  |
|
Feds
charge newspaper company with 20 more unfair labor practice violations
|
|
National Labor Relations Board vs. The
Providence Journal - October 2002 Oct. 22, 2002 Journal denies retaliation
PROVIDENCE -- Journal lawyer Lincoln D. Almond told a federal judge yesterday that the company was not retaliating against Karen Ziner when it assigned the veteran reporter to "night cops." Instead, he said, the company was merely filling a "longstanding assignment in the newsroom" after the incumbent was tapped to cover the country's response terrorism in the wake of Sept. 11. "It was a beat that had to be covered … by somebody able to do fast and dirty reporting,'' Almond said in his opening arguments at the Journal's trial on 20 unfair-labor-practice charges. According to Almond, the company first "looked to another staff" but the editor resisted. Then it transferred Morgan McVicar into the job but he "chose to resign" before filling the position. Only then was Ziner assigned to night cops, Almond told Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol, who had presided over the previous trial and ruled in favor of the Guild on every major issue "If the company had a retaliatory motive, she would have been the first one selected,'' he said. As for the decision to change the duties of features department copy editors, so that they would no longer be eligible for "small grid" differentials, Almond said the move was not in retaliation for the copy editors' successful efforts to win back the differentials from an arbitrator. It was "a rational and businesslike decision" to cope with the arbitrator's ruling, he said. Almond's opening remarks also referred to the company's contract offer made a few days before its previous unfair labor practices trial last winter. He called it "a good faith effort to settle the matter. The Guild exercised its right to simply reject that offer.'' Elizabeth Vorro, lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board, started her opening arguments by saying to Kocol: "I don't need to remind you of the context in which these cases arise. Guild-represented employees have been without a contract, wage increases and access to arbitration for just about three years. These cases are essentially a continuation of the conduct you heard about.'' Vorro called Ziner a "respected and award-winning general-assignment reporter on the day shift'' who was "assigned to cover what's known as the cop beat on the night shift'' in retaliation for her union activities. Vorro also described how copy editors in the features department, right after winning an arbitrator's ruling that the company had to pay them "small grid" differential, suddenly found their job duties changed so that they were no longer eligible to collect the extra money. And she talked of the company's take-it-or-leave-it contract proposal a few days before the previous trial, to which Guild responded with a request to negotiate. "The company's response to the Guild's offer was a flat refusal to talk," she said, which was "simply the most egregious of what they've been doing for three years." Guild Administrator Tim Schick took the stand throughout most of the first day of the trial, testifying on a variety of charges. One issue was the involuntary transfer of Jocelyn Van Stalk and William Murphy from the promotion department in the advertising unit into the visuals department in the news unit. Schick testified that the company has insisted on keeping the advertising and news units separate, and the contract implies that the company cannot transfer employees at will between the units. In the past, he said, when employees left one unit for the other, they had applied for a posted job. But no job was posted for the positions that Van Stalk and Murphy moved to, and both lost their seniority as a result of the transfer, Schick said. Under the contract's layoff provisions, they could move into a less senior person's job within the promotion department, he said. Evidence was presented showing that during 2001 the promotions department was reduced by half. The downsizing of the promotions department, Schick testified later, appeared to be related to the decision to discharge promotions employee Michael Monti when he asked about returning from medical leave in July 2001. The Guild and the NLRB contend that Monti's firing represented a unilateral change in the company's medical leave policy. At the trial, the company acknowledged that between 1998 and August 2001, when Monti's firing occurred, no employee on medical leave had been involuntarily discharged before the end of the contractually allowed leave time. During a half-hour cross-examination of Schick near the end of the day yesterday, Journal lawyer Richard Perras sought to show that the issue was a "bogus stress claim" by Monti, not a change in policy by the Journal. In a meeting about the discharge, the Guild agreed not to pursue the matter "if there was clear evidence of malingering," Perras said. But Schick testified that the company never offered such evidence, and in fact allowed Monti to keep his medical insurance and stay on leave for many months, until he asked to return -- around the same time that the promotions department was being downsized. Schick testified about the company's Feb. 20, 2002, contract offer. Under questioning from Vorro, he said the Guild did not