Newark Typographical Union No. 103

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 4 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Newark Typographical Union No. 103 a /w Interna-
tional Typographical Union , AFL-CIO and Eliza-
beth Daily Journal, a Division of Mid-Atlantic
Newspapers and Newark Newspaper Pressmen's
Union No. 8 a/w International Printing and Graph-
ic Communications Union , AFL-CIO. Case 22-
CD-266
August 27, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Elizabeth Daily Journal, a Divi-
sion of Mid-Atlantic Newspapers, alleging that New-
ark Typographical Union No. 103 a/w International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Re-
spondent, 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 represented by Respon-
dent rather than to employees represented by New-
ark Newspaper Pressmens ' Union No. 8 a/w Interna-
tional Printing and Graphic Communications Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called Stereotypers.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Mit-
chell Kraus on April 14, 15, and 24, 1975, at Newark,
New Jersey. All parties appeared at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing upon the issues. Thereafter, briefs
were filed by the Employer, Respondent, and Stereo-
typers.
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. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, Elizabeth Daily Journal, a Division
of Mid-Atlantic Newspapers, a New Jersey corpora-
tion, is engaged in the publication of a daily newspa-
per. During the past 12-month period, the Employer
subscribed to various interstate news services includ-
ing the Associated Press, published various syndicat-
ed features including columns by Ann Landers and
William Buckley, advertised various nationally sold
products including automobiles manufactured by the
American Motors Corporation and the Ford Motor
Company, and received gross revenue from its pub-
lishing operations in excess of $200,000 and derived
revenue in excess of $50,000 from its sale or perfor-
mance of services for customers located outside the
State of New Jersey. The parties stipulated and we
find that the Employer is engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated and we find that Respon-
dent Newark Typographical Union No. 103 a/w In-
ternational Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, and
Newark Newspaper Pressmens' Union No. 8 a/w In-
ternational Printing and Graphic Communications
Union, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The present dispute involves the Employer' s news-
paper facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where the
Employer is in the process of transition from using
hot type method, which it used exclusively prior to
April 1974, to cold type method which it is adopting
to publish its newspaper. Under the hot type method,
linotype operators punched out lead characters in
lines of type which were assembled in a metal frame
or chase. A zinc engraved plate of photographs,
which was prepared by independent contractors, was
placed into the chase. Jobbers prepared advertise-
ments by flat casting or cardboard like mats which
contained the ad in relief. A flat lead plate was pro-
duced from the mat and placed in the chase. The
linotype work and assembling of the newspaper page
in a chase was done in the composing room where
employees are represented by Respondent, while the
flat casting operation was performed in the stereo-
type department by employees represented by Ste-
reotypers. The completed chase was taken by hand-
truck to the stereotype department where an image
of the lead page was produced in relief from a mat
from which a curved lead plate was formed. Such
plate was attached directly to the presses for printing.
Beginning in April 1974, the Employer introduced
camera and NAPP equipment from which a plastic
plate containing the image of photographs in relief
220 NLRB No. 2
NEWARK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 103 5
form could be produced, and the plate was inserted
into the hot type chase . As a result of the new meth-
od, the Employer no longer sends photographs to in-
dependent contractors for the production of zinc en-
graved plate. The Employer began to receive
advertisements on paper rather than a mat, and, with
the use of the camera and NAPP equipment, a plas-
tic plate is then produced directly from the paper
containing the ad and placed in the hot type chase.
Although the Employer began to receive fewer ad-
vertisements on cardboard-type mats and the flat
casting was gradually phased out, the Employer con-
tinued to produce the paper through the hot type
method.
The Employer began producing some pages of
copy and full-page advertisements through the cold
type method in January 1975. In lieu of punching
copy on a linotype machine, copy is keypunched into
a computer which prints the copy on photocomposi-
tion paper. Such paper is cut by arazor and is affixed
to a grid or paper backing. Through the use of the
new camera equipment, photographs and advertise-
ments are reproduced on photosensitive paper and
the end product is a velox which is affixed to the
grid. Under the hot type process a plastic plate is
placed in the metal chase . This plastic plate is pro-
duced by the same camera equipment which pro-
duces the velox.
When the grid is completed a fully composed page
known as a pasteup is formed. Through the use of
the camera equipment and NAPP platemaking
equipment, a plastic plate containing the image of
the fully pasted-up page is formed. The plastic plate
is presently sent to the stereotype department where
a cardboard-type mat and a curved lead plate are
produced. At the time of the hearing the stereotype
department received hot type pages in a chase and
cold type pages on a plastic plate. From the chase or
plastic plate, the stereotype department produces a
curved lead plate to be placed on the press for print-
ing.
The Employer planned to produce all pages
through the cold type process beginning in May
1975. Also, the Employer planned to use the camera
and NAPP equipment for the production of a plastic
plate to be placed directly on the presses. After the
implementation of this new process, the stereotype
department will be eliminated as it will no longer be
necessary to produce a curved lead plate.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the performance of
all camera and all NAPP plate-making equipment
utilized in the publication of a newspaper at the
Employer's facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer argues that the work in dispute
should be awarded to employees represented by Re-
spondent because of the terms of the applicable col-
lective-bargaining agreements; Employer's assign-
ment and preference; economy and efficiency of the
Employer's business operations; skill, training, and
experience; similarity of work in dispute to work cur-
rently done by employees; and industry and area
practice.
Respondent contends that, during contract negoti-
ations, the Employer granted it work jurisdiction
over photoengraving and camera operations and that
a contract was signed, effective September 27, 1973,
to December 31, 1975. Respondent also contends
that ever since the NAPP platemaking process was
installed in April 1974 the work in dispute has been
performed by Respondent's members; that the ste-
reotypers have never performed the camera work at
the Employer's premises; and that Stereotypers is es-
topped from asserting its claim by virtue of a prior
proceeding before the Board and its withdrawal
thereof and its execution of its present contract with-
out the inclusion of language covering the disputed
work.
Stereotypers contends that there was no valid, -le-
gitimate threat to strike by Respondent which was
intended to coerce the Employer in the assignment of
the camera and NAPP platemaking machinery oper-
ations; that Respondent notified the Employer by
letter of March 12, 1975, in an attempt to precipitate
a 10(k) hearing and circumvent the arbitration de-
mand made by Stereotypers by letter dated March 5,
1975; that the language in the collective-bargaining
agreement between Stereotypers and the Employer
mandates that the operation of the camera and
NAPP platemaking machinery used for the manufac-
turing of direct printing plates be assigned to em-
ployees of the stereotype department; and that Re-
spondent did not communicate in any other manner
a threat to strike, did not take a local strike vote, and
did not notify the president and executive council of
the International as required by its by laws.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determina-
tion of 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
the parties have not agreed on a method for the vol-
untary adjustment of the dispute.
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The parties have submitted no evidence that they
have adjusted or agreed on any method for the ad-
justment of the present work dispute.
The record shows that Respondent's counsel wrote
a letter to the Employer's publisher dated March 12,
1975, which contained the following:
This is to confirm the Union's claim of work
jurisdiction covering the Knapp plate making
work and camera work related to same being
performed by your newspaper. This work is
within our work jurisdiction, is being performed
by us, and any action taken by the Company
adverse to or inconsistent with our work juris-
diction will result in strike action by our mem-
bers, or such other economic sanctions and ac-
tions as the Union considers appropriate.
From the foregoing we find that Respondent
threatened, in writing, to take strike action or such
other economic sanctions it considered appropriate,
and that on the basis of such threat there is reason-
able cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated and that the case is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of the disputed work af-
ter giving due consideration to all relevant factors
involved. The Board has held that its determination
in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based
on commonsense and experience reached by balanc-
ing those factors involved in a particular case.'
