Star Tribune

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1989

295 N.L.R.B. 543 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

STAR TRIBUNE
Star Tribune , A Division of Cowles Media Co. and
The Newspaper Guild of the Twin Cities, Local
2, the Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases
18-CA-9938 and 18-CA-10296
June 15, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN , CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND
DEVANEY
On November 3, 1988, Administrative Law
Judge Wallace H. Nations issued the attached deci-
sion . The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief and the Council on Labor Law
Equality filed an amicus curiae in support of the
Respondent 's exceptions . The Newspaper Guild of
the Twin Cities, Local 2, AFL-CIO, and the
AFL-CIO filed a joint brief in opposition to the
Respondent 's exceptions . The Respondent also filed
a request for oral argument.
On February 10, 1989, the Board scheduled oral
argument for March 15, 1989 , because this case and
another case ' presented important issues in the ad-
ministration of the National Labor Relations Act.
On the scheduled date, the General Counsel, the
Charging Party , the Respondent , the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations , the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce
of the United States of America, the Equal Em-
ployment Advisory Council, and the Council on
Labor Law Equality presented oral argument
before the Board.2
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions , briefs, and oral
argument and has decided to affirm the judge's rul-
ings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent
consistent with this Decision and Order.
The judge found that the Respondent's unilateral
implementation of a drug and alcohol policy on
January 1 , 1987, its unilateral revision of this policy
effective September 1, 1987 , and its refusal to fur-
nish information relating to the preemployment
testing policy violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. The Respondent's drug and alcohol policy
consisted of three components : ( 1) a preemploy-
ment medical examination , including drug and al-
cohol screening for prospective employees to
' Johnson -Bateman Co., 295 NLRB 180 (1989)
2 The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Orga-
nizations, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Com-
merce of the United States of America, the Equal Employment Advisory
Council , and the Council on Labor Law Equality appeared as amici
curiae.
543
whom job offers had been made contingent on pas-
sage of the drug test ; (2) a medical examination for
current employees, including a drug and alcohol
screen in certain circumstances ; and (3) a discipli-
nary schedule for drug - and alcohol -related of-
fenses.
There were no exceptions to the judge 's findings
with respect to unilateral implementation of drug
and alcohol screening of current employees and a
disciplinary schedule for drug- and alcohol -related
offenses . 3 The Respondent did except , however, to
the judge 's findings that it violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by unilaterally implementing a
drug and alcohol screen for prospective employees
and by refusing to furnish the Union with the re-
quested information relating to the drug and alco-
hol testing of prospective employees . For reasons
discussed more fully below , we affirm the judge's
conclusion that the refusal to furnish the requested
information violated the Act, but reverse the
judge's conclusion that the Respondent's unilateral
implementation of a drug and alcohol testing policy
for prospective employees constituted an unfair
labor practice.4
The facts are not in dispute . The Star Tribune is
a daily newspaper published in Minneapolis, Min-
nesota . The Charging Party Union (the Guild or
the Union) has been the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of a unit of employees of the Respondent
since the early 1930s . Currently the unit encom-
passes between 350 and 400 employees. The Guild
represents the Respondent 's reporters , some edi-
tors, news assistants , photographers , news artists,
metro-circulation employees , and promotion em-
ployees . The parties' most recent collective-bar-
gaining agreement , which expires on July 31, 1989,
provides that the Guild is the exclusive bargaining
representative "on behalf of all the employees
(except those herein excluded ) employed in the
News and Editorial Departments of the Minneapo-
lis Star and Tribune including the Sunday Tribune,
employed in the Sales Development/Promotion
Department doing art and creative work, and all
Metro District Sales Managers in the Metro Circu-
lation Department, and no others ." Article XIV,
paragraph 8 of the parties' agreement is a nondis-
crimination clause which provides as follows:
The Publisher prohibits discrimination in
employment on the basis of race , color , nation-
8 In Johnson-Bateman Co, supra, we found that drug testing of current
employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
4 The Respondent also excepted to the judge 's finding that the Guild
had not waived its right to bargain over the implementation of the appli-
cant drug and alcohol testing policy. Because we conclude that applicant
drug and alcohol testing is not a mandatory subject of bargaining, it is
unnecessary to resolve the issues raised by this exception
295 NLRB No. 63
544 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
al origin , religion , marital or parental status,
disability , status with regard to public assist-
ance, political affiliation , sex, sexual preference
or age. The Guild or the Publisher shall not
discriminate against any employee because of
membership or nonmembership in the Guild or
activity therein, or because of any of the other
categories set forth in this paragraph.
All phases of employment are covered by
this policy, including but not limited to: re-
cruiting and recruiting advertising ; testing and
hiring ; promotion ; demotion and transfer;
training ; termination; layoff and recall; and
compensation.
In 1985, as a result of a review conducted by the
Respondent of a number of companywide employ-
ee policies , changes were made to the existing drug
and alcohol abuse program . Pursuant to these
changes, prospective employees who had been of-
fered jobs were required to take a preemployment
medical exam , including an unobserved urinalysis
for evidence of alcohol or illegal or controlled sub-
stances . Applicants who tested positive according
to established standards or who refused to take the
test were denied employment. The Guild first
learned of the Respondent's new policy on Decem-
ber 10, 1986, when the Respondent's vice president
for labor relations , John Dennison , telephoned then
Guild Executive Secretary Bruce Nelson to inform
the Guild that the Respondent planned to imple-
ment such a policy in January 1987.5 As discussed
more fully in the judge 's decision , on several occa-
sions the Union told the Respondent that it consid-
ered all components of the new drug and alcohol
policy to be mandatory subjects of bargaining and
demanded bargaining over the policy.
The new drug policy was implemented in Janu-
ary. On January 4, Nelson received a telephone
call from a bargaining unit employee informing him
that a prospective employee's offer of employment
had been withdrawn because the individual refused
to take the preemployment drug and alcohol test.
In response to this first indication that the Re-
spondent's drug and alcohol policy had been imple-
mented , Nelson immediately telephoned Dennison,
who was unavailable . On January 9, Dennison re-
turned Nelson 's call and informed Nelson that he
did not know that the new policy had been imple-
mented nor did he know whether the Respondent
was willing to bargain with the Union over the
policy. At the end of January, while still awaiting
the Respondent 's response to the Union 's demand
to bargain, the Union learned that another prospec-
tive employee had been offered a job conditioned
5 All dates are in 1987 unless otherwise indicated.
on the passage of a drug and alcohol test . In a Jan-
uary 29 telephone conversation , Dennison informed
Nelson that all three components of the drug and
alcohol policy had been implemented and that the
Respondent would not bargain with the Union on
any aspect of the policy . On February 5, the Union
filed the unfair labor practice charge in Case 18-
CA-9938 alleging that the unilateral implementa-
tion of the drug and alcohol testing program for
prospective and current employees and the sched-
ule of discipline for violations of the drug and alco-
hol policies violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
In a September 16 letter , Dennison notified
Taylor, Nelson 's assistant , that the Respondent had
implemented a revised drug policy effective Sep-
tember 1 . The revised policy imposed new rules
providing , in pertinent part, that any prospective
employee who tested positive for drugs or alcohol,
or who refused to submit to testing , would not be
considered for employment for a minimum of 6
months, if at all ; any prospective employee who
wished to explain a positive test result must do so
within 3 working days of receiving notice of the
test result ; and any prospective employee who
wished to request a retest must do so within 5 days
of receiving notice of the result.
On August 19, following the administrative de-
ferral to arbitration of the Union 's unfair labor
practice charge in Case 18-CA-9938, the Union
filed a grievance alleging, inter alia, violations of
the nonwork activities and nondiscrimination pro-
visions of the parties' contract. On October 29, the
Union requested certain information pertaining to
the application and enforcement of the preemploy-
ment drug testing requirement.
In a November 16 letter , the Respondent refused
to comply with the information request for the fol-
lowing stated reasons : (1) the Company had al-
ready refused to submit the issue of preemployment
testing to arbitration; (2) the requested information
was not "material" to the Guild 's function as bar-
gaining representative ; and (3) "most" of the re-
quested information could not be disclosed under
the privacy provisions of the Minnesota Drug and
Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (DATWA)
Minn. Stat . 181.97 (1987). On November 24, the
Union filed the unfair labor practice charge in Case
18-CA-10296 , alleging that the Respondent 's refus-
al to furnish the information violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. On December 16, the
Region issued a consolidated complaint , amended
on February 29, 1988, alleging that the Respond-
ent's conduct in unilaterally implementing its drug
and alcohol testing policy and discipline schedule,
its unilateral revision of such policy , and its refusal
STAR TRIBUNE 545
to furnish the requested information relating to the
preemployment aspects of the drug and alcohol
testing policy to the Union violated the Act.
The judge found that the unilateral implementa-
tion of the drug and alcohol screening for prospec-
tive employees violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act based on his conclusion that drug and alco-
hol testing of prospective employees is a mandato-
ry subject of bargaining. The Respondent excepted
to this finding and we find merit to this exception.
The judge relied primarily on Houston Chapter,
Associated General Contractors (Houston AGC), 143
NLRB 409 (1963), enfd. 349 F.2d 449 (5th Cir.
1965), to conclude that drug and alcohol testing for
prospective employees is a mandatory subject of
bargaining . In that case, the Board held that the es-
tablishment of a hiring hall is a mandatory subject
of bargaining and ordered the employer to bargain
over the process by which applicants are employed
stating that the statutory duty to bargain about
"terms and conditions of employment" as defined
in Section 8(d) of the Act "connotes the initial act
of employing as well as the consequent state of
being employed." 143 NLRB at 412. We conclude
that the Board's decision in Houston AGC is inap-
posite to the instant case . In Houston AGC, the
Board focused on the intermittent nature of em-
ployment therein, namely, "the involvement of all
the employees (those who are seeking employment
as well as those who are currently employed) with
the hiring hall." 143 NLRB at 413 fn. 10. The
Board reasoned "[t]hus, those employees who are
working in the industry and who have a deep con-
cern not only about the length of their present
jobs, but also about the opportunities for continued
employment elsewhere when they are laid off, are
clearly and directly affected by the job priority
standards established by the hiring hall." 143
NLRB at 412. The Fifth Circuit in enforcing the
Board's decision in Houston AGC specifically relied
on the intermittent, temporary, transitory nature of
the employment of current employees in that case
and noted that the essence of employee security
therein rested on the establishment of seniority
rights through a common source of job priority
and priority standards . 349 F.2d at 452. By con-
trast, the subject case does not involve an intermit-
tent employment situation nor does the drug and
alcohol testing of applicants have a direct effect on
current employees by setting job priority standards
with respect to their future employment.
Lockheed Shipbuilding Co., 273 NLRB 171 (1984)
(Lockheed 1), relied on by the judge, is also factual-
ly distinguishable. In that case, the Board found
that an employer violated Section 8(a)(5) by unilat-
erally implementing new medical screening tests
for the purpose of terminating new employees or
refusing to hire applicants for employment. Under
the contractual hiring procedure, the employer was
obligated to pay at least 4 hours' pay to any em-
ployee who reported to work. In Lockheed Ship-
building Co., 278 NLRB 18 (1986) (Lockheed II),
the Board found the continuation of the same medi-
cal screening program to be unlawful. In Lockheed
II, the Board noted that "as an accommodation to
that contractual requirement, employees dispatched
to Respondent ordinarily were considered as being
hired and then if problems arose during the appli-
cation process those employees were terminated,
being paid at least the minimum reporting pay
called for by the contract." 278 NLRB at 19 fn. 3.
Under those circumstances, the Board concluded in
Lockheed II that for purposes of the issues raised in
Lockheed I and II, which involved a hiring hall,
"there [was] no distinction of significance between
an employee who was dispatched but never hired
and, on the other hand, a dispatched employee
who was hired but then terminated as a result of
events occurring during the application process."
Id.6
Contrary to the judge, we conclude that the Su-
preme Court's discussion in Allied Chemical &
Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404
U.S. 157 (1971) (Pittsburgh Plate Glass), concerning
the scope of the mandatory bargaining obligation
under the Act does not support a finding that
preemployment drug and alcohol testing is a man-
datory subject. In Pittsburgh Plate Glass,7 the em-
ployer and the union had negotiated benefits for re-
tired employees , including health insurance. bene-
fits. Following the enactment of Medicare legisla-
tion, the employer unilaterally changed the health
insurance benefits for its retired workers. In the un-
derlying case , the Board found that the employer's
conduct violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
on the theory that retired employees are employees
within the meaning of the Act for purposes of bar-
gaining about changes in their retirement benefits
and, alternatively, that the subject of benefits for
retired employees is embraced by the bargaining
The judge also relied on Rockwood & Co., 285 NLRB 1114 (1987), to
support his conclusion that applicant drug and alcohol testing is a manda-
tory subject of bargaining . We note, however , that in Rockwood, the
Board in the absense of exceptions adopted pro forms the judge 's finding
in this regard.
In Laney & Duke Storage Warehouse Co., 151 NLRB 248 (1965), enfd.
in relevant part 369 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1966), cited by the judge, the
Board held there was a duty to bargain about changes in application
forms . The facts in that case indicate that the Board 's conclusion that the
employer 's unilateral institution of new application forms violated Sec
8(a)(5) was based in part on the finding that the new application forms
constituted changes in the terms and conditions of employment of unit
employees. To the extent that the 8 (a)(5) violation is premised on a duty
to bargain about applicants , Laney & Duke is overruled.
7 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 177 NLRB 911 (1969)
546 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
obligation of the Act because it vitally affects
active bargaining unit employees . The Court dis-
agreed with the Board 's decision and specifically
held that the statutory bargaining obligation does
not extend to terms and conditions of retired unit
employees' retirement benefits . In concluding that
retired employees' benefits are not terms and con-
ditions of employment of the employer 's "employ-
ees," the Court held that former employees do not
fall within the statutory definition of employee set
forth in Section 2(3) of the Act.S 404 U.S. at 165.
The Court further noted that Sections 8(a)(5),
8(d), and 9(a) of the Act together establish the obli-
gation of an employer to bargain collectively "with
respect to wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment," with "the representatives
of his employees" designated or selected by the
majority "in a unit appropriate for such pur-
poses."9 Id. at 164. This obligation, however, ex-
tends only to "terms and conditions of employ-
ment" of the employer 's "employees" in the "unit
appropriate for such purposes " that the union rep-
resents. Id.
