Tribune Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 5, 2003

17-CA-021700 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 5, 2003)

JD(ATL)—11—03
Columbia, MO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE

TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY

and CASE 17-CA-21700

GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 16-C

Frank Molenda, Esq. and Ann Peressin, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
L. Michael Zinser, Esq. and Mary Twenter,
Adm. Mgr., for the Company.

BENCH DECISION

Statement of the Case

WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This case involves denial of
use of an established direct deposit system for employees to transmit payment of their union
dues to their union. At the conclusion of trial in the above styled case in Columbia, Missouri,
on January 17, 2003, and after hearing oral argument by Government and Company Counsel,
I issued a Bench Decision pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the National Labor Relations
Board’s (herein Board) Rules and Regulations setting forth findings of fact and conclusions
of law.

For the reasons stated by me on the record at the close of the trial, I found Tribune
Publishing Company, (herein Company) violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, (herein Act) when on or about May 24, 2002, it denied its
unit employees the use of its direct deposit system to transmit payment of their union dues to
Graphic Communications International Union Local 16-C (herein Union). The evidence
established the Company allowed the use of its direct deposit procedure for any and all
purposes except for the transmittal of union dues. I also concluded the Company violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when on or about that same date, it discontinued, after a
one time use, allowing its employees to use its direct deposit system for the transmittal of
their union dues to the Union. The evidence established the Company discontinued the use
without notice to or bargaining with the Union about the discontinuance and/or the effects
thereof. I rejected the Company’s contention that using its direct deposit procedure for the

JD(ATL)—11—03
transmittal of union dues after the parties collective bargaining agreement expired was
simply a continuation of dues deduction check off which it was not obligated to do. I
concluded the Company’s direct deposit procedure was a separate procedure unrelated to the
parties collective bargaining agreement and could not be administered in a discriminatory
manner nor could the Company unilaterally cease allowing use of the procedure, after having
done so, without notice to or bargaining with the Union.

I certify the accuracy of the portion of the transcript, as corrected,1 pages 97 to 115,
containing my Bench Decision, and I attach a copy of that portion of the transcript, as
corrected, as “Appendix A.”

Conclusions of Law

The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act; that it violated the Act in the particulars and for the reasons stated at
trial and summarized above and that its violations have affected and, unless permanently
enjoined, will continue to affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.

REMEDY

Having found that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it
must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act. Having found the Company disparately disallowed use of its direct
deposit procedure for the transmittal of union dues to the Union, I shall recommend the
Company cease and desist such conduct and upon written request of the unit employees allow
the use of the procedure for the transmittal of union dues to the Union. I further recommend the
Company give notice to and, upon demand of the Union, bargain in good faith with the Union
concerning any changes it might seek with respect to the use of its direct deposit procedure for
the transmittal of union dues to the Union. I shall also recommend the Company be ordered,
within 14 days after service by the Region, to post an appropriate “Notice to Employees,”
copies of which are attached hereto as “Appendix B” for a period of 60 consecutive days in
order that employees may be apprised of their rights under the Act and the Company’s
obligation to remedy its unfair labor practices.

On these conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the following
recommended:2

1 I have corrected the transcript pages containing my Bench Decision and the corrections are as reflected
in attached Appendix C.
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.

2

JD(ATL)—11—03

ORDER

The Company, Tribune Publishing Company, its officers, agents, successors and
assigns shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Denying its unit employees the use of its direct deposit system to
transmit payment of their union dues to the Union.

(b) Unilaterally changing the use of its direct deposit system related to the
transmittal of union dues to the Union.

(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act:

(a) Upon written request of unit employees allow the use of its direct
deposit procedure for the transmittal of union dues to the Union.

(b) Give notice to and, upon request of the Union, bargain in good faith
with the Union regarding any changes to the use of the direct deposit procedure for the
transmittal of union dues to the Union.

(c) Within 14 days after service by the Regional Director of Region 17 of
the National Labor Relations Board, post at its Columbia, Missouri, facility, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix B”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 17 after being signed by the Company’s authorized
representative shall be posted by the Company and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced or covered
by any other material. In the event that during the pendency of these proceedings the
Company has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the
Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the Notice to Employees, to
all unit employees employed by the Company on or at any time since May 24, 2002.

(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director for Region 17 of the National Labor Relations Board sworn certification of a

3 If this Order is enforced by a Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice
reading, “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall
read: “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”.

