St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 107 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

ST. PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30 107
St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30 , AFL-CIO and
Webb Publishing Company and St . Paul Printing
Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No. 29,
AFL-CIO
St. Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
No. 29, AFL-CIO and Webb Publishing Com-
pany and St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30,
AFL-CIO. Cases 18-CD-84 and 18-CD-85
June 30, 1970
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing the filing of charges under Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act. The above-entitled cases were con-
solidated pursuant to an order of the Regional
Director for Region 18 on July 31, 1969, and a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Kenneth
W. Hann on September 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9, 1969. All
parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues.
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
powers in connection with this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Briefs filed by the Employer, the
St. Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
No. 29, and the St. Paul Typographical Union No.
30 have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer, Webb Publishing Company, is a Min-
nesota corporation engaged in the printing and
publishing of telephone directories , magazines, and
other printed material at its plant located in St.
Paul, Minnesota. During the 12-month period im-
mediately preceding the filing of the charges herein
the Employer made sales of goods outside the State
of Minnesota in an amount in excess of $50,000,
and its gross sales during this period amounted to
more than $5 million. We find that the Employer is
engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The parties further stipulated, and we find,
that Respondents, St. Paul Typographical Union
No. 30, AFL-CIO ( hereinafter referred to as the
ITU or as Typographers ), and St . Paul Printing
Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No. 29, AFL-CIO
(hereinafter referred to as the IPP or as Pressmen),
are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The disputes: Two disputes are involved in
this proceeding . The issue to be determined in Case
18-CD-84 is whether members of the IPP or the
ITU are entitled to perform certain work in connec-
tion with the One-Up Vandercook Press and the
Six-Up Vandercook Press . The issue in Case
18-CD-85 is whether members of the IPP or the
ITU are entitled to perform certain work in connec-
tion with the operation of the Cronapress Clarifier
No. 3.
For the sake of clarity, these disputes are
separately analyzed and determined.
1. THE ONE-UP AND SIX-UP VANDERCOOK PRESSES
A. Work at Issue
The One-Up and Six-Up Vandercook Presses
(hereinafter referred to as the One-Up and the Six-
Up, respectively) are offset presses used by the Em-
ployer as "preparatory" or "pre-proof" presses.
They produce paper plates which are sent to the
pressroom for a "production run" whereby nu-
merous copies of the finished product are made.
Both machines are located in the composing room
and there was no indication at the hearing that the
Employer intends to use either of them as a produc-
tion press.
The plates produced on the One-Up and Six-Up
are used primarily to print directories for various
telephone companies. Two basic types of jobs are
printed: a "daily" addendum, which is a collection
of new numbers installed during a 30-day period
and updated nightly; and a monthly "reprint,"
which is an accumulation of all new numbers in-
stalled during that month (and which replaces the
dailies that were compiled during the month).
As it is currently performed, the process involv-
ing the One-Up begins with the receipt in the com-
posing room of a list of new numbers installed dur-
ing the day. There a linotyper sets each line on a
lead slug . If preliminary proofing reveals no errors,
the lines are given to a floorman for insertion into
the daily. The type making up a daily page is in a
"galley" (which resembles a three-sided cookie pan)
which is stored in a rack. The floorman takes the
appropriate galley and inserts the new lines in
alphabetical order. He then puts the galley on a
"truck" (a table with wheels), wheels it over to the
One-Up, and places the type on its bed. He "justi-
184 NLRB No. 12
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fies " the type ( makes certain that the columns are
the same length ) and locks it onto the bed so that it
will stay in position.
A paper plate is inserted into grippers attached to
the rollers on the machine . By turning a crank, the
rollers are activated , distribute the ink over the
typeface , and bring the plate into contact with the
inked type . Almost simultaneously , a "galley proof"
(a proof on a sheet of paper ) and the paper plate
are pulled from the machine . The galley proof is
sent to the proofroom where it is checked to see
that the new inserts are legible , correct , and in the
proper place . At the same time, the paper plate is
put into an infrared machine to dry for about 15
seconds, after which it is removed and "gummed"
( treated with a liquid to sensitize it) by a pressman.
If an error is found when the galley proof is
proofread in the proofroom , the type must be reset
and the aforementioned process repeated. If the
check of the galley proof reveals no errors, the
paper plate is given to the pressmen for a high-
speed production run in the pressroom.
After an acceptable paper plate has been
produced , a member of the ITU removes the form
from the One-Up 's bed , replaces it on the truck and
puts it back in its storage rack.
Except for the gumming , members of the ITU
perform all of the aforementioned tasks.
The operation of the Six-Up differs somewhat
from that of the One-Up . The former machine is
capable of producing six plates at a time while the
latter can produce only one . Due to the larger
printing surface and the fact that each F. of lead
type weighs about 40 pounds , certain devices which
are not necessary for the operation of the One-Up
are used in connection with the operation of the
Six-Up . Except for these differences attributable to
the relative size of the machines , the two presses
are the same.
The Six-Up produces the plates for the monthly
"reprint ," a directory which contains the accumula-
tion of "dailies" for the previous month. Once a
month, a typographer inserts into the "standing"
directory type forms the 30-day accumulation of
new lines and removes therefrom the discontinued
telephone numbers . He spreads the type forms for
six pages on a truck and justifies them . The typog-
rapher places a "chase" ( metal frame ) around the
type to hold it in and places " furniture " (wooden
blocks ) inside of the chase to provide proper spac-
ing and margins . He then locks the chase with a
"quoin " which serves the function of a key.
