Richmond Times-Dispatch

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 2003

338 N.L.R.B. 873 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH 873
Media General Operations, Inc. d/b/a Richmond
Times-Dispatch and International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO.
Case 5–CA–29619
March 28, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respon-
dent seeks to contest the Union’s certification as bargain-
ing representative in the underlying representation pro-
ceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed on April 2, 2001, the
Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued the complaint on April 16, 2001, alleging
that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act by refusing the Union’s request to bargain
following the Union’s certification in Case 5–RC–15077.
(Official notice is taken of the “record” in the representa-
tion proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel,
265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer
admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in
the complaint.
On May 11, 2001, the Acting General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 16, 2001, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. The Respondent filed a response
to the Notice to Show Cause.
In addition, on June 6, 2001, the Respondent filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment in reply to the General
Counsel’s motion. The General Counsel filed an opposi-
tion to the Respondent’s motion on June 22, 2001. The
Respondent then filed a reply in support of its motion on
June 28, 2001, and the General Counsel filed a response
to the Respondent’s reply on July 16, 2001.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent attacks the validity of the
certification on the basis of its objections to the election
in the representation proceeding.1

1 The Respondent’s answer also raises as an affirmative defense the
argument that the instant complaint must be dismissed because it failed
to set a time and place for a hearing within 5 days after its issuance.
The Respondent raised this same contention in its motion to dismiss
complaint for noncompliance with the Statute that it filed with the
Board on April 27, 2001. In an unpublished Order dated May 23, 2001,
the Board denied the Respondent’s motion to dismiss as lacking in
merit. The Board found that the absence of a notice of hearing was not
prejudicial, stating: “At this time, it is not clear that there will be issues
of fact warranting a hearing.” For the reasons set forth infra, we now
find that a hearing is not warranted in this proceeding because there are
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad-
duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).2
In its reply Motion for Summary Judgment, the Re-
spondent contends that it cannot be found to have vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act because the certi-
fied Union, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO (IAM or International
Union or the Union) has never made a request to bargain
of the Respondent.3 The Respondent argues that the only
demand to bargain addressed to the Respondent has been
made by Richmond Lodge No. 10 of the IAM (Lodge
10), which is a separate and distinct entity from IAM and
is not the certified bargaining representative. The
Respondent asserts that it has never been under a duty to
bargain with Lodge 10, and because a certified bargain-
ing representative has made no demand to bargain, the
Respondent cannot be found to have unlawfully refused
to bargain in this proceeding. For the reasons set forth
below, we reject the Respondent’s contention and find
that it has failed to raise any material factual issue war-
ranting a hearing regarding whether a valid bargaining
demand has been made.
The undisputed facts show that by a letter dated Febru-
ary 15, 2001, a business representative for Lodge 10 re-
quested the Respondent to provide information and to
propose dates for bargaining “relative to the IAM bar-
gaining unit.” By letter to Lodge 10 dated March 13,
2001, the Respondent stated that “. . . in response to your
letter dated February 15, 2001 . . . [p]lease be advised . . .
that the Richmond-Times Dispatch declines to recognize
or bargain with your union.” On April 2, 2001, the certi-
fied International Union filed the instant unfair labor
practice charge, alleging, inter alia, as follows:

no material facts in dispute. Accordingly, we again conclude that the
Respondent was not prejudiced by the Region’s failure to state a time
and place for a hearing.
2 Chairman Battista and Member Schaumber did not participate in
the underlying representation proceeding. However, they agree that the
Respondent has not cited any new evidence or special circumstances
warranting a hearing in this proceeding and that summary judgment is
appropriate.
3 The Respondent’s answer also denies that the Union requested bar-
gaining and that it refused this request.
338 NLRB No. 126
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 874
Since on or about March 13, 2001, and at all times
thereafter, the Employer . . . has refused to bargain in
good faith with the International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO, a labor
organization chosen by a majority of its employees in
an appropriate unit, for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining . . . .

The NLRB conducted an election that resulted in the
Petitioner receiving a majority of the vote and . . . the
NLRB issued a Certification of Representative on
January 24, 2001. On February 15, 2001, the Petitioner
requested negotiations begin (Enclosure 1) and the
Employer declined our request on March 13, 2001 (En-
closure 2).
Based on the foregoing, we reject the Respondent’s
contention that the International Union never made a
bargaining demand. We find that even if the February
15, 2001 letter was not, in itself, a sufficient demand by
the International Union, the refusal-to-bargain charge
filed by the International Union on April 2, 2001, which
referred to that letter, clarified any ambiguity as to which
entity was requesting bargaining. Thus, as stated above,
IAM’s charge clearly alleged that on February 15, 2001,
the date of the Lodge 10 letter, negotiations were re-
quested and that on March 13, 2001, the Respondent
denied “our request.” Therefore, we find that the charge,
together with the letter, constituted a valid demand for
bargaining by the International Union. See Parkview
Manor, 321 NLRB 477 (1996) (finding that unfair labor
practice charge filed by certified local, together with let-
ter sent by affiliated labor organization, constituted valid
demand for bargaining), citing Williams Enterprises, 312
NLRB 937, 938–939 (1993), enfd. 50 F.3d 1280 (4th Cir.
1995).4
Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, deny the Respondent’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, and will order the Respondent to
bargain with the Union.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following

4 Newell Porcelain Co., 307 NLRB 877 (1992), petition for review
denied sub nom. Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 986 F.2d 70 (4th Cir.
1993), relied on by the Respondent, is distinguishable. In Newell Por-
celain, a company obligated to bargain with a newly-certified union
made a good faith, albeit unsuccessful, effort during negotiations to
ascertain that it was in fact negotiating with that union, and was held
justified in suspending negotiations pending clarification of the identity
of the party with which it was negotiating. By contrast, the Respondent
here made no attempt to clarify the asserted ambiguity and ascertain the
relationship between Lodge 10 and the International Union.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation,
with an office and place of business in Mechanicsville,
Virginia, has been engaged in the publication of the
Richmond Times-Dispatch, a daily newspaper. During
the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint,
the Respondent, in conducting its business operations
described above, derived gross revenues in excess of
$200,000, subscribed to various interstate news services,
including the Associated Press, and advertised various
nationally sold products valued in excess of $5000 di-
rectly from points outside the Commonwealth of Vir-
ginia. We find that the Respondent is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held September 22, 2000, the
Union was certified on January 24, 2001, as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time maintenance ma-
chinists, HVAC technicians, electro mechanical techni-
cians, electronic technicians, maintenance utility work-
ers, maintenance mechanics, electrical technicians and
facilities systems technicians employed by the Em-
ployer at its Hanover County, Mechanicsville, VA fa-
cility; but excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, professional and managerial employees,
watchmen and guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative
under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Since April 2, 2001, the Union has requested the Re-
spondent to bargain, and the Respondent has refused.
We find that this refusal constitutes an unlawful refusal
to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after April 2, 2001, to bargain with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of employees in the appropriate unit, the Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH 875
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist, to bargain on request with the Union, and, if an
understanding is reached, to embody the understanding
in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by the law, we shall construe the initial period of the cer-
tification as beginning the date the Respondent begins to
bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB
226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert.
denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Co.,
149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th
Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Media General Operations, Inc. d/b/a Rich-
mond Times-Dispatch, Mechanicsville, Virginia, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appro-
priate unit on terms and conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody the understanding
in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time maintenance ma-
chinists, HVAC technicians, electro mechanical techni-
cians, electronic technicians, maintenance utility work-
ers, maintenance mechanics, electrical technicians and
facilities systems technicians employed by the Em-
ployer at its Hanover County, Mechanicsville, VA fa-
cility; but excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, professional and managerial employees,
watchmen and guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Mechanicsville, Virginia, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
5, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facil-
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since April 2,
2001.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.

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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–
CIO as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit.

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 876
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put
in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the bar-
gaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time maintenance ma-
chinists, HVAC technicians, electro mechanical techni-
cians, electronic technicians, maintenance utility work-
ers, maintenance mechanics, electrical technicians and
facilities systems technicians employed by us at our
Hanover County, Mechanicsville, VA facility; but ex-
cluding all other employees, office clerical employees,
professional and managerial employees, watchmen and
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
MEDIA GENERAL OPERATIONS, INC. D/B/A
RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH