Newspaper Web Pressmen Local 6, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 660 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
elude them. The other five employees 14 whom the Petitioner opposes
left on sick leave in 1962 and their present interest in and oppor-
tunity for employment with the Employer is at best obscure on the
record before us. We shall, therefore, permit them to vote subject
to challenge. 15
In view of the foregoing we find that the following employees of
the Employer at its 'commissary at 600 West 50th Street, New York,
New York, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act: All pro-
duction and maintenance employees including plant 'clericals but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, professional employees, pensioners,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
14 Louis Buzau , Frank Bronte , Kathleen Kent , Emil Seiler , and Raul Diaz.
"In its brief the Petitioner limited its objection to sick -leave employees to those listed
above . All other employees on the sick -leave list are included in the unit.
Newspaper Web Pressmen Local 6, International Printing Press-
men and Assistants Union of North America , AFL-CIO and
Columbia Typographical Union No. 101, affiliated with Inter-
national Typographical Union , AFL-CIO, Party in Interest 1
and Labor Cooperative Educational and Publishing Society,
Inc., Charging Party. Case No. 5-CD-90. June 21., 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act following
a charge filed by Labor Cooperative Educational and Publishing
-Society, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging that Newspaper
Web Pressmen Local 6, International Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Pressmen or
Respondent, had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act.
The charge alleges, in substance, that the Respondent induced and
encouraged employees to engage in a strike or refusal to work, and
threatened, coerced, and restrained the Employer with an object of
forcing or requiring the Employer to assign particular work to em-
ployees represented by Respondent rather than to employees repre-
sented by Columbia Typographical Union No. 101, affiliated with
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO. Pursuant to notice,
a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Sidney Smith on Septem-
ber 25, 26, and 27, 1963. All parties appeared at the hearing and
1 The name of the Party in Interest , hereafter called the ITU or the Printers , appears as
amended at the hearing.
147 NLRB No. 72.
NEWSPAPER WEB PRESSMEN LOCAL 6, ETC. 661
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The
rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, Respondent, the
ITU, and the Employer filed briefs which have been duly considered
by the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Employer
Labor Cooperative Educational and Publishing Society, Inc., with
headquarters in Washington, D.C., is engaged in publishing a weekly
newspaper, which is mailed and distributed throughout the United
States and Canada. Its annual gross income is approximately
$600,000 of which over $500,000 is derived from outside Washington,
D.C. The Employer stated, and we find, that its purchases from out-
side Washington, D.C., are in excess of $50,000 a year. We find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. The labor organizations involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Respondent and the ITU
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The dispute
A. The basic facts
The Employer has had collective-bargaining contracts with both
unions involved herein for a number of years. None of the contracts
expressly covered jurisdiction of the work presently in dispute? After
considering the matter for some time, the Employer, in January 1963,
purchased a web offset press and the required preparatory equipment.
Negotiations between the Employer and the Respondent relating to
the manning of the press and the offset preparatory work were not
productive. During these negotiations, the Employer advised Re-
spondent that it was also negotiating with the ITU relative to the
offset preparatory work. Respondent thereupon addressed a letter
to the Employer stating that Respondent was willing to perform the
preparatory work and that "Unless the jurisdiction of Local No. 6 to
perform this work is recognized . . . Local No. 6 must refuse to
furnish men to operate the press." Negotiations between the Em-
2 The Employer also has had collective -bargaining contracts covering stereotypers, who
are not claiming the work in this case . The stereotypers ' work was formerly performed
by three part-time men, each of whom worked one shift per week or a total of 21 hours
per week.
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer and the ITU resulted in a contract signed June 3, 1963 , effective
April 1, 1962, to run to March 31 , 1965, admittedly assigning the
offset preparatory work to the ITU.
Until the purchase of the new offset equipment , the Employer
printed its newspaper, Labor, by the letterpress method. By that
method, three crafts were employed in the production of the paper.
Employees represented by the ITU set type by the "hot type"
method,' proofread the type, arranged the type in galleys, sized and
marked photographs from which engravings were made,' positioned
engravings in the page form, made all galley and page proofs, and
locked the composition in page forms . Then the stereotypers, who as
heretofore noted are not claiming the work, picked up the completed,
locked-up page forms from which they prepared a soft mat containing
an impression of the page form. From the mat they produced a
curved metal plate by placing the mat in a casting box and pouring
molten metal around it . The plate was inspected , shaved, and left
for the pressmen . Employees represented by the Pressmen then took
the plates , placed them on the press, and operated the press.
