Greensboro News Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 689 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

(;REI:NSBOR() NEWS (()
The Greenshboro News Company ad (reensboro
Newspaper G;uild. ('ase II -('A 7679
August 28X. 1979
DE('ISION AND ORD[ER
BY CIIAIRM.AN ANNIN( ANI) MiM1111RS JINKINS
ANI) PLNtI.tO
On May 25, 1979. Administrative Laxw Judge Irwin
H. Socoloff issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. T1hereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
briefs in support thereof, and the Charging Party filed
an answering brief to Respondent's exceptions.
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 au-
thority i this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briels
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
forded full opporluniN to he heard. to esannnc the cross-
examillne witnesses, and to Introduce eidelle. 'I'het.itte.l.
the parties tiled briefs which h;\,e been dul, considered.
[Upon the entire record in this ctse. and ro,1 mn obscr-
vatio, of the witnesses. 1 make the old)Ulom:
FIND>INfl t)l 1:\( I
I. it RISI)I( I()
Respondent is a North ('arlina corporation englaged at
its Greensboro. North Carolina. facilit' in the printing and
sale of newspapers. During the ear preceding issuance of'
the complaint, a representative period. Respondent suh-
scribed to interstate news columns and advertised natlion-
ally sold products. In that same time period. Respondent's
gross volume of business was in excess of $200.M()t. I ind
that Respondent is an employer engaged in co1mme1rce
within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and (7) of thc Act.
11. ABt)R OR(iANIZAllI\
Greensboro Newspaper G(uild is a labor orga;nizatlon
within the meaning of Section 215) of the Act.
111. llt NI-AIR ABOR()R 'R( 11( S
ORDER Factsl and ('onclusions
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent. The Greensboro News
Company. Greensboro, North Carolina, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied.
as the record. the exceptions. and the briels adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties.
DECISION
SIAIEMENI o( Itie CASk
IRWiN H. SO( oi.OFF. Administrative Law Judge: Upon a
charge filed June 9. 1978. by the Greensboro Newspaper
Guild, herein referred to as the Union. against the Greens-
boro News Company. herein called Respondent, the Gen-
eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for Region II. issued a complaint dated
August 8. 1978. alleging violations b Respondent of Sec-
tions 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. herein called the Act. Respon-
dent, by its answer. denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice. hearing was held before me in
Greensboro. North Carolina, on December 11. 1978. at
which all parties were represented hb counsel and were af-
A. 'The Union's Rquc.st hr to/bration Rondcil'
Retlasal ; turni.sh Snict
Following a Board conducted election, the Union nas
certified on October 31. 1977. as the collective-barga ining
representative of Respondent's Greensboro North ('aro-
lina, news and editorial department employees In Novem-
her and December of that Near. the parties. b\ mail. ex-
changed contact proposals. Also. on December 13. the
Union requested that it be furnished with the names, ad-
dresses, social security numbers, classifica;tions. and wage
rates of all bargaining unit employees. including three indi-
viduals whom Respondent regarded as confidential secre-
taries., and. thus. outside the unit.' Therealter, the re-
quested information was supplied. with the exception of
that pertaining to the three secretaries. On January 24.
1978. the Union, by letter. again requested wage and re-
lated information concerning the three secretaries, contend-
ing that those individuals had voted without challenge at
the election and. accordingly. were part of' the bargaining
unit. At negotiation meetings held on February 20. March
13, 14, and 21 and April 10, 1978. the Union renewed its
request, claiming that, in an, event, the information as
I The actfindings contained herein aire based upon a cniposite It the
testimonial and documnentars ex idence offered at the hearing 1 he rec,rd is
generally free of evldenlars colnflil
2 Those secretaries are assigned to Respondent's editor and Its Ito man;/g-
ng edilor..
In his September 23. 1977. t)ecision and t)lrecin of t-.lection in Case
II RC 4397. the Regional Director. noting hat the eprcsenta.ion case rec-
ord was "silent as to Ihe current dIlties of the three sc relairies It quesion."
ruled that the) he permitted to x.ote suilect to challenge h etllher parts "
At the election, Ihose indivsiduals did. in Iactl, ote. ai thout llen .iilge.
244 NLRB No. 117
D)E('ISIONS 0() NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
needed to enable the U nion intelligently to bargain con-
cerning its contract proposal that certain unit employees.
classified as clerks. receive a pay differential when perform-
ing the higher classification work of the secretaries. In that
connection, the record reflects Illlt there is some degree of
overlap between the work of the "confidential secretaries"
and that ofl unit employees. Nonetheless, Respondent re-
fuse d to supply wage infoirmation pertaining to the secre-
taries, based on its view that it was under no legal obliga-
tion to do so.
