New York Typographical Union No. 6

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 998 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New York Typographical Union No. 6, International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO and The New
York Times Company and Newspaper Guild of
New York, Local 3 , The Newspaper Guild, AFL-
CIO, CLC. Case 2-CD-1186
June 27, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by the New York Times Company,
hereinafter called the Employer, alleging that certain
conduct of New York Typographical Union No. 6,
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, here-
inafter called Local 6, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act. Specifically, the charges alleged that Local 6
had engaged in and was engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
requiring the Employer to assign certain work to
employees represented by Local 6 rather than to
employees represented by Newspaper Guild of New
York, Local 3, The Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO,
CLC, hereinafter called the Guild.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February
11, 1975, at New York, New York, before Hearing
Officer Mary W. Taylor. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to present evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter,
briefs were submitted by the Employer, the Guild,
and Local 6.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record
in this case and hereby makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, whose principal place of business is
in New York, New York, is engaged in publishing a
daily and Sunday newspaper. Its annual revenues are
in excess of $1,000,000. The parties stipulated that
the Employer holds membership in interstate news
services, Associated Press, and United Press Interna-
tional; that it advertises nationally sold products;
and that it is delivered directly to subscribers and
218 NLRB No. 162
distributors located in States other than New York.
We find, as the parties stipulated , 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.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Guild
and Local 6 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background
The Guild and Local 6 have for many years
represented separate units of the Employer's employ-
ees. Both Unions have current collective-bargaining
agreements with the Employer.
The present dispute stems from the Employer's
decision in 1974 to automate its typesetting proce-
dures by utilizing an optical character recognition
device (OCR) commonly known as the scanner. The
Employer, through its attorney, explained that for
several years prior to 1974 Local 6 and the Employer
bargained about the introduction of automated
procedures in the Employer's composing room. In
1974 the parties executed a collective-bargaining
agreement wherein Local 6 agreed to the introduc-
tion of automation in the Employer's composing
room and the Employer agreed to guarantee lifetime
employment to Local 6 employees.
In its present form, the scanner is an electronic
input device that optically recognizes computer-
coded copy and transmits the information to a
computer which produces a perforated tape. The
tape, in turn, is used to automatically operate
linecasting machines. The Employer utilizes the
scanner system to perform two functions: (1) to run
automated credit checks on advertisers, and (2) to
automatically operate linecasting machines.
When the Employer first began to use the scanner
system experimentally in 1972, it was installed and
used exclusively in the advertising department for the
limited purpose of running automated credit checks
on advertisers of classified ads. By letter dated
November 3, 1972, the Employer assigned to the
Guild the "operations connected with the business
end of the [scanner] system .... " However,
because the Employer had plans to use the scanners
to perform other functions in the future, its letter
stressed that,
.. we wish to make perfectly clear that the
present assignments are not of a permanent
NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6 999
nature as they relate to the Guild's jurisdictional
claims. We reserve the right as the system is
further developed and implemented and other
forms of technology become available to make
such further assignments or reassignments as may
be necessary to preserve historical union jurisdic-
tional claims and in accordance with principles of
economy and efficiency.
By letter dated December 18, 1972, the Guild
accepted the Employer's assignment of the work, but
expressed reservations about the probable reassign-
ment of the scanner work to employees represented
by another union.
During the early stages of the scanner system, the
credit checking functions, performed by some three
or four Guild employees, entailed typing classified
ads and other pertinent information about the
advertiser in a specially coded form. The typed
material was then fed to the scanners which, in turn,
transmitted the information to a computer contain-
ing credit information. If the computer detected a
bad credit risk, it issued a credit reject, which was
sent to the second floor credit checking department
for further investigation by Guild employees. Once
the advertiser's credit was verified and approved, the
text of the advertisement was sent to the composing
room, where employees represented by Local 6
prepared it for printing.
During the following 2 years, in addition to the
printouts of credit rejects, the system was pro-
grammed to produce "batch listings" of all advertis-
ing copy put through the' scanners, which identified
editorial as well as coding errors, and to produce a
clean printout of the copy, together with billing
information. In order to handle the increase in the
system's productivity, the Employer hired some 15
temporary employees, all under the Guild's jurisdic-
tion. (Prior to the introduction of the scanners the
credit checking functions were performed manually
by Guild personnel.)
