Chicago Tribune Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1990

298 N.L.R.B. 1082 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

1082 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chicago Tribune Company and Local 134, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO. Case 13-CA-29019
July 11, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND
OVIATT
On November 7, 1989, the Acting General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint alleging that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act by refusing the Union's re-
quest to bargain following the Union's certification
in Case 13-RC-17519. (Official notice is taken of
the "record" in the representation proceeding as
defined in the Board's Rules and Regulations, Sees.
102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB
343 (1982).) The Respondent filed its answer admit-
ting in part and denying in part the allegations in
the complaint.
On December 11, 1989, the General Counsel
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On January
10, 1990, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show
Cause why the motion should not be granted. The
Respondent filed a response, and the Charging
Party filed a reply to the Respondent's response.'
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to
bargain, but attacks the validity of the certification
on the basis of its objections to the election, and on
its contention that the Union is not a labor organi-
zation and that the Union practices racial and
sexual discrimination.
All representation issues raised by the Respond-
ent were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding. The Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
ered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does
it allege any special circumstances that would re-
quire the Board to reexamine the decision made in
the representation proceeding.2 We therefore find
i On May 31 , 1990, the Respondent filed a motion to supplement its
brief The General Counsel and the Charging Party filed oppositions to
the Respondent 's motion We grant the Respondent 's motion.
2 In its answer to the complaint and response to the Notice to Show
Cause, the Respondent contends that on information and belief the Union
practices racial and sexual discrimination precluding its certification as an
exclusive bargaining representative . It is well settled that allegations of
racial and other types of discrimination are properly cognizable under the
duty of fair representation and must be adjudicated under Sec. 8(b) of the
Act and cannot constitute a defense to an 8 (a)(5) proceeding. Handy
that the Respondent has not raised any issue that is
properly litigable in this unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB,
313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). Accordingly, we grant
the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, an Illinois corporation, engages
in the production, circulation, and distribution of a
daily newspaper in the Chicago, Illinois area.
During the past calendar year, the Respondent de-
rive& gross revenues in excess of $200,000, held
membership in or subscribed to various interstate
news services, including the Associated Press and
United Press International, published various na-
tionally syndicated features, including the comic
strip "The Far Side" and columns by Ann Landers
and Mike Royko, and advertised various nationally
sold products, including Seiko watches and Toshi-
ba audio electronics. During the past calendar year,
the Respondent also purchased and received at its
Chicago, Illinois facilities, products, goods, and
materials valued in excess of $5000 directly from
points outside the State of Illinois. We find that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held October 4, 1988, the
Union was certified on June 9, 1989, as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time "A" con-
struction electricians, "A" electricians, "B"
Andy, Inc., 228 NLRB 447, 454 fn. 56 (1977). The Respondent acknowl-
edges this principle but urges that Handy Andy be overruled . We decline
to do so.
In its supplemental brief, the Respondent submitted additional evi-
dence, consisting, inter alia, of its own newspaper article stating that the
Union's business manager has been ousted from his post amid reports of a
Federal grand jury investigation into charges that the Union has been in-
volved in the sale of union cards and other irregularities , and further
noting that the Union apparently has been placed under trusteeship by its
International . We find this evidence, even if deemed to be probative and
worthy of consideration, does not affect the validity of the Union's certi-
fication or constitute a valid defense to the Respondent's refusal to bar-
gain.
The Respondent stipulated to the Union's labor organization status in
the underlying representation case. Accordingly, there is no meet to its
denial of the Union 's status in its answer to the complaint . Hood Furniture
Mfg. Co., 297 NLRB No. 51 (Nov. 21, 1989); Bentson Contracting Co.,
297 NLRB No. 27 fn. 3 (Oct. 31, 1989).
298 NLRB No. 162
CHICAGO TRIBUNE CO. 1083
electricians, "B" apprentice electricians and
leadpersons employed in the electrical mainte-
nance department of the Employer 's Freedom
Center facility currently located at 777 West
Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, but exclud-
ing all other employees , office clerical employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive represent-
ative under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusals to Bargain
On July 5, September 13, and October 2, 1989,
the Union requested the Respondent to bargain,
and since July 5, 1989, the Respondent has refused.
We find that this refusal constitutes an unlawful re-
fusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after July 5, 1989, to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of employees in the appropriate
unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it
to cease and desist, to bargain on request with the
Union, and, if an understanding is reached, to
embody the understanding in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the
services of their selected bargaining agent for the
period provided by law, we shall construe the ini-
tial period of the certification as beginning the date
the Respondent begins to bargain in good faith
with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB
785 (1962); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229
(1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert.
denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction
Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d
57 (10th Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Chicago Tribune Company, Chi-
cago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Local 134, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the bargaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit on terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time "A" con-
struction electricians, "A" electricians, "B"
electricians, "B" apprentice electricians and
leadpersons employed in the electrical mainte-
nance department of the Employer's Freedom
Center facility currently located at 777 West
Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, but exclud-
ing all other employees, office clerical employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) Post at its facility in Chicago, Illinois, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 13, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained, for 60 consecutive
days in 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.
8 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 Nation-
al 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."
1084 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Local 134,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union
and put in writing and sign any agreement reached
on terms and conditions of employment for our
employees in the bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time "A" con-
struction electricians, "A" electricians, "B"
electricians , "B" apprentice electricians and
leadpersons employed in the electrical mainte-
nance department of the Employer 's Freedom
Center facility currently located at 777 West
Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, but exclud-
ing all other employees , office clerical employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY