The Akron Beacon Journal

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 22, 2008

08-CA-037281 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 22, 2008)

JD-33-08
Akron, OH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
THE BEACON JOURNAL PUBLISHING COMPANY
d/b/a THE AKRON BEACON JOURNAL
and Case No. 8-CA-37281
THE NORTHEAST OHIO NEWSPAPER GUILD,
LOCAL 1, A SECTOR OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 34001, AFL-CIO-CLC
Iva Y. Choe, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Helen S. Carroll & Karen Lefton, Esqs., for the Respondent.
Mark Davis, Executive Secretary, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
GEORGE ALEMÁN, Administrative Law Judge. A Complaint and Notice of Hearing
issued in this case on October 24, 2007,1 alleging that The Beacon Journal Publishing
Company d/b/a The Akron Beacon Journal (herein the Respondent) had violated Sections
8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).2 Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Respondent unlawfully failed and refused, and continues to refuse, to provide the
Union, which is the duly designated bargaining representative of certain of Respondent’s
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit,3 with certain requested information, and unlawfully
delayed providing the Union with other requested information. The information requested is
contained in a March 9, 2007, letter sent by the Union to the Respondent, and includes the
following:
1. Any and all payroll records, or records involving compensation of any kind, for any
and all correspondents whose work or time was used by The Akron Beacon Journal

1 All dates are in 2007, unless otherwise indicated.
2 The unfair labor practice charge underlying the complaint was filed by The Northeast Ohio
Newspaper Guild, Local 1, A Sector of the Communications Workers of America, Local 34001,
AFL-CIO, CLC (herein the Union), on July 2, and amended on September 12.
3 The appropriate bargaining unit includes: “All employees of the Editorial Department,
excepting one editor, one managing editor, one administrative editor, one associate editor, one
public editor, one night managing editor, one executive news editor, one chief editorial writer,
one recruitment and training editor, one AME photo and graphics, one director of photography,
one art director, one copy desk chief, one sports editor, one deputy sports editor, one AME
features, one deputy features editor, one business editor, one deputy business editor, one
weekend editor, one chief librarian, one new media editor, one night editor, one metro editor,
one enterprise editor, five deputy metro editors, one AME projects/CAR, one newsroom
technology manager, one assistant to the editor, one assistant to the associate editor.”
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
in the calendar years 2000-2006.
2. Any and all payroll records, or records involving compensation of any kind, for
freelancers, specifically delineating pay code and budget source for payment.
Additionally, please include corresponding articles, and date of same, for which
compensation was rendered.
3. Any and all lists, or similar such compilation, of correspondents maintained in the
Akron Beacon Journal editorial department and/or newsroom for the calendar years
2000-2006.
4. Any agreements/contracts/memoranda that reflect a person’s status as a
correspondent, or status as any other type of independent contractor, maintained by
the editorial department or any other department, for the period Jan. 1, 2000-March
9, 2006.
5. A copy of any retail or classified advertisements soliciting correspondents that
appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal or any other publications between Jan. 1,
2006, and March 9, 2007. If an advertisement ran multiple times, please include a
list of the dates it ran and the name of the publication(s) in which the ad(s) appeared.
6. A copy of any and all news stories or news briefs soliciting correspondents that
appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal, along with the date(s) such story or stories
appeared.
In a timely-filed answer to the complaint, the Respondent denies engaging in any
unlawful conduct.
A hearing in this matter was held on January 10, 2008, at which all parties present were
afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard, to present oral and written evidence, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally on the record. On the entire record, including
my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering briefs filed by Counsel
for the General Counsel and the Respondent,4 I make the following

4 In its post-hearing brief, the Respondent asserts that, after the hearing closed, it provided
the Union with most of the information requested in its March 9, information letter, except for the
information on the correspondents’ compensation, which it claims to be confidential and private.
Attached to its brief as Appendix A is a letter purportedly sent by Respondent to the Union
describing what it was providing in response to its request. According to Appendix A, and to
representations made in its brief, the Union was provided with the information requested in
paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of its March 9, information request. The Respondent thus argues that
these particular allegations have been rendered moot by its post-hearing conduct, warranting
their dismissal. (See Respondent’s brief, p. 10). I disagree.
Neither the Union, nor Counsel for the General Counsel, has submitted anything supporting
or corroborating the Respondent’s above claim that it has partially complied with the information
request. In the absence of such confirmation or corroboration, the Respondent’s unilateral and
unsubstantiated claim of its alleged partial post-hearing compliance with the Union’s information
request simply will not suffice to warrant any consideration of its mootness claim. Nor, in any
event, would a finding of mootness be warranted even if, as claimed by the Respondent, it
turned over some of the requested information after the hearing closed, for the Board has held
that subsequent compliance with a request for information does not cure the unlawful refusal to
Continued
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent, an Ohio corporation, with an office and place of business in Akron,
Ohio, is engaged in the printing and publication of a daily newspaper.5 Annually, the
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its operations, derives gross annual revenues in
excess of $200,000, subscribes to interstate news services, advertises for nationally sold
products, and publishes nationally syndicated news features. The Respondent admits, and I
find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act, and that, at all material times herein, the Union has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Underlying facts
The Respondent, a morning daily newspaper with circulation in several counties in
Akron, Ohio, is owned and operated by Black Press Ltd, and its owner David Black, who
acquired it in August 2006.6 Karen Lefton serves as the Respondent’s General Counsel. The
Respondent represented at the hearing that it employs nearly 600 full-time and part-time
workers, 107 of whom are represented by the Union in the above-described bargaining unit.
The Union has represented the bargaining unit since at least 2001, when it was first so
recognized by the Respondent. That recognition has been embodied in successive collective
bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effective by its terms from July 26, 2004
through July 25, 2008. The record reflects that the Respondent also uses non-unit
correspondents and freelancers as independent contractors to cover certain news events.
