Providence Stereotypers Union No. 53

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 535 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

PROVIDENCE STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 53 535
Providence Stereotypers Union No. 53 and The II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Providence Journal Company and Providence
1 CasePhotoengravers Union A I No. 39-PG U. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the., . .. ,
S d h Ph l1-CD-419 tereotypers an t e otoengravers are abor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
February 11, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
.
III. THE DISPUTE
Background and Facts of the Dispute
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by The Providence Journal Compa-
ny, hereinafter called the Employer, alleging a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) by Providence Stereo-
typers Union No. 53, hereinafter called the Stereo-
typers. A duly scheduled hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Robert C. Rosemere on October 31
and November 1, 4, and 5, 1974. 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. The parties waived
the filing of briefs and argued orally on the record at
the hearing.
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 Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds they are free
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Providence Journal Company is engaged in
the publication of daily newspapers in Providence,
Rhode Island. During the past 12 months, the
Employer had a gross volume of business in excess of
$200,000, and it purchased and caused to be shipped
directly in interstate commerce from suppliers
outside the State of Rhode Island goods valued in
excess of $50,000. The Employer also subscribes to
interstate news services . Accordingly, we find, as the
parties have stipulated, that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
The Employer is engaged in publishing a morning
and evening daily newspaper in Providence, Rhode
Island. Among the unions representing its employees
are the Photoengravers, which represents photoen-
gravers, and the Stereotypers, which represents
stereotypers.
Traditionally, the Employer has used hot- and
cold-type processes to print its newspapers, with the
cold-type processes predominating and expected
eventually to supplant the hot-type processes com-
pletely.
In the cold-type processes, a cameraman, who is a
photoengraver, produces a film negative. Once the
negative is produced, it is fed into an automatic
processor, the Log E machine, to produce a devel-
oped negative. After this, the developed negative is
examined in the distribution or stripping department
by photoengravers who check it for dot structure and
density. Following this check, the negative is
opaqued, i.e., pin holes and shadows are painted out.
Thereafter, the negative goes to a printing or vacuum
frame where it is placed on a photosensitive
magnesium plate. Using a very high intensity light
the image from the negative is transferred onto the
photosensitive material. The magnesium plate is
placed in a developing tank. After its removal, a
descumming process takes place, followed by an acid
bath in the etching machine. During this process, the
bare metal areas are etched away. At this point, the
plate becomes a photoengraved relief plate. The
magnesium plate is washed, dried by an air hose, and
placed in a gas oven to make sure it is completely
dry. The plate must be examined to determine dot
structure and depth of the etch. Finally, the magnesi-
um plate is proofed and cut to correct size. At this
stage, the completed magnesium plate is transferred
to the composing room for inclusion in a page form
or chase. The composing room sends it over to the
stereotyping department.
Stereotypers first transfer the copy from the
magnesium plate to a moist papier mache mat by
placing the matrix against the plate and subjecting it
to the proper amount of pressure using a mat roller.
The matrix is then removed, trimmed, and formed. It
is put in a scorcher where it is dried. The relief matrix
I Providence Photoengravers Union, G.A.I.U, No 39-P, herein called
216 NLRB No. 98
Photoengravers , intervened at the hearing.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is then placed in a casting box where molten lead is
poured against it, thus producing, after cooling and
hardening, a semlcylindrical lead plate containing a
raised image of what is to be printed. The plate is
milled and cooled, and then sent to the pressroom
where it is mounted on the press.
In August 1974, the Employer made the decision to
purchase and operate a W. R. Grace Company
Letterflex platemaking system. This system involves
a process of producing photoengraved relief printing
plates for direct placement and printing on a
newspaper printing press. The Letterflex system
eliminates the use of the traditional magnesium
plates and lead casts in a newspaper's production of
printing press plates.
The Letterflex process is preceded by the making of
a negative in the traditional manner. The completed
negative is inserted into the tower section where it is
exposed by ultraviolet light to a photosensitive
polymer-coated plate for a predetermined amount of
time. The plate is then transferred to the processor
section where it goes through an etching cycle and is
then' exposed once again to ultraviolet light to
complete the chemical reaction. After the plate is
removed from the processor section, the operator
examines and evaluates the plate to determine,
among other things, the quality of the dot structure.
The Letterflex plate is then punched, bent, and
trimmed, and sent to the pressroom for direct
application to the printing press.