The Court noted that the legislative history of
Section 2(3) of the Act indicates that the term "em-
ployee" is not to be stretched beyond its plain
meaning embracing only those who work for an-
other for hire . In rejecting the Board 's argument
that retired workers are employees whose ongoing
retirement benefits are embraced by the bargaining
obligation of Section 8(a)(5), the Court concluded
that the ordinary meaning of "employees" does not
include retired workers because they have ceased
to work for another for hire. Id. at 166-168.
Moreover, the Court noted that Section 9(a) of
the Act requires that representative status be ac-
corded only in a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining . The Court held that even if
it were to find that retirees might fit the statutory
definition of "employee" within the meaning of the
collective-bargaining obligations of the Act, retir-
8 Sec . 2(3) of the Act provides.
The term "employee" shall include any employee , and shall not be
limited to the employees of a particular employer , unless the Act ex-
plicitly states otherwise, and shall include any individual whose
work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any
current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice, and
who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent
employment
9 Sec . 8(a)(5) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for an employ-
er "to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his em-
ployees, subject to the provisions of section 9(a)." Sec 8(d) defines "to
bargain collectively" as "the performance of the mutual obligation of the
employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable
times and confer in good faith with respect to wages , hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment ...... Sec. 9(a) states : "Representa-
tives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by
the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes,
shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , or other conditions of employment .11
ees could nevertheless not be included in the bar-
gaining unit because they lacked a substantial com-
munity of interest with active employees. Id. at
171-173.
Consistent with the Court's analysis in Pittsburgh
Plate Glass, we conclude that applicants for em-
ployment are not "employees " within the meaning
of the collective-bargaining obligations of the
Act.1 ° Applicants for employment do not fall
within the ordinary meaning of an employer's "em-
ployees." Applicants perform no services for the
employer , are paid no wages, and are under no re-
strictions as to other employment or activities.
And, unlike the intermittent employment situation
that gives rise to the need of employers and unions
for hiring halls, there is no economic relationship
between the employer and an applicant , and the
possibility that such a relationship may arise is
speculative.
We further conclude that the applicants could
not properly be joined with the active employees
in the Guild unit because they do not share a com-
munity of interest broad enough to justify their in-
clusion in the bargaining unit . II Like retirees, ap-
plicants are not permitted by the Board to vote in
elections or considered to be part of a bargaining
unit for purposes of representation elections.12
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the
judge 's findings and conclude that applicants are
not bargaining unit "employees" and that preem-
ployment drug and alcohol testing is not encom-
passed within the statutory duty to bargain about
terms and conditions of employment of the em-
ployer's employees in an appropriate unit.
10 Our conclusion that applicants are not employees for purposes of
Sec. 8(a)(5) does not affect the established body of law that holds that the
antidiscrimination provisions of Sec 8 (aX3) of the Act forbid discrimina-
tion against applicants for employment . Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313
U.S. 177 (1941).
11 We note that the Guild does not contend that applicants for Guild
unit positions are bargaining unit members . The Guild asserts , rather, that
the obligation to bargain about applicant drug and alcohol testing arises
from the Guild's status as exclusive bargaining representative of current
unit employees . The Guild argues that the duty to bargain with an exclu-
sive representative about terms and conditions of employment of unit em-
ployees extends to conditions of hire, such as the Respondent's applicant
drug and alcohol testing requirement . We reject this argument in light of
the Court's analysis in Pittsburgh Plate Glass finding that the duty to bar-
gain with an exclusive representative about terms and conditions of em-
ployment of unit employees does not extend to pensioners ' benefits Al-
though no one has suggested that testing of applicants should be a man-
datory subject of bargaining on the grounds that applicants are actual or
quasi unit members, we note that the Court in Pittsburgh Plate Glass
found that one reason for not including retirees in the unit was the poten-
tial for severe internal conflicts that would impair the union 's ability to
function and would disrupt the process of collective bargaining . Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass, supra at 179 . These same concerns are present with
regard to inclusion of applicants.
iS See, e.g, BL.K. Steel. Inc, 245 NLRB 1347, 1353 (1979), Western
Drug, 231 NLRB 890 (1977), enfd. in relevant part 600 F 2d 1324 (9th
Cit. 1979).
STAR TRIBUNE
We also reject the judge's alternative rationale
for finding that the employer's preemployment
drug and alcohol testing policy is a mandatory sub-
ject of bargaining. The judge concluded that even
if applicants are not bargaining unit "employees,"
the drug and alcohol policy as it applies to pro-
spective employees is a mandatory subject of bar-
gaining because it vitally affects the terms and con-
ditions of employment and working environment of
the Guild bargaining unit. In support of his conclu-
sion that applicant testing vitally affects the terms
and conditions of employment of Guild unit em-
ployees, the judge stated the following reasons: (1)
"the Respondent's [applicant] testing program has a
direct effect on the composition of the bargaining
unit and defines the very terms under which bar-
gaining unit employment may be achieved"; (2)
"[the] Respondent's preemployment drug and alco-
hol testing program introduces a nonperformance
related condition of hire which may arbitrarily
compromise the quality of the workforce, and the
unit members themselves may suffer, both in their
professional reputations and in their future employ-
ment opportunities"; (3) "it is highly likely that the
Respondents' [sic] program will not only deter
from employment those prospective employees
who abuse prohibited substances, but those who
simply refuse to take a screening test for reasons of
principle . . ."; and (4) the Guild "might want a
drug and alcohol screening program implemented
to insure a safer, drug free workplace."13
In Pittsburgh Plate Glass the Court set forth the
following standard for determining whether there
is an obligation to bargain about matters affecting
individuals outside the bargaining unit:
[I]n each case the question is not whether the
third-party concern is antagonistic to or com-
patible with the interests of bargaining-unit
employees, but whether it vitally affects the
"terms and conditions" of their employment.
404 U.S. 157, 179 (1971) (footnote omitted).
The Court disagreed with the Board's determina-
tion that changes in retirees' benefits vitally affect
the terms and conditions of active unit employees.
The Court made it clear that more than speculative
or insubstantial effects must be shown to conclude
that a matter involving individuals outside the em-
ployment relationship constitutes a mandatory sub-
ject of bargaining. Specifically, the Court noted
that the benefits that active workers may reap by
including retired employees under the same health
insurance contract were speculative and insubstan-
tial. The Court also rejected the Board's argument
I I See sec III,C, 1, pars 13 and 14 of the judge's decision.
547
that active employees seek to represent retirees in
order to protect their own future retirement bene-
fits, finding that the effect that bargaining on behalf
of retirees would have on the negotiation of active
employees ' retirement plans is too speculative a
foundation on which to base a bargaining obliga-
tion . The Court noted that there are no guarantees
that benefits negotiated by active employees would
not be altered after they retired. In reversing the
Board 's holding that terms and conditions of em-
ployment of active employees are "vitally" affected
by retirees' benefits, the Court stated that the
Board "simply neglected to give the adverb its or-
dinary meaning." 14
In United Technologies Corp., 274 NLRB 1069
(1985), enfd. 789 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1986), a post-
Pittsburgh Plate Glass decision, the Board defined
the "vitally affects" standard as follows:
An indirect or incidental impact on unit em-
ployees is not sufficient to establish a matter as
a mandatory subject. Rather, mandatory sub-
jects include only those matters that materially
or significantly affect unit employees' terms
and conditions of employment. Similarly, the
phrase "terms and conditions of employment"
is to be construed in a limited sense and does
not include all subjects that may merely be of
interest or concern to the parties. 1 s
We disagree with the judge's conclusion that the
Respondent 's applicant drug and alcohol testing
policy is a mandatory subject of bargaining because
it vitally affects the terms and conditions of unit
employees. The judge observed that the applicant
drug and alcohol testing policy may affect the
composition of the bargaining unit by preventing
applicants who fail or refuse to submit to a drug
and alcohol screen from becoming unit employees.
The judge also asserted that drug testing introduces
"a non-performance related condition of hire
which may arbitrarily compromise the quality of
the workforce, and unit members themselves may
suffer , both in their professional reputations and in
their future employment opportunities."
The judge's observation that applicant testing
will to some degree affect the composition of the
bargaining unit does not, standing alone , support
14 404 U.S. at 182.
Is 274 NLRB at 1070 (emphasis added) (fns. omitted). Applying this
standard , the Board held that the employer did not violate the Act by
refusing to bargain with the union over a summer help program under
which the employer hired college-age children of unit and nonunit em-
ployees to perform both unit and nonunit work on a temporary basis
during the summer. The Board concluded that because the program did
not reduce the regular hours of work available to unit employees and be-
cause unit employees were given priority for any remaining overtime, the
program did not "vitally affect" their terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
548 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the conclusion that it vitally affects the terms and
conditions of employment of unit employees. Any
hiring criterion or individual hiring decision affects
the composition of the bargaining unit. If applicant
drug testing is deemed to vitally affect the terms
and conditions of employment of unit employees
solely on the basis that unit composition is affected,
then any applicant qualification could be subject to
this argument. We conclude that the "vitally af-
fects" test has not been met.16
The judge also reasoned that because a union
proposal to establish a drug and alcohol screening
program to ensure a safer, drug-free workplace
would be a mandatory subject of bargaining, the
Respondent 's decision to implement a drug and al-
cohol screening program for applicants is a manda-
tory subject of bargaining. We disagree.
Certainly, safety in the workplace is a mandatory
subject of bargaining . But the testing of applicants
does not vitally affect workplace safety. That con-
cern can be addressed effectively in union propos-
als that seek posthiring testing of new employees.
Thus, there is nothing in our decision today that
would preclude a union from seeking physical ex-
amination , including drug testing , of newly hired
employees at the very outset of their employment.
In light of all the above considerations, we find
that drug and alcohol testing of applicants for em-
ployment is not a mandatory subject of bargaining,
and that the Respondent has therefore not violated
the Act as alleged by refusing to bargain with the
Union about this subject.
2. Notwithstanding our finding that drug and al-
cohol testing of applicants for employment is not a
mandatory subject of bargaining , we nevertheless
find, for the reasons discussed below, that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by refusing to furnish the Guild with information
concerning the drug and alcohol testing of appli-
cants for Guild positions.
As set forth above, paragraph 8 of article XIV of
the collective-bargaining agreement prohibits dis-
16 In any event , there is no evidence to support the judge's speculation
in this regard The record indicates that only one applicant for a Guild-
unit position refused to submit to the drug and alcohol screen and as a
consequence was not hired . No applicant for a Guild -unit position has
tested positive and been denied employment as a result of the applicant
drug testing policy . Thus, the General Counsel has failed to establish that
individuals who fail or refuse a drug test would vitally affect the work
force or quality of work , that unit employees have had future job oppor-
tunities diminished for any reason , that the reputation of the newspaper
has changed , or that the reputations of unit employees have been ad-
versely affected by the institution of the applicant drug and alcohol test-
ing policy . There has been no showing that as a result of this policy less
qualified individuals were hired . No evidence has been presented that ap-
plicant drug testing will adversely affect the quality or reputation of the
newspaper or its staff in the future . Under these circumstances, the al-
leged impact is speculative and insubstantial and therefore fails to meet
the "vitally affects" standard as discussed in Pittsburgh Plate Glass and
subsequent Board law.
crimination in all phases of employment , including
recruiting , testing, and hiring . Guild International
Representative Nelson testified that one of the
Guild's concerns about the drug and alcohol test-
ing of applicants was uniformity of testing proce-
dures, i .e., whether the same testing procedures
were being used for male and female applicants.17
The Guild requested certain information pertaining
to the application and enforcement of the Respond-
ent's applicant drug and alcohol testing policy: (1)
the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all
prospective employees who had been extended ten-
tative or firm offers of employment in Guild bar-
gaining unit positions since the implementation of
the drug testing program; (2) the identity of appli-
cants who had been required to undergo a preem-
ployment medical examination or a drug and alco-
hol screen; (3) the identity of applicants who re-
fused to submit to a drug and alcohol screen; and,
(4) whether the reason for not hiring an individual
was due to or related to a refusal to submit to a
drug and alcohol test, the results of a drug and al-
cohol test, or issues related to drug and alcohol
testing.
The Guild requested this information pursuant to
a pending grievance relating to the Respondent's
unilateral implementation of the applicant drug and
alcohol testing program. The grievance alleged
violations of several contractual provisions, includ-
ing the nondiscrimination provisions of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement referred to above.
The elimination of actual or suspected sexual dis-
crimination is a mandatory subject of bargaining,
and an employer's refusal to engage in bargaining
over such elimination violates Section 8 (a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.18
In Emporium Cap well Co. v. Western Addition
Community Organization, 420 U.S. 50, 66 (1975),
the Supreme Court stated that "national labor
policy embodies the principles of nondiscrimination
as a matter of highest priority [citing Alexander v.
Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47 (1974)], and it
is a commonplace that we must construe the [Na-
tional Labor Relations Act] in light of the broad
national labor policy of which it is a part." The
Board has also recognized that unions , as the col-
lective-bargaining representatives of employees,
have a legitimate and important interest in a work-
place free of discrimination. In Westinghouse Elec-
17 Evidence was introduced at the hearing that drug and alcohol test-
ing procedures for applicants may have been discriminatorily implement-
ed on the basis of sex . A male applicant testified that he had submitted an
unobserved urine sample, while a female applicant testified that she was
required to submit a urine sample while partially unclothed and observed
by a nurse
is Jubilee Mfg. Co., 202 NLRB 272 (1973), affd. sub nom Steelworkers,
504 F.2d 271 (D C. Cir 1974)
STAR TRIBUNE 549
tric Corp., 239 NLRB 106 (1978), enfd. as modified
sub nom. Electrical Workers I UE, 648 F.2d 18
(D.C. Cir. 1980), the Board observed that the
Court's statement in Emporium that "[t]he elimina-
tion of discrimination and its vestiges is an appro-
priate subject of bargaining" was a reaffirmation of
the Board 's holding that "the elimination of race or
sex discrimination practices is a proper subject of
bargaining ." 19 In Westinghouse , the Board held that
a union has a legal right as a statutory bargaining
representative to ensure that discriminatory prac-
tices are not established or continued, and there-
fore, is entitled to information that relates to al-
leged discrimination.
