Philadelphia Local No. 7-P

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 1085 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

PHILADELPHIA LOCAL NO. 7-P 1085
Philadelphia Local No. 7-P, Graphic Arts Internation-
atl Union and The Patriot-News Company and
Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union No. 107.
Case 4-CD-379
June 30, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
nationally sold products. Accordingly we find, as the
parties have 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 purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Stereotypers and the Photoengravers are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by The Patriot-News Company,
herein called the Employer or the Patriot-News,
alleging that Philadelphia Local No. 7-P, Graphic
Arts International Union, herein called Photoengrav-
ers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by
forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain
work to employees represented by the Photoengrav-
ers rather than to employees represented by Stereo-
typers and Electrotypers Union No. 107, herein
called Stereotypers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Joseph C. Kelly on March 5 and 21,
197.5, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. All parties ap-
peared 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 the Employer, Photoengrav-
ers, and Stereotypers 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
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
affrrmed.1 The Board has considered the briefs and
the entire record in this case and hereby makes the
following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Patriot-News Company is engaged at Harris-
burg, Pennsylvania, in the publication of two daily
newspapers and one Sunday newspaper. During
calendar year 1974 the Employer's gross volume of
business exceeded $200,000 and direct inflow exceed-
ed $50,000. The Employer subscribes to interstate
news services , including the Associated Press and
United Press International, and the newspapers
publish nationally syndicated features and advertise
x The Stereotypers motion made at the hearing to quash the notice of
hearing was referred by the Hearing Officer to the Board . We find, for the
218 NLRB No. 166
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute consists of the operation of the
NAPP photopolymer printing plate system at ' the
Employer's Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, printing plant.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Photoengravers and the Stereotypers have
traditionally represented, in separate units, certain of
the employees in the Employer's mechanical depart-
ments.
Prior to March 1975, the Employer utilized the
traditional hot-metal process in its printing opera-
tion. In this process, news and editorial material is
reproduced by means of metal slugs of type which
are arranged into lines and used to make impressions
on celluloid mats . Illustrative material is photo-
graphed and the resulting negative, after being
carefully inspected for proper quality, is placed on a
prepared zinc plate and exposed to a light source
which burns an image onto the plate. The plate is
then put into a nitric acid bath which etches away the
unexposed portions. After being inspected and
trimmed, this photoengraved plate is used instead of
the metal type to impress the mats. The mats, in turn,
receive an injection of hot metal from which a
semicylindrical lead plate is formed. This plate is
fastened to the press and used to do the actual
printing of a newspaper page.
Under this traditional process at the Employer's
plant, employees represented by the Photoengravers
prepared the negatives and etched and trimmed the
zinc plates, and employees represented by the
Stereotypers made the mats and cast the lead
pressplates.
In late 1974, the Employer decided to convert its
operation to the new NAPP direct printing process.
Under this new process, all copy is photographed,
and a negative is made in the same manner as
reasons discussed infrq that the motion is ,lacking in merit and it is,
therefore, denied.
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
illustrative material is handled when using the hot-
metal process . The negative, however, instead of
being used to burn an image onto a zinc plate, is
placed in an exposure unit in contact with a pre-
photosensitized photopolymer plate and exposed to
an ultraviolet light source. After the plate is exposed
and inspected, it is placed in a washout unit where
water etches away the unexposed portion. Next, the
plate is inserted into a heating unit where it is
hardened. This plate may then be curved to fit
directly' on the press and used for the printing of a
newspaper page, thereby eliminating the necessity for
mats and lead plates.
On March 18 and 19, 1975, the first equipment for
producing the NAPP photopolymer plate was in-
stalled at the Employer's plant. However, instead of
using the NAPP plates as a direct printing surface
from the outset, the Employer intended to use them
temporarily as pattern plates, from which stereotyp-
ers would make mats and cast lead plates to be
affixed to the presses . According to the uncontradict-
ed testimony of Richard Wehrle, the assistant to the
publisher of the Patriot-News, the conversion to
direct printing, i.e., use of the NAPP plates on the
press, was to be completed in May 1975. Wehrle
further testified that, when the conversion to the
NAPP process is complete, the Employer plans to
assign the work of making the photopolymer plates
to the photoengravers. Stereotypers, however, con-
tends that the employees it represents should perform
the disputed work.2
On November 14, 1974, at a meeting attended by
representatives of all the labor organizations repre-
senting employees in the mechanical departments,
including Photoengravers and Stereotypers, the
Employer announced the impending conversion to
direct printing and its decision to award the
platemaking work to employees represented by the
Photoengravers.
On November 26, 1974, the Employer again called
a meeting which was attended by, among others,
representatives of the Employer, the Stereotypers,
and the Photoengravers. At that meeting the Stereo-
typers representative stated that the Stereotypers
would take whatever legal means were available, to
preserve its jurisdiction over the making of press-
plates. The Photoengravers representative responded,
according to Wehrle's uncontradicted testimony, that
the Photoengravers "didn't intend to go along with
what the Stereotypers wanted and that they would
take all measures necessary including a strike and
economic sanctions to prevent it from happening."