The Employer agreed to assign the work of
Letterflex platemaking to employees represented by
the Photoengravers during contract negotiations in
May 1974.2 The agreement giving Photoengravers
jurisdiction over the operation of the Letterflex
machine was incorporated in a side agreement as an
addendum to the contract.
Representatives of the Stereotypers met with the
Employer on May 13, 1974. The Stereotypers
informed the Employer that the Stereotypers Inter-
national Union was aware of the work assignment
agreement the Employer had entered into with the
Photoengravers. The Stereotypers stated that it had
been instructed by its International Union to tell the
Employer that, if plastic plate technology was
assigned to photoengravers, the Stereotypers did not
know who would print the Employer's newspapers.
Thf Stereotypers representative met with the
Employer again on May 23, 1974, and charged that
the Employer had assigned duplicate jurisdiction
over the Letterflex platemaking system. The Employ-
er rejected the Stereotypers contention of duplicate
jurisdiction and denied the Stereptypers request to
open its collective-bargaining contract with the
Employer.
On July 26, the Employer and the Stereotypers held
a third meeting. The Stereotypers representative told
the Employer that its International Union had set
out three alternative courses of action: (1) the
Stereotypers could strike the Employer, and, if so, it
had 100-percent support of the Pressmen's Union,
both internationally and locally; (2) the matter could
be arbitrated; and (3) the Stereotypers could adjudi-
cate the matter before the Labor Board. The
Stereotypers stated that its preference was to arbi-
trate. The Employer rejected the arbitration propos-
al. The Stereotypers then reiterated its May 13
statement. Thereafter, on July 30, the Stereotypers
filed a grievance.
On August 20, at a meeting with the Stereotypers
the Employer informed the Stereotypers that it was
filing a charge with the Board in view of the
Stereotypers threats. During this meeting, the Em-
ployer asked the Stereotypers if it was still threaten-
ing to strike the Employer. The Stereotypers an-
swered affirmatively and added that instructions
received from its International Union was to "strike
'em." The Employer filed its unfair labor practice
charge with the Board the following day.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the production of
photoengraved relief printing plates by the Letterflex
prpcess.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Stereotypers contends that the matter is not
ripe for determination and reasonable cause does not
exist to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act has
been violated. It argues that statements made by its
representative could not be a threat because there
could not have been a realistic expectation of the
implementation of these statements inasmuch as
there was no local affiliation between the Stereotyp-
ers and the Pressmen's Union . Further, the Stereo-
typers contends that its bargaining contract includes
a substitution clause that grants it jurisdiction over
any equipment or processes designed as a substitute
for work being performed by stereotypers. Finally,
the Stereotypers contends that the issue of jurisdic-
tion should be submitted to arbitration as a grievance
matter because its bargaining contract provides for
this agreed-upon method in resolving the issue.
The Employer contends that statements made by
the Stereotypers representative were threats . It denies
2 The Photoengravers contract was to remain in effect from January 1, 1974, to December 31, 1976.
PROVIDENCE STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 53 537
that the Stereotypers bargaining contract establishes
an agreed-upon method to resolve the dispute.
The Employer and the Photoengravers both con-
tend that work assignment to employees represented
by the Photoengravers is based on the contract
clause and related skills, economy, and efficiency of
operations. Both the Employer and the Photoengrav-
ers also assert that certain photoengraving work and
the Letterflex process are functionally similar and
only an extension of the work photoengravers have
been performing. In addition, the Employer claims
that the traditional stereotyping functions of casting
and molding lead plates are eliminated, thereby
making the substitution clause in the Stereotypers
contract inapplicable.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that : ( 1) there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated,
and (2) the parties have not agreed upon a method
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As to (1), above, the record shows that after the
Stereotypers learned of the Employer's work assign-
ment the Stereotypers on several occasions made the
statement to the Employer "we do not know who will
print your paper" if Letterflex work was assigned ,to
photoengravers. The undisputed testimony of the
Employer's representative shows that at a meeting on
August 20, a representative of the Stereotypers
reaffirmed the Stereotypers intention to strike the
Employer should the Employer persist in its assign-
ment of the disputed work to the photoengravers. In
addition , Stereotypers representative informed the
Employer that Stereotypers had 100-percent support
from the Pressmen 's Union if the Stereotypers should
act upon these threats. The record further reveals
that the Stereotypers and the Pressmen's Union have
merged internationally. The merger of these two
Unions would indicate that the Stereotypers had the
support and ability realistically to make actionable
its threats . We find on these facts that reasonable
cause exists to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act has been violated.
