National Labor Relations Board vs. The Providence Journal - October 2002

Oct. 24, 2002

Day 3, Trial 2

Details of Testimony about Features Department

Because of space limitations, the Guild Leader could provide only a brief summary of the hours of testimony at the NLRB trial this week concerning work distribution in the features department. Some members have expressed interest in hearing more, so here it is:

NLRB Trial 2 Press release Charges When: Began Monday, Oct. 21, 11 a.m.; ended Wednesday Oct. 23. Day 2 / Tuesday, Oct. 23 • Reporter Ziner takes the stand; tells of award-winning career and transfer to 'night cops'; Guild and management witnesses testify Day 1 / Monday, Oct. 22 • Journal denies retaliation In first day of NLRB trial, company explains its position, Schick testifies Where: Workers Compensation Courtroom 4(H), Garrahy Judicial Complex, One Dorrance Plaza, Providence, R.I. (Directions) Coverage Daily reports of the trial will be posted at www.journalontrial.org. Oct 20 - Advance story, charges explained Background The Guild has been without a contract since 1999. NLRB Trial 1 - February 2002 • February 2002 trial coverage • GUILTY! The ruling (.pdf) (.zip) [48 pages, 3.8 megs] History of the contract dispute • Index of Guild Leader newsletters from January 20, 1997 to now • Providence Newspaper Guild Contact: Felice Freyer: (401) 949-5668 Cell: (401) 932-1912 Tim Schick: (401) 421-9466

Features Copy Editors

For many years copy editors and makeup editors performed identical jobs, and copy editors received "small grid" differentials for doing the makeup work. Starting in 2000, the company stopped paying the differentials. The Guild filed a grievance and an arbitrator ruled in early 2002 that the company had to resume paying small grid to copy editors who performed makeup duties more than half their shift.

Ellen Sawyer, a part-time copy editor in features, testified that in March 2002, features editor Phil Kukielski held a meeting with the copy editors to tell them that they could no longer do makeup as a regular part of their jobs. Only section editors and makeup editors would design pages, and copy editors would be paid small grid only when they filled in for a makeup editor who was sick or on vacation.

This change is the subject of the NLRB's charges that the company retaliated against the workers who filed the grievance, and also made a unilateral change in their working conditions.

Under questioning by company lawyer Lincoln D. Almond, Kukielski testified that until 1990, makeup editors designed the pages on paper and sent their instructions to the composing room. With the advent of pagination, the makeup editors started performing the same duties as copy editors.

Among roughly 50 copy editors, only five are now classified as makeup editors, he said.

"The company's position is that makeup editor was an archaic classification that had passed out of use," Kukielski said.

(NLRB lawyer Elizabeth Vorro later asked him: "Have you taken any steps eliminate that classification?"

"No," Kukielski said, "I haven't been asked to.")

After the arbitrator's ruling, Kukielski said, he had a meeting with Pat Welker, managing editor for administration, and Joel Rawson, executive editor, to discuss how to respond to it. He said two possibilities were considered: keeping track of the amount of time copy editors spent doing makeup, or segregating makeup work from copy editing.

The group chose the latter option. A makeup editor was transferred from the newsroom into features to help with the makeup work.

Under cross-examination by company lawyer Richard Perras, copy editor Sawyer acknowledged that doing makeup work was part of her job description and that small grid was paid for work in a higher classification.

"For five years,'' Perras said, "you were accepting payment for work that was in your job classification. ...

"Is it fair to say that in April the company corrected that?"

NLRB lawyer Vorro objected to the question, and the judge sustained her objection.

Later, Vorro asked Kukielski whether the copy editors were doing anything unauthorized when they performed makeup duties. "Were they expected to do it as part of their day-to-day jobs?"

"Yes,'' Kukielski said, "they were expected to do that as part of their job description. Making up pages was one the duties performed copy editors."

"When you participated in the decision to change their job duties," Vorro asked him, "did you make any attempt to bargain with the Guild?"

"I don't think I know," Kukielski said.

"You didn't have any conversations with the Guild?"

"No."

Features Departmental Assistants

Cecilia Arnold, an editorial assistant in features since April 2001 and in the newsroom before that, testified that she has never received small grid payments in features, although she is performing the same duties as people who were classified as the higher paid departmental assistants.

Journal lawyer Almond asked her, "Isn't it true that today your job in features consists of creating lists similar to what you did in the news department?"

"Similar to what I did since 1998," Arnold said.

Steven Smith, a departmental assistant, testified that Arnold started doing some of his work on lists while he was on leave, and has continued to do it. He said that of the four departmental assistants, all do similar work, except for Michelle Catanzaro, who he said functions "kind of like a secretary."

Kukielski described Catanzaro as his "principal assistant" who keeps records of such things as time sheets, sick leave, and payments to freelancers.

The other three departmental assistants "principally prepare lists,'' he said.

Under cross-examination, the NLRB's Vorro asked him, "Is it fair to say you're treating editorial assistants and departmental assistants, with the exception of Michelle Catanzaro, as if they were the same?"

"Except for their pay, yes," Kukiekski said.

Kukielski said that after Janet Butler left the department, he looked at ways to streamline its functioning and better distribute her work. He said he brought in additional PCs and changed the way real estate listings were handled so that he ended up shaving about a day of work off what had been Butler's work load.

Felice J. Freyer is the Providence Journal's award-winning medical writer. She joined the paper in 1982 andwas assigned to the medical beat in 1989. A member of the Guild's Executive Committee since 1994, she has taken a leave from the newspaper to cover the trial.

There is much more information about the dispute at the Guild's main website, www.riguild.org. E-mail the Guild at png@riguild.org. The union's mailing address is: The Providence Newspaper Guild, 270 Westminster St., Providence, RI 02903. Telephone: (401) 421-9466. FAX: (401) 421-9495