Wash, D.C., Stereotypers' Union No. 19

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 784 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Washington, D.C. Stereotypers' Union No. 19
and The Evening Star Newspaper Company and
Washington Photo-Engravers ' Local 17-P of the
L.P.I.U. Case 5-CD-135
March 24, 1970
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that The
Washington, D.C. Stereotypers' Union No 19 and
the Washington Photo-Engravers' Local 17-P of the
L. P. 1. U are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III. THE DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following charges filed by The Evening Star
Newspaper Company, herein called the Employer,
alleging that The Washington, D. C Stereotypers'
Union No. 19, herein called the Stereotypers, has
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A duly
scheduled hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Bruce C Nasdor on July 29, 30, 31, and August 6,
1969.1
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel
All parties, including Washington
Photo-Engravers Local 17-P of the L.P.I.U , herein
called the Photo-Engravers, appeared at the hearing
and were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence on the issues.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the Stereotypers, the Employer, and the
Photo-Engravers, the Board makes the following
findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Evening Star Newspaper Company, existing
by virtue of the laws of the District of Columbia,
maintains an office in Washington, D.C., where it is
engaged in the printing and publishing of a daily
newspaper. During the past 12 months The Evening
Star Newspaper Company has grossed in excess of
$200,000 through the printing and publishing of
newspapers. It subscribes to interstate news services,
publishes syndicated features and advertises goods
sold in interstate commerce. We find that the
Employer is engaged in 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
On October 31, 1969, the parties filed a Joint Motion to correct the
transcript of the hearing Said Motion is hereby granted
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Sometime during the fourth quarter of 1967, the
Employer informed the Stereotypers and
Photo- Engravers of its intent to experiment with the
Letterflex machine developed by Master Etch
Machine Co. and marketed by the W. R. Grace Co.
This machine, which by a chemical process produces
flexible plates known as "Grace plates ," eliminates
the use of the traditional magnesium plates and lead
casts in a newspaper ' s production of printing press
plates
The conventional metal plate process as
conducted on the premises of the Employer requires
photo-engravers to perform several steps to produce
a magnesium plate with raised copy. First, a
cameraman , who is a photo -engraver produces a
film negative of copy that is to be reproduced. The
negative is then projected !onto a presensitized flat
magnesium plate by means of an arc lamp. The
time of exposure and distance from the light source
must be adjusted for the type of copy involved The
plate is then placed in a "burning-in stove," wherein
the image on the plate, still soft and easily smudged,
is "stabilized" by treatment with an acid resistant
material . The operator a photo-engraver , must now
verify by visual inspection that proper stabilization
has been accomplished The magnesium plate is then
placed in a Dow etching machine in which an acid
solution is circulated across the face of the plate by
means of rotating paddles. The etching machine
operator , also a photo-engraver , must control the
intensity and temperature of the acid solution, the
speed of the paddles , and the duration of the bath
The acid etches, or lowers, portions of the
magnesium, leaving a relief plate on which the
image ultimately to be printed is raised above the
rest of the plate. Here, the operator must examine
the etched plate with a magnifying glass to
determine its dot structure The relationship of the
dots determines the degree of darkness of the
different portions of the material being printed. The
operator must also ascertain whether the depth of
etch is proper . This is done with a depth gauge.
When the inspection is completed , the etched
plate is removed and sent to the routing department
where unwanted portions are chopped out and
removed , or "routed ," by another photo-engraver.
At this stage the completed magnesium plate is
transferred to the composing room for inclusion in a
page form. The form is then sent to the stereotyping
181 NLRB No. 122
WASH, D.C., STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 19 785
department
The stereotypers first transfer the copy from the
magnesium plate to a moist cardboard matrix by
placing the matrix against the plate and subjecting it
to the proper amount of pressure in a molding
machine. The matrix is then removed and trimmed
to correct page height and backed with varying
thicknesses of felt strips where required to avoid the
printing of unwanted areas. It is put into a "master
former" where it is dried and curved into a
semi-cylinder. The curved relief matrix is then
placed into a casting box where molten lead is
poured against its face, thus producing, after cooling
and hardening, a semi-cylindrical lead plate
containing a raised image of what is to be printed
The lead plate is inspected, visually, to ascertain
whether the total page image is contained on the
plate and whether there are areas of the plate which
have been improperly chilled and will not print.