Following its acquisition by Black Press, the Respondent in August 2006, underwent a
reduction-in-force, resulting in the layoff of some 50 bargaining unit employees. Prior to the
reduction-in-force, there were some 160-165 employees in the bargaining unit. The
_________________________
supply the information in a timely manner, and belated compliance with a request for such
information does not render moot a complaint of an unlawful refusal timely to supply the
requested information. Amersig Graphics, Inc., 334 NLRB 880, 897 (2001); Teamsters Local
921 (San Francisco Newspaper), 309 NLRB 901, 902 (1992). Accordingly, the Respondent’s
argument on brief that certain issues in the complaint have been rendered moot by its alleged
post-hearing compliance is rejected as without merit.
In light of the above finding, I deem it unnecessary to strike those portions of the
Respondent’s brief referencing its post-hearing conduct, as requested by Counsel for the
General Counsel in a Motion to Strike filed in response to the Respondent’s post-hearing brief. I
do, however, agree with Counsel for the General Counsel that the representations made by the
Respondent in its brief, regarding alleged settlement discussions it may have had with the Union
after the hearing closed, were inappropriately included in the Respondent’s brief, as they do not
constitute a part of the record in this proceeding upon which any decision must solely be based,
and, moreover, are not entitled to consideration under Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
5 The Respondent is owned by Sound Publishing Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Black
Press Ltd.
6 The Respondent also runs a website publication at www.Ohio.com.
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Respondent had experienced a similar reduction-in-force several years earlier in 2001. Union
executive secretary Mark Davis testified that following the August 2006 reduction-in-force, he
learned, from reading the Respondent’s daily newspaper and from information provided by unit
members, e.g., reporters, that there had been an increase in the use of correspondents.
Davis further testified, credibly and without contradiction, that the parties’ collective
bargaining agreement places limitations and/or restrictions on the type of work that can be
assigned to correspondents. He explained, for example, that correspondents may interview
people in advance of meetings, but where a particular meeting is deemed by an editor to be
newsworthy, such work is assigned to reporter to cover, not to a correspondent. He also
pointed out that correspondents are restricted to writing about misdemeanors and minor
felonies, and, for the most part, are precluded from writing on major felony-related matters.7
Language in Appendix A of the parties’ agreement appears to corroborate Davis’ testimony in
this regard. Davis also pointed out that the parties’ agreement limits the number of
correspondents that may be employed vis-à-vis unit employees, referencing, in support thereof,
the language of Article XVII which states that “[t]here will be a maximum of one correspondent
for every full- and part-time reporter,” and that, “[a]t no time will the number of Beacon Journal
staff writers or photographers be reduced as a result of the use of regular correspondents.”
(GCX-2, 22). The Respondent did not dispute Davis’ testimony in this regard, nor his
characterization or interpretation of the wording in Appendix A or Article XVII of the agreement.
Indeed, in a written statement submitted at the hearing in lieu of opening remarks, the
Respondent proffered the same explanation for the contractual language referenced by Davis.
(see RX-1, p. 3). Nor did the Respondent dispute, challenge, question, or otherwise deny, at
the hearing or in its post-trial brief, the accuracy of the reports provided by Davis and other unit
employees to the Union regarding its increased use of correspondents and/or freelancers
following the reduction-in-force.
On October 30, 2006, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Respondent’s use of
“interns and correspondents,” e.g., independent contractors, while undergoing a reduction-in-
force, violated various provisions of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. (GCX-3).
According to Davis, the Union’s position regarding the grievance was that under the agreement,
the Respondent “had no right to use any correspondents, student correspondents, or
freelancers” after laying off unit employees as a result of the reduction-in-force.8 Alternatively,
the Union argued that the collective bargaining agreement prohibited the Respondent from
using these independent contractor correspondents on certain news stories, and that the
grievance was intended to enforce said prohibition. (Tr. 14-15).
At a grievance meeting held between the parties on November 9, 2006, the Respondent
was made aware of the Union’s position. By letter to Lefton dated December 21, 2006, Davis
notified Respondent that the Union would be proceeding to arbitration on its October 30,
grievance. (GCX-4). Approximately one month later, the Union, in a January 17, 2007, letter to

7 See, Appendix A, paragraph 2 (GCX-2, p. 36), which appears to corroborate Davis’
testimony in this regard.
8 Davis was unsure if correspondents and freelancers are one and the same. He claims that
during a prior arbitration proceeding, the Respondent drew a distinction between the two by
describing a correspondent as one who is assigned a specific territory or specific articles to
write, while a freelancer generally works independently and seeks to sell his news articles to the
Respondent. (Tr. 36-37). Asked by Respondent’s counsel if correspondents and freelancers
are paid differently, Davis stated he did not know because he has been unable to obtain the
records to verify their compensation.
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Lefton sent by its representative, Rollie Dreussi, again expressed concern over what it
perceived to be the Respondent’s improper expanded use of correspondents and freelancers to
perform bargaining unit work, citing specific instances of the alleged contractual violations.
Dreussi’s letter asks that these additional alleged contract violations be made a part of the
upcoming arbitration. (See, GCX-10).
On March 9, 2007,9 Davis, as previously noted, wrote to Lefton requesting that
Respondent provide the Union with the above-described information in order to prepare for the
upcoming arbitration. (GCX-5). After identifying the information needed, Davis ended the letter
by stating that this was an initial request, and that the Union reserved the right to request
additional information it deemed pertinent to the grievance.
Davis explained why the Union needed the requested information. As to the information
requested in paragraph No. 1, Davis explained that the Union needed this information to help
identify and track the amount of work each correspondent had done for the Respondent before
and after the 2000 and 2006 reductions in force. This information would give the Union a
clearer picture of how the Respondent had used the correspondents from the first reduction-in-
force and resultant layoff in 2000, up to the current reduction-in-force. As to the information
sought in paragraph No. 2 regarding freelancers, Davis explained the Union wanted this
information to counter the Respondent’s suggestion that correspondents and freelancers were
used differently. The information sought regarding the articles prepared by freelancers, the
dates written, and their compensation, Davis claimed, would help determine the extent to which
the Respondent was using its freelancers and/or correspondents. Regarding copies of any and
all correspondents’ lists requested in paragraph No. 3, Davis testified that the parties’
agreement requires the Respondent to furnish the Union with such lists.10
The information requested in Paragraph No. 4, e.g., copies of agreements, contracts, or
memoranda reflecting an individual’s status as a correspondent, said documents, Davis
explained, would help the Union ascertain whether or not there has been an increase in the
number of correspondents used by the Respondent. In paragraph No. 5, the Union sought
information relating to advertisements placed by the Respondent soliciting correspondents, and
in paragraph No. 6, it asks for copies and dates of any and all correspondents’ news stories or
news briefs that appeared in Respondent’s newspaper. Davis testified that the Union
understood the Respondent was expanding its core of correspondents through the placement of
newspaper advertisements, and that this was the reason for requesting the data identified in
paragraphs Nos. 5 and 6 of the information request. (Tr. 20-23).
By April 12, more than a month after the request was made, the Union had not received
any response to Davis’ letter. Davis testified, credibly and without contradiction, that he phoned
Lefton on April 12, to, among other things, inquire about the status of his information request.
Lefton, he contends, informed him that because the personnel department had undergone a
reduction in staff, “it would take her some time to get the documents together, and so I would
have to wait some time before I would have the request fulfilled.” There is no indication in

9 All dates hereinafter are in 2007, unless otherwise indicated.
10 Article XVII of the parties’ agreement provides, in pertinent part, that “The EMPLOYER
shall furnish the GUILD each quarter with a list of the regular correspondents used in the
previous three months.” (GCX-2, p. 22). Lefton admitted that the Respondent is contractually
obligated to provide the Union with quarterly updates of the list of correspondents, and that the
Respondent had not been complying with this particular provision. She testified that the list was
provided to the Union only when a request for it was made. (Tr. 152).
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Davis’ description of this conversation that Lefton gave him a specific date as to when the
information would be provided. Davis called Lefton again on April 24, to find out why the
information had not yet been provided, and purportedly received the same response from
Lefton.
Davis testified that at no time during these phone conversations with Lefton did she
raise or express any concern regarding the substance of, costs associated with, or alleged
burdensome nature of, the information sought by the Union. Nor is there anything in Davis’
description of these conversations with Lefton to indicate that the latter expressed any privacy
or confidentiality concerns to him regarding the request for the names and compensation
amounts paid to correspondents or freelancers. Lefton did not deny having had these
conversations with Davis. Unlike Lefton who was somewhat evasive and vague in her
testimony, Davis came across as a sincere and fairly straightforward witness. He was able to
provide testimony regarding specific conversations he had with Lefton, and when they occurred,
unlike Lefton who claimed to have had numerous conversations but failed to provide any
specifics as to when they may have occurred, or what may have been said.
On May 8, Davis wrote to Lefton confirming their previous two phone conversations. In
his letter, Davis reminded Lefton of her promise to try and have “a majority of the information we
requested within two weeks,” but that two weeks had already passed and the information had
not yet been provided. He went on to explain to Lefton that the information requested “is
necessary and relevant to the representation of our membership in the respective arbitration
proceedings which are in the process of being scheduled,” and that it was “imperative that the
[Union] have this information within the next seven (7) days so we may timely and adequately
prepare for these arbitrations.” (GCX-7).
Lefton testified that on receiving the Union’s information request, she initially tried to
figure out who in the Company had the information, explaining that not all the information was
kept in the Human Resources department. Some of the information, she explained, was to be
found in the newsroom, some in the finance department, and some in the “I.T.” department.
Lefton purportedly held meetings with the lead people in those departments to ascertain how
best to respond to the information request. She contends that, at the time, the Respondent was
busy handling several other grievances and information requests submitted by the Union, and
had provided the Union with information in response to those requests. She testified that
because several of these other grievances already had arbitrators and hearing dates assigned
to them, the Union’s March 9, information request had a lower priority for her, as the grievance
for which the information was being sought had not yet been assigned an arbitration date.
Lefton claims that, in trying to comply with the information request at issue here, she
sought to ascertain whether the information sought had already been provided to the Union in
connection with the previous information requests, and concluded from her research that 98% of
it had been previously provided. According to Lefton, she communicated her findings to Davis
and Dreussi in separate phone conversations. She recalled telling them during those
conversations that much of the information being requested was already part of the record on a
different arbitration matter. (Tr. 104-107). Lefton, however, gave no indication when these
alleged separate conversations with Davis and Dreussi purportedly occurred.
Lefton eventually responded to Davis by letter dated May 15, more than two months
after receiving the information request. (see GCX-7). With her letter, Lefton forwarded some of
the financial records asked for in paragraph No. 2 of the Union’s information request, but
redacted the names of the correspondents to which the records referred “to protect their
privacy.” Notably, Lefton in her letter makes no mention of her, or the Respondent, having any
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
privacy or confidentiality concerns regarding the compensation data on correspondents and
freelancers asked for in paragraphs No. 1 and 2 of the information request. Regarding the “pay
codes” requested in paragraph No. 2, Lefton did not provide said information because she was
“unclear” what Davis was referring to. No other documents in response to the March 9,
information request were produced by Lefton. Regarding Lefton’s decision to redact the
correspondents’ names from the financial records provided, neither Davis nor anyone else from
the Union was told beforehand of her intent to redact the information. At the hearing, however,
Lefton explained that it was the Respondent’s practice “not to publish people’s salaries, [their]
social security numbers [or] their rates of pay” in order “to protect the privacy of all the
employees.” She nevertheless admitted that this particular practice or policy is not written
anywhere in Respondent’s handbooks or policy manuals. She further admitted not knowing if
the Respondent had entered into any agreements with its correspondents to maintain their
financial records confidential and private. (Tr. 171-172; 181-182).
As to the Union’s request in paragraph No. 2 for “corresponding articles and date of
same for which compensation was rendered,” Lefton informed Davis in her letter that the
Respondent was unable to “devote personnel to conduct this broad search,” but that the
Respondent might be willing to consider this request if the Union narrowed its request to
something more manageable.11 She suggested that the Union undertake its own search for the
information utilizing the Respondent’s website. The letter concludes by asking Davis to remit
payment to the Respondent in the amount of $120.60 to cover the reproduction costs of the
paragraphs being provided. In her letter, however, Lefton did not address the remaining
information sought by the Union in paragraphs No. 3-6 of its request, and gave no indication as
to whether it would or would not be provided.