On November 27, 1974, the Stereotypers filed a
unit clarification petition in Case 4-UC-72. By
2 Stereotypers does not claim jurisdiction over the operation of the
camera and preparation of the negatives used in the platemakmg process
Decision and Order issued January 3, 1975, the
Acting Regional Director for Region 4 found that
employees operating the new photopolymer equip-
ment, requiring the use of additional skills and
training, did not constitute an accretion to the
Stereotypers unit and, therefore, clarification was not
warranted. Review of the Regional Director's Sup-
plemental Decision Denying Motion for Reconsider-
ation was denied by the Board by telegram dated
March 4, 1975.
On December 2, 1974, the Photoengravers reiterat-
ed its claim to the disputed work and advised the
Employer that if the work were assigned to the
stereotypers the' Photoengravers would "take appro-
priate economic action including striking to protect
the rights of its members." On January 6, 1975, the
Employer filed the instant charge, alleging that the
Photoengravers, by threatening to strike for the
stated object, violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the
Act.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Stereotypers contends that the notice of hearing
should be quashed because there is no reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated. On the merits, Stereotypers contends that
the work in dispute should be assigned to the
employees whom it represents on the basis of area
and industry practice, job impact, and its collective-
bargaining agreement with the Employer.
The Employer contends that there is reasonable
cause to believe the Photoengravers violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) by threatening to strike. With respect to
the merits of the dispute, the Employer contends that
the work should be awarded to employees represent-
ed by the Photoengravers on the basis of their skills
and training, efficiency of the operation, job impact,
area and industry practice, and the collective-bar-
gaining agreement between the Photoengravers and
the Employer.
Photoengravers agrees with the Employer's posi-
tion on the merits but additionally relies on an
arbitration award under the AFL-CIO Internal
Dispute Plan.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
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) there is no agreed-upon method for
the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
and concedes that this work is properly performed by employees
represented by the Photoengravers
PHILADELPHIA LOCAL NO. 7-P 1087
As to (1) above, Stereotypers contends that at the
time the Photoengravers made its threat the Employ-
er was contemplating purchasing Letterflex and not
NAPP equipment and that, therefore, Photoengrav-
ers did not make any threat with respect to
assignment of the actual work in dispute. The record
indicates, as Stereotypers contends, that at the time
of the Photoengravers December 2, 1974, threat to
strike the Employer was planning to purchase
Letterflex platemaking equipment and that subse-
quently the Employer decided to purchase and install
NAPP equipment instead. We find that the Employ-
er's change of plans with respect to the brand name
of the equipment it would utilize in the direct
printing process does not negate the Photoengravers
threat to strike. The record establishes that the
Photoengravers threatened to strike if the Employer
assigned "photoengraving work," a term apparently
understood by the parties to encompass all photopo-
lymer' platemaking, to the stereotypers. The record
further establishes that the Letterflex and NAPP
platemaking processes are basically similar and that
both processes involve the making of photopolymer
printing plates. Accordingly, we find that the
Photoengravers December 2, 1974, threat referred to
all photopolymer platemaking.
Stereotypers further contends that the notice of
hearing was prematurely issued because the NAPP
equipment had not yet been installed. However, the
record establishes that the Employer had, at the time
the notice of hearing was issued, made plans to
convert to the direct printing process and had
assigned the work in dispute to employees represent-
ed by the Photoengravers. The Board has found that
a jurisdictional dispute can exist whether the work is
in progress or not .3 Accordingly, we fmd reasonable
cause exists to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act has been violated.
As to (2) above, the parties stipulated, and we find,
that no agreed-upon method exists for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute. Accordingly, we find the
dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion 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 disputed work after giving
due consideration to various relevant factors , includ-
ing the following:
31 Local 478, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO
(Utility Service Corporation), 172 NLRB 1877, 1878 (1968). -
91 By a memorandum of agreement dated December 12, 1974, the
Employer and the Photoengravers agreed that that labor organization
1. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
The parties stipulated that neither labor organiza-
tion had been certified by the Board-as representa-
tive of "the employees who will perform the
photopolymer platemaking work." As noted above,
however, both labor organizations contend that their
respective collective-bargaining agreements with the
Employer cover the work in dispute. The Stereotyp-
ers' last contract with the Employer, effective
January 1, 1973, to December 31, 1974, provides, in
relevant part:
If the Publisher shall install any equipment as a
substitute for equipment now being manned by
stereotypers, the Publisher recognizes the jurisdic-
tion of the Union over such equipment and shall
make no other contract concerning such work.
The Employer's collective-bargaining agreement
with the Photoengravers, also effective January 1973
to December 31, 1974, provides4 that
[T]he process of photo-engraving and offset and
the attendant work for the publication of newspa-
pers is defined as being all parts pertaining to the
production of photoengraving for relief or intaglio
printing, from the copy . . . to the finished
product and including photography, stripping,
printing, etching, finishing ... .
From the above-quoted provisions it appears that,
to the extent that the NAPP equipment might be
deemed a "substitute for equipment now being
manned by stereotypers," the Stereotypers contract
with the' Employer arguably covers the disputed
work. However, the disputed work could also be said
to include photoengraving, which is within the
jurisdiction of the Photoengravers. Accordingly,
inasmuch as neither contract specifically refers to
photopolymer platemaking, we do not accord- con-
trolling weight to either of the collective-bargaining
agreements in making our determination.
2. Employer and industry practice
Inasmuch as the Employer had not yet installed the
NAPP platemaking equipment as of the date of the
hearing herein, we find that employer practice with
respect to direct printing is not a factor in the
determination of this dispute.
With respect to industry practice, the Photoengrav-
ers introduced evidence that at the Boston Globe,
would have jurisdiction over photopolymer platemaking. Inasmuch as this
agreement was negotiated subsequent to the Employer's assignment of the
disputed work, we accord it no weight in making ourdetermination.
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fort Lauderdale News, Reading Eagle, Providence
Journal, and Washington Star-News employees
represented by the Photoengravers produce photopo-
lymer plates using either the NAPP or some similar
direct printing process. The Stereotypers, on the
other hand, introduced evidence that at the Newspa-
per Agency, Inc., in Salt Lake City, Utah;, at the San
Diego Tribune, and at various unnamed plants in
Tucson, Arizona; Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan;
Scranton, Pennsylvania; Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylva-
nia; and Lebanon, Pennsylvania, stereotypers perform
all platemaking work. However, the record does not
indicate whether these establishments are newspa-
pers or commercial printing houses, nor does it
define the type of platemaking process used. As the
specific evidence, adduced by the Photoengravers
indicates that photopolymer pressplate's are made by
employees represented by that labor organization at
a number of named newspapers around the country,
we find that the factor of industry practice tends to
favor award of the disputed work to employees
represented by the Photoengravers.
3. Skills, efficiency, and economy
Assistant to the Publisher Richard Wehrle testified
that the Employer's assignment of NAPP platemak-
ing to employees represented by the Photoengravers
was based on their special skills and experience in
producing negatives in light of the fact that camera
work is an integral part of the NAPP process.
Indeed, Stereotypers conceded that the camera work
is properly assigned to employees represented by the
Photoengravers, but contends that no special skills
are required to perform the actual platemaking and
that therefore this work should be awarded to the
employees represented by the Stereotypers. However,
Wehrle, testified without; contradiction that the
NAPP negative and plate must be critically exam-
ined at every stage in the production process and that
photoengravers have the skills to perform such
inspections while stereotypers do not, and that,
therefore, it is more efficient and economical for the
same employees to perform both camera 'work and
the attendant platemaking functions. In view of the
foregoing considerations, we find that the factors of
skills, efficiency, and economy favor an award of the
disputed work to employees represented by the
Photoengravers.
4. The arbitration award
On February 19, 1975, an award was issued in an
arbitration proceeding under the AFL-CIO Internal
Disputes Plan between the Graphic Arts Internation-
al Union and the International Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, the International Unions
with which the Photoengravers and the Stereotypers,
respectively, are affiliated. Although the Employer
was not a party to the proceeding, the award
concerned the same work which is in dispute here.
The Impartial Umpire found that the International
Printing and Graphic Communications Union had
violated the AFL-CIO constitution by seeking work
which properly was within the jurisdiction of the
Graphic Arts International Union. Accordingly, this
factor, although not determinative, tends to favor the
claim of the Photoengravers.
5. Effect on employment
The record establishes that the Employer and the
Stereotypers executed an attrition agreement on June
21, 1973. Under this agreement, if the disputed work
is assigned to employees represented by the Photoen-
gravers no employees represented by the Stereotyp-
ers will be terminated but will be transferred to other
mechanical departments of the newspaper without
loss of any benefits. There is no such agreement
between the Employer and the Photoengravers.
Accordingly, we fmd that if the disputed work is
awarded to employees represented by the Photoen-
gravers there will be no loss of jobs by presently
employed stereotypers, but that if the work is
awarded to employees represented by the Stereotyp-
ers there may be adverse impact on the employment
of photoengravers. We therefore find that this factor
favors awarding the work in dispute to employees
represented by the Photoengravers.
Conclusion,
Upon the record as a whole, and after full
consideration of all relevant factors involved, we
conclude that The Patriot-News Company employ-
ees who are represented by the Photoengravers are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach
this conclusion upon the basis of industry practice,
the arbitration award, the fact that such an assign-
ment will result in greater efficiency and economy of
operations, and the effect on employment. We
further fmd that the employees represented by the
Photoengravers possess the requisite skills to perform
the work. Accordingly, we shall determine the
dispute before us by awarding the disputed work at
the Employer's publishing plant in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, to the Employer's employees repre-
sented by the Photoengravers, but not to that Union
or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE -
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
PHILADELPhIA LOCAL NO. 7-P 1089
foregoing findings and the entire record in this phia Local No. 7-P, Graphic Arts International
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board Union, are entitled to perform the operation of the
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis- NAPP photopolymer printing plate system at The
pute: Patriot-News Company's Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
Employees of The Patriot-News Company, Harris- printing plant.
burg, Pennsylvania, who are represented by Philadel-