The new process using the web offset press eliminated the duties
of the stereotypers and also the photoengravers' work that had been
performed outside the plant. Under the new process the printers
still perform the work of setting the hot type and locking up the
pages as they did by the letterpress process. A glossy proof is still
pulled on the proof press by printers in the composing room. At the
other end , the pressmen 's work also remains the same, as they still take
the plate , once it is finished, and put it on the offset press and run the
press. It is the intermediate step, use of the camera , and making the
finished plate that is in dispute. Thus, the disputed work begins
with the printer 's glossy proof being taken to the camera room where
a clear acetate film , which reproduces the typed page, is shot and de-
veloped. Pictures are shot separately by the camera , and the nega-
tives, which replace the photoengravings in the letterpress process,
are placed in allotted spaces on the photographed negative of the proof
page. As each page is completed it is positioned in a page form,
called a flat , in such a manner that the offset press will run and fold
the pages in their proper sequence . The flat is taken to the plate room
where it is exposed to a thin sensitized metal plate by use of a special
are lamp. The metal plate has the 4-page image of the flat burned
into it, and the plate is then developed by a chemical process. The
finished plate is then placed where it is available to the pressmen, as
indicated.
3 See the Denver Photo -Engravers' Union No. 18 etc. (The Denver Publishing Company),
144 NLRB 1408 , for a description of this work.
* Pictures which were to appear in the paper were sent to an outside firm for the manu-
facture of photoengravings.
NEWSPAPER WEB PRESSMEN LOCAL 6, ETC. 663
On July 25, 1963, the day the Employer's new offset press was ready
for a trial run, the Pressmen refused to operate the press because the
Employer refused to sign a contract assigning them the preparatory
work. Respondent continued in its refusal to operate the press until
August 14,1963, when a stipulation was entered into during the course
of a district court suit for injunction under Section 10(1) of the Act.
Pursuant to such stipulation, no further work stoppages have occurred.
B. Contentions of the parties
Respondent's main contention is that offset preparatory work is
part of the pressmen's duties and normally is performed by pressmen
in commercial plants, not only in the Washington, D.C., area, but
throughout the country, and is also performed by pressmen in some
newspaper plants. Respondent concedes that the use of offset presses
in newspaper printing is relatively new, but contends the skills and
equipment incident to the preparatory work are identical regardless
of whether the press is used for commercial or newspaper printing.
Respondent also argues that the Board consistently holds that a unit
of offset press employees must include the preparatory employees be-
cause of the close working relationship and that the Board's 10 (k)
decisions involving similar or related work favor the Pressmen's claim,
relying particularly on the Stuyvesant Press case, 143 NLRB 167.
The Employer states it assigned the disputed work to employees
represented by the. ITU for a variety of reasons. First, the Em-
ployer cites the language in the standard jurisdiction clause of its
former contract with the ITU that appeared, to the Employer, to
cover part of the new work while the Pressmen's contract made. no
reference to the new work. The Employer also argues that the ITU
was able to train employees in the new work skills at the ITU school
while the Pressmen's school did not have the proper equipment for
training. Along this same line, the Employer points out that the
offset preparatory skills would be the only new skills required of the
printers while the pressmen are already required to learn new skills
in the operation of the presses. In addition, the Employer contends
that it is more economical to assign the work to the printers, not only
because the Employer has been unable to agree with Respondent on a
"manning" agreement, but also because it makes a more orderly flow of
work for printers to perform the offset preparatory work. ' The
Employer also points out that (1) in visits made to six or eight plants,
there was no clear pattern as to who performed the disputed work;
(2) if anyone has a prior claim to the work, it is the stereotypers;
and (3) the pressmen have not lost any work by the Employer's award
of the work to the printers.
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The ITU essentially adopts the contentions of the Employer. In
seeking to rebut Respondent's contentions with respect to industry
practices, the ITU asserts there is a distinction between the news-
paper publishing industry and the commercial printing industry.
The ITU first claims that Labor is a newspaper, and that industry
practice in the newspaper field relating to offset preparatory work
has not been established. It states that a variety of new processes
are emerging in this field and that the ITU is preparing its members
to cope with these new processes. In this regard, the ITU claims
that the offset preparatory work is, or will soon become, a substitute
for work formerly done by the composing room. Secondly, the ITU
says Respondent's evidence showing pressmen do preparatory work
in commercial shops is not only irrelevant, but also inconsistent with
the Pressmen's own international union structure separating com-
mercial (here, Local No. 72) and newspaper (here, Local No. 6)
locals. Thirdly, the ITU contends that in the newspaper industry,
it is nowhere disputed that the work of pressmen begins when a
finished plate has been made. Finally, ;the ITU claims that the result
here is controlled by the Philadelphia Inquirer case, 142 NLRB 36.
