Deep Background

The Dayton Newspaper Guild has good news to report: We won on the mileage issue.

The National Labor Relations Board has found that the Company violated federal law when it did not raise our rate to 32 cents per mile on July 1, 2008. We learned of the decision late last week. The Company has been ordered to pay employees the difference - plus interest.

At issue is section 4.01 of the posted work conditions, which absolutely could not be clearer. It states:

“Employees will be reimbursed for mileage at the rate of 29 cents per mile, or the rate generally offered to other COP newsroom employees if that rate is higher than 29 cpm.”

It’s pretty easy to understand, and it should be noted that this was the Company’s language.

When the Company’s in-house counsel informed Guild President Lou Grieco that the Company was raising the rate for the other newsrooms, he offered to bargain with the union. Grieco pointed out that, under the posted conditions, there was nothing to bargain about.

Instead of acknowledging the obvious, and honoring the provision it posted, the Company chose to fight. The Guild was forced to file an Unfair Labor Practice.

In defending the Company, the attorneys argued that this posted condition established a “waiver of Guild rights” to negotiate any proposed changes to the posted conditions, and therefore was unenforceable by the company.

So the Company’s position was: by denying Guild employees the mileage change, the Company was defending Guild members’ union rights to negotiate. It was preventing a unilateral change to working conditions by making a unilateral change to working conditions. This is Alice in Wonderland meets 1984.

Of course, what really happened was that the Company was trying to force the Guild to give more concessions to obtain a change to which the members were already legally entitled. While it is true that the company cannot enforce a posted condition that waives the Guild’s right to negotiate over discretionary changes being made by the company, there was nothing discretionary about this work rule. When the company changed its mileage rate for the non-union people, this rule required them to change it for the Guild people. The company is limited by this rule in what it can do and cannot do to the mileage rate as it relates to the Guild employees.

So now the Company must pay the difference plus interest. Add attorneys’ fees - and the Company used an expensive law firm for this case, so we’re guessing the bill will be thousands - and you’re talking real money. For what? Three cents a mile.

If the Company is going to complain about financial challenges and cite the need for staff reductions, then the litigate-at-all-cost strategy is a luxury it can no longer afford. There’s an easier and cheaper way: follow the posted conditions. Better still, complete the contract with a Guild, including a fair, impartial arbitration provision. Management needs to reconsider the cost vs. benefit of following specious, dubious legal arguments - including those about arbitration. In fact, if the mileage issue had been a grievance situation that had gone through the normal arbitration process, it probably would have been resolved quicker and certainly would have been less costly (for one thing, arbitrators generally don’t assign interest charges).

Speaking of attorneys’ fees, the DNG executive board thanks the leadership of The Newspaper Guild-Communications Workers of America. Our local got top-flight legal representation and didn’t pay a dime, because our international leadership, both TNG and CWA, approved our request for funding from the legal defense fund. It’s a huge fund, and it goes without saying: other people’s dues funded it. We are very grateful. We also thank the NLRB for taking this case to complaint and following through with its legal services in the hearing that the company demanded (which added even more to the legal costs incurred).

A lot has changed since last summer. Editorial management and Guild leadership showed, through last fall’s negotiated severance agreements, that we can work together in ways that help the Company meet its goals while protecting the basic rights of the employees. New trust has been building between the Guild and Editorial management, which is better for everyone. But while Guild leadership welcomes the cooperation, we remain committed to protecting the rights of our members.

That includes obtaining an enforceable contract with meaningful arbitration rights. As long as we’re forced to go through needless, pointless, expensive legal battles like this one, we don’t see why we shouldn’t insist on a contract with a full grievance procedure, including arbitration before a neutral party empowered to do more than just rubber-stamp any management decision.