As to (2), above, it is clear from the record that
neither labor organization's collective -bargaining
agreement with the Employer provides for tripartite
arbitration; the Photoengravers is not party to, or
bound by, the arbitration agreement in the Stereo-
typers collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer. Thus, we find that no agreed-upon
method exists for the voluntary adjustment of the
dispute which is binding upon all of the parties.
Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination under Section
10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
1. Collective-bargaining contracts
In pertinent part, the contract between the Em-
ployer and the Photoengravers reads:
Section 2. The process of photoengraving and
its attendant work thereto is defined as being, and
is all operations of, the process pertaining to the
production of, photoengraving plates, plates for
offset, and gravure cylinders and plates of any
substance or material from copy of all descrip-
tions, or from originals and/or subjects when
furnished in lieu of copy, up to the finished
product.
a. Material to be reproduced for print-
ing purposes by the photoengravers shall
serve as copy for the camera and shall be
processed and completed by employees
covered by this Agreement.
b. The jurisdiction of the G.A.I.U. over
the process of photoengraving as defined
includes masking; photography; color scan-
ning ; stripping; printing; etching; finishing;
engraving; tint laying; routing; blocking and
mounting on any material; proofing; making
of offset plates; dot etching; operation of
step and repeat machines; making of masks
by photographic processes for color separa-
tions and other purposes including drop-out
on plates or negatives; retouching on posi-
tive and negative film; opaquing of negative
and positive film; the marking of proofs and
papers to indicate color and other photoen-
graving corrections to be made on plates; all
correctidns and re-etching of plates; the
operation of electronic platemaking devices
and machines; the exposure, development
and making of auto-positives or film and
plates of similar nature used in photoengrav-
ing as defined; the making of acetate color
proofs; the making and processing of blue,
silver, ozalid prints to be used in photoen-
graving and velox prints.
c. The making from copy of film nega-
tives or positives of type, hand-lettering,
illustrative and decorative material by pho-
tographing the copy, as well as stripping and
printing of these negatives and positives, is
recognized as part of the process of photoen-
graving as defined ... .
d. Should the Company install any
equipment, or adopt any work processes,
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
designed as a substitute for, or evolution of,
work now being done by photoengravers,
the Company agrees to recognize the juris-
diction of the G.A.I.U. over such equipment
and work processes.
An Addendum to the Photoengravers present
collective-bargaining contract reads:
It is agreed that Article 4, paragraph 3 of
Section 2 of the collective bargaining agreement
between the parties which sets forth jurisdiction
of the Union over work performed is amended to
include production of plastic plates regardless of
the trade name or technological process by which
they are produced within the framework of the
known technology available in the industry.
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the Stereotypers3 in pertinent part
reads:
Section 1.
3. The jurisdiction of the Union over such
work being performed immediately prior to the
signing of this Agreement shall be preserved while
this Agreement is in force, and the Publisher shall
make no other agreement covering the same. This
work shall include the preparation, molding,
trimming, packing, and finishing of all matrices.
The registration of all matrices. The preparation
and casting of all job work matrices, to include
sawing; the operation of any platebending ma-
chine, shaving, routing, morticing, finishing and
inspection of said work. The mounting on
stereotyped base of plastic, electrotype and
stereotype plates. The mounting of all material
requiring registration. The casting, routing, shav-
ing, boring and milling of curved stereotype or
plastic plates. The nickeling and further finishing
of said plates in preparation for their operation on
the press. The mounting of plates on press saddles
as used in "direct" printing process.
4. Should the Publisher install any equipment
or adopt any processes designed as a substitute
for, or evolution of, work now being done by
stereotypers, the Publisher recognizes the jurisdic-
tion of the Providence Stereotypers' and Electro-
typers' Union No. 53 over such equipment and
process.
The record shows that during negotiations for the
Employer's current contract with the Photoengravers
there was discussion of the possible use in the future
by the Employer of a plastic platemaking system.
The Photoengravers claimed jurisdiction and re-
quested that contract language agreeing to such
jurisdiction be incorporated in a side agreement as
an addendum to the contract. The Employer testified
that this action was taken rather than amending the
jurisdiction clause because an amendment might
indicate that the Photoengravers evolutionary clause
did not include jurisdiction over this system..
