. I P, affiliated with
Graphic Arts International Union, AFl. ('10, herein
called the Photoengravers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held betbre I lear-
ing Officer Leonard K. lermian on December 19 26.
and 28, 1978)i All parties appeared and were atffrded
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 l.abor 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. 1'11E 13tSINSS () 1111I E MI'IO.()YIER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, a New York corporation with its principal
I Pursuanl to an order consolidaling cases issued h the Regional Di)lrctlor
on September 5. 1978, the instant proceedling wals cotnsohdated with Case 2
('D 566 which involked the lImplover the [s;lgraphers, and he Newspa
per & Mail )eliverers' Union of New York and Vicinit, herein D)rivers. The
Drivers by i)Douglas a ('hance. is president. n the irst da) ot the hearing
in the consolidated proceeding stated that it no longer desired the disputed
work. On December 28, 1978, the tnmploer requested that t he permitted It,
withdraw the charge in Case 2 ('I) 566 and on D)ecetihbe 29, 1978, the
Regional D)irector issued an oirder severing the cises alrd ;appro,,ilig the with-
drawal of the charge in Case 2 (') 566h
place ot' business in New York ('ity, is engaged in the
publication of The New York Times, a daily and
Sunday newspaper of general circulation. During the
past yearl 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. 111: IABl()R ()RANI/AIiONS INVOIVII)
'he parties stipulated, and we ind, that New York
Typographical Union No. 6, affiliated with Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL CIO, and New
York Lithographers & Photoengravers Union Local
No. I P, affiliated with Graphic Arts International
Union, AFL C'10, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. I l I)SIt II
A. Background alnd Fistt of lthe Di.Vtle
In July 1978 the Employer completed the conver-
sion of' its newspaper production from the hot-type
process to the cold type process. As part of' this con-
version the Employer introduced the "LogEscan,"
which converts newspaper copy into a "laser mask
negative" which then is used to produce photopoly-
mer printing plates. As specially adapted for use by
the Employer the I.ogEscan is divided into two com-
ponents. a "reader" and a "writer." Only the opera-
tion of' the reader component, presently located in the
composing room of the Employer's facility at 229
West 43 Street, New York ('ity, is in dispute in this
proceeding. The Employer has assigned the operation
of this component to its employees represented by the
'ypographers who work in the composing room.
Under the hot-type process, employees represented
by the Typographers produced raised metal type and
employees represented by the Photoengravers pro-
duced metal reliet'f engravings of photographs and art-
work. 'ypographers then assembled the raised type
and engravings, in a frame or "chase," to resemble a
full newspaper page. The chase was then used by em-
ployees represented by New York Stereotypers Union
No. 1, affiliated with International Printing and
Graphic Communications Union, AFL-C'IO, herein
Stereotypers, to produce lead printing plates.
Under the coldtype process, a typographer, rather
than using metal type and engravings, pastes up a
copy of each newspaper page using paper print pro-
242 NLRB No. 3
54
NEW YORK IPOI' RAPIIIHAI. tlNIO( NO. 6
duced by other typographers and paper "velox"
prints of photographs and artwork produced by pho-
toengravers. The typographer next makes a photo-
copy of the pasted-up page which he then inserts in
the LogEscan reader component. The reader scans.
digitizes, and electronically transmits the page copy
to the LogEscan writer components located in the
basement platemaking department of the Employer's
West 43rd Street facility and in the Employer's offset
printing plant in Carlstadt. New Jersey. The writer
components produce a laser mask negative of' the
page copy which is then used to produce photopoly-
mer printing plates.
Subsequent to the assignment of the operation of'
the reader component to composing room employees
represented by the Typographers, the Employer and
the Photoengravers, upon the Photoengravers de-
mand, arbitrated the Employer's assignment. On Au-
gust 8. 1978, the arbitrator issued a decision which
held, inter alia, that the Employer's "present man-
ning" of the LogEscan equipment violated its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Photoengravers.
On August 18, 1978, the Employer sent a letter to
Bertram Powers, president of the Typographers. re-
questing the Typographers position with respect to
the assignment of the operation of the LogEscain
reader to employees represented by the Typographers
and the Photoengravers claim for the work. By a let-
ter of August 21, 1978, Powers responded that the
Typographers did not recognize the Photoengrael-rs
claim, that such work fell within the contralctual juris-
diction of the Typographers, and that the Typogra-
phers reserved such course of action. including strike
activity, as it deemed advisable to preserve its work
jurisdiction. The Employer thereafter filed the charge
in this proceeding.
B. The KWork in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the operation of the
LogEscan reader located in the composing room of
the Employer's facility at 229 West 43rd Street, New
York, New York.
C. The Contentions of the Parlies
The Photoengravers contends that the LogEscan
performs, and is a substitute for, functions tradition-
ally performed by its craft, i.e.. production of a nega-
tive from which a raised letter printing plate is pro-
duced. It therefore argues that because the reader
component only serves to activate writer components
in other locations, its operation should be assigned to
employees it represents. The Photoengravers also
contends that the work in dispute falls within its col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the Employer.
The Employer contends that its award of the work
to employees represented by the Typographers is jus-
tified on the basis of economy, efficiency of operation,
and its collective-bargaining agreement with the T--
pographers. The Typographers reiterates the Employ-
er's contentions.