Further, the Board has held that requested infor-
mation concerning applicants for union-represented
positions is necessary and relevant to a union's per-
formance of its bargaining obligation with respect
to eliminating discriminatory employment prac-
tices. East Dayton Tool & Die Co., 239 NLRB 141
(1978). See also Bendix Corp., 242 NLRB 62, 63
(1979); White Farm Equipment Co., 242 NLRB
1373, 1375 (1979), enfd. sub nom. Electrical Workers
IUE, 650 F.2d 334 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In such cases,
an employer has a corresponding statutory duty to
furnish information about actual or suspected dis-
criminatory hiring practices.2 °
In this regard, there is a significant difference be-
tween the ways in which a union can address its
legitimate concerns for a drug-free, safe working
environment and for elimination of discrimination
in the employment relationship. As seen in the pre-
ceding section of this decision, one reason for find-
ing that testing of applicants does not vitally affect
unit employees ' terms and conditions of employ-
ment is because a union 's legitimate concerns about
a safe and drug-free working environment can be
effectively addressed in union proposals that seek
physical examination , including drug testing, of
newly hired employees at the very outset of their
employment . But considerations of a union's con-
cerns about eliminating , inter alia, sexual discrimi-
19 239 NLRB 106, 107 fn . 13, citing Farmers ' Cooperative Compress, 169
NLRB 290 (1968), enfd . on this point sub nom . Packinghouse Workers,
416 F.2d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert denied 396 U.S. 903 (1969).
so To the extent that Bendix. White Farm, and East Dayton stand for
this proposition they remain good law . We note in each of these cases the
requested information about applicants was sought in the context of dis-
crimination concerns by the union about the employer 's hiring practices.
To the extent that these cases can be read more broadly to provide for
furnishing information regarding hiring practices in all circumstances, we
do not espouse this view
Similarly , we agree with the holding of Tanner Motor Livery, 148
NLRB 1402 (1964), enf denied on other grounds 419 F.2d 216 (9th Cir.
1969), that employee picketing to protest discriminatory hiring policies
and practices is concerted activity protected by Sec 7 of the Act. We
note that Tanner also contains certain broad language suggesting that in
general an employer 's hiring practices are a mandatory subject of bar-
gaining. As our discussion in the previous section indicates , we reject
that view.
nation in the employment relationship cannot so
easily exclude the hiring process . If an employer
engages in discrimination at that stage , the discri-
minatee will never enter into the employment rela-
tionship , and will not become a member of the
work force. A union 's legitimate efforts to seek
elimination of discrimination in the employment re-
lationship would be severely impeded , therefore, if
it were required to wait until the hiring process is
complete and the employment relationship has
begun before investigating actual or suspected
sexual discrimination . In this connection , possible
discrimination in the hiring process is so inter-
twined with possible discrimination in the employ-
ment relationship that to bar a union from investi-
gating the hiring process could bar it from effec-
tively seeking elimination of discrimination in the
employment relationship . For these reasons, in
accord with the Board 's holding in East Dayton,
we find that information concerning actual or sus-
pected discrimination in the hiring process is neces-
sary and relevant to the Union's performance of its
statutory duties.
Finally, we reject the Respondent 's contention
that its refusal to supply the requested information
was privileged by the confidentiality provisions of
the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the
Workplace Act (DATWA).21
First and fundamentally , we note that the Re-
spondent refused to furnish the Guild any of the
requested information , whereas the statute only
prohibits unconsented disclosure of certain test-re-
lated information but does not prohibit the disclo-
sure of the names of individuals tested . Thus, the
statute does not appear to provide a basis for non-
disclosure . Moreover , the statute expressly pro-
vides for the use of test results in arbitrations pur-
suant to collective-bargaining agreements . The stat-
ute also specifically provides that the confidential-
ity provisions
shall not be construed to limit the parties to a
collective-bargaining agreement from bargain-
ing and agreeing with respect to a drug and al-
cohol testing policy that meets or exceeds and
does not otherwise conflict with , the minimum
standards and requirements for employee pro-
tection provided... .22
21 Minn Stat . § 181.954 , subd. 2 (1987), provides in pertinent part:
Test result reports and other information acquired in drug or alcohol
testing process are, with respect to private sector employees and job
applicants, private and confidential information . . . and may not be
disclosed by an employer or laboratory to another employer or to a
third -party individual , governmental agency , or private organization
without the written consent of the employee or job applicant tested.
22 Minn Stat . § 181 98 , subd . 1 (1987) Moreover, to the extent that
the Minnesota statute permits the Respondent to engage in conduct that
Continued
550 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To remedy the refusal to provide information
violation the judge ordered the Respondent to:
[f]urnish the Union with the information re-
quested in October 1987 , supplying the names,
addresses and telephone numbers of persons to
whom conditional offers of employment in the
Guild bargaining unit have been made since
January 1987, identifying those persons who
have refused to submit to drug and alcohol
screening.
The judge 's recommended Order provides the
Guild with less information than it originally
sought . The recommended Order does not require
the Respondent to furnish the identity of all appli-
cants who were requested to submit to preemploy-
ment medical examinations , the identity of all appli-
cants who were requested to submit to a drug and
alcohol screen , the identity of those who were
denied employment for a refusal to submit to the
drug and alcohol screen , and whether the reasons
for not hiring a prospective employee were due to
any issue related to the drug and alcohol policy.
The Guild did not except to the judge's modifica-
tion of its original request for information.23 Ac-
cordingly, we adopt the remedy provided in the
judge 's recommended Order with respect to the re-
fusal to furnish information violation.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent , Star Tribune , A Division of
Cowles Media Co ., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Newspaper Guild of the Twin Cities,
Local 2, The Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO, CLC,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material to this proceeding, the
Respondent has recognized the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of its employees in the follow-
ing unit:
All of the employees of the Publisher [except
those herein excluded] employed in the News
and Editorial Departments of the Minneapolis
Star and Tribune including the Sunday Trib-
une, employed in the Sales Development/-
is arguably prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act, the Board
has primary jurisdiction over that conduct, and the state statute is pre-
empted by the Act San Diego Building Trades Council Y. Garman, 359
U.S. 236 (1959)
23 In its joint brief with the AFL-CIO in opposition to the Respond-
ent's exceptions , the Guild specifically declined to except to this portion
of the judge's recommended remedy and Order. The Guild characterized
the language in the judge's recommended Order as "an apparent accom-
modation" to the DATWA statutory provision prohibiting unconsented
disclosure of "test result reports and other information acquired in the
drug and alcohol testing process."
Promotion Department doing art and creative
work , and all Metro District Sales Managers in
the Metro Circulation Department, and no
others.
The Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bar-
gain with the Union as requested, by its January
1987 unilateral implementation of a drug and alco-
hol policy for current employees, by its September
1987 unilateral implementation of a revised drug
and alcohol policy for current employees, and by
its October 1987 refusal to furnish the Union re-
quested information.
5. The unfair labor practices found above are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not violate the Act
except as specifically found above.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices , we shall order it to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. Specifically, we shall order the Respondent to
furnish the Union the information requested in Oc-
tober 1987 , supplying the names, addresses, and
telephone numbers of those persons to whom it has
conditionally offered employment in the Guild bar-
gaining unit since January 1987, identifying those
persons who have refused to submit to drug and al-
cohol screening.
We shall order the Respondent to rescind any
discipline imposed on employees in Guild bargain-
ing unit positions as a result of its unilaterally im-
plemented drug and alcohol policy and related dis-
ciplinary schedule , and to make such employees
whole for any losses suffered therefrom.24 The Re-
spondent is ordered to remove from the files of em-
ployees all memoranda, reports, or other docu-
ments resulting from the implementation of the
drug and alcohol policy with respect to current
Guild-unit members.
The Respondent is also ordered to revoke its
drug and alcohol policy for current employees im-
plemented in January 1987 and revised in Septem-
ber 1987 , including the drug and alcohol screening
and medical examination provisions and the sched-
ule of discipline for substance abuse offenses, as it
24 Backpay is to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Wool-
worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest to be computed in the
manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
STAR TRIBUNE 551
pertains to employees in Guild bargaining unit po-
sitions.
In addition , we shall order the Respondent, on
request, to bargain with the Union in good faith
concerning medical examinations , including drug
and alcohol screening , and disciplinary schedules
for substance abuse offenses pertaining to employ-
ees in Guild bargaining unit positions.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Star Tribune, A Division of
Cowles Media Co., Minneapolis , Minnesota, its of-
ficers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the
Union, on request, with respect to its drug and al-
cohol policy as it pertains to current Guild bargain-
ing unit employees.
(b) Unilaterally, without giving prior notice to or
affording the Union an opportunity to bargain, im-
plementing and revising its drug and alcohol
policy , including its drug and alcohol screening
and medical examination provisions and its sched-
ule of discipline for substance abuse offenses per-
taining to current Guild bargaining unit employees.
(c) Refusing to comply with the information re-
quest , as modified herein , made by the Union in
October 1987.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering
with , restraining , or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of rights quaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain in good faith with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees of the appropriate unit described below
concerning its drug and alcohol policy as it per-
tains to current Guild bargaining unit employees,
and embody any understanding reached in a signed
agreement . The appropriate unit is:
. . . all employees of the Publisher [except
those herein excluded] employed in the News
and Editorial Departments of the Minneapolis
Star and Tribune including the Sunday Trib-
une, employed in the Sales Development/-
Promotion Department doing art and creative
work , and all Metro District Sales Managers in
the Metro Circulation Department, and no
others.
(b) Revoke its drug and alcohol policy for cur-
rent employees implemented in January 1987 and
revised in September 1987 , including the drug and
alcohol screening and medical examination provi-
sions and the schedule of discipline for substance
abuse offenses, as it pertains to employees in Guild
bargaining unit positions.
(c) Furnish the Union with the information re-
quested in October 1987, supplying the names, ad-
dresses, and telephone numbers of persons to
whom conditional offers of employment in the
Guild bargaining unit have been made since Janu-
ary 1987, identifying those persons who have re-
fused to submit to drug and alcohol screening.
(d) Rescind any discipline imposed on employees
in Guild bargaining unit positions as a result of its
drug and alcohol policy and related disciplinary
schedule , and make such employees whole for any
losses they may have suffered, in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(e) Remove from the files of employees notices,
reports, or memoranda resulting from the imple-
mentation of the January 1987 drug and alcohol
policy or the revised September 1987 drug and al-
cohol policy.
(f) Preserve and, on request, make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security records,
timecards , personnel records and reports, and all
other records and entries necessary to determine
the Respondent 's compliance with this Order and
the amount of sums and benefits due under the
terms of this Order.
(g) Post at its Minneapolis, Minnesota facilities
copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."25 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 18, after being
signed by the Respondent 's authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(h) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
CHAIRMAN STEPHENS , concurring in part.
I agree with my colleagues , for the reasons
stated in the foregoing opinion , that drug and alco-
hol testing of employee applicants is not a manda-
tory subject of bargaining and that therefore the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act by failing to bargain over the testing of appli-
25 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
552 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cants. I also agree with my colleagues that the Re-
spondent did violate Section 8(a)(5) in its denial of
the Guild's request for information; but I concur
separately in order to state my own understanding
of the limits to be placed on implications of the ra-
tionale underpinning that finding of a violation.
My colleagues have found that the Respondent
was obligated to respond to the Guild's request for
information because the request related to hiring
discrimination, and because the prevention of such
discrimination-embodied here in the parties' con-
tractual nondiscrimination clause-is a mandatory
subject of bargaining. I agree that the request was
related to a mandatory subject, but only for the fol-
lowing reasons.
As we have explained in the first part of our
opinion, under the principles set out in Allied
Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Co., 404 U.S. 157 (1971), only those matters that
concern the "wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment" of current employees
or matters that "vitally affect" those terms and
conditions are mandatory subjects of bargaining.
Hence, in finding that discrimination in hiring is a
mandatory subject of bargaining, we are not find-
ing that a union in any sense represents the inter-
ests of employment applicants. In my view, a pro-
hibition of hiring discrimination is a mandatory
subject only insofar as it may prevent practices that
are likely to result in a partly or wholly segregated
bargaining unit that is the product of hiring dis-
crimination. Because of our need to accommodate
the Federal employment policy pertaining to dis-
crimination, we may properly find that employees
have a legitimate interest in work force composi-
tion to the extent that it is affected by discrimina-
tion under the Federal civil rights laws.'
The Guild's information request relates to this
current-employee interest because the Guild seeks
information that it believes might show discrimina-
tory practices that would likely lead to screening
out women at a disproportionate rate over men.2
' As I understand the Respondent 's position , it has not attacked the
line of Board authority concerned with requests for information related
to possible discrimination in hiring , and it concedes that current employ-
ees have an interest in working in a racially and sexually integrated
workplace . Instead , it argues that the Guild's information request at issue
here had no basis in such concerns As explained in fn 2 below , I do not
find that argument well taken.
2 Contrary to the Respondent's contention, I agree that in making its
request for information , the Guild adequately indicated its interest in
looking at the applicant drug testing as a possible violation of the nondis-
crimination clause in the collective -bargaining agreement . Thus, the
Guild's initial information request referred to the pending grievances,
which themselves asserted an alleged violation of art . XIV, sec. 8, the
nondiscrimination clause Furthermore , at the hearing the Guild's repre-
sentatives made its focus on the discrimination aspect even clearer; but
the Respondent still took the position that it was not obligated to turn
over the information . See Barnard Engineering Co., 282 NLRB 617, 620,
Learning the identities of the applicants is relevant
to a mandatory subject because it will allow the
Guild to determine how each female applicant was
treated as compared with how the male applicants
were treated. If the Guild learns that there was dis-
parate treatment and that this treatment resulted, or
was likely to result, in a work force skewed in the
direction of the favored class, then it will have es-
tablished grounds both for asserting a breach of the
contractual clause and for seeking to bargain in
future contracts over the practice in question. I
would not, however, agree that a conclusion that
nondiscrimination clauses are mandatory bargaining
subjects means that a hiring practice or require-
ment, or any change in such practices or require-
ments, is automatically a mandatory subject of bar-
gaining simply on a bare claim that it might lead to
a work force from which a class based on race,
sex, religion, or national origin is largely excluded
or on the theory that because hiring practices gen-
erally may be used to discriminate, the union there-
fore has the right to bargain about all of them in
order to insure that they do not. Under Pittsburgh
Plate Glass, supra, it is clearly necessary to show
that the proposed action to be taken with respect
to nonunit employees "vitally affects" the terms
and conditions of current employees before it will
be considered a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Of course, an analogous standard is applied to in-
formation requests themselves where information
about nonunit employees is concerned. But a liberal
discovery standard is applied and so long as a
union shows that the information it seeks has
"some bearing" on the terms and conditions of cur-
rent unit employees, the employer will be obligated
to comply with the request.3 In my view the
Guild's request meets that standard here.
