07/16/2025: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Racks Up Another Violation
Employer cannot unilaterally pay out a new bonus without bargaining.
PG Publishing Co., Inc. D/B/a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, JD-57-25, 06-CA-311136 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves allegations that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette violated federal labor law during a strike by the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh that began on October 18, 2022. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas on February 10-11, 2025, in Pittsburgh.
Background
The Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh/CWA Local 38061 represents editorial department employees at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Their most recent collective bargaining agreement expired on March 31, 2017. After unsuccessful negotiations, the Post-Gazette unilaterally implemented new employment terms on July 27, 2020. The Guild initiated a strike on October 18, 2022, citing bad faith bargaining and unilateral implementation of terms. Of approximately 97 bargaining unit employees, about 60 initially joined the strike, while 37 continued working. During the strike, an additional 4-5 employees abandoned the strike and returned to work.
In September 2024, the NLRB found that the Post-Gazette had violated the National Labor Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith and unilaterally implementing terms without reaching a good faith impasse.
Key Issues
The case focused on whether the Post-Gazette violated federal labor law by:
Granting bonuses and merit pay increases to non-striking employees without bargaining with the Guild (alleged violation of Section 8(a)(5))
Discriminatorily granting these pay enhancements to discourage strike participation (alleged violation of Section 8(a)(3))
Pre-Strike and Post-Strike Pay Practices
The ALJ examined the Post-Gazette's practice of granting bonuses and merit increases both before and during the strike. Evidence showed that from 2016-2019, the company regularly granted numerous individual bonuses without bargaining with the Guild, though this practice declined in 2020-2022.
After the strike began, the Post-Gazette increased the frequency of merit raises and bonuses to non-striking employees. In addition, in October 2023, the company granted a one-time "newspaper of the year" bonus of $250 to 91 employees, a type of bonus not previously granted.
Legal Analysis and Findings
Section 8(a)(5) Allegation - Failure to Bargain
The ALJ found that the Post-Gazette did not violate Section 8(a)(5) by granting individual bonuses and merit increases during the strike because this was a continuation of an established practice, not a change requiring bargaining. However, the "newspaper of the year" bonus was a new type of bonus based on department-wide achievement rather than individual merit, and therefore constituted a unilateral change that violated Section 8(a)(5).
The ALJ rejected the General Counsel's argument that the Post-Gazette's pre-strike practice should be evaluated based only on the immediate year before the strike (when fewer bonuses were granted). Instead, the ALJ considered the full record of the company's practices from 2016 onward.
Section 8(a)(3) Allegation - Discrimination
The ALJ dismissed allegations that the bonuses and merit increases were discriminatory under Section 8(a)(3). The record lacked evidence of anti-union animus motivating these payments. The Post-Gazette's executive editor testified that the increases were based on employee performance and concerns about competitors recruiting staff during the strike.
The ALJ also rejected the argument that the pay enhancements were "inherently destructive" of employee rights, noting that:
The Post-Gazette did not promise bonuses to strikers who returned to work
The company did not threaten to deny accrued benefits to strikers
There was no evidence that the bonuses influenced striking employees to return
Only 4-5 employees abandoned the strike to return to work over a two-year period
Remedy
For the Section 8(a)(5) violation concerning the "newspaper of the year" bonus, the ALJ ordered the Post-Gazette to:
Cease and desist from making unilateral changes without bargaining
Upon request by the Guild, bargain over or rescind the 2023 "newspaper of the year" bonus
Post a notice informing employees of their rights
The ALJ rejected the Charging Party's requests for additional remedies, including having the notice read aloud and ordering comparable bonuses for striking employees.
Significant Cases Cited
NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962): Established that employers violate Section 8(a)(5) by making unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment without bargaining.
NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26 (1976): Defined when employer actions are "inherently destructive" of employee rights, requiring no proof of anti-union motivation.
NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U.S. 221 (1963): Held that offering "super seniority" to strike-breakers was inherently destructive of employees' right to strike.
International Shipping Agency, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 79 (2020): Established that the General Counsel bears the initial burden to show a material change to a consistent practice.
Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 340 NLRB 349 (2003): Held that granting new bonuses based on department-wide achievement constitutes a unilateral change even if there was a history of granting individual merit bonuses.