A typographer rolls the truck with the type over
to the Six-Up and, with the aid of a pressman , slides
the type onto the bed . If it is needed , the pressman
applies ink to the rollers with a wooden knife (this
needs to be done about five times in an 8-hour
day). The pressman inserts a blank paper plate into
the grippers of the machine and presses a button to
start the rollers, which are powered by a motor on
the Six-Up. The rollers distribute ink over, and
bring the paper plate into contact with , the type
face, thereby creating an impression on the paper
plate . When this has been done, the pressman pulls
the plate.
After the plate has been pulled , a pressman sub-
jects it to various treatments and delivers it to the
pressroom , where it is prepared for a production
run.
At the same time , the type is slid off of the bed of
the press and onto the truck. The typographer
cleans the ink off of the type face , unlocks and
removes the chase, and places the new page of
"standing" directory type in the proper storage bin.
At the hearing , the IPP claimed "all work tasks
necessary to the operation of the Vandercook
Proof Press , except locking and unlocking type
edges ." This claim related to both the One-Up and
Six-Up and, while not very specific , presumably in-
cludes inking the rollers , placing the plate in the
grippers , turning the rollers , and pulling the plate.
The IPP did not claim the work of aiding a typog-
rapher in sliding the type form on and off the Six-
Up, work which pressmen are currently doing. The
IPP did concede , however , that the pulling of the
galley proof on the One-Up is within the ITU's ju-
risdiction.
The ITU claims all work on each press through
and including the pulling of the paper plate and
concedes that the operations performed thereafter
are within the IPP 's jurisdiction.
B. Background of the Dispute
When the One-Up process was installed around
1960, Damie Gruber, the then night superinten-
dent , orally assigned all of the work on it to mem-
bers of the ITU. They have performed this work, in-
cluding the pulling of the plate, through the time of
the hearing.
The IPP claims that as early as 1962 its chapel
chairman, Kenneth Hughes , demanded this work of
Damie Gruber and another management official,
Blaine Sargent . Hughes testified that in 1962 and
1963 he temporarily acceded to Sargent 's request
not to press his claim because the One-Up was
being used for but 2 hours per night . Since then,
the volume of work on the One-Up has increased,
and in 1969 Hughes requested the work from
Gruber, who was then the Employer's vice pres-
ident for manufacturing. Admittedly, these were
informal requests, never reduced to writing.
ST. PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30 109
Although he based his claim for the work on the
contract, Hughes admitted that he never attempted
to utilize the grievance machinery provided for
therein. The IPP, however, emphatically claimed
jurisdiction over this work at the hearing.
The Employer bought the Six-Up in January
1969. Prior to the purchase, Plant Engineer 0'-
Boyle traveled to a plant in Lowell, Massachusetts,
where he observed that the Six-Up was operated by
a mixed crew of ITU and IPP members. Based lar-
gely on these observations, on January 29, Gruber
sent a memorandum to Foreman Ayd (of the com-
posing room) and Ritchhart (of the pressroom)
which stated that the "manning " of the Six-Up
would " consist of a pressman who will operate the
proof press and a printer, or printers, to lock and
unlock the type pages."
The Six-Up was installed in March 1969, but, due
to required adjustments , it was not put into opera-
tion until April or May.
Around June 20, 1969, President Rodgers of ITU
Local 30 informed Gruber by telephone that if the
pressmen pulled the plates on the Six-Up as
planned, he would order the typographers to stop
work because of what he regarded as a breach of
contract. In a letter dated June 26, which he sent to
the Employer's personnel director, Stig Larson,
Rodgers claimed all the work on the Six-Up for his
Union and reiterated his strike threat. In the same
month, however, representatives of the ITU and the
IPP met with the Employer's representatives and
the ITU agreed not to strike pending the resolution
of this dispute by the Board.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board proceeds with determination 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.
The record furnishes reasonable cause to believe
that St. Paul Typographical Union No. 30,
AFL-CIO, through its president, Paul Rodgers,
twice threatened to strike if members of the IPP
were permitted to perform certain tasks on the Six-
Up Vandercook Press, which tasks had been as-
signed them by the Employer. Rodgers made these
threats in a telephone conversation with Damie
Gruber on June 20, 1969, and in a letter to Stig
Larson dated June 26, 1969. There is reasonable
cause to believe that the purpose of these threats
was to force the Webb Publishing Company to as-
sign the work in dispute to employees represented
by the ITU instead of to employees represented by
the IPP. While there has been no picketing by the
ITU, the threat has not been withdrawn but merely
held in abeyance pending the outcome of the
present proceeding.
The parties stipulated that they have not ad-
justed, or agreed upon a voluntary method for the
adjustment of, this dispute. The ITU does not con-
test the Board's jurisdiction in this case.
On the basis of the entire record, we find that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that the
dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion under Section 10(k) of the Act.
D. Contentions of the Parties
The IPP contends that it has a right to the work
in dispute on the One-Up and the Six-Up by virtue
of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Em-
ployer, skill, and company practice; in addition, it
buttresses its claim to the Six-Up work by reference
to Damie Gruber's assignment of January 29, 1969.
The ITU denies that the IPP contract covers the
work in dispute on either machine and supports its
own claim to the disputed work on the One-Up by
reference to its contract, company practice, skill,
and economy. The ITU minimizes the Employer's
assignment of the Six-Up tasks to the IPP as merely
a temporary expedient to avoid friction.
The Employer prefers that ITU members con-
tinue to perform the disputed tasks on the One-Up
for reasons of efficiency and economy of operation.
