Union-Tribune Publishing Co., A Division of Copley Press, Inc.

UNION-TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO. 515 Union-Tribune Publishing Co., A Division of Copley Press, Inc. and Graphic Communications Con- ference, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Local 423M, Graphic Communications In- ternational Union. Case 21–CA–37535 January 12, 2011 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER AND HAYES On September 9, 2008, the two sitting members of the Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding, which is reported at 353 NLRB 11.1 Thereafter, the Charging Party filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir- cuit. On June 17, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635, holding that under Section 3(b) of the Act, in order to exercise the delegated authority of the Board, a delegee group of at least three members must be maintained. Thereafter, the court of appeals remanded this case for further proceedings consistent with the Su- preme Court’s decision. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2 The Board has considered the judge’s decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de- cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclu- sions and to adopt the recommended Order to the extent and for the reasons stated in the decision reported at 353 1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman, Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman, Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the powers of the National Labor Relations Board in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Thereafter, pursuant to this delegation, the two sitting members issued decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases. 2 Consistent with the Board’s general practice in cases remanded from the courts of appeals, and for reasons of administrative economy, the panel includes the remaining member who participated in the origi- nal decision. Furthermore, under the Board’s standard procedures ap- plicable to all cases assigned to a panel, the Board member not assigned to the panel had the opportunity to participate in the adjudication of this case at any time up to the issuance of this decision. NLRB 11 (2008),3 which is incorporated herein by refer- ence, except as modified below.4 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec- ommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified in 353 NLRB 11 and as further modified be- low, and orders that the Respondent, Union-Tribune Pub- lishing Co., a division of Copley Press, Inc., San Diego, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c). “(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its San Diego, California facility, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”38 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom- arily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em- ployees and former employees employed by the Re- spondent at any time since July 19, 2006.” 3 The decision reported at 353 NLRB 11 affirmed the judge’s appli- cation of Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 351 NLRB 644 (2007), in denying reinstatement to discharged employees Michael Gurnett and Nathan Jennings. Then-Member Liebman observed that Anheuser-Busch was before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the Charging Party’s petition for review. The court later denied the Charging Party’s petition in an unpublished decision. See Brewers & Maltsters Local 6 v. NLRB, 303 Fed. Appx. 899 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 4 We shall modify the previous Order to provide for the posting of the notice in accord with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010). For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini Flooring, Mem- ber Hayes would not require electronic distribution of the notice. 356 NLRB No. 77