Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 27, 2020

19-CA-240187 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 27, 2020)

JD(SF)–18–20
Portland, Oregon
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.
d/b/a KOIN-TV
Respondent
and Case 19–CA–240187
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST
EMPLOYEES & TECHNICIANS, THE
BROADCASTING AND CABLE TELEVISION
WORKERS SECTOR OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 51, AFL‒CIO
Charging Party
Sarah C. Ingebritsen, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Charles W. Pautsch, Esq., for Respondent.
Anne I. Yen, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
AMITA BAMAN TRACY, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried based on a joint
motion and stipulation of facts I approved.
The National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians (NABET), the
Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America,
Local 51, AFL–CIO (the Union or the Charging Party) filed the original charge on April 24,
2019. The General Counsel issued the complaint on November 25, 2019. Nexstar Broadcasting,
Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV (Respondent) filed a timely answer denying all material charges.
The complaint alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act) by failing and refusing to provide the Union with requested information
relevant and necessary for the Union to discharge its duties. Specifically, Respondent refused to
provide the Union with information related to its proposal during negotiations for a successor
collective-bargaining agreement on reimbursement for dues checkoff processing costs.
JD(SF)–18–20
2
On the entire record, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel,
Respondent, and Charging Party,1 I make the following, relying on the parties’ stipulation of
facts,
5
FINDINGS OF FACTS
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent, an Oregon corporation with an office and place of10
business in Portland, Oregon, operates a television station (the facility).2 During the 12-month
period ending December 31, 2018, Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $100,000,
and purchased and received at the facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of Oregon. The parties admit and I find that Respondent has been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the 15
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Based on the foregoing, I find that this dispute affects commerce and that the National
Labor Relations Board (the Board) has jurisdiction of this case, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the
Act.20
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondent and the Union Bargain a Successor Agreement to the
Expired Collective-Bargaining Agreement25
At all material times until January 17, 2017, the Union has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Units3 employed by Media General KOIN-TV and, during that
1 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Exh.” for stipulated record exhibits;
“GC Br.” for the General Counsel’s brief; “CP Br.” for the Charging Party’s brief; and “R Br.”
for Respondent’s brief.
2 On or about January 17, 2017, Respondent purchased the business of LIN Television
Corporation, a Media General Company, d/b/a KOIN-TV (Media General KOIN-TV), and since
then has continued to operate the business of Media General KOIN-TV in basically unchanged
form, and has employed as a majority of its employees individuals who were previously
employees of Media General KOIN-TV. Respondent has continued as the employing entity and
is a successor to Media General KOIN-TV.
3 Within the meaning of Sec. 9(b) of the Act, the following description of employees, of
which there are approximately 45, comprise bargaining units (the Units) for the purposes of
collective bargaining:
The first, as certified by the National Labor Relations Board, consists of all
regular full-time and regular part-time engineers and production employees, but
excluding chief engineer, office clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, and all other employees of KOIN-TV.
JD(SF)–18–20
3
time, recognized as such representative by Media General KOIN-TV. This recognition was
embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was in effect
from July 29, 2015 to August 18, 2017, with the last extension having expired on September 8,
2017 (expired CBA) (Exh. D). The parties stipulated that based upon specific facts as well as
Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining 5
representative of the Units.
At all material times, Respondent and the Union were engaged in or were preparing to
engage in bargaining for a successor agreement to the expired CBA. Respondent and the Union
began bargaining for a successor agreement on June 21, 2017, where Respondent proposed to 10
delete the dues checkoff clause, found at Article 3.1 of the expired CBA. Respondent and the
Union met for a bargaining session on about December 14, 2018. During this session,
Respondent proposed that the Union pay an offset of $10 per member per month to cover
Respondent’s payroll processing of dues checkoff costs, and Respondent, by Vice President‒
General Manager Patrick Nevin (Nevin),4 stated that Respondent had a practice of charging other 15
unions set dollar amounts to cover dues checkoff costs in their respective collective-bargaining
agreements.
B. Timeline of Events Regarding the Union’s Information Request
20
Although the Union did not provide a counterproposal to the dues checkoff processing
costs between December 14, 2018 and April 23, 2019,5 it did request information from
Respondent related to its December 14, 2018 proposal.6 On December 18, 2018, by emailed
letter, Union President Carrie Biggs-Adams (Biggs-Adams) requested information from
Respondent related to its proposal for dues checkoff processing costs. In this letter, the Union 25
requested the following information:
1. A list of specific contracts, with broadcast call letters, union name and local
number, and copy of the current provision (with effective dates of the contract)
that contain provisions where the union reimburses Respondent for dues checkoff 30
practice.
