Times-Herald, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 1041 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

TIMES-HERALD. INC.
Times-Herald, Inc. and San Francisco-Oakland
Newspaper Guild, Local 52, The Newspaper
Guild, AFL-CIO. Case 20-CA-12017
September 30, 1981
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On August 25, 1978, the Board issued a Decision
and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' to-
gether with its Decision and Order in Amphlett
Printing Company,2 another of four related cases3
wherein the Board concluded that the Respondents
had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
refusing to provide the Charging Party, San Fran-
cisco-Oakland Newspaper Guild, Local 52 (herein-
after the Guild or the Union), with information
pertaining to the aggregate compensation paid for
production of editorial material supplied by nonunit
individuals not represented by the Guild.
On January 30, 1979, the Board issued its Sup-
plemental Decision and Order in this case 4 correct-
ing an inadvertent error in the original Order and
clarifying the fact that, in its Orders in all of these
related cases, the Board meant to require the Re-
spondents to furnish information only as to the "ag-
gregate dollar amount of Respondent's editorial
budget expensed for" certain editorial product pro-
duced by nonunit columnists and/or correspon-
dents, rather than specific amounts of compensation
paid to each such nonunit individual.5
On October 8, 1980, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in
the four consolidated cases, 6 in which it affirmed
the Board's determinations, but remanded for fur-
ther explication of the remedy granted on grounds
it considered the Board's explanation confusing.
Thereafter, the Board notified the parties that it
had decided to accept the court's remand, and in-
vited the parties to submit statements of position,
subsequently extending the time for filing such sub-
missions to February 13, 1981.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
'237 NLR3 922
237 NLRB 955
' See also Brown 'NclWpuper Pulihing Co.. Im. 238 NLRB 1334
(1978); and Pres Docrat Publihhing CompUany. 237 NLRI 1335 (1978)
' 240 NLRB 439
Id. at 439. Also on January 30. 1979, the Ioard issued a corrective
order in Prev Demwrat (not published in volumes of oard I)eciions).
1(00) LRRM 1228: and see Prcy De,,ocrui. 237 NIRIB 1335 at fits,, I and 2
Prevs Denocrur Pubhlinhnl Co.. i xi N L . R.. , 629 F2d 1320
Although the court specifically referred to the
Boaid s decisions in these cases in terms of "aggre-
gate" amounts paid to independent correspondents
for editorial product, it apparently interpreted our
decision in Amphlett, supra, and our prior Supple-
mental Decision and Order in this case as premis-
ing the form of the disclosure order solely on the
ground of "Employer" interest in confidentiality,
claims of which it views as lacking record support.
Such was not our purpose however. Rather, as we
stated in our recent Supplemental Decision and
Order in Amphlett:7
In articulating the view that amounts paid in-
dividual nonunit writers should remain confi-
dential between the employers and those writ-
ers, we intended to convey as well our recog-
nition of, and concern for, the obvious right to
privacy of nonunit writers, which could be
comprised by an order to provide information
concerning individual personal financial ar-
rangements to a stranger entity-an entity
which does not represent them and which
does not claim to do so.5
Further, while data as to wages and terms
and conditions of employment of unit employ-
ees is presumptively relevant, there is no such
presumption where the requested information
concerns nonunit individuals. In considering
the latter situation, the initial question is
whether the information sought "is related to
the Union's function as bargaining representa-
tive and reasonably necessary to performance
of that function." Curtiss-Wright Corporation,
Wright Aeronautical Division v. .L.R.B., 347
F.2d 61, 68 (3d Cir. 1965).
Similarly, the Union's request for the real and "pen" names,
and addresses. of nonunit individuals was also denied This case in
our view is clearly distinguishable from the situation in which dis-
closure of wage information may he ordered, albeit over an ndi-
sidual's objection, where the individual is an employee, and is in
fact included in the unit and represented by the union.
As we further noted in both our Decisions in
Amphlett, supra, amounts paid to nonunit individ-
uals were not directly translatable to the hourly
based compensation of unit employees. And,
though the Union's claim for the information was
that it was necessary in terms of formulating wage
demands for unit employees, the evidence demon-
strated to the contrary that the Union's contractual
wage demands for unit employees were premised
on ultimately achieving parity with similar employ-
ees of the larger San Francisco publishers, and the
Union did not actually require such information for
that purpose. We thus reaffirmed our earlier find-
4mph/ett printring Companv, 258 NLRH 86 (1981)
258 NLRB No. 135
1041
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing that amounts paid to individual nonunit writers
should remain confidential-that it is indeed "ap-
propriate to protect the individual nonunit writer
from disclosure of his compensation" to an entity
which does not represent him-particularly in the
absence of any demonstrated need by the Union to
have such information on an individual basis.
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, as
more fully set forth in our Supplemental Decision
and Order in Amphlett, supra, we reaffirm our earli-
er Supplemental Decision and Order herein that
Respondent furnish, upon request, to San Francis-
co-Oakland Newspaper Guild, Local 52, The
Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, information as to the
aggregate dollar amount of Respondent's editorial
budget expended for production of the columns en-
titled "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 through July 1976.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby affirms its Supplemental Deci-
sion and Order herein and hereby orders that the
Respondent, Times-Herald Inc., Vallejo, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order therein.
' The aggregate dollar amount required is the total sum expended for
the five columns named.
1042