Lefton offered some explanations as to why no documents were provided in response to
paragraphs No. 3-6 of the information request. Regarding paragraph No. 3 of the Union’s
request, e.g., a list of all correspondents from 2000-2006, Lefton admitted that the Union was
contractually entitled to such information, and that the Respondent apparently had not been
complying with said obligation. She testified that the last time the Union was provided with a
correspondents list was in September, 2006, six months before the Union’s March 9, request.
She claims that when she received the March 9, information request, she informed Davis that
the list provided to the Union in September 2006, was current and up-to-date. She did not,
however, inform Davis that the correspondent lists he requested for the years 2000-2005 could
not be produced or did not exist. Davis, in any event, credibly denied being told by Lefton that
correspondent lists for 2000-2005 did not exist. He testified only to receiving the list for 2006,
and nothing for the preceding years.
As to why the correspondent lists for years 2000-2005 were not turned over to the
Union, Lefton explained that, on receipt of the March 9, request, she asked Sue Reynolds, the
employee in charge of this information, if she could recreate a list of correspondents for the
years prior to 2006, and was allegedly told by Reynolds that there was no way of doing so.
Lefton testified that unlike regular employees whose names are entered into the payroll system,
correspondents’ names are not included in the payroll system and, consequently, she was

11 Lefton contends that, because of the sheer size or volume of information being asked for,
she offered to provide the Union with a synopsis of, rather than copies of entire individual
articles, written by correspondents, but that Davis declined the offer and insisted on receiving
the complete articles. According to Lefton’s estimation, compliance with the Union’s request
would have required the production of some 20,000 articles, totaling about 60,000 pages,
assuming, arguendo, each article averaged three pages in length.
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
unable to compile a list of correspondents from the payroll system as was possible with regular
employees.
However, Lefton never claimed that compiling a list of correspondents for the years in
question could not be done using other Company documents or some other retrieval method.
Indeed, as Counsel for the General Counsel astutely points out in her brief, the Respondent did
provide the Union with redacted payroll records for correspondents for the years 1997-2006,
meaning that the Respondent could simply have gotten the names, and compiled a list, of its
correspondents for the years 2000-2006, as requested in paragraph No. 3 of the March 9, letter,
from these redacted payroll records, or, as had been requested by the Union in paragraphs No.
1 and 2, the Respondent could simply have turned over the correspondents’ payroll records in
unredacted form. It did neither.
As to the Union’s request in paragraph No. 4 for copies of any agreements, contracts, or
memoranda Respondent had with correspondents or freelancers, Lefton did not provide any
such information because, she contends, the Respondent has never entered into any contracts
with these individuals. (Tr. 119). Lefton, however, never informed Davis or the Union of their
non-existence.12
As to the advertisements requested by the Union in paragraph No. 5, Lefton explained
that complying with the request would have required the Respondent to have “someone come in
and read the newspaper everyday and find those advertisements,” since it had no electronic
means for doing so. She admitted, however, that she never initiated any such search for the
advertisements because of what she described as the Union’s “unwillingness to deal on the
issue of time and cost and expenses” of producing the documents, and simply put off
conducting any search for advertisements asked for in paragraph No. 5. (Tr. 122).
Finally, Lefton did not provide any documents asked for in paragraph No. 6 of the
Union’s request. In her May 15, letter, Lefton advised the Union that the Respondent “was
unable to devote personnel to conduct this broad search” for the correspondents’ articles being
requested, and that, if the Union were willing to “narrow” its request to something more
manageable, the Respondent would be happy to consider it. She went on to suggest that the
Union undertake a search of its own through the Respondent’s website for the articles in
question.
Lefton testified that the Union’s interest in obtaining articles written by correspondents
had come up prior to March 9, during discussions she had with Davis on other matters. She
claims that she tried to accommodate the Union’s interest in such information by offering to
provide it with a representative sample of articles prepared by correspondents during a one-
week time frame prior to the 2006 layoffs. She explained this would have given the Union a
reasonable picture of how things had changed before and after the layoffs, but that the Union
showed no interest in her suggestion. She recalls mentioning to the Union that any request for
all stories written by correspondents and freelancers would be unreasonable. However, when
pressed on what she actually told the Union, Lefton admitted she could not recall using the

12 In a May 22, written response to Lefton’s May 15, letter, received into evidence as GCX-9,
Davis, inter alia, notified Lefton that he had not received any information in response to
paragraph No. 4, suggesting the likelihood that Lefton may not have informed him, at least as of
May 22, that such “agreements/contracts or memorandum” did not exist. While there is always
the likelihood that Lefton may have mentioned this fact to Davis at some point after May 22,
there is simply no evidence that Lefton did so.
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
word, “unreasonable” to describe any such request. Nor did she recall ever telling the Union
that the correspondents and freelancers articles it was seeking were not relevant to its duties as
bargaining representative. In fact, Lefton admitted that the Union’s need for the articles to
compare how they were being used before and after the reductions in force was indeed relevant
to the Union. (Tr. 144). Rather, she explained what, in her view, was not relevant was the
“printing out of every single story that every correspondent had written from 2000 to 2006”,
because, she contends, the information would not be read by anyone, opining that the Union
was simply being irresponsible in seeking the information. (Tr. 161).
In his May 22, response to Lefton’s May 15, letter, Davis acknowledged Lefton’s partial
response to the information request, but informed her that there were still “a number of
paragraphs requested which were simply not addressed.” He explained that Lefton had “failed
to send any information relative to our requests in paragraphs #3 (list of correspondents 2000-
2006), #4 (agreements/contract or memorandum that reflect status), #5 (copy of retail or
classified advt. soliciting correspondents), #6 (copy of any/all new stories or briefs soliciting
correspondents).” He also told Lefton that the compensation records provided with her May 15,
letter “failed to identify the individuals or provide an identification number, which would
determine if the correspondent list requested (but not sent) was complete.” (GCX-9). Davis did
not receive any response to his May 22, letter, and testified that, to date, the Respondent has
only provided the Union with payroll records with the names redacted, and a list of
correspondents for the year 2006.
