NLRB files charges against Times Union over layoffs

The union battle at the Times Union is heading to court.

Next month, an administrative law judge will listen to arguments over whether the paper broke the law when it laid off 14 union members last summer.

The National Labor Relations Board has filed a charge against the paper over the layoffs, sending the matter to court. Times Union reporter Tim O’Brien, president of the Newspaper Guild local, likened the decision to that of a district attorney filing charges against a suspect: The charges do not mean the suspect is guilty, but that a reasonable expert has determined there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.

The hearing will be May 17.

Both sides said they were confident of victory.

Times Union Publisher George R. Hearst III said he will prove that it was the union, not the company, that refused to negotiate the layoffs. By law, the union cannot stop layoffs, but does have a say in how the laid-off employees are selected.

Hearst said the union never offered any layoff criteria.

“We waited and waited and waited,” Hearst said. “They didn’t give us anything. They were clearly dragging their feet.”

He said the company offered its criteria then waited 75 days before laying the workers off.

At the time of the layoffs, O’Brien said the company laid off the workers three weeks after beginning discussions, then paid the workers for 45 days to allow time for negotiations to continue.

O’Brien said the union did offer criteria, as well as changes to the administration’s criteria.

“They said they’d review it. The next day there’s a security guard at the door,” O’Brien said, referring to the day when employees were suddenly laid off.

He wants to reopen negotiations and come to an agreement on layoff criteria, even though the final criteria might indicate that the same workers should be laid off.

Hearst said that if a court forces him to rehire the laid-off workers, he would get rid of them exactly as he had the first time.

“Well, you turn around, you declare impasse and you lay them off again,” he said.

O’Brien was unimpressed.

“So, in other words, if he loses, he’ll violate the law again?” O’Brien said. “He says that kind of thing all the time.”

Hearst also said that if the Times Union loses, he will appeal.

“There’s a number of appeals that take it out months and years,” he said.

And that’s not a bad thing, from his point of view. He’s saving money with every day that the employees are not back on the job.

“The cost savings achieved by the layoffs were essential to the operation of the business.”

Categories: Business