3

JD(ATL)—11—03
responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Company
has taken to comply.

Dated at Washington DC

________________________________
William N. Cates
Associate Chief Judge

4

JD(ATL)—11—03

This is my decision in the matter of Tribune Publishing
Company, herein "The Company", Case 17-CA-21700.
BENCH DECISION
This unfair labor practice case is prosecuted by the
National Labor Relations Board’s, herein "Board", General Counsel,
herein "Government Counsel", acting through the Regional
Director for Region 17 of the Board following an investigation
by that Region's staff.
The Regional Director for Region 17 issued an Amended
Complaint and Notice of Hearing, herein "Complaint", on
October
8, 2002, based on an unfair labor practice charge filed on May
30, 2002, by Graphic Communications International Union,
Local
16-C, herein "Union".
It is admitted the Company is a corporation with an
office
and place of business located in Columbia, Missouri where it
is
engaged in the business of printing and publishing a daily
newspaper.
In conducting the business operations just described, the

5

JD(ATL)—11—03
Company annually derives gross revenues in excess of
$200,000.00
and holds membership in or subscribes to various interstate
news
services, including the Associated Press. Nationally sold
products, such as Sprint, MCI, Nextel, AT&T Wireless, Fleet
Bank, American Airlines, Sax Fifth Avenue, City Bank,
Macys, and Talbots advertise in the Company's newspaper.
During the 12-month period ending June 30, 2002, a
representative period, the Company sold and shipped from its
facility goods valued in excess of $50,000.00 directly to
points
outside the state of Missouri, and during that same time
period,
purchased and received at its facility goods valued in excess
of
$50,000.00 directly from points outside the state of Missouri.
The parties admit and I find that at all times material
herein, the Company has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of 2(2),(6), and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended, herein "Act".
The parties admit and I find the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The

6

JD(ATL)—11—03
parties admit and I find Company Administrative Manager, Mary
Twenter, and Company Payroll Coordinator, Gwendolyn White, are
agents of the Company within the meaning of Section 2(13) of
the
Act.
The following employees of the Company, herein "unit",
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All
full time and regular part-time press room employees,
including
employees engaged in the operation of all printing presses
operated by the Company, at its Columbia, Missouri facility,
excluding all office and clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, and all other employees.
The Union, at all time material herein, has been
designated
exclusive collective bargaining representative of the unit and
has been so recognized by the Company. This recognition has
been embodied in successive collective bargaining agreements,
the most recent of which, after extensions, expired on
November
30, 2001.
Based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has, at all

7

JD(ATL)—11—03
times material herein, been the exclusive collective
bargaining
representative of the unit, and I so find.
It is admitted that on or about May 24, 2002, the Company
denied its unit employees the use of its direct deposit system
to pay their Union dues and that it has since that time
refused
to allow its employees to use its direct deposit system to pay
their Union dues. It is likewise admitted the Company did so
without notice to the Union and without affording the Union an
opportunity to bargain with the Company with respect to this
conduct and the effects of this conduct.
The Government alleges the use of the direct deposit
system
relates to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment of the unit employees and as such, constitutes a
mandatory subject of bargaining.
The Government alleges the Company failed and refused to
bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of
the Act when on May 24, 2002, it unilaterally and without
notice
to the Union refused to allow employees to use its direct
deposit system to pay their dues. The Government also alleges

8

JD(ATL)—11—03
the Company, on or about May 24, 2002, denied the use of its
direct deposit system to its unit employees to pay their Union
dues because the unit employees joined and assisted the Union and
engaged in concerted activities and to discourage employees
from
engaging in these activities.
The Company's conduct I have just described is alleged to
violation Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act. The Company denies having violated the Act in
any manner set forth in the Complaint.
The facts set forth herein are undisputed. The parties
have for an extended number of years had a collective
bargaining
relationship. The most recent collective bargaining agreement
between the parties expired after certain agreed upon
extension
on November 30, 2001. The parties most recent collective
bargaining agreement contained a Union security clause and a
Union dues deduction procedure. These provisions of the most
recent collective bargaining agreement as set forth in Article
I, Section 5 of the agreement reads as follows:
"As of the effective date of this contract, all current
employees shall be sustaining members of the Union in good
standing. After a 90-day period, all new employees shall