Regarding the Respondent’s request for payment to cover reproduction costs for
documents provided, Davis testified that, with prior information requests involving, in some
cases, voluminous documents, the Respondent has provided the information at no cost to the
Union. Davis denied having had any discussion with Lefton or any other representative of the
Respondent before receiving Lefton’s May 15, response to the information request regarding
the costs associated with the request, or receiving any request from Lefton or anyone else from
the Respondent to bargain over said costs. He also denied ever being told by Lefton that the
information request was burdensome in nature, being asked by Lefton to accept a compromise
on the Union’s request in paragraph No. 6 for the correspondents’ articles, or telling Lefton that
the Union would only accept the complete articles. (Tr. 199). I credit Davis’ denials of Lefton’s
assertions.
Lefton admitted that the Respondent had not previously asked the Union to pay for
researching and duplicating data in response to other information requests, but explained that
the Union’s request in this case was different because of the large amount of information that
had been requested. She claimed that a provision in the parties’ agreement stating that the
parties were to share in the costs of arbitration supports her decision to bill the Union for the
costs associated with Respondent’s compliance with the information request. (Tr. 166)
Dreussi testified to receiving a letter dated May 29, from Lefton stating, inter alia, that the
Respondent was still waiting for payment of the $120.60 requested in her May 15, letter, and
that the Respondent would not provide the Union with more specific payroll information
requested regarding overtime calculations for “part-timers” until it received such payment.
(GCX-12). In a June 4, letter, Dreussi informed Lefton that the Union “will not pay for requests
of information that are necessary and relevant to a grievance” and, as Lefton was aware, “has
never done so.” The letter also responded to a separate matter addressed by Lefton in her May
29, letter pertaining to a request for information regarding a pending arbitration over “vacation
accrual for part-timers.” (GCX-13). According to Dreussi, this was the first time in his ten years
as Union representative handling grievances and seeking information that he has received a
demand for payment from the Respondent for information provided. He contends that the
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
reproduction costs associated with an information request has never before been raised as an
issue by the Respondent, or been the subject of bargaining by the parties.
B. Discussion
The complaint, as noted, alleges, and the General Counsel contends, that the
Respondent’s failure and refusal to provide the Union with the information requested by Davis in
his March 9, letter, and its unexplained delay in furnishing the Union with the limited information
it did provide, e.g., 1997-2006 redacted payroll records, was unlawful. The Respondent insists
that it was justified not fully complying with the Union’s information request, arguing that the
information sought by the Union regarding “the specific amounts of money each correspondent
earned” is not relevant to the Union’s ability to administer or enforce its contract, and that, even
if shown to have some relevance, the “correspondents interest in keeping his/her financial
information confidential far outweighs the Union’s need to know.” (RB:4; 7). I find merit in the
General Counsel’s contention.
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to
bargain collectively with the representative of its employees. An employer’s duty to bargain
includes an obligation “to provide information needed by the bargaining representative for the
proper performance of its duties.” NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967);
Globe Business Furniture, Inc. v. NLRB, 889 F.2d 1087 (6th Cir. 1989); NLRB v. U.S. Postal
Service, 841 F.2d 141, 143 (6th Cir. 1988); Legal Services of Northern California, 352 NLRB No.
66, slip op. at 3 (2008); Ralph Grocery Co., 352 NLRB No. 18, slip op. at 7 (2008); National
Broadcasting Company, Inc., 352 NLRB No. 15, slip op. at 8 (2008); The Earthgrains Company,
349 NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 6 (2007); Mission Foods, 345 NLRB 788 (2005). Crittendon
Hospital, 342 NLRB 686, 693 (20040; American Telephone Co., 309 NLRB 925, 928 (1992).
When Information sought by a union pertains to employees in the bargaining unit it represents,
the information is deemed to be presumptively relevant. Information relating to matters outside
the bargaining unit, however, enjoys no such presumption. Rather, in the latter situations, the
Union must demonstrate the relevance of, and its need for, the requested information. Ralph
Grocery, supra; The Earthgrain Co., supra; Crittendon Hospital, supra at 694; American
Telephone, supra. Information regarding subcontracting work done by nonunit employees, for
example, is generally not considered to be presumptively relevant to a union seeking such
information. However, the Board has held that information relating to subcontracting which
impacts the working conditions of unit employees is indeed relevant. Clear Channel Outdoor,
Inc., 347 NLRB 524, 527 (2006); Pratt & Lambert, Inc., 319 NLRB 529, 533 (1995); Depository
Trust Co., 300 NLRB 700, 704 (1990); also, Comar, Inc., 349 NLRB No. 33 (2007).
While the information requested by the Union involves matters pertaining to non-
bargaining unit individuals, in its March 9, letter, and as credibly testified to by Davis at the
hearing, the Union made clear to Respondent that it needed the information for the upcoming
arbitration on the Union’s grievance. The grievance, as noted, accused the Respondent of
violating its collective bargaining agreement by inappropriately increasing its complement of
correspondents and/or freelancers following its reduction-in-force beyond what was
contractually permitted, and by assigning these contracted nonunit correspondents and
freelancers to perform bargaining unit work.
The grievance filed by the Union was, as noted, precipitated by reports it received from
Davis and other unit employees following the reduction-in-force, the accuracy of which was not
challenged, disputed, or otherwise denied by the Respondent at the hearing. If, as the Union
could reasonably have suspected from these reports, the complement of correspondents and
freelancers used by the Respondent increased following the reduction-in-force, and these
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
contracted individuals were being assigned bargaining unit work that may previously have been,
or could have been, done by unit employees, including those laid off by the reduction-in-force,
such actions by the Respondent would have adversely impacted the working conditions of unit
employees by depriving them of work they may have been entitled to perform, and, as alleged in
the Union’s grievance, violated the terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. In
these circumstances, the names of correspondents and freelancers, and the compensation paid
to them, was clearly necessary and relevant to the Union in order to proceed to arbitration on its
grievance over the Respondent’s alleged contractual violations. See, Schrock Cabinet
Company, 339 NLRB 182, 188 (2003) (employer obligated to provide information which is
relevant to a union's decision to file or process grievances).