621 (1987); Ohio Power Co., 216 NLRB 987, 990 fn . 9 (1975), enfd. 531
F.2d 1381 (6th Cir. 1976).
8 Pfizer, Inc, 268 NLRB 916, 918 ( 1984), enfd . 763 F 2d 887 (7th Cit.
1985); Postal Service, 289 NLRB 942 (1988)
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
STAR TRIBUNE
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith
with the Newspaper Guild of the Twin Cities,
Local 2, with respect to our drug and alcohol
policy as it pertains to current Guild bargaining
unit employees.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally, without giving prior
notice to or affording the Guild an opportunity to
bargain , implement and revise our drug and alco-
hol policy as it pertains to current Guild bargaining
unit employees , including its drug and alcohol
screening and medical examination provisions and
its schedule of discipline for substance abuse of-
fenses.
WE WILL NOT refuse to comply with the infor-
mation request, as modified, made by the Guild in
October 1987.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain in good faith with
the Guild with respect to our drug and alcohol
policy as it pertains to current Guild bargaining
unit employees and put into writing and sign any
agreement reached on terms and conditions of em-
ployment for our employees in the bargaining unit:
. .. all employees of the Publisher (except
those herein excluded) employed in the News
and Editorial Departments of the Minneapolis
Star and Tribune including the Sunday Trib-
une, employed. in the Sales Development/-
Promotion Department doing art and creative
work, and all Metro District Sales Managers in
the Metro Circulation Department, and no
others.
WE WILL revoke our drug and alcohol policy
for current employees implemented in January
1987 and revised in September 1987, including the
drug and alcohol screening and medical examina-
tion provisions and the schedule of discipline for
substance abuse offenses, as it pertains to employ-
ees in Guild bargaining unit positions.
WE WILL furnish the Guild with the information
requested in October 1987, supplying the names,
addresses , and telephone numbers of persons to
whom conditional offers of employment in the
Guild bargaining unit have been made since Janu-
ary 1987, identifying those persons who have re-
fused to submit to drug and alcohol screening.
553
WE WILL rescind any discipline imposed on cur-
rent employees in Guild bargaining unit positions
as a result of our drug and alcohol policy and relat-
ed disciplinary schedule, and make such employees
whole for any losses they may have suffered there-
from.
WE WILL remove from the files of employees
notices, reports, or memoranda resulting from the
implementation of the January 1987 drug and alco-
hol policy or the revised September 1987 policy.
STAR TRIBUNE, A DIVISION OF
COWLES MEDIA CO.
Florence I. Brammer, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James Samples and John W. Polley. Esqs., of Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for the Respondent.
Barbara L Camens Esq., of Washington, D.C., for the
Charging Party.
Robert P. Hunter, Esq., of Washington, D.C., for the In-
tervenor, Council on Labor Law Equality.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge.
On February 5, 1987, and November 24, 1987, the News-
paper Guild of the Twin Cities, Local 2, the Newspaper
Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC (the Union or Guild) filed
charges against the Star Tribune, A Division of Cowles
Media Company (Respondent or Publisher ). On Decem-
ber 16, 1987, the Regional Director for Region 18 issued
an order consolidating cases, consolidating complaint and
giving notice of hearing alleging that Respondent has
violated and is continuing to violate Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by re-
fusing to provide the Union with certain information and
by unilaterally implementing a drug testing program
without first affording the Union an opportunity to bar-
gain.
Hearing was held in these matters in Minneapolis,
Minnesota , on April 18-21, 1988 . Timely motions to in-
tervene as amicus curiae were received from the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations (AFL-CIO) and the Council on Labor Law
Equality (COLLE). Both motions were granted and
intervention allowed . Subsequently briefs were received
from all parties and intervenors.
Based on the entire record , and on my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses and in consideration of the
briefs submitted, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a Delaware corporation with an
office and place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
where it engages in the publication , circulation and dis-
tribution of a daily newspaper in the Minneapolis, Min-
nesota area . Respondent has admitted the jurisdictional
554 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
allegations of the consolidated complaint and I find that
the Respondent is now , and has been at all times material
to this proceeding , an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted , and I find, that the Union is, and has
been at all times material to the proceeding , a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Statement of Issues Presented
The Respondent unilaterally implemented a drug and
alcohol policy on January 1, 1987.1 The policy, as initial-
ly implemented on January 1, and as unilaterally revised
on August 31, consists of three components: ( 1) a preem-
ployment medical exam , including drug and alcohol
screening for applicants to whom job offers have been
made, contingent on passage of the drug test; (2) a medi-
cal exam , including drug and alcohol screening , in cer-
tain circumstances for current employees; and (3) a disci-
plinary schedule for drug and alcohol related offenses.
The questions presented for determination are (1) wheth-
er these unilateral implementations of Respondent's drug
and alcohol policy violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act, and (2) whether the Union is entitled to information
which it requested relating to the unilaterally implement-
ed policy.
In defense of its actions, the Respondent asserts: (1)
implementation of its drug and alcohol testing program is
not a mandatory subject of bargaining under the Act,
either for existing bargaining unit members or prospec-
tive employees; (2) the Guild does not represent prospec-
tive new employees and cannot legally demand bargain-
ing over their conditions of employment ; and (3) the
Guild has waived its right to request bargaining because
it acquiesced in certain of Respondent's past practices,
has given management a contractual right to act as it
did, and because it did not seek to bargain in good faith.
It defends its refusal to supply information requested by
the Guild on all of the above-stated grounds and addi-
tionally, for the reason that the information requested is
confidential and cannot lawfully be supplied. In general,
COLLE's arguments in support of Respondent are the
same or similar to Respondent's arguments . All of the
parties' contentions will be discussed below under appro-
priate subheadings.
B. Background Facts
The Star Tribune is a daily newspaper published in
Minneapolis, Minnesota; it has a circulation of 389,400 on
Monday through Saturday and 629,000 on Sunday; and
its annual revenues exceed $256 million . Approximately
4000 employees work for the Respondent , of which 44
percent are unionized and those employees work in 11
separate bargaining units that are represented by 10 dif-
ferent unions . The Charging Party Union has been rec-
' All dates are in 1987 unless otherwise specified.
ognized as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of a unit of employees of Respondent since the early
1930s . The Guild represents the Respondent 's reporters,
some editors, news assistants , photographers , news art-
ists, metro-circulation employees and promotion employ-
ees. Currently , the unit encompasses between 350 and
400 of Respondent 's employees . The parties ' most recent
collective-bargaining agreement runs from 1986-1989.
This agreement , reached by the parties in October 1986,
and ratified and executed in December 1986, was negoti-
ated during 26 bargaining sessions over a 5 -month period
from May to October 1986.
The Publisher has a number of companywide employ-
ee policies , which as of 1985 had been in effect for vary-
ing periods of time . In 1985, the Star Tribune began re-
viewing the policies for consistency and fairness. The
review was conducted by an operations committee com-
prised of senior managers and department heads. The
Publisher's existing drug and alcohol abuse program was
among the policies examined . The content and history of
this particular program will be discussed in detail later
with respect to Respondent's defense of waiver. As im-
mediately pertinent , the operations committee reviewed
the drug policy for 3 to 5 months. As a result, the exist-
ing policy was modified and substantially increased in
scope and detail . Under the new drug policy, at least the
following changes were effected:
The new policy provides for pre-employment
medical exams that include alcohol and drug screen-
ing. In addition , tests for alcohol and drug use may
be administered to current employees under certain
specific circumstances.
Under the new policy , prospective employees
who are offered jobs will be required to take a
preemployment medical exam . Included will be an
unobserved urinalysis for evidence of alcohol or il-
legal or controlled substances . Employment will be
denied to those who test positive according to es-
tablished standards.
Current employees also may be asked to undergo
a medical exam , including substance screening when
management believes that job performance or con-
duct is impaired by substance abuse.
In addition , employees who operate or work
around company machinery or who operate vehi-
cles in the course of their job will be required to
take a medical exam , including drug/alcohol screen-
ing in cases of serious injuries that require treatment
by a physician.
Metropolitan Medical Center will conduct the
substance screening and analyze the results . Speci-
mens will be collected and processed in a way that
ensures the integrity of the sample . Containers will
be quality controlled and clearly marked.
A "chain of custody" form will document all
people who handle the sample from collection
through analysis . All positive results will be con-
firmed by a second test using a different analytical
technique , and all positive specimens are stored
frozen for at least 60 days.
STAR TRIBUNE 555
In the case of current employees , test results will
be kept confidential. MMC will, however, furnish
the employee 's supervisor, through the Human Re-
sources department , sufficient information on test
results to enable the Company to administer disci-
pline , when necessary.
Discipline for first substance abuse offenses will
be:
*A three-day suspension for possession on the
premises or in company vehicles.
*A five day suspension for consumption on prem-
ises, being under the influence or impaired perform-
ance or conduct.
*Discharge for distribution on the premises.
A five-day suspension will require a chemical de-
pendency evaluation and disciplinary actions will be
reviewed by the Human Resources department
before any action is taken.
The Guild first learned of Respondent's new policy on
drugs and alcohol on December 10, 1986 , at which time
John Dennison (Respondent's vice president for labor re-
lations) called Bruce Nelson (then the Guild 's executive
secretary) to inform the Guild that Respondent planned
to implement such a policy in January. During that call,
Dennison described the program as having three compo-
nents : ( 1) Mandatory testing for prospective employees,
after a conditional offer had been extended ; (2) drug test-
ing for current employees under certain circumstances;
and (3) a schedule of discipline for violations of the drug
and alcohol policies. Nelson testified that at this time
Dennison called to notify the Union and find out if the
Union had any objections. Nelson responded that "the
company could certainly count on an objection from the
Union," emphasizing that the Union 's position was that
the entire policy was a mandatory subject of bargaining
and demanding bargaining on it . Nelson further testified
that Dennison conceded that bargaining with the Union
on the policy made a certain amount of sense, but cau-
tioned Nelson that the decision of whether to bargain
rested with other management officials.
As a followup to this conversation , Dennison sent
Nelson and the representatives of the Publisher 's other
unions a letter dated December 12, 1986, and included a
copy of an article on the subject which was distributed
to employees later that month . The pertinent contents of
the article are set out above in the description of changes
that were made in the Publisher 's existing drug policy.
The article indicated that the changes were to be imple-
mented on January 1.
On December 15, 1986, the Guild published an article
of its own which indicated its at least initial opposition to
the new drug policy . More importantly , on December
17, 1986, Nelson wrote Dennison a letter emphasizing
that the Union considered all components of the new
policy to be mandatory subjects of bargaining and de-
manding bargaining over the new policy . Nelson also
made clear that the Union would consider unilateral im-
plementation of the new policy unlawful. The letter
ended thusly, "We stand ready to meet with you for that
purpose (bargaining) at a time and place of mutual conven-
ience. " (Emphasis added.)
The new drug policy went into effect in January as
announced in the article appended to Dennison 's Decem-
ber 12 letter . On January 4, Nelson received a call from
a bargaining unit employee informing him that a pro-
spective employee's offer of employment had been with-
drawn because of that individual 's refusal to take the
preemployment drug test . As this was the first indication
to the Union that Respondent's drug and alcohol policy
had been implemented , Nelson immediately called
Dennison, who was unavailable . On January 9, Dennison
returned Nelson's call. Dennison then learned, from
Nelson, about the prospective employee who had had an
offer withdrawn . Dennison remarked that if it had hap-
pened, he hoped it had not happened after Respondent
had received the Union 's demand to bargain . At this
point, Dennison did not know the new policy had been
implemented or whether the company was willing to
bargain with the Union as demanded . Nelson suggested
that Respondent send the union a letter stating that the
policy would be suspended during negotiations.
During this telephone conversation, Nelson and
Dennison agreed to discuss the drug policy on January
21, at which time an omnibus grievance meeting had al-
ready been scheduled. At this January 21 meeting, The
Union reiterated its demand to bargain over the drug
policy and asked for the company's response . Dennison
acknowledged that a prospective employee had been of-
fered a job conditioned on the drug test , but declined to
say whether Respondent would agree to suspend the
policy and bargain with the union. The union agreed not
to file any unfair labor practice charge until the company
concluded it internal deliberations over the Guild's bar-
gaining demand.
About a week later, with still no response from the
company to the bargaining demand , the Union found out
that another prospective employee had been offered a
job conditioned on the passage of a drug test . Again,
Nelson called Dennison and asked if the company was
going to bargain . Dennison replied that he was "90 per-
cent certain" that the company would not bargain with
the union over the drug policy, but that he was not com-
pletely certain and needed more time to respond. On
January 29 , Dennison informed Nelson by telephone that
all three components of the drug and alcohol policy
were fully in place and that the company would not bar-
gain with the Union on any aspect of the policy . Nelson
then told Dennison , in the same call, that the Union
would be filing a charge.
After that charge was filed and while the investigation
was pending , a meeting of the Inter-Plant Council with
Respondent was convened in March . The Inter-Plant
Council , an informal organization made up of business
agents and officers of the various unions with whom Re-
spondent bargains , had scheduled this meeting regarding
the drug and alcohol policy for informational purposes.
Nelson and Marilyn Taylor (then assistant to the Union's
executive secretary) reemphasized at the outset of the
meeting that the Guild believed the entire policy to be a
mandatory subject of bargaining and that it demanded
bargaining . The new policy had been in effect since Jan-
uary 1.