The Photoengravers evolutionary clause, section
2(a), (b), (c), and (d), defines the jurisdiction of the
process of photoengraving and, although Letterflex is
not mentioned specifically, the process of photoen-
graving does encompass the process of producing
Letterflex plates. A comparison of the processes
involved in photoengraving and Letterflex shows a
functional similarity in production procedure. In
photoengraving, the engraver receives a negative
and, in the Letterflex process, the Letterflex operator
also receives a negative. The photoengraver inserts
the negative into a vacuum printing frame, while the
negative is inserted into the vacuum frame of the
Letterflex tower. In both processes, a light source
transfers the image from the negative to a plate. In
photoengraving, a photosensitive magnesium plate is
used; in the Letterflex system a photosensitive
polymer plate is utilized. The image on the magnesi-
um plate is formed in a developing tank; the image
on the polymer plate is formed in a developing place
in the Letterflex tower. In photoengraving, the
magnesium plate then goes into an acid bath,
forming the relief plate. In the Letterflex system, it
goes under an air knife etch, the equivalent of the
acid bath, and the relief plate is formed. The excess
materials are then blown off in photoengraving and
blotted off in the Letterflex process. The plate is then
trimmed to page size in photoengraving; in Letterflex
it goes into the punch, bend, trim machine where it is
also trimed to page size . After the completed process,
the Letterflex plate is ready for direct press mount-
ing. Although the magnesium plates produced by the
photoengravers have never been affixed directly to
the presses and used for printing by the Employer,
the record indicates that such plates can be bent for
direct application to presses and that this in fact is
done in some printing operations.
The Stereotypers points to section 1, paragraphs 3
and 4, of its collective-bargaining contract as
justification of its claim for jurisdiction. However,
the negotiations which led to the adoption of this
clause provide reason for concluding that it was not
intended to cover Letterflex. The record shows that
the Stereotypers has tried to negotiate for jurisdiction
over offset, photopolymer, and other forms of
3 The Stereotypers contract is effective from January 1, 1973, to December 31, 1975.
PROVIDENCE STEREOTYPERS UNION NO. 53 539
photosensitive platemaking since 1966. Each of the
Stereotypers proposals for jurisdiction in this area
was rejected by the Employer. Moreover, the record
reveals that portions of the Stereotypers jurisdiction
clause are composed of standard language which was
written and in effect at other newspapers 25 years
ago,4 before the Letterflex system was developed. In
addition, the reference to "direct printing" is con-
cerned with mounting rather than production of
plates and thus provides no basis for application of
the clause to the Letterflex system. Also, the plastic,
electrotype, or stereotype plates are materials that
national advertisers send the Employer for mounting.
Thus, the process involved in plastic platemaking has
never been encompassed in Stereotypers work
jurisdiction. Therefore, Stereotypers cannot claim
jurisdiction over the operation of the Letterflex
machine on grounds that it is a substitution for work
stereotypers have performed in the past.
In The Washington, D. C. Stereotypers' Union No.
19 (The Evening Star Newspaper Company), 181
NLRB 784 (1970), a case involving the Letterflex
process, the Board stated at 786:
The functional similarity of the traditional photo-
engraving and Letterflex processes is undeniable.
Each includes analogous , discrete steps, begin-
ning with the projection of a negative onto a
plate, proceeding with the hardening of the image
and etching . . . . The Stereotypers attaches great
significance to the fact that the end product of the
Letterflex process is a printing plate, whereas the
end product of photo-engraving . . . has been a
"photo-engraved" plate." The validity of this
distinction, however, is questionable, for while it
is true that the magnesium plates produced by the
Photo-engravers have never been affixed directly
to the presses and used for printing by the
Employer, the record indicates that such plates
can be bent for direct application to presses and
that this in fact is done in some printing
operations. Thus, it would not be inaccurate to
describe such plates as printing plates also. We
conclude, therefore, that the Letterflex process
has evolved from traditional photo-engraving
Based upon the foregoing facts and considering
what we believe is a fair interpretation of the
pertinent contract provisions described above, we
conclude that contract provisions favor assignment
of the disputed work to photoengravers.
