Columbia Typographical Union 101

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 172 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Columbia Typographical Union No. 101, affiliated
with International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO and The Washington Post Company and
Graphic Arts International Union, Local No.
285. Case 5-CD-260
August 14, 1980
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by The Washington Post Compa-
ny, herein called the Employer, alleging that Co-
lumbia Typographical Union No. 101, affiliated
with International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO, herein called CTU, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain pro-
scribed activity with an object of forcing or requir-
ing the Employer to assign certain work to its
members rather than to employees represented by
Graphic Arts International Union, Local No. 285,
herein called GAIU.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Joseph J. Baniszewski on May 14,
1980. All parties appeared and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues. Thereafter, all parties 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
ruling made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Washington, D.C., is engaged
in the publication of a daily newspaper in Washing-
ton, D.C. During the past year, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, the Employer
derived gross revenues in excess of $200,000, and
regularly printed advertisments of products which
are nationally advertised and sold, published na-
tionally syndicated articles and news stories, and
shipped newspapers to points outside the District
of Columbia. The parties also stipulated, and we
i The name of this union appears as amended at the hearing.
251 NLRB No. 26
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 purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.2
1l. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Colum-
bia Typographical Union No. 101, affiliated with
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, and
Graphic Arts International Union, Local No. 285,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
In 1978, as part of a planned conversion from
hot type to coldtype, and in anticipation of the
opening of a satellite printing plant in Springfield,
Virginia, the Employer initiated plans to purchase
an EOCOM facsimile machine. The scanner (also
known as the reader or sender) component of the
EOCOM machine was eventually installed, in early
1980, in the composing room of the Employer's
downtown Washington, D.C., building; the receiv-
er (also known as the writer) component of the
EOCOM machine was installed some 95 feet away
in the photoengraving department. The Employer
assigned the scanner portion in the composing
room to CTU's jurisdiction; the receiver portion
was assigned to GAIU's jurisdiction. Only the op-
eration of the scanner portion of the EOCOM ma-
chine is in dispute in this proceeding.
Prior to the installation of the EOCOM machine,
composing room employees represented by CTU
pasted a copy of each full newspaper page on a
copy board (pasteup). The composing department
employees then physically transported the pasteup
to the photoengraving department where employ-
ees represented by GAIU photographed the pas-
teup and produced negatives from which printing
plates were eventaully made.
Under the EOCOM system, the pasteup is man-
ually inserted into a drawer of the scanner portion
of the EOCOM machine. The scanner component,
by means of a laser, scans or "reads" the pasteup.
The scanner component then sends a laser image of
the pasteup by cable, microwave, or other elec-
tronic means, to the receiver or writer component
of the EOCOM system. The receiver accepts the
laser transmission and produces a negative image of
the full newspaper page. The EOCOM system ulti-
mately converts the negative to a photosensitized
' The parties agreed that the facts establishing jurisdiction, as reported
in 7he Washington Post Comnpany, 237 NLRB 1493 (1978), were accurate.
COLUMBIA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 101 173
pressplate which becomes the printing plate for the
newspaper. 3
The EOCOM system can be installed as a single
machine, in which both scanning and receiving/
production-of-negative functions are contained.
The Employer, however, has located the two com-
ponents of the EOCOM system in different depart-
ments on the same floor of its Washington, D.C.,
building, with the scanner in the composing room
under CTU jurisdiction and the receiver in the
photoengraving department under GAIU jurisdic-
tion. The two components are connected by cable.
The Employer is presently building a new printing
plant in Springfield, Virginia; the EOCOM system
will eventually have another receiver component
located at this Virginia plant, which will receive
laser impulses by microwave from the scanner
component located in the Washington, D.C., com-
posing room. The Virginia plant is not to be oper-
ational until September 1980. In addition, only cer-
tain parts of the daily newspaper published by the
Employer are, at this time, produced via the
EOCOM system. The Employer still uses the tradi-
tional process of photographing a pasteup page
(work done by GAIU-represented employees) for
much of its daily production. Further, as all the
"bugs" have not been eliminated from the
EOCOM, traditional photographing is still done
when the EOCOM malfunctions.
The Employer and GAIU negotiated their most
recent collective-bargaining agreement in 1979, just
before the EOCOM system was installed. Law-
rence Wallace, the Employer's vice president of
labor relations, explained the anticipated split as-
signment of the two parts of the EOCOM system
to GAIU negotiators on at least two occasions
prior to the execution of the contract. The GAIU
contract specifically refers to the EOCOM scanner
or reader. Tony Gonzales, assistant to the president
of GAIU and a GAIU negotiator, conceded at the
hearing that he understood that the scanner portion
of the EOCOM was to be assigned to employees
represented by CTU and that specific reason exist-
ed for excluding scanners or readers from the con-
tract. However, the GAIU negotiators testified that
they did not fully understand the nature of the split
assignment or the entire EOCOM process prior to
its installation. The CTU collective-bargaining
agreement was negotiated in 1974, before the Em-
ployer anticipated purchasing the EOCOM system
and, therefore, makes no reference to it.
Following the installation of the EOCOM system
and briefings by the Employer's technical staff,
3 At present, the Employer's EOCOM system only produces a nega-
tive. The Employer intends to install electronic platemaking equipment in
the near future.
GAIU steward Burton concluded that the
EOCOM scanner was more akin to traditional
GAIU work. After meetings between GAIU and
Employer representatives, GAIU grieved the Em-
ployer's assignment of the scanner portion of the
EOCOM to employees other than those represent-
ed by GAIU. The grievance worked its way
through the Employer-GAIU grievance procedure,
and at one point the Employer proposed to both
GAIU and CTU that a tripartite arbitration be con-
ducted to resolve the assignment of the EOCOM
scanner work. CTU, however, refused to partici-
pate in tripartite arbitration, and subsequently the
Employer refused to engage in bilateral arbitration
of the dispute. On April 11, 1980, GAIU initiated a
Section 301 suit in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia to compel bilateral ar-
bitration of the EOCOM scanner assignment under
the terms of GAIU's collective-bargaining agree-
ment. 4 No provision exists in either CTU's or
GAIU's collective-bargaining agreement for tripar-
tite arbitration of disputes.
CTU, by letter of April 14, 1980, from its Presi-
dent William Boarman to Employer Vice President
Larry Wallace, informed the Employer that if any
action was taken by the Employer to remove the
EOCOM scanner work from CTU's jurisdiction,
CTU would take concerted action in response. The
Employer thereafter filed the charge in this pro-
ceeding. No strike activity or work stoppage has
occurred, and the parties have continued to operate
the EOCOM system consistent with the Employ-
er's original split assignment of the work; i.e., scan-
ner to CTU-represented employees, receiver to
GAIU-represented employees.
B. The Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated that the work in dispute
involves the operation of the scanner (also known
as the reader or sender) portion of he EOCOM
system.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and CTU contend that the assign-
ment of the scanner portion of the EOCOM system
to CTU's jurisdiction is the most fair and efficient
method of distributing the work. Both the Employ-
er and CTU contend that the assignment is sup-
ported on the basis of applicable contract clauses,
bargaining history, relative skills, economy and ef-
ficiency, job impact, and Board precedent. The
Employer and CTU argue that the EOCOM scan-
4 he Employer moved to dismiss the Sec. 301 suit on the grounds
that the instant 10(k) proceeding in effect preempted the lawsuit As of
the date of the l(k) hearing, GAI! had not filed a reply to the Employ-
er's motion to dismiss
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ner is a substitute for the physical transmission of
the pasteup page to the photoengraving depart-
ment-a task traditionally performed by employees
represented by CTU.
GAIU claims that its members are entitled to
perform the disputed work, citing its collective-bar-
gaining agreement, company and industry practice
and the relative skills involved. GAIU argues that
the EOCOM system is merely a method of nega-
tive production employed in place of the camera-
a task which has always been assigned to employ-
ees represented by GAIU. GAIU has moved to
quash the notice of hearing in the present case,
claiming that there is no evidence of 8(b)(4)(D) ac-
tivity.
D. Applicability 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 the parties have not agreed upon
a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute. 5
Lawrence Wallace testified that CTU President
Boarman informed him over the telephone on or
about March 25, 1980, that CTU was not interested
in tripartite arbitration and that the reassignment of
the scanner's operation to GAIU would make CTU
"damn upset" and that they "were not going to
stand for that." Boarman advised Wallace by letter
dated April 14, 1980, that "[i]f the Post should
make a reassignment, Columbia Typographical
Union will be forced to take concerted action
against your company." GAIU contends that the
letter sent to the Employer by CTU is insufficient
to establish that the Employer was threatened or
coerced by CTU. GAIU relies on the fact that at
no time did CTU actually engage in any illegal ac-
tivity or specifically threaten to picket or strike.