In resolving this issue, I need not consider the record
evidence in this case bearing upon the question of the con-
fidential status of the secretaries. For, I conclude that, re-
gardless of the disposition of the unit placement issue, the
Union has demonstrated a relevance and necessity for the
requested information in terms of its bearing upon bargain-
ing proposals concerning conceded unit employees.4 Ac-
cordingly. in refusing to supply wage and related informa-
tion concerning the secretaries, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
B. he Lnion s Ratificatli,, Procedures and Its Collectice-
Bargaining Program. Respondent's Re.fuval To Bargain
The first meeting of the parties occurred on February 20,
1978. at which they discussed the "ground-rules" for their
negotiations. At the close of that brief meeting, the Union's
chief negotiator, International Representative Luis Monta-
nez, informed Respondent's principal negotiators, R.D.
Douglas. Jr.. an attorney, and Arthur T. Gormley. Jr., Vice
President of Respondent's parent corporation. that the
Union would send a letter to Respondent outlining the
Union's bargaining procedures.
The union's letter was sent on February 21. 1978, and
advised Respondent that article XVIII of the international'
constitution was applicable to the parties' negotiations. Un-
der that provision, any agreement reached was subject to
ratification by the unit employees: by an "additional Guild
body as provided for by the Local" (in this case, the local
Union's executive committee); and by the international ex-
ecutive board contracts committee which would examine
the proposed agreement "as to conformity with the Consti-
tution and Collective Bargaining Program" of the Interna-
tional. and would withhold approval of agreements con-
taining "sufficiently serious" deviations from the Collective
Bargaining Program." By letter dated February 23. 1978,
Respondent stated that "We do not see how we can begin
realistic negotiations for a labor contract if we are to be
controlled by the conditions set out in your letter." In par-
ticular, the Company protested the requirement of ratifica-
tion by an "additional Guild Body" and by the Internation-
al's contracts committee under a "conformity" test.
Following this exchange of correspondence. the parties
'See Norihs et Pubhliaion. Inc.. 211 NLRB 464 (1974).
'The Newspaper Guild, AFI. CIO.
I The International's ('onstitution contains a section entitled "Collective
Bargaining Program." which includes detailed contractual goals and refers
to a model contract 'Ihat section provides that bargaining be "guided" by
the Program: that the Pros isions of the Program he included in all contract
"proposals; and that the model contract he used as a "guide."
met for bargaining purposes on March 13, 14. and 21, and.
while substantive bargaining occurred at those meetings,
and agreement was reached on minor contract items, Re-
spondent continued to object to the ratification procedures
set forth in the Union's F ebruary 21 letter. Thus, Douglas
termed those procedures an imposition of unilateral condi-
tions upon the bargaining process which, if adhered to by
the Union, would prevent fruitful negotiations. Montanez
replied that the Union's internal procedures were not a bar-
gaining matter and that he had intifrrned Respondent about
them solely as a point of information. Douglas repeatedly
asked whether or not the union negotiators had authority to
conclude a contract that was not subject to a test of con-
formity by some outside party. In response, Montanez
stated that, while any agreement reached would require ap-
proval by the international contracts committee, the collec-
tive bargaining program of the international was just a
guideline and the Union was prepared to bargain by the
rule of "give and take." Montanez further informed Re-
spondent that he often submits, for approval, contracts
which do not follow the guidelines and that the Interna-
tional frequently approves contracts which are not in con-
formity with the model contract. In fact, Montanez stated
that no contract submitted and approved conforms to the
model in all respects. Douglas proposed that a member of
the international executive board sit on the Union's bar-
gaining committee and advise the parties on whether the
agreements they reach will pass the conformity test. In re-
sponse to this and other suggestions of Respondent con-
cerning the ratification issue. Montanez stated that the
Union would not negotiate about the international consti-
tution and that the issue was a legal one and not a bargain-
ing matter.
The final meeting of the parties took place on April 10.
1978. At that time. Douglas demanded that the Union pro-
vide written assurance of its bargaining committee's author-
ity to reach binding agreement, not subject to the "three-
tier" ratification process or to any test of "conformity."
Douglas further stated that until that matter was settled.
Respondent would not continue to meet and bargain.7
Thereafter, by letter dated May 15. 1978, the Union ad-
vised Respondent that it would not negotiate on "proce-
dures governing the powers and responsibilities of guild
bargaining representatives and the method by which tenta-
tive understandings reached at the bargaining table are con-
cluded in a signed contract." However, the Union asserted,
"Guild representatives appearing at the bargaining table
have full power to speak on behalf of all employees within
the Guild's bargaining unit." In its reply dated May 17.
Respondent asserted that it did not seek to bargain about
those matters but, rather, would not "start negotiations un-
der completely unreasonable, and to us unlawful, condi-
tions imposed by you." Respondent did not reply to the
' Gormley testified that prior to the April 10 meeting, he read and studied
the international constitution, including the collective bargaining program.
and discovered that the Union's initial contract proposal was "virtually iden-
tical" to the contractual terms set forth in he program, an assertion denied
by Montanez in his tesimony. Thus. according to Gormle, in light of the
conformity test, the Union position amounted to an ultimatum to sign their
original proposal.
690
(;REEINSBORO NEWS CO.
lnion's June 12. 1978. letter demlanding a return to the
bargaining table.
