News-Texan, Inc., 1035 (1969)

NEWS-TEXAN 1035

News-Texan, Inc. and Dallas Typographical Union,

Local 173. Case 16-CA-3165

March 6, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER

By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA On October 18, 1968, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as elaborated below.

The Respondent operates a newspaper in Arlington, Texas. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the A. H. Belo Corporation, which operates the Dallas, Texas, Morning News. The Dallas Typographical Union represents the Dallas newspaper employees, while the Arlington employees are unrepresented. Joy Lee Kropp, a union member, was employed as a teletypesetter operator at Arlington on September 10, 1967. She soon advanced to more responsible tasks, and was awarded a pay raise on November 7, 1967. Late in October or early in November, foreman Amrein told Kropp that the Company was installing a dataphone machine at Arlington to take over some work performed at Dallas. Kropp made this known to union officials, who were engaged in negotiations at Dallas. The Union speculated that the Company might perhaps be made to pay union rates to Arlington employees who would perform the transferred work. About November 7, Kropp told her friend and coworker Blakely about her conversation with the union officials. On November 8 Blakely told plant superintendent Ozment about it.

On November 9, 2 days after her pay raise, Kropp was discharged.

The Respondent admits that Kropp was discharged because she told union officials about the pending work transfer, but contends' that such disclosure constituted a breach of trust, since every newspaper employee stands in a confidential relationship to his employer as to information acquired in the course of employment. We find no merit in this contention Kropp's activity was clearly protected by the Act,' and we are not persuaded that she should be silenced simply because her employer is in the newspaper business. The Respondent also admits that Kropp was discharged because she told fellow employee Blakely that wages might be raised after the transfer of work from Dallas, but contends that such statement was a spreading of false information disruptive of employee discipline. We find no merit in this contention. Kropp's statement related to wages, and there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that her remarks were either malicious or manifestly destructive of employee discipline.3

The Respondent further contends that Kropp was discharged pursuant to a plan to reduce the work force in anticipation of transferring some work away from the Arlington operation. Like the Trial Examiner, we reject the testimony of the Respondent's officials that Kropp was selected about November 2 to be in a group of three employees, one of whom would be discharged. In addition to the facts that the Respondent hired a new employee on November 6, and that little reduction in work occurred for approximately 30 days, it is inherently incredible that Kropp would have been selected for a wage increase 2 days before her discharge, if the Respondent had previously designated her for termination. Moreover, assuming that such a designation of three employees did take place, the Respondent has offered no explanation why Kropp was selected for dismissal while two employees with lesser seniority and skills were retained.4 Nor does the record contain any explanation as to why the Respondent's implementation of its decision to reduce the work force was accelerated and made applicable to Kropp immediately after it had learned that she had engaged in protected activities S We find, accordingly, that Kropp was discharged because she had engaged in protected union activities.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of' the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as 'The Trial Examiner found no merit in the Respondent 's contention at the hearing that the information Kropp disclosed to the union officials was confidential In its exceptions the Respondent seems to have abandoned its original position that the specific information was confidential , and now contends that 'all employees, and in particular employees of a newspaper are under a special obligation with respect to knowledge obtained by them in the course of their employment ' 'See Root-Carlin, Inc, 92 NLRB 1313, Salt River Valley Water Users' Association , v N.L R B 206 F.2d 325 (C A 9), Pioneer Natural Gas Company, 158 NLRB 1067, 1073-75 ' Walls Manufacturing Company, Inc, 137 NLRB 1317.

'See Serv-Air, Inc, 161 NLRB 382, 418-420 'See Dunclick, Inc, 159 NLRB 10, 16.

174 NLRB No. 136 modified below, and orders that the Respondent,

News-Texan, Inc., Arlington, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified.

1. Delete paragraph 2(c) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.

2. Delete the fifth indented paragraph of the notice.

   TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION BUCHANAN, Trial Examiner The complaint herein (issued January 31, 1968; charge filed November 24, 1967), as amended, alleges that the Company has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat 519, by discharging Joy Lee Kropp because of her union and other protected concerted activities, and by otherwise interfering with employees' rights by a speech and letter noted below in connection with the motion to reopen. The answer, as amended, admits Kropp's discharge but alleges that it was due to a reduction in force and further that Kropp engaged in unprotected activity which warranted discharge After opening of the trial at Fort Worth, Texas, on March 26, 1968, the General Counsel and the Company entered into a settlement agreement over the Union's objection. Because of subsequent acts by the Company, the agreement was thereafter set aside and the case proceeded to trial on July 9 through 11, 1968, inclusive Counsel were heard in oral argument at the close Pursuant to leave granted to all parties, briefs have been filed by the General Counsel, the Company, and the Union, the time to do so having been extended The Union's requested findings and conclusions are adopted to the extent that they are necessary, consistent with, and included in the findings and conclusions herein I regret that seven intervening cases have delayed issuance of this decision Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR) AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED

   The facts concerning the Company's status as a Texas corporation, the nature and extent of its business, and its engagement in commerce within the meaning of the Act are admitted, I find and conclude accordingly. I also find and conclude that, as admitted, the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act IL THE REOPENING OF THE TRIAL

   Beyond posting the notice called for in the settlement agreement of March 26, the Company's president on that day made a speech to all company employees;' and on April 2 he distributed to the employees a copy of that speech I base no finding of violation of the settlement...