St. Louis Stereotypers' Union No. 8, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 1232 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614
National Neward Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, Telephone No
Market 4-6151, if they have question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
St. Louis Stereotypers ' Union No. 8, International Stereotypers'
and Electrotypers ' Union , AFL-CIO and The Pulitzer Publish-
ing Company. Case No. 14-CD-187. June 7, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act following a charge filed by The Pulitzer Pub-
lishing Company, hereinafter called the Employer, alleging that the
St. Louis Stereotypers' Union No. 8, International Stereotypers' and
Electrotypers' Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Respondent, vio-
lated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. The charge alleges in substance
that the Respondent threatened to strike the Employer with an object
of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign particular work to
employees represented by Respondent rather than to employees rep-
resented by St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Printers. There-
after, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Victor L. Smedstad,
on March 3, 1965. All parties appeared at the hearing and 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 prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. The briefs filed by the Employer, the
Respondent, and the Printers have been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, as amended,
the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Employer
The Pulitzer Publishing Company is a Delaware corporation
engaged in, among other pursuits, the business of printing and publish-
ing newspapers. The parties stipulated that the Employer is a mem-
ber of the Associated Press, publishes and advertises nationally sold
products, and has a gross volume of business annually in excess of
$200,000. 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.
152 NLRB No. 123.
ST. LOUIS STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 8, ETC . 1233
2. The labor organizations involved
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Respondent and the
Printers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. The dispute
A. Basic facts
The dispute herein arose as a result of the Employer's purchase of a
plexiglass waxing machine 1 and the assignment of its operation to
employees represented by the Respondent.
This new machine enables the Employer to establish and use as one
step in a new process for handling the reproduction of photographs,
scripts, drawings, and other nonprinted items in the composition of
ads for newspaper printing. The new process, referred to as "hot
metal paste-up," is designed to partly replace the photocomposition
process, called "cold paste-up," that is now in use. Under the photo-
composition process, by use of a phototypsetting machine, a product
consisting of photographed type on sensitized paper is produced, cut
out, and then laid out on a paper "bridge sheet" by employees of the
composing room represented by the Printers. To facilitate the position-
ing of the cutouts, the sensitized paper is first waxed on the back side
by use of a proof waxing machine operated by an employee represented
by the Printers. When completed, the pasteup is rephotographed and
a zinc cut of it is made by the employees in the photoengraving depart-
ment. The zinc cut is then returned to the composing room where it is
mounted by an employee represented by the Printers on "stereotype
base" made and supplied by employees in the stereotype department.
However, before it is mounted an employee of the composing room calls
an employee of the stereotype department to put double-faced adhe-
sive tape on the back of the zinc cut so it will adhere to the "stereotype
base." The same procedure is followed in affixing shell casts made by
the stereotypers.
The only portion of the above-described process involved in this
dispute is the affixing of the zinc cuts and shell casts to a "stereotype
base." Under the new process the waxing machine places a coating
of wax on a piece of plexiglass which is designed to be placed on top
of and become part of a thinner "stereotype base." Because of the wax,
the zinc cuts and shell casts adhere to the plexiglass and eliminate the
need for adhesive tape.
As mentioned herein, on October 26, 1964, the Employer installed
the plexiglass waxing machine and assigned the operation of the
machine to employees represented by the Respondent. On October 28
1 The manufacturer of this machine has designated it as the "Schaefer Plastic Base
Wax Coater."
789-730-66-vol. 152-79
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Printers protested the assignment, claimed a right to the work,
invoked its contract grievance procedure, and, in accordance with its
contract with the Employer, demanded that conditions prevailing
prior to the dispute be maintained. In compliance with the Printers'
demands the Employer stopped using the machine after 3 days of oper-
ation.2 On December 1, 1964, the Respondent protested the discon-
tinuance of the use of the machine and claimed that the operation of
the machine was properly the work of employees represented by it.
The parties stipulated that the Respondent informed the Employer
that the Respondent would strike in support of its demand for the
assignment of the operation of the machine to employees represented by
the Respondent.
B. Contentions of the parties
The Employer and the Respondent contend that the assignment of
the work to employees represented by the Respondent is proper on the
ground that the waxing of the plexiglass sheets is a substitute for the
application of adhesive tape previously performed by employees rep-
resented by the Respondent in mounting the zinc cuts and shell casts
upon the base. Both parties further argued that the Employer has
committed itself by contract with the Respondent to assign to employ-
ees represented by Respondent any work that is the substitution or
evolution of work previously performed by stereotypers. The
Employer also argues that the assignment of the disputed work to
the stereotypers improves the efficiency of the entire operation.
In contending that its members are entitled to the disputed work,
the Printers claims that the work of the plexiglass waxing machine is
essentially similar to the machine operated by its members in the photo-
composition method by which a similar adhesive wax is applied to the
sensitized paper illustrations and that this type of work is covered by
the jurisdictional description of its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer.
C. Applicability of the statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to hear and determine
a dispute out of which a Section 8(b) (4) (D) charge has arisen, unless
the parties to such a dispute submit to the Board satisfactory evidence
that they have adjusted, or agreed upon methods for the voluntary
adjustment of, the dispute. Before the Board proceeds with a deter-
mination of dispute, however, it is required to find that there is rea-
sonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated.
2A resulting grievance was not resolved and the Printers invoked the arbitration pro-
cedures called for by the contract . An arbitrator was selected and a meeting set, but
the Employer moved to stay the arbitration proceeding pending the disposition by the
Board of this 10(k) proceeding
ST. LOUIS STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 8, ETC . 1235
The record shows that the Employer assigned the disputed work to
employees represented by Respondent, whereupon the Printers claimed
that its members were entitled to the work and caused the Employer
to stop the operation of the plexiglass waxing machine. The Respond-
ent thereafter threatened to strike the Employer. It is clear that the
object of the threat was to force the Employer to reassign the work to
employees represented by Respondent, an object prohibited by Section
8(b) (4) (D). We, therefore, find reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act has been violated and, accordingly,
that the dispute is properly before this Board for determination under
Section 10 (k) of the Act.
D. Merits of the dispute
As we stated in the J. A. Jones case,3 we will, pursuant to the
Supreme Court's CBS decision,4 determine in each case presented for
resolution under Section 10 (k) of the Act, the appropriate assignment
of disputed work only after taking into account and balancing all
relevant factors.
Many of the factors we have previously relied upon are not appli-
cable in the present case. Thus, there are no particular skills involved,
no custom or practice in the industry or area, no prior Board certifica-
tions, no agreements among the unions involved, and no joint board
determinations. However, the record does show the existence of collec-
tive-bargaining agreements between the Employer and both Unions.
The Employer and Respondent contend that the contract between
them governs this dispute and the Printers argues that its contract
with the Employer is determinative in this case. After a reading and
comparison of both contracts, it is clear to us that either party could
be awarded the disputed work on the basis of a colorable claim thereto
under its respective contract. Therefore, we are unable to give deter-
minative weight to either document. Although the Employer's origi-
nal assignment to employees represented by the Respondent rested in
part upon its interpretation of the contract rights of the respective
unions, a factor we have not found persuasive, we nevertheless find
merit in such a choice.
After reviewing the pertinent factors involved it is clear to us that
the installation of the plexiglass waxing machine did not change the
basic job function involved, but only the means by which it is accom-
plished. Thus, the wax takes the place of double adhesive tape as a
'International Association of Machinists , Lodge No 174 9, etc. (J. A. Jones Construc-
tion Company ), 135 NLRB 1402.
'IV L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers ' Union, Local 1212, etc. ( Columbia
Broadcasting System), 364 U.S 573
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bonding material. The work task in dispute is that of applying the
adhesive substance by which zinc cuts and shell casts are affixed to the
"stereotype base," a job function historically performed by Employer's
stereotypers. The Employer's assignment to the employees repre-
sented by the Stereotypers was, therefore, in conformity with its past
practices.5
As previously indicated, the Employer contends that performance of
the disputed work by the stereotypers is the most efficient and eco-
nomical arrangement. Under the Employer's plan of operation, the
stereotype base now consists of a thinner layer of common base topped
by the waxed plexiglass, cut to size, and delivered as a completed -unit
ready for mounting of the shell casts and zinc cuts by the printers
without the necessity to call the stereotypers to apply the fixative.
Since cutting and waxing the plexiglass is an integral step in prepara-
tion of the base unit and waxing is incidental thereto, it is apparent that
operation of the waxing machine is comparatively more economical
and efficient when performed by stereotypers than by the printers in
the composing room.
In addition to the foregoing, it is clear that for the 3 days the
machine was in operation, the stereotypers performed the work to the
Employer's satisfaction, as is evidenced by the Employer's present
desire to reassign the work to the stereotypers s Under all the circum-
stances of this case, we conclude that the Employer's assignment of the
work should not be disturbed. Therefore, having weighed the perti-
nent factors, we are awarding the work of operating the plexiglass
waxing machine to the employees represented by the Respondent. In
making this determination, we are assigning the controverted work
to stereotypers represented by the St. Louis Stereotypers' Union No. 8
and not to said Union or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record in the case, the
Board makes the following Determination of Dispute pursuant to
Section 10 (k) of the Act.
Employees engaged as stereotypers, currently represented by St.
Louis Stereotypers' Union No. 8, International Stereotypers' and
Electrotypers' Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of
operating the plexiglass waxing machine.
5 Local 4 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (The Pulitzer
Publishing Company), 138 NLRB 335.
9 The Denver Photo -Engravers ' Union No. 18, International Photo-Engravers Union of
North America, AFL-CIO ( The Denver Publishing Company ), 144 NLRB 1408, 1413.