It’s hard to know where to begin to describe Wednesday’s bargaining session with the Company, which came after nine people were walked to the door this week and the TU has said another four will be similarly targeted.

The Company continued to insist these were not layoffs, despite Editor Rex Smith’s unequivocal remarks to dozens of people in the newsroom (where most of the layoffs occurred) and the Times Union’s own story — vetted by at least one manager — that called the actions layoffs.

The TU claims that the employees are on paid leave for 45 days while the Company continues to negotiate with the union. If the criteria somehow changes, they contend, people could get their jobs back.

“It is the height of hypocrisy for a company to pretend it is bargaining with us and execute a plan,” International Representative Jim Schaufenbil told the company’s bargainers. “The cloak of ‘technically’ being on paid leave as the newspaper continues ongoing negotiations with the union is a farce.”

Since the Company is claiming these employees are not laid off, he said, the TU cannot then claim that the 45-day notice clause has been invoked. “You can’t have it both ways,” Schaufenbil said.

“You can, actually,” was the Company negotiator’s reply.

Schaufenbil said it was particularly deplorable that the Company brought in extra Wackenhut guards, stationing them in the hallway and outside the Human Resources Department and then marched employees into that office. “The audacity in which the Company carried it out and the lack of respect for individuals, escorting them out of the building with guards, just blows my mind,” he said. “I cannot think of another newspaper who has treated employees so poorly in a layoff situation.”

The Company also Wednesday added a job title in advertising to the list of those where employees could be laid off outside seniority. In other words, a worker who thought his or her job was safe is about to find out otherwise.

Of the 13 people targeted for job cuts, the Company contended all but two were outside seniority.

A week after getting an information request from the union on its proposed criteria — which the Company had used to frogmarch employees out the door — the Company let union leaders sit waiting in a conference room all day while they collected the reviews they had done of each employee using that criteria. They did not produce the first set of rankings until after 3 p.m., and most of them, the ones done in editorial, were not produced until after 5 p.m.

And in the end, they still hadn’t produce everything. And despite ranking editorial employees, those reviews were then funneled through a list of six other criteria (from versatility to market demands) to come up with the final layoff list. Oddly, the Company had no record of how the final conclusions on who to let go were reached.

“They did it orally but there is no record of it,” attorney Mark Batten said.

In addition, the Company’s attorney said the “standards” mentioned repeatedly in the Company’s reviews of editorial employees were never written down, never negotiated with the Guild and never formally communicated to employees yet they were used  to target people for losing their jobs.

The Guild will take time to review those documents to make sure they are complete. (Mike Jarboe, who was sitting in to take notes for Mary Fultz, found his own review was left out.)

The documents revealed that the Company performed most of the employee reviews in editorial on June 9, before the TU declared impasse or began negotiating the criteria for layoffs.

“It is increasingly clear the Times Union has failed to bargain in good faith and that the newspaper’s bosses developed and executed criteria for layoffs without even beginning to negotiate it,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said.

The parties are next scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. Wednesday, July 22. Company bargainers — who are more concerned with meeting than providing information — pretended to be outraged the union won’t meet before then, but O’Brien will be tied up next week providing a sworn affidavit to the National  Labor Relations Board over the Company’s illegal declaration of impasse. The union also needs time to examine the files it was handed and to compare them to the employee’s past performance reviews.

Demonstrating utter contempt for the law, the Times Union walked nine Guild-covered employees out the door over the past two days. Four more are expected later this week for a total of 13 Guild members laid off.

The Company’s actions come while the parties are supposed to be negotiating layoff criteria, talks that resume at 10 a.m. Wednesday. Last week, the Guild filed two information requests over the proposed criteria, which the newspaper has yet to answer.

Despite the fact the criteria has not been settled, and despite the fact that the editorial criteria was filled with errors and standards never negotiated with the union, the Company used it to implement layoffs. Under the Company’s own language, it was supposed to negotiate with the Guild for 45 days over the implementation of any layoffs.

The Company is trying to claim the Guild-covered workers are being placed on a 45-day paid leave, at the end of which they would ‘likely’ be laid off unless changes in the criteria are negotiated, in which case they might still have a job.

In discussing the job cuts with several dozen staffers at 5 p.m. Tuesday, however, Editor Rex Smith read off each name, discussed the important contribution they had made to the newspaper and talked repeatedly about “the people who were laid off today” and “the people we lost today,” making crystal clear that this was no “paid leave.”  Witnesses said they are willing to testify that Smith left no doubt these workers were laid off.