The following language in the Stereotypers contract is referred to: "The
casting, routing, shaving, boring and milling of curved stereotype or plastic
2. Area, craft, or industry practice
The Letterflex process, only recently developed, is
not in widespread permanent use in the newspaper
industry. The two Unions introduced testimony to
support their respective contentions relative to the
assignment of the Letterflex work. We find, however,
that the evidence introduced by the parties does not
establish any clear and consistent area or industry
practice which would assist us in making our
determination. Accordingly, we find that this factor
does not support either claimant.
3. Job impact
The record shows that, although the introduction
of Letterflex will result in position "displacement" of
stereotypers, it does not mean a "reduction" in the
number of stereotypers presently working at the
Employer's newspapers. The Stereotypers collective-
bargaining agreement with the Employer includes an
attrition clause. In accordance with the attrition
agreement, the Employer has agreed that stereotyp-
ers will be retrained and placed in new job assign-
ments without a reduction in pay.
Inasmuch as there will be no job loss to the
stereotypers presently employed at Employer's news-
papers, the factor of job impact is not determinative.
4. The Employer's assignment, preference,
and efficiency of operations
Operational efficiency, and the extent to which it
results in reduction of production costs, favors an
assignment to photoengravers. Letterflex operation
by stereotypers would require the services of 20
stereotypers based on the number of workshifts per
week. Although the Employer presently employs the
20 stereotypers required, it would also be necessary
to employ approximately 13 photoengravers to
perform the camera work, the stripping and opaqu-
ing, and the photo print work. This would mean a
total of 33 employees. On the other hand, the
assignment of the disputed work to photoengravers
reduces the number of employees required to 21
because the photoengravers would not only operate
the Letterflex machine but also would perform the
other photoengraving functions as well.
Under the Employer's existing assignment, pho-
toengravers who are performing Letterflex work are
also available to perform other assignments in the
photoengraving department. On the other hand, it
would appear that the Employer would lose this
flexibility if the disputed work were assigned to
stereotypers in view of the fact the introduction of
plates . . . . The mounting of plates on press saddles as used in 'direct'
printing process."
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Letterflex process will substantially, if not totally,
eliminate the existing work performed in the stereo-
typing department. Further, a sudden work increase
in the photoengraving department would require the
Employer to hire additional personnel or assign
overtime work to photoengravers if stereotypers
operated the Letterflex machine.
Accordingly, inasmuch as the assignment of the
Letterflex work to photoengravers contributes to the
effective utilization of those employees and the
efficient operation of the Employer's business, we
find that this factor favors an assignment to
photoengravers.
5. Skill
In comparing the specific skills required of a
Letterflex operator with those skills currently utilized
by photoengravers and stereotypers, it appears that
the skills possessed by photoengravers are more
relevant to the Letterflex process. Specifically, it
appears that a photoengraver's skill in evaluating a
negative and in inspecting the dot structure of an
etched plate would be useful to a Letterflex operator.
Furthermore, a representative of the company that
markets the Letterflex equipment involved here
testified to a greater aptitude for Letterflex training
by those who had photoengraving backgrounds.
Accordingly, we find that the skills possessed by
photoengravers favor an assignment of the disputed
work to such employees.
Conclusion
Having considered all the pertinent factors herein,
we conclude that employees represented by Photoen-
gravers are entitled to perform the work in dispute.5
In making this determination , we are assigning the
S Philadelphia Stereotypers Union * 7, a/w Local Union No. 322,
International Printing and Graphic Communications Union , AFL-CIO
(Southern New Jersey Newspapers, Inc.), 211 NLRB 492 (1974). Nashua
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No 359 (Telegraph Publishing
disputed work to the employees of The Providence
Journal Company who are represented by Provi-
dence Photoengravers Union, G.A.I.U., No. 39-P,
but not to that Union or its members. Our present
determination is limited to the particular dispute
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 employed by The Providence Jour-
nal Company in its photoengraving department and
currently represented by Providence Photoengravers
Union , G.A.I.U., No. 39-P, are entitled to perform
all work in connection with producing plastic relief
plates by the operation of the Letterflex machine.
2. Providence Stereotypers Union No. 53 is not
entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act to force or require The Providence Journal
Company to assign the above-described Letterflex
work to the employees whom it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , Providence Stereo-
typers Union No. 53 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 employees
represented by it rather than to employees represent-
ed by Providence Photoengravers Union , G.A.I.U.,
No. 39-P.
Company), 212 NLRB 942 (1974). Kansas City Local 235, Graphic Arts
International Union (The Kansas City Star Company), 215 NLRB No. 31
(1974).