The labor board ruled against Hearst in its union case. Here's what that could mean for the publisher and its employees.

• The National Labor Relations Board just ruled against Hearst Magazines in its fight against a union.
• A Hearst union would be the biggest in digital media, with as many as 550 people.
• Hearst argued that many of the proposed union members are actually supervisors and not eligible for the union but nonetheless are "among the most vociferous pro-union advocates."
• The ruling sets the stage for a union election, which some say would bring needed pay and job standards to the company but others worry would be divisive.
• Click here for more BI Prime articles.

Hearst employees who are unionizing got a big victory this week when the National Labor Relations Board ruled in their favor.

On November 12, Hearst Magazine editorial employees at some of the best-known titles including Cosmopolitan and Esquire announced that they had unionized, joining a throng of other media workers.

A Hearst union would be a big win for the Writers Guild of America East, with some 550 people spanning 24 brands, making it what's believed to be the biggest union in digital media.

Complimentary Tech Event

Transform talent with learning that works

Capability development is critical for businesses who want to push the envelope of innovation.Discover how business leaders are strategizing around building talent capabilities and empowering employee transformation.Know More

The most recent dispute centers over who is a supervisor. Hearst has been fighting to reduce the number of people eligible to vote in an election by arguing that 86 of 550 proposed members are actually supervisors and as such, aren't eligible for the union. Hearst wanted to have those people's status decided before an actual vote.

Because Hearst didn't voluntarily recognize the union, the NLRB decides when an election will take place and who gets to vote.

Hearst's filings to the NLRB showed its concern over the supervisors, which it called the biggest supporters of the union.

"There is no meaningful disagreement that disputed supervisors are among the most vociferous pro-union advocates - virtually ensuring that the election will lack integrity if their status is not litigated in advance," one Hearst filing read.

But NLRB wrote in a Jan. 22 ruling that Hearst's request "raises no substantial issues warranting review."

The ruling sets the stage for an election, which is expected to be scheduled in the next couple of weeks.

Hearst singled out supervisors as being the most pro-union

In a filing, Hearst pointed to employees posting their support for the union on social media, wearing pro-union pins, signing mass emails to employees in support of representation.

"Employees who have revoked their union authorization cards have faced retaliation and harassment from multiple supervisors," the filing said. "For example, a non-supervisory employee reported that a supervisor confronted and 'grilled' her about a colleague who had revoked his authorization card. And another supervisor has been accused of generally 'coercing and putting a lot of pressure on employees' to support unionization. At least one supervisor attended a 'Thankful for Union' party with employees, held to support representation."

The Writers Guild responded in a filing that most of the pro-union activities that Hearst was referring to were "simple expressions of support for the union, which are lawful even assuming the individuals are supervisors."

"For all of the Employer's bluster, this is a straightforward case," the guild wrote.

The NLRB sided with the guild in denying Hearst's request.

"We are pleased that the NLRB dismissed one of the company's unfounded attempts to divide our union and delay an election," the Writer's Guild said in a statement. "We look forward to completing these NLRB hearings and having a fair election in a timely manner."

Hearst executives haven't commented on the ruling.

Hearst's anti-union stance has rankled some staffers

It's common for management to oppose unions out of concerns that they'll introduce adversity between supervisors and subordinates and introduce processes that make it hard to be nimble. Another common concern is that contracts can make it hard to fire underperformers.

In digital media, most companies have largely put up little resistance to their employees' efforts to organize in the past few years.

New York magazine wrote that Hearst "adopted an especially hostile posture toward staff," though. Hearst executives Troy Young and Kate Lewis have called meetings with magazine staffs where they argued that a union would divide the company and slow its progress.

Some employees said they felt angry and patronized by the company's stance and that its opposition "fueled the fire," as one organizer put it. Some vets meanwhile shared managements' concerns that a union will cause divisiveness and undermine the company's progress at a precarious time.