Graphic Communications Local 160-M (Lancaster Press)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1991

303 N.L.R.B. 961 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

961
303 NLRB No. 145
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 160-M
Graphic Communications International Union,
Local 160-M and Lancaster Press, Inc. and
Lancaster Typographical Union No. 70, Print-
ing, Publishing and Media Workers Sector,
Communications Workers of America, AFL–
CIO. Case 4–CD–796
July 31, 1991
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
The charge and amended charge in this Section
10(k) proceeding were filed October 31, 1990, and
January 3, 1991, respectively, by the Employer, alleg-
ing that the Respondent, Graphic Communications
International Union, Local 160-M (GCIU), violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act
by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of
forcing the Employer to assign certain work to em-
ployees it represents rather than to employees rep-
resented by Lancaster Typographical Union No. 70,
Printing, Publishing and Media Workers Sector, Com-
munications Workers of America, AFL–CIO (CWA).
The hearing was held February 6, 1991, before Hear-
ing Officer Carolyn Shaw. Thereafter, the Employer
and CWA filed briefs in support of their positions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire
record, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The Company is a Delaware corporation with an of-
fice and place of business in Lancaster, Pennsylvania,
where it is engaged in the printing of medical and sci-
entific publications. It annually derives gross revenues
in excess of $1 million and purchases and receives
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points located outside the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. The parties stipulate, and we find,
that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that
GCIU and CWA are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer is engaged in the printing of sci-
entific, medical and technical short-run journals. It also
makes reprints of articles that appear in those journals.
Both GCIU and CWA-represented employees perform
work in the Employer’s offset preparatory department.
There are approximately 52 employees in the CWA
bargaining unit, and approximately 70 employees in
the GCIU bargaining unit. As specified in its contract
with the Employer, GCIU-reprsented employees have
exclusive jurisdiction over platemaking and are respon-
sible for exposing and developing plates by using two
pieces of equipment called the vacuum frame and plate
processor. A plate is used to reproduce an image. The
contract between the Employer and CWA provides that
CWA-represented employees shall have exclusive ju-
risdiction over the opti-copy imposer camera and plate
processors which are used to expose film.
Paul Kroekel, the Employer’s vice president of man-
ufacturing services, testified that prior to September
1990, all plates produced at the Employer’s facility
were aluminum plates. In September 1990, the Em-
ployer purchased a new Ryobi press for printing re-
prints, a plate processor for making onyx plates for
that press, and a bored collator to do the postpress part
of the operation. An onyx plate is made of polyester
material. It is put on a press to reproduce a printing
image, the same way that aluminum plates are used on
the press. The onyx plate requires the use of only two
steps in the production process compared to the four
steps required in producing the traditional metal plates.
The use of onyx plates eliminates the need to use film
and the required steps of exposing and developing the
film. The new equipment was set up in the reprint de-
partment on the third floor.
Kroekel also testified that CWA-represented em-
ployees operate the opti-copy machine where camera
copy is used and exposed directly to the onyx plate on
the fourth floor. Thereafter, the onyx plate is devel-
oped by passing it through the new disputed plate
processor operated by GCIU-represented employees on
the third floor. GCIU-represented employees also
punch the onyx plates just as they have always
punched the metal plates. The onyx plate goes directly
from the plate processor to be put on the plates for
printing in the pressroom by the presses which are op-
erated by employees represented by GCIU. The press-
room is located next to the reprint department. The
film processor used by CWA-represented employees
on the fourth floor is used exclusively to develop film,
whereas the film processor operated by GCIU-rep-
resented employees on the third floor does not use film
and is used exclusively to develop onyx plates.
According to Kroekel’s testimony, the Employer de-
cided to use the onyx plate to print reprints rather than
continue to use the metal plates to shorten the time re-
quired to produce reprints because its customers want-
ed faster delivery. It takes approximately 3-1/2 minutes
per page to produce a metal plate, and approximately
2 minutes to produce an onyx plate page. CWA-rep-
resented employees operate the five other processors
on the fourth floor because they all process film,
962 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 That grievance is now pending the outcome of the present 10(k) pro-
ceeding.
which is under the jurisdiction of CWA. Kroekel stated
that employees represented by GCIU as well as CWA
have the required skills and they can be trained to op-
erate the plate processor.
Employees represented by CWA were assigned to
the new, disputed processor before it became oper-
ational. Thereafter, GCIU-represented employees fin-
ished the setting up, and did all the experimentation
and the actual running of the new plate processor. On
September 26, 1990, CWA filed a grievance with the
American Arbitration Association claiming jurisdiction
over the new plate processor.1 Thereafter, on October
25, Kroekel received a letter from GCIU President
Shinn stating that he understood that there was a juris-
dictional dispute between CWA and GCIU concerning
the operation of the new plate processor. Shinn indi-
cated that GCIU had jurisdiction over the onyx plates
and stated that ‘‘severe repercussions’’ would follow if
another union were given jurisdiction over the equip-
ment. Following the receipt of Shinn’s letter, Kroekel
called GCIU Vice President Meier into his office and
told him he had received Shinn’s letter concerning ju-
risdiction over the onyx plates. According to Kroekel,
Meier indicated that the Union was concerned about
the possibility of losing jurisdiction over the proc-
essing of onyx plates, and that it felt that work was
within its jurisdiction. Meier further stated that if the
Union were to lose jurisdiction, it would refuse to han-
dle or print with the onyx plates.
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is defined by the Employer and
GCIU as developing onyx plates using a plate proc-
essor for Lancaster Press, Inc., at the Prince and
Lemon Streets, Lancaster, Pennsylvania facility.
CWA defines the disputed work as developing onyx
plates using a processor on the third floor at the Em-
ployer’s facility.
C. Contentions of the Parties
CWA contends that there is no reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. It
further contends that GCIU never threatened a strike or
work stoppage and that GCIU’s warning of ‘‘severe re-
percussions’’ is vague and insubstantial and is a sham
to establish reasonable cause. Also, it argues that this
matter is improperly before the Board and should be
dismissed. In the alternative, CWA contends that if
reasonable cause exists, the work should be assigned
to employees it represents.
The Employer contends that there is reasonable
cause to believe the GCIU violated Section 8(b)(4)(D)
and that the proceeding is properly before the Board
for determination of the dispute, notwithstanding that
the union which made the threat was the union per-
forming the disputed work. Additionally, the Employer
contends that the work in dispute should be awarded
to employees represented by GCIU on the basis of ef-
ficient operation of the Employer’s business, GCIU’s
contract, and the Employer’s assignment and prior
practice.
GCIU did not file a brief.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be
satisfied there is reasonable cause to believe that Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that the parties
have not agreed on a method for the voluntary adjust-
ment of the dispute.
As set forth above, GCIU President Shinn wrote a
letter to Vice President of Manufacturing Kroekel
claiming jurisdiction over the onyx plates and stating
that ‘‘severe repercussions would be taken’’ if another
union were given jurisdiction over the equipment. Fol-
lowing receipt of Shinn’s letter, GCIU Vice President
Meier told Kroekel that if the Union were to lose juris-
diction over the processing the onyx plates, it would
refuse to handle or print with those plates.
We find that the foregoing facts establish reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
has occurred and, as there is no claim of an agreed
method of voluntary adjustment, we find that the dis-
pute is properly before the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirm-
ative award of disputed work after considering various
factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212
(Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The
Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional
dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense
and experience, reached by balancing the factors in-
volved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743
(J. A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of the dispute.
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
The parties stipulated that there is no Board order
covering the disputed work or Board certification de-
termining the bargaining representative of the Employ-
er’s employees.
The Employer is a party to current contracts with
both GCIU and CWA. Both contracts have identical
attachments setting forth a December 13, 1974 agree-
ment between GCIU and CWA granting CWA exclu-
sive jurisdiction over all preparatory work before im-
position, including art work, paste makeup, reproduc-
963GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 160-M
2 In its brief, CWA contends that the operation of the new processor in-
volves film developing, rather than platemaking, and that it may reasonably
be concluded that the work in dispute is an extension of the opti-copy imposer
camera. As noted above, however, at the hearing CWA defined the work in
dispute as developing onyx plates using a processor.
tion proofs, camera work, contacting work, and opaqu-
ing negatives. GCIU received exclusive jurisdiction
over the presses and platemaking. All imposition work
is to be performed jointly by members of either Union.
