FOLLOW US

A federal judge refused to reinstate a stricken brief from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in its dispute with the publisher of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, ruling that the agency misinterpreted court rules.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon denied NLRB regional administrator Nancy Wilson’s request for reconsideration after the court removed the agency’s brief supporting its proposed findings of fact. The judge clarified that the procedural rules cited by the NLRB applied to non-jury trials, while the case at hand involved a request for an injunction—not a trial.

Union Strike and Labor Dispute

The legal battle stems from a strike by newsroom and production unions, which began more than two years ago after the newspaper stopped paying for their healthcare benefits. The NLRB sued PG Publishing, accusing the company of bargaining in bad faith by proposing changes that undermined basic union protections.

The agency sought an injunction to force the Post-Gazette back to the negotiating table and reinstate healthcare coverage for unionized employees. However, Judge Bissoon ruled that she could not take the NLRB’s administrative record at face value, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Starbucks v. McKinney decision.

Post-Gazette’s Defense and Shift to Digital

During hearings, the Post-Gazette’s attorneys argued that their contract proposals were serious, as the company needed flexibility to transition from print to digital. The paper currently prints only twice a week and has sold its printing equipment to Hearst.

After closing testimony, Judge Bissoon instructed both sides to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by Feb. 3. The NLRB submitted 17 pages along with an additional brief in support, prompting the Post-Gazette to challenge the filing, which the court ultimately struck from the record.

Judge: No Need for Additional Briefing

In its request for reconsideration, the NLRB pointed to court policies requiring findings of fact to be accompanied by briefs. However, Judge Bissoon ruled that the agency had misread the guidelines and stated that "enough briefing has been filed in this case."

"This is one of the relatively rare situations where a telephone call to chambers would have been appropriate," the judge wrote.

While the NLRB contended that the Post-Gazette’s own filing exceeded page limits, the court did not address that argument.

Legal Representation and Next Steps

A representative for the NLRB declined to comment, while attorneys for the Post-Gazette did not immediately respond to requests.

The NLRB and Wilson are represented by Anne Tewksbury and Zuzana Murarova.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is represented by Brian M. Hentosz and Morgan S. Dull of Littler Mendelson PC.

As the case progresses, the Post-Gazette’s unionized employees remain locked in a prolonged battle over wages, job security, and healthcare benefits.