Day 2 Breaking news: In a two-hour bargaining session today the Journal rejected a Guild proposal and made none of its own. The trial resumed at 1 p.m. Story here by 8 p.m.

Day 1 - Final edition

Journal, Guild to talk today
But trial will resume at 1 p.m. if no progress is made

The decision to resume bargaining -- the 20th session and the first since Nov. 14 -- came after Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol asked the Journal and the Guild for an update on negotiations, shortly before the trial began.

Elizabeth Vorro, the attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that brought the charges against the Journal, explained that the Journal made an offer last week, but then "declined the union's invitation to negotiate."

Richard A. Perras, the Journal's lawyer, said that the offer was "structured to evoke acceptance or rejection," and "it was neither accepted nor rejected."

After receiving the company's offer last Wednesday, the Guild had proposed to postpone the trial and negotiate around the clock for two days. In a letter to the Guild, the company described this request for talks as a "rejection of our offer" and refused to meet. But yesterday, after a brief, private conference with the judge, the Journal agreed to negotiate tomorrow morning.

Then, the hearing began. In opening arguments, Vorro said that the company improperly declared impasse and imposed some -- but not all -- of its contract proposal. A legal impasse -- when two sides after extensive good-faith negotiation cannot reach agreement -- empowers a company to unilaterally impose terms of employment.

But Vorro said there was no impasse. Instead, the company delayed providing the Guild with information it needed to make counterproposals, she said.

The company had already implemented unilateral changes in health benefits before declaring impasse, she noted. Also, Vorro told the judge, the Journal did not implement its entire contract proposal -- no raises were given, for example -- but imposed various pieces of it at different times. Some of the terms imposed were never even the subject of negotiations, she said.

"The company has engaged in a pattern of bad-faith bargaining,'' Vorro said. "The company has barely moved since bargaining began in 1999.

"The company has given the Guild a series of take-it-or-leave-it offers,'' she concluded, the most recent of which came just last week.

In his opening statement, Perras said that impasse did occur.

``The Guild called an up-or-down membership vote on the entire company proposal,'' Perras said, referring to the February 2000 vote at which Guild members overwhelmingly rejected the company's contract proposal. "Impasse was reached when the Guild called that vote."

Judge Kocol asked Perras how an impasse on Feb. 4 would allow the company to impose conditions on Jan. 1. Perras then said, "We believe there was an impasse on Dec. 31." He said the company made unilateral changes in benefits and working conditions as a "defensive" move. Otherwise, he said, the company would have suffered "economic liabilities from which it would never have recovered.''

Noting that company received six information requests in one day, Perras said, "The Guild adopted a tactic of burying, or trying to bury, the company with information requests.''

Perras said that many of the allegations in the NLRB complaint are not as significant as they sound. One involves a dispute over the hiring of an extra minority intern in the News Department -- a dispute that was eventually resolved but that still remains the subject of an unfair-labor-practice complaint. Another, he told the judge, involves a decision to require porters to water plants.

"Once the Guild did not get the contract it wanted," Perras said, "in additional to piling on information requests, it filed ULP charges in a very rapid fashion. …

"The Guild is using this proceeding … as form of mediation, something in lieu of arbitration … to drive us into an overall contract settlement."

Guild Administrator Tim Schick took the witness stand for the most the day. Under questioning from Vorro, he provided a history of negotiations.

The 46-count complaint that the NLRB brought against the Journal stems from a 2½-year dispute with the Guild, whose last contract expired Dec. 31, 1999. Guild leaders, who have successfully negotiated contracts with previous management, believe the Journal's new leadership intends to cripple or destroy the union through a long-term strategy of delays, litigation and bad-faith bargaining.

Daily reports on the trial will be posted here on www.journalontrial.org. The Web site also has directions and a map to Pawtucket City Hall, 137 Roosevelt Ave. The trial starts at 11 a.m. on Monday and at 9 a.m. on the other days. Here's how to get there:

From Providence and points south: Take Rte. 95 north to School Street exit. Turn left at bottom of ramp onto School Street. Pass Apex on the left and go through one light (one-way right) to next light, bearing left. Go to light at Slater Mill and Visitors Center, making a right onto Roosevelt Avenue. City Hall will be on your right, with parking on left. Trial is on third floor.

From Boston and points north: Take Rte. 95 south into Rhode Island. Take exit 29, Downtown Pawtucket. At end of ramp, merge onto Broadway. Go about two-tenths of a mile and turn right onto Exchange Street. Turn left on Roosevelt Avenue. City Hall will be on your left, with parking on the right. Trial is on the third floor.

Felice J. Freyer is the Providence Journal's award-winning medical writer. She joined the paper in 1982 and was assigned to the medical beat in 1989. A member of the Guild's Executive Committee since 1994, she has taken a leave from the newspaper to cover the trial.

There is much more information about the dispute at the Guild's main website, www.riguild.org. E-mail the Guild at png@riguild.org. The union's mailing address is: The Providence Newspaper Guild, 270 Westminster St., Providence, RI 02903. Telephone: (401) 421-9466. FAX: (401) 421-9495.