Any additional opaquing necessary during imposition
or just prior to platemaking is to be performed jointly
by members of either Union. The agreement was
amended June 17, 1983, giving exclusive jurisdiction
over the opti-copy imposer camera to CWA.
The attachments to both the GCIU contract and the
CWA contract grant exclusive jurisdiction over the
presses and platemaking, as well as all work in con-
nection with offset platemaking, to GCIU. Addition-
ally, Company Vice President Kroekel testified that the
new processor makes onyx plates for the Ryobi press
which prints reprints. The onyx plate is used in the
same way that aluminum plates are used on the press.
Prior to September 1990, all plates produced at Lan-
caster Press were aluminum plates. Kroekel also testi-
fied that the onyx plate is a direct image plate, that the
film processor used by CWA-represented employees
on the fourth floor is used exclusively to develop film,
but that there is no film involved in the processor on
the third floor, which is operated by employees rep-
resented by GCIU and is used exclusively to develop
onyx plates.2 We conclude that the factor of collective-
bargaining agreements favors an award of the disputed
work to employees represented by the GCIU.
2. Company preference and past practice
Vice President Kroekel testified that when the dis-
puted automatic processing machine was purchased in
September 1990, CWA-represented employees were
assigned to ‘‘debug’’ the machine. This occurred for a
period not in excess of 4 or 5 days, until the Employer
assigned the disputed work to employees represented
by GCIU. Kroekel testified that the initial assignment
to CWA-represented employees was a mistake, a result
of a miscommunication. Employees represented by
GCIU finished setting up the machine and did all the
experimentation and the actual running of the new
plate processor. Although the onyx plate is made of
polyester fiber, the Employer has traditionally assigned
all platemaking, whether made from metal, plastic, or
paper, to employees represented by GCIU. Finally, the
Employer prefers to have employees represented by
GCIU perform the disputed work. Thus, the factors of
company preference and past practice favor award of
the disputed work to employees represented by GCIU.
3. Relative skills
There is no evidence in the record, or contention by
the parties, that the employees represented by either
Union are deficient in the skills required to perform
the work in dispute. Because employees represented by
either Union are qualified to perform the work in dis-
pute, this factor favors neither group of employees.
4. Economy and efficiency of operation
The disputed processor which produces onyx plates
is located on the third floor of the Employer’s facility,
the same floor where GCIU has traditionally had juris-
diction over the processing of press plates. The onyx
plate can be used to reproduce reprints more rapidly
than metal plates in order to meet customer require-
ments. The new processor was placed in the newly
created reprint department, which is located next to the
press department. The first step in producing the onyx
plate is exposure of the plate on the opti-copy machine
located on the fourth floor. Employees represented by
GCIU take the plate exposed by CWA-represented em-
ployees down to be developed on the disputed plate
processor in the reprint department on the third floor.
Employees represented by GCIU also punch holes in
the onyx plates as they have always punched the metal
plates. The onyx plate goes directly from the plate
processor to be put on the plates for printing in the
nearby pressroom by the presses which are operated by
GCIU-represented employees.
In these circumstances, including the convenience
and smoothness of work flow of having GCIU-rep-
resented employees continue to develop the onyx plate
on the plate processor located near the presses which
they also operate, and the efficiency of assigning all
platemaking, whether of metal, paper, or polyester, to
the same group, we find that the factor of economy
and efficiency of operation favors an award of the dis-
puted work to employees represented by GCIU.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we con-
clude that employees represented by GCIU are entitled
to perform the disputed work. We reach this conclu-
sion relying on the factors of collective-bargaining
agreements, employer preference and past practice, and
economy and efficiency of operations. In making this
determination, we are awarding the work to employees
represented by GCIU, not to that Union or its mem-
bers. The determination is limited to the controversy
that gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the fol-
lowing Determination of Dispute.
Employees of Lancaster Press, Inc., represented by
Graphics Communications International Union, Local
964 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
160-M, are entitled to perform the developing of onyx
plates using a plate processor for Lancaster Press, Inc.,
at the Prince and Lemon Streets, Lancaster, Pennsyl-
vania facility.