Despite its assignment of certain tasks on the Six-
Up to the IPP, the Employer maintains a neutral
position on them in its brief. The Employer denies
that its contracts with the ITU and the IPP cover
the pulling of offset paper plates.
E. Merits of the Dispute
As stated in the J. A. Jones case,' we shall, pur-
suant to the Supreme Court's C.B.S. decision,2
determine in each case presented for resolution
under Section 10(k) of the Act the appropriate as-
signment of the disputed work only after taking into
account the evidence supporting the claims of the
parties and balancing all relevant factors.
1. Certifications
Neither the IPP nor the ITU has been certified by
the Board with respect to any of the employees in-
volved in the instant case.
i International Association of Machinists , Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J Y N L R B v Radio and Television Broadcasting Engineers Union, Local
A Jones Construction Co ), 135 NLRB 1402 1212 , IBEW, AFL-CIO [ Columbia Broadcasting System] , 364 U S 573
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The contracts
The IPP and the ITU each has a collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Employer which un-
dertakes , inter alia, to define its work jurisdiction.
Neither contract specifically mentions the One-Up
or the Six-Up Presses.
The IPP contends that its agreement confers ju-
risdiction over the disputed work on both
machines . The ITU denies this and contends that
the aforementioned contract is, at best, too am-
biguous to be determinative . The Employer sup-
ports this ITU position and also contends that
nothing in its contract with the ITU confers ju-
risdiction on that union.
The IPP bases its claim to both machines on sec-
tion 2 ( a) of its contract , which includes within its
jurisdiction "all offset presses" and "all workers
employed in the field of offset platemaking."3 It
contends that this language confers jurisdiction
over the making of offset paper plates.
The ITU denies that the IPP contract applies to
the work in dispute . It points out that the IPP con-
tract specifically "applies to pressrooms " while the
ITU contract defines its jurisdiction as "including
all composing room work ."4 It argues therefore that
because the One -Up and the Six-Up are located in
the composing room , the IPP contract is inapplica-
ble.
The ITU also notes that the Employer and the
IPP knew, when they executed their last contract,
that typographers had made virtually all paper off-
set plates in the plant for 9 years . The ITU con-
tends that the parties' failure to be more specific in
the face of this plant practice means that they did
not intend that the contract alter that practice.
Thus, it argues , IPP jurisdiction over "all offset
presses " and "all workers employed in the field of
offset platemaking" does not apply to paper plates
because the parties did not so specify.
The ITU buttresses its contention that the IPP
contract is inapplicable , and that the IPP knew this,
by noting that the IPP did not attempt to utilize the
grievance procedure provided by its contract dur-
ing the 9 years that members of the ITU pulled the
paper plates on the One-Up.
Based on a review of the contract terms and bar-
gaining history , we agree with the ITU and the Em-
ployer that the IPP contract is too ambiguous to be
determinative of the dispute before us.
The ITU claims that , because both machines are
located in the composing room , all work thereon is
"composing room work" within the meaning of its
jurisdictional clause, see footnote 4, supra . The Em-
ployer contends that that term is too general to be
determinative.
While the record does not establish the meaning
of "composing room work ," it does indicate that
that phrase does not encompass all work performed
in the composing room . For example , it was not
disputed that the Hacher Gauge, which is located in
the composing room , is within the IPP 's jurisdic-
tion. While this fact does not define the phrase
"composing room work" with great precision, it
does indicate that the broad construction urged by
the ITU is unwarranted. We conclude that the ITU
contract does not favor an award of the work in
dispute to typographers.
3. Skills
On the basis of the record , we find that both
typographers and pressmen are equally capable of
performing the work in dispute on both the One-Up
and the Six-Up.
4. Efficiency and economy
The Employer maintains that it is more efficient
and economical to have a crew of ITU members ex-
clusively pull the plate on the One-Up, but that the
cost and efficiency would be the same regardless of
which craft pulled the plate on the Six-Up. A major
difference in the operation of the two machines is
responsible for this disparity of result.
The One-Up is used primarily to produce plates
for the daily addendum which , because it is used by
telephone operators , must be accurate . In order to
assure accuracy , a galley proof is pulled at the same
time as the paper plate . The galley proof is read in
the proofroom and, if an error is detected , typog-
raphers will immediately reset the page and
produce a correct version.
The Employer contends that the same craftsman
should pull both the paper plate and the galley
proof on the One-Up. Because pulling the galley
proof is indisputably within the ITU's jurisdiction,
the Employer prefers that a member of the ITU pull
the paper plate also.
The record testimony shows in this respect that,
if the work in dispute is assigned to the IPP, when a
pressman pulls the paper plate , a typographer
would have to be at the machine to pull the galley
proof. The typographer would either have to be
' Sec. 2(a) provides that "This contract applies to pressrooms operated
by the Employer . Said pressrooms, including ... all offset presses
and all workers employed in the field of offset platemaking...."
' Sec 4 provides that " Jurisdiction of the Union is defined as includ-
ing all composing room work of employers covered by this contract "
ST. PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30
called over from another department , at least 50
feet away, to perform this operation , or he could
stay at the One-Up just to perform this task. In the
first instance , there would be frequent interruptions
in the job he was performing in the other depart-
ment ; in the second , he would have dead time while
he stood around the One -Up waiting to perform
this one operation . Vice President Gruber testified
that, if the work was split in this manner , "[ t]wo
men would be doing the work of one ." In addition,
it is probable that two men performing these opera-
tions simultaneously on the same machine would
get in each other's way.