When the classified ad or editorial copy reached
the composing room, it was set in type by employees
represented by Local 6. Prior to 1974-indeed since
at least 1885 -the composing room employees would
sit at the keyboard of a linotype machine and
manually retype the text of the editorial or advertise-
ment copy in order to produce lines of lead type that
were then put in galley form. In the course of
1 During the late 1940 's or early 1950's the Employer began to use
teletypesetting machines (also known as TTS Typesetters) to typeset
editorial copy . The TTS Typesetter is a keyboard which produces a
perforated tape used to drive the linecasting machines. While the use of the
TI'S Typesetter substantially increased the productivity of the linecasting
machines, it still involved the retyping of editorial copy on the TTS
keyboard, ajob that has been eliminated by the scanner system.
2 In this respect, it is noted that , when the scanner system was being
performing this work, the employees would make
decisions regarding line and paragraph endings,
hyphenations, and the like.'
As discussed supra, in July 1974 a contract was
executed in which Local 6 agreed to the Employer's
introduction of automated procedures in the com-
posing room specifically identifying the scanners as
part of such procedures. Shortly thereafter, the
Employer transferred the scanners from the advertis-
ing department to the teletypesetting department and
began using them to perform the typesetting func-
tions as explained below. At the same time, the
Employer assigned the work of feeding the copy to
the scanners and retrieving the perforated tape to
employees represented by Local 6.2
Under the newly developed procedures, typesetting
functions are carried out essentially as follows: Guild
employees continue to code the copy by typing the
text of the classified ad, the credit information, and
other pertinent data, such as the desired ad format,
type size, and the like; to feed the computer's
memory bank with the necessary credit information;
and to manually review the credit rejects issued by
the system. However, employees represented by
Local 6 are now responsible for feeding the copy to
the scanner and for removing the perforated tape
which is then used to automate the typesetting
procedures. Thus, the scanner system has effectively
replaced the work formerly performed by Local 6
linotype and/or TTS Typesetter operators-namely,
the work of retyping the text of the ad or the editorial
copy at the keyboard of those machines.
By letter to the Employer dated November 12,
1974, the Guild demanded arbitration of the Em-
ployer's assignment to Local 6 of work "related to
the use of the scanner." On November 15, 1974, the
Employer informed Local 6 of the Guild's demand.
By letter to the Employer dated November 18, 1974,
Local 6 refused to take part in such arbitration,
asserted that the disputed work had been properly
assigned to it, and expressed its readiness to strike in
order to protect its jurisdiction over the disputed
work.
B. The Work in Dispute
As described in the notice of hearing, the work in
dispute is "the assignment of scanner work and work
relating thereto at the New York Times Company."
operated by Guild employees it did not produce the perforated tape which is
used to operate the linecasters. Additionally , in the near future the scanner
will electronically transmit the credit reject sheets to computer printers
located in the Employer 's accounting department , while the information
formerly contained in the "batch listings" will be transmitted automatically
to video display terminals, where it will be viewed on screens. Thus, in the
immediate future, the Local 6 employees will no longer handle the various
printouts originally handled by Guild personnel.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Guild contends that the Board should not
exercise jurisdiction in this matter on the grounds
that (1) no reasonable cause exists to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated, and
(2) the dispute can be properly resolved through the
appropriate arbitration and grievance procedures
found in the Employer's collective-bargaining agree-
ments with both the Guild and Local 6. If the Board
asserts jurisdiction, however, the Guild contends that
the disputed work should be awarded to the
employees whom it represents on the basis of its
contract, the Employer's initial assignment of the
work, and the job duties related to the use of the
scanner system.
The Employer contends that Local 6's letter of
November 18 threatening a strike if the disputed
work is assigned to the Guild provides reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
has been violated and that a determination of dispute
under Section 10(k) of the Act is necessary. On the
merits , the Employer contends that its assignment of
the disputed work to employees represented by Local
6 should be upheld on the basis of factors normally
considered by the Board in making jurisdictional
awards.
Local 6 contends that the work in dispute should
be awarded to the employees it represents essentially
for the same reasons set forth by the Employer.
