PG Publishing Co., Inc. d/b/a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, (2023)

• Date: 26 January 2023

JD-05-23

Pittsburgh, PA

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

DIVISION OF JUDGES

PG PUBLISHING CO., INC.,

d/b/a PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE

Cases 06–CA–248017

and 06–CA–263791

06–CA–269346

NEWSPAPER GUILD OF PITTSBURGH/CWA

LOCAL 38061

Julie Stern, Esq.,

for the General Counsel.

Mark Hunt, Michael Oesterle, and Jennifer Sherman, Esqs.,

for the Respondent.

Joseph Pass, Esq.,

for the Charging Party.

DECISION

GEOFFREY CARTER, Administrative Law Judge. The General Counsel alleges that PG

Publishing Co., Inc. d/b/a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Respondent) violated the National Labor

Relations Act (the Act) by:failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the Newspaper

Guild of Pittsburgh/CWA Local 38061 (Union or Charging Party) since about March 11, 2019;

unilaterally implementing terms and conditions of employment on about July 27, 2020, when the

parties had not yet reached an overall good-faith impasse in negotiations for a successor

collective-bargaining agreement;and unlawfully surveilling employees in September and

October 2020, while they engaged in union activities, or creating the impression among

employees that their union activities were under surveillance. As explained below, I have found

that apart from a few limited exceptions, Respondent violated the Act as alleged.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case was tried in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on September 19–22 and October 12,

2022. The Union filed the unfair labor practice charges in this case on the following dates:

Case Filing Date Amendment Date(s)

06–CA–248017 September 11, 2019 April 7, 2021

06–CA–263791 July 29, 2020 March 9, 2021

06–CA–269346 November 20 , 2020 February 23, 2021,

June 22, 2021,

June 28, 2021, and

October 20, 2021

JD-05-23

2

On April 27, 2022, the General Counsel issued a consolidated complaint in which it

alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to

bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining

representative of employees in the bargaining unit. Specifically, the General Counsel alleged

Respondent:5

(a) by its overall conduct since about March 11, 2019, failed and refused to bargain in

good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the

bargaining unit;

10

(b) on about July 27, 2020, unilaterally implemented terms and conditions of employment

for employees in the bargaining unit without first bargaining with the Union to an overall

good-faith impasse for a successor collective-bargaining agreement, or alternatively (if it

is determined that the parties bargained to an overall good-faith impasse) implementing

terms and conditions of employment that were not reasonably comprehended by 15

Respondent’s pre-impasse proposals without affording the Union an opportunity to

bargain;and

(c) on about July 27, 2020, implementing a discretionary proposal concerning the

performance of bargaining unit work by non-Unit employees, and thereby retaining20

unilateral discretion over the performance of bargaining unit work by non-Unit

employees and undermining the status of the Union as the employees’ exclusive

collective-bargaining representative.

The General Counsel also alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by 25

interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in

Section 7 of the Act. Specifically, the General Counsel alleged that Respondent engaged in

surveillance of employees who were engaged in union activities and/or created an impression

among its employees that their union activities were under surveillance by taking pictures and/or

video recordingson September 25, October 24 and 31, 2020. Respondent filed a timely answer 30

denying the alleged violations in the consolidated complaint.

On the entire record,1including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and

after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Charging Party, and Respondent, I

make the following35

1The transcripts and exhibits in this case generally are accurate. During my review of the record,

however, I identified transcript corrections that are warranted. In addition, both the General Counsel and

Respondent proposed corrections to the transcripts. For the most part, the parties did not oppose each

other’s suggested corrections. For disputed proposed corrections and a handful of unopposed proposed

corrections, I allowed the transcriptsto stand unless I could confirm the correction through my memory of

the testimony and/or other information in the evidentiary record. The transcript corrections that I have

identified, along with proposed corrections that I have accepted, are set forth in Appendix B to this

decision. I have denied any requests for transcript corrections that do not appear in Appendix B.

JD-05-23

3

FINDINGS OF FACT2

I. JURISDICTION

5

At all material times Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation with an office and place of

business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has been engagedin the business of publishing the

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a print and electronic newspaper. Respondent annually derivedgross

revenues in excess of $200,000 and:held membership in and subscribed to various interstate

news services, including Associated Press; publishedvarious nationally syndicated features; and 10

advertisedvarious nationally sold products. During the same time period Respondent also

purchased and received products, goods, and materials at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania facility

that were valued in excess of $5,000 and came directly from points outside the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania. Respondent admits, and I find, that Respondent has at all material times been

an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 15

Respondent also admits, and I find, that the Union at all material times has been a labor

organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

20

A. Background

For several years, Respondent has recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-

bargaining representative of employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit:

25

All Editorial Department employees employed by Respondent at its facility currently

located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, excluding employees covered by other collective-

bargaining agreements, all publishers and associate publishers, Publisher and Editor-in-

Chief, Executive Editor, Editor of the Editorial Page, Managing Editor, Deputy

Managing Editor, Senior Assistant Managing Editor, Assistant Managing Editor, City 30

Editor, Sports Editor, Sunday Editor, Technology Systems Editor, Business Editor, Night

Operations Manager, Seen Editor, Associate Editor of Opinion Pages, Editorial

Cartoonist, Confidential Secretaries, professional employees, office clerical employees,

guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.

35

(Jt. Exh. 1.) Consistent with that recognition, Respondent and the Union have executed

successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was effective from

October 15, 2014, through March 31, 2017. (GC Exh. 2; see also Tr. 75–77.)

In contract negotiations between about 1992 and 2014, Respondent bargained with 40

representatives of several bargaining units3(collectively referred to as the “unity council”) about

2 Although I have included several citations in this decision to highlight particular testimony or

exhibits in the evidentiary record, I emphasize that my findings and conclusions are not based solely on

those specific citations, but rather are based on my review and consideration of the entire record for this

case.

3 In addition to the bargaining unit represented by the Union, other bargaining units included:

Advertising; Circulation and Distribution; Electricians; Finance; Machinists; Mailers (two units);