On the basis of the record before us, we find that
it is more efficient and economical to have a crew
composed of exclusively ITU members perform the
work in dispute on the One-Up.
The Employer contends that the cost and effi-
ciency of operating the Six-Up would be the same
whether members of the ITU or the IPP pull the
plate.
The Six-Up is used to produce the monthly
reprint . Because accuracy is not of primary im-
portance , a galley proof need not be pulled. Thus,
the most convincing argument against allowing
members of the IPP to pull the plate is, in the case
of the Six-Up, inapplicable . The record does not
otherwise indicate that there is any meaningful dif-
ference between using members of the ITU and the
IPP in terms of cost and efficiency . We therefore
find that it would be equally efficient and economi-
cal to have members of the ITU or the IPP perform
the work in dispute on the Six-Up.
5. Area and industry practice
The record does not indicate the existence of an
area or industry practice which would favor the
claim of either union for the work in dispute on the
One-Up or the Six-Up.
6. Company practice
The record indicates that members of the ITU
have made and pulled all offset paper plates
produced on the One-Up for approximately 10
years. Members of the IPP made paper plates on
another machine for a very brief period about 18
years ago but they have not done so since.
We find that company practice supports an
award of the work on the One-Up to the Typog-
raphers.
We are not, however, convinced that this prac-
tice, established during the ITU's lengthy steward-
ship of the One-Up, necessarily favors the ITU's
claim to the work on the Six-Up. While the latter
111
machine is similar to the former in many respects,
the difference in size has caused significant dif-
ferences in operation. The Six-Up's larger type
capacity is such that a chase must be used to en-
close the type, more than one man is needed to
slide the form onto the bed, and it is probable that
more adjustments must be made on the type in the
larger form while it is there. These operations
require more men and it would appear that they
will occupy more of the time of the typographer as-
signed to the machine. The lessened requirement of
accuracy also renders unnecessary the constant
state of readiness that must be maintained to
achieve an instant reset and rerun on the One-Up,
should the galley proof reveal inaccuracies. These
differences affect the entire tempo of the operation
and are, in our opinion , so great as to preclude the
application of company practice on the One-Up to
the establishment of a practice which favors the
ITU's operation of the Six-Up.
For the above reasons, we do not find that there
is a company practice favoring the award of the
work in dispute on the Six-Up to either of the
Unions.
7. Conclusion
Having considered the criteria set forth in J. A.
Jones, supra, we conclude, with respect to the One-
Up Vandercook Press, that inasmuch as it is more
efficient and economical to use typographers, a
well-established company practice favors such an
award, and no factors favor the pressmen, typog-
raphers employed by Webb Publishing Company
are entitled to perform all of the work in dispute
relating to the One-Up Vandercook Press.
With respect to the Six-Up Vandercook Press,
none of the factors we have considered favors an
award of the work in dispute exclusively to either of
the Unions. The Employer has assigned the work
on this press to a mixed crew of pressmen and
typographers, each performing work not clearly un-
related to his craft; there is precedent in at least
one other plant for .!-is assignment ; and the Em-
ployer appears to be satisfied with it. Under all the
circumstances, we conclude that on the Six-Up
Vandercook Press, pressmen employed by Webb
Publishing Company are entitled to ink the rollers,
place the plate in the grippers, turn the rollers, and
pull the plate from the press. Typographers are en-
titled to perform the rest of the press operation.
8. The scope of the determination
In making the foregoing determinations, we are
assigning the disputed work, as indicated, to the
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of Webb Publishing Company, who are
respectively represented by the ITU and the IPP,
but not to such unions or their members. These
determinations are limited to the particular con-
troversy giving rise to the dispute.
II. THE CRONAPRESS CLARIFIER
A. Work at Issue
The Cronapress Clarifier No. 3 (hereinafter
referred to as the Cronapress ) is a flatbed press
which operates without ink or paper . It has two
beds, each of which can hold eight pages of type.
By transferring an impression from metal type onto
film, the Cronapress produces a clarified film or
negative.
Pages of type are slid onto the Cronapress bed,
locked in a chase, and snugged up and planed down
so that the type surface is level . Pressure -sensitized
blank film is laid over the typeface . A mylar sheet
in a metal frame is then pulled down and placed
over the film and type . By means of a switch, a
pump is started , creating a vacuum between the
blank film and the face of the type, which holds the
film firmly against the type face.
Suspended ' over the bed is a carriage which con-
tains a belt with approximately 40,000 minute pins
protruding from it. When a switch is turned the car-
riage is automatically activated and the belt
vibrates up, down, and sideways over the type and
film, creating pressure. In this manner , the film is
"clarified" (ruptured) whenever the pins come into
contact with the raised portion of the type . The im-
pression of the type is thus transferred directly to
the film . The clarification process takes about 7 or
8 minutes per bed, at the end of which the carriage
stops automatically ; the mylar sheet is released by
letting air into the space between the film and
typeface , and the frame is raised.
The clarified film is removed from the
Cronapress and placed in a sink , where it is treated
with a bluing or densifier . The clarified portion of
the film , which is transparent, does not absorb the
bluing but the remainder does, and a negative is
produced . The film is left to dry and , after a few
minutes, a stabilizer is applied to harden the nega-
tive, which is then washed and hung on a
clothesline for further drying.
