Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 843 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

ALBANY PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION 843
Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No.
23, AFL-CIO and Williams Press, Inc. andlAlbany
Typographical Union No. 4, AFL-CIO. Cases
3-CD-249 and 3-CD-292
November 27, 1970
shipped directly to points outside New York State.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Williams
Press, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act. We find that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assertjurisdic-
tion herein.
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTES
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed in Case 3-CD-249 by Williams Press,
Inc., alleging that Albany Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union No. 23, AFL-CIO,' violated
Section 8(b)(4)(d) of the Act. A duly scheduled
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Arthur E.
Neubauer on October 28-31 and November 12-14,
1969. Thereafter Williams Press, Inc., filed additional
charges against Pressmen in Case 3-CD-292, and the
National Labor Relations Board granted a motion to
consolidate. The record was reopened, and a further
hearing was held on January 27 and 28, 1970, before
Hearing Officer Neubauer. All parties appeared and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing upon the issues. Thereafter, Wil-
liams Press, Inc., the Pressmen, and the Albany
Typographical Union No. 4, AFL-CIO,2 filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, including the
aforementioned briefs, the Board makes the following
findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Williams
Press, Inc., is a New York corporation located at
Albany, New York, engaged in printing, including the
printing of magazines. During the past 12 months
Williams Press' gross revenues exceeded $10 million,
and during that time it received materials and supplies
valued in excess of $2-1/2 million which were shipped
directly to it from outside New York State, and sold
goods valued in excess of $6 million which were
I APP or Pressmen
2 ATU or Typographers
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find , that Albany
Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No. 23,
AFL-CIO, and Albany Typographical Union No. 4,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
These cases involve certain offset preparatory work
described more fully below. The work involved in
Case 3-CD-249, referred to for convenience as Case
249, is black and white work; and in Case 3-CD-292,
referred to as Case 292, is color work.
A. Background and Facts of the Disputes
Williams Press, which specializes in the manufac-
ture of weekly magazines , employs approximately 350
employees who are represented by the Pressmen, and
about 180 represented by the ATU. Prior to the
introduction of the process which gave rise to the
present disputes , the Employer was primarily a
letterpress shop. Employees represented by the
Pressmen performed preparatory work using the hot
metal or scotch print conversion method following an
award by the Board in a case involving the same
parties as herein, 166 NLRB 693. In December 1967,
McGraw - Hill, one of the Employer ' s major custom-
ers, informed Williams Press, which was printing its
Business Week magazine , that by January 1969
Business Week would have to be produced by the
offset process , and that Williams Press would have to
convert to offset by the January 1969 deadline. In
January 1968 McGraw -Hill informed Williams Press
that as a part of the required change, it would have to
institute a "cold type" typesetting process using
equipment such as the "fototronic" machine which is
involved in the disputes here.
In early 1968, according to General Plant Superin-
tendent Mezey , the Employer conferred with the
Pressmen and undertook a retraining program be-
cause it determined that it did not have enough
qualified offset pressmen or offset preparatory peo-
ple. In August 1968, at which time it was engaged in
contract negotiations with the Typographers, the
Employer told representatives of that Union of its
186 NLRB No. 114
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plans for the new equipment. Their contract, executed
in January 1969, is asserted by Williams Press and
ATU in support of an award of the disputed work to
ATU. According to Mezey, in January 1969, the
Employer first told representatives of the Pressmen of
its intent to give work resulting from the introduction
of the fototronic machine, including the black and
white work involved in Case 249, to the Typographers.
Mezey testified that President Moore of the Pressmen
said he "wouldn't be accountable for what would
happen if we insisted on doing this work with the
Typographical Union." This was followed by a letter
from the Pressmen in February advising the Employ-
er that the Pressmen would strike if work under its
jurisdiction were given to other employees. Thereaft-
er, in April, an "interim" arrangement was agreed on,
whereby the Pressmen would perform the black and
white and color work involved in both of these cases,
as some of the equipment which would have made it
practical for the Typographers to do the work was not
yet operational.
In October 1969 the Company informed both
Unions that its equipment was at hand and that the
work here involved would thenceforth be performed
by employees represented by the Typographers. On
November 19, 1969, the Pressmen allegedly insisted
that the color work involved in Case 292 belonged to
them and that they would not handle materials at a
later stage if this work was not done by them. The
Employer acquiesced and reassigned this work to the
Pressmen. In January 1970 the U.S. District Court,
N.D.N.Y., issued a temporary injunction against the
Pressmen, and the ATU members have been perform-
ing the work since then.