“We are utterly shocked at the Times Union’s behavior,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “The disregard for the law is stunning. An organization that is devoted to truth-telling lies about placing people on leave, but Rex Smith made quite clear to the entire newsroom these folks were laid off. It’s too late to put that cat back in the bag.”

The Guild questions what these employees are supposed to do. If, as the Company claims, they are not laid off, are they not supposed to look for new jobs? What are they supposed to tell prospective employers: “I am on paid leave but might get my job back?” Can they apply for unemployment when they are not yet officially laid off?

“This is a terrible, grossly unfair way to treat employees, many of whom worked for the newspaper for 10 years or more,” O’Brien said. “We will be amending our charges with the National Labor Relations Board over this latest violation of the law. Clearly this Company has no interest in engaging in any actual bargaining.”

Without any communication to the Guild, the Times Union has begun walking workers to the door and telling them they are on a 45 day leave that will likely end in their layoff.

The situation is fluid and the Guild is trying to get the company to provide some information. We hope to share details with you later in the day.

If you are one of people summoned to the office of Carole  Hess, follow whatever directive the company gives you. The Guild can only challenge actions after they are taken and we fully intend to do so. We recommend against signing any paperwork. You can feel free to cash or deposit any check you are given. Doing so does not waive any of your legal rights.

Just when you think the Company’s behavior can’t get any worse…

An employee in sports was walked to the door tonight and told he was being placed on 45 days’ paid leave. Sometime during that time period, he was told, he would be informed if that leave would become a layoff, which was “likely.”

Never mind the fact that the union and the Company are in the midst of negotiating layoff criteria. Ignore the fact that the Company’s attorney said in our last session that employees would get 45 days’ notice of any layoff. And of course the Company did this without any communication with the Guild.

And when Guild President Tim O’Brien called Carole Hess to ask how many other employees were being given the same treatment, he was told he would have to speak to Publisher George Hearst. Hearst, of course, did not answer his phone.

The Guild has fired off an e-mail to the Company stating that its actions are improper and illegal, and the union demanded the Company immediately cease and desist.

The Company acknowledged Wednesday its legal obligation to provide 45 days’ notice to employees if they are to be laid off.

Last week, the Company had said the 45-day notice provision began when it started negotiating with the Guild over the implementation of its layoff language. Guild bargainers noted Wednesday that while the Company’s proposal imposed (we believe illegally) new language on layoffs under Section 3(D) of the contract, it did not alter Section 3(C) which clearly states: “In lieu of notice to the employee, forty five (45) days pay shall be given.”

The Company acknowledged that is true. It attorney, Peter Rahbar, said: “We will provide individuals with 45-days’ notice.”

During the session, the Guild gave the Company two information requests. The  first asked for the results of the so-called “test runs” the Company did of its criteria — in other words, the employees’ names that would be on the layoff  list if that criteria was used. We also asked for the number of employees in each job title who would be laid off and for details on what would happen to that work. We asked what employees would be expected to do the work, if any job duties would  change and if the Company will seek to outsource any of the work.

The second request was an extensive review of the Company’s typo-ridden questionnaires in editorial. Many of those questions mentioned “quality standards,” “length standards,” “productivity standards,” etc. In every instance, the Guild asked the Company to provide copies of those standards, when and by whom they were developed, proof that employees had been informed of the standards and evidence that the standards were negotiated with the Guild as the law requires.

The  evaluation forms also made repeated references to employees expressing an interest in learning. We asked the Company to provide evidence that it has indeed tracked every time an employee asks for training.

The forms also asked questions about video and multimedia. Again, the Guild asked for information on what training was done and whether everyone was given an equal opportunity.

The Company said it would take some time to gather the responses, so they ended the days’ talks and the parties set the next meeting for Wednesday, July 8 starting at 10 a.m. As always, employees can attend on their own time.

The Guild also filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board over the illegal declaration of impasse. A board agent contacted the union Wednesday to begin gathering information for an investigation.

“It’s unfortunate we have to go this route but the Company has left us with no choice,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “From day one, the Hearst Corp. has refused to modify the core of its two main proposals, giving the Company unfettered discretion to lay off anyone or to outsource any job.”