Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!Feds to Appeal NP Decision: The National Labor Relations Board says it will appeal a federal judge’s decision in which he refused to reinstate eight fired Santa Barbara News-Press reporters.
Barney
Even though administrative law judge William G. Kocol ruled last December after a trial that eight reporters had been wrongly terminated by owner Wendy McCaw, federal Judge Stephen Wilson refused to grant an injunction to return them to work now instead of after the News-Press appeal of Judge’s Kocol’s ruling is decided.
Judge Wilson is known as highly conservative and unfriendly toward plaintiffs in employment cases. Wilson apparently bought the paper’s argument that the Teamsters union, representing the newsroom, was trying to limit the paper’s “editorial discretion” rather than just exercising its legal right to a fair contract.
The NLRB said it would file its appeal on Thursday, July 24. Expect the appeal will take at least a year to be decided. (And don’t forget the likely appeal of that appeal.)
When Judge Wilson’s decision was announced in May, one of the fired reporters and union leaders, Dawn Hobbs, called the ruling “no surprise” and “just a speed bump” in the union efforts. It does not affect Judge Kocol’s decision, she said. “Our request for temporary reinstatement was denied but we still won the trial,” she said. In announcing the appeal Wednesday, Teamster attorney Ira Gottlieb said the union will be filing a friend of the court action supporting the appeal.
The News-Press has lost nearly every court battle in trying to defeat the newsroom union during the past two years, but it found Judge Wilson’s ruling something to celebrate. Asked to respond to the appeal, News-Press attorney Barry Cappello replied Wednesday, July 23:
Paul Wellman
Wendy McCaw (left) and her co-publisher/fiancee Arthur von Wiesenberger (right) exit the courthouse behind attorney Barry Cappello.
"Actually we will be interested to see if all the media darlings that have fawned over the Teamsters and the NLRB will actually comment on how inappropriate it is for the government and union to file an appeal. Remember how the News-Press was excoriated when we filed an appeal, blaming us for dragging the process out?
"We actually welcome this decision to appeal. Judge Wilson's order was well-reasoned and carefully drafted. The Court of Appeals will similarly follow the established law of the land, which holds the publisher/owner has the right to control the content of the newspaper, not the employees or their union. A Court of Appeal decision will also reaffirm these principles for every newspaper and media entity in the nation."
The NLRB appeal runs a major risk, according to those I have spoken to. Judge Wilson’s ruling could be interpreted as saying that any newspaper facing unionization could argue that the union was attempting to control content, and then fire union activist reporters with impunity. If the NLRB loses the appeal, the court decision could have widespread impact.
Related Links
Columnist Barney Brantingham can be reached at barney@independent.com or (805) 965-5205. He writes online columns and a print column for Thursdays.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
The appeal is well worth the risk. Surely all newspapers who are willing to be as belligerent as the News-Press is well aware of Judge Wilson's decision, and would use it if the occasion arose. Truth is, most unionized newspapers welcome input from their newsroom employees, and recognize that their morale and satisfaction is part of producing the highest quality product. Not so the News-Press.
Cappello also knows that no one in the newsroom is actually seeking to "control" the content of the paper, let alone "write what they want when they want", as their supercilious mantra holds. Moreover, do you think if Wilson had gone the other way, the SBNP would not have appealed? More fundamentally, there is no "delay" in justice caused by this appeal, since the (illegal) status quo remains in place while this appeal is processed. Just Cappello tryin' to "work the refs". Didn't work for Phil Jackson, Barry!
JoeHill (anonymous profile)
July 24, 2008 at 1:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My apologies for the multiple grammatical glitches above. Yikes!
JoeHill (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2008 at 1:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment