Pacific Northwest Newspaper v. Hearst Commun.
| Decision Date | 04 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. C07-1490Z.,C07-1490Z. |
| Citation | 539 F.Supp.2d 1306 |
| Parties | PACIFIC NORTHWEST NEWSPAPER GUILD, CWA LOCAL 37082, a labor organization, Plaintiff v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, owner of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Dmitri Iglitzin, Schwerin Campbell Barnard LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.
Calvin Siemer, Hearst Corporation (CA) Office General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Carl G. Guida, Eve Burton, Hearst Corporation Office of General Counsel, New York, NY, Guy Paul Michelson, Kelly P. Corr, Molly Aneesa Malouf, William Randolph Squires, III, Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece, Seattle, WA, for Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 12, and Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims, docket no. 16. Having considered the briefs and declarations in support of, and in opposition to, the motions, and after having heard oral argument on January 24, 2008, the Court enters the following Order.
In February 1998, Plaintiff, the Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild Communications Workers of America Local 37082 (the "Guild"), and Defendant Hearst Newspapers LLC (named in the Complaint as Hearst Communications, Inc.), d/b/a the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (the "P-I" or "Publisher"), signed an agreement that addressed the assignment of "new media" work to Guild and non-Guild employees. Iglitzin Decl., docket no. 13, Ex. F (the "New Media Agreement" or "NMA"). The New Media Agreement recognized that the P-I had created a "non-Guild New Media Department ... to investigate and experiment with a variety of new electronic services and products;" that "[e]mployees represented by the Guild may be assigned to perform work for any new or existing service;" that Guild-covered employees "will continued to be represented by the Guild and covered by the collective bargaining agreement then in effect;" that "Guild-covered employees assigned to perform work ... for any new or existing service, project or product shall receive the compensation, benefits, terms and conditions of each employee's home department;" and that "[t]he grievance process shall be limited to enforcing the contract on behalf employees represented by the Guild who are assigned to new or existing service, projects and products." Id., Ex. F at 1-2, ¶¶ 1-3 (). The New Media Agreement did not contain any "grievance process." The New Media Agreement did not contain a term of existence or any procedures for terminating the Agreement.
On March 28, 2006, the Guild sent the P-I a letter "as formal notification that the union hereby terminates the New Media Agreement signed between the Guild and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in February 1998." Iglitzin Decl., Ex. G. The Guild's March 28, 2006 Letter further provided:
It has been eight years since the New Media Agreement was negotiated and signed. As we both know, the convergence of web and print publishing means that changes in technology and practices can render an agreement obsolete after eight months, let alone eight years. We believe the New Media Agreement has outlived its relevance, which is why we are terminating it at this time. In addition, we are no longer interested in maintaining or pursuing side agreements outside our contract. Such agreements tend to be forgotten. Members rightly look for information in their contract, the appropriate vehicle for such agreements.
Id., Ex. G (emphasis added).
On August 30, 2006, approximately five months after the Guild unilaterally terminated the New Media Agreement, the Guild and the P-I signed a collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA"). Iglitzin Decl., Ex. A.1 The CBA is silent on issues raised in the New Media Agreement. See id.; Lynch Decl., docket no. 2, ¶ 14.
The CBA's preamble provides that the CBA "is made effective as of July 21, 2006," and further provides that the Guild represents "all the employees of the Publisher in the Editorial and Business Office," with enumerated exceptions. Iglitzin Decl., Ex. A at 1.
Article 2 of the CBA governs the Guild's jurisdiction:
It is agreed that the Guild has, and shall retain, jurisdiction over all work presently being performed by Guild members in the Editorial and Business Office, except for those jobs specifically excluded under the Preamble of this agreement. It is further agreed that new or additional work of the same type presently being performed by Guild members in the Editorial and Business Office shall be under the jurisdiction of the Guild.
Id., Ex. A at 2 (emphasis added). Article 10 of the CBA contains a grievance procedure and an arbitration clause, which provides in pertinent part:
ARTICLE 10 — ADJUSTMENT OF DISPUTES
(A) A Grievance Committee, designated by the Guild, shall be established to settle amicably with a committee appointed by the Publisher, all grievances arising under this contract.
(B) A grievance shall be submitted only by a written notice from the complaining party to the other party briefly setting forth the facts giving rise to the grievance, the ground of complaint and the action sought....
(C) A grievance raised under (A) of this section, and not settled within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the written notice hereinbefore described (this time may be extended by mutual agreement) may be submitted to arbitration, in accordance with the procedures hereinafter set forth, upon written notice of either party served upon the other party. ...
(1) The Publisher and the Guild shall jointly request from the American Arbitration
Association a panel of eleven (11) arbitrators from the Washington and Oregon geographic region. Selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Nothing herein shall be construed as authorizing the AAA to select an arbitrator without the mutual agreement of the Publisher and the Guild.
(2) The arbitrator shall follow rules of procedure agreed to by the parties, but in the absence of the agreement thereon, the rules of the voluntary labor arbitration tribunal of the AAA shall govern.
(3) Notwithstanding any AAA rules, in any case where either party contests the arbitrability of the grievance, the arbitrator shall hold a separate proceeding and rule on that issue prior to hearing the matter on the merits.
Absent agreement of the parties, the issue of arbitrability shall be ruled on within ten (10) business days of the arbitrability hearing.
Iglitzin Decl., Ex. A at 7-8 (emphasis added). The CBA does not contain an integration clause.
On July 2, 2007, the Guild submitted a grievance to the P-I, setting forth the following facts giving rise to the grievance, ground of complaint, and remedy sought:
Statement of Grievance:
On June 7, 2007, the employer informed the Guild that a new position, called `online reporter,' would be hired outside the jurisdiction of the bargaining unit.
Section(s) of Contract Violated (including but not limited to):
Article 2 (Jurisdiction); Preamble, and standards of reasonableness and fairness
Remedy of Grievance:
The position of `online reporter' should be acknowledged as Guild work that is within the Union's jurisdiction.
Iglitzin Deck, Ex. B.
On August 30, 2007, the Guild filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA"). Iglitzin Decl., Ex. C. The P-I objected to arbitration and asked the AAA to cease processing the Demand for Arbitration. Id., Ex. D. First, the P-I contended that the Guild failed to secure the consent of the P-I to select an arbitration panel pursuant to Article 10, Section (C)(1) of the CBA. Id., Ex. D at 1-2. The P-I subsequently refused to consent to an arbitration panel. Id., Exs. H, I. Second, the P-I contended that the Guild's grievance "involves matters of federal labor law that are not subject to arbitration." Id., Ex. D at 2. On October 2, 2007, the AAA closed the file. Siemer Decl., docket no. 20, Ex. 9.
On October 11, 2007, the P-I filed a "Petition for Unit Clarification," with the National Labor Relations Board (the "NLRB"). Iglitzin Decl., Ex. J. The P-I's Petition for Unit Clarification sought to exclude "all employees employed in the New Media Department" from the Guild's bargaining unit. Id., Ex. J (Attachment to Unit Clarification Petition, proposing an amendment to the description of the Guild's bargaining unit in the Preamble of the CBA).
On October 18, 2007, the Guild sent the P-I a letter "to clarify the intent of the Union in filing and pursuing what has previously been referred to as the `Online Reporter Grievance.'" Iglitzin Decl., Ex. K. The Guild's October 18, 2007 Letter further provided:
As you know, Article II of our Agreement states that the Guild will have `jurisdiction over all work presently being performed by Guild members in the Editorial and Business Office,' with certain exceptions. Based on this language, it is our position that the P-I is not entitled to assign to any person who is not in the Guild's bargaining unit work of the type which was being performed by Guild members in the Editorial and Business Office on or about July 21, 2006. We believe that this work includes the reportorial work which we believe and allege has subsequently been assigned to, and is currently being performed by Monica Guzman, who you have designated an `Online Reporter.'
It is not our intent, through this grievance, to attempt to include...
To continue reading
Request your trial