Battle continues in News-Press labor dispute

By ERIC LINDBERG — March 12, 2010

The battle to get eight fired reporters reinstated at the Santa Barbara News-Press continues, as federal labor officials filed a petition requesting an appellate court to reconsider an injunction that would put the writers back to work while other litigation unfolds.

In a brief filed yesterday, the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board asked for a rehearing “en banc,” or involving all the judges of U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to take another look at the injunction, which had been shot down in a 2-1 decision by the court in January.

The court had ruled that reinstating the reporters would risk violating the publisher’s First Amendment rights, upholding an earlier court decision. Labor officials charged that the decision is in conflict with Supreme Court rulings and other legal precedence.

The newspaper has been embroiled in a labor dispute with newsroom employees since 2006, and an administrative law judge ruled in 2007 that the paper had illegally fired the eight reporters for protected union activities. While that decision has been appealed, the union sought an injunction reinstating the reporters in the interim.

In the majority decision issued in January, the court found that telling a newspaper to hire back reporters it had fired would undoubtedly affect the publisher’s ability to control the paper’s content.

It also found that the main thrust of the union’s campaign appears to be blocking or limiting the publisher’s influence over news content, and handing that authority over to reporters and editors.

Attorneys for the newspaper have highlighted that argument throughout legal proceedings involving the labor dispute, but federal officials countered that contention in yesterday’s petition.

“It was their union organizing and not reporters’ longstanding editorial disagreements with management that led [the newspaper] to take action against the reporters,” according to the document. “The other error was failing to see that an injunction reinstating the discharged employees would not affect the newspaper’s content because it would not impair [the newspaper’s] ability to lawfully enforce its editorial policies against the reporters.”

The petition also cited the decision’s potential to impact other reporters and media employees, stating that it’s “sweeping conclusion that the reporters lost the [National Labor Relations Act’s] protection based on their motives is having far-reaching impact on other cases and has the potential to severely chill employee activity.”

It’s unclear if the court will rehear the matter, or when a ruling will be made on the overall labor dispute. Only two members currently sit on the NLRB, and a decision isn’t expected until President Obama makes an appointment.

Comment on this article

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

sock puppetry : 3/12/2010

Funny that A v W would misspell his own name!

---

Nice personal attack : 3/14/2010

Such an effective, logical argument to name an employee in your subject line... AND blame the whole meltdown on ONE person. THAT is ridiculous. And disgusting, and a very weak argument.
But mostly I must agree with sock puppetry! "Wiesemburger"?! HA!
As if one of the silent, rich, powerful and wholly self-centered duo would post in a public forum.
Sure, blame the whole mess on a rumor about a single employee.
Pretend there was/is not a solid block of objection and protest to the current SB News Press by current and ex-employees and thousands of locals. I cancelled my subscription quite early in the conflict. And I cancelled because of Wendy McCaw, not because of any employee or employee action.
Still sad that we lost a local paper. But I feel they deserve to fail.

just another concerned citizen & anti-News Presser

---

And... : 3/14/2010

A libelous statement about D. Hobbs.

just another concerned citizen & anti-News Presser

---