After this inspection, the plate goes to a milling and
trimming station, and then to the pressroom to be
affixed to the presses by stereotypers.
The Letterflex process is preceded by the making
of a negative in the exact manner as for traditional
photo-engravers. The completed negative is then
inserted into the tower of the Letterflex machine
where it is exposed by ultra-violet light to a "milar"
plastic sheet which has been coated with a light
sensitive photo-polymer substance. The plastic sheet
is removed from the tower and placed in a drawer in
which it is exposed to another ultra-violet light for
the purpose of stabilizing the polymer image. The
plate is then placed in a detergent bath which,
agitated by "ultrasonics," etches away portions of
the plastic other than the desired image. The end
product is a plastic plate with a raised image which
performs the actual printing when affixed to the
presses. After a visual inspection of the depth of
etch, the plate is rinsed, dried, and again exposed to
ultraviolet light to harden the image Finally, the
dot structure of the plate is inspected with a
magnifying glass. After the plate is trimmed, it is
mounted on a saddle by stereotypers for direct
application to a printing press.
The parties stipulated that on or about May 14,
1969, the Stereotypers presented the Employer with
an ultimatum that unless the work assignment of the
production of plastic printing plates by the
Letterflex process was made to its members, rather
than to members of the Photo-Engravers, to whom
the Employer had determined to make the
assignment, the Stereotypers would strike the
newspaper in furtherance of its demand for the
work.
B. Work in Dispute
In dispute is that work involved in the production
of Grace plates for the Employer. There is no
dispute over the camera work required prior to the
initiation of the plate production process, nor over
the mounting of the finished Grace plates to saddles
and to the presses.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer has assigned the work in dispute to
employees represented by the Photo-Engravers. In
support of this assignment, both the Employer and
the Photo-Engravers argue that the Letterflex
process is a substitute for the traditional
photo-engraving process, and that the new process is
closer functionally to traditional photo-engraving
than to stereotyping. They contend that the
traditional stereotyping functions of casting and
molding lead plates are eliminated by Letterflex,
and that no aspect of the new process can be said to
substitute for the old functions. In addition, they
contend that the applicable contract clauses, relative
skills, and considerations of efficiency all favor an
assignment to the Photo-Engravers.
The Stereotypers 'contends that the work should
be assigned to its members. It points to industry
practice and job impact as considerations favorable
to its position; it construes the contracts involved in
a manner to require an assignment to the
Stereotypers; and it characterizes Letterflex as a
substitute for stereotyping work. The Stereotypers
contends that not only do its members possess the
skills necessary to operate the new equipment and
receive less pay than the Photo-Engravers, but also,
that other economies through increased efficiency
could be realized by employment of stereotypers to
perform the work.
D Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to
determine a dispute out of which a Section
8(b)(4)(D) charge has arisen However, before the
Board proceeds with a determination of dispute, it
must be satisfied that thee is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
The parties stipulated that on or about May 14,
1969, the Stereotypers presented the Employer with
the ultimatum that unless the work assignment of
the 'production of plastic printing plates by the
Letterflex process was made to its members rather
than to members of the Photo-Engravers, to whom
the Employer had determined to make the
assignment, the Stereotypers would strike the
Employer in furtherance of its demand for the work.
In view of the conduct described above, 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.
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. Merits of the Dispute
1. Collective-bargaining contracts
In pertinent part, the contract between the
Photo-Engravers and the Employer reads:
Sec. 3-a , The jurisdiction of the Union is
recognized by the Publishers as the process of
photo-engraving and its attendent work thereto
and is defined as being and is all parts of the
process pertaining to the production of
photo-engraving (including offset plates for
newspaper publication and gravure plates
produced by employees of the Publishers) from
the copy up to the finished product including blue,
silver and velox prints and the making of all
proofs for reproduction from electrotypes,
stereotypes, casts, plastics, zinc and copper cuts
or subjects, when furnished in lieu of copy. All
material entering the photo-engraving department
for reproduction shall serve as copy for the
photo-engraver.