2. The actual cost to Respondent for the dues checkoff practice at each of the
aforementioned broadcast stations, spelling out the costs and stations.
The second, as voluntarily recognized by the parties, consists of all regular full-
time and regular part-time news, creative services employees, and web producers,
but excluding news producers, IT employees, on-air talent (aka “performer”),
office clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all
other employees of KOIN-TV.
4 The parties stipulated, and I find that Vice President‒General Manager Patrick Nevin
(Nevin) is a supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act and/or agent
of Respondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act.
5 All dates hereinafter are in 2019, unless otherwise noted.
6 This proposal states, “Union will reimburse the company $10.00 per employee on a
monthly basis for services rendered by the company for dues checkoff practice” (Exh. E).
JD(SF)–18–20
4
3. The actual current cost to Respondent for dues checkoff processing at
Respondent. Please itemize the costs.
(Exh. E). The Union requested the above-listed information since Respondent contended during
bargaining that it has a practice of charging unions the amount of $10.00 per employee on a 5
monthly basis in its other union-represented locations (Exh. E). The Union requested the
response by January 2 to have enough time to review this information prior to the next scheduled
bargaining sessions of January 24 and 25 (Exh. E).
On January 3, by emailed letter, Nevin responded to the Union’s December 18, 201810
information request. Respondent failed to provide the requested information detailed in items 1
and 2, and provided a general, cursory response to the requested information detailed in item 3
(Exh. F). Respondent replied that items 1 and 2 of the requested information was not relevant
and necessary as it called for information outside the bargaining unit, did not involve the terms
and conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees, and sought proprietary confidential 15
information (Exh. F). As for item 3, Respondent opined that it spends 4 to 5 hours per pay
period assembling and distributing dues check off processing information (Exh. F). Respondent
did not offer any accommodation for items 1 and 2.
C. Bargaining Sessions Between Respondent and the Union Concerning 20
Dues Checkoff Processing
On January 24, the parties resumed bargaining for the successor agreement to the expired
CBA. During this bargaining session, Respondent’s negotiators informed Biggs-Adams that
several other NABET-represented bargaining units agreed to a $50 per month fee to process dues 25
deduction.
On April 23, Respondent revised its December 18, 2018 dues checkoff processing
proposal.7 Respondent reiterated that other NABET locals had agreed to similar processing fees
in other locations. Respondent’s negotiator Business Administrator Casey Wenger (Wenger)830
spoke to the Union about the time it takes him to process payroll, including dues checkoff, due to
the varying hours, pay, other cash compensation and the variability of dues amounts monthly
based on gross compensation percentages.
7 The April 23 proposal offered by Respondent states, in relevant part:
Section 3.1 The Company shall make a check-off of union dues from each
paycheck provided that the Company shall receive from the employee concerned
a written assignment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Company
assumes no financial obligation arising out of the provisions of this article. The
Union will pay the Company fifty dollars ($50.00) per month for the processing
of dues.
8 The parties stipulated, and I find that Business Administrator Casey Wenger (Wenger) is a
supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act and/or agent of
Respondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act.
JD(SF)–18–20
5
During bargaining sessions held on June 27 and October 7, the Union reiterated its
December 18, 2018, request for information. Wenger reiterated that he spent approximately 5
hours per pay period to process payroll, including the dues checkoff, and that NABET locals
agreed to the $50.00 processing fee in at least two other locations. These relevant collective-
bargaining agreements, as requested in item 1 of the December 18, 2018, information request, 5
were never provided to the Union. The Union informed Respondent that after conducting its
own research, it found only one location in which a NABET local agreed to a dues checkoff
processing fee; the Union also explained why that NABET local’s situation differed from the
situation involving the Union and Respondent, including the fact that the dues checkoff
processing fee at that local was contingent on the bank being unable to process dues checkoff via 10
automatic debit.
