Providence Stereotypers Union No. 53

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 902 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Providence Stereotypers ' Union No. 53, a/w Interna-
tional Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of
North America , AFL-CIO and The Evening Call
Publishing Company and Woonsocket Typographi-
cal Union No. 245, International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CD-318
April 4, 1973
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow-
ing charges filed by The Evening Call Publishing
Company, hereinafter called the Employer , alleging a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) by the Providence
Stereotypers ' Union No. 53, a/w International
Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Stereotypers.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on June 29,
1972, at Boston , Massachusetts , before Hearing
Officer Thomas J. Flynn. The Employer, the Stereo-
typers, and Woonsocket Typographical Union No.
245, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter called the Typographers, appeared at the
hearing and were offered full opportunity to be
heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues . Thereafter,
the Employer , the Stereotypers , and the Typogra-
phers filed briefs with the National Labor Relations
Board.
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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the basis of the briefs and the entire record
in this case , the Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Employer, a Rhode Island corporation located
at 75 Main Street, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, is
engaged in the publishing of a daily newspaper six
times a week which realizes a gross revenue exceed-
ing $200,000 annually. The Employer also subscribes
to interstate news services, publishes nationally
syndicated features, and advertises nationally sold
products. The parties stipulated, and we find, that
the Employer is engaged in a business affecting
I Unless otherwise indicated, all events occurred in 1972
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Stereotypers and the Typographers are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer is engaged in the publication of a
daily newspaper 6 days per week. Among the unions
with which the Employer has contractual relations
are the Stereotypers, which represents employees in
the stereotype room, and the Typographers, which
represents employees in the composing room.
As part of its business, the Employer manufactures
advertisements which appear in its newspaper.
Sometime prior to August 8, 1972,1 the Employer
told the Stereotypers that it would change over to the
Dynaflex process of manufacturing advertisements.
The record shows that the Employer performed some
experimental work with the Dynaflex process prior to
August 8 and that it used employees represented by
the Typographers for this purpose. On August 4, a
meeting was held between the Employer and the
Stereotypers concerning the assignment of the
Dynaflex work. At this meeting, Charles Walker,
president of the Stereotypers, threatened the Em-
ployer with a possible work stoppage if the Stereo-
typers was not given jurisdiction over the disputed
work.
On August 8, the Employer permanently assigned
the work on the Dynaflex process to employees
represented by the Typographers. Immediately there-
after, President Walker of the Stereotypers ordered
an employee represented by that Union not to
perform his work. Also, on the same day, none of the
stereotypers regularly employed by the Employer
showed up for work and it was not until much later
in the day that the Stereotypers sent replacements.
Prior to August 8, two basic processes were used to
manufacture advertisements. One process, account-
ing for approximately 20 percent of the Employer's
advertisement work, involved the manufacture of a
zinc engraving by an outside photoengraving compa-
ny. The other process, accounting for approximately
80 percent of the Employer's advertisement work,
involved the manufacture of "hot-type" advertise-
ments. This latter process was divided into two
categories: i.e., line advertisements (containing only
type) and advertisements which contained both type
202 NLRB No. 141
PROVIDENCE STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 53 903
and illustrations. The former were manufactured
exclusively in the composing room; whereas the
latter, insofar as it involved illustrations, were
prepared in the stereotype room.
The Dynaflex process involves only the intermedi-
ate steps in the preparation of a newspaper advertise-
ment. The preliminary procedures remain the same.
Thus, a layout of an ad is sent from the advertising
department to the composing room. The markup
man in the composing room then determines the
face, type, size, and length of line and forwards these
instructions to the photocomposition machine opera-
tor. The photocomposition machine operator types
out the copy on either a copygraphic or photocompo-
sition machine, depending on the size and face of the
type, to produce a picture of a character or letter on
a piece of photosensitized paper. It is at this point
that the Dynaflex process begins with a camera
operator who takes a picture of the photomechanical
which usually includes several ads at one time. This
film is then fed into the Log E machine where it is
developed and the negative is opaqued. The opaqued
negative is then placed on a Dynaflex plate and both
are exposed to ultraviolet light thereby transferring
the image from the negative to the Dynaflex plate.
The Dynaflex plate is then washed and baked in an
oven to harden the plate. The finished plate is then
transferred to the tramming table to be cut up into
individual ads. Following the Dynaflex process, the
ads are processed in the regular manner.
The individual ads are placed in a page form which
is then locked together in a metal frame, called a
chase. The page form is then sent to the stereotype
room where a stereotype plate (sometimes called a
pressplate) is made for each page of the newspaper.
Finally, the pressplates are sent to the pressroom
where they are mounted on a press and the paper is
printed.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the manufacturing of
Dynaflex plates by means of the Dynaflex process at
the Employer's plant in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.2
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that its assignment to the
Typographers is based on economy and efficiency of
operations , the effect on its employees in terms of
work and job loss, and the special training received
by members of the Typographers . Further, the
2 It appears from the entire record that the Stereotypers concedes the
work related to the preparation of the photomechanical and the operation
of the camera and the Log E machine to employees represented by the
Typographers The Stereotypers appears to claim only the work related to
the platemaking part of the Dynaflex process
Employer asserts that there is no evidence of area or
industry practice which would be inconsistent with
the assignment of work to employees represented by
the Typographers.
The Typographers predicates its claim on essential-
ly the same factors relied on by the Employer.
The Stereotypers contends that employer prefer-
ence is not entitled to significance here, that the
Employer's stereotype department has traditionally
made plates at the Employer's plant,3 that area
practice is inconclusive, and that the comparative
skills, relative to producing a plate, are equal
between the two unions. Finally, the Stereotypers
makes its most vigorous contention in terms of the
potential loss of work to employees represented by
the Stereotypers as a result of the changeover to the
Dynaflex process.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The charge herein alleges a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The record shows, and the
Stereotypers concedes, that on or about August 4,
1972, Charles Walker, president of the Stereotypers,
threatened the Employer with a possible work
stoppage if it were not given jurisdiction over the
work here in dispute. Also, there is evidence that
when, on August 8, the Employer permanently
assigned the work in dispute to the employees
represented by the Typographers, Walker carried out
his threat and caused a work stoppage by members
of the Stereotypers. 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 the dispute is properly before the Board for
determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.4
E. Merits of the Dispute
As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction
Company,5 we shall determine the appropriate
assignment of disputed work in each case presented
for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act only
after taking into account and balancing all relevant
factors.
We shall set forth below those factors which we
find relevant in determining the dispute herein.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Stereotypers and the Typographers both have
collective-bargaining agreements with the Employer.
However, neither agreement makes specific reference
' See in 2, supra
4 The parties stipulated , and we find , that there is no agreed-upon
method, binding on all the parties, for resolving the dispute herein.
5 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J
A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the type of work in dispute in this proceeding. On
the basis of our evaluation of these agreements, we
conclude that this factor does not support the claim
of either Union.6
2. Area practice
The record reveals that only two other newspapers
in the New England area currently use the Dynaflex
process. At one newspaper, employees represented
by the Typographers perform the pasteup work and
pressmen perform the camera work and make the
full page Dynaflex plates for the presses. At the
second newspaper, employees represented by the
Typographers perform the pasteup work and also
operate the camera and make the full page Dynaflex
plates for the presses. There is no evidence of area
practice which would support the Stereotypers claim.
Accordingly, while the area practice is of a limited
nature, due to the fact that Dynaflex is a relatively
new process, we find that the existing area practice
favors an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by the Typographers.
3. The Employer's assignment, preference,
and efficiency of operations
Under the existing assignment by the Employer,
the composing room foreman is responsible for the
manufacture of the page form ad from its beginning
to its end, including, of course, the Dynaflex process.
Under this system, the typographers who are
performing the Dynaflex work are also available to
perform other assignments in the composing room.
On the other hand, it would appear unlikely that the
composing room foreman would have other work
which could be performed by the stereotypers.