C. Applicability of the statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to hear and deter-
mine the dispute out of which an 8(b) (4) (D) charge has arisen.
Before making a determination of the dispute, however, the Board
is required to find there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated.
The record shows that when the Respondent was advised that the
Employer was also negotiating with the ITU as to the assignment
of the disputed work, the Respondent sent a letter threatening to in-
duce or encourage its employees to engage in a strike or a concerted
refusal to work. After the Employer signed a contract with the
ITU assigning the disputed work to the employees represented by
the ITU and when the press was installed, ready to run, the Pressmen
thereafter refused to operate the press because the Employer had not
assigned them the preparatory work. We find, therefore, on the
entire record, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation
of Section 8(b) (4) (D) has occurred, and that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act..
D. The merits of the dispute
Certain factors usually considered by the Board in making juris-
dictional awards are not present in this proceeding. In this regard,
the record shows that the Board has not issued a certification of bar-
NEWSPAPER WEB PRESSMEN LOCAL 6, ETC. 665
gaining representative nor have there been any jurisdiction awards
by the AFL-CIO or other joint boards. Similarly, since offset pre-
paratory work was only introduced in the Employer's shop at the
time the new offset press was installed, there has been no past practice
established by the Employer which normally could be considered.
There are other factors, however, to which we can look in making a
determination.
1. Custom and practice
The principal basis of Respondent's claim is that it is the custom
and practice in the industry for employees represented by Pressmen
to perform offset preparatory work. In support of this contention
the Pressmen introduced evidence showing that employees represented
by Pressmen, usually a commercial Pressmen's local, perform such
work in the majority of commercial shops, some of which print news-
papers. On the other hand, all parties concede that the introduction
of offset presses in the publication of a newspaper is relatively new.
The record shows that this is the first offset press to be used for news-
paper publishing in the Washington, D.C., area. And although the
ITU claims a distinction between commercial plants and newspaper
plants, it nevertheless introduced evidence that printers perform pre-
paratory work in some commercial shops. In essence, the most the
record shows is that more commercial shops employ pressmen to
perform offset preparatory work than employ members of the ITU
and that there is no established industry practice among solely news-
paper publishers. On the record as 'a whole, we can attach little
significance to the factor of custom and practice within the industry.
2. Efficient operation of Employer's business
Here the camera involved in the preparatory work is located ad-
jacent to the composing room, and composing room employees, rep-
resented by the ITU, perform much of the preparatory work in the
composing room. On this ground alone it appears that it makes a
more orderly flow of work to have composing room employees per-
form the preparatory work. On the other hand, the plate room is
located in the vicinity of the pressroom. Besides, it should be noted
that the contention that assigning the disputed work to employees
represented by the ITU is the most efficient method of operation is
interrelated to the Pressmen's "manning" rule. This rule apparently
requires that all pressmen be running the press when it is in opera-
tion and they may not leave the press area to undertake other duties.
The Employer claimed, and the Pressmen denied, that during nego-
tiations prior to the assignment of the disputed work, the Pressmen
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demanded a minimum of five men be assigned to operate the press,.
plus additional men for the preparatory work. As the Employer
had been employing three men, who worked only 26 of their 35-hour
week running the press, the Employer did not accede to the Press-
men's demand. Instead, the Employer replaced the stereotypers, who
had worked a total of 3 days per week, by hiring an additional full-
time typographer, who performed other composing duties thereby
cutting down overtime of the printers besides assisting in the pre-
paratory work.. Although the Pressmen admit they demanded a
"manning" rule of five men, they claim that this would be on a three-
unit press and,that they had discussed the possibility that prepara-
tory work would be done by the additional men. As the Employer
and Pressmen have never concluded negotiations concerning the man-
ning of the presses, the record will not support a claim that it is
just as economical for the pressmen to perform the work as for
printers. To the contrary, we find, on the basis of the entire record,
that the factor of efficiency favors the ITU claim, particularly in
view of the close proximity of the camera room to, and the perform-
ance of preparatory work in, the composing room and the fact that
the additional employee, represented by the ITU, performed compos-
ing room duties, thereby cutting down printers' overtime, in addition
to assisting in preparatory work.
3. Skills and work involved
Prior to the Employer's contemplation of purchasing the offset
press, none of the Employer's employees had the necessary skills to
do offset preparatory work. It is to be noted that the newspaper
locals of the Pressmen, which includes the Respondent, usually rep-
resent only pressroom employees who, to date, have not been trained
in preparatory work, while the commercial locals of the Pressmen
represent pressroom employees and also offset preparatory employ-
ees. Although the Pressmen offered to supply skilled personnel from
its sister commercial local, these individuals were not employees of
the Employer. To preserve the work for its own employees, the
Employer sent the pressroom foreman to the pressmen's school to learn
the operation of the new offset press. As the pressmen's school did
not have a web offset press,. the foreman returned before the end of
the course. He then went to Minneapolis where there was a web
offset press in .operation similar to.the one being installed at the Em-
ployer's plant. After 1 week, he returned as he felt he had learned
as much there about the press process as possible. No pressroom em-
ployee was trained in the offset process other than the operation of
NEWSPAPER WEB PRESSMEN LOCAL 6, ETC. 667
the press itself. The Employer also sent two printers to the printer's
training school where they learned the offset preparatory process.
In addition, the foreman of the composing room attended night school
for 6 months in order to learn the new operation. Since the installa-
tion of the offset press, employees in the composing room represented
by the ITU have been performing the preparatory work to the satis-
faction of the Employer.
Even though both contending unions have schools to teach their
members the skills necessary to perform offset preparatory work, we
find that this factor favors the Printers, especially in view of the fact
(1) pressmen engaged in the publication of a newspaper and repre-
sented by Pressmen newspaper locals normally perform only press-
room duties, graphically illustrated in this case by the newspaper
Pressmen's "manning" requirements; and (2) if assigned the disputed
work the pressmen would be required not only to learn the new skills
involved in operation of an offset press, but also new skills involved
in preparatory work which the contending pressmen employees do
not now possess. It further appears that some of the traditional skills
of a printer are required in the offset preparatory process, such as
stripping, imposition, or the arranging of materials to produce a
finished plate.
4. Collective-bagaining agreements
As noted, the record shows that the Employer has had collective-
bargaining contracts, which antedate the introduction of the offset
equipment, with both unions for a number of years. The prior
Pressmen contracts cannot be said to be subject to an interpretation
which would include offset preparation work. On the other hand,
the prior ITU contract, under which offset work was not contem-
plated, at best supports the ITU's claim to some of the stripping
and imposition work done in connection with the offset preparatory
process. We cannot conclude, however, that either prior contract
expressly covered the work in dispute. After the purchase of the
new offset equipment, but prior to the time the Employer commenced
offset operations, the Employer and ITU entered into a contractual
arrangement whereby employees represented by the ITU were ex-
pressly awarded jurisdiction of the disputed work. Subsequently,
when the Employer began its offset operations, the offset preparatory
work was assigned to employees of the composing room represented
by the ITU in conformity with the contract. In view of these, cir-
cumstances, we find that the factors of contractual claims and Em-
ployer assignment favor the ITU.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of all the foregoing, particularly the evidence pertaining
to the collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the
ITU and the Employer's assignment consistent therewith, and the
fact that employees who are presently performing the work are suffi-
ciently skilled and have performed it to the satisfaction of the Em-
ployer who desires to retain them on the job, we shall determine the
jurisdictional dispute herein by awarding the disputed work to the
printers.-' Our determination is limited to the particular controversy
which gave rise to this proceeding. In making this determination,
the Board is assigning the disputed work to printers, who are rep-
resented by Columbia Typographical Union No. 101, but not to that
Union or its members.
In view of the above, we find that Respondent was not and is not
entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) to
force or require Labor Cooperative Educational and Publishing So-
ciety, Inc., to assign offset preparatory work to pressmen rather than
to printers.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of
dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Employees engaged as printers, currently represented by Co-
lumbia Typographical Union No. 101, affiliated with International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the offset
preparatory work for Labor Cooperative Educational and Publish-
ing Society, Inc.
2. Newspaper Web Pressmen Local 6, International Printing Press-
men and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is not en-
titled by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act to force
or require the Employer to assign the aforementioned offset prepara-
tory work to pressmen who are represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Newspaper Web Pressmen Local 6, International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in
writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring
Labor Cooperative Educational and Publishing Society, Inc., by
means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dis-
pute to pressmen rather than to printers.
5 See International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, et at . ( Kelly & Jamison, Inc.), 146 NLRB 1614.