The Respondent, as noted, contends that, even if the requested information is deemed
relevant, as I find it is, it nevertheless was justified, on privacy grounds, in not turning over the
names of its correspondents because their interest in keeping said information confidential far
outweighs the Union’s need to know.13 Its contention is without merit.
It is well settled that, in certain situations, confidentiality claims may justify a refusal to
provide relevant information. Crittenton Hospital, 342 NLRB 686, 694 (2004); Jacksonville Area
Assn. For Retarded Citizens, 316 NLRB 338, 340 (1995), citing NLRB v. Detroit Edison Co., 440
U.S. 301 (1979). Confidential information of the type that might justify a refusal to disclose has
been defined by the Board to include “that which would reveal, contrary to promises or
reasonable expectations, highly personal information, such as individual medical records or
psychological test results; that which would reveal substantial proprietary information, such as
trade secrets; that which could reasonably be expected to lead to harassment or retaliation,
such as the identity of witnesses; and that which is traditionally privileged, such as memoranda
prepared for pending lawsuits. See, National Broadcasting Company, supra at 12, referencing
to Detroit Newspaper Agency, 317 NLRB 1071, 1073 (1995).
When as, here, an employer raises such a claim, “the trier of fact must balance the
union's need for the information sought against the legitimate and substantial confidential
interests of the employer (footnote omitted).” Id. In such circumstances, the burden of proof
rests with the party raising the claim of confidentiality, here the Respondent. Id. It bears noting,
however, that the confidentiality claim must be timely raised and proven before the balancing
test is triggered. Moreover, a blanket claim of confidentiality, without more, will not satisfy the
burden of proof. Detroit Newspaper Agency supra at 1072. Finally, even where the employer
can prove a legitimate confidentiality concern, it has a duty to seek an accommodation through
the bargaining process. Lenox Hill Hospital, 327 NLRB 1065, 1068 (1999).

13 The Respondent’s position regarding disclosure of the compensation paid to
correspondents is somewhat ambiguous and confusing. The record makes clear, and all parties
on brief concede, that the Union was provided with financial records revealing the compensation
amounts paid to correspondents since 1997. (GCB, p.5; RB, p. 5). What was not disclosed to
the Union along with said financial records were the names of the individual correspondents
associated with said records. Yet, on brief, the Respondent appears to argue that disclosure of
the amounts paid to correspondents is confidential. Having already provided the Union with
said amounts, it makes little sense for it to now claim that said compensation information is
confidential. Rather, I am inclined to believe the gist of the Respondent’s argument to be that
disclosure of the correspondents’ names, and requiring it to associate said names with the
compensation information already provided, would compromise the correspondents’ privacy
rights, thus relieving it of any obligation to comply with this aspect of the request.
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
The Respondent here has not shown that it had a legitimate and substantial reason for
keeping the correspondents’ names private and confidential. In her May 15, response to the
information request, Lefton, as noted, stated only that she redacted the correspondents’ names
“to protect their privacy.” At the hearing, Lefton, with some degree of uncertainty, explained that
she did not furnish the Union with the correspondents’ names because she “thought there would
be a privacy issue.” (Tr. 119). She added, in a further attempt to explain her decision, that she
was simply adhering to what she “thinks” was Respondent’s general practice of not publishing
“people’s salaries, [their] social security numbers [or] their rates of pay.“ However, even if, as
suggested by Lefton, the Respondent maintained such a practice, and I am not convinced it
does not,14 Lefton’s failure and refusal to provide the Union with the correspondents’ names
was nevertheless not justified, for the practice, as described by Lefton, prohibits only the
disclosure of a correspondent’s salary, social security number, or rates of pay, not the
correspondent’s name. As noted, Lefton’s initial explanation for not providing the Union with the
correspondents’ names, to wit, she thought it raised a privacy issue, reflected a degree of
uncertainty on her part as to whether disclosure of such information was or was not proper.
Under the alleged practice described by her, disclosure of the correspondents’ names was, as
noted, not specifically prohibited.
Although the Respondent, as noted, provided the Union with redacted payroll records
showing the compensation paid to unidentified correspondents, and did not assert in its May 15,
letter, as it did with the correspondents’ names, a privacy or confidentiality concern with respect
to the compensation amounts, Lefton, at the hearing, did assert, for the first time, that the
amounts paid to a correspondent “might be a privacy issue.” When advised by me that this
privacy concern had not been raised in the Respondent’s answer to the complaint, Lefton
pointed out that “the only problem” she had “was with regard to the finances.” Nothing else, in
her view, was confidential. (Tr. 120; 171-172). She then pointed out that her May 15, letter to
the Union had put the Union on notice of her concerns regarding the privacy of certain
information being sought. As stated, however, Lefton’s May 15, letter did not raise a privacy
concern over the correspondents/freelancers’ compensation, but rather focused only on the
disclosure of the names of correspondents and freelancers.
As previously noted, a claim of confidentiality must be timely raised before the balancing
of interests test will be applied. The Respondent’s confidentiality defense to the Union’s request
for the amounts of compensation paid to correspondents and freelancers during the period set
forth in the March 9, letter was, as noted, proffered for the first time at the hearing, and thus, I
find, untimely raised. See, e.g., Crittenton Hospital, supra at 694 (confidentiality claim raised for
first time in answer untimely); Detroit Agency, supra at 1072 (confidentiality claim raised for first
time at hearing untimely). The Respondent has not cited any other reason, e.g., proprietary,
fear of employee retaliation; pending lawsuit, etc., as grounds for wanting or needing to maintain
the names of, and compensation paid to, correspondents or freelancers private and confidential.
Nor has it argued, much less produced evidence to show, that the correspondents and/or
freelancers were given assurances, or had requested, that their names, compensation paid, or
any other matter pertaining to their contractual relationship with the Respondent remain
confidential and private. Finally, even if the Respondent had been able to demonstrate some
legitimate privacy grounds for not disclosing the correspondents’ names, a claim that has not
been established here, it made no effort to reach an accommodation through the bargaining
process with the Union over this issue, as required. Lenox Hill Hospital, supra. Accordingly, I

14 Other than Lefton’s testimony, no documentary or other evidence was produced to show
the existence of any such practice. As to Lefton’s testimony, her claim in this regard, like much
of her other testimony, was not particularly reliable or credible.
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
find that the Respondent was an under an obligation to comply with the Union’s request for this
information, and that its failure and refusal to do so was unlawful.
The Respondent, as noted, did furnish the Union with redacted financial records showing
the amounts paid to correspondents. The complaint, however alleges, Counsel for the General
Counsel contends, and I agree, that the Respondent’s unexplained, more than 2-month, delay
in furnishing this information to the Union was unreasonable and unlawful. When a union
makes a request for relevant information, the employer has a duty to supply the information in a
timely fashion or to adequately explain why the information will not be furnished. Regency
Service Carts, Inc., 345 NLRB 671, 673 (2005). An unreasonable delay in furnishing such
information is as much of a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as a refusal to furnish the
information at all. Earthgrains, supra, slip op. at 22. The Respondent here offered no
explanation for taking more than two months to turn this particular information over the Union.
Indeed, Lefton’s claim that she did not consider the entire information request high on her
priority list because an actual date for the arbitration on the grievance had not yet been selected
provides some insight into why Lefton did not feel compelled to act sooner. This explanation
hardly serves as a legitimate basis for the Respondent’s failure to comply sooner with this
particular aspect of the Union’s request. Accordingly, I find, in agreement with Counsel for the
General Counsel, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, as alleged, by
waiting more than two months to turn over the correspondents’ financial records to the Union.
Regarding the Union’s request in paragraph No. 3 of its March 9, information letter, to
wit, the correspondent lists for the years 2000-2006, other than the 2006 list turned over to the
Union in September 2006 and not in response to the March 9, information request, the
Respondent has not complied with this request. Lefton’s claim that she did not do so because
the correspondents’ and freelancers’ names are not incorporated into its regular employee
payroll system, making the compilation of such lists impossible, is simply not a valid defense.
Lefton did not claim that the information did not exist, only that it could not be compiled through
its regular employee payroll system. What Lefton did not explain is how the correspondents list
that was provided to the Union in September 2006, was compiled. Clearly, if, as claimed by
Lefton, the correspondents’ names are generally not included in the regular employee payroll
system, then arguably the 2006 correspondents list given to the Union must have been
compiled from some other documents or records maintained by the Respondent. As noted, the
correspondents’ names needed to compile the lists apparently could have been garnered by the
Respondent from the payroll records it provided to the Union, albeit with names redacted, in
response to the Union’s request for the correspondents’ names and compensation paid.
In short, the Respondent has not demonstrated that the information needed to compile
the 2000-2005 correspondent lists requested by the Union in paragraph No. 3 of its March 9,
letter was no longer available or did not exist. That the Respondent may not have been able to
provide this information in the same format as the 2006 correspondents list does not excuse its
noncompliance, for the Board has held that when an employer in a collective-bargaining
relationship possesses the requested information but not in the form as requested, “it must
make some effort to 'inform' the union so that the union may, if necessary, modify its request
accordingly.” Yeshiva University, 315 NLRB 1245, 1248 (1994). The Respondent, as noted,
never did so. Accordingly, its failure to comply with the Union’s request for its 2000-2005
correspondent lists was unlawful.
As to the copies of contracts between correspondents and Respondent sought by the
Union in paragraph No. 4 of its March 9, request, no such documents were turned over to the
Union because, as claimed by Lefton at the hearing, they do not exist. No testimonial or other
evidence was produced to refute Lefton’s claim that the Respondent does not have any such
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
written contracts with correspondents and/or freelancers. I accept Lefton’s representation as
true.
The General Counsel contends that a violation should be found regarding the
nonproduction of the contracts requested in paragraph No. 4 because the Union was never
informed of the nonexistence of these documents. I disagree. The complaint alleges only that
the Respondent failed and refused to furnish the Union with the information requested in
paragraph No. 4. As the information does not exist, the Respondent could not be expected to
comply with this particular request. Although the Respondent should have notified the Union
that such records do not exist, its failure to do so was never alleged in the complaint to be
unlawful, nor did Counsel for the General Counsel at the hearing seek to amend the complaint
to include such a violation on learning through Lefton’s testimony that the Respondent does not
maintain written contracts with its correspondents and freelancers. In these circumstances, I
find that the Respondent’s failure to provide the Union with the information sought in paragraph
No. 4 of its March 9, request, and its failure to notify the Union that such paragraphs did not
exist, were not unlawful. See, Albertson’s, 351 NLRB No. 21, slip op. at 2 (2007); Raley’s
Supermarket, 349 NLRB No. 7, slip op. at 3 (2007).
Regarding the Union’s request in paragraph No. 5 for copies of any retail or classified
advertisements placed by the Respondent in its own, or some other, publication soliciting
correspondents, Lefton readily admitted that this information was not provided, and that she, in
fact, did not make much effort to search for or gather the information, or to ascertain whether or
not said information was available for production. Clearly, the information was available since
the Respondent, on brief, represented that it did provide this information to the Union after the
hearing closed. Whether true or not, the fact remains that in making said representation, the
Respondent was in fact conceding that it had the information. The Respondent has offered no
justification for not complying with this aspect of the Union’s March 9, information request. This
information was clearly of relevance to the Union in ascertaining whether the Respondent was
seeking to add to its pool of correspondents at a time when it was engaging in a reduction-in-
force and laying off unit employees. The Respondent’s failure, without any justification, to
provide the Union with this information was therefore unlawful and a violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
Finally, the Respondent provided nothing in response to paragraph No. 6 of the Union’s
March 9, request for copies of “any and all news stories or news briefs soliciting
correspondents” that appeared in its publication. Davis credibly explained that the Union
needed this information to determine how the Respondent used correspondents before and
after its reductions in force, and to ascertain, from the substance of the articles, if
correspondents were being assigned work inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the
collective bargaining agreement. The information, therefore, was, contrary to the Respondent’s
assertion at the hearing, relevant to the Union’s need and ability to police its contract with the
Respondent. As noted, Lefton, readily admitted that the articles were indeed relevant for the
Union to ascertain how correspondents were being used both before and after the reductions in
force.
The Respondent’s further claim in its answer and at the hearing, that the Union’s request
was overbroad, and that production of these articles would be overly burdensome, is likewise
rejected as untimely. The record in this regard reflects that at no time before Lefton’s May 15,
response to the Union’s information request, including during the two April phone calls Davis
had with her regarding that request, did Lefton claim, object, or express concern to Davis that
the request was overbroad, or that compliance with any aspect of the request would be overly
burdensome. In her May 15, response, Lefton did advise the Union that the Respondent “was
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
unable to devote personnel to conduct this broad search” for the requested correspondents’
articles. Lefton’s above message to Davis, and as Davis credibly testified Lefton told him during
their April phone conversations, makes clear that her alleged inability to comply with the Union
request for the correspondents’ articles resulted from Lefton’s unwillingness to assign the
personnel needed to retrieve the information, and not because she viewed the Union’s request
as overly broad or as particularly onerous or burdensome. The Respondent’s unwillingness to
assign additional personnel to retrieve the requested information stemmed, according to Davis’
account of his phone conversation with Lefton, from a shortage of personnel precipitated by its
own reduction-in-force, and was unrelated to the scope of the information request.
However, assuming arguendo that the Respondent had concerns about the amount of
information sought by the Union in its March 9, request, it made no attempt to seek an
accommodation with the Union regarding production of any of the requested information. As
credibly testified to by Davis, during his two April phone conversations with Lefton, the latter
never objected or complained about the size or scope of the information request, or sought to
have Davis modify the request. Rather, Davis credibly explained that Lefton simply advised that
she would need more time to retrieve the information being requested. If, on receipt of the
information request, the Respondent considered it to be overly board or unduly burdensome to
comply with, it was not at liberty to simply refuse to comply the request. Rather, it had an
obligation to inform the Union of its concerns, and to offer to cooperate with the Union in
reaching a mutually acceptable accommodation. Mission Foods, supra at 789. The
Respondent, as noted, failed to do so here.
In fact, it was not until November 6, when it filed its answer to the complaint, almost eight
months after receiving the Union’s March 9, request, that the Respondent, for the first time,
asserted as an affirmative defense, that it was justified in refusing to comply with the Union’s
information request because it was “overbroad and unduly burdensome.” The Board, however,
has made clear that a party wishing to assert that an information request is too burdensome
must do so at the time the information is requested, and not for the first time during the unfair
labor practice proceeding. Pet Dairy, 345 NLRB 1222 (2005); Anthony Motor Co., Inc., 314
NLRB 443, 450 (1994). The Respondent’s claim, therefore, that it was justified in refusing to
comply with any aspect of the Union’s March 9, information request is rejected as untimely
raised and as lacking in merit. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent’s failure and refusal to
comply with the Union’s request, in paragraph No. 6 of its March 9, letter, for copies of the
correspondents’ new stories or news briefs soliciting correspondents was unlawful and a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, as alleged.15
Conclusions of Law
By failing and refusing to provide the Union with certain information requested in
paragraphs 1-3, 5 and 6 of its March 9, 2007, letter, and by unreasonably delaying providing
other information, to wit, the correspondents’ financial records, to the Union, which information
is relevant to and necessary for the Union to properly perform its duties as exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees, and for the processing of a grievance, the Respondent has

15 Also rejected as untimely raised and as without merit is Respondent’s further assertion at
the hearing that the Union could easily have retrieved on its own via the Respondent’s website
copies of the news stories written by correspondents, as requested in paragraph 6 of the March
9, information request. An employer is not excused from complying with an information request
simply because the Union may have an alternative means for obtaining the information. New
Surfside Nursing Home, 33O NLRB 1146, 1149-1150 (2000).
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5), and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Except as found herein, the Respondent has not
engaged in any other unfair labor practices.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
To remedy its unlawful conduct, and to the extent it has not already done so, the
Respondent shall be ordered to provide the Union with the information requested in paragraphs
1- 3, 5, and 6 of the Union’s March 9, 2007, information request, and to post an appropriate
notice to employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended16
ORDER
The Respondent, The Beacon Journal Publishing Company d/b/a The Akron Beacon
Journal, Akron, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish relevant and necessary information requested by
Northeast Ohio Newspaper Guild, Local 1, A Sector of the Communications Workers of
America, Local 34001, AFL-CIO, CLC, on March 9, 2007, and failing to comply with the Union’s
request for relevant and necessary information in a timely manner.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Promptly furnish, if has not yet done so, the information requested by the Union in
paragraphs 1-3, 5 and 6 of its March 9, 2007, letter.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Akron, Ohio, copies
of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”17 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in

16 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
17 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 National 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.”
JD-33-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
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. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
March 9, 2007.
Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 22, 2008
____________________
George Alemán
Administrative Law Judge
JD-33-08
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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to
post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the Union, the Northeast Ohio Newspaper Guild, Local 1, A Sector
of the Communications Workers of America, Local 34001, AFL-CIO, CLC, by failing and refusing to
provide it, or by untimely providing it, with information that is relevant and necessary to the performance
of its duties and obligations as the collective bargaining representative of our employees in an appropriate
unit as defined in the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and The Beacon Journal
Publishing Company d/b/a The Akron Beacon Journal.
WE WILL promptly furnish the Union with the information requested in paragraphs 1-3, 5 and 6 of its
March 9, 2007, letter.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
THE BEACON JOURNAL PUBLISHING COMPANY
d/b/a THE AKRON BEACON JOURNAL
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations
Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may
also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1240 East 9th Street, Federal Building, Room 1695
Cleveland, Ohio 44199-2086
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
216-522-3716
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 216-522-3723.