The term "concerted action," as used in labor
parlance, can reasonably be interpreted to mean a
strike, slowdown, or other economic action. More-
over, CTU's post-hearing brief makes it clear that
CTU meant to employ economic sanctions, includ-
ing a strike, to prevent a reassignment of the dis-
puted work. 6 The fact that no strike or other job
action actually occurred does not preclude a find-
ing that the Employer considered itself threatened
s The parties stipulated that there was no method for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.
We note it is irrelevant that the party making the threat is the one
presently doing the disputed work. Iniernaional Union of Operating Engi-
neers, Local 542. AFL-CIO (CJ Longenfilder and Son. Inc.), 241 NLRB
562 (1979); Hod Carriers' Union Local No. 116, Laborers International
Union of North America. AFL-CIO (E. d S. Masonry. Inc.), 187 NLRB
482, 483 (1970).
with serious economic harm unless it acquiesced in
the Union's demands. Carpenters District Council of
Denver and Vicinity (Godwin Bevers Co., Inc.), 205
NLRB 155, 157 (1973). Accordingly, in view of
the conduct described above, we find reasonable
cause to believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violat-
ed and that this dispute is properly before the
Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
after giving due consideration to relevant factors.7
The Board has held that its determination in a ju-
risdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on
commonsense and experience reached by balancing
those factors involved in a particular case.8
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
1. Collective-bargaining agreements and
certifications
There are no orders or certifications of the
Board awarding jurisdiction of the work in dispute
to members of either of the Unions involved in the
present proceeding.
Both CTU and GAIU have collective-bargaining
agreements with the Employer. CTU's contract
was negotiated in 1974, before the Employer made
plans to purchase the EOCOM and, thus, contains
no reference to that system. In addition, the CTU
contract has no provision similar to section 57 of
the GAIU contract which covers the introduction
of new equipment. Section 7-a of CTU's contract
does provide:
Jurisdiction of the Union and the appropriate
unit for collective bargaining is defined as in-
cluding all composing room work and includes
classifications such as: . . . proofreading and/
or scanner devices ....
Although the EOCOM reader is a type of "scan-
ning device," it was not within the family of ma-
chines traditionally associated with composing
room work in 1974, nor was its purchase by the
Employer contemplated by the parties in negotiat-
ing CTU's collective-bargaining agreement.
The GAIU contract was negotiated in 1979 and
contains specific references to the EOCOM system.
The GAIU contract provides in pertinent part:
7 L.R.B. ;. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union. Local
122, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. .4AFL-CIO [Colum-
bia Broadcasting System]. 364 U.S 573 (1961)
International Association of Machinist. Lodge No. 1743. AFL-CIO (J.
A. Jones Consiruction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
COLUMBIA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 101 175
JURISDICTION
SECTION 9. The jurisdiction of the Union is
. . . all parts of the process pertaining to the
production of photoengraving . . . from the
copy up to the finished product.... Oper-
ation of the EOCOM platemaking or writ-
ing (production of a negative) equipment
shall be assigned to employees covered by
this contract ....
NEW MACHINES OR PROCESSES
SECTION 57 Should the publisher introduce
any new process, machinery, or equipment
which functions as a substitute for or evolu-
tion of the process of photoengraving de-
scribed in paragraph 9, for engraving de-
partment work, the Publisher will grant the
Union jurisdiction over such process, ma-
chinery, or equipment . . . . The Publisher,
having announced its intention to install
EOCOM writing (production of a negative)
and platemaking equipment in the Post main
plant and EOCOM platemaking equipment
in the Springfield, Virginia, satellite plant,
has assigned the operation of this equipment
to employees covered by this agreement
These provisions grant GAIU jurisdiction over
the writing and platemaking portions of the
EOCOM, but omit any reference to the scanner or
reader portions of the EOCOM. As the contract
language appears to be carefully restricted to the
EOCOM "writer" or "platemaking equipment" in
every place where the EOCOM is discussed, we
find that GAIU's collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer appears to limit GAIU's juris-
diction to operating only the receiver or writer
portion of the EOCOM. 9
It is our opinion that neither the CTU nor the
GAIU contract clearly defines or delineates the
disputed work. Accordingly, we find that this
factor favors neither party.
2. Industry practice
The parties cite two examples of relevant indus-
try practice. The parties stipulated that the Minne-
apolis Star has EOCOM equipment of the type in-
stalled at the Employer's facility. However, both
scanner and receiver are in one piece and the em-
9 We also note that the canner prtion of the Emploer's ()C()CO
system does not necessarily function as a substitule fr a pholoenigras ing
procedure. It appears that the scanner or reader unit is essentially a 'e:hl-
cle for transmitting cops to the phloengralving department here the
photoengraving process then begin,
ployer has assigned all work associated with it to
the photoengraving bargaining unit. The EOCOM
system at the Minneapolis Star is located in one
plant and no transmissions outside the plant are
made by the EOCOM scanner. The EOCOM
system used by the Minneapolis Star does not pro-
duce negatives but, instead, goes directly from pas-
teup copy to lithographic plates. GAIU cites the
assignment at the Minneapolis Star as evidence of
current industry practice.