D. The Application of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that (1) there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been
violated, and (2) the parties have no agreed-upon
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As to (1), the record shows that, by letter dated
November 18, 1974, Local6 expressed a readiness to
strike in order to retain the Employer's work
assignment . We disagree with the Guild's assertion
that this letter was but a transparent attempt to
confer jurisdiction upon the Board. In our view, the
Employer reasonably interpreted Local 6's letter as
conveying a threat to strike if the Employer reas-
signed the, disputed work to employees represented
by the Guild. The fact that no strike actually took
place does not detract from the Employer's reason-
able apprehension that one could occur.3 According-
ly, we find reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated.
3 Carpenters District Council of Denver and Vicinity (Godwin Bevers Co.,
Inc.), 205 NLRB 155 (1973).
4 N. L. R. B. v. Plasterers ' Local Union Local No. 79, Operative Plasterers'
and Cement Masons' International Association , AFL-CIO [Texas State Tile
With respect to (2) above, the record disclosed that
there is no agreed-upon method binding on all of the
parties for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.4
As to the Guild's contention that the dispute should
be resolved by arbitration, we note that neither the
Employer's contract with the Guild nor with Local 6
provides for tripartite arbitration.5 Accordingly, we
find that the dispute is properly before the Board for
resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act.
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 various relevant factors,
including:
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
The record fails to show whether either labor
organization has been certified by the Board as
representative of the employees performing the
disputed work. The Employer, however, has current
collective-bargaining agreements with both Local 6
and the Guild. As discussed supra, Local 6's contract
with the Employer provides for the introduction of
automation in the Employer's composing room and
specifically identified the scanners as part of that
automation. In relevant part, the contract provides,
inter alia, that the jurisdiction of Local 6 covers all
composing room work, including:
... type-setting machine operators ... ma-
chinists for type-setting machines, operators and
machinists of all devices which cast or compose
type or slugs, film or sensitize material, operators
of tape perforating machines and recutter units,
compugraphic equipment, for use in composing
or producing type ... .
It is agreed that when the computer is performing
composing room work the Union's jurisdiction
includes the preparation of input and all handling
of output, operation of the computer and all input
and output devices ... .
* * * *
The operation and maintenance of Optical
Character Readers and related equipment when
used for composing room work wherever located
will be within the jurisdiction of the Union.
& Terrazzo Co., et all, 404 U.S. 116 (1971).
5 Nashua Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No. 359 (Telegraph
Publishing Company), 212 NLRB 942 (1974).
NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6 1001
The Guild's contract with the Employer, on the
other hand, contains a work preservation clause
which provides, in part,
... when a computer or such automated
processes . . . are performing Guild work, the
Guild's jurisdiction includes any employee, en-
gaged in the preparation of input and all handling
of output, operations of the computer and all
input and output devices, 'programming and
maintenance of all the foregoing equipment and
devices .. 6
The Guild agreement also lists OCR and copy clerk
as job classifications within its jurisdiction. The
Employer explained that those classifications were
put into the 1973-75 contract to cover the temporary
Guild employees hired in 1972 to handle the Guild
"business end of the [scanner] system."
The above contract provisions, as well as the
record as a whole, demonstrate that the' Employer
has sought to preserve worj jurisdictional lines in
accordance with the job functions traditionally
performed by the employees represented by the
respective Unions. It is clear from Local 6's contract
that the parties intended that, when used for
typesetting purposes, a function traditionally per-
formed by Local 6 employees, the scanners and
related equipment be operated by employees repre-
sented by that Union. The Guild's contract with the
Employer, on the other hand, contains no specific
language to support the Guild's contractual claim to
the work in dispute, except for the isolated reference
to OCR and copy clerk job classification which, in
our view, the Employer has aptly explained as
referring to the employees who were hired to perform
the business end of the scanners' operations. For
these reasons, we fmd that Local 6's collective-
bargaining agreement favors awarding the disputed
work to employees represented by Local 6.
2. The employer, area , and industry practice
The Employer has utilized the scanner system as
part of its automated typesetting procedures only
since mid-1974. Therefore, the Employer's past
practice with regard to the scanner system as g
typesetting device is rather limited. We note,'howev-
er, that the typesetting functions of the system
represent the kind of work traditionally performed
by employees represented by Local 6. Consequently;
6 The previous agreement between the Employer and the Guild, which
was in effect in 1972 at the time the Employer assigned to the Guild the
work related to the "business end of the system," contained an identical
clause.