accept the offer because "We had a number of questions that needed explaining and amplification.'' For example, the one-page offer tied Guild benefits to those of the Pressmen and Teamsters, but the Guild did not have copies of those contracts. When those contracts were obtained, Schick said, he found that many of their provisions were inferior to the company's previous contract offers. Perras is expected to continue his cross-examination of Schick when the trial resumes today. Additionally Ziner and other Guild members are scheduled to testify. Guild members are urged to attend and offer moral support. The trial starts at 9 a.m. in the Garrahy Judicial Complex on Dorrance Street, Workers Compensation Courtroom 4H. The U.S. Appeals Court ruled yesterday [ ruling (.doc, 37k)] that the Guild was right in taking the dispute over dues collection to arbitration. The court upheld the U.S. District Court ruling that the company was required to arbitrate issues related to the company's assertion that bargaining-unit employees didn't have to pay dues. The Guild has already won that arbitration, but if the company had won the Appeals Court case, the arbitration decision would have been nullified. Instead, with yesterday's ruling, it stands. The arbitrator ruled that paying dues to the union is a condition of employment for people holding jobs within the bargaining unit. She also said that the company was wrong in telling employees that they didn't have to pay dues, and ordered the company to pay the Guild $210,000 in back dues. The company has appealed the arbitrator's ruling, but is highly unlikely to win on that front. Arbitration is a means to keep cases out of the court system, and judges typically overturn arbitrators only in cases of egregious errors or misbehavior. Schick contract renewed In a resounding vote of confidence in Guild Administrator Tim Schick, members voted overwhelmingly to retain Schick in a recent mail-ballot referendum. The two-part vote was 100 to 11 to keep Schick as administrator, and 96 to 14 to approve his new 5-year contract. Felice J. Freyer is the Providence Journal's award-winning medical writer. She joined the paper in 1982 and was 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 On the eve of the trial
• Oct. 20, 2002 / (Time references updated Oct. 21)
The Providence Journal goes on trial today on charges that it retaliated against workers for union activity, made unilateral changes in working conditions, refused to provide the Guild with necessary information, and engaged in illegal bargaining tactics. In all, the company faces 20 unfair labor practice charges brought by the National Labor Relations Board, in a trial that starts today (Monday) at 11 a.m. in the Garrahy Judicial Complex, One Dorrance Plaza, Workers Compensation Courtroom 4(H), Providence, R.I.. This is the Journal's second trial on NLRB charges. The previous trial, in February and early March, resulted in guilty findings on every major charge and mandates for remedies that will cost the company millions of dollars. While the February trial focused on economic and bargaining issues, this week's proceedings will expose the human toll of the Journal's union-busting campaign. The judge will hear testimony about a veteran reporter demoted to "night cops" -- a beginner's beat with horrible work hours -- in retaliation for union activity; an employee who was fired retroactively as he prepared to return from medical leave; and two people whose involuntary transfer to a different department cost them their seniority. Guild members are welcome to attend the trial, expected to last about three days. Daily reports will appear on www.journalontrial.org and will be distributed in the building. Meanwhile, the company has asked to meet with Guild negotiators after the trial, at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 28, to talk about procedures for future off-the-record talks. The Guild regards this request to "negotiate about negotiations" as a positive move. In past meetings, the company has merely put its proposals on the table and said, "Take it or leave it." This request to work out procedural details (such as who will attend bargaining sessions) hints at a possible willingness to engage in the give-and-take of true negotiations -- for the first time in years. Here's a summary of the major charges in this week's trial: Retaliation -- real and threatened The NLRB charges that the company retaliated against veteran reporter Karen Ziner, by assigning her to night cops -- working 4 p.m. to midnight Tuesday through Saturday -- after she participated in "concerted activities" and after she filed a complaint against the Journal with the Human Rights Commission. The "concerted activities" involved a petition protesting the Journal's decision to remove Ziner from a crime story after one of the story's subjects complained -- even though the Journal acknowledged that her coverage was fair and accurate. Ziner's human rights complaint alleged that the Journal violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because it refused to allow her to use taxi vouchers outside Providence when she was temporarily unable to drive. The Journal changed the duties of copy editors in the features department in retaliation for their successful grievance against the company. An arbitrator ruled that the Journal had wrongfully