The American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1965

156 N.L.R.B. 227 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 227
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460,
Extension 2100.
The American Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO and Cleveland News-
paper Guild No. 1, The American Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO
and The E . W. Scripps Company, as publisher of "The Cleve-
land Press" and Lithographers and Photoengravers ' Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO, and Cleveland Lithographers and
Photoengravers ' International Union , Local No. 24-P, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 8-CD-67. December 21, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed on July 13, 1965,
by The E. W. Scripps Company, as publisher of "The Cleveland
Press," referred to herein as the Employer, alleging that The Ameri-
can Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, and Cleveland Newspaper Guild
No. 1, the American Newspaper Guild, AFL--CIO, referred to herein
as the Guild, violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act by threatening
to strike the Employer, for an object of forcing or requiring the
Employer to assign particular work to employees represented by the
Guild, rather than to employees represented by Lithographers and
Photoengravers' International Union, AFL-CIO, and Cleveland
Lithographers and Photoengravers' International Union, Local No.
24-P, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Photoengravers. There-
after, a duly scheduled hearing was held on September 28 and Octo-
ber 5, 1965, at Cleveland, Ohio, before Hearing Officer Charles J. Con-
siglio. All parties appeared at the hearing and were provided full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The rulings of the Hear-
ing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Briefs have been filed by the Employer, the Guild,
and the Photoengravers.
Upon the entire record, the National Labor Relations Board 1 makes
the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE ElUI'LOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is an Ohio
corporation which publishes "The Cleveland Press," a daily news-
1 Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
156 NLRB No. 37.
217-919-66-vol. 156-16
228 DECISIONS : OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS, BOARD
paper, in Cleveland, Ohio ; -subscribes to interstate, news services; pub-
lishes nationally syndicated features; and has a gross volume of busi-
ness derived from "The Cleveland Press" exceeding $200,000 annually.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Guild and the Photo-
engravers are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work in controversy
The dispute which gave rise to this proceeding concerns the "strip-
ping," or tasks involved in arranging and taping of filmed copy on a
frame, and "burning," or the process involved in transfer of the filmed
images from said frame to presensitized plates used exclusively on the
Company's offset presses.
B. The basic facts
In addition to printing the newspaper, the Employer produces other
materials which are used in promoting newspaper circulation and the
sale of advertising lineage. These are in the nature of booklets, leaflets,
letters from the editors, forms, and similar items which are not part
of the newspaper. Prior to 1952, the Employer obtained these from
outside printing. firms,. but in that year the Multilith room was estab-
lished to produce such materials for the Employer's editorial and
public service departments. In 1954, the Davidson room was estab-
lished to produce similar materials for the advertising and circulation
departments.2 All printing operations in these rooms utilize the offset
process. Employees in the Multilith and Davidson rooms,3 who have
always.been represented by the Guild, operate the offset presses 4 all
of which are located in those rooms, and,. prior to 1965, performed all
the offset platemaking tasks of "stripping" and "burning" done at the
plant .5
3 The Multilith room , which is located on the second floor of the plant , contains, among
other items of equipment , two Multilith presses, are lights, a stripping table, an artist
layout table, and some stapling , cutting, and folding equipment . Equipment in the
Davidson room , which is located in the basement, includes a Davidson press, a Harris
press, are lights, a stripping table, and stapling , cutting, and folding machines.
3 The Multilith room includes two employees who are classified as "Multilith Operator"
under the Guild contract . The Davidson room includes three employees classified as
senior clerk , clerk, and assistant under that agreement.
4 There is no dispute concerning performance of the offset printing by members of. the
Guild's bargaining unit.
5 The following procedure has been observed in producing the plates : ( 1) copy is pasted
up by an employee in the Multilith or Davidson room; ( 2) the pasted -up copy is sent to
the engraving room where it is photographed ; ( 3) the negatives are shipped back to the
THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 229
The newspaper, on the other hand, is printed through traditional
letterpress techniques. Platemaking is also performed in connection
therewith. However, this platemaking is performed in the engraving
department, located on the second floor of the plant, by employees
within the bargaining unit historically represented by Photoengravers,
and.is generally more complex, requiring a higher degree of skill, than
the stripping and burning performed in the Multilith and Davidson
rooms.
Between 1952 and 1964, the Employer's collective-bargaining agree-
ments with the Photoengravers did not include the "stripping" and
"burning" operations in the Multilith and Davidson rooms, but defined
the latter's unit as limited, inter alia, to work "as presently practiced
in the engraving department," and the making of offset plates for "the
production of the newspaper." In negotiating the* intervening con-
tracts during this period, the Photoengravers on several occasions,
beginning in 1956, attempted, without success, to obtain contractual
assignment of this work for engraving department employees.
