The Capital Times Co., 651 (1976)

Extract

---

The Capital Times Co., 651 (1976)

THE CAPITAL TIMES COMPANY

The Capital Times Company and Newspaper Guild of Madison, Local 64. Case 30-CA-2746

April 6, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER

By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER

On January 14, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Nancy M. Sherman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,' the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, the Charging Party filed an answering brief, and the American Newspaper Publishers Association filed an amicus curiae brief.

The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.

Section 8(a)(5) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer 'to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees ....' Collective bargaining is defined in Section 8(d) as 'the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment . . . .' We are concerned here with whether the subject upon which Respondent allegedly refused to bargain-the 'Rules and Guidelines for Professional Standards and Ethics' and the sports-pass rule, herein collectively called the code of ethics-is covered by the phrase 'wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.' We have decided to reverse the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, which answered this question affirmatively, and found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by dealing directly with unit employees regarding Respondent's code of ethics, refusing to bargain about the code of ethics, 1 As the record and briefs adequately set forth the issues and the positions of the parties, we hereby deny Respondent's motion for oral argument. The Charging Party's motion for leave to adduce further evidence and submission of further evidence is also denied as lacking in merit.

2 We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors in the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge which in no way affect her Decision: in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of sec . II, B, I, '1972' should be changed to '1971'; with regard to fn. 17, the record merely shows that the International of the Guild offered to help develop counterproposals concerning Respondent's 'Code of Ethics ' and that Local 64 accepted that offer, rather than that a counterproposal was in fact prepared.

651 and` unilaterally instituting the- code of ethics. However, we find that Respondent did violate Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unilaterally instituting, refusing to bargain about, and dealing directly with unit employees regarding the penalty provision of the code of ethics, which states that 'Any violation will result in a suspension, multiple infractions will result in discharge.

We are unconvinced by the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions that gifts received from actual or potential news sources by news personnel in their professional capacities constitute 'wages,' or that the code of ethics, as a whole, affects terms and conditions of employment such as to make it a mandatory subject of bargaining. But since the suspension and discharge provision of the code of ethics directly affects employment security, it is our opinion that Respondent must bargain about this section.

In substance, Respondent's code of ethics (fully set forth under sec. II, C, of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision) prohibits the acceptance of gifts from outside sources which are used in the performance of employees' duties. It also forbids the acceptance of gifts not used by employees in carrying out their assignments, but which come to the employees by virtue of their position with the newspaper. Finally, the code requires employees to disclose outside activities which might constitute a conflict of interest.3 It is undisputed, and the record fully supports a finding, that the code of ethics represents an attempt by Respondent to protect and enhance the credibility and quality of its newspaper.

We have in the past interpreted the term 'wages,' as used in Section 8(d) of the Act, quite liberally. The basic definition is found in Inland Steel Company, 77

NLRB 1, 4 (1948), enfd. 170 F.2d 247 (C.A. 7, 1948), cert. denied 336 U.S. 960 (1949), which states that wages 'must be construed to include emoluments of value . . . which may accrue to employees out of their employment relationship.' Thus, in Inland Steel, we held that pension and insurance benefits fall within the statutory intendment of 'wages.' Likewise, we have held profit-sharing plans (Dickten & Masch Mfg. Company, 129 NLRB 112 (1960) );

stock purchase plans (Richfield Oil...

See the full content of this document

---