Times-Herald, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 439 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

TIMES-HERALD, INC. 439
Times-Herald, Inc. and San Francisco-Oakland News-
paper Guild, Local 52, The Newspaper Guild, AFL-
CIO. Case 20-CA- 12017
January 30, 1979
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNIN(; ANI) MEMBERS JENKINS
ANI) TRUESDAIt.!
The Board's Decision and Order in this case issued
August 25, 1978 (237 NLRB 922). Inadvertently, it
adopted the Order of the Administrative Law Judge
"to furnish upon request, the amount of compensa-
tion paid to each one of the columnists" for produc-
ing specific by-lined columns in its newspapers dur-
ing a 3-month period in 1976. The Board's intent.
however, was not to require that the information be
furnished on a per-column or per-individual basis.
Rather, as noted in Brown Newspaper Publishing (o.,
inc., 238 NLRB 1334, footnote 1 (1978), the intent
was to conform the remedy to that in the Amphlett
case (237 NLRB 955 (1978)), thus requiring only
that Respondent furnish the "portion" of its editorial
budget expended for nonunit columnists, rather than
the amount of compensation paid to each such col-
umnist.
The Guild, by mailgram, requested clarification of
the remedial orders in these cases as well as a fourth
related case.' It later filed a memorandum in support
of motion for clarification and/or correction of
Board's remedy, dated October 12, urging that
"only" if the data as to pay are tied to "specific units
of non-unit work" will the Union have meaningful
and comparable data to assist it in negotiating for
editorial employees within the bargaining unit. We
disagree, for the reasons expressed below.
In the meantime. Respondent Times-Herald, Inc..
filed a Motion (dated October 2) for Reconsideration
of the Board Decision, urging the Board to dismiss
the complaint and reverse its Order dated August 25.
In its motion Respondent again asserts that North-
west Publications, Inc., 211 NLRB 464 (1974), relied
on by the Administrative Law Judge and the Board,
Press Democrat Publishing (,nmpan,. 237 NLRB 1335 (1978).
Directing attention specifically to the 4mphrt case, counsel for Re-
spondent, by letter of October 19 to the Office of the Executise Secretar.
took issue with the (;uild's contention concerning the character of colum-
nists' work as a "direct substitute" for unit work urged the impossihilit of
comparing the two. partly for lack of an, record as to hours spent bh non-
unit writers: and concluded: "the total of such pas is also just as mean-
ingless." In response. the Guild by letter of October 23 to the fxecutlie
Secretar's office referring to all four cases reurged the "direct suhbsli-
tute" argument. reasoning that the Emploser can have its editorial work
(though not its advertising work) prepared either bh correspondents or unit
employees "inch for inch." In conclusion. it urged the need to tie wage data
to "work actualIy performed h correspondent' " ((opies of these two let
ters were directed to, the other parties
240 NLRB No. 56
is inapposite. Thus, Respondent has not presented
anything not already considered by the Board. and
we hereby deny its motion for reconsideration.
With respect to clarification, we hereby delete the
sentence that immediately follows the designation of
footnote 5 in our prior Decision and Order and sub-
stitute the following sentence:
"Consistent with the court's approach in General
Electric [General Electric Co. v N. L.R.B., 466 F.2d
1177. 1185 (6th ('ir. 1972)1. we do not think it appro-
priate to specify the amounts paid to designated indi-
viduals for specific columns."
Immediately thereafter, we add the following com-
ment:
"We are mindful of the fact that the court in Gen-
eral Electric granted the Union the right to wage data
secured by GE from other area employers, which
data was correlated to specific jobs. We are also
aware that the confidentiality of the names of em-
ployers furnishing the data to GE was involved, and
that the court showed some concern for protecting
the confidentiality of information furnished by em-
ployers at least in future situations. Consistent
with that concern we here think it proper to limit the
information to be supplied by Respondent to the g-
gregate sum expended for nonunit editorial work fur-
nished by these nonunit columnists. Thus, amounts
paid individual nonunit writers will remain confiden-
tial as between this employer and said writers. The
Guild contends that the Board has misconstrued the
testimony of its representative Cuthbertson in .4m-
phlett, supra, the last of the four related cases to be
heard, wherein he clearly referred to the Union's in-
terest in "how big a piece of pie" out of the editorial
budget (less wire services and syndicated columns)
nonbargaining unit people were taking. It would ap-
pear that the Guild wishes to ignore the fact that this
testimony was, in effect, an alternative request. The
Guild does not explain in what way the Board misin-
terprets the testimony, nor does it explain why, with
the published product readily accessible, the Guild
would not find useful the information to be supplied
pursuant to the Board's decision, to wit, the "por-
tion" of the pertinent editorial budget expended for
nonunit work. To clarify any ambiguity, we further
define the word "portion." as used in our Order in
Amphlett, as the aggregate dollar amount expended
for nonunit contributions of editorial product.
By this supplemental decision, and the corrective
Order issued this day in Press Democrat Publi.shing
Conpany, Inc., the Board has clarified the meaning
Apparentls the Guild construes portiorn as defined In the Order of the
compa;llon lead case of -41lmphlc as if portion hterall\ mcrint a percentage
(uthbertson did. it one pint. use the ord percenlage." hut that term is
ohvilouslN meaningless when the editorlll hudget. as such. has notl been
disclosed. We deem his use of the word percnt.lge inprecilse and inco nsis-
tent with the tenor f his testimons
TIMES-HERALD, INC. 439
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of its remedies to conform to its intent, consistent
with the fourth related case, Brown Newspaper Pub-
lishing Co., Inc., 238 NLRB 1334, issued September
29, 1978. Accordingly, the Union's motion of Sep-
tember 12, requesting that the original Orders of the
Administrative Law Judge in the Times-Herald,
Press-Democrat, and Brown cases be adopted un-
changed, is hereby denied. Accordingly, we hereby
substitute the following for our original Order of Au-
gust 25, 1978.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Times-Herald, Inc., Vallejo. California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with San
Francisco-Oakland Newspaper Guild, Local 52, The
Newspaper Guild, AFL CIO, by refusing, upon re-
quest, to supply relevant information needed by said
Union to represent the employees in the unit herein.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Furnish, upon request, to San Francisco-Oak-
land Newspaper Guild, Local 52, The Newspaper
Guild, AFL CIO, information as to the aggregate
dollar amount of Respondent's editorial budget ex-
pended for production of the columns entitled
"Where It's At," "Navy Notes," "Pages From the
Past," "Travis Scene," and "American Canyon,"
which were published in the Vallejo Times-Herald
and/or the Vallejo News-Chronicle from May 1976
through July 1976.
(b) Post at its office and place of business, where
notices to employees represented by the aforesaid
Union in the bargaining unit herein above are cus-
tomarily posted by Respondent, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees employed in the appropriate bargaining unit
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
('ourt of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NoTlI(E To EMPLOYEES
POsiED) BY ORDER OF HE
NATIONAL LABOR RELAIIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIl.L NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with the aforesaid Union by refusing, upon re-
quest, to supply relevant information needed by
said Union in representing the editorial depart-
ment employees it represents employed by us at
the Vallejo Times-Herald and the Vallejo News-
Chronicle.
WE WILL NoI in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, furnish San Francisco-
Oakland Newspaper Guild, Local 52, The
Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, information as to
the aggregate dollar amount of our editorial
budget expended for production of the columns
entitled "Where It's At," "Navy Notes," "Pages
From the Past," "Travis Scene," and "American
Canyon," which were published in the Vallejo
Times-Herald and/or the Vallejo News-Chron-
icle from May 1976 through July 1976.
TIMEs-HERALD. IN(.