'Finally, in the 1964-65 negotiations, the Employer acceded to the
Photoengravers' demand and agreed to delete the limiting language
"as presently practiced in the engraving room" and "for production
of the newspaper." At that time, however, the subsisting contract
between the Employer and the Guild (November 1, 1964-Octo-
ber 31, 1966) included a provision barring transfer of work performed
by, employees in Guild-unit classifications to "employees outside the
`Guild's jurisdiction:"
In mid-June 1965,6 the Employer, pursuant to, its agreement with
Photoengravers, `assigned the.stripping in' the. Davidson room to the
engraving room whereupon it was performed by employees repre-
sented by Photoengravers (the burning performed in the Davidson
room has not been reassigned, and no work has been removed from the
Multilith room). Thereafter, the Guild, by letter of June 24,
demanded the return of the Davidson room work. That same day,
A bulletin was posted by the Guild advising' its members that "the
Photoengravers have taken over work customarily performed by
employees in Guild jurisdiction," and that militant action would be
necessary to prevent "further erosion" of Guild work. On July 6,
the Guild demanded return of the "Multilith" work, and threatened to
instruct its members not to handle any papers, documents, or materials,
or do work on any "Multilith" operations involved in the dispute until
Multilith or Davidson room; ( 4) the negatives are then stripped , or placed in a proper
layout on a sheet of opaque paper ; ( 5). the image from the layout is transferred to the
plate through the burning process; and ( 6) the completed plate is installed on the offset
presses.
6 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates refer to 1965.
' 230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
settlement of the matter in accordance with the Guild's position. On
July 13, the Employer filed: the instant charge naming the Guild as
'Respondent.
C. Contentions of the parties
At the hearing, the Employer, preferring to remain neutral, took
no position on the issue of to whom the work should be assigned, indi-
cating, however, that no distinction can be made between the two rooms
and, hence, that all of the disputed work should be assigned to one unit
or the other. But, in its brief to the Board, the Employer suggested a
compromise solution whereby the work would be allocated by assigning
"the stripping and burning work in the Davidson Room to the Photo-
engravers while permitting the Multilith Room to continue to operate
as it presently does."
Photoengravers contends that its present contract with the Employer
constitutes an assignment of the disputed work, and that its claim
thereto is further supported by its area and industrywide jurisdiction,
the superior skills and training of engraving department employees,
and economy and efficiency of operation. Photoengravers also moved
to dismiss that portion, of the notice of hearing dealing with the David-
son room on the ground that the evidence does not disclose that the
Guild threatened, coerced, or restrained the Employer to assign David-
son room work to the Guild rather than Photoengravers.
On the other hand, the Guild predicates its claim for the disputed
work upon its contract with the Employer, the historic plant practice,
the Employer's satisfaction with past performance of its employees,
efficiency of operation, and, the fact that the stripping and burning
operations are closely integrated with the offset printing performed in
the Davidson and Multilith rooms.
D. Applicability of the statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to hear and determine
the dispute out of which a Section 8(b) (4) (D) charge has arisen.
Before making a determination of the dispute, however, the Board
is required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b) (4) (D) has been violated.
The record herein shows that both the Guild and the Photoengravers
claimed the stripping and.burning operations in connection with offset
plate production, and that the Employer yielded to the Photo-
engravers' demands for contract coverage of such work in the 1964-65
negotiations with that Union. Pursuant thereto in mid-June 1965,
the Employer transferred the stripping from the Davidson room to
the engraving room for performance by employees represented by the
Photoengravers, whereupon the Guild announced to its members that
THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 231
drastic action would have to be taken and threatened the Employer
with work stoppages in connection with Multilith materials unless the
offset platemaking continued to be performed "in its entirety" by
employees covered by the Guild contract. The Guild would be in a
position to implement its threats since, in the normal course of the
Employer's operations, employees represented by it would be called
upon to perform other work on the material produced in the Davidson
and Multilith rooms, regardless of which union performs the disputed
offset platemaking.
We find, therefore, on the entire record that there is reasonable cause
to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) has occurred,'
and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination
under Section 10 (k) of the Act.8
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. The Board has held that its determination in a
jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based upon common
sense an d experience and a balancing of such factors.9
Certain of the usual factors considered by the Board in these cases,
such as certifications, contracts, industry practices, area practice, and
skills, clearly provide little basis.for determining the instant dispute.
Thus, neither the Guild nor the Photoengravers has been certified by
the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative for any of the
Company's employees. The Company's contracts with the Guild and
the Photoengravers cannot constitute a persuasive basis for an award,
as they appear to include conflicting assignments of the work in con-
7 There is no merit in the Photoengravers ' contention that the evidence fails to estab-
lish a cognizable jurisdictional dispute with respect to stripping and burning performed
in the Davidson room. On the contrary , the Guild's letter of June 24 protesting the
removal of Multilith work from the Davidson room and demanding its return , the Guild's
notification to its membership that Photoengravers had invaded its jurisdiction , and the
Guild's letter to the Company on June 6 threatening work stoppages unless the Guild's
demands for all Multilith work were honored, clearly furnish reasonable cause to believe
that an 8 ( b) (4) (ii ) ( D) violation occurred with respect to the Company's reassignment
of work from the Davidson room.