Accordingly, inasmuch as the assignment of the
Dynaflex work to the composing room employees,
who are represented by the Typographers, contrib-
utes to the effective utilization of those employees
and to the expeditious completion of page form ads,
we find that this factor favors an assignment to the
Typographers.
4. Skills and training
The record shows that the typographers assigned to
perform the Dynaflex work have successfully com-
pleted a course of instruction in the camera and
platemaking skills used in the Dynaflex process. As a
result of classroom study and practical application,
these employees were able to perform the Dynaflex
work with little or no on-the-job training. While the
fi The Stereotypers contends that the general laws of the international
are incorporated by reference into their collective -bargaining agreement
Assuming arguendo that this is true, we find nothing in the general laws of
Stereotypers contends that it also has members who
have had such training, the record shows that a
foreman in the stereotype room is the only regular
employee of the Employer who has had any training
in the Dynaflex process.
Accordingly, we find that the skills and training
possessed by employees represented by the Typogra-
phers, as employed in the Employer's current
operations, favor an assignment to the employees
represented by the Typographers.
5. Job impact
The record shows that the introduction of the
Dynaflex process has resulted in the closing down of
three of the four linotype machines in the composing
room. Since each of these machines had an individu-
al operator; three linotype operators have been
reassigned to other jobs in the composing room. The
composing room employees are represented by the
Typographers.
The record also reveals that the number of
stereotypers has not declined, even though their
department is no longer doing illustrations for "hot-
type" ads. The immediate explanation for this
appears to be that the Dynaflex process has created a
need to make a base on which to set a Dynaflex plate
in order to bring it up to type level. However, the
Stereotypers contends that the necessity of making
such bases will decline after familiarity with the
Dynaflex process increases and a supply of bases is
developed and maintained. Further, the Stereotypers
contends that the potential for loss of jobs is far
greater in the stereotype room than in the composing
room.
Finally, the record reveals that there has been no
need to add any employees in the composing room to
perform the Dynaflex work. However, according to
the testimony of the Employer's production manag-
er, more employees would have to be added to the
stereotype department if the Dynaflex work were
assigned to employees represented by the Stereotyp-
ers.
From this evidence, we conclude that the Employ-
er's use of the Dynaflex process has had a direct and
adverse effect upon composing room employees by
the elimination of the jobs of three linotype opera-
tors. While it is true the Employer was able to
reassign the employees affected to other fobs in the
composing room, there is no showing that the impact
from this job loss was minimized by a corresponding
gain in the composing room functions. On the other
hand, the use of the Dynaflex process has not
the International which would limit the Employer 's assignment of the
disputed work in this proceeding
PROVIDENCE STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 53 905
resulted in any immediate job loss to the stereotyp-
ers' unit and the likelihood of future impact on this
unit is purely speculative in nature. Accordingly, we
find that the factor of job impact favors an
assignment to employees represented by the Typog-
raphers.
Conclusion
Having considered all the pertinent factors herein,
we conclude that employees represented by the
Typographers are entitled to perform the work in
dispute. In making this determination, we are
assigning the disputed work to the employees of The
Evening Call Publishing Company, who are repre-
sented by Woonsocket Typographical Union No.
245, International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO,
but not to the Union or its members. Our 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
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis-
pute:
1. Employees of The Evening Call Publishing
Company, who currently are represented by Woon-
socket Typographical Union No. 245, International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
perform the work of manufacturing Dynaflex plates
by means of the Dynaflex process at the Employer's
plant in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
2. The Providence Stereotypers' Union No. 53,
a/w International Stereotypers & Electrotypers
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is not entitled
by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
to force or require The Evening Call Publishing
Company, to assign the above-described Dynaflex
work to its members or employees whom it repre-
sents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, the Providence
Stereotypers' Union No. 53, a/w International
Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 1, 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 work in dispute to stereotypers represented by
the Providence Stereotypers' Union No. 53, a/w
International Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, rather than to employees
represented by Woonsocket Typographical Union
No. 245, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO.