The Denver Photo-Engravers Union No. 18, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1408 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

1408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
All of our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming
members of any labor organization of their own choosing, except in the event that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
COLNIT, INC., AND FASHIONIT TRIM, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460,
Extension 2100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
The Denver Photo-Engravers ' Union No. 18, International Photo-
Engravers Union of North America , AFL-CIO and The Denver
Publishing Company and Denver Typographical Union, Local
No. 49, International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO. Case
No. 97-CD-39. November 7, 1963
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act follow-
ing a charge filed by The Denver -Publishing Company, herein called
the Employer, alleging that The Denver Photo-Engravers' Union
No. 18, International Photo-Engravers Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent, had threatened to picket
and/or strike the Employer with an object of forcing or requiring the
Employer to assign particular work in connection with the operation
of photo-composition machines and equipment to its member-
employees rather than to member-employees of Denver Typographical
Union, Local No. 49, International Typographical Union, AFI -CIO,
herein called the ITU, to whom the Employer has assigned the work
in dispute, and who are now performing the work.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Allison E. Nutt on
February 26 and 27, 1963. 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 Employer, the Re-
spondent, and the ITU have filed briefs herein which have been duly
considered.'
1 The request for oral argument made by The Denver Photo -Engravers ' Union No. 18
and International Photo-Engravers ' Union of North America , AFL-CIO, is hereby denied
as, in our opinion , the record and briefs adequately present the positions of the parties.
144 NLRB No. 137.
THE DENVER PHOTO-ENGRAVERS UNION NO. 18, ETC. 1409
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Employer
The Employer publishes The Rocky Mountain News, a Scripps-
Howard daily newspaper with circulation of about 200,000 in Colo-
rado and adjoining States. It subscribes to and holds membership
in interstate news services, advertises nationally sold products, and
has an annual gross business of more than $200,000. The Board's
jurisdiction over the Employer is not contested. We find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. The labor organizations involved
Respondent and ITU are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The dispute
A. Basic facts
The dispute herein arises out of the Employer's purchase of a
Kenro camera and the assignment of its operation to its typographers
representedby the ITU.
Previous to November 2, 1962, all advertising proofs were produced
by the Employer by the traditional or "hot-type" process in which
lines of print or slugs are cast in molten metal on a linotype machine
operated by a typographer. The Linotype, however, is limited to the
production of letter print in standard sizes. When letter print of
unusual size is required in the hot-metal process, it is produced on
a Ludlow or Monotype which, like the Linotype, are metal casting
devices operated by typographers. Other components of an advertise-
ment such as illustrations, half tones, or type reverses, which cannot
be produced by Linotype, Ludlow, or other typecasting machines, are
furnished by photoengravers represented by Respondent who make
zinc plates for such purposes, using the photoengraving process. Be-
fore making these plates, photoengravers make Velox prints of such
inserts for customer approval when required. The plates made by the
photoengravers are returned to the composing room where a typog-
rapher assembles them, along with other components of the ad, in
an ad makeup frame known as a "chase" or "galley." The chase is
then locked up and sent to a proof press where a typographer runs a
print of the advertisement as it will appear in the newspaper. After
approval of the proof by the advertiser, the chase is set in a page form
and readied for printing by stereotypers who make a matrix and cast
cylindrical plates for the printing presses.
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since November 2, a new method, phototypesetting, has been em-
ployed by the Employer. This new method, called "cold-type
process," does not utilize a Linotype, Ludlow, or other typecasting
machine. A phototypesetting machine known as a Fotosetter sub-
stitutes for the Linotype. Instead of casting metal slugs, it produces
a photographic substitute known as a paper-positive or photo-positive,
which is simply a photograph of a line of type. Other components of
a display advertisement, such as line and halftone material and type
reverses, which are produced by zinc plates in the hot-type process,
are in the form of Velox prints in the cold-type process. Velox
prints are produced by the Kenro camera. The Kenro camera also
produces unusual type sizes for display ads, such as were formerly
produced by the Ludlow machine under the hot-type process. In this
cold-type process, instead of assembling ad components in the form
of metal type and zinc plates, the assembly consists of a "pasteup,"
in which the paper components are pasted onto a large sheet of paper
or cardboard with special adhesives. The pasteup is then photo-
graphed by the Kenro camera, which produces a paper offset plate
from which a proof of the complete ad is made on an offset proof press
for submission to the advertiser. After approval, the pasted up copy
is sent to the photoengraving department to be reproduced on a metal
plate for eventual printing in the newspaper. Both hot-type and cold-
type methods are utilized in preparing advertising proofs for the Em-
ployer's newspaper. The decision as to which will be used for a par-
ticular ad is made by the ad room foreman (a typographer) or by his
assistant.
As already noted, the Employer assigned the operation of the Kenro
camera to the typographers. It notified both Respondent and the
ITU of its intention to make this assignment in August 1962. Re-
spondent immediately asserted the right of its members to operate
the Kenro camera. In October, its attorney reasserted Respondent's
claim to the work in a letter which threatened ". . . any necessary
action ..." to enforce its contract. On November 2, when typog-
raphers produced the first work on the Kenro camera, Respondent's
members refused to handle it but, after a 15-minute work stoppage,
resumed work under protest. On December 19, Respondent's attor-
ney threatened to picket over the work assignment, and the Employer
filed the chargeherein.
B. Contentions of the parties
The work in dispute between Respondent and the ITU, as defined in
the Respondent's brief, consists of "the operation of the Kenro camera
and the work processes involved in the use of that camera to enlarge
or reduce the size of the photo-positives made by the Fotosetter, to
THE DENVER PHOTO-ENGRAVERS UNION NO. 18, ETC. 1411
make type reverses, to make screened Velox prints, to make negatives
for paper offset plates and to produce paper offset plates." Respond-
ent contends that its contract with the Employer in effect at the time
of the work assignment in question entitled its members to the work in
dispute. It also contends that the nature of the Kenro work products
and the training, skills, and experience required therefor fall within
the special and traditional art of the photoengraver's, rather than the
typographer's, trade.
The Employer contends that the new process is an integral part of
composing-room operations, and that it will eventually embrace the
work of typographers, while increasing the workload of photoen-
gravers. It further cites, in support of its assignment, the location of
the new equipment in the composing room, custom and practice at
other newspapers which use the Kenro camera, and the requirements
of its contract with the ITU.
The position of the ITU corresponds to that of the Employer. In
addition, the ITU contends that the operation of the Kenro camera
is within its traditional work jurisdiction.
C. Applicability of the statute
The charge alleges a violation of 8(b ) (4) (D). The record indi-
cates, and Respondent does not deny, that : by letter dated October 25,
Respondent 's attorney asserted a claim for the work on behalf of Re-
spondent 's memers and threatened ". . . any necessary action ..."
to enforce this claim; on November 2, when ITU members produced
the first work on the new equipment, Respondent 's members refused to
handle the ITU copy and, after a 15 -minute stoppage , resumed work
under protest ; and on December 19 Respondent 's attorney threatened
to picket because of the work assignment.
We find 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. 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. The factors discussed below are asserted in support of the
claims of the parties :
The Unions rely upon their respective collective-bargaining agree-
ments with the Employer to support their claims to the disputed
work. Upon examination and analysis of the pertinent provisions of
the two contracts, both of which antedate the introduction of the
727-083-64-vol. 144-90
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
photocomposition equipment, including the Kenro camera, we con-
clude that neither contract expressly covers the work in dispute.
The record clearly indicates that either typographers or photo-
engravers may, with a brief period of training, operate the Kenro
camera satisfactorily. The camera is located in the composing room
where the assistant foreman determines whether the hot metal or cold
metal method will be utilized in preparing proofs of any particular
advertisement, and composing room employees interchange freely
between the two processes. Were the operation of the camera to be
assigned to the photoengravers, changes in plant layout would be
necessary since there is a walking distance of 100 to 150 feet between
the photoengraving department and the photocomposition layout
where the Kenro camera has been installed. Also, interchangeability
of composing room employees between the two processes tends, in our
opinion, to make for greater efficiency than might be achieved under
an assignment of this work, at its present location or elsewhere, to
employees whose skills embrace only one of the two possible methods
of operation.
Since the Kenro camera has never been used by the Employer pre-
vious to the installation which gave rise to this dispute, there is no
company practice antedating November 2, 1962, which would be
relevant to a jurisdictional award. There is uncontradicted testi-
mony, however, that at each newspaper plant studied by the Employer
during the time in which it was considering the introduction of the
new processes which included the Kenro camera, it was found that
such operations had been assigned to typographers represented by
the ITU. Respondent cited no instance in which such operations had
been assigned to its members. The Employer's assignment of this
work, therefore, appears to conform to practice in the industry.
Of course, an award to either contestant here would inevitably inflict
a loss of function upon the unsuccessful contestant. However, it
appears that an award of the new camera work to the typographers
will cost the photoengravers no jobs, since the new process augments
their overall workload as indicated above, whereas award of the dis-
puted work to the photoengravers may, conceivably, eventually elimi-
nate some typographers' jobs. At the present time, it is doubtful that
an award to either would jeopardize a single job of either craft, since
the record indicates that operation of the Kenro camera involves
approximately 2 minutes of a typographer's time every 2 or 3 days.
Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute
Weighing the pertinent factors considered above, we believe that
the typographers are entitled to the work in dispute in the circum-
THE DENVER PHOTO-ENGRAVERS UNION NO. 18, ETC. 1413
stances of this case. Such factors as the Employer's award of work
to the typographers, the fact that these employees are sufficiently
skilled to perform the work and have performed it to the satisfaction
of the Employer, who desires to retain them on the job, the consistency
of the work assignment with custom and practice in the industry and
with the terms of the Employer's contract with ITU, the comparative
economy and efficiency of operations, and the fact that jobs available
to photoengravers will tend to increase under the prevailing assign-
ment whereas jobs for typographers could contract under a contrary
assignment, demonstrate the superior claim of the typographers to
the disputed work. We conclude, therefore, on the basis of the record
before us, that the assignment of the disputed work by the Employer
to the typographers should not be disturbed. We shall, accordingly,
,determine the existing jurisdictional dispute by deciding that typog-
raphers rather than photoengravers are entitled to the work in dispute.
In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to
the employees of the Employer who are represented by the ITU but
not to that Union or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing fuidings and the entire record in
this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of dis-
pute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Typographers employed by the Employer, who are represented
by Denver Typographical Union, Local No. 49, International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of
operating the Kenro camera in the Employer's composing room.
2. The Denver Photo-Engravers' Union No. 18, International
Photo-Engravers 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 Employer to assign the above work to photoengravers
who are represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of the Decision and Determination
of Dispute, The Denver Photo-Engravers' Union No. 18, International
Photo-Engravers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, shall notify
the Regional Director for the Twenty-seventh Region, in writing,
whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in
dispute to photoengravers rather than to typographers.
MEMBERS LEEDOM and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision sand Determination of Dispute.