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
The parties stipulated, and we find, that there is no
outstanding Board certification or award as to the
disputed work involved herein.
The Employer is a party to an agreement with Re-
spondent effective September 27, 1973, to Decem-
ber 31, 1975, which provides in section 2-11, "All
Camera work, post-camera, darkroom and negative
preparation work including opaquing, stripping and
masking shall be under the jurisdiction of the Union
and such work shall be performed only by journey-
men and apprentices under the terms of this agree-
ment. Press plate is not included in jurisdiction."
Stereotypers agreement with the Employer covers
a period from October 1, 1973, until September 30,
1975. However, such agreement was not signed until
' International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A
Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
February 10, 1975. The second paragraph in section
12 of such agreement provides, "Should the Pub-
lisher signatory hereto install within the jurisdiction
of the Union as herein defined any machinery and/
or equipment as a substitute for an addition to the
machinery and/or equipment now being manned by
Stereotypers, such Publisher shall recognize the juris-
diction of the Union over such machinery and/or
equipment and shall make no other contract covering
such work."
Although Respondent and Stereotypers contend
that their respective contracts cover the work in dis-
pute, it is clear that neither contract specifically re-
fers to such work. Thus, it would appear that neither
collective-bargaining agreement is relevant in mak-
ing a determination herein.
2. Company and industry practices
The record shows that the Employer has been uti-
lizing the camera and NAPP equipment since April
1974 and that since that time members of Respon-
dent have been performing all work on this equip-
ment . Additionally, the record shows that, after auto-
mation occurred at various New Jersey newspaper
publishers, the camera work was assigned to affiliates
of Respondent and the platemaking to Stereotypers
at one newspaper. At another newspaper the camera
and platemaking functions were assigned to affiliates
of Respondent. After the introduction of a photoen-
graving process at one newspaper, the making of zinc
engraved plates was assigned to Stereotypers, while
at two other newspapers the work was assigned to
affiliates of Respondent. An International represen-
tative of the International Typographical Union,
Frank Cremonesi, testified that in 58 newspapers
throughout the Nation where the publisher intro-
duced plastic plates the work was assigned to affili-
ates of Respondent.
Although industry practice is somewhat mixed
and, therefore, inconclusive, it would appear that the
factor of company practice favors the assignment of
the disputed work to the Employer's employees who
are members of Respondent Newark Typographical
Union No. 103. Accordingly, we find that company
practice favors the continued assignment of the work
to the Employer's employees represented by Respon-
dent.
3. Relative skills, economy, and efficiency of
operations
The record shows that there are presently 53 mem-
bers of Respondent employed by the Employer and
that 14 such members have received training in the
NEWARK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 103
operation of the camera and NAPP equipment.
Krenz, the Employer's publisher, testified that a
training period of 3 to 4 weeks is required to operate
the camera and NAPP equipment but that experi-
ence for 1 year was needed to become fully compe-
tent in all facets of the disputed work. Although the
only formal training given to Respondent's members
was instruction from a NAPP representative who re-
mained at the Employer's facility for several days,
the Employer has given only Respondent's members
an opportunity to work on the new machinery.
While the record contains testimony that a mem-
ber of Stereotypers, an employee of the Employer,
stated that he received training in the operation of
the camera equipment each Sunday from May to
August 1974 at another newspaper, and performed
camera functions in producing such newspaper on
approximately six occasions when he acted as a sub-
stitute, the record also shows that the member of Ste-
reotypers did not operate the NAPP platemaking
equipment because such newspaper did not utilize
such process.
As to the economy and efficiency of operations
factors, there is testimony that two employees in ap-
proximately 2 hours could produce the plastic plates
of each pasted-up page to be used directly on the
press, that the work flow would be irregular, and that
therefore two employees would not be needed for 2
continuous hours. Also, there is testimony that two
or three employees on the night shift and two em-
ployees on the day shift would be needed to perform
all NAPP and camera functions. However, these em-
ployees would not be needed to perform these func-
tions for an entire shift. The record shows that, by
assigning the disputed work to Respondent, the Em-
ployer can also assign employees performing camera
and NAPP platemaking functions to perform other
tasks in the composing room.
