The Board adopted the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated the Act by: suspending and/or discharging three employees and issuing a written warning to a fourth; interrogating employees; disparately and discriminatorily enforcing its security access policy against the Union; discriminatorily prohibiting employees from wearing buttons and armbands in support of discharged or suspended employees; and promulgating and maintaining a rule prohibiting employees from making secret audio recordings of conversations in response to protected activity. 

The Board (Member Hayes dissenting) found that one of the suspended/discharged employees did not lose the protection of the Act by secretly tape recording a meeting with a manager that he reasonably believed could result in discipline.  The Board also agreed with the judge that another unlawfully suspended/discharged employee did not lose his reinstatement rights by publicly disparaging the quality of the Respondent’s news coverage after his discharge.  In doing so, the Board clarified the proper standard to apply in cases in which the employer contests an unlawfully discharged employee’s reinstatement based on the employee’s alleged post-discharge misconduct.

The Board also adopted most of the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated by refusing to provide or delaying the provision of relevant information requested by the Union. But the Board deferred decision on whether the Respondent had a duty to provide witness statements to the Union, and instead has solicited further briefs on the issue.   

Charges filed by Hawaii Newspaper Guild Local 39117, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.  Administrative Law Judge John J. McCarrick issued his decision on March 6, 2008.  Chairman Liebman and Members Becker, Pearce, and Hayes participated.