Stereotypers & Electrotypers, Denver Local 13

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 858 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, Denver ALocal
13' and The Denver Post, Inc. and Graphics Arts
International Union, Local No. 576. Case 27-CD
204
December 7, 1979
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS PENII.L(), MURPHY, ANDI) TRUESI)AI.I
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a
charge filed by The Denver Post, Inc., herein called
the Employer, alleging that Stereotypers and Electro-
typers Union, Denver Local 13. herein called the Ste-
reotypers, 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 its members rather than to employees repre-
sented by Graphic Arts International Union, Local
No. 576, herein called the Photoengravers. 2
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer William J. Daly on June 19 through 22,
1979. The Employer, the Stereotypers, and the Pho-
toengravers appeared at the hearing and were af-
forded 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 Photoengravers filed briefs.
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:
I. 1HE BtSINESS OF HI L.MIPILO)Y!R
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer is a Colorado corporation engaged at its plant
in Denver, Colorado, in the publication of a daily
newspaper, The Denver Post. The Employer annually
derives gross revenue in excess of $200,000. Addition-
ally, the Employer holds membership in and sub-
scribes to newspaper services and carries advertise-
ments in its newspaper of nationally sold products
mThe name of this Union appears as amended at the hearing
2 The charge filed by the Employer also alleged that the Photoengravers
had engaged in conduct violative of Sec. 8 h)(4)l1) of the Act The Acting
Regional Director for Region 27 refused to proceed with that allegation of
the charge. and. on May 30. 1979. the General (Counsel denied the irimploy-
er's appeal from the Acting Regional )lrector's refusal to proceed.
from which it derives revenue in excess of $20,000 a
year. The parties stipulated. and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
II. 1 111 lABOR OR(ANIZA I INS INVOINV[!I)
We find, as stipulated by the parties, that the Ste-
reotypers and the Photoengravers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. IlIF DISPItL
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Prior to March 1979, The Denver Post newspaper
was produced by a system known as the hot-metal
process. News stories were received in typewritten
form from the editorial room and were pasted into
page form by composing room employees, who then
set the stories in lines of metal type and assembled the
type in a metal frame "chase." During this preparato-
ry period, employees in the photoengraving depart-
ment converted illustrations, photographs, and adver-
tising copy by etching with acid a film negative onto a
photosensitive magnesium plate. The completed en-
graving was then forwarded to the composing room
where it was locked together with the prepared metal
type into a chase the size of a newspaper page. The
chase was then transported to the stereotype depart-
ment where it was sent through a molding machine
which imprinted the impressions of the chase onto a
paper matrix. The imprinted paper matrix was then
placed into an automatic casting box machine which
made a lead pressplate from the impressions on the
paper matrix. The lead pressplate was then inspected,
trimmed, cooled, and routed to the pressroom as a
"press-ready" plate to be used by employees in the
pressroom for the actual printing of the newspaper.
In December 1978. the Employer decided to pur-
chase and institute a new plastic platemaking process,
known as the NAPP or cold-type system, for the pro-
duction of its press-ready printing plates. In early
1979. the Employer began to implement gradually the
NAPP sstem to replace the hot-metal process. Initial
production of the plastic plates commenced on
March 1, 1979. Under the NAPP system, copy is
typed onto paper sheets by employees in the compos-
ing room instead of being set in lines of metal type in
a chase. Rather than use a magnesium plate, employ-
ees in the photoengraving department make a nega-
tive of the artwork for the production of a paper e-
246 NLRB No. 117
858
STEREOTYPERS AND EILECTROTYPERS. DENVER LOCAL 13
lox. The paper velox produced in the photoengraving
department and the typed paper copy produced in
the composing room are then pasted up in page form
by employees in the composing room. The full-page
pasteup is then delivered back to the photoengraving
department where it is photographed to develop a
film negative of a full page of the newspaper. The
full-page film negative is sent to the stereotype de-
partment where the image on the negative is im-
printed onto a plastic plate by use of intense light and
heat. The plastic plate is further processed and hard-
ened to create a three-dimensional printing plate.
This printing plate is washed, punched, bent, and
trimmed to make a press-ready plastic plate.
As of the time of the hearing, the Employer utilized
both the hot-metal and NAPP systems to produce its
newspaper, but the plastic plates were not actually
used on the printing presses since the Employer's
presses needed to be modified or replaced in order to
accommodate the plastic plates. Accordingly. the
NAPP plastic plates were taken to a molder and then
run through a process to make lead plates which were
fitted to the presses for printing. After the appropriate
changes are made to the presses, the Employer in-
tends to convert totally its presses and use the press-
ready plastic plates to print its newspaper.
On January 5, 1979, the Employer decided to as-
sign the making of the NAPP press-ready plastic
plates to employees represented by the Stereotypers
and informed the Stereotypers of this decision on
January 8, 1979. On January 9, the Employer advised
the Photoengravers of its decision. On January 25, the
Photoengravers filed a grievance asserting that the
Employer's assignment of the plastic platemaking
work was a breach of the Photoengravers collective-
bargaining agreement with the Employer. Subse-
quently, on January 30, the Photoengravers filed an
unfair labor practice charge alleging, inter alia. that,
by unilaterally assigning the NAPP plastic platemak-
ing work to employees outside the Photoengravers
bargaining unit, the Employer had failed and refused
to bargain in good faith. On that date. the Employer
informed the Stereotypers that the Photoengravers
had filed a grievance and an unfair labor practice
charge over the Employer's assignment of the plastic
platemaking work. Thereafter, by letter dated Febru-
ary 1, the Stereotypers informed the Employer that it
would not participate in any arbitration proceedings
nor be bound by any award arising from the Photoen-
gravers grievance, and that, if the Employer at-
tempted to reassign such work, the Stereotvpers re-
served the right to engage in picketing. work
stoppages, or other peaceful economic action against
the Employer. On February 2, the Employer filed the
instant charge.
B. The 1' ork in Di.spute
The work in dispute involves the preparation and
production of NAPP press-ready plastic plates at the
Employer's Denver, Colorado, facility.
C. 7The (Contenion of the Parties
The Emploser contends that there is reasonable
cause to believe that the Stereotypers violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, and that the dispute is properly
before the Board. It further contends that the work in
dispute should be awarded to employees represented
by the Stereotypers based on the collective-bargain-
ing agreements and on other factors, such as economy
and efficiency of operations, relative skills. job im-
pact, and the Employer's preference. The Stereotyp-
ers position is hasicall consistent with that taken by
the Employer.
The Photoengravers contends that the dispute is
not properly before the Board. At the hearing, the
Photoengravers moved to dismiss the 10(k) proceed-
ing on the ground that no reasonable cause existed to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act had been
violated. The Photoengravers asserts that the Em-
ployer misled it during negotiations in the fall of 1978
because the Employer concealed its intent to institute
the NAPP process, and that, after the Photoengravers
filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board
on January 30, 1979,' the Employer, with the aid of
the Stereotypers, contrived a false jurisdictional dis-
pute in order to avoid charges of bad-faith bargain-
ing. With respect to the merits of the dispute, the
Photoengravers contends that the work in dispute
should be awarded to employees represented by it
based on its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer and the factors of efficiency of operations
and relative skills.
D. lpplicahilitv of'the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of a 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
that there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.
As noted above, the Stereotypers informed the Em-
ployer that it reserved the right to institute adverse
economic action against the Employer, including
work stoppages and picketing, should the Employer
attempt to reassign the work. There is no evidence in
the record to support the Photoengravers assertion
' h charge 'o, dilsnlsedl h the Ating Regilnl D)lrector tfor Region
27 on April 16, 1979 A uhsequenl ppeal h the Pholengr lers wa, denied
h the G;eneral (oun,el on Ms .10979.
859
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that this threat was anything but genuine. Under set-
tled Board policy, reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred exists if a
labor organization, which represents employees who
are assigned the disputed work, puts improper pres-
sure upon an employer to continue such assignment.4
Based on the foregoing, and the record as a whole, we
find that there is reasonable cause to believe that an
object of the Stereotypers action was to force the Em-
ployer to continue to assign the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by the Stereotypers and that a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred.
No party contends, and the record contains no evi-
dence showing. that there exists an agreed-upon
method for the voluntary adjustment of this dispute
binding on all the parties. Accordingly, we find that
this dispute is appropriate for resolution by the Board
under Section 10(k) of the Act.5
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after giving
due consideration to various factors.6
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
Neither of the Unions involved herein has been
certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining
representative for a unit of the Employer's employees.
The Employer currently has collective-bargaining
agreements with both the Slereotypers and the Pho-
toengravers. The pertinent language of the Employ-
er's contract with the Stereotypers with respect to ju-
risdiction reads as follows:
All work in the Stereotype Department . . .
necessary for the production of the newspaper,
including all molding, packing, drying, sawings,
'See, e.g., International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL CIO, District Lodge No 27 (Joseph E. Seagram & Sons. Inc.), 198
NL.RB 407. 408 (1972): Local 1184. Southern Caliornia District Council of
Laborers (H. M. Robertson Pipeline Constructors), 192 NLRB 1078. 1079
(1971).
In her dissent in International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Ware-
housemen and Helpers ofAmerica. General Local 959 State of Alaska (Kodiak
Oilteld Haulers, Inc.), 233 NLRB 66 (1977), Member Murphy indicated that
she would closely scrutinize situations of this type to ascertain whether the
statutory requirements for establishing a jurisdictional dispute exist in act.
not just form: that is, the case was not "set up" by the employer and charged
union to have the Board approve the work assignment to the latter. Here, she
agrees with her colleagues that the situation was not contrived and that.
therefore, there is reasonable cause to believe that a jurisdictional dispute
exists. See also International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work -
ers, AFL CIO (Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation). 242 NL.RB 22
(1979).
In view of our Decision herein, the Photoengravers motion to dismiss the
10(k) proceeding is hereby denied.
I N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineer.s Union. Local 1212.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. A 1. ('10 (lColunhia Broad-
casing Svstem/. 364 U.S. 573 1961 ).
trimming, finishing, mounting and dismounting,
routing and mortising of plates, the casting, in-
spection and finishing of all stereotype, electro-
type, plastic and rubber newspaper press plates
shall be done by journeymen and apprentice ste-
reotypers.... It is further agreed that the Em-
ployer will negotiate with the Union concerning
jurisdiction and manner of operating new news-
paper press plate process equipment before such
equipment is put into regular production ....
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the Photoengravers contains the fol-
lowing language:
If [the Employer] should install any equipment
or adopt any work processes used as a substitute
for or evolution of photoengraving work now
being done by employees covered by this Agree-
ment, the employees covered by this Agreement
shall operate such equipment or processes used
in the performance of the photoengraving work.
Although the language of the Employer's collective-
bargaining agreemeit with the Stereotypers mentions
plastic newspaper pressplates, it does not refer specif-
ically to the NAPP process. Furthermore, the lan-
guage of the Employer's contract with the Photoen-
gravers is sufficiently broad to encompass the work in
dispute. Accordingly, we find that the factor of collec-
tive-bargaining agreements is inconclusive.
2. Employer past practice
The Employer's method of producing NAPP plas-
tic printing plates eventually will eliminate the need
for the press-ready lead plates produced by stereotyp-
ers, as well as the need for the metal engravings pro-
duced by photoengravers. The NAPP process there-
fore merges work previously performed by both
groups of employees. However, it is undisputed that
only the employees represented by the Stereotypers
have ever produced press-ready printing plates for the
Employer. In contrast, the negatives and magnesium
plates produced by employees represented by the
Photoengravers are part of a process precedent to
production of press-ready plates by the Employer's
stereotype department. This factor, therefore, tends to
favor assignment of the work in dispute to employees
represented by the Stereotypers.
3. Employer assignment and preference
Since it began using the NAPP process in March
1979, the Employer consistently has assigned the
work in dispute to employees represented by the Ste-
reotypers. The Employer, at the hearing and in its
brief: has expressed its preference that the disputed
860
STREOTYPIFRS AN) IF.IETR()OTYPFRS. DENVER LOCALI. 13
work continue to be performed by employees repre-
sented by the Stereotypers. While we do not afford
controlling weight to this factor we find that it tends
to favor an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by the Stereotypers.
4. Relative skills
The record reveals that the employees represented
by the Stereotypers who currently perform the work
in dispute have received training in the operation of
the NAPP platemaking process from the manulhc-
turer of the NAPP system. and that the Employer is
fully satisfied with their work. The Photoengra ers
contends that the employees it represents possess the
requisite skills necessary to learn to perform the work
involved in the NAPP platemaking process. We find
that the factor of relative skills favors an award of the
work in dispute to employees represented by the Ste-
reotypers.
5. Job impact
The Employer's production manager testified with-
out contradiction that an award of the disputed work
to employees represented by the Photoengravers
would result in the elimination of the Employer's ste-
reotype department. Conversely. the Employer's pho-
toengravers are currently fully utilized, and, there-
fore, an award of the work in dispute to them would
necessitate the hiring of additional employees. It is
undisputed that the only stereotype work available in
the Denver area is that performed by the Employer
and that an award to employees represented by Pho-
toengravers effectively would destroy the only craft
stereotype unit in Denver, as well as adversely affect
Local 13, all of whose members work for the Em-
ployer. Accordingly, we find that this fatctor favors an
award to employees represented by the Stereotypers.
6. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Photoengravers presented testimony that an
award of the disputed work to employees represented
by it would result in an efficient operation as it would
integrate the production of negatives by the Employ-
er's photoengraving department with the introduction
of the negatives into the NAPP platemaking process.
However, the Employer presented evidence that the
assignment of the work in dispute to the employees
represented by the Stereotypers results in significant
advantages in economy and efficiency of operations.
The Employer's production manager testified that the
Employer's stereotypers, who always have made the
press-ready printing plates, have developed a close
working relationship with the pressroom employees.
That relationship is important to the Employer's op-
eration because both groups of employees are used to
working under deadlines and with each other in meet-
ing those deadlines. Additionally, the Employer's la-
bor relations manager testified without contradiction
that there is full employment among the Employer's
photoengravers, and that an award of the disputed
work to them would necessitate the hiring of addi-
tional employees. The Employer further presented
evidence that, pursuant to its contract with the Ste-
reotyvpers certain stereotypers have a guarantee
against being laid off should their jobs be eliminated
due to automation or the introduction of new produc-
tion processes. Therefore, an award of the work in
dispute to employees represented by the Photoen-
gravers would require the Employer to continue to
employ unneeded stereotypers. Finally, the Employ-
er's labor relations manager testified without contra-
diction that an award of the disputed work to em-
ploy ees represented by the Photoengravers would
necessitate training these employees in the NAPP
platemaking process at an additional cost to the Em-
ployer of well over $14,000. We therefore find that
considerations of economy and efficiency of opera-
tions favor an award of the work in dispute to em-
ployees represented by the Stereotypers.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full consider-
ation of all relevant factors involved, e conclude
that employees represented by the Stereotypers are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying upon the following factors: The
Employer's present assignment is consistent with its
past practice and its preference, and is not inconsis-
tent with its collective-bargaining agreements: the
employees represented by the Stereotypers possess
the requisite skills to perform the work: and such an
assignment results in a less drastic impact on employ-
ees' jobs and in greater economy and efficiency of
operations for the Employer.
In making this determination, we are awarding the
disputed work to employees represented by the Ste-
reotypers, but not to that Union or its members. Our
present determination is limited to the particular dis-
pute 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 factors and the entire record in this pro-
ceeding. the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following Determination of Dispute:
861
862 DECISIONS OF NAlIONAI I.ABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
Employees of The Denver Post, Inc., who are cur- preparation and production of NAPP press-ready
rently represented by Stereotypers and Electrotypers plastic plates at the Employer's Denver. Colorado.
Union, Denver Local 13. are entitled to perform the f'acility.