Thus, it would appear that the factor of efficiency
of operation favors the assignment of the disputed
work to the Employer's employees who are members
of Respondent.
4. Loss of jobs
The Employer's publisher testified that during the
past year two stereotypers had been laid off. Also, he
testified that, when the Employer begins to produce
NAPP plastic plates, he intends to eliminate the ste-
reotype department. However, there is a possibility
that other jobs might be found for some of the five
employees who presently work in the stereotype de-
partment.
The Employer's plant manager testified that, if the
camera and NAPP functions were not assigned to
7
Respondent, the Employer would lay off four or five
of Respondent's members.
Thus, the record is unclear as to whether the mem-
bers of Respondent or the members of Stereotypers
would be subjected to the greatest loss of jobs. There-
fore, the factor of loss of jobs is inconclusive and not
relevant herein.
Conclusions
Having considered all pertinent factors, we con-
clude that the factors, including company practice
and efficiency of operations, favor awarding the
work to the employees of the Employer who are pres-
ently performing the disputed work, and we shall de-
termine that they are entitled to perform the work in
dispute. In making this determination, we are assign-
ing the disputed work to members of Newark Typo-
graphical Union No. 103 a/w International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO, 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 facts and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees of Elizabeth Daily Journal, a Division
of Mid-Atlantic Newspapers, who are currently rep-
resented by Newark Typographical Union No. 103
a/w International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO,
are entitled to the performance of all camera and all
NAPP platemaking equipment utilized in the publi-
cation of a newspaper at the Employer's facility in
Elizabeth, New Jersey.
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
I would quash the notice of hearing in this case.
Contrary to the findings of the majority, and in
agreement with the Newark Newspaper Pressmens'
Union No. 8, I would find that there was no valid
and legitimate threat to strike by Respondent which
could or would coerce the Employer in assigning the
disputed work.
While I am aware that in a 10(k) proceeding it is
only necessary that there exist reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated,
whether by threat or by conduct, I am also of the
view that reasonable cause cannot be based on an
agreement between two of the parties in such pro-
ceeding to manufacture a threat for the convenience
of placing the issue before the Board for its award of
the disputed work. While the record here does not
permit a finding that the parties voluntarily created
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the circumstances which placed the dispute: before
the Board, it is clear that the Employer was not
coerced by the written threats; that the members of
Respondent were already performing the disputed
work; and that Respondent did not follow its re-
quired strike procedures, thereby giving rise to the
issue of its sincerity in issuing the threat.
Also, suspect herein is the timing of Respondent's
threat, occurring as it did 7 days after the Stereotyp-
ers letter seeking arbitration of the Employer's trans-
fer of the operation of producing direct printing
plates to employees in the composing room repre-
sented by Respondent. The alleged strike threat here
did not elicit the response usually associated with an
employer who, once threatened, seeks redress of his
grievances before the Board, since the Employer here
proceeded to file a charge against Respondent only
after it had unsuccessfully attempted to file charges
against the Stereotypers.
The record also shows that Respondent did not
follow the procedures required by its bylaws and the
laws of its International. Such laws require that local
unions notify the president and executive council, the
latter having the authority to order a strike. Also, a
majority of the local's members present, at a meeting
called for the purpose of voting whether to strike,
must vote in favor of a strike. A reasonable inference
can be drawn herein that the alleged written threat to
the Employer that Respondent would strike was no
more than a facade, and that the Employer could not
have reasonably felt threatened by Respondent's
wholly innocuous strike threat.
Accordingly, as the record shows that the Employ-
er could not have reasonably felt threatened by
Respondent's written but evasive threat, and as Re-
spondent did not in any other way threaten to strike
the Employer, I would quash the notice of hearing in
this case.