Newspaper Guild Claims Bad-Faith Bargaining in Ohio

By: Joe Strupp Exactly one year after launching a formal campaign to negotiate its first contract with the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, the local Newspaper Guild has filed an unfair labor charge with the National Labor Relations Board.

The complaint accuses the Daily News of a string of unfair labor actions, including lying to staffers Thursday about a guild contract rejection.

"In fact, we told the company?s negotiators we were going to evaluate all of our options and they said they would wait to hear from us," Guild officials said in a statement. "Within minutes, the company broadcast its false claims."

Cox Ohio Publishing, a division of Cox Newspapers that publishes the paper, said management had offered a contract that included bonuses and raises and accused the union of not allowing members to vote on it.

"The company will continue to fulfill its duty to meet and bargain in good faith as soon as there is legitimate reason to resume negotiations," management said in a statement Friday. "Negotiations between COP and The Newspaper Guild have been ongoing since December 2006 when the Guild initiated talks after cooperatively working without a contract since 1989."

The statement also hinted that the paper would keep publishing if any job action were to occur: "COP is committed and prepared to continue serving its readers and advertisers without interruption both in print and online."

Daily News Publisher Douglas E. Franklin and General Counsel Brett Thurman could not immediately be reached for comment Friday morning.

The union, in a charge filed Friday, accuses the Daily News of refusing to accept responses or counter proposals for their last offer; canceling previously scheduled negotiations dates that the company demanded; refusing to schedule sessions with a federal mediator; unilaterally declaring negotiations to be at impasse when no impasse exists; communicating false information to the union membership about the status of negotiations; and falsely stating that the Guild had rejected the company?s offer.

"The Guild Bargaining Committee was shocked Thursday when management announced to newsroom workers that the Guild had rejected their latest offer, that they considered negotiations to be at an impasse, that they were making what they called their 'last, best and final' offer," Guild leaders said in a statement.

"Editorial workers want a contract," the union release continued. "We have already offered more than $1 million in concessions. We want to keep talking. The company has even refused to meet with a mediator to try to resolve the remaining issues. It?s time for the Dayton Daily News to play fair with its workers."

The guild, which represents 147 employees, stated that disputed negotiating points include a management request to freeze wages for a third of employees; health care for part-time workers; and an employee arbitration system.

"The company wants to tilt the balance unfairly, resulting in a process that is nothing more than a kangaroo court," the guild said.

Dayton Newspaper Guild members first voted in the union in 1986, but have yet to get their first contract despite more than 20 years of attempts.

Guild officials have said in the past they had not aggressively pursued a new contract because management had generally treated the rank and file well during the past two decades, offering merit raises and generally adhering to provisions in a previous agreement forged under an in-house union.

But in recent years, union leaders said the non-contract arrangement had grown sour as disputes over employee discipline had arisen. The tipping point occurred about three years ago when two guild members were fired and denied arbitration.

Although the two workers settled their dispute with the paper, union leaders said the incident sparked a new effort to negotiate a contract.

The NLRB charges, filed in the agency's Cincinnati office, will be reviewed and if federal investigators find cause for the charges, a complaint would be issued and a hearing held before an administrative law judge.