556 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
By letter dated September 16, more than 9 months fol-
lowing Respondent 's unilateral implementation in Janu-
ary, Dennison notified Taylor (then the interim adminis-
trator of the Union ) that the company had revised the
drug policy and that the revised policy had gone into
effect on September 1. It is this version of the drug and
alcohol policy which remained in effect as of the time of
the hearing in this case . At no time prior to Dennison's
letter of September 16 had the Union been notified of or
given a copy of any revisions to the policies . The revi-
sions include , in part , the following changes from the
policy implemented on January 1:
Prospective Employees
who test positive or refuse the test will not be
considered for employment earlier than six months
after the initial test or refusal , if at all.
who wish to explain a positive test result must do
so within three working days of receiving notice of
the result.
who wish to request a retest must do so within
five working days of receiving notice of the result.
Current Employees
will be required to undergo a medical exam, in-
cluding a drug and alcohol test , when management
believes an employee is "under the influence of al-
cohol."
who refuse to take the test will be disciplined for
impaired performance or behavior.
who test positive for the first time will receive a
five day suspension and must undergo a substance
abuse evaluation prior to returning to work.
who wish to explain a positive test result must do
so within three working days of receiving notice of
the result.
who wish to request a retest must do so within
five working days of receiving notice of the test
result.
Respondent concedes that it engaged in no bargaining
whatsoever over any component of the drug and alcohol
policy, as initially implemented or revised . Respondent's
publisher, Roger Parkinson , stated that the company's
plan in implementing the policy was to avoid distinctions
among employees or bargaining units, and to have a uni-
form policy in effect across-the -board.
C. Is Implementation of Respondent's New Drug and
Alcohol Policy for Prospective Employees a Mandatory
Subject ofBargaining?
1. Are prospective employees "Employees"
represented by the Guild and does implementation
of prospective employee testing vitally affect
current unit employees?
It is well -established that an employer must notify and
bargain with its employees ' collective-bargaining repre-
sentative before changes are implemented in mandatory
subjects of bargaining . NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736
(1962). Respondent 's refusal to bargain with the Guild on
the issue of preemployment medical exams, including
drug and alcohol screening , is based on its assertions that
the issue is not a mandatory subject of bargaining under
the Act and that prospective employees are not employ-
ees represented by the Guild.
Under Section 8(d) of the Act, "wages , hours and
other terms and conditions of employment " are delineat-
ed as mandatory subjects of bargaining . Determining the
scope of this inexact statutory language has been left to
the Board . NLRB v. Borg- Warner Corp ., 356 U.S. 342
(1958). Generally, an issue is a mandatory subject of bar-
gaining under Section 8 (d) if it is "germane" to the
"working environment " of employees and if its establish-
ment is not a managerial decision "at the core of entre-
preneurial control ." Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 441 U.S.
488, 498 ( 1979), citing Fiberboard Paper Products Corp. v.
NLRB, 379 U . S. 203, 222-223 (1964).
The question of whether drug and alcohol screening
for prospective employees is a mandatory subject of bar-
gaining has been before the Board in Timber Products &
Co., 285 NLRB 1114 (1987 ). In Rockwood, the Board af-
firmed , without comment , the conclusion of the adminis-
trative law judge that drug testing of applicants is a man-
datory subject . In Rockwood, as in the instant case, the
employer unilaterally implemented a policy containing
components for testing of both current employees and
prospective employees . As in this case, the Respondent
in Rockwood argued that insofar as its policy pertained to
applicants , the subject of drug testing was not mandato-
ry. The judge questioned the validity of the employer's
argument that components of the unified policy were
severable for purposes of the unfair labor practice hear-
ing, but did provide an analysis supporting his conclusion
that drug testing for applicants is a mandatory subject.
The judge 's analysis focused upon 20 years of Board
precedent providing that conditions for becoming em-
ployed can be mandatory subjects.
The question of whether an employer is obligated to
bargain over applicant drug testing has also been raised
and resolved in a recent administrative law judge deci-
sion in RCA Corp ., 296 NLRB No . 154 (Oct . 5, 1989).
The judge there held that applicant drug testing clearly
falls within the ambit of mandatory bargaining . Citing
Rockwood, supra, the judge in RCA found that the em-
ployer's unilaterally implemented drug testing policy, ap-
plied to applicants only, was mandatory because of its ef-
fects on the working conditions of employees and be-
cause it regulated employee relations by setting an aspect
of employment . Quoting Operating Engineers Local 12
(Associated General Contractors), 187 NLRB 430, 432
(1970), the judge in RCA noted that:
... the touchstone is whether or not the proposed
clause sets a term or condition of employment or
regulates the relation between the Employer and its
employees.
The RCA decision rejected the employer 's contention
that drug testing , as a safety matter, fell outside the bar-
gaining obligation.
In as early as 1965, the Board concluded that "terms
and conditions of employment" within the meaning of
Section 8(d) of the Act "connotes the initial act of em-
STAR TRIBUNE 557
ploying as well as the consequent state of being em-
ployed." Houston Chapters Associated General Contractors
(Houston AGC), 143 NLRB 409, 412 (1963), enfd. 349
F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1965). In Houston AGC, the Board
held that the subject of the establishment of a hiring hall
was a mandatory subject of bargaining . In so holding,
the Board specifically rejected the employer 's argument
that only those issues arising after an actual employer-
employee relationship is established can be mandatory. In
Houston AGC, the Board rejected the employer's conten-
tion that it had no obligation to bargain over "the obtain-
ing of employment ." Regarding the requirement in Borg-
Warner that, for a subject to be mandatory , it must regu-
late relations between an employer and employees, the
Board in Houston AGC held that the term "employees"
was not limited to individuals already working . Accord:
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177 (1941). The
Board buttressed its holding with the observation that
the Board has consistently stated that the definition of
"employee" in Section 2(3) of the Act covers "applicants
for employment" and specifically denied that this inter-
pretation was restricted to the construction industry. 143
NLRB 412 fns. 8-9 , citing Briggs Mfg. Co., 75 NLRB
569 (1975), and Texas Natural Gasoline Corp., 116 NLRB
405 (1956), enf. denied on other grounds 253 F.2d 322
(5th Cir. 1958).
The Respondent's arguments in Houston AGC mirror
those raised by the Respondent herein , and the Board's
disposition of those arguments in that case is equally ap-
plicable and sound on these facts . In Houston AGC, the
employer was ordered to bargain over hiring criteria,
e.g., the process by which applicants are employed. It
follows that the hiring criteria unilaterally imposed
herein , e.g., testing procedures for screening prospective
employees, must also be bargained . Nothing in the
Board 's reasoning in Houston AGC limits its holding in
that case to the hiring hall issue . This is confirmed by
Lockheed Shipbuilding & Co., 273 NLRB 171 ( 1984).
In Lockheed, the Board found that the employer unilat-
erally implemented new medical screening tests unlaw-
fully. The tests were designed "for the purpose of termi-
nating new employees or refusing to hire applicants for
employment." Ibid. In its decision , the Board-affirming
the administrative law judge's conclusions-made no dis-
tinction between applicants and new employees in find-
ing the unilateral implementation unlawful . Similarly, in
Laney & Duke Co., 151 NLRB 248 (1965), enfd. in perti-
nent part 369 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1966), the Board held
that the union was entitled to bargain over changes in
application forms, to the extent that questions thereon
contained questions affecting employment.
That applicants and prospective employees are clearly
within the purview of the Act is demonstrated through
the number of cases evolving under Section 8 (a)(1) and
(3) of the Act regarding unlawfully discriminatory hiring
practices . See, e .g., A & A Ornamental Iron, 259 NLRB
1019 (1982); Crown Cork & Seal Co., 255 NLRB 14
(1981). Respondent's implementation of its policy herein
requires no analysis of discriminatory intent in the ways
that an 8(a)(3) refusal to fire would. Nevertheless, the
analogy strongly establishes that issues involving appli-
cants are certainly not outside the scope of the Act.
The Respondent and Intervenor COLLE argue that
the preemployment testing program cannot be consid-
ered mandatory because job applicants are not "employ-
ees" under the Act and are not represented by the Guild.
They contrast the language of Section 8(a)(5), mandating
good-faith bargaining , with Section 8(a)(3), prohibiting
discrimination in hiring and employment . Because the
latter provision specifically mentions discrimination "in
regard to hire," which the former provision does not,
they argue that Congress did not intend the bargaining
duty to extend to issues of hire.
Section 8(d), not Section 8(a)(5), defines the scope of
the mandatory bargaining obligation . The Board in Hous-
ton AGC rejected this argument as explained at 143
NLRB 412, thusly:
We note that Section 8(d) not only omits "hire,"
but also makes no specific mention of "tenure of
employment" as does Section 8 (a)(3). Yet it could
scarcely be denied today that the concept of
"tenure of employment" lies within the "terms and
conditions of employment " of Section 8(d). . . . In
similar fashion the concept of "hire," though not
specifically set out within 8(d), is clearly a "term or
condition of employment ," and makes bargaining
mandatory with respect to the hiring of prospective
employees.
Respondent's discussion of Allied Chemical & Alkali
Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass, 404 U.S. 157 (1971), is its pri-
mary support for its conclusion that 8 (a)(5) bargaining
obligations do not extend to preemployment drug testing.
However, as the Supreme Court therein emphasized, its
finding that the Pittsburgh Glass retiree's benefits are not
a mandatory subject was based on the Board's certifica-
tion of a unit composed expressly of "employees of the
Employer's plant . . . working on hourly rates ," a unit
definition clearing excluding individuals not currently
earning wages . 404 U.S. at 160 fn . 4, 172. The critical
distinction herein is that retirees , unlike prospective em-
ployees who have already received offers of employ-
ment, have no expectation of being employed , a factor
specifically relied on by the Court in Pittsburgh Glass. Id.
at 172. In fact, since the issuance of the Pittsburgh Glass
decision , the Board has repeatedly reaffirmed its holding
in Houston AGC that prospective employees are to be
considered "employees" under the Act. See Pattern
Makers League (Michigan Pattern), 233 NLRB 430
(1977), enfd. in pertinent part 622 F.2d 267 (6th Cir.
1980).
Further, Respondent argues that for matters affecting
individuals outside the bargaining unit, such matters must
vitally affect the terms and conditions of employment of
unit employees, citing United Technologies Corp., 274
NLRB 1069 ( 1985). In that case , the Board also stated
that "matters affecting individuals outside the bargaining
unit are not automatically excluded from the scope of
mandatory bargaining," citing Teamsters v. Oliver, 358
U.S. 283 (1959). 274 NLRB at 1070. Unlike the retire-
ment benefits discussed in Pittsburgh Glass, or the
summer help program addressed in United Technologies
Corp., the Respondent's testing program has a direct
558 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effect on the composition of the bargaining unit and de-
fines the very terms under which bargaining unit em-
ployment may be achieved . As in the construction indus-
try, where the provisions of a hiring hall may have a
great impact on unit member's seniority and future job
opportunities , the Guild unit members see their future
job opportunities as being largely determined by the
quality of the paper and the reputation of their col-
leagues . It is their contention , and I believe a reasonable
one, that Respondent 's preemployment drug and alcohol
testing program introduces a nonperformance related
condition of hire which may arbitrarily compromise the
quality of the work force , and the unit members them-
selves may suffer, both in their professional reputations
and in their future employment opportunities. Further, it
is highly likely that the Respondent 's program will not
only deter from employment those prospective employ-
ees who abuse prohibited substances , but those who
simply refuse to take a screening test for reasons of prin-
ciple, especially when, as here, the screening program
has been implemented without any input from the em-
ployees.
Turning the argument around , it is also reasonable to
find that the Guild or one of Respondent 's other unions
might want a drug and alcohol screening program imple-
mented to insure a safer, drug free workplace . In such a
case, I believe it clear that the proposal to establish such
a program . by the Union would be a mandatory subject
of bargaining . The Respondent in the instant case urges
that the Guild opposes the establishment of a drug and
alcohol program which includes testing , and for that
reason this argument cannot be made . I believe the
record is clear that the Guild does not want such a pro-
gram implemented without some input into the program,
but I cannot find that there is just total opposition to the
program from the record.
In any event , I find that Respondent 's drug and alco-
hol program as applied to prospective employees does
vitally affect the involved bargaining unit and their
working environment for the reasons set out above. See
also White Farm Equipment Co., 242 NLRB 1373 (1979),
enfd. 650 F.2d 334 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Additionally, the
Respondent has heretofore bargained with the Guild
over matters affecting prospective employees . Article
XIV, paragraph 8 of the parties' latest agreement reads:
The Publisher prohibits discrimination in employ-
ment on the basis of race, color , national origin, re-
ligion marital or parental status, disability , status
with regard to public assistance , political affiliation,
sex, sexual preference or age . The Guild or the
Publisher shall not discriminate against any employ-
ee because of membership or nonmembership in the
Guild or activity therein , or because of any of the
other categories set forth in this paragraph.
All phases of employment are covered by this
policy, including but not limited to: recruiting, ad-
vertising ; testing and hiring; promotion ; demotion
and transfer ; training; termination ; layoff and recall;
and compensation.
I can find nothing more or less serious about the Re-
spondent 's drug and alcohol program and its amenability
to bargaining than any of the matters already made the
subject of collective bargaining in the portion of the par-
ties' agreement set out above . For all of the reasons set
forth above, I find and conclude that Respondent's new
drug and alcohol policy as it pertains to prospective em-
ployees is a mandatory subject of bargaining and that the
new policy as it applies to prospective employees does
vitally affect the terms and conditions of employment
and working environment of the Guild bargaining unit.
2. Did the Guild waive its right to request
bargaining over prospective employee testing by
acquiescing in the Publisher 's past practice with
respect to preemployment physical exams?
Respondent concedes that prior to its unilaterally im-
plemented policy of January 1987 , there had been no
preemployment drug and alcohol screening of any pro-
spective employees , whether for Guild unit positions or
any other positions . Dennison himself admitted to the
Guild , as early as March , that preemployment testing
was "unquestionably new." To the extent that any
preemployment medical exams for prospective employ-
ees for Guild unit positions were administered , the Union
was unaware of their existence . The record reflects that
in as early as 1968, prospective employees ' offers were
not made contingent upon the results of any preemploy-
ment medical exam . In fact, testimony establishes that
prior to January 1987, no mention of any preemployment
medical exam was made to prospective employees for
Guild unit positions at the time their job offers were ex-
tended , an aspect of the testimony which remains unre-
butted.2
If employees hired into Guild unit positions prior to
January 1987 were requested to take a physical at all,
they were examined after their first day of employment
or, at the earliest , after their job offers were uncondition-
ally extended and accepted. As the Judge in RCA Corp.
noted, a change in a "preemployment" medical exam
from an exam administered to individuals who have al-
ready accepted job offers to an exam required of all ap-
plicants is a significant change.