On August 2, Respondent unilaterally discontinued dues checkoff. As of the date of the
stipulated facts, Respondent and the Union have not reached a successor agreement to the
expired CBA.15
ISSUE PRESENTED
The parties stipulated that this case presents the following issue:
20
Whether the information requested by the Union on December 18, 2018 was
relevant and necessary for the Union to discharge its duties as the collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent’s employees in the Units and, if so,
whether Respondent’s failure and/or refusal to fully respond to that information
request since on or about January 3 violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.25
DISCUSSION
The General Counsel argues that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by failing to provide the Union information it requested in connection to bargaining a successor 30
agreement to the expired CBA on behalf of employees in the Units. Specifically, the requested
information affects the Union’s ability as to how to evaluate Respondent’s proposal regarding
dues checkoff processing as well as how to formulate counterproposals. The General Counsel
argues that Respondent’s initial proposal to the Union regarding the dues checkoff process
“opened the door” as to the relevance of Respondent’s similar process with other locals as well 35
as the related collective-bargaining agreements. This information affects the Union’s ability to
bargain. The General Counsel further argues that Respondent’s generalized response to the
information requested is an insufficient basis on which to determine the actual costs incurred by
Respondent or how Respondent’s proposal should be evaluated. Moreover, according to the
General Counsel, Respondent’s claim of proprietary and confidential information fails as 40
JD(SF)–18–20
6
Respondent justified its contract proposal with the claim that other locals have agreed to such
terms. Finally, it is argued, Respondent failed to offer any accommodations for information
claimed to be confidential.9
Respondent argues that the Union failed to prove relevance regarding items 1 and 2 (R 5
Br. at 12‒16). Furthermore, Respondent argues that it provided the information sought in item 3
(R Br. at 16‒18).
LEGAL STANDARD
Each party to a bargaining relationship is required by Section 8(a)(5) of the Act to 10
bargain in good faith. An employer’s duty to bargain includes a general duty to provide
information needed by the bargaining representative to assess claims made by the employer
relevant to contract negotiations as well as administration of the contract. In addition, an
employer is required to furnish the union representing its employees with information that is
relevant to the union in the performance of its collective-bargaining duties. Piggly Wiggly 15
Midwest, LLC, 357 NLRB 2344, 2355 (2012); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–
436 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956).
Generally, a union’s request for information pertaining to employees in the bargaining
unit is presumptively relevant and an employer must provide the information. CVS Albany, LLC, 20
364 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 2 (2016). However, where the information requested concerns
non-unit employees, the union bears the burden of establishing relevancy. Disneyland Park, 350
NLRB 1256 (2007); Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 323 NLRB 1182, 1186 (1997). A union
satisfies its burden to do so, if it demonstrates either “a reasonable belief, supported by objective
evidence, that the requested information is relevant,”10 or “a ‘probability that the desired 25
information was relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory
duties and responsibilities.’”11 The required showing is subject to a liberal, “discovery-type
standard” and is not an exceptionally heavy one. DirectSat USA, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 40, slip
op. 1, fn. 2 (2018). “The union’s explanation of relevance must be made with some precision;
and a generalized, conclusory explanation is insufficient to trigger an obligation to supply 30
information.” Disneyland Park, supra at 1258, fn. 5 (2007). The determination of relevance
“depends on the factual circumstances of each particular case.” San Diego Newspaper Guild,
Local No. 95 v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863, 867 (9th Cir. 1977). Specific to the stipulated facts here,
an employer’s duty to bargain includes a general duty to provide information by the bargaining
representative to assess claims made by the employer relevant to contract negotiations. Caldwell 35
Mfg. Co., 346 NLRB 1159 (2006) (citing NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., supra at 152‒153 (“Good-
faith bargaining necessarily requires that claims made by either bargainer should be honest
claims. . . . If such an argument is important enough to present in the give and take of
bargaining, it is important enough to require some sort of proof of its accuracy. And it would
9 The Union concurs with the General Counsel’s arguments, adding that Respondent’s
complaints about the time it takes to calculate employees’ hours, wages, and overtime pay are
irrelevant as Respondent must perform these calculations to process payroll regardless of dues
checkoff.
10 Disneyland Park, supra at 1257–1258.
11 Kraft Foods North America, Inc., 355 NLRB 753, 754 (2010) (quoting NLRB v. Acme
Industrial Co., supra at 437).
JD(SF)–18–20
7
certainly not be farfetched for a trier of fact to reach the conclusion that bargaining lacks good
faith when an employer mechanically repeats a claim . . . without making the slightest effort to
substantiate the claim.”).
Respondent Failed to Provide Relevant and Necessary Information to the Union in the 5
Performance of Its Duties as the Collective-Bargaining Representative of Employees in the Units
Applying the foregoing standards, I find that the Union has satisfied its burden by
showing that the desired information was relevant, and that it would be of use to the Union in
carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities. Again, the Union’s burden is “not an 10
exceptionally heavy one.” SBC Midwest, 346 NLRB 62, 64 (2005). In this matter, during the
parties’ negotiations for a successor collective-bargaining agreement, Respondent proposed that
the Union pay an offset per month for Respondent’s payroll processing costs for the dues
checkoff. Respondent justified its proposal by explaining that this monthly monetary amount
had been agreed to by other unions. Only 4 days later, the Union requested information as to the 15
specific contracts that contain the dues checkoff practice proposed by Respondent, along with
actual costs to Respondent for dues checkoff at the other locals as well as at the facility.
