In a long-awaited decision, the National Labor Relations Board today ordered the Santa Barbara News-Press to reinstate eight reporters the paper illegally fired for union activities. They are: John Zant, Melinda Burns, Anna Davison, Tom Schultz, Melissa Evans, Rob Kuznia, Barney McManigal, and Dawn Hobbs.
The NLRB gave the paper 14 days to comply, but the embattled daily announced this afternoon its decision to appeal. News-Press owner Wendy McCaw has contended that she was within her rights to fire the reporters because their activities related to editorial content, not wages.
The NLRB also ordered back pay for the eight fired reporters and told the News-Press to rescind its letters of suspension to former newsroom employees Al Bonowitz, Kim Favors, Kuznia, Lara Milton, Mike Traphagen, Hobbs, Schultz, George Hutti, McManigal, and Alan McCabe, and present worker Karna Hughes. A previous judge’s order found the paper guilty of a labor law violation in the termination of then-columnist Richard Mineards. Now a columnist for the Montecito Journal, Mineards commented that because of the extended time while his case was being appealed by McCaw, he stands to collect a major check when the case is settled in his favor.
The NLRB board in Washington affirmed Administrative Judge William Kocol’s 2007 ruling that the reporters were illegally fired. The board also affirmed his findings that the News-Press violated federal labor law by threatening employees with discipline for engaging in protected union activity by discharging newsroom employee Bob Guilliano for refusing to commit an unfair labor practice; by engaging in surveillance of employees’ protected union activity; issuing letters of suspension for engaging in union activity; canceling Starshine Roshell’s column for discriminatory reasons; and giving lower evaluations to employees because of their support for the union.
Ironically, today’s NLRB ruling came at a time when News-Press newsroom employees were at the DoubleTree Resort attempting to negotiate a contract with McCaw’s hired consultants; a previous judge had ruled that the paper had engaged in bad-faith negotiations through several years of stonewalled negotiations.
Two reporters who led the union battle, Dawn Hobbs and Melinda Burns, told The Independent that, “We look forward to returning to the newsroom and hope that Wendy McCaw will abide by the decision.” Said Burns: “We are delighted that the labor board has ruled so strongly in our favor. It was a unanimous (3-0) bipartisan decision.”
Other serious labor law violation rulings by NLRB judges are also pending before the full NLRB board, she said. “We have a continuing boycott, and urge people to cancel their subscriptions. Please don’t buy, read, or advertise in the News-Press until McCaw obeys the law and signs a fair contract.” Hobbs lauded the “very strong decision” about “retaliatory conduct against us for exercising our rights to join a union and seek protection through a fair employment contract.”
News-Press attorney Michael Zinser told The Independent that the paper has always felt that the case would be decided at the federal court of appeals level and the News-Press would be “vindicated” because of “improper motivation” on the part of the journalists. That, he said, was because “they wanted to take over the content of the paper.”
“We are not surprised” by the NLRB “rubber-stamp” decision because of the political situation in Washington, said Zinser, apparently referring to the Democratic administration and appointment of Democrats to fill long-vacant seats on the NLRB board.
Don Katich, News-Press Director of News Operations, released a prepared statement in response to the ruling. “The decision of the NLRB is not unexpected,” it reads. “This is just another decision of the current National Labor Relations Board in its assaults on businesses in the United States of America.”
“In every instance so far, when Santa Barbara News-Press has been in the federal court system, it has prevailed over the National Labor Relations Board and the Teamsters Union. Santa Barbara News-Press fully expects to prevail again.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace






Previous Month



Comments
Barney, explain to me why you and many of the other previously fired NP staffers believe that Federal Labor law should be enforced to the full extent possible, but Federal Immigration law should not.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Conversely, why do you and many other supporters of McCaw believe the Federal Immigration law should be enforced to the full extent possible, but Federal Labor law should not......
igor (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
igor, I am hardly a supporter of McCaw. I believe that both immigration and labor laws should be enforced with equal vigor, indeed they overlap in the protection they provide against labor abuse and corruption. For example, did you know that strawberry growers in Washington State were employing 6 year olds as pickers? This was a result of non-enforcement of both kinds of laws.
I dislike the NP and Indy equally. Both publications, like most of the MSM, eschew hard questions on third-rail issues like immigration, and toeing the PC line does little to answer them.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The question here is: Will she follow the NLRB's demands. I think we all know the answer to that 1! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Curious, why were they attempting to negotiate a contract with the McCaw consultants, a contract to do what?
citti (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What is the timeline for the appeal process? Must McCaw now go to Federal court, presumably with an ultimate appeal to the Supreme Court?
NanoKelp (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We should all hail the wisdom of "revisionist" here to point out that as long as any illegal alien walks amongst us then labor laws about wrongful termination should not be enforced either.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On the same logic, I guess no driving under the influence laws should be enforced either....so there.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To hell w/ all these laws, let's party! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My response to Hank's last comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyVjdQ...
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is excellent news. Now Wendy McCall has to pay and pay dearly for her unfair labor practices.
fhopson (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yahooooo!! Congratulations to the reporters for sticking with their cause and beliefs over this long haul! And thank you, too.
mensunderpanties (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Meanwhile, over in Mordor: Peter Lance now has his marching orders to go dig up any dirt he can find on the NLRB board members and publish another completely un-vetted expose. Terry Tyler will write another of his embarrassingly simpering editorials. Wendy and Nippleburger will go off on their yacht with Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Stapletoon will be in the drive-thru lane at Jack in the Box on Milpas and clear them out of all their sirloin cheeseburgers. And you'll have to fill in the blank on this Don Katich guy, I don't know what the hell he does at the N-P except act as Wendy's personal Wormtongue every time they lose in court.
I hope that whatever court takes up this issue, if that happens, does not issue one of those injunction thingies delaying the implementation of the NLRB's orders. It would be nice to see the reporters get reinstated and receive their back pay even if Wendy litigates this to the bitter end.
Did any of us recognize her insanity when she bought the N-P?
Robo (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hahahaha! ANYTHING that puts the panties of Citizen McCaw in a pretzely twist makes me smile.
Why anyone still buys, reads, or places ads in that rag is beyond me. It isn't news---it's days old history and poorly reported at that. Take the whole Peter Lance amateuranza---a complete and total disgrace.
Now Wendy---whatcha gonna do? Goona go right on over the supreme falls is my guess. We'll all be sitting on our comfy life preservers watching you slip on over.
Draxor (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"This is excellent news. Now Wendy McCall has to pay and pay dearly for her unfair labor practices."
-- fhopson
Now there's the triumph of hope over reality. This is still years from being a done deal.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 2:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They use 6 year olds to pick strawberries because that have soft hands that don’t bruise the fruit. Who wants to eat bruised strawberries?
JJ50 (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just looking at the smugness of "the Nipper" and his beau turns my stomach! It makes me long for the day when public stocks were de rigueur and "running the gauntlet" of citizens provided some measure of public catharsis. Meanwhile, I'm keeping the promise I made to myself 5 years ago to NEVER, EVER read or buy Wendy's rag as long as she's at all associated with it.
bookman (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nippleberger, HAHAHAHA! Robo said Nippleberger! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, Bill, thanks for the memories from that youtube link! It was awesome! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Word of the day: SIMPERING
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know John, Nippleberger hits an open E chord w/ me :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Please continue to boycott the Newspress until they do the right thing. It's all about Freedom of the Press and reporters who are free to write the truth without fear of retribution.
sallyt (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
revisionist: Can you explain to me why the US government and the state of California classify cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, which, by definition, means it has no medical uses, when the US government owns patents (#6630,507, for example) and grants patents for medical uses of cannabis? Or, can you explain why our local medical marijuana dispensary ordinance was written primarily based on input from tax-exempt non-profit organizations ( primarily agencies that are part of the umbrella organization Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse) who lobbied in violation of their public non-profit status and by local elected officials lobbying in violation of state law?
McCaw doesn't endorse free speach, and this was a great decision, but I don't see how it can change the NP. So how long will this appeal take?
14noscams (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The thing w/ McCaw is she is of the same mindset as General Sherman during his march to the sea or the Russians during WWII: SCORCHED EARTH POLICY!
She will NOT relinquish to the NLRB demands & would rather see the NP go down in flames before anyone but her gets their way.
Nippleberger (DAMN! I LOVE THAT!) is just the hapless boytoy :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Boycotting the News-Press is totally appropriate considering some of the frauds she has working for her.
What other "news source" would print a series of articles by a guy trying to get back at the cop that arrested him?
Do you think it's any coincidence that she hired Lanny Ebenstein to write anti-union editorials? Ebenstein just happens to headup a political nonprofit that has introduced a ballot measure to end collective bargaining. Do you see the big picture here?
The NP is an opinion rag and retaliation machine, not a news paper.
BOYCOTT THE NEWS-PRESS!!!
Validated (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How do you boycott the NP when she has it dumped in your driveway free of charge, every week. Isn't that called littering? Please, make it stop!
isgood (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
isgood, I'm also fighting off the dumped advertising-only NP rag most mornings (I cancelled the subscription many years ago): my theory is that the NP can thus count us as part of its "audience" since it successfully throws the paper on the driveway...isn't this somehow illegal? Everyone on my block just tosses this crap into recycling, but M'haw & nippleberger count it in their circulation figures and thus can charge more for the ads...makes sense?
hurray for this NLRB decision, and in 10 years or so these poor reporters will get their backpack IF THEY ARE STILL ALIVE. Money talks in this country.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You BOYCOTT by letting her advertisers know you'll no longer do business with them because of who they use to advertise.
Validated (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point Validated.
Who are some of the advertisers in the NP these days?
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Barney, explain to me why you and many of the other previously fired NP staffers believe that Federal Labor law should be enforced to the full extent possible, but Federal Immigration law should not." -Revisionist-
I have the answer--and I'm guessing it will be deleted: The News-Press (at least when I was there) hired illegal immigrants to do their janitorial work. They were treated like ^$#$ and I can't tell you how many times these workers would unload on me about their catch-22 situation. One worker had been their for nine years and was still getting minimum wage. The stories they would tell me were heartbreaking.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have some advice for Mr. Von Wiesenberger: Per the photo at the top of this page, I admire his patriotism in saying the Pledge of Alligiance but it is the right hand that goes over the heart, and the heart is a bit lower than where he has his hand placed.
"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, that flies over de la Guerra Plaza. And to the Republican, at Ampersand, one paper, under fire, for one individual, with impunity, injustice and gall."
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill, I think you mean Nippleberger :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 6:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"High ho the witch is dead!" Love that movie!
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Re: Above story reports that the "News-Press violated federal labor law by threatening employees with discipline for engaging in protected union activity by discharging newsroom employee Bob Guilliano for refusing to commit an unfair labor practice."
Please correct spelling to Guiliano (one L). Thank you. And this "newsroom employee" had the title of Assistant City Editor, who was in a supervisory capacity over the eight journalists but reported to Scott Steepleton, who reported to Wendy McCaw.
bobbyluigi (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just curious, does anyone have the full text of Scott Stapletoon's article saying that the NLRB ruling isn't valid (or words to that effect)?
Robo (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2011 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe Nippleburger has it :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2011 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting that the possibly returning employees are asking reader to cancel their subscriptions and not to advertise in the paper, which would have significant financial impact on the paper. I woud imagine once those employees are hired back, if subscriptions and advertisers do not come back, then routine layoffs would be necessary.
A good case of biting the hand that feeds you.
jshir (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2011 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SezMe has it right on this one. Far from over. The NLRB has decades of pro-Labor bias - that's what it does - hard to find a case in which it supported the employer. Quite appropriate for McCaw to appeal.
I find it most interesting that in all the thousands of posts over the years on this subject how few were actually about the original issue - specifically who has/shouldhave control over content in a privately owned newspaper. Mostly hate mail to McCaw. Does anyone debate issues around here?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2011 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Interesting that the possibly returning employees are asking reader to cancel their subscriptions and not to advertise in the paper, which would have significant financial impact on the paper. I woud imagine once those employees are hired back, if subscriptions and advertisers do not come back, then routine layoffs would be necessary.
A good case of biting the hand that feeds you."
As those illegally fired employees have been on the bread-line for five years, I hardly think they're being very well "fed."
Tomharris (anonymous profile)
September 14, 2011 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
by TYLER HAYDEN (CONTACT)
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article
"
And you'll have to fill in the blank on this Don Katich guy, I don't know what the hell he does at the N-P except act as Wendy's personal Wormtongue every time they lose in court."
-- KEYT may soon be facing two separate class action lawsuits, both filed against the news station by former workers. According to prosecuting attorney Bruce Anticoni, an unsuccessful mediation occurred on 3/16 that attempted to reconcile the original claim, filed by former employees Carolyn Diacos and Darren Penquite, which stated that KEYT didn’t properly compensate for overtime and forced people to forfeit unused vacation time. In the new suit, likely to be filed this week, Diacos (who will be dropped from the original complaint) and another former intern are suing the station for violating intern labor laws, claiming that interns would work for over a year in substantial, long-hour production capacities and that they made up 20 to 25 percent of the company’s workforce.
Tomharris (anonymous profile)
September 14, 2011 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sadly, I work at the NP. Why would any of the fired reporters want to come back to this desolate place? Everyone working here is only here to collect a check. No one, including management can stand Wendy or Arthur. They just have to suck up to collect their large salary. Revenues and circulation continue to decline every month. There is virtually no classified advertising and display advertisers get almost no ROI for their advertising dollars. As for News, Don Katich must write whatever Wendy says. Where else will he get a job if he doesn't? Same with every other director here. They must do whatever Wendy wants or they will be fired. Circulation is at an all time low and will continue to decline. So, don't come back. It's not the great place it once was. I guarantee that if any employee here could find another job paying the same, they would leave as quickly as Wendy would fire us....no questions asked. But until then, we will all stay quiet, do what she says and collect a check.
travisbgone (anonymous profile)
October 11, 2011 at 12:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)