Newspaper Guild of N.Y. Local 3

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 4, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 234 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Newspaper Guild of New York Local 3, AFL-CIO,
CLC 1 and The New York Times Company. Case
2-CD-487
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
June 4, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section _10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following charges filed by The New York Times
Company, herein called the Times or the Employer,
alleging that the Newspaper Guild of New York
Local 3, AFL-CIO, , CLC, herein called the Guild,
has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D), of the Act by
engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object
of forcing or requiring the Times to assign certain
work to employees represented by the Guild rather
than to employees represented by New York Litho-
graphers and Photo-EngraversUnion No.1-P, Graph-
ic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO,2 herein
called Photo-Engravers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Haywood E. Banks on February 24,
1975, at New York, New York. 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. No
briefs were filed by any of the parties.
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 proceeding and hereby makes the following
findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The New York Times Company is engaged in the
publication of a daily and Sunday newspaper in New
York City, New York, which is circulated throughout
the State of New York and other States, and in
foreign countries. The Times subscribes to interstate
wire services, including the Associated Press and the
United Press International, and does an annual gross
volume of business in excess of $1 million. Accord-
ingly, we find, as the parties have stipulated, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Guild
and the Photo-Engravers are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute consists of the photostat print
work at The New York Times Company.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Photo-Engravers and the Guild have repre-
sented separate units of certain Times employees for
many years. Among the employees traditionally
represented by the Guild are those in the advertising
production department, in which all photostat print
work has been performed for more than 20- years.
In December 1973, a new piece of equipment,
characterized at the hearing as a POS-1 machine,
was purchased by the Times and installed in the
advertising production department to be used for
making photostatic prints. This work had previously
been performed by use of a Haloid wet process
machine until 1971 and subsequently by an Econo-
stat machine until the POS-1 was purchased. Both
the Haloid and Econostat machines were operated
by employees, classified as advertising production
desk men, who were represented by the Guild. None
of the photostat print machines has ever been used
for photoengraving at the Times.
When the POS-1 was installed, the Employer
assigned the photostat print work to employees
represented by the Guild. Thereafter, in July or
August 1974, the Photo-Engravers demanded that
the work be assigned to employees represented by it
and requested that the matter be resolved by
arbitration proceedings. In December 1974, repre-
sentatives of the Employer met with the secretary-
treasurer of the Guild, who stated that, if the
disputed work were reassigned to employees repre-
sented by the Photo-Engravers, the Guild "would
take job action and possibly strike activity to protect
[the Guild's ] jurisdiction."
On December 12, 1974, the Times filed the instant
charge, alleging that the Guild had "threatened,
restrained and coerced" the Employer, thereby
violating Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.
' The name of the Charged Party appears as corrected at the hearing. 2 The name of the Intervenor appears as amended at the hearing.
218 NLRB No. 42
NEWSPAPER GUILD OF N.Y. LOCAL 3 235
C. Contentions of the Parties
After the Employer's witnesses had testified,
counsel for the Photo-Engravers stated that it did not
appear that the Employer was using the POS-1
equipment to perform any work other than that
traditionally performed by employees represented by
the Guild and that the Photo-Engravers therefore
disclaimed jurisdiction over the disputed work.
Asserting that no jurisdictional dispute existed, the
Photo-Engravers did not present any evidence at the
hearing. The Guild also did not call any witnesses or
introduce any evidence.
Attorneys for the Employer and the Guild indicat-
ed that they were prepared to rest on the record.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act directs the Board to hear
and determine disputes on the basis of which charges
alleging violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D) have been
filed, and limits the Board's authority to situations in
which an employer's assignment of work is in
dispute. The Board has held that a jurisdictional
dispute no longer exists where, as here," one of the
competing unions or parties effectively renounces its
claim to the work.3
As the Photo-Engravers has disclaimed interest in
the disputed work, we find that there no longer exists
a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of the
Act. We shall therefore quash the notice of hearing
issued herein.
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.
3 Local 56, Amalgamated Food and Allied Workers Union , affiliated with Company), 198 NLRB 1245 ( 1972); Local 1905, Carpet, Linoleum & Soft Tile
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL- Layers (Southwestern Floor Co.), 143 NLRB 251 (1963). Cf. N.L R.B. v.
CIO (The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.), 207 NLRB 1065 Plasterers Local Union No. 79 [Texas State Tile ], 404 U.S . 116, 134 (1971).
(1973); Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 465 (Thorpe Insulation