These pre-1987, sporadic examinations consisted of
nothing more than a brief visit to the staff nurse for her
to record blood pressure and weight. For some employ-
ees, whose apparently arbitrary selection was not ex-
plained by Respondent , a urine sample may also have
been taken, but these urinalyses did not include a drug
screen. In RCA Corp. the judge found the addition of a
drug screen to urinalysis constitutes a significant change.
The consequences or purposes of these posthire visits by
some Guild employees to the nurse were not explained,
2 At least three witnesses offering testimony to this fact relocated fami-
lies from out-of-state, selling and buying homes in the process. As two
witnesses noted , they would never have put a house on the market and
moved their families to another State if they had been led to believe that
their offers were contingent on anything. In its reply brief, Respondent
asserts that the record supports a finding that newly hired employees
from out-of-state were exempt from the testing requirement I cannot find
in the record support for this purported exemption.
STAR TRIBUNE 559
either to the employees involved at the time or at the
hearing. Although Personnel Manager Michael Sera-
phine initially stated that these medical exams were ad-
ministered prior to January 1987, he later clarified that
Guild unit positions have been exempt from any such
policy since late 1983. Even then, Seraphine testified, the
exam had never been the basis for refusing to hire
anyone for a Guild bargaining unit position . The vice
president for labor relations, Dennison, could not recall
any preemployment exam policy prior to the one unilat-
erally implemented in January 1987.
The preemployment exams, including drug and alcohol
screening , implemented since January 1987 bear no re-
semblance to those cursory visits to the company nurse,
if any, made by already hired Guild employees prior to
1983. As one recently hired employee testified, her
preemployment exam took place in a private medical
office facility selected by the company after her condi-
tional offer of employment had been extended. After an
examination by two physicians, the prospective employee
was told to undress completely from the waist down.
Accompanied by a nurse, the prospective employee then
had to remain in a public bathroom stall, with the stall
door open, for 40 minutes while she made repeated and
unsuccessful attempts to provide a urine sample.
Throughout this period, the nurse remained with her in
order to observe that the urine sample , which was even-
tually supplied, came from the woman being examined.
The prospective employee was instructed by the nurse to
keep her hands at her side throughout the process. Al-
though the new drug and alcohol policy calls for an "un-
observed" urinalysis, situations such as the one described
above have occurred and to my mind, lend support to
the Union's desire to have a part in formulating the
policy and to its information request so it can monitor
the policy.
Clearly, the new preemployment testing procedure
cannot reasonably be equated to having a company nurse
take a blood pressure reading on your first day of work.
The preemployment drug screen is designed to deter-
mine whether a prospective employee uses drugs, regard-
less of whether the usage interferes with job perform-
ance. Once this is discovered through a positive result on
the test the job offer is withdrawn. If the prospective
employee refused to take the test, the job offer is also
withdrawn. These drastic consequences of the policy, the
invasiveness of which is a radical departure from the pre-
1983 practices, are certainly substantial changes from the
nature and purpose of the prior exams which intermit-
tently existed for the Guild unit over 5 years ago. Even
if one accepts Respondent's contention that the preem-
ployment physical exams were uniformly given, which
the record does not support, they clearly did not have
the purpose or consequences of the new exams, which
include drug and alcohol screening. No prospective
Guild unit member was ever denied employment based
on the results of a preemployment physical and none
were made aware that passage of such an exam was a
condition of employment. In fact, I believe the record
will only support a finding that passage of the pre-1987
medical exams was not a condition of employment.
In conclusion, I find for all the reasons set out that Re-
spondent's drug and alcohol program as it applies to pro-
spective employees constitutes a mandatory subject of
bargaining and its unilateral implementation in the face
of requested bargaining is a violation of the Act. I fur-
ther find for the reasons set out above that the Guild did
not waive its right to demand bargaining because of its
acquiescence in Respondent 's pre- 1987 preemployment
or postemployment physical exam policy.
D. Does Implementation of Respondent's New Drug
and Alcohol Policy for Current Employees Constitute
a Mandatory Subject of Bargaining and a Material,
Substantial and Significant Change in Their
Working Conditions?
Respondent's drug and alcohol policy providing for
current employee screening is clearly germane to em-
ployee's work environment. Under the terms of the
policy as initially implemented and revised, a complete
medical exam , including a drug and alcohol test , will be
required of current employees when management subjec-
tively "believes" that an employee's job performance or
conduct is "impaired" by substance abuse or when man-
agement "believes" an employee is "under the influence
of alcohol." As discussed above, the disciplinary conse-
quences of the exam 's results are preestablished and pro-
vide for mandatory chemical dependency evaluations,
mandatory suspensions , and mandatory discharge.
I agree fully with General Counsel that the new drug
testing policy is a "fitness for duty" type of requirement
that ultimately affects employment status in a profound
way and becomes a literal "condition of employment."
See LeRoy Machine Co., 147 NLRB 1431 (1964). In
LeRoy Machine, the Board found that a physical exami-
nation policy for current employees is a mandatory sub-
ject of bargaining because of the policy's possible effects
on employees ' employment status if the exam were not
passed. Id. at 1432, 1434.3 Accord: Lockheed Shipbuilding
Co., 273 NLRB 171, 177 (1984).
The Board has held in other analogous cases that poly-
graph testing4 and safety rules5 are mandatory subjects
of bargaining over which the Employer is obligated to
bargain. For polygraph examinations, as for physical ex-
aminations, the Board has held that the bargaining obli-
gation extends not only to whether an examination
policy will exist at all but also as to the particulars of the
policy, e.g., the policy's contents, its application, its pur-
poses, and the consequences of its results. See Lockheed
Shipbuilding, 273 NLRB at 171; Medicenter, Mid-South
Hospital, 221 NLRB 670, 676 fn. 23, 677-678 (1975);
LeRoy Machine Co., 147 NLRB at 1432, 1438-1439.
Analogizing these cases to drug testing , the bargaining
8 In LeRoy Machine, the Board found a contractual waiver, so the em-
ployer's implementation of the physical exam policy was not unlawful.
However , this does not affect the Board 's holding that the policy is a
mandatory subject
4 Austin-Berryhill, Inc., 246 NLRB 1 139 (1979), Underwood Hair Adop-
tion Process, 242 NLRB 1017 (1979), Medicenter, Mid-South Hospital, 221
NLRB 670, 675 (1975).
6 Gulf Power Co., 156 NLRB 622, 625 (1966), enfd 384 F.2d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 1967); Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., 225 NLRB 824, 829 (1976),
enfd. 562 F.2d 1259 (5th Cir. 1977).
560 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
obligation arising under the Act is similarly compelling.6
As the Board noted in Medicenter in finding a unilateral-
ly implemented polygraph test unlawful:
. .. this sort of change in an employer 's investiga-
tory method , substantially varying both the mode of
investigation and the character of proof upon which
an employee 's continued job security might hinge, is
a bargainable change in the terms and conditions of
his employment.
Id. at 675.
The fact that an employee 's refusal to take the poly-
graph test would be penalized with discipline (discharge)
provided a separate basis for a mandatory bargaining ob-
ligation . "The introduction of new employment related
rules and requirements , disobedience to which may result
in forfeiture of employment are bargainable `conditions'
of employment within the pale of Section 8(d)." 221
NLRB at 677-678.
Not only is drug and alcohol testing of employees
"germane" to the working environment but it also falls
outside that realm of managerial or entrepreneurial pre-
rogatives excluded from Section 8(d) of the Act. In a
long line of cases, the Board has imposed a mandatory
bargaining duty over a range of policies and rules de-
signed to insure healthy, safe and efficient operations.
See, e .g., J. P. Stevens & Co., 239 NLRB 738 (1978),
enfd . in pertinent part 623 F.2d 322 (4th Cir. 1980); Elec-
tric-Flex Co., 238 NLRB 713 (1978), enfd. 624 F.2d 1103
(7th Cir. 1979); Gulf Power Co., 156 NLRB 622 (1966),
enfd. 384 F.2d 822 (5th Cir. 1967). The Board in Medi-
center rejected the Employer 's argument that the poly-
graph test policy it unilaterally implemented was a mana-
gerial prerogative:
The institution of a polygraph test is not entrepre-
neurial in character , is not fundamental to the basic
direction of the enterprise , and does not impinge
only indirectly upon employment security. It is,
rather, a change in an important facet of the worka-
day life of employees , a change in personnel policy
freighted with potentially serious implications for
the employees which in no way touches the discre-
tionary "core of entrepreneurial control."
Id. at 676. Similarly, Respondent 's drug testing policy is
not exempt from Section 8(d) as an entrepreneurial con-
cern.
The sum of the Board and court precedents is clear:
the Respondent 's drug and alcohol testing of current em-
ployees falls within the scope of the mandatory bargain-
ing obligation . The January 1 program called for testing
of current employees in two basic situations : where man-
agement believed an employee 's conduct to be impaired
by substance abuse or where an employee was involved
in a serious accident involving machinery or vehicles.
6 Drug testing for incumbent employees has already been found to be a
mandatory subject of bargaining under the Railway Labor Act See Local
246 Y. Southern California Edison , 3 IER Cases 367 (9th Cir . 1988); Team-
sters Y. Southwest Airlines, 842 F . 2d 794 (5th Cir. 1988); Locomotive Engi-
neers v. Burlington Northern Railroad, 838 F .2d 1102 (9th Cir. 1988)
The amended September policy, while eliminating the
second testing situation , added a further requirement of
employee testing when management believes an employ-
ee to be under the influence of alcohol.
At no previous time in the parties ' bargaining history
had the Respondent utilized a drug or alcohol test to as-
certain impairment of a unit employee 's performance, to
determine whether an employee was "under the influ-
ence," or to investigate the cause of a workplace acci-
dent . The introduction of this new method to confirm
impairment and to investigate employee misconduct con-
stitutes the very same substantial alteration of employ-
ment terms that compelled the Medicenter Board to find
a bargaining obligation in relation to polygraph tests.
As in Medicenter, the Respondent had previously
relied exclusively on personal interrogation and sensory
investigation to assess employee impairment or miscon-
duct-here , dilated eyes, slurred speech or sloppy physi-
cal movement . Reliance upon the test results of drug and
alcohol urinalysis profoundly changes both the "mode of
investigation and character of proof" of employee mis-
conduct.
This change in the method of investigation is particu-
larly significant, because, as with polygraph testing, drug
and alcohol testing involves a technical procedure which
raises serious questions as to its reliability and accuracy.
The testimony of Respondent 's expert witness, Dr.
Robert Dupont establishes that the accuracy of drug and
alcohol testing may be affected by many technical fac-
tors which were irrelevant to the Employer 's previous
investigatory method : the type of testing procedure used;
quality control procedures ; chain of custody techniques;
and proper medical review to screen out positive tests at-
tributable to prescription drugs or to other confounding
compounds . Where improper techniques or procedures
are used, the risks of inaccurate results is high. Given the
range of technical factors newly implicated by the Re-
spondent 's use of drug and alcohol urinalysis , there can
be no question that this change in the method of investi-
gation materially altered the terms and conditions of em-
ployment that had prevailed prior to January 1 . Dr. Du-
pont's testimony also establishes that the technology and
human expertise exist which can make drug and alcohol
testing if not wholly exact , exceedingly accurate . Having
input into the choice of testing procedure therefore can
directly impact on working conditions , given the serious
consequences of an inaccurate , positive test result.
On brief, Respondent and Intervenor COLLE argues
that the key to determining which subjects are mandato-
ry is whether the action has effected "a material , substan-
tial, and a significant change in its [the employer 's] rules
and practices . . . . which vitally affected employee
tenure and conditions of employment . ..."7 If a matter
has only an "incidental impact on unit employees it is
not sufficient to establish the matter as a mandatory sub-
ject of bargaining."6
7 Murphy Diesel Co., 184 NLRB 757, 763 ( 1970), enfd . 454 F.2d 303
(7th Cir. 1971), Peerless Food Products, 236 NLRB 161 (1978), United
Technologies Corp ., 274 NLRB 1069, 1070 (1985).
8 United Technologies Corp ., 274 NLRB at 1070; Fiberboard Paper Prod-
ucts Corp v NLRB , 379 U . S. 203 (1964).
STAR TRIBUNE 561
As examples of what the Publisher and COLLE con-
sider an analogous , nonmandatory subjects of bargaining,
it points to the unilateral imposition of timeclocks in lieu
of manual attendance reports,9 new production levels'10
or the imposition of a specific penalty for violation of
previously established efficiency standards."" They argue
in the same vein that the imposition of an oral test to
gauge employees ' proficiency after a training program is
likewise analogous to Respondent 's imposition of the
new drug and alcohol testing program . In the case relied
upon, UNC Nuclear Industries, 268 NLRB 841 (1984),
the employer had had an established practice of shutting
its nuclear reactor at regular intervals for maintenance.
During shutdowns , the employer had provided training
for its certified reactor operators . In order to determine
the effectiveness of the training, the employer developed
a new oral test . The plant manager selected 10 of 70
questions relating to the training . The supervisors admin-
ister the questions orally to each operator . Based on the
verbal responses , the supervisor made a judgment con-
cerning whether the operator had sufficient knowledge
to perform his duties . If the supervisor determined that
an operator 's knowledge was insufficient , the operator
was required to take further training without loss of
salary or job classification . Despite employee protest and
the union 's bargaining request, the employer unilaterally
instituted the oral testing procedure . In adopting the de-
cision of the administrative law judge, the Board held
that the effects of the change were insignificant , and con-
sequently, imposition of the test did not constitute a radi-
cal change representing a "material , substantial and a sig-
nificant change" from prior practice.
I do not find the decisions cited above by Respondent
to be analogous to the facts of this proceeding and will
find that the imposition of the new drug and alcohol
policy, including the requirement of testing and mandato-
ry substantial penalties does constitute a radical change
representing a material, substantial and a significant
change from prior practice . I find no equation between a
test of effectiveness of training which simply results in
further training upon its failure to the new drug and al-
cohol policy of Respondent.
