Dow Jones & Co

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1992

307 N.L.R.B. 1456 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1456
307 NLRB No. 230
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Independent As-
sociation of Publishers’ Employees. Cases 2–
CA–24686 and 2–CA–24770
July 22, 1992
ORDER DENYING MOTION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OVIATT
AND RAUDABAUGH
On February 11, 1992, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 2 issued a consolidated amended complaint and
notice of hearing in the above-captioned case, alleging
that the Respondent has committed various violations
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Respondent
filed a timely answer admitting in part and denying in
part the allegations in the complaint and raising certain
affirmative defenses.
Thereafter, on March 20, 1992, the Respondent filed
a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a sup-
porting memorandum, with exhibits attached. The mo-
tion contends that the Board should dismiss and defer
to the parties’ grievance arbitration process those por-
tions of the complaint alleging that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) by unilaterally offering early
retirement ‘‘buyout offers’’ to certain unit employees
and by failing and refusing to bargain with the Union
over this mandatory subject. The Respondent argues
that the circumstances surrounding the buyout offers
meet the deferral standards of Collyer Insulated Wire,
192 NLRB 837 (1971), as followed in E. I. du Pont
& Co., 293 NLRB 896 (1989).
On March 30, 1992, the General Counsel and the
Charging Party-Union each filed oppositions to the Re-
spondent’s motion, to which, on April 3, 1992, the Re-
spondent filed a reply brief. On April 7, 1992, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to
the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. On April 21, 1992, the Union
filed a supplemental opposition brief. On April 23,
1992, the General Counsel filed a response brief in op-
position to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
to which the Respondent filed a reply on April 24,
1992.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment
Having duly considered the matter, we find that the
Respondent’s motion should be denied. In addition to
the 8(a)(5) allegations for which the Respondent seeks
deferral, the complaint also contains allegations that all
parties agree will be heard by an administrative law
judge. These allegations are (1) that the Respondent
independently violated Section 8(a)(1) by banning
union meetings on company premises and prohibiting
the Union from inviting nonemployees onto the prem-
ises to meet with unit employees, while permitting
nonunion-related meetings by outside organizations on
company premises, and (2) that these prohibitions
against union activities constituted a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) because they were departures from past
practice and were undertaken without affording the
Union an opportunity to negotiate and bargain over
this changed condition of employment.
We find that the Respondent’s motion and the re-
sponses of the General Counsel and the Union raise
issues of material fact concerning the DuPont stand-
ards for deferral, particularly as to whether the com-
plaint allegations for which deferral is not sought are
sufficiently related to the buyout allegations so as to
constitute a ‘‘claim of employer animosity to the em-
ployees’ exercise of protected rights.’’ DuPont at 897.
The parties may, if they choose, present their deferral
arguments to an administrative law judge, who may
consider them in the context of a full record on all the
complaint allegations.
Accordingly, the Respondent’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment is denied, and the proceeding is
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 2 for
further appropriate action.