The negative is then sent to the nearby monotype
department where it is inspected by a member of
the ITU who does any necessary preliminary
"opaquing" ( dyeing or darkening areas which are
not to be printed, such as scratched areas of the
negative ) or "scribing " (using a fine point instru-
ment to draw in characters that are not legible or to
remove foreign objects ).5 If the inspector finds that
something was left out, he returns the film and the
operators correct the type form and run it again on
the machine.
The operation is performed at the Employer's
plant in such a way that , while the carriage is clari-
fying the type in one Cronapress bed, type is being
arranged and locked in the other bed in preparation
for clarification there.
After the negative has been removed from the
Cronapress , the typeform that was used is un-
locked , removed from the bed , and filed away for
future use.
Presently , ITU members perform all of the afore-
mentioned tasks . On large jobs , such as telephone
books, two men are used: one man locks up the
form and planes it down while the other helps him,
watches the carriage , and dyes the finished prints.
On smaller jobs , such as religious missals , which in-
volve less columns and less print , only one man is
used.
After the completion of the aforementioned
processes , the negative is delivered to the press-
room where a member of the IPP does such further
opaquing and scribing as is necessary . Plates are
then made from the negatives and used for a
production run.
The IPP claims all of the work now being per-
formed by the Typographers except for the setting,
arranging , locking, and unlocking of type . The IPP
thus seeks to have its members insert the blank
film, move the carriage across the typeface,
remove, densify, and stabilize the film , and scribe
and opaque it. The ITU claims all of the steps that
it is now performing.
B. Background of the Dispute
The present Cronapress was purchased in August
1968, and put into production late that month or
early in September 1968. It is the third in a series of
machines that the Employer has used to make film
negatives from hot metal . From 1962 through
1965, a Bright Type was used for this purpose. In
1965, the Bright Type was replaced by the
Cronapress Clarifier No. 2, an earlier model of the
present machine . While the Cronapress Clarifier
No. 2 produced the same product as the present
machine, it proved to be unsatisfactory for
telephone company work and was taken out of
production within a year. Members of the ITU per-
formed all of the work on the Bright Type and
5 Another name for this process is "touching up "
ST. PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30
Cronapress Clarifier No. 2. Pressmen did not work
on these machines and there is no record of a for-
mal demand by them for this work.
When the present Cronapress was purchased, the
work now in dispute was assigned to the ITU and
six of its members were trained to operate it by the
machine's manufacturer . Damie Gruber , the Em-
ployer 's vice president for manufacturing , testified
that he made this assignment because the work in-
volved was traditionally ITU work and it would be
more economical and efficient to perform the work
with an ITU crew.
There is some question as to when the IPP first
claimed the work in dispute in the instant case. IPP
Chapel Chairman Kenneth Hughes testified that he
made a demand of Foreman Louis Ayd in May
1968; IPP Secretary-Treasurer Donald Daly stated
that he demanded the work from Ayd in August
1968, and from Gruber on numerous occasions.
Both Ayd and Gruber deny receiving such requests.
Director of Personnel Stig Larson testified that in
the collective -bargaining negotiations of February
1969 there was some discussion of scribing and
opaquing but no IPP request for the work in dispute
on the Cronapress, which machine was not men-
tioned in the resultant contract . It is undisputed,
however , that during the period from August 1968
through July 11, 1969, the IPP submitted no writ-
ten request nor did it file a grievance over the
matter of who was to perform the work in dispute.
On July 11, 1969 , Donald Daly, secretary-trea-
surer of IPP Local No . 29, sent the Employer a
written demand for the work in dispute and
threatened a work stoppage unless such an assign-
ment was made . While the ITU is continuing to do
the work pending a determination by the Board, the
IPP has not withdrawn this demand and the accom-
panyine threat.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board proceeds with determination 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.
Since August 1968 , the ITU has performed all of
the work in dispute on the Cronapress . On July 11,
1969, the Employer received a letter from Donald
Daly, secretary-treasurer of the IPP, claiming ju-
risdiction over the work in dispute and threatening
to strike unless the work was given to his union. By
letter of July 22, the ITU claimed the Cronapress
work for its members . While the IPP has not
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J
A. Jones Construction Co.), 135 NLRB 1402.
113
picketed as yet , it has not withdrawn its threat to
strike and picket . Presently , the ITU's members are
performing the disputed work ; the IPP has agreed
not to strike pending determination of the dispute
by the Board.
The parties stipulated that they have not agreed
on any voluntary method of adjustment.
On the basis of the entire record , we find that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(D ) has occurred , and that the
dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion under Section 10(k) of the Act.
D. Contentions of the Parties
The IPP bases its claim to the work in dispute on
the interpretation of various contractual clauses. It
contends that the Cronapress is a letterpress and
therefore within its contractual jurisdiction to
operate . It further contends that the Cronapress
produces a reproduction proof which is within the
IPP's historical jurisdiction to make, and claims
that this jurisdiction was recognized by the Board in
a prior dispute between the same parties . The IPP
also claims the work of scribing and opaquing the
negative by virtue of its contract with the Em-
ployer.
The ITU denies the IPP 's contention that the
Cronapress produces a reproduction proof or that it
is a letterpress covered by the IPP contract. The
ITU contends that it should be awarded the work in
dispute on the bases of plant practice , efficiency,
economy, and a clause in its contract with the Em-
ployer.
The Employer desires that the ITU continue to
perform the work in dispute , including scribing and
opaquing the negative . It contends that this is more
efficient and economical than using a mixed crew,
which would cause "dead time" for members of
each craft . The Employer denies that the Board
award cited by the IPP is applicable and contends
that its own contract with the ITU covers all of the
work the ITU is now performing.