3-b Should any Publisher introduce any new
process, machinery or equipment which functions
as a substitute for or evolution of the process of
photo-engraving described in paragraph 3-a
above, for engraving department work, the
Publishers will grant the Union jurisdiction over
such process, machinery, or equipment. In the
event that any employees are displaced because of
such new processes, machinery or equipment,
these employees shall be retained at journeyman
scale, to meet the Publisher's needs for
employment resulting from such new processes,
machinery or equipment. In the event that the
Publisher introduces into another department
equipment, which could be used for work of that
department, and work falling within the
jurisdiction of the Photo-Engraver's Union, the
Publishers agree that such equipment will not be
used in such other department for work falling
within the recognized jurisdiction of the
Photo-Engraver's Union.
The above clauses do not specifically mention the
.production of Letterflex plates or of other plastic
plates,' but rather define the jurisdiction of the
Photo-Engravers in terms of the "process of
photo-engraving." While we consider as accurate the
Photo-Engravers' characterization of both the
photo-engraving and Letterflex processes as the
creation of a relief plate from a two dimensional
negative of original copy, a conclusion that
Letterflex must therefore be considered to come
within the jurisdictional clause does not necessarily
follow. As the Stereotypers points out, the language
of Section 3-a was developed before the Letterflex
process was in existence, and the terms of the clause
in the current agreement were not negotiated in
contemplation of any such process. In addition, it
seems reasonable to expect that had it been the
intent of the parties to include processes such as
Letterflex in their latest contract, explicit wording
could easily have been inserted We conclude that
this clause, Section 3-a, lends little support to the
Photo-Engravers' claim to the disputed work
The evolutionary clause, Section 3-b, however, if
it is'to have any meaning at all must, in our view,
be construed to encompass the Letterflex process.
The functional similarity of the traditional,
photo-engraving and Letterflex processes is
undeniable Each includes analogous, discrete steps,
beginning with the projection of a negative onto a
plate, proceeding with the hardening of the image
and etching, and ending with an inspection through
a magnifying glass. 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, through all past
evolutionary advances, 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, and thus
falls within the scope of Section 3-b This fact
favors an award to the Photo-Engravers.
In pertinent part, the contract ' between the
Stereotypers and the Employer reads.
3. The Publishers agree, during the term of this
Contract, to give to the Washington Stereotypers'
Union No. 19 jurisdiction over all stereotyping
work required in the offices of the Washington
Daily News, the Washington Star, and the
Washington Post. Stereotyping includes the
operation of the ' equipment in the office of the
Publisher which casts and finishes stereotype casts
and base, which molds and finishes mats and
which casts and finishes curved press plates. This
work includes the preregistration and placing into
registered position of plates preceding the molding
of color and the affixing of any material to cast
or premade saddles for direct printing The work
also includes the basing of electrotype, plastic and
rubber plates. It is not the intent of the, parties to
overlap jurisdiction.
4. It is further agreed that if any journeyman or
apprentice is potentially to be displaced by a new
process in the stereotype department, said
journeyman or apprentice shall have first
opportunity to be employed at the new work.
As to the use of the word "plastics" in clause 3 - a, the record indicates
that this does not refer to the production of Grace or other plastic plates,
but rather to one of the many types of materials which are sent to the
Employer by customers and from which the photo -engravers produce a
"reproduction proor' for eventual use in the making of a magnesium plate
WASH'., D.C., STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 19 787
The Stereotypers argues that since the Grace plate
is a "press plate" which is fixed to a saddle "for
direct printing," the Letterflex process falls within
the language of Section 3. We cannot- agree. That
clause specifically identifies stereotyping work as the
"operation" of equipment which casts stereotype
casts, molds mats, and casts "curved press plates."