Although pressmen lost work under the reassign-
ment, none have been laid off at any time due to the
new process. On the contrary, there is testimony that
the Employer needs more pressmen than the Union
has been able to supply. In contrast, there is evidence
that between 60 and 100 typographers have been
displaced as the result of the changeover to the offset
process.
B. The Work in Dispute
The disputed work essentially involves attaching, or
"stripping in," illustrations to a pasteup of a page
which already contains editorial matter; making a
contact negative of the pasted-up page; and making
any corrections on contact negative. The editorial
matter, the product of the fototronic machine, has
previously been processed and pasted to clear acetate
sheets by compositors, represented by the Typogra-
phers. The illustrations must then be attached to the
3 If a glossy photograph is received from the customer , the Pressmen
make a negative for the compositors . There is no dispute as to this
acetate. This is where the disputes center. Two
categories of the work are in dispute. In Case 249, the
illustrations to be inserted are black and white; in
Case 292, they are of two or more colors, one of which
may be black. (Illustrations of "two or more colors"
are not to be confused with "four-color process"
illustrations, in which the colors are integrated to
produce additional colors. The four-color process
work is performed by the Pressmen and is not in
dispute.)
Compositors, represented by the Typographers,
perform the work immediately preceding that in-
volved herein, pasting on the editorial matter, and the
assignment of that work to them is not disputed.
The illustrations are pasted in spaces on the page
not containing editorial matter. They are usually
supplied by the customer in the form of postive or
negative film.3 If in color, they are in the form of one
positive for each color, and must be pasted up in the
form of an overlay, one for each color. The positive
containing black portions of the illustration is
positioned in a space on the acetate sheet, then an
overlay is pasted up for each additional color. A
positive proof is then made of the page and submitted
for approval by the customer's representative (the
editor) on the Employer's premises. After such
approval, a reproduction negative is made of each
sheet for the final approval of the customer's
representative. All of this work, except the making of
the positive proof for the editor's initial approval,
which the Pressmen does not claim, is in dispute.
After final approval by the editor, the page negative
goes to the Pressmen for stripping in on flats, the first
step of the platemaking process. The performance of
this work by the Pressmen is not disputed.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the assignments to the
Typographers were compelled by the pertinent
collective-bargaining agreements ; that this work
historically has been done by employees represented
by the Typographical Union ; that its assignments
caused no job loss to employees represented by the
Pressmen, and preserved jobs for employees repre-
sented by the Typographers ; that the prior case
involving these parties is not applicable here because
a different process is involved ; and that efficiency,
quality, cost control , customer demands , and the
nature of the process in relation to customer demands
necessitate the assignments to Typographers. In
support of these contentions , the Company notes that
the entire purpose for introduction of the new process
is to "close" the magazine as quickly as possible to
function.
ALBANY PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION
insure that the news which reaches the public is as
current as possible.
The Typographers contends that its contract com-
pels assignment to employees represented by them.
Other factors relied on are industry practice, relative
skills, customer's requirements and demands, sched-
uling of production, efficiency, and economy, and
effect of the assignment on the employment of the
members of the crafts involved, and availability of
skilled help.
The Pressmen contends that assignments to its
members are supported by practice in the plant. It
also urges that the language in its collective-bargain-
ing agreement with the Employer covers the work at
issue . In support of this point, it notes that the
language in its current contract is identical to that
before the Board in the prior case involving these
same parties. Its third contention is that the issue is
controlled by the Board's decision in the prior case,
166 NLRB 693.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to
believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
The facts show that the Employer assigned the
disputed work to its employees who are members of
the Typographers, and that they wish to perform the
work.
In Case 249 the record gives reasonable cause to
believe that Respondent , by its president , Charles
Moore , orally, and by letter dated February 10, 1969,
threatened that it would strike if the black and white
work in dispute were assigned to employees other
than those represented by it.
In Case 292 the record gives reasonable cause to
believe that Respondent , by Moore , threatened that
its members would not handle materials involved in
the platemaking process if the color work here
involved were not assigned to employees represented
by it.4
We therefore find reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated, and
that the disputes are properly before the Board for
determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. The Merits of the Disputes
As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction
Company,5 we shall determine the appropriate assign-
ment of disputed work in each case presented for
resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act only after
4 At the hearing, the Hearing Officer reserved j udgment on the
Pressmen 's motion to dismiss the charges in Case 3-CD-292 The motion is
hereby denied
845
taking into account and balancing all relevant factors.
In our judgment, the following factors are relevant
here:
1. Employer preference
The Employer assigned the work , and prefers an
award , in both cases to employees represented by the
ATU. This factor therefore favors an award to the
typographers.
2. Job losses and availability of craftsmen
The pressmen performed both tasks during the
interim period, and the color work for a period
thereafter, and lost it as a result of the Employer's
permanent assignment of the work to typographers.
However, one-third or more of the typographers
employed by the Employer have been displaced as a
result of the new process. In contrast, no pressmen
have lost their jobs. Moreover, the Employer needs
more pressmen than are presently available. On the
whole, therefore, this factor also favors an award to
the typographers.
3. Efficiency, customer demands
Witnesses for the Employer testified that additional
handling of the materials resulting from having them
passed back and forth between the compositors and
the pressmen could damage them; and that time is lost
because of the interruption in workflow. The Employ-
er also presented testimony that the main reason for
the new system is to shorten the time required to print
the magazine. As the Employer's representative,
Mezey put it: "[A ]ny speedup of the process between
the time the story is written and final okay is what the
customer is looking for . . . . The customer is
continuously looking for a completed page to okay."
He emphasized that to be complete, the page must go
to the editor with illustrations and pointed out that:
In the previous method, that is the scotch print
method, the scotch print went back and forth
between the composing room and the prep area;
the Pressmen's prep area because they were
stripping-in or putting in the halftone negative. On
a number of occasions . . . the time element
between going to the prep area and coming back
into the composing room was so long and the fact
that at times the customer did not okay a final
proof . . . was very disconcerting to the editor and
to the customer. This is one of the reasons why the
editors were very, very insistent on our supplying
to them a completed proof of the page that was
' International Association of Machinists , Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J
A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
going to be printed in the magazine. Now, if we
went along with the same idea in this fototronic
setup, we would not be increasing the speed in
which a page would be okayed by the editor, and
this was the primary reason for going to the photo
composition.
This factor favors an award to employees represent-
ed by ATU.
4. Collective-bargaining agreements
The Pressmen's contract with the Employer reads:
"the jurisdiction of this contract extends over all
printing presses including offset and letter press
printing presses and associated devices, all work in
connection with offset platemaking, including camera
operations, all dark room work, opaquing and
platemaking."
The contract, and supplement, entered into by the
Employer and the Typographers after the negotia-
tions referred to above, provide in relevant part,
When type is used at Williams Press, Inc., for
photo typesetting, employees covered by this
agreement will process, the product of the photo
type setting machine up to and including work
prior to the burning of the offset plate.
The supplement defines the jurisdiction of the
Typographers to include the following operations:
1. Paste up in page form of the product of the
photo type setting machine and/or furnished line
copy.
2. Camera work and processing necessary to
produce a line negative of the pasted up copy.
3. Completion of page make up by insertion
into the page negative of screened halftones
and/or line negatives supplied by the customer.
4. Photo proofing of the above referred to page
negative.
5. Proof reading of the photo proof against
publisher's furnished dummy or layout.
6. Page line up including line up of bleed
pages.
7. All corrections that can be accomplished in
the operations described above.
It is the intent of the parties that the made up
page negative will be as complete as possible
before leaving the composing room. Specifically
excluded, however, from this operation are:
(a) the photographing and screening of photo-
graphs supplied by the customer, and
(b) The assembly into the page make up of copy
or negatives any component of which is two or
more colors.
Both these contracts can be interpreted as covering
the black and white work; this factor therefore favors
neither Union insofar as the work disputed in Case
249 is concerned. The "two-or-more color work" in
dispute in Case 292 arguably is covered by the
Pressmen's contract and specifically excluded from
the Typographers contract. The Employer and the
ATU contend that the exclusion in paragraph (b) of
their contract of assembly of copy "any component of
which is two or more colors" does not refer to the
color work in dispute, but rather to insertion of
"process" work which is assigned to the pressmen
without dispute. As indicated above, process or "color
separation" work involves the use of two or more
basic colors to produce a third color by making an
overlay of the basic colors. The work in dispute, by
way of distinction, involves the use of different colors
which, although they may be in close register, stand
alone. The president of the ATU Local, an employer
witness, testified that the parties to the contract
intended and understood the exclusion to refer to only
process work. Although the plain language of the
contract does not appear to support this interpreta-
tion, upon consideration of the entire record we
cannot find that this factor clearly favors an award to
either group of employees.