9

JD(ATL)—11—03
become
sustaining members of the Union in good standing. Full dues
paying membership may be chosen by any employee, but is not
required under this contract or federal law. Each year,
during
the month of August, all members of the above-described
bargaining unit may resign from the Union and cancel all
obligations of Union membership or support. The Company will
withhold Union dues from employee paychecks upon the
completion
of written materials according to customary Personnel
Department
procedures. Employees may rescind the dues withholding upon
similar written request."
The dues check off procedure was implemented in part by
the
Union members executing a dues check off authorization form.
The authorization form reads as follows:
"I hereby authorize Tribune Publishing Company to deduct
from our wages the monthly Union dues in the amount of ____
per
week to be sent to the Financial Secretary of the Kansas City
Graphic Communications Union, No. 16-C, by the 15th of the
following month. I understand that I may rescind the dues

10

JD(ATL)—11—03
withholding upon similar written request."
Approximately 37 employees had executed the dues check
off
authorization form during the most recent collective
bargaining
agreement and had their Union dues deducted by that procedure.
The most recent collective bargaining agreement was the first
agreement between the parties to contain a dues check off
provision.
Following the November 30, 2001 expiration of the parties
most recent collective bargaining agreement, the Company sent
all unit employees a letter dated December 19, 2001. The
letter
reads in pertinent part as follows:
"You will notice that your paycheck is larger this time.
That is because we have exercised our legal right to
discontinue
payroll deduction of Union dues commonly referred to as check
off. Your collective bargaining agreement is expired. Let me
explain a couple of things related to that. In the context of
an expired collective bargaining agreement, you have the right
to resign your membership in the Union and pay zero dollars to
the Union. That is your right under the National Labor
Relations Act. If you decide to remain a Union member, you

11

JD(ATL)—11—03
will
need to make arrangements with the Union to pay whatever money
you owe."
Union Secretary-Treasurer, Roger Hall, testified that
part
of his duties for the Union was to collect the members' dues.
Hall stated that after December 2001, he personally had to
collect unit members' dues the old fashioned way by going to
each member asking them for payment. Hall testified that
sometime after the first of 2002, he came to the conclusion
that
utilization of the Company's direct deposit procedure might be
an ideal way to have unit members pay their Union dues
directly
to the Union.
Hall, along with employee and unit member John Klund,
testified they had utilized the Company's direct deposit
system
to pay automobile loans, personal loans, make child support
payments, and establish savings and checking accounts.

In March 2002, Union
Secretary-Treasurer Hall asked Company Payroll Coordinator

12

JD(ATL)—11—03
White
about using the Company's direct deposit procedure for Union
dues and asked for a direct deposit forms.
Hall obtained a form and reproduced a total of
approximately 37 Company direct deposit authorization forms.
Hall testified he, in part, filled out the forms for the
employee unit members. Hall filled in the employees' name,
work
department, the bank, and account number of the Union, the
amount each employee was to pay, and the routing number. The
unit employee members filled in their social security numbers,
addresses, and executed the authorization forms. The direct
deposit authorization form provides for up to four direct
deposit authorizations for each employee.
Hall testified he took the executed direct deposit
authorization forms for payment of dues to the Union that he
had
solicited from the employees and turned them into the Company.
He turned in approximately 37 such forms. Hall turned in the
forms in March of 2002.
Hall testified he spoke with Administrative Manager
Twenter
about using the direct deposit system for payment of Union
dues.

13

JD(ATL)—11—03
Hall testified Twenter said she thought it was a good idea,
but
pointed out that the banks might not provide the Union with an
itemized listing of the deductions in payments. Hall
testified
Administrative Manager Twenter agreed the Company could
provide
the Union an itemized statement each time inasmuch as the
Company had to make such a list for its own use.
Hall testified that the direct deposit procedure that the
37 unit employee members were utilizing is outlined in the
Company's employee handbook. The procedure outlined in the
employee handbook is as follows:
"All Tribune employees are encouraged to sign up for
direct
payroll deposit. Direct deposit allows your paycheck to be
electronically deposited in your bank first thing payday
morning. We have the capability to deposit in virtually any
bank and up to four banks per employee. You may pay loans,
deposit to savings accounts, and have your net pay deposited
in
your checking account. Contact the Payroll Coordinator for
signup materials. Tribune Corporate bank accounts are held at
Commerce Bank. As a result, discounted services may be