E. Merits of the Dispute
As stated in the J. A. Jones case , 6 we shall, pur-
suant to the Supreme Court 's C.B.S. decision,7
determine in each case presented for resolution
under Section 10(k) of the Act the appropriate as-
signment of the disputed work only after taking into
account the evidence supporting the claims of the
parties and balancing all relevant factors.
N L R B v Radio and Television Broadcasting Engineers Union, Local
1212, IBEW, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broadcasting System], 364 US 573
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Certifications
Neither the IPP nor the ITU has been certified by
the Board with respect to any of the employees in-
volved in the instant case.
2. The contracts
The ITU claims the entire Cronapress operation
by virtue of its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer. The IPP contends that the
provision relied on is void because it was negotiated
prior to the installation of the Cronapress, and itself
claims jurisdiction over the Cronapress on the
ground that it is a "letterpress" which it has a con-
tractual right to operate. In addition, the IPP claims
the exclusive right to scribe and opaque the nega-
tive by virtue of its own contract with the Em-
ployer. The Employer supports the ITU's contrac-
tual claims and denies that the IPP contract's clause
relating to scribing and opaquing applies to the
preliminary work of this description which is
presently being done on the Cronapress negatives
by members of the ITU.
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
ITU and the Employer, effective June 1, 1968,
through May 31, 1970, specifically recognizes ITU
jurisdiction over the Cronapress.8 The IPP contract,
negotiated after the ITU agreement and effective
March 1, 1969, through March 1, 1972, does not
mention the Cronapress.
The IPP, however, claims the work in dispute on
the ground that the Cronapress is "constructed in a
manner similar to all other letterpresses," which
machines are within its jurisdiction pursuant to its
agreement with the Employer.9
We do not agree. It is not necessary to decide
whether the Cronapress is a "letterpress" because,
even if it is, the Cronapress is clearly outside the
scope of the IPP agreement. The ITU contract
specifically assigns it jurisdiction over the
Cronapress. The contract between the IPP and the
Employer was negotiated later. Taking the facts in
the posture most favorable to the IPP, that is, as-
suming that the Cronapress is a "letterpress," it is
nonetheless removed from the IPP contract's ju-
risdictional clause by that section's proviso stating
that:
Nothing in this clause shall be construed to
apply to employees or work which is now
covered by contracts with any other union.
We conclude that the ITU has a contractual right
to perform the work in dispute on the Cronapress
operation. We find no merit in the IPP's contention
that the ITU contract provision relating to the
Cronapress is "illegal " because the contract was
entered into prior to the installation of the
Cronapress.
The IPP also claims jurisdiction over the prelimi-
nary scribing and opaquing which is now performed
by members of the ITU on the film before it is sent
to the pressroom. The IPP bases its claim upon sec-
tion 2(a) of its contract with the Employer, which
provides in pertinent part that "the jurisdiction of
the union shall include all scribing, touch up of
image, and opaquing of finished, processed film
used in the preparatory operation."
Presently, a typographer inspects the film after it
has been hung up to dry, opaquing and scribing it
when necessary. This preliminary operation is per-
formed to detect and correct errors before the film
is sent to the pressroom; once it is in the pressroom,
IPP members repeat the process. The ITU agrees to
the IPP's performing these tasks in the pressroom
but asserts its own right to continue performing
these operations itself before delivery.
The Employer contends that section 2(a) of the
IPP contract does not apply here because the
preliminary scribing and opaquing is part of the
Cronapress operation assigned by its own contract
with the ITU. It contends that its assignment of the
Cronapress to the ITU "includes all tasks necessary
to the operation of the Cronapress . . . including the
preliminary inspection, touch up and opaquing of
the Cronapress negatives prior to its delivery to the
pressroom."
Under this construction, the two preliminary
operations would be removed from the scope of the
IPP contract's jurisdictional clause by the proviso
to that clause, noted above, that:
Nothing in this clause shall be construed to
apply to employees or work which is now
covered by contracts with any other union.
Supporting the Employer's construction, Person-
nel Director Stig Larson, who helped to negotiate
the 1969 agreement with the IPP, testified that the
phrase relied on is entirely new. With regard to its
intended scope, he stated that, at the bargaining
sessions "[w]e were talking ... about film coming
in from outside, and the idea was who was going to
process that film, was it going to bypass the com-
posing room or was it going directly into the
s Sec 4 provides that "Jurisdiction of the Union .. is defined as includ-
ing all composing room work of employees covered by this contract, and
includes classifications such as.. Cronapress .. The Employer shall not
enter into a contract with any other union covering work as described
above "
Sec 2 ( a) provides that "This contract applies to pressrooms operated
by the Employer Said pressrooms, including but not limited to letter-
presses ... Nothing in this clause shall be construed to apply to employees
or work which is now covered by contracts with any other union."
ST PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30 115
preparatory department ." Further, there is nothing
in the record to indicate that film produced by the
Employer 's Cronapress was regarded during the
negotiations as being within the scope of this lan-
guage.
In addition , as noted above , the IPP contract in-
cludes no reference to the Cronapress operation,
although the parties were aware that ITU members
were performing these tasks as part of the
Cronapress operation . This omission is, in our
opinion , a weighty factor in assessing the parties'
intentions : First , if we accept the IPP 's interpreta-
tion of the clause , ITU members would be dis-
placed from two jobs they were then performing.
Second, there was testimony that a prior dispute
relating to opaquing had been settled by allowing
both crafts to do the job , as they were at the time of
the hearing . Third, the parties were aware of the
above -quoted proviso to section 2(a) and the im-
pact thereon of the earlier contract between the
Employer and the ITU.
We find that the parties did not intend that the
phrase in question apply to the preliminary
opaquing and scribing presently being performed
by members of the ITU. It is in our opinion highly
unlikely that the parties would , by means of such
imprecise language, deliberately change a work as-
signment which would be expected to provoke a ju-
risdictional dispute or , at the least , to reopen an old
one. If the parties so intended , it is reasonable to
assume that the Employer would have sought to in-
clude a reference to the Cronapress operation in
the phrase so as to avoid the present uncertainty.
Instead , there was little or no discussion of the
Cronapress at the bargaining sessions and the
record indicates that the Employer was taken by
surprise by the IPP's demands in July.
Further support for this finding of intent is found
in the fact that , although the ITU continued to per-
form these operations for more than 4 months after
the effective date of the IPP contract , the Pressmen
did not attempt to file a formal grievance but only
objected to the Typographers scribing and
opaquing in the context of its broader claims in the
instant case.
3. Skills
Training and skills are required to operate the
Cronapress . Damage to the machine and imperfec-
tion of product can result from improper operation
of the Cronapress , as when the carriage runs over
unnoticed protrusions in the bed. Foreman Ayd, for
example, testified that an attempt to modify the
bed's normal type capacity caused the carriage to
be broken.
Members of the ITU have had experience in
producing negatives from hot metal on the Bright
Type and Cronapress Clarifier No. 2, see supra. It is
undisputed that members of the IPP have not had
this experience in the plant , that six members of the
ITU were trained by the manufacturer to operate
the Cronapress Clarifier No. 3 when it was in-
stalled, and that these six were the only qualified
operators at the plant at the time of the hearing.
The film used on both of the Cronapresses is
"pressure-sensitive," that is, insensitive to light.
While the IPP introduced some evidence that its
members had worked with film, there is no indica-
tion that the film was "pressure -sensitive" or that
the skill acquired in those operations is relevant to
the operation of the machine in dispute.
As the record thus indicates that by virtue of the
special training and experience , typographers pos-
sess the skills required to operate the Cronapress
Clarifier No. 3, and that the pressmen do not have
such skills , and would require training to acquire
them, we find that the factor of skills favors assign-
ment of the operation of the Cronapress to typog-
raphers.
No evidence was introduced to prove whether
the ITU or the IPP members are more skilled in
scribing and opaquing negatives , or indeed, the skill
and training ' required for such operations . Because
of this state of the record , we make no finding as to
the relative ability of the members of the two
unions to perform this part of the work in dispute.
4. Efficiency and economy
The Employer contends that it is more efficient
and economical to have members of the ITU exclu-
sively operate the Cronapress and perform the
preliminary inspection , scribing , and opaquing. This
contention is based largely on the undisputed fact
that the ITU has exclusive jurisdiction over setting
type, placing it on the bed, locking , justifying, un-
locking , and removing it.
Presently, one typographer is used for small jobs
and two are used for large ones on the Cronapress.
In the latter case , both beds are used : one man ar-
ranges type on one bed while the other helps, ob-
serves the clarification process on the other bed
and dyes the finished negatives . On smaller jobs,
where only one bed is in use, a single typographer
performs all of these jobs himself.
Because the type used must be slid on and off,
locked and unlocked , and arranged by a typog-
rapher , he is intimately involved in the Cronapress
process, regardless of who superintends the clarifi-
cation and prepares the finished negative . Because
clarification takes 7 to 8 minutes , it is advisable to
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have the typographer present, especially if the type
form must be removed quickly and replaced with
another one.
Foreman Louis Ayd of the composing room
testified that it is more efficient and economical to
have an exclusively ITU crew perform the
Cronapress operation. The typographer must come
to the machine to perform the type-related opera-
tions mentioned above. On a one -man job he would
then merely turn the switch and start the clarifica-
tion process ; on a two-man operation he can
prepare the type on one bed while the other typog-
rapher helps him and observes the clarification
process on the other.
Mr. Ayd testified that the use of a pressman to
operate one side of the press after the typographer
had put on and arranged the type (but before he
has taken it off) would be uneconomical. He
testified that "there wouldn't be enough work for
two pressmen or one pressman to stand there while
the compositor is preparing the form, locking it up,
correcting, sliding on and off, taking it off . . . ." He
noted that the operation involves a continuous
changing of type forms; a pressman added to the
crew would have frequent periods of dead time
while the typographers were working with the
forms. Ayd estimated that, if a pressman was to
perform the work in dispute, it would "take at least
40 percent longer" and the effect would be to "add
another man to the operation." He testified that the
use of such a mixed crew in the past, on the Hacker
machine, proved unsatisfactory in that each
craftsman was looking for the other one when it
was his turn to perform a step in the process.
We note that if the IPP was awarded the steps it
claims, one -man operations , discussed above,
would no longer be possible.
Vice President Gruber corroborated Ayd's
testimony and added that it is more efficient and
economical to have typographers perform the
preliminary inspection , scribing, and opaquing. He
noted that the monotyper, who now performs this
operation , can run his machine and inspect the film
at the same time . This typographer's time is "non-
productive ," that is, the time he spends inspecting
and correcting the film is not charged to the job
ticket . By having him perform this operation, the
Employer is utilizing his nonproductive time that
would otherwise be lost. Any time spent by press-
men in correcting the negative is charged off to the
job.