5. Skills
There is no contention that either group of crafts-
men is more skilled than the other in the performance
of the black and white work, and it was conceded by a
witness for the Employer that the color work could be
performed equally well by the pressmen or the
compositors. This factor is therefore of no assistance
in resolving the disputes.
6. Other factors
Other factors normally considered as relevant, such
as prior awards , area and industry practice, and past
practice of the Employer are of little aid in the
resolution of these disputes.
The Employer has in the past assigned work of this
type to the members of both Unions. The two
fototronic machines in use by the Employer appear to
be the only ones in the Albany , New York, area. The
record contains no information as to the existence of
fototronic machines in other commercial printing
plants, except in the plant of one other printer who
also performs this type of work for Business Weeks
In Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
No. 23, AFL-CIO (Williams Press, Inca 166 NLRB
6 The other commercial printer assigned the black and white work to Two newspapers were said to use the fototronic machine, with
compositors . However , there is no Pressmen 's Union at that company, and assignment of this type of work to typographers . However, as their
the record is not clear as to whether color work was assigned to procedures are somewhat different from that of magazines , their practices
compositors . are not helpful in determining these disputes.
ALBANY PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS"UNION 847
693, the Board awarded work similar to that in dispute
here, performed by the scotch print method, to the
employees represented by the Pressmen rather than to
those represented by the Typographers. The Board
specifically stated, however, that that award was
"limited to the particular dispute which gave rise to
this proceeding." Moreover, there are several differ-
ences between that case and the instant ones,
including the fact that offset printing with the
fototronic machine had not been installed and was
not involved in that case, the Employer's assignments
and preference, the subsequent amendment of the
Typographers contract, and the fact that the offset
method involved in these cases was instituted because
of the customer's dissatisfaction with the scotch print
method involved in the prior case.
7. Conclusions as to the merits
On the basis of the foregoing , it is clear that the
relevant factors favor award of the work disputed in
Case 3-CD-249 to the Typographers. Employer
preference , job losses , and availability of craftsmen,
and efficiency of operation , and customer demands
all indicate such a result . Accordingly, we shall
determine the dispute in Case 3 -CD-249 by confirm-
ing the Employer 's assignment to its employees who
are represented by the ATU.
In Case 3-CD-292 most of the relevant factors are
the same as in Case 3 -CD-249 , and correspondingly
favor an award to compositors. The fact that the color
work is arguably covered by the Pressmen's contract,
and excluded from the Typographers jurisdiction by
their contract, does not outweigh these other factors.
This is especially so since the primary basis for the
employer 's assignment of color work is the need for
efficiency, which would be impeded by an award to
pressmen . Moreover , an award to pressmen would in
this sense be contrary to our award of black and white
work . We therefore confirm the Employer 's assign-
ment in Case 3-CD-292 to employees who are
represented by the ATU.
This award is limited to the work in dispute in these
cases.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES
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 these cases,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes
the following determination of disputes.
1. Employees employed by Williams Press, Inc., as
typographers and currently represented by Albany
Typographical Union No. 4, AFL-CIO, are entitled
to strip in black and white illustrations, make a
contact negative of the pasted -up page , and make
necessary corrections before the work goes to the
pressmen, in connection with offset process work
which utilizes the fototronic machine.
2. Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union No. 23, 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
pressmen who are represented by that labor organiza-
tion.
3. Employees employed by Williams Press, Inc., as
typographers and currently represented by Albany
Typographical Union No. 4, AFL-CIO, are entitled
to paste up mats for two or more color illustrations in
the form of overlays on acetate sheets containing
editorial matter from the fototronic machines and to
make the reproduction negative of the page.
4. Albany Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union No. 23, 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
pressmen who are represented by that labor organiza-
tion.
5. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Disputes, Albany Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23, AFL-CIO,
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in
writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or
requiring the Employer, by means proscribed in
Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute in
Case 3-CD-249 and Case 3-CD-292 to employees
represented by the APP rather than to those repre-
sented by Albany Typographical Union No. 4,
AFL-CIO.