Extract
Detroit Newspapers, 1268 (2004)
Detroit Newspaper Agency, d/b/a Detroit Newspapers and Detroit Mailers Union No. 2040, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Case 7–CA–42544
September 28, 2004DECISION AND ORDERBy Members Liebman, Schaumber, and WalshOn June 21, 2000, Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an answering brief. The Respondent filed a reply brief.The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions, to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2 The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by terminating reinstated striker Thomas Hydorn because of his union and protected activities. In its exceptions to the judge’s decision, the Respondent argues that the complaint should be dismissed because the General Counsel failed to meet his Wright Line3 burden of establishing that a motivating factor in the Respondent’s decision to discharge employee Thomas Hydorn was Hydorn’s union or protected activities. Specifically, the Respondent argues that because the evidence of antiunion animus on which the judge relied consisted of Board decisions4 that were denied enforcement in the court of appeals,5 the evidence does not support the administrative law judge’s finding of antiunion animus. For the following reasons, we find that the Respondent’s termination of Hydorn violated the Act.BackgroundThe pertinent facts are fully set forth in the judge’s decision. Briefly, in 1995, during negotiations for a successor collective-bargaining agreement, six unions representing various units of the Respondent’s employees launched a strike against the Respondent. One of those six unions was Detroit Mailers Union No. 2040, the Charging Party in this case. Although no agreement had been reached, the unions ended their strike in 1997 when, on behalf of the striking employees, they made an unconditional offer to return to work. The Respondent treated the returning strikers as economic strikers and offered them reinstatement as positions became available. With the strikers’ return, tension arose between them and the replacement workers. The Present CaseIn 1978, Thomas Hydorn began his employment with the Respondent. From the beginning of that employment, Hydorn worked as a material handler and was a member of Local 2040. During his approximately 17 years of prestrike employment, Hydorn received only one disciplinary notice, for absenteeism. Hydorn participated in the Union’s 1995–1997 strike and picketing of the Respondent. On August 16, 1999, 18 months after the Union’s unconditional offer to return to work, Hydorn was reinstated to a material handler position on the 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift at the Respondent’s North Plant in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Following a brief orientation, the Respondent assigned Hydorn to one of its “inserters,” a machine that installs advertisements and other supplements into the newspaper. The inserter is staffed by a leadman operator and one or more material handlers, according to the number of supplements that have to be handled. The material handler’s job is to keep the inserter supplied with supplements and to monitor the “heads” and “buckets” for paper jams or paper drags. It is also the job of the material handler closest to the paper drag to clear it. This latter duty represented a change in the material handler’s duties. Before the strike, the leadman machine operator was responsible for clearing paper drags; material handlers were prohibited from performing this work. Hydorn’s brief poststrike orientation did not cover this change in the material handler’s duties.   On August 24, from 5 to 7 p.m., Attorney John Taylor, Respondent’s in-house labor counsel, conducted a seminar for Respondent’s supervisors on disciplinary procedures. Taylor covered, among other things, the “[e]lements of [e]ffective [c]orrective [d]iscipline,” including “[i]nvestigat[ing] thoroughly before assuming guilt,” and “[g]iv[ing the] employee an opportunity to respond,” using a “progressive disciplinary” approach taking into consideration the employee’s “[l]ength of service” and “[p]rior work and conduct record.”Later the same day of this supervisory training, Hydorn was assigned to work on an inserter with Material Handler John Dutka. Hydorn was stationed at the “V head” of the machine while Dutka was situated at the “W head,” closer to Machine Operator William Mihalik. The first h...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