Gruber also noted that, because typographers in-
spect the film anyway for errors, the Employer feels
that they should correct those they find so as to
deliver as perfect a negative as possible to the
pressroom.
On the basis of the record, we find that it is more
efficient and economical to have typographers ex-
clusively operate the Cronapress and perform the
preliminary inspection, scribing, and opaquing of
the negative produced thereby.
5. Area and industry practice
The Cronapress Clarifier No. 3 is a new machine;
the Employer's is only the fifth in the United States.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that there is
no significant industry or area practice with respect
to the operation of the Cronapress Clarifier No. 3.
6. Company practice
Members of the ITU have been making negatives
from hot metal for the Employer almost continu-
ously since 1962. Members of the IPP have never
operated any of the three machines which have
been used for this purpose in the plant.
Testimony relating to the Bright Type was sparse,
but the record indicates that the Cronapress Clarifi-
er No. 2 is very similar in operation to the present
machine. Members of the ITU exclusively operated
the first Cronapress for 1 year, just as they have ex-
clusively operated the present machine since Au-
gust 1968.
The IPP contends, however, that the product of
the Cronapress is a "reproduction proof" and that,
therefore, company practice and a prior Board
award compel assignment of the work in dispute to
itself. If, indeed, this were a reproduction proof,
company practice and the prior determination in a
case between this Local and the Employer would
favor such an award. In the prior case, the Board
concluded that:
... the pressmen rather than the typographers
are entitled to the work of pulling reproduction
proofs by the proof press metal.10
In that case, a reproduction proof was defined as
being:
... a high-quality proof that is taken from a
page of type on a hand-operated proof press to
be photographed, the photograph to be used
for the manufacture of an offset plate."
In the instant case, however, we agree with the
Employer and the ITU that the negative produced
by the Cronapress is not a reproduction proof. A
reproduction proof is printed on paper or
10 St . Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union No 29 (Webb Publish- 11 /bid, 215
ing Company), 148 NLRB 214, 219.
ST PAUL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 30 117
Scotchprint with ink and later photographed; the
Cronapress produces a negative from hot type
without the use of paper or ink. Because the
Cronapress does not produce a reproduction proof,
company practice in that field and our prior award
are of little weight in the instant case.
We are satisfied from the record that the practice
of the Employer is to use members of the ITU to
operate machines which are used to produce nega-
tives from hot metal and to densify and stabilize
those negatives . The Cronapress Clarifier No. 3 is
such a machine.
The record does not, however, indicate whether
members of the ITU scribed and opaqued negatives
which they produced on the earlier machines. It is
undisputed that they have done so for more than 1
year on the present Cronapress . It is also un-
disputed that the pressmen perform the same
operations in the pressroom, after they have
received the negatives from the typographers.
Because each craft has a history of performing
these operations, we find that there is no clear com-
pany practice favoring an assignment of scribing
and opaquing the negatives to either union.
7. Conclusion
Having considered the criteria set forth in J. A.
Jones, supra, we conclude that typographers em-
ployed by Webb Publishing Company are entitled
to perform all of the work in dispute relating to the
Cronapress.
The ITU contract supports such an assignment.
Typographers are more skilled and efficient than
pressmen at operating the Cronapress, and an as-
signment to them is more economical and in accord
with past company practice.
The ITU contract likewise supports the assign-
ment of the disputed scribing and opaquing to
typographers . In addition , such an assignment is
more efficient and economical for the operation.
Based on the foregoing , we determine that em-
ployees represented by the St. Paul Typographical
Union, rather than those represented by the St.
Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, are
entitled to the work in dispute.
8. The scope of the determination
In making the foregoing determination, we are
assigning the disputed work , as indicated, to the
employees of the Webb Publishing Company, who
are represented by the ITU, but not to such union
or its members . This determination is limited to the
particular controversy giving rise to the dispute.
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
hereby makes the following Determination of the
Dispute:
1. Employees engaged as typographers , currently
represented by St. Paul Typographical Union No.
30, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform all of the
tasks on the One-Up Vandercook Press through
and including the pulling of a paper plate therefrom
for Webb Publishing Company of St. Paul, Min-
nesota.
Employees engaged as pressmen , currently
represented by St. Paul Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union No. 29, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
ink and turn the rollers of the Six-Up Vandercook
Press, to place the plate in its grippers and pull the
plate and aid a typographer represented by the
Typographical Union in sliding the type form on
and off of its bed. Employees engaged as typog-
raphers currently represented by the St. Paul Typo-
graphical Union No. 30, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
perform the remainder of the tasks on the Six-Up
Vandercook Press , such as setting and arranging
the type and aiding in sliding the type form on and
off its bed.
Employees engaged as typographers currently
represented by St. Paul Typographical Union No.
30, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform all tasks
necessary to the operation of the Cronapress Clari-
fier No. 3, through and including the production of
the negative in final form and including all prelimi-
nary inspection, scribing, and opaquing of the nega-
tive prior to the delivery of the negative to the plate
department.
2. Neither of the above-named Unions is entitled
to force or require the Webb Publishing Company
to assign to it any of the above-mentioned work
which we have found employees represented by the
other union are entitled to perform.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Local No. 30 of the
St. Paul Typographical Union and Local No. 29 of
the St. Paul Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union shall each notify the Regional Director for
Region 18, in writing , whether or not they will
refrain from forcing or requiring the Webb Publish-
ing Company, by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D ) to assign any portion of the work in
dispute to employees other than those to whom we
have awarded it.
427-835 0 - 74 - 9