withheld "small grid" differentials that have always been awarded to people who work in a higher classification than their usual job. After the ruling, the company changed the copy editors' duties so that they could no longer collect the "small grid" payments. This also was a unilateral change in working conditions. The company also faces a charge that Carol Young, deputy executive editor, "threatened employees with the loss of career opportunities because of the employees' union activities." The charge stems from a comment that Young made to a Guild member last April. The Guild member mentioned to Young that one of the two-year interns had helped distribute Guild fliers at a Brown University event. Young is alleged to have then said: "Thanks for ruining his career!" Unilateral changes in working conditions The company fired an employee who wanted to return from medical leave. Michael Monti, an advertising promotion specialist, went on medical leave in November 1999. In July 2001, Monti notified the company that he was ready to return from leave. The company responded with a letter informing Monti that he had been terminated retroactive to November 2000. This was a dramatic change in the Journal's previous policies on medical leave. The company faces three charges for transferring two employees from the promotion department, which is part of the advertising unit, to the visuals department, which is part of the news unit. The contract prohibits the involuntary transfer of employees between the news and advertising units. The company also failed to follow the contract rules regarding the posting and filling of positions. The transfer of two people from the advertising unit amounted to a layoff in advertising unit -- and the company did not follow the contract's provisions on layoffs. As a result of the transfer, the two employees lost their seniority. In November, 2001, the company refused to pay an editorial assistant in the features department the "small grid" differential that she was entitled to for taking over the duties of a departmental assistant, a higher classification. In January 2002, the company changed its policy on use of the company credit card, saying that any charges the company thinks may be personal will be deducted from the employee's paycheck. In the past it had been understood that there was no penalty for accidental use of the company card for personal items. Denial of legitimate information requests The Guild requested information about: payroll data, particularly discrepancies regarding merit pay, pay grade, job title and experience steps; the company's failure make 401(k) payments for certain employees; the names of part-time employees who participate in the 401(k) plan; and details about any case since 1995 in which an employee was required to return to work over the objections of the employee's physician. The NLRB deemed this information necessary for the union to meet its duties to members, and alleges that the company had an obligation to provide it. Illegal bargaining tactics The NLRB charges that the company made a regressive wage proposal -- an illegal bargaining move -- when it took its wage offer for 2002 off the table, saying that there was a wage freeze for all Belo employees. In October and November 2001, the company refused to bargain over the effects of its buyout program, such as the reassignment of the remaining staffers. A few days before the February NLRB trial, the company made a revised contract proposal. The Guild replied with an invitation to bargain over it, which the company rejected. The NLRB alleges that the company's actions ran afoul of the law because it refused to bargain and because it required the union to drop all unfair-labor-practice charges before negotiations could begin. In addition, because the company sent its proposal to all Guild members, the NLR B has charged it with "direct dealing," an illegal attempt to bypass the union and negotiate directly with the employees it represents. |
|
• August 1 The National Labor Relations Board has issued a complaint against the Providence Journal Co., containing 11 new allegations of labor law violations. The complaint brings to 65 the number of counts issued in the past 2½ years against the company in its dealings with the Providence Newspaper Guild. In announcing the new counts, the NLRB scheduled a hearing on these and 10 others that the federal agency had issued in April. The board said the court-like proceedings will begin Monday, Oct. 21, in Providence, at a location to be announced. Continued... Delay avoided: ProJo agrees to separate trial on new NLRB charges • Updated 5.24.02 The federal government's first wave of unfair labor charges -- including ones over the illegal taking of personal days, vacation, dental and medical coverage -- against the Providence Journal Co. are on track for a decision by the end of summer or early fall, after the company backed off its insistence that all charges against it be considered in a single trial. Meanwhile, the National Labor Relations Board has issued a complaint against the Journal on 10 new counts of labor law violations. A trial on the new charges has been set for October 21. Continued... 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 |
Pre-trial editions 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Trial 1 edition: 6.0 Aftermath: 7.0