It is well settled that a union's ratification procedures are
an internal union matter and are not a mandatory subject
of bargaining. In M & ,1 Olvmohildc. Ic. 156 NlRB 903
(1966). the Board held:
a bargaining agent need not assume the obligation
of obtaining ratification of any contract it may negoti-
ate on behalf of its members. but. if it does so, it is fr
the union, not the employer. to construe and apply its
internal regulations relating to what would be suffi-
cient to amount to ratification.
In the instant case. Respondent seeks to privilege its admit-
ted refusal to bargain on the ground that the Llnion's ratifi-
cation procedure is "three-tiered," and includes a test of
"conformity" with the international's collective bargaining
program. and thus, imposes impermissible conditions upon
the bargaining process. I disagree. In my judgment the
mere existence of the Union's constitutionally mandated
three-part ratification procedure. an internal union aflair
including a test of "conformity" to the International's bar-
gaining goals. does not demonstrate either a lack of bar-
gaining authority vested in the union negotiators or a re-
fusal to bargain in good faith on the part of the Union. At
the bargaining table, the Union did not evidence a "take-it-
or-leave-it" attitude with respect to its own contract propos-
als. Rather, it assured Respondent that it was prepared for
"give and take" bargaining and further that the internation-
al's collective bargaining program operated as a guideline
for the union negotiators rather than a requirement of lit-
eral conformity (a construction not inconsistent with the
express terms of the international constitution and the pro-
gram.) In short, at the bargaining table, the Union did not.
in fact, refuse to bargain in good faith and. thus. privilege a
refusal b,, Respondent to bargain at all. In refusing to bar-
gain unless the Union agreed to abandon its internal ratifi-
cation procedures. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(I) of the Act.
iv. HIE EFFI!CT OF THI. UNFAIR ABOR PRAfII( ES UPON
( (MMIR( E
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II,
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section I,. above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several states and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
\. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
s See Manor Mining and (ontracting (Corporaion. 197 N RB 1057 ( 1972):
Roadhome Construction Corp. 170 NLRB 668 (1968
CON( t SIONS OF LWN
1. The Respondent The Greensboro News ('ompan), is
an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and
(7) of the Act.
2. Greensboro Newspaper Guild is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All emploxees of the editorial and news departments
including the bureaus and the library employees at the Em-
ployer's Greensboro. North Carolina. facility, excluding
managerial employees, guards. and supervisors as defined
in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
4. Greensboro Newspaper Guild is. and at all times ma-
terial herein has been, the exclusive representative of the
employees in the unit described above within the meaning
of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the Union as collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees, in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to
rates of pay, wages. hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of emplo ment. and by failing and refusing
to furnish the Union with information relevant and neces-
sary to the intelligent discharge of the Union's collective-
bargaining responsibilities. Respondent has engaged in, and
is engaging in. unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Sections 8(a)(5) and ( I ) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act. I hereb issue the following recommended
ORDER9
The Respondent. The Greensboro News Company,
Greensboro, North Carolina. its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Greensboro Newspaper
Guild as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the unit described above. and refusing to furnish
the Union with information relevant and necessary to the
intelligent discharge of the Union's collective-bargaining re-
sponsibilities.
(b) In an) like or related manner, interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
In the event no exceptions are filed. as provided hb Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall., as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become its
findings. conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
h691
DI)LC(ISIONS ()1 NAIO()NAL. IABOR RELA IONS BOARD
(a) Upon request, furnish the above-namted ilion with
inftormation relevant and necessary to the intelligent dis-
charge of its collecti, e-hargatining responsibilities and, upon
request, bargain collecti ely concerning rates of paN. wages,
hours of employnient, and other ternis and conditions of
employment with the Union, as the exclusive collective-hbar-
gaining representative o all the employees in the appropri-
ate unit described above, and, if an agreenment is reached.
embody it in a signed contract.
(b) Post at its G(reensboro, North Carolina, faiicility, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""' (Copies of
said notice, on lorms provided by the Regional Director for
Region I 1, after being duly signed by Respondent's autho-
rized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof' and be maintained b it fr 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places. including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director or Region I I, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
lIn the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment ofl a inited
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted b Order of
the National Labor Relalions Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enlbrcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
APP NI)IX
Nott( l o) [EMPI.O)YIFIS
t)(SI I) D ' ()RI)iR O1)1 li
NA I I()NAI LAII()R R'I.AII()NS BAR)
An Agency of the United States Giovernment
W i. wll. NOl refuse to bargain collectively with
Greensboro Newspaper Guild and :v wnl.l NoIH refuse
to furnish information needed by the Union in order to
fulfill its collective-bargaining responsibilities. The ap-
propriate bargaining unit is:
All employees of the editorial and news departments
including the bureaus and the library employees at
our Greensboro North Carolina,. facility, excluding
managerial employees. guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WI wllt.l NO]I i any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WI. Wtl., upon request, furnish the Union with in-
formation relevant and necessary to the intelligent dis-
charge of its collective-bargaining responsibilities and,
uIpon request, \\ i will bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay. wages, hours of employment. and other
terms and conditions of employment with the union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the appropriate unit described above.
and, if an agreement is reached. wil w.l. embody it in
a signed contract.
'11i GRtI :NINI()R NIWS C(OMP(-ANY
692