Day 7 - Final edition

By Felice J. Freyer

3.05.02 • 6:20 p.m.
PAWTUCKET, R.I. -- The National Labor Relations Board today withdrew its allegation that the Providence Journal had farmed out advertising-sales work that belonged to bargaining-unit members.

The action came just before the trial's conclusion at 11:05 a.m., one week and one day after it began. A verdict is not expected for months.

The advertising-sales complaint concerned a special business section in which all the ads were sold by a contractor. NLRB lawyer Elizabeth Vorro asked the judge to drop the complaint based on the testimony of Maura P. Brodeur, advertising director.

Brodeur testified yesterday that the Journal routinely accepted ads that had been sold and prepared by advertising agencies. She described the special business section as no different from an agency-produced ad. She also said that advertising-sales representatives received credits toward their incentive payments for the ads sold in the special section.

The removal of that complaint reduces to 44 the number of allegations against the Journal in its two-and-a-half-year dispute with the Providence Newspaper Guild.

McDonough testifies

Today's only witness was Thomas J. McDonough, human resources director, who testified in response to the NLRB's allegations that the Journal failed to provide, or delayed unreasonably in providing, information that the union was entitled to receive.

McDonough said that he was overwhelmed with information requests from the Guild just as he was picking up the reins from retiring human resources director R. Barrie Schmitt.

"Did you ever ask the union's indulgence, saying you were very busy?" Vorro asked on cross-examination.

"No," McDonough said.

"You simply ignored the request," Vorro said.

"Correct," McDonough replied.

Richard A. Perras, the Journal's lawyer, asserted that the contract did not require weekly reports on such matters as the use of irregular extras (part-time employees used to fill vacancies on an ad hoc basis), even though the Journal had provided them until 2000.

But when Vorro asked McDonough for his understanding of the contract's reporting requirements, he said: "My understanding is that [irregular extras] should be reported weekly."

The NLRB, with some 200 exhibits and five witnesses, presented a week's worth of evidence.

The Journal compressed its defense into one day's testimony from eight witnesses, and about 30 documents. Additionally there were about 50 exhibits submitted jointly by both sides. For the allegations of bad-faith bargaining and improper imposition of contract terms, the Journal presented no defense at all but let the bargaining record speak for itself.

Delays

Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol gave lawyers for both sides until April 9 to file briefs, but both sides indicated that they may ask for an extension.

Additionally, another issue may delay the ruling. The NLRB is investigating 17 additional unfair-labor-practice allegations from the Guild. The board's lawyers asked the Journal to allow those new charges, if they are eventually filed, to be heard in a separate hearing -- as typically happens in such cases. But the company refused.

As a result, if the NLRB pursues the charges, the hearing will have to be reopened. The same judge would have to return to Rhode Island for another hearing on the new charges, and would not rule on the 44 charges until the new ones are heard. The second hearing, if it occurs, can probably be arranged by early fall, with a ruling possible by the end of the year, said Guild Administrator Tim Schick.

Asked why the Guild didn't delay filing new charges until after the hearing, Schick noted that some date to last June, and that the Guild has held off from filing new charges since November so as not to jeopardize the trial, which has been delayed several times. But the Guild can't wait forever, because the law requires that complaints be filed within six months of a violation.

The new charges involve the transfer of reporter Karen Ziner to nightside; the pulling of 2002 wage proposal off the table; the company's alleged refusal to provide information on wages, payroll, medical leaves and 401k; staffing levels and reassignments in the aftermath of the buyouts; and changes in leaves-of-absence that resulted in the discharge of two employees, among other things.

Why not withdraw the charges to avoid further delay? Schick acknowledged that it's frustrating that the Journal refused to agree to a separate hearing, as most companies do. But he said the Guild can't now back down on important issues to save a few months in a years-long struggle.

"Should we abandon the people who've been fired by the company?" he said. "Should we abandon claims related to the company's more recent tactics in bargaining? It's sort of a catch-22 but pursuing the charges is preferable to the alternative. Stretching things out is preferable to abandoning important issues."

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.