14

JD(ATL)—11—03
offered
by Commerce to Tribune employees. Inquire in the Personnel
Office about these services.
Tribune Publishing Company is also a member of the Mizzou
Credit Union. Employees may become members of the Credit
Union
by establishing an account at the Credit Union's main office.
Direct deposit and payroll deductions for loans, savings, et
cetera, are offered through the Personnel Department after an
amount is established."
Union Secretary-Treasurer Hall testified that the last
pay
period of April 2002, the Company did a trial run of the
direct
deposit for the 37 employee unit members regarding paying
their
dues by direct deposit to the Union.
According to Hall, the trial run went without any
hitches.
The first pay period in May 2002, the direct deposit for Union
dues was accomplished for the 37 employee unit members so
authorizing. Hall testified he received through interoffice
mail an itemized statement of the deposits.
Hall testified that on May 21, 2002, Company

15

JD(ATL)—11—03
Administrative
Manager Twenter advised him the Company would no longer allow
direct deposit for Union dues because dues check off had
previously been discontinued by the Company and direct deposit
of Union dues was a reinstatement of dues check off.
Hall asked Twenter if the Company was doing away with
direct deposit for all purposes, and she responded no, that it
was just being discontinued for Union dues only.
The unit Union members received with their next paycheck
the following note from the Company, which was dated May 24,
2002:
"Press Employees - Please note that the direct deposit
amount for your Union dues is no longer being deducted from
your
check. Dues check off had been previously discontinued by the
Company, and the direct deposit transactions reinstated dues
check off. Establishing direct deposit for dues was a mistake.
We are sorry for inconvenience that this may cause you."
Hall testified and the Company admits it did not
negotiate
with the Union regarding its decision to stop allowing its
direct deposit procedure to be utilized for the payment of
Union
dues.

16

JD(ATL)—11—03
The Company has maintained a direct deposit procedure
since
1993. The time in the spring of 2002 was the only time employee
1994. unit members utilized the Company's direct deposit
1995. procedure for the payment of Union dues.
Hall testified that prior to the most recently expired
collective bargaining agreement, the Union collected dues the
old fashioned way, namely by a Union official going to each
unit
member and requesting payment of Union dues.
Company Administrative Manager Twenter testified banks
charged the Company ten cents for each direct deposit
transaction each time one was made. Twenter stated, however,
that the Company did not cancel direct deposit for Union dues
because of the cost associated therewith. Twenter testified
the
Company employee handbook had been in existence for many,
perhaps 16 years, and its terms were not negotiated with the
Union.

The parties' positions may be summarized as
follows:

17

JD(ATL)—11—03
First, the Government acknowledges that the Board in
Hacienda Resort Hotel and Casino, 331 NLRB 665 (2000), held
that
an employer's obligation to check off Union dues terminates on
contract expiration.
The Government, however, asserts that the Board did not
address, nor did it find, that direct deposit systems are
equivalent to dues check off even where an employer's direct
deposit procedure is utilized for the payment of Union dues.
The Government argues direct deposit of Union dues is not
tantamount to a continuation of dues check off under the
expired
collective bargaining agreement. The Government asserts dues
check off is clearly distinguishable from direct deposit. The
Government notes that the Union could enforce contractually
agreed upon dues check off by a Section 301 suit or by the
filing of Board charges.
The Government asserts that the direct deposit procedure
does not involve the Union and adds the Union could not compel
its enforcement. The Government notes that an employee might
even prefer direct deposit over dues check off for the payment
of Union dues.
The Government argues that Hacienda is not applicable,
nor

18

JD(ATL)—11—03
is it controlling in the instant case. The Government asserts
the Company allows use of its direct deposit procedure for any
and all purposes except Union dues.
The Government asserts such establishes a clear case of
disparate treatment with respect to Union dues and constitutes
a
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The
Government
also asserts that direct deposit procedures is a mandatory
subject of bargaining and that when the Company discontinued
allowing direct deposit for Union dues without prior notice to
or bargaining about the decision and its effects, the Company
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by making
unilateral
changes.
The Government relies on Farmers Cooperative Gin
Association, 161 NLRB 887 (1996), for the proposition that it
is
unlawfully discriminatory for a employer to discontinue or not
agree to direct deposit where it otherwise allows payroll
deductions for assorted other reasons such as bank loans, car
payments, and the like. The Government relies on King Radio
Corp., Inc., 166 NLRB 649, for the proposition that payroll
deductions constitute mandatory subjects of bargaining and