The Letterflex machine clearly is not one of the
pieces of equipment specified, nor is the Grace plate
a cast, curved press plate. In addition, the reference
to "direct printing" is concerned with mounting
rather than production of plates and thus provides
no basis for application of the clause to Letterflex
Furthermore, the negotiations which led to the
adoption of this clause provide 'reason for
concluding that it was not intended to cover
Letterflex. As included in the July 24, 1968,
contract, Section 3 was identical to the jurisdictional
clauses of the two preceding contracts, dating back
to 1962. Prior to the 1968 negotiations, the
Stereotypers had been informed of the Employer's
intent to experiment with Letterflex. During the
course of the negotiations, the Stereotypers
proposed what was clearly a more comprehensive
jurisdictional clause, specifically mentioning "all
methods of duplicate printing plate making." For
whatever reason, this proposal was rejected in
negotiations. Considering what we believe is a fair
interpretation of Section 3, we conclude that this
contract clause does not support the Stereotypers'
claim to the disputed work
The Stereotypers also finds support for its
position in Section 4. It contends that since 95
percent of the stereotyping work will be eliminated
when Letterflex is introduced, a "displacement"
within the meaning of that clause will necessarily
occur. However, both the director of industrial
relations and the vice-president and production
manager of, the Employer testified that no
employees would be discharged 'upon introduction of
a Letterflex system, despite a reduction in the
number of positions in the department, but that the
work force would be reduced by attrition. The effect
of attrition, then, within the terms of the contract,
would not be to "displace" any journeyman or
apprentice. Rather, any current employee would be
allowed to continue to work until retirement or the
occurrence of some other natural contingency.
"Displacement" of a journeyman or apprentice
stereotyper cannot be construed as a synonym for
elimination of a stereotyping position, for this would
mean that the -Employer could never reduce the
work force. If the parties intended such a result, it
could have been simply stated. Yet this is not the
only limitation of Section 4 For the Section to
operate, the displacement must occur as a result of
a "new process in the stereotype department " This
wording, if it has any meaning at all, must define
certain situations in which, though a displacement
may occur, the displaced stereotyper will not "have
first opportunity to be employed at the new work."
For instance, it seems certain that had the Employer
decided to apply the magnesium plates directly to its
presses, Section 4 could have no application, for
although a new process would be involved, it could
not be said to be "in the stereotype department."
The reasonable implication, then, of Section 4, is
that the "new process" to be properly characterized
as in the stereotype department, must bear some
reasonable relation to the work previously
performed in the stereotype department. Yet the
only relationship between Letterflex and
stereotyping is that the end product of each process
is a plate which can be applied to a press for
printing, and the Letterflex process itself has little
similarity to stereotyping as defined in Section 3.
We find, therefore, that Letterflex is'not covered by
Section 4 and for this reason, as well as the other
reasons discussed above, conclude that the
Stereotypers' contract does not support its claim to
the disputed work.
2. Area, craft, and industry practice
The Letterflex process, only recently developed, is
not in widespread permanent or experimental use in
the newspaper industry. There has been no other use
in the Washington, D. C. area. Furthermore, the
record, shows no general craft practice regarding
photosensitive work other than Letterflex,• including
offset work.
Among those locations where Letterflex has been
introduced in the industry, as disclosed in the
record, we find that no clear practice has been
established. At the Buck County Courier-Times in
Levittown, Pennsylvania, a Letterflex machine has
been installed and its operation, while apparently
still experimental, has been assigned to
photo-engravers; it is not clear, however, whether
there are any stereotypers employed at the same
location. The South Bend Tribune, in South Bend,
Indiana, has also installed a machine and made an
assignment to photo-engravers, though this
assignment is being challenged in current
negotiations with stereotypers.
At the San Diego Union-Tribune, San Diego,
California, however, stereotypers have, by contract,
secured assignment of Letterflex work, though the
record does not indicate whether or not the overall
operation there employs any photo-engravers. , In
Lebanon, Pennsylvania, the Lebanon News
Publishing Company, which also employs
photo-engravers, has, by express contract provision,
assigned Letterflex work to stereotypers. An official
of the company ' testified, however, that the
introduction of Letterflex was not being
contemplated The Eastern Color Printing Co. of
Waterbury, Connecticut, has contracted with
stereotypers to perform "all processes of offset
platemaking, photo-polymer, and all other forms of
photo-sensitive platemaking", this company is
primarily a printer of comics, whose employment
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
situation is not revealed in the record Other record
evidence relating to industry practice, largely dealing
with the assignment of other photo-sensitive work in
commercial printing as well as newspaper printing
operations does not establish an industry practice
regarding Letterflex.
The Employer suggests in its brief that there is
insufficient industry practice concerning Letterflex
to support an award to either union . While we
cannot agree that the quantum of evidence on the
point, in terms of numbers of printing
establishments covered, is insufficient to establish
such a practice, we nevertheless conclude that the
evidence reveals no clear practice of assigning
Letterflex work in that segment of the industry
which has dealt with the problem. Accordingly, we
find that industry practice supports neither claimant
to the work herein disputed.
3. Job impact
The record shows that although the introduction
of Letterflex will result in the addition of mounting
operations to stereotypers' work, an assignment of
Letterflex to photo-engravers would eliminate the
moulding, drying and casting operations which
comprise 95 percent of the work currently done in
the stereotype department' The so-called "job
operations" work of stereotypers will be unaffected
On the other hand, the record indicates that an
assignment to stereotypers would result in the
elimination of 12 to 15 of the current
photo-engraving positions. Since the Employer now
employs 25 photo-engravers and a foreman, this
would presumably amount to an elimination of from
48 to 60 percent of the work currently done in the
photo-engraving department. While the
photo-engravers will in any event retain the camera
work, no additional work would result in the
photo-engraving department.
Thus, whatever assignment is made, a very
unfavorable impact on jobs will result." The
Employer has stated, however, that regardless, of
the eventual assignment, it will reduce the number
of positions in the affected department by attrition,
and we are given no reason to doubt the Employer's
sincerity in this matter. We conclude, therefore, that
although the ultimate impact will inevitably be
unfavorable, it will be accomplished in a relatively
painless manner , and thus that the factor of job
impact favors neither union.
'The record does not indicate the number of stereotypers currently
employed by the Employer, thus making it difficult to evaluate the
significance of this percentage figure
The record does not indicate the extent to which Letternex work will
require the expansion or contraction of the department which receives an
assignment of the work We are given no reason to suspect , however, that
this is a situation, as in International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers'
Union of North America (Engraving Service Co ). 167 NLRB No 137, in
which an assignment might be made so as to preserve the positions of both
competing unions
4. Economy and efficiency
Operational efficiency, and the extent to which it
results in reduction of production costs, favors an
assignment to photo-engravers. The input to a
Letterflex system is a photographic negative which,
whatever the assignment of the work here in issue,
will be produced by a photo-engraver. The judging
of the quality of the negative is a critical step in the
production process, affecting the ultimate quality of
the plate and the printed image, and will often
necessitate consultation between the Letterflex
operator and the photo-engraver who produced the
negative. It is thus apparent that integration of the
production of negatives and the introduction of these
negatives into a Letterflex system could be most
efficiently accomplished if a photo-engraver, who is
himself qualified to produce such negatives, was also
operating the Letterflex machine
The Stereotypers contends that integration of the
production function with the eventual mounting of
the plates would be facilitated if a stereotyper was
the Letterflex operator. We are not persuaded,
however, that any significant efficiency factor is
involved in this step of the printing operations, since
the completed plate will simply be handed to the
person who is to perform the mounting. The
Stereotypers also argues that the "branch" system
in the photo-engravers' contract5 would inhibit
flexibility of assignment if Letterflex operations are
performed by photo-engravers Yet it is not clear
how the branch system will apply to Letterflex, since
the branches are set up for a multiple-step
magnesium plate process Moreover, the
Photo-Engravers' contract does permit non-branch
assignment in cases of emergency or employee
shortage Finally, it seems likely that a set number
of employees will be more or less permanently
assigned to operate Letterflex, and that only rarely
will they be required to perform the other duties in
their department. We conclude, then, that
assignment restrictions are not a significant factor in
the determination of this dispute.
5. Skill
There is no question that photo-engravers possess
the skills necessary to be trained to operate the
Letterflex machine properly. Neither is there doubt
that stereotypers could be so trained Nevertheless,
in comparing the specific skills required of a
Letterflex operator with those skills currently
required of the competing crafts by the Employer, it
appears that the skills possessed by photo-engravers
are more relevant to the Letterflex process.
Specifically, it appears that a photo-engraver's skill
in evaluating a negative and in inspecting the dot
'Sec 15-a of the Photo-Engravers ' contract specifies several types of
work as "branches " Each employee is designated as being within a certain
branch of the craft and is to perform work of that branch only, except
"when necessary "
WASH., D.C., STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO 19 789
structure of an etched plate with a magnifying glass
would be useful to a Letterflex operator. While the
manufacturer makes no general recommendation as
to which craft should be assigned the operation of
the machine, a field engineer for the manufacturer,
whose duty it is to install the machines and train the
operators, testified to a difference in aptitude for
such training between those who had
photo-engraving backgrounds and those who did
not
We find that the skills possessed by
photo-engravers, as employed in the Employer's
current operation, favor an assignment of the work
to employees with a photo-engraving background.
6. Employer preference
In October 1968, primarily on the basis of its
understanding of the jurisdictional provisions in the
respective contracts," the Employer made an
assignment of the Letterflex work to the
Photo-Engravers The record indicates that the
Employer has been satisfied with the result of this
assignment, and maintains a preference for an
assignment of the work to the Photo-Engravers.
This is a factor which supports an award of the
work to the Photo-Engravers.
7 Conclusion
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors, we
shall assign the work in dispute to employees
represented by the Photo-Engravers. While none of
the factors in this case is alone so favorable to one
party as to be diapositive, on balance, an assignment
to these employees is favored Where, as here, the
new process is closely analogous to traditional
photo-engraving, and the evolution clause of the
Photo-Engravers' contract appears to be on point;
where skill and efficiency would be gained from an
assignment to Photo-Engravers; where an
unfavorable long-run job impact is unavoidable, yet
reduction of force by attrition promises to lessen its
gravity, where there is no clear area, craft or
industry practice with which such an assignment
would be inconsistent; and where the Employer has
been satisfied with and continues to prefer the
assignment, we must conclude that an assignment of
the work to photo-engravers is warranted
In making this determination, we are assigning
the disputed work to photo-engravers employed by
the Employer and represented by the
Photo-Engravers, but not to the Photo-Engravers 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 the
Dispute:
1. Photo-Engravers employed by the Employer
who are currently represented by Washington
Photo-Engravers' Local 17-P of the L.P.I.U. are
entitled to perform the work of producing plastic
relief plates, known as Grace plates, by operation of
the Letterflex machine, including the final inspection
of such plates with a magnifying glass and their
trimming, but excluding the mounting operation.
2 The Washington, D.C. Stereotypers' Union
No. 19 is not, and has not been entitled by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force
or require the Employer to award the above work to
its members or employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days of the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, The Washington, D.C.
Stereotypers' Union No. 19 shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, whether
it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring
the Employer, by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D), to award the work in dispute to its
members rather than to employees represented by
the Photo-Engravers.
'An assignment based on this consideration and other legitimate factors
is to be distinguished from the situation in International Printing Pressmen
and Assistants ' Union Local No 11 (Kaeser & Blair). 162 NLRB 885,
where the employer, due to a strike threat assigned the work to one union
while preferring another, the Board there gave little consideration to either
the assignment or the preference in making its determination , primarily on
the basis of clear contract language