Items 1 and 2 of the information request concern subjects not directly related to the
bargaining unit, and thus, the Union must establish relevance. The Union established relevance 20
by repeatedly explaining that it sought the other collective-bargaining agreements with similar
provisions as proposed by Respondent to formulate its own counterproposal. Even during
subsequent bargaining sessions, the Union requested this information as its own research did not
match what Respondent had conveyed during the bargaining sessions. However, Respondent
insisted that other NABET locals agreed to similar processes proposed by Respondent but25
continued to refuse to provide information requested at items 1 and 2, claiming proprietary
confidential information. In this instance, the information is relevant to assist the Union in
assessing the accuracy of Respondent’s proposals and developing its own counterproposals. The
Union’s request focused directly on Respondent’s bargaining proposal regarding reimbursement
for dues checkoff processing. “Information is relevant under Caldwell only if the union is 30
seeking ‘specific information to evaluate the accuracy of the Respondent’s specific claims and to
respond appropriately with counterproposals.’” Arlington Metals Corp., 368 NLRB No. 74, slip
op. at 3 (2019) (quoting Caldwell, supra at 1160).12 Item 3 directly concerns information related
to the bargaining unit, and is therefore presumptively relevant. Rather than providing specific
information, Respondent provided estimates from Wenger to the Union. Again, the Union has 35
established relevance since Respondent sought to receive a fee for processing the dues checkoff.
The Union justifiably sought to learn the exact, itemized cost to Respondent currently to process
dues. Thus, the Union has proven that items 1, 2 and 3 are relevant and necessary.

Despite the Union proving relevance for the requested information, the Board is required 40
to balance a union’s need for information against any “legitimate and substantial” confidentiality
12 Respondent cites to a decision issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mara-Louise
Anzalone where Respondent filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Union for refusing
to provide requested information (R Br. at 14‒15). 2020 WL 1156844 (March 10, 2020).
However, this decision is non-binding as no exceptions were filed to the ALJ’s decision. See
Colorado Symphony Assoc., 366 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 1 fn. 3 (2018).
JD(SF)–18–20
8
interest established by the employer. Pennsylvania Power Co., 301 NLRB 1104, 1105–1106
(1991) (citing Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979)). Under those
circumstances, the employer has a duty to seek to bargain toward an accommodation between the
union’s information needs and the employer’s justified interests. Id. at 1105–1106. Respondent
claims that it has no obligation to provide the information sought in items 1 and 2, even if the 5
Union proves relevance, due to proprietary confidential information. It is unclear in this matter
how the information requested by the Union is confidential and proprietary as Respondent claims
that its proposed dues check off processing cost provision is found in other collective-bargaining
agreements it negotiated with other labor organizations; there is no record evidence that these
collective-bargaining agreements are actually treated by Respondent as confidential. In any 10
event, even if Respondent had proven a “legitimate and substantial” confidentiality interest in
these documents, this defense could not prevail, because Respondent failed to offer to engage in
bargaining for an accommodation.
For these reasons, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it failed
and refused since December 18, 2018 to list the collective-bargaining agreements, with broadcast 15
call letters, union name and local number and copies of the current provisions with effective
contract dates; the actual costs to Respondent for dues checkoff practice at each of those locals,
and the actual current costs, itemized, to Respondent for dues checkoff practice at the facility;
Respondent failed to offer to bargain over an accommodation to address its confidentiality
concerns. 20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV (Respondent) is, and has been at all times
material, an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the 25
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, the Broadcasting and
Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, Local 51, AFL–
CIO (Charging Party or the Union) is, has been at all times material, a labor organization within 30
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and represents the following bargaining units,
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
The first, as certified by the National Labor Relations Board, consists of all
regular full-time and regular part-time engineers and production employees, but 35
excluding chief engineer, office clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, and all other employees of KOIN-TV.
The second, as voluntarily recognized by the parties, consists of all regular full-
time and regular part-time news, creative services employees, and web producers, 40
but excluding news producers, IT employees, on-air talent (aka “performer”),
office clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all
other employees of KOIN-TV.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to 45
provide the Union with information requested since December 18, 2018, which was necessary
and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective-bargaining representative
JD(SF)–18–20
9
of the unit employees, or to bargain in good faith with the Union in an attempt to reach an
accommodation of interests in response to the Union’s request for relevant information that
Respondent considers confidential.
4. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 5
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing 10
and refusing to furnish the Union with the information requested, and thereby engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.13 Respondent is ordered to provide the
following information to the Union:
15
1. A list of specific contracts, with broadcast call letters, union name and local
number, and copy of the current provision (with effective dates of the contract)
that contain provisions where the union reimburses Respondent for dues checkoff
practice.
2. The actual cost to Respondent for the dues checkoff practice at each of the 20
aforementioned broadcast stations, spelling out the costs and stations.
3. The actual current cost to Respondent for dues checkoff processing at
Respondent. Please itemize the costs.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire 25
record, I issue the following recommended14
ORDER
Respondent, Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., d/b/a KOIN-TV, Portland, Oregon, its officers, 30
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish National Association of Broadcast Employees & 35
Technicians, the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications
Workers of America, Local 51, AFL–CIO with information requested since December 18, 2018,
that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent’s unit employees, or refusing to bargain in good faith
13 Charging Party requests numerous additional remedies, including a reading of the notice,
which I decline to recommend (CP Br. at 9‒10). Such remedies are not appropriate or justified
in this matter.
14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
JD(SF)–18–20
10
with the Union in an attempt to reach an accommodation of interests in response to the Union’s
request for relevant information that Respondent considers confidential.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.5
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union, in a timely manner, the information requested since December
18, 2018, or bargain in good faith with the Union to reach an accommodation of interests in 10
response to the Union’s request for relevant information that Respondent considers confidential,
described as follows:
1. A list of specific contracts, with broadcast call letters, union name and local
number, and copy of the current provision (with effective dates of the contract) 15
that contain provisions where the union reimburses Respondent for dues checkoff
practice.
2. The actual cost to Respondent for the dues checkoff practice at each of the
aforementioned broadcast stations, spelling out the costs and stations.
3. The actual current cost to Respondent for dues checkoff processing at 20
Respondent. Please itemize the costs.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Portland, Oregon,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”15 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized 25
representative, shall be posted by Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps 30
shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. If, during the pendency of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, Respondent shall duplicate and
15 If the facility is open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notices
must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facility is closed due to the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the notices must be posted within 14 days
after the facility reopens and a substantial complement of employees have returned to work, and
the notices may not be posted until a substantial complement of employees have returned to
work. Any delay in the physical posting of paper notices also applies to the electronic
distribution of the notice if Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by
electronic means. Danbury Ambulance Service, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 68, slip op. 4 (2020).
If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
each of the notices referenced herein reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(SF)–18–20
11
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current and former employees employed by
Respondent at any time since December 18, 2018.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that 5
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 27, 2020
10
____________________
Amita Baman Tracy
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the National Association of Broadcast Employees &
Technicians, the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications
Workers of America, Local 51, AFL–CIO (the Union) with information requested since
December 18, 2018, which is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its duties as
the collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the following bargaining units:
The first, as certified by the National Labor Relations Board, consists of all
regular full-time and regular part-time engineers and production employees, but
excluding chief engineer, office clericals, professionals, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, and all other employees of KOIN-TV.
The second, as voluntarily recognized by the parties, consists of all regular full-
time and regular part-time news, creative services employees, and web producers,
but excluding news producers, IT employees, on-air talent (aka “performer”),
office clericals, professionals, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act and
all other employees of KOIN-TV.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise
of your rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, in a timely manner, furnish the Union with the information requested since December
18, 2018, or will bargain in good faith with the Union to reach an accommodation of interests in
response to the Union’s request for the following relevant information that Respondent considers
confidential:
1. A list of specific contracts, with broadcast call letters, union name and local
number, and copy of the current provision (with effective dates of the contract)
that contain provisions where the union reimburses Respondent for dues checkoff
practice.
JD(SF)–18–20
2. The actual cost to Respondent for the dues checkoff practice at each of the
aforementioned broadcast stations, spelling out the costs and stations.
3. The actual current cost to Respondent for dues checkoff processing at
Respondent. Please itemize the costs.
WE WILL bargain in good faith with the Union and timely provide it with information that is
relevant and necessary to its role as your bargaining representative.
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING INC., D/B/A KOIN-TV
(Respondent)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
National Labor Relations Board, Subregion 36
1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Suite 605
Portland, Oregon 97204-2170
(503) 326-3085, Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-240187 or
by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (206) 220-6284.