$ As noted, employees represented by the Guild are currently assigned the burning
operations in the Davidson room as well as the stripping and burning work in the Multi-
lith room. However, the Employer agreed to the deletion of language in the contract
of the photoengravers , demanded by the latter in support of its claim to the offset plate-
making work , thus substantiating the apprehension of the Guild that a reassignment of
all such work may occur . Accordingly, although the Guild is currently assigned a por-
tion of the disputed work, we find that the dispute extends to such work and is properly
before the Board for determination . Philadelphia Typographical Union, Local No. 2
( Philadelphia Inquirer, Division of Triangle Publications, Inc.), 142 NLRB 32, 40.
8 N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO ( Columbia Broadcasting System ), 364 U.S.
573; International Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 1743 , AFL-CIO (J. A.. Jones
Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402, 1411.
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
troversy.10 Although Photoengravers relies upon an alleged industry
or area practice as supporting its claim to the disputed work, the evi-
dence adduced merely shows that it has collective-bargaining agree-
ments with three employees in the Cleveland area, who perform plate-
making for the offset printing process, and is hardly sufficient to
establish a definite pattern tending to favor the Photoengravers' claim.
Finally, it is apparent from the record that employees in either bar-
gaining unit possess the ability to perform the disputed work.
1. Prior plant practice
As indicated, the offset platemaking tasks of stripping and burning
had been performed until 1965 by employees represented by the Guild.
At no time prior to that date had any such work been performed in the
engraving department. The Employer, though quite satisfied with
that arrangement, in 1965, responding to coercive gestures by Photo-
engravers, and not voluntarily, agreed to modify past agreements with
Photoengravers so as to include the disputed offset platemaking. As
a result of this agreement, stripping was taken from the Davidson
room and assigned to the engraving department where it was then per-
formed by Photoengravers. Considering the established practice dat-
ing back to the-inception of offset operations at the plant, and the con-
ditions under which the practice was modified in 1965, we find that this
factor favors employees represented by the Guild.
2. Efficiency of operation
As heretofore indicated, employees in the Multilith and Davidson
rooms, before 1965, performed the disputed stripping and burning.
These employees possess the requisite skills to perform that work,
which involves tasks closely integrated with their responsibility for
operation of the offset presses. On the other hand, the platemaking
tasks performed in the engraving department relate directly. to the
letterpress production of the newspaper. It is apparent therefore
that by assigning the work to employees represented by the Guild, a
separation of newspaper and nonnewspaper printing operations would
be maintained. Under this arrangement, the engraving department
would not be burdened by additional work which could impede its
responsibility for production of the newspaper, while in the Multilith
and Davidson room different, yet integrated, aspects of the overall
offset operation would be performed in sequence by the same employees
within the same supervisory unit. For these reasons, it would appear
that assigning the work to employees represented by the Guild would
10 St. Lowi8 Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 6, Inc., affi liated with In-
ternational Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Nord-
mann Printing Company ), 151 NLRB 628.
S. & H. GROSSINGER'S INC. 233
be conducive to the efficient and uninterrupted flow of work within the
offset and letterpress operations of the Employer.
CONCLUSION
In view of all the foregoing, particularly the longstanding practice
of assigning the stripping and burning to employees represented by
the Guild, the Employer's satisfaction with that arrangement, and the
integrated relationship between the disputed work and other offset
operations performed by these employees, we shall determine the dis-
pute before us by awarding stripping and burning of offset plates for
use on offset presses located in the Davidson and Multilith rooms of the
Employer's plant to those employees represented by the Guild, but not
to that Union or its members." This determination is limited to the
particular controversy giving rise to this dispute.
DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record
in this proceeding, the Board makes the' following Determination of
the Dispute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
Employees, who. are represented by the American Newspaper Guild,
AFL-CIO, and Cleveland Newspaper Guild No. 1, the American
Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the stripping
and burning of offset plates used on offset presses located in the Multi-
lith and Davidson rooms at the Employer's plant in Cleveland, Ohio.
n At the hearing, the Employer asserted that no logical distinction can be made be-
tween the Multilith and Davidson rooms, and therefore that all disputed work should
be assigned to one unit or the other. Nevertheless, as heretofore indicated, the Employer,
in its brief to the Board , proposed a compromise solution , splitting the work by allocating
the Davidson room portion to Photoengravers , while preserving the Multilith portion for
employees represented by the Guild. As we are satisfied that the Employer's initial
position was correct , and that the various factors on which the Board relies in determin-
ing jurisdictional disputes fail to support a distinction between the two rooms, we do not
adopt the Employer 's proposed solution herein.
S. & H. Grossinger 's Inc. and Hotel and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders International Union, Local 343, AFL-CIO
S. & H. Grossinger 's Inc. and Hotel and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders International Union, Local 343, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Cases Nos. 3-CA-2242 and 3-IBC-3243. December 21,
1965
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF THIRD ELECTION
On May 7, 1965, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had
156 NLRB No. 20.