7 According to Tartar, while the Employer has Guild personnel working
in the composing room , they perform no actual typesetting work and'are not
considered "printers."
albeit not determinative of the dispute herein, the
Employer's historical practice of assigning the
typesetting work favors an award of the work in
dispute to employees represented by Local 6.
As to area practice, Mr. Tarrer, the Employer's
production manager for prepress operations, testified
that the scanners' composing room operations at
both the New York Daily News and the New York
Post are handled by typographers. Indeed, Local 6
has contracts with those newspapers which are
identical in all relevant parts to its current contract
with the Employer. On the other hand, the Guild
presented no evidence of area practice to support its
claim to the disputed work. Therefore, the factor of
area practice supports the Employer's assignment of
the disputed work to employees represented by Local
6.
With regard to industry practice, Tarrer testified
that in several unnamed newspapers throughout the
country where he had visited and/or worked the
scanners were uniformly handled by "printers" in the
composing room. Tarrer explained that the term
"printers" in New York describes members of the
ITU, while in the rest of the country the term refers
to anyone who works in the composing room.
However, he did not know of any newspaper that
employed members of the Guild in their composing
room operations.? The Guild, on the other hand,
failed to produce any evidence of industry practice
which would support its claim here. We conclude,
therefore, that the industry- practice tends to favor
awarding the work to employees represented by
Local 6.8
3. Skills, efficiency, and economy
No special skills are required to feed the copy to
the scanners or to remove the perforated tape from
the computer. Accordingly, the factor of skill does
not favor the claim of either union.
Mr. Tarrer testified that the Employer's assign-
ment of the disputed work to employees represented
by Local 6 was based in great part on consideration
of efficiency and economy. The Employer has shown
that, by using the scanner system in its typesetting
procedures, it has drastically eliminated a consider-
able duplication of efforts-namely, the manual
retyping of ad or editorial copy on the linotype
and/or 'ITS Typesetter. The introduction of the
scanner system as an automated ' typesetting device
S In so doing, we find no substance in the Guild 's contention that the
scanner system's teletypesetting department location is not part of the
composing room, which is located on the fourth floor . Regardless of the
technical name given to the scanners ' location, it is clearly a site formerly
occupied by Local 6 personnel and the work performed therein is intimately
connected to functions historically performed at the Employer's plant by
employees represented by that Local.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has also added considerably to the productivity as
well as to the speed of the Employer 's composing
room operations.
Also, according to Tarrer, by assigning the disput-
ed work to employees represented by Local 6, the
Employer has been able to reduce the staff represent-
ed by that Union by more than 100 employees
through early retirement, etc. At the same time, the
Employer was able to transfer to other positions the
few permanent Guild employees who originally
handled the scanners ' credit checking operations and
to terminate some of the temporary employees whom
it had hired for that purpose . It is clear, then, that the
assignment of the disputed work to members of
Local 6 under its attrition agreement has resulted in a
considerable reduction of personnel and in a more
economical operation . On the other hand, the Guild
failed to show that an assignment of the work to
employees whom it represents would have produced
that result.
Accordingly, we find that the factors of economy
and efficiency favor awarding the work in dispute to
employees represented by Local 6.
4. The Employer's assignment
The Employer has assigned the disputed work to
the employees represented by Local 6 and is satisfied
with their performance of the assigned work. There-
fore, this factor militates in favor of an award to
employees represented by Local 6.
Conclusion
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after
full consideration of all relevant factors , we conclude
that the Employer's employees who are represented
by Local 6 are entitled to perform the work here in
dispute. We reach this conclusion on the basis of the
Employer's long-established practice of assigning
typesetting functions to employees represented by
Local 6, the collective-bargaining agreements, the
fact that our award is consistent with the area and
industry practice , and the efficiency and economy of
the operations . Accordingly, we shall determine the
dispute by awarding the work in dispute to the
Employer's employees represented by Local 6, but
not to any labor organization of which these
employees are members . Our present determination
is limited to the particular controversy which gave
rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 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 of the New York Times Company who
are represented by the New Typographical Union
No. 6, International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO, are entitled to perform the scanner work and
work relating thereto at the New York Times
Company.