The Employer relies on the Board's endorsement
of a split assignment of LogEscan work to mem-
bers of both the photoengraver and typographer
bargaining units at the New York Times. 10 There
the employer installed the Logescan facsimile ma-
chine which is very similar to the EOCOM and a
major competitor thereof. The employer placed the
LogEscan scanner in its composing room and as-
signed the work of operating it to typographers.
The employer placed LogEscan receivers in the
platemaking departments and assigned jurisdiction
over the receivers to photoengravers. The Board
determined that typographers (the composing room
bargaining unit) were entitled to operate the
LogEscan scanner based on employer preference
and economy and efficiency of operations.
While the split assignment at The New York
Times is very similar to the instant case, the prac-
tice of any one newspaper publisher does not deter-
mine the practice or custom of an entire industry.
The facsimile machines in question appear to have
been introduced too recently for any clear pattern
to emerge. We find this factor is of little help in
this proceeding.
3. Relative skills
The EOCOM scanner is a fully automated proc-
ess which requires very little skill to operate. The
pasteup is simply inserted into a drawer of the
scanner, a button is pushed, and the machine elec-
tronically transmits a laser image of the pasteup to
the receiver portion. All adjustments on the scan-
ner are preset. Maintenance and repairs are per-
formed by special machinists. No specific compos-
ing or photoengraving skills are necessary to oper-
ate the scanner. Since both groups possess the req-
uisite skills, this factor favors neither party.
4. Economy and efficiency of operation
It is undisputed that if the EOCOM scanner is
assigned to GAIU, additional GAIU employees
would have to be hired to operate it. It is also un-
- .%\' Yor4 l'poruapJiua 'niol .¥ 6 aUJ/uai'd wIth Interatillou l -
pographil ( 'tion .1-I . ('10 I ( l h .%v. Y'ork iei ('ompani). 242 NlRHB
54 (1974)
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disputed that the Employer has a surplus of CTU
employees with guaranteed lifetime jobs who have
been displaced by the Employer's conversion to
coldtype. The Employer has simply reassigned
presently employed CTU employees to the
EOCOM scanner.
Furthermore, it appears that the EOCOM scan-
ner does not require constant manning. When the
scanner is not in use, CTU employees can return to
pasteup duties in the composing room whereas
GAIU employees would have to remain idle or
withdraw to the photengraving department to reas-
sume photengraving duties. The present assignment
of the disputed work to employees represented by
CTU permits the Employer to maintain an integrat-
ed sequence of operations within the composing
room.
In addition, the Employer emphasizes the need
to concentrate page control and administration in
the composing room. The employees operating the
EOCOM scanner in the Washington, D.C., com-
posing room will eventually be connected by head-
phone sets to employees operating the EOCOM re-
ceivers in the photoengraving or platemaking de-
partments in the Washington, D.C., and Spring-
field, Virginia, plants. If the receiver operator de-
tects a defect in the negative, he will relay that in-
formation back to the scanner operator. The comrn-.
posing room will then check to see if the pasteup is
the source of the problem and, if so, quickly make
corrections, in many instances without ever having
to let the pasteup leave the composing room. Thus,
the Employer anticipates enhanced pasteup ac-
countability, faster reaction time in the event of
"makeovers" or "markups," and faster processing
of the pasteups to the presses. In this regard, the
Employer asserts that the composing room has
always had page control responsibilities even prior
to the EOCOM process. We find that this factor
favors an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by CTU.
5. Employer assignment and preference
The Employer has assigned the work in dispute
to its employees represented by CTU and prefers
that assignment. This factor favors an award of the
work to those employees.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full con-
sideration of all relevant factors, we conclude that
employees who are represented by CTU are enti-
tled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying on the Employer's assignment
and preference and economy and efficiency of op-
eration. In making this determination, we are
awarding the work in question to employees who
are represented by Columbia Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, but not to that Union or its members.
The present determination is limited to the particu-
lar controversy 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
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees employed by the Washington Post
Company, who are represented by Columbia Typo-
graphical Union No. 101, affiliated with Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, are enti-
tled to perform the operation of the EOCOM scan-
ner component located in the composing room of
the Employer's facility in Washington, D.C.