1). Appllicahilit ofthe Statllte
Before the Board ma, proceed with a deternlina-
tion 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
for the oluntarv adjustment of the dispute.:
It is clear that the Typographers threatened eco-
nomic action, including a strike. to protect its claim to
the operation of the 1,og lscan reader. We find rea-
sonable cause to believe Sect ion 8(h)(4)(1)) has been
violated and that this dispute is properly betf)re the
Board tr determination.'
F. ,itlir o/ e Di.spiac
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving
due consideration to relevant flctors.4 The Board has
held that its determinati ion in a jurisdictional dispute
is an act of' judgment based on cornlnonsense and
experience reached by balancing those 'factors in-
volved in a particular case.'
The fiallowing factors are relevant in making the
determination o' the dispute before us:
1. Flmplo,,er assignment and preference
The Emploer has assigned the work in dispute to
its employees represented by the Tpographers and
prefers that assignment. This ifactor favors an award
of the work to those employees.
2. Relative skills
The l.ogEscan, which produces a negative from
which a relief plate is made, substitutes for work tra-
ditionalli perftormed by photoengravers. In fact.
2 There is noi cntention or eidence hal here exists n agreed-upon
method lor volunlar} adjustmenl it the dispute.
' Because Member Murphy believ es that he thre.ternded economlc actonll
contained a genuine threat ol a strike, she finds his case distinguisable trom
Iniernational Brtherhlid el 7elamxler. ('hauffur, i lrehouiemeni and Itlp
er d f.4 merica. (;eneral It atl V
5
9, Sillte o/' A 4l.a ( / ak ( tl O/hl d Iiaulerui .
Inc , 233 NlRB 66 ( 1977). in hich she dissented
I. N 1,R R B adio & 7iieitn Biadcasr Enginttr, I nion, l.hl al 112.
tIteirnantlal Br.h, rho.S o! IIhi tr, al if ArA r., '1 t ( 1(1( 'o libia Brad
utilng .SStcni'/, 34 1 S 573 I 1)0
'lnternanornal - lliawltt, ot ai, hn i,l, odg. 1 '43. A FL ('10 (J 4
Jone ( ,nmitructiin ( ,nianm , 135 Rh 14)2 (962)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negatives of full newspaper pages produced by pho-
toengravers are used in place of the laser mask nega-
tives6 produced by the LogEscan in the event of fail-
ure of that equipment. Also, under the hot-type
system of production, photoengravers produced and
used negatives to make relief engravings of photo-
graphs and artwork, and, during a 2-year period be-
fore the Employer's total conversion to the coldtype
process, printing plates for certain sections of The
New York Times were produced from full-page nega-
tives and engravings made by photoengravers.
However, the LogEscan is a fully automated pro-
cess for making negatives and, in fact, requires very
little skill to operate. Further, the Employer has been
fully satisfied with the operation of the reader, which
itself merely transmits copy, by employees represent-
ed by the Typographers. Since both groups of em-
ployees possess the requisite skills, this factor favors
neither party.
3. 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
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 processes.
Moreover, the Photoengravers cites the arbitration
award, issued August 8, 1978, finding that the Em-
ployer's "present manning" of LogEscan equipment
violates its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Photoengravers.7 We conclude that the Photoengrav-
ers contract covers the disputed work.
However, the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Employer and the Typographers places the
operation of "transmitters" and "optical character
readers and other related equipment" within the juris-
diction of the Typographers. Further, another section
of that agreement also states that:
If electronic signals or tape are to be transmitted
for purpose of setting type for the Publisher's
newspaper to be printed in places other than ex-
isting facilities such transmission will be deemed
composing room work. Material for the Publish-
er's newspaper that is to be transmitted by fac-
simile shall be prepared in accordance with the
6 Laser mask negatives resemble, but are not identical to, photographic
negatives produced by photoengravers.
' The Typographers was not a party to the arbitration proceeding.
terms of this Special Agreement and the Con-
tract.
Bertram Powers, the Typographers president, testi-
fied without contradiction that, in negotiating this
provision, the Typographers anticipated the develop-
ment of equipment capable of transmitting, by fac-
simile, whole newspaper pages. Since the LogEscan
reader scans, digitizes, and transmits full-page news-
paper copy, the Typographers also has a contractual
claim to the work in dispute. Therefore, this factor
favors neither party.
4. Economy and efficiency of operation
It appears that the operation of the reader compo-
nent, located in the composing room, is not a full-
time job. In fact, the typographers who paste up the
copies of newspaper pages in the composing room
merely walk several feet to the reader, insert the copy,
and, after approximately I minute of transmission
time, return to their pasteup duties. Thus, assignment
of the work in dispute to employees represented by
the Photoengravers, who currently perform no work
in the composing room, will interfere with an inte-
grated sequence of operations best performed by a
single group of employees.8
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 Typographers are en-
titled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying on the factors of the employer as-
signments and preference and economy and efficiency
of operation. In making this determination, we are
awarding the work in question to employees who are
represented by New York Typographical Union No.
6, affiliated with International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, but not to that Union or its members. The
present determination is limited to the particular con-
troversy 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
I Although the record indicates that photoengravers may, in the future,
perform duties in the composing room area, assignment of the operation of
the reader to those employees would still entail either an unnecessary trans-
fer of the pasted-up newspaper copy from typographers, or the employment
of a photoengraver to man the reader full time.
56
NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6
foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees who are represented by New York Ty-
pographical Union No. 6, affiliated with International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to per-
form the operation of the LogEscan reader compo-
nent located in the composing room of the Employ-
er's facility at 229 West 43rd Street, New York, New
York.
57