Amphlett Printing Company,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 86 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amphlett Printing Company and San Francisco-
Oakland Newspaper Guild, Local 52, the News-
paper Guild, AFL-CIO. Case 20-CA-12016
September 21, 1981
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On August 25, 1978, the Board issued its Deci-
sion and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,'
together with its Decision in Times-Herald, Inc.,2
another of four related cases,3 wherein the Board
concluded that the Respondents had violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to pro-
vide the Charging Party San Francisco-Oakland
Newspaper Guild, Local 52 (hereinafter the Guild
or the Union), with information pertaining to the
aggregate compensation paid for production of edi-
torial material supplied by nonunit individuals not
represented by the Guild.
On October 8, 1980, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in
the four consolidated cases, 4 in which it affirmed
the Board's determinations, but remanded for fur-
ther explication of the remedy granted on grounds
it considered the Board's explanation confusing.
Thereafter, the Board notified the parties that it
had decided to accept the court's remand, and in-
vited the parties to submit statements of position,
subsequently extending the time for filing such sub-
missions to February 13, 1981.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Although the court has specifically referred to
the Board's decisions in these cases in terms of "ag-
gregate" amounts paid to independent correspon-
dents for editorial product, it has apparently inter-
preted our prior decision in this Amphlett case, and
our Supplemental Decision and Order in Times-
Herald, supra, as premising the form of the disclo-
sure order solely on the ground of "Employer" in-
terest in confidentiality, claims of which it views as
lacking record support. Such was not our purpose
however. In articulating the view that amounts
paid individual nonunit writers should remain con-
237 NLRB 955.
2 237 NLRB 922; Supplemental Decision and Order, Times-Herald.
Inc., 240 NLRB 439 (1979).
3 See also Brown Newspaper Publishing Co., Inc., 238 NLRB 1334
(1978); and Press Democrat Publishing Co., 237 NLRB 1335 (1978), as
amended by corrective order issued January 30, 1979 (not published in
volumes of Board Decisions); Press Democrat Publishing Co.. supra. 237
NLRB 1335, fn. 2.
4 Press Democrat Publishing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 629 F.2d 1320.
258 NLRB No. 19
fidential between the employers and those writers,
we intended to convey as well our recognition of,
and concern for, the obvious right to privacy of
nonunit writers, which could be compromised by
an order to provide information concerning indi-
vidual personal financial arrangements to a stranger
entity-an entity which does not represent them
and which does not claim to do so.5
Further, while data as to wages and terms and
conditions of employment of unit employees is pre-
sumptively relevant, there is no such presumption
where the requested information concerns nonunit
individuals. In considering the latter situation, the
initial question is whether the information sought
"is related to the Union's function as bargaining
representative and reasonably necessary to per-
formance of that function." Curtiss-Wright Corpora-
tion, Wright Aeronautical Division v. N.L.R.B., 347
F.2d 61, 68 (3d Cir. 1965). In the instant case, as
the Union's representative testified, and as the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge and the Board found, the
amounts paid to nonunit individuals for material
submitted was not directly translatable to the
hourly based compensation paid to unit employees.
Moreover, though the Union's claim for the infor-
mation was that it was necessary in terms of formu-
lating wage demands for unit employees, we note
again testimony that the Union's contractual wage
demands were premised on ultimately achieving
parity for unit employees with similar employees of
San Francisco publishers, that the Union had
achieved such parity in the past at San Meteo with-
out being furnished information as to the specific
compensation of individual nonunit correspondents,
and that the Union did not require such informa-
tion in order to achieve parity for unit employees.
Thus, subsumed as part and parcel of the Board's
consideration of the Union's request for informa-
tion as to nonunit individuals was the determina-
tion that specific amounts paid to identifiable non-
unit writers was not necessary in terms of the
Union's expressed concern over how large a "slice
of the pie" of the Employer's editorial budget was
expended for the approximately 16 nonunit corre-
spondents reporting to the San Mateo Times. We
do, indeed, think it appropriate to protect the indi-
vidual nonunit writer from disclosure of his com-
pensation, particularly in the absence of any dem-
onstrated need by the Union to have such informa-
tion on an individual basis.
5 Similarly, the Union's request for the real and "pen" names, and ad-
dresses, of nonunit individuals was also denied. This case in our view is
clearly distinguishable from the situation in which disclosure of wage in-
formation may be ordered, albeit over an individual's objection, where
the individual is an employee, and is in fact included in the unit and rep-
resented by the union.
86
AMPHLETT PRINTING COMPANY
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, as
well as in our original Decision herein and our
Supplemental Decision in Times-Herald, Inc., supra,
we reaffirm our earlier Order that Respondent fur-
nish to the San Francisco-Oakland Newspaper
Guild, Local 52, upon request, information as to
the aggregate dollar amount of Respondent's edito-
rial budget expended by the San Mateo Times for
correspondents supplying editorial product pub-
lished in that newspaper during the period from
May through July 1976.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby affirms its original Order
herein (237 NLRB 955) and orders that the Re-
spondent, Amphlett Printing Company, San Mateo,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in said Order.
87