19

JD(ATL)—11—03
that
a unilateral change in such would constitute a violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
The Company's position is straightforward and clear. The
Company contends the outcome of the instant case is determined
and controlled by the Board's holding in Hacienda Resort Hotel
and Casino. The Company notes the Board has created and since
1962, consistently enforced a bright line rule that an
employer
is no longer required to continue to check off Union dues
after
the collective bargaining agreement giving rise to the dues
check off obligation expires.
The Company argues the Government and the Union are
simply
trying to make a distinction without a difference between
traditional dues check off and direct deposit of Union dues
through an employer provided and funded system in order to get
past bright line Board law that permits employers to eliminate
dues check off after a collective bargaining agreement
expires.
The Company takes the position that regardless of the
method by which an employer goes about deducting dues and
remitting them to the Union, be it by direct deposit system,

20

JD(ATL)—11—03
an
hand tallied spread sheet, or a physical deduction of cash
from
a cash payment followed by a walk down to the Union's
headquarters to make the fund transfer, each and every system
of
mandatory Union dues deductions has the forbidden effect of
forcing the employer, such as the Company herein, to spend its
resources to deduct Union dues from employee paychecks after
the
collective bargaining agreement expires.
The Company contends there is nothing in its direct
deposit
policy statement that creates a right to have Union dues
deducted, and it may not be compelled to do so after the
expiration of a party's collective bargaining agreement.
The Company contends it is irrelevant that it provides at
its own expense a system through which employees may directly
deposit a portion of their respective paychecks into a number
of
non-Union accounts. The Company contends there is nothing in
the Board's rulings in Hacienda or Bethlehem Steel, 136 NLRB
1500 (1962), that makes an employer's right to discontinue
dues

21

JD(ATL)—11—03
check off after the collective bargaining agreement expires
contingent upon the employer's willingness to abstain from
making voluntary deductions from its employees paychecks at
the
employer's expense for non-Union related reasons.
The Company contends that even if a disparate treatment
consideration is applied to its direct deposit procedure
regarding Union dues, the Government has failed to establish
that it treated the Union any different than it treated other
similarly situated outside organizations.
The Company contends the record is devoid of any evidence
that the Company allowed similar outside organizations to use
its direct deposit system in a similar way for similar
purposes
to support a collective bargaining representative.
It is clear from the Board's holding in Hacienda Resort
and
Hotel Casino, 331 NLRB 665 (2000), that an employer's
obligation
to continue a dues check off arrangement expires with the
contract that created the obligation. The Board made it clear
that the principle applies with or without a Union security
clause.
The Board in Hacienda traced the origin of its stated

22

JD(ATL)—11—03
principle from Bethlehem Steel, 136 NLRB 1500 (1962), to the
present and concluded the principle was long established, well
settled, and practitioners had come to rely on the principle that
dues check off expires with the collective bargaining
agreement
that gives rise to it.
The question herein, however, is whether utilization by
the
unit Union members of the Company's direct deposit procedure
is
simply a subterfuge or an attempt to get around the Board's
Hacienda principle or is it something entirely different.
I might add at this point that I'm not unmindful of the
United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's decision
in
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. NLRB, 49 F.3d 317
(2002), in which the Circuit Court vacated and remanded
Hacienda
to the Board for the Board to articulate its rationale for
excluding dues check off from the unilateral change doctrine
in
the absence of a Union security clause.
I'm persuaded, however, that Hacienda is applicable as it
applies to me. I am fully persuaded that the Company's direct

23

JD(ATL)—11—03
deposit procedure is separate and entirely different from the
contractual dues deduction procedure of the parties' most
recently expired collective bargaining agreement.
The Company's direct deposit procedure has been in effect
for any and all purposes since its inception in 1993. The
Company, in its handbook, invites employees to use its direct
deposit procedure for up to four separate direct deposit
payroll deductions, for "loans, savings, et cetera". It is
established that the procedure has been used to pay personal
loans, car loans, child support payments, and the like.
The direct deposit procedure is strictly between the
Company and its employees without the involvement of the
Union.
The Company encourages the use of its direct deposit
procedure.
The Union is not involved with the direct deposit
procedure, nor can it enforce the procedures authorized
between
the employees and the Company, whereas with Union dues
deductions, in the collective bargaining agreement, the Union
could enforce those provisions. In fact, employees might
choose
the Company's direct deposit procedure over any collective
bargaining agreed upon dues deduction procedure.

24

JD(ATL)—11—03
Having concluded that the Company's direct deposit
procedure is separate and apart from any collective bargaining
procedure providing for dues deductions, I turn to whether
there
was unlawful disparate treatment by the Company when it
discontinued direct deposit for payment of Union dues.
I note there is obviously no requirement that the Company
even have a direct deposit procedure. But if it does have
one,
it must not administer it in a manner that unlawfully
discriminates against Union activities.
There is no room on this record for any doubt on the
issue
of disparate treatment in that the Company ceased allowing
direct deposit for payment of Union dues while allowing its
direct deposit procedures to be utilized for any and all other
types of direct deposits with up to four for each employee.
It is clear that direct deposit payroll deductions
constitute working conditions of the unit employees. In
simple
language, the Company said to its unit employees you may
utilize
our direct deposit procedure for various purposes, including
up

25

JD(ATL)—11—03
to four such purposes, but you are prohibited from making use
of
it for one reason only, namely, the remittance of Union dues
to
the Union. I'm fully persuaded that such constitutes unlawful
disparate treatment of the employees' Union activities, and as
such, violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and I so
find.
I reject the Company's contention that the Government
failed to show it treated similarly situated users of its
direct
deposit procedure differently than it treated its employees'
authorizations for dues deductions herein.
In my opinion, there is no need for a comparison when the
Company disallows the use of its direct deposit procedure only
when it pertains to the direct deposit by its employees of
their
Union dues. I likewise reject the cost factor raised by the
Company as a consideration. Administrative Manager Twenter
clearly testified that cost was not a factor in the Company's
decision to disallow the use of its direct deposit system for
the payment of Union dues.
I also find that when the Company changed the working
conditions of its employees by ceasing to allow them to

26

JD(ATL)—11—03
directly
deposit their Union dues without affording the Union an
opportunity to bargain about that conduct or its effects, the
Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and I so
find.
I shall order that the Company administer its direct
deposit procedure in a nondiscriminatory manner and that it
allow its employees the use of its direct deposit procedure to
pay their Union dues. I also direct that the Company upon
request of the Union to bargain in good faith before any
changes are effected with regard to employees paying
their Union dues by
the Company's direct deposit procedure. I shall also direct
that the Company post an appropriate notice to its employees
regarding its unfair labor practices and its obligation to
remedy its unfair labor practices
The Court Reporter should provide to me within ten days
of
the close of this trial a copy of the transcript of this
proceeding. Once I have received a copy of the transcript, I
will, if necessary, make corrections thereon, and if deemed
appropriate, extensions thereto, and I will certify that to
the
Board as my decision in this matter.

27

JD(ATL)—11—03
The rules for taking exceptions or appeals to any Board
decision including bench decisions is outlined in the Board's
rules and regulations.
Let me state in closing that it has been a pleasure to be
in Columbia, Missouri, and this trial is closed.
(Whereupon, the hearing in the above-mentioned matter was
closed.)

28

JD(ATL)—11—03

APPENDIX B

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Posted by the 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 obey this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT.

Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.

WE WILL NOT deny our unit employees the use of our direct deposit procedure to
transmit payment of their union dues to Graphic Communications International Union Local
16-C.

WE WILL NOT unilaterally change our unit employees terms and conditions of
employment, specifically the use of our direct deposit procedure for our unit employees to
transmit their union dues to the Union.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, allow our unit employees,
upon written request by each employee, to have their union dues transmitted to the Union by
the use of our direct deposit procedure, and WE WILL give notice to the Union prior to any
proposed changes to this procedure and will upon request bargain in good faith with the
Union regarding any such proposed changes.

TRIBUNE PUBLISHINGCOMPANY,
(Employer)

Dated: ______ By: ______
(Representative) (Title)

This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone.

29

JD(ATL)—11—03
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935
to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to
determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your
rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may
also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
8600 Farley St., Ste. 100, Overland Park, KS 66212-4677.
(913) 967-3000, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR
COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING
THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED
TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (913) 967-3005

30