Just as it conceded that drug and alcohol testing was
"unquestionably new" for prospective employees, Re-
spondent also admitted that it never had a policy provid-
ing for drug and alcohol testing for current employees
before January 1987. In arguing that its unilaterally im-
plemented testing policy for current employees is not un-
lawful , Respondent relies upon the contention that its
impact is insignificant because : (1) the Publisher's Office
Rules have consistently prohibited unit employees from
working while under the influence of illegal drugs or al-
cohol; (2) the Publisher has consistently used its supervi-
sors' sensory perceptions to monitor compliance with its
Office Rules ; (3) the circumstances under which testing
may be requested are extremely limited ; (4) testing is vol-
untary and a unit employee may refuse the test without
9 Rust Craft Broadcasting of New York, 225 NLRB 327 (1976), Bureau
of National Affairs, 235 NLRB 8 (1978).
10 Trading Port, Inc, 224 NLRB 980 (1976).
11 Wabash Transformer Corp., 215 NLRB 546 (1974)
suffering any consequences for refusal ; (5) testing is a
more dependable means of enforcing longstanding work
rules than are supervisor 's sensory perceptions ; and (6) a
unit employee who voluntarily submits to a test and tests
positive is referred for a chemical dependency evaluation
and if appropriate , treatment ; the employee is not subject
to discharge based on the test results.
The Office Rules, as documented by Respondent and
as related to drugs and alcohol , prohibited three things:
(1) the use of drugs or alcohol on company premises, (2)
the possession of drugs or alcohol on company premises,
and (3) being under the influence of drugs or alcohol on
company premises . While the Office Rules are prefaced
with the statement that employees shall be subject to dis-
cipline , including possible discharge , for Office Rule vio-
lations, no specific disciplinary schedule was identified.
In fact prior to January 1987, not only were there not
specified penalties for any drug or alcohol related of-
fenses, but there was no mandatory schedule of discipline
for any type of offense whatsoever. The disciplinary
schedule implemented for first time substance abuse of-
fenses in January 1987 is the company's first. Prior to
this policy, the contractual "just cause" standard was the
only embodiment of written disciplinary standards.
The Respondent's witnesses testified that the Office
Rules were posted at various times and places in the
Publisher 's facility and reference to them was routinely
made in disciplinary letters sent to employees . Testimony
from both Guild officers and Guild bargaining unit lead-
ers indicated that, since as far back as 1935 the Guild has
not been aware of the Office Rules in the course of ex-
tensive bargaining, grievance handling, contract adminis-
tration and various meetings with company representa-
tives. However, I find that the Guild must be presumed
to have knowledge of the Rules because of their posting.
At the time the drug and alcohol policy was unilateral-
ly implemented in January , the Office Rules were reti-
tled "Standards of Conduct ." As Dennison testified, the
Standards of Conduct were implemented simultaneously
with Respondent's drug and alcohol testing policy. In his
letter to the union in December 1986, Dennison charac-
terized the standards as being "news " Dennison testified
that the Standards of Conduct did not exist as a separate
policy, but were designed to "describe" the drug and al-
cohol testing policy. Since he did not provide a copy of
the Standards of Conduct to the Union, Nelson thought
Dennison 's reference to "the new Standards of Conduct"
in his December 12, 1986 letter, referred to the drug and
alcohol policy itself.
There is no evidence that any employee in the Guild
bargaining unit has ever been disciplined or discharged
for any alleged violation of the Office Rules relating to
drug or alcohol. Although Respondent claims that the
Office Rules have been used as a basis upon which to
argue that "just cause" exists for discipline , the rules
have never been cited in grievance -related meetings or
arbitrations . Rather, prior to January 1987, any discipline
imposed for impairment or behavior perceived to be re-
lated to drug or alcohol use, was based upon the ob-
served impairment (i.e., unexcused absence) or the be-
havior (i.e., physical aggression) not for the perceived
562 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
drug or alcohol use itself . Similarly, as there were no
medical exams requested or required of current employ-
ees prior to January 1, there is no past practice of disci-
plining employees for failing such exams . k first time
failure on the drug test now carries a mandatory 5-day
suspension and a mandatory chemical dependency eval-
uation for a current employee . In addition to this 5-day
suspension for testing positive , an employee now would
also receive discipline for the offence found , e.g., another
5-day suspension for "being under the influence."
Although Respondent claims that the drug and alcohol
policy for current employees , along with the related dis-
ciplinary schedule, is an extension of the old Office Rules
and therefore does not constitute any substantial change,
the inaccuracy of this claim is apparent .1 2 As noted
above, the Office Rules prohibited the use of drugs or al-
cohol on company premises . However, as Dennison ad-
mitted , testing an employee for drugs cannot verify
where drugs or alcohol were used , so this rule is not en-
hanced by the policy . Secondly, the Office Rules prohib-
ited possession of drugs or alcohol on company premises.
Again , it is obvious that no drug test can confirm the
fact of possession . The third and final drug or alcohol re-
lated provision in the Office Rules prohibited being
"under the influence " of alcohol or drugs on company
premises . The Office Rules, on their face , provided no
mechanism by which "being under the influence" was to
be identified . Rather, Respondent employed "sensory
reasons" (i.e., sight, smell , hearing) to make an assess-
ment . The testing mechanism of the new policy is not an
extension of a rule but is a means of policing and enforc-
ing a rule.
However, the fact remains that Guild unit employees
apparently have never been disciplined for "being under
the influence" of drugs or alcohol . Of course , discipline
has been imposed for certain behavior or impairment,
such as chronic tardiness , but this behavior and impair-
ment may or may not have been related to substance
abuse . Any discipline imposed was based on the behav-
ior. How this disciplinary practice will change under the
drug and alcohol policy is significant . Obviously, no
drug test can be useful in identifying a behavior problem
such as tardiness, and Respondent would not contend
that it could . Now however , "when management be-
lieves" that an employee 's on-the-job performance or
conduct is impaired , e.g., if an employee is tardy often,
that employee can be required to undergo drug and alco-
hol testing . Further, employees will be required to un-
dergo testing "when management has reasonable suspi-
cion that an employee is under the influence of drugs or
alcohol ." Therefore, the decision to subject an employee
12 Respondent also cites its Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in its
argument that the drug and alcohol policy for current employees does
not constitute a significant change in employees ' working conditions Em-
ployees of the company have been able to participate in the EAP since
its inception in approximately 1975. Since that time , Respondent's EAP
has expanded to offer a wide range of services addressing not only sub-
stance abuse problems , but also legal , financial , medical , emotional and
domestic concerns. The EAP , a program which has been implemented
and administered with the cooperation , encouragement and support of
the Union , has never contained any component for drug or alcohol test-
ing or discipline . The EAP continues to exist as a program offered by the
company, independent of Respondent's drug and alcohol policy.
to a required drug test rests on the subjective "belief' or
"suspicion" of unnamed "management" that an employee
is "impaired" or "under the influence ," whatever those
terms may mean . An example of behavior which Denni-
son provided as a possible trigger of drug testing under
the policy included tardiness , even though Respondent's
expert witness stated that tardiness in not necessarily re-
lated to substance abuse . Other examples were "being
abusive," absenteeism , "erratic behavior," and "out-
bursts." Therefore, if an employee is now chronically
tardy, the behavior (e.g., tardiness) can lead to an auto-
matic 5 -day suspension if the Employer requires a drug
test and the results are positive . An entire new class of
employees subject to mandatory testing has now been
created.
At the hearing, Respondent attempted to change its ar-
bitrary and subjective criteria for mandatory testing by
adding to the written policy with extraneous assurances
of what the policy purportedly really means . However,
Publisher Roger Parkinson stated , it is the written policy
itself upon which employees can be expected to rely.
Many reassurances were offered by Dennison, Seraphine
and Employer Communications Manager Judith Strom
that management 's assessment of who will be tested will
be "fair," but none of them has any authority to revise
the policy as it now exists . Their reassurances do not
minimize the fact that the drug policy , as implemented
and revised, represents a substantial change in employ-
ee's working conditions . Dennison and Seraphine spoke
at length of their "understanding" that, for example. the
drug testing policy requires the concurrence of two "ob-
jective" supervisors that testing is warranted , and that
testing results obtained from an "unfairly" administered
test will be disregarded . But these hypotheses are not re-
flected in or required by the policy implemented.
The drug and alcohol policy, as originally implement-
ed and as revised , is quite clear that current employees
will be "required" to take medical exams, including sub-
stance screening, under the circumstances specified. The
consequences of refusing a required test is another area
of significant change from Respondent 's past policy on
drugs as embodied in its preexisting Office Rules. Re-
spondent contends that it did not mean "required" when
it drafted "required" in the January 1987 policy, even
though when it revised the policy, it chose to continue
to label testing for certain employees as "required." Con-
sequently , Respondent denies that a current employee's
refusal to take a required drug test will have disciplinary
consequences as a result of the refusal itself . However,
Respondent admits that there has been no consensus by
management on this point and the policy, by its terms,
provides that employees refusing the test will be disci-
plined on the basis of their impaired performance or their
behavior pursuant to the Standards of Conduct. The
Standards of Conduct specifically list "insubordination"
as an offense that "will result in disciplinary action."
Therefore, it is logical for an employee to assume that if
he or she refuses to take a required test ordered by the
Respondent, he or she may be disciplined for insubordi-
nation pursuant to the explicit provisions of the compa-
ny's Standards of Conduct. Respondent argues further on
STAR TRIBUNE 563
brief that its representations at the hearing and on brief
as to the manner in which the drug policy will be admin-
istered with respect to current employees substantially
reduce the significance of the change between the old
Office Rules and the new policy . I seriously disagree. As
noted above , Respondent 's publisher , Parkinson indicated
that the written drug and alcohol policy was what em-
ployees could rely upon as being the company policy.
Does Respondent expect to distribute or post to employ-
ees the entire record in this case so that they may have a
comprehensive understanding of the drug and alcohol
policy? I think not. The mere fact that the policy can be
changed so easily to diminish its scope demonstrates that
if one accepts Respondent 's position , it can just as easily
be made more stringent . I fully accept the General
Counsel 's contention that the written policy is what the
Board should deal with and that policy does constitute a
significant , material and substantial change in the Guild
working conditions that existed before January 1987.
The Respondent also argues that because of the grow-
ing national concern over drug usage in the workplace
and the Federal Government 's emphasis on establishing
drug testing among private sector employers , it is impor-
tant that clear rules be delineated for determining the
extent to which a drug testing program must be negotiat-
ed with an exclusive representative prior to implementa-
tion . Based on established precedent , the decision to in-
stitute a drug test for employees represented by a union
should not be considered a mandatory subject of bargain-
ing because the test itself cannot settle any aspect of the
employment relationship . Only the effects of the decision
which have a substantial impact on terms and conditions
of employment should be deemed mandatory subjects.
Such direct effects would include the nature and extent
of disciplinary penalties , including warnings , suspension
and discharge related to the results of the drug test.
Direct effects also would encompass potential benefits
like the availability of drug rehabilitation programs or
leaves of absence, with or without pay, to undergo drug
therapy . Psychological concerns over the possible
trauma related to being tested are too speculative and in-
substantial to require bargaining . Likewise , test proce-
dures and methodology , such as the laboratory used or
cutoff levels for chemicals , and the type of analysis
should not be mandatory subjects . I do not agree with
these arguments . For the reasons set out above and based
on the precedents cited , I find that implementation of
Respondent 's drug and alcohol policy is a mandatory
subject of bargaining and absent any other defense, its
unilateral implementation without bargaining was unlaw-
ful.
As pointed out by General Counsel , a determination
that the components of the company 's drug and alcohol
testing policy are mandatory subjects of bargaining does
not mean that Respondent , or any other employer, is
barred from proposing and/or ultimately implementing
such a policy . The issue here is not whether Respondent
is justified in wanting a drug testing program, but is,
simply, whether Respondent is obligated to bargain over
it. Even the finding of a bargaining obligation does not
prohibit the company from having a drug testing pro-
gram, after agreement or impasse is reached . In fact, at
the hearing The Guild 's chief negotiator for its 1986 ne-
gotiations with Respondent testified that he believes an
agreement undoubtedly could have been reached on the
policy within four or five meetings , if bargaining had
taken place.
Respondent's expert witness on national drug policy
conceded that his assessment of Respondent's drug test-
ing policy did not include any consideration whatsoever
of the company 's legal obligations arising from the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act. The expert concluded that
the national policy on drugs about which he testified
would not be hampered by collective bargaining, but in
fact would be enhanced by the employee involvement
and knowledge which would result from a bargained
policy.
E. Does the New Schedule of Discipline Unilaterally
Implemented by Respondent Constitute an
Independent Violation?
The new, fixed schedule of disciplinary penalties for
drug and alcohol related offenses which was unilaterally
implemented by the Respondent as an element of its sub-
stance abuse program constitutes an independent viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Imposition of a
system of specific disciplinary penalties constitutes a
mandatory subject of bargaining . See, e.g., RAHCO, Inc.,
265 NLRB 235 (1982); Amoco Chemical Corp., 211
NLRB 618 ( 1974); Medicenter, supra at 675 . The new
penalties so imposed include a 3 -day suspension for first-
time possession on the premises , a 5-day suspension for
consumption on the premises or for being impaired or
under the influence , and discharge for distribution on the
premises.
This formalized ladder of discipline represents a
marked change from the Respondent 's past practice. Pre-
viously, discipline had been handled on a case-by-case
basis, in accordance with the principles of progressive
discipline imposed by the "just cause" provision of the
parties' agreement . No penalty schedule existed, with
regard to any employee misconduct, drug related or oth-
erwise . The Respondent's previous disciplinary practices
had been often intendly inconsistent and in no way tied
to a specific penal code . Thus, the unilateral implementa-
tion of the disciplinary schedule constituted a material,
substantial and significant change in the Respondent's
disciplinary rules and practices.
Although some of Respondent 's witnesses indicated
that the new penalty schedule constituted just a guideline
and would be enforced on a case-by-case basis consider-
ing mitigating factors, no such amelioration of the penal-
ties is set out in the new written policy . For the reasons
I have given above, I do not agree with this argument
and position . I find that Respondent 's unilateral imple-
mentation of disciplinary procedures as an enforcement
mechanism for its unilaterally implemented drug and al-
cohol policy is as unlawful as the implementation of the
policy itself. Peerless Publications , 283 NLRB 334 (1987);
Tenneco Chemicals, 249 NLRB 1176 ( 1980).
564 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. Has the Guild Waived its Right to Demand
Bargaining over Respondent 's New Policy as it Affects
Current Bargaining Unit Members?
1. Does the parties contract require a finding
of waiver?
Pursuant to well-established Board law , any waiver by
a union of its statutory right to bargain-whether by
contract , past practice or inaction-will not be inferred
but must be "clear and unmistakable ."' 3 Regarding any
alleged waiver by contract , it is undisputed that during
the parties ' 26 bargaining sessions for the current agree-
ment there were no proposals , counterproposals or
agreements of any kind on any issue related to drugs and
alcohol , or any related discipline , whether for current
employees or prospective employees . Similarly, although
there were two brief informal conversations in 1986 in-
volving Nelson and Dennison during which the generic
subject of drug testing arose, these discussions did not
constitute proposals or bargaining , as Dennison himself
conceded . To find waiver, the Board has required that a
matter be fully discussed and explored during negotia-
tions and "consciously yielded" by the Union . Lamont's
Apparel, 268 NLRB 1332 (1984); Elizabethtown Water
Co., 234 NLRB 318 (1978); TIP Corp., 190 NLRB 240
(1971).
There is no management-rights clause or "zipper"
clause from which a contractual waiver by the Union of
its right to bargain over the drug and alcohol policy pos-
sibly could be inferred . There is also no language in the
agreement to support a finding of contractual waiver.
The contract contains a section on health and safety, but
Dennison acknowledged that drug testing was not raised
during bargaining on this section at all. To the extent
that the health and safety language refers to the Publish-
er's "final decision -making authority regarding recom-
mendations on safety or health matters," the section is
referring only to recommendations of a joint safety com-
mittee and has no bearing on the company 's implementa-
tion of a drug and alcohol policy or any other policy.
Dennison testified that similar language has been used by
the parties regarding other joint committees ' recommen-
dations.
On the issue of prospective employees , the parties'
agreement contains , as noted earlier, a provision specifi-
cally prohibiting discrimination in employment covering
"all phases of employment . . . including , but not limited
to: recruiting and recruiting advertising ; [and] testing and
hiring ..."' 4 This provision documents an agreement
by the parties that the Union has a role in the process by
which Respondent hires and tests applicants, a role
which is fully grievable under the contract . Since, for ex-
ample, urinalysis can detect pregnancy, Respondent's
preemployment medical exam procedures could result in
sex-based discrimination in hiring . Under the parties'
is Metropolitan Edison Co. Y. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708 (1983). Accord-
Owens-Corning Fiberglass, 282 NLRB 609 (1987); Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuti-
cal Div., 264 NLRB 1013, 1017, enfd. 722 F 2d 1120 (3d Cit. 1983).
14 The categories upon which discrimination is prohibited are. race,
color, national origin, religion , marital or parental status , disability, status
with regard to public assistance, political affiliation , sex, sexual preference
or age.
contract, monitoring such potential discrimination would
clearly be within the Union's rights and obligations as
the Units' collective-bargaining representative. Respond-
ent's recognition that drug testing for prospective em-
ployees is not outside the Guild's area of responsibility is
illustrated by the fact that it notified the Union of the
preemployment policy. As Dennison testified, the com-
pany has never before notified a union regarding a
preemployment hiring criterion. Moreover, the Respond-
ent has already bargained with at least two unions over
preemployment hiring criteria, with the result that cer-
tain prospective employees have been released from the
testing requirement. I find that the Guild has not waived
its right to demand bargaining on the issue of Respond-
ent's drug and alcohol policy because of any contractual
provisions.
2. Has the Guild waived its bargaining rights by
failing to make a good-faith bargaining demand?
Respondent argues that the Guild has waived its right
to demand bargaining over the new drug and alcohol
policy because of the Guild's: (1) contemporaneous de-
nunciation of testing and characterization of a chemically
free workplace as a "boring place to work"; (2) failure to
specify any provision of the policy on which it sought to
bargain; (3) failure to make any counterproposal; (4) re-
fusal to discuss the policy at the Inter-Plant Council
meeting ; and (5) failure to demand bargaining at a specif-
ic time or place.
As noted earlier, the Union made a demand to bargain
over all aspects of the new policy beginning with Re-
spondent's first announcement of the policy in December
1986 and thereafter continued to make such requests. Al-
though Respondent argues that the Union waived its bar-
gaining rights by failing to offer a "counterproposal,"
Dennison conceded that there was not ever a proposal
"on the table" to which to offer a counterproposal.
With respect to the argument that the Union never
made a bargaining request naming a specific time and
place, the Union's December 17 letter first demanding
bargaining ended: "We stand ready to meet with you for
that purpose [bargaining] at a time and place of mutual
convenience." I find that this letter put the burden on
Respondent to suggest a time and place if it desired bar-
gaining . Of course, the fact is, it simply refused to bar-
gain.
With respect to Respondent's argument about the
Union's inflexibility at the March Inter-Plant Council
meeting, I find the Union's action does not amount to
waiver. In flatly refusing to bargain with the Guild in
the face of repeated bargaining demands, the Respondent
precluded any opportunity for bargaining. A willingness
to "discuss" but not to "bargain" does not satisfy the
Employer's obligations under the Act. As the Board con-
cluded in Specialized Living Center, 286 NLRB 511
(1983), where an employer similarly offered to "meet and
confer" but not to bargain, the offer is "conditional" and
does "not constitute a good-faith offer to bargain to
which the Union was entitled." The Union's refusal to
accept such a conditional offer does not satisfy the em-
ployer's bargaining duty.
STAR TRIBUNE 565
Lastly, Nelson 's article of December 15, 1986 (which I
personally find to be an attempt to be humorous), critical
of Respondent 's new policy, even if accepted to be the
Union 's initial position on the policy , does not relieve the
Respondent from attempting to bargain over the issue.
Obviously, if the Union 's position proved to be intracta-
ble, impasse could be declared and the policy implement-
ed lawfully.
G. Did Respondent's Refusal to Provide Information
About Prospective Employees Violate the Act?
On August 19, 1987, after the Union's unfair labor
practice charge regarding Respondent 's unilateral imple-
mentation of its drug and alcohol policy had been admin-
istratively deferred to arbitration , the Union filed a
grievance alleging, in part, violations of article XI and
sections 5, 8, and 9 of article XIV. Shortly thereafter, on
September 16, Respondent notified the Union , after the
fact, that it had implemented revisions to the drug and
alcohol policy.
On October 29, 1987, after the Union had received this
notice from the company , it requested certain informa-
tion pertaining to prospective employees affected by the
policy . Specifically , the Guild requested names, address-
es and telephone numbers of all prospective new hires, as
identified by the Publisher in its drug and alcohol policy,
along with indications of who was requested to undergo
a preemployment medical exam , who was requested to
undergo a drug and alcohol test, who has refused to
submit to the test , and whether the reasons for not hiring
a prospective employee were due to any issue related to
the drug and alcohol policy.
Respondent , by letter dated November 16, refused to
comply with the information request for the reasons that
(1) the company had already refused to submit the issue
of preemployment testing to an arbitrator ; (2) that the in-
formation requested was not "material " to the Guild's
function as representative ; and (3) that "most" of the re-
quested information was confidential and could not be
disclosed . Within days, a second unfair labor practice
charge was filed to allege an unlawful refusal to provide
the information.
As part of its statutory obligation to bargain in good
faith , Respondent must supply information that is related
to the Union's performance of its functions as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative for unit employ-
ees. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967);
NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956). Without
the requested information , the Guild cannot perform its
function of administering and policing the collective-bar-
gaining agreement. This is the foundation upon which
the duty to provide information is premised . The Guild
cannot possibly determine whether the company's hiring
and testing procedures have a discriminatory impact
upon any of the classifications specified in the contract
unless the Union can find who is being tested and who
is, or is not , being hired . The parties negotiated article
XIV, section 8, one of the violations alleged in the griev-
ance, during the give and take of bargaining . For Re-
spondent now to contend that , although negotiated and
agreed upon , this contract provision cannot be monitored
nor enforced, is clearly a violation of the duty to bar-
gain . Just because Respondent had taken a position that
the grievance as to prospective employees is not arbitra-
ble does not mean that the information is not relevant to
the Guild in seeking enforcement of the contract through
other means.
In Stephen Oderwald, Inc., 284 NLRB 277 (1987), the
Board held that even for information requests pertaining
to matters outside the unit, it is only necessary to show
that there is "some relationship to a subject of collective
bargaining." 284 NLRB at 279 , citing Associated General
Contractors, 242 NLRB 891 (1979). See also Brooklyn
Union Gas Co., 220 NLRB 189 (1975). As I have found
drug testing for prospective employees is a mandatory
subject for bargaining , the information requested is pre-
sumptively relevant and necessary not only for policing
the contract , but also for bargaining . See Connecticut
Light & Power Co., 229 NLRB 1032 (1977), enf. denied
on other grounds 573 F.2d 101 (1st Cir. 1978).
In contending that its refusal to provide the requested
information is compelled by confidentiality interests, Re-
spondent has the burden of proof . Washington Gas Light
Co., 273 NLRB 116 (1984). In its refusal letter, the com-
pany cites Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979),
as support for its refusal . However, Detroit Edison repre-
sents a narrow exception to the Board 's well established
policy of liberally construing the relevancy of requested
information , and Respondent 's refusal does not fit within
this narrow parameter . See Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
New Jersey, 288 NLRB 434 ( 1988). In Detroit Edison, the
issue was not whether the employer was obliged to dis-
close requested information at all, but whether disclosure
should , or could , be provided within certain conditions
designed to accommodate the employer 's concerns about
confidentiality and privacy.
In contrast to the employer 's proposed compromises in
Detroit Edison is the situation here, wherein Respondent
flatly refused all information, never proposing any type
of modified compliance . The importance of this distinc-
tion is confirmed by E. W. Buschman Co., 277 NLRB
189 (1985), in which the Board rejected the employer's
confidentiality defense because of the employer 's failure
to distinguish between the kinds of information requested
when refusing the request . 277 NLRB at 191 . Accord:
E I. du Pont & Co., 276 NLRB 335 (1985) (Board or-
dered employer to furnish information alleged to be con-
fidential pursuant to agreed upon conditions); Johns-Man-
ville Sales Corp., 252 NLRB 368 (1980) (employer re-
quired to provided information , as excised, to accommo-
date union's request).
The Employer 's reliance on Minnesota Statute No.
181.95 et seq. (1987) in refusing the Guild's information
request is also misplaced . While the statute prohibits un-
consented disclosure of certain test related information it
does not bar the disclosure of the names of individuals
tested . From these names, The Guild could then solicit
waivers from the tested individuals . Further, the statute
expressly recognizes the impact of a collective-bargain-
ing relationship upon a drug testing policy by allowing
the use of test results in arbitrations pursuant to collec-
tive-bargaining agreements . Even more significantly, the
statute provides that the confidentiality provisions:
566 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
... shall not be construed to limit the parties to a
collective bargaining agreement from bargaining
and agreeing with respect to a drug and alcohol
testing policy that meets or exceeds and does not
otherwise conflict with , the minimum standards and
requirements f o r employee protection ... .
For the reasons set out above , and taking into consid-
eration, I find that Respondent has engaged in an the
cited statute unfair labor practice by failing to supply to
the Union the names , addresses and telephone numbers
of all persons to whom conditional offers of employment
have been made for Guild bargaining unit positions since
January 1987, identifying those persons who have re-
fused to submit to preemployment drug and alcohol
screening.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent , Star Tribune, A Division of Cowles
Media Co., is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Newspaper Guild of the Twin Cities, Local 2,
the Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material to this proceeding , the Re-
spondent has recognized the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of its employees in the following unit:
All of the employees of the Publisher (except those
herein excluded) employed in the News and Edito-
rial Departments of the Minneapolis Star and Trib-
une including the Sunday Tribune, employed in the
Sales Development/Promotion Department doing
art and creative work, and all Metro District Sales
Managers in the Metro Circulation Department and
no others.
4. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union as
requested, by its January 1987 unilateral implementation
of the drug and alcohol policy, by its September 1987
unilateral implementation of a revised drug and alcohol
policy, and by its October 1987 refusal to furnish the
Union requested information.
5. The unfair labor practices found above are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent did not violate the Act except as specif-
ically found above.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices , it is recommended that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered
to furnish the Union the information requested in Octo-
ber 1987, supplying the names , addresses and telephone
numbers of those person to whom it has conditionally of-
fered employment in the Guild bargaining unit since Jan-
uary 1987, identifying those persons who have refused to
submit to drug and alcohol screening . Respondent should
also be ordered to rescind any discipline imposed upon
current employees in Guild bargaining unit positions as a
result of its drug and alcohol policy and related discipli-
nary schedule , and to make such employees whole for
any losses suffered therefrom.
It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered
to offer employment to any individuals whose offers of
employment to Guild bargaining unit positions were
withdrawn because of the preemployment drug and alco-
hol policy, and to make such individuals whole ' s for any
losses suffered as a result of the policy, unless the Re-
spondent can demonstrate on an individual basis that the
individual would have been denied employment for some
lawful nondiscriminatory reason.
It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered
to: (1) revoke its policy on preemployment medical ex-
aminations, including the drug and alcohol screening, as
implemented in January 1987 and as revised in Septem-
ber 1987, as it pertains to prospective employees for
Guild bargaining unit positions ; (2) revoke its policy on
medical examinations for current employees , including
the drug and alcohol screening , as implemented in Janu-
ary 1987 and revised in September 1987, as it pertains to
employees in Guild bargaining unit positions ; and (3)
revoke its schedule of discipline for substance abuse of-
fenses, as implemented in January 1987 and as revised in
September 1987, as it pertains to employees in Guild bar-
gaining unit positions.
It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered
to, upon request, bargain with the Union in good faith
concerning preemployment medical exams , including
drug and alcohol screening ; medical examinations for
current employees , including drug and alcohol screening;
and disciplinary schedules for substance abuse offenses;
insofar as prospective employees for Guild bargaining
unit positions or current members of the bargaining unit
are concerned.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
' S See generally Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd.
444 F.2d 502 (6th Cit . 1971). Appropriate interest should be added.