• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Outdoors
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Personals
  • Obits

NLRB Files Motion Against News-Press to Enforce Employee Return

Hearing Scheduled Monday in Los Angeles Federal Court


Friday, March 7, 2008
By Ben Preston (Contact)
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
Digg! Digg!
furl furl
google google
newsvine newsvine
reddit reddit
technorati technorati
Facebook Facebook
Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has upped the ante in its ruling against the Santa Barbara News-Press. Since the News-Press seeks to appeal the decision by NLRB Administrative Judge William G. Kocol ordering the reinstatement and payment of back pay of the eight employees fired in January, 2007, the NLRB has deemed it necessary to file an action against the paper at the United States District Court for the Central District of California in hopes of having the previous order enforced immediately.

“Sometimes unfair labor practices are so egregious that if you waited until the administrative process was completed, the damage to the employees would be too severe,” said Ira Gottlieb, the attorney representing the International Brotherhood of Teamsters—the union representing News-Press employees. “They could potentially be sitting there waiting for years.”

After 17 days of testimony last fall, Kocol found on December 26, 2007, that the News-Press had perpetrated “flagrant” illegal anti-union acts in the firing of the eight workers, and in the way that it had disciplined others. Citing discriminatory evaluations, unlawful disciplinary threats, surveillance of employees and demands that they not wear pro-union buttons, he wrote that their acts against their employees showed a “widespread, general disregard for the fundamental rights of the employees.” He ruled that the eight fired employees—Melinda Burns, Anna Davidson, Tom Schultz, Dawn Hobbs, Melissa Evans, John Zant, Barney McManigal, and Rob Kuznia—be immediately reinstated and paid all back pay. Furthermore, Kocol ruled that Scott Steepleton—the News-Press’s chief witness and one who had participated in many of the actions in question—was a non-credible witness.

The News-Press countered that their actions were not related to employees’ union affiliation, and refused to reinstate or pay the employees, citing a desire to appeal the decision. Barry Capello—representing the News-Press in the proceedings—stated that they were “properly terminated for acts of disloyalty.” Paper owner Wendy McCaw and some of her managers had testified that two of the employees were fired due to biased reporting, and the other six for hanging a banner from a pedestrian bridge over the freeway reading, “Cancel Your Newspaper Today!”

The controversy all started in July of 2006, when a slew of top editors walked off the job, complaining that McCaw was trying to exert undue interference in news coverage. McCaw claimed that she was removing bias, and that the editors quit because she had stopped them from inserting their personal opinions into the paper. The result was that the employees in the newsroom voted to unionize. The employees’ representation by the Teamsters’ Union was certified by the NLRB, but McCaw has fought the decision bitterly since it was made.

Today, facing the dragging heals of the News-Press in the reinstatement and financial restitution of the eight terminated employees, the NLRB sought interim relief for them. According to Gottlieb, the Federal District Court judge—an Article III presidential appointee—has more weight to throw into getting News-Press leadership to comply with the earlier ruling. A hearing is scheduled at the Federal Court in Los Angeles on Monday afternoon, but the outcome is uncertain. “I don’t know what the judge is going to do,” said Gottlieb. “He could say yes, he could say no, or he could continue it to a later date. Technically, the union is not a participant in this, but the judge ordered all parties to show up.”

Capello was unavailable for comment.

Story Help (Click-ability)
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

For those of on different career paths, someone who knows please explain what an "Article III presidential appointee" means.

David_Pritchett (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Article III presidential appointee" is a reference to the provision of the US Constitution authorizing the president to appoint lifetime-tenured federal judges. This was apparently said in order to distinguish the lifetime federal district court appointee who sits fulltime on the federal bench who will hear the case Monday from the NLRB's Administrative Law Judge (Kocol) who made his decision in December.

JoeHill (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Article III says nothing about authorization of the president to appoint federal judges; it simply establishes that Congress can create courts "inferior" to the Supreme Court. The authorization for appointment is given in Article II: "[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

truth_machine (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Post a comment

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

EVENT CALENDAR

Previous Month | Next Month

Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

Local Weather

Currently:
Clear Sky
Temperature:
62.1°
Wind:
12 NNW

Surf Report
  • Specials
  • InPrint
  • Top Emails
  • Blue Green Guide 2008
  • Summer Camp Guide 2008
  • Wedding Guide 2008
  • SBIFF 2008 All Access
  • 2008 Election Coverage
  • Best of Reader's Poll 2007
  • Calendar of Fundraisers
  • Local Bands
  • Kid's Mother's Day Issue
  • Made in Santa Barbara
  • Zaca Fire 2007
  • Election 2008 Kickoff
  • Esau’s: It’s Not Just for Breakfast Anymore
  • Juarez’s Fate in Jurors’ Hands
  • Our 2008 Endorsements
  • k.d. lang Returns, Wearing Her Heart on Her Sleeve
  • World Series Now?
  1. Watch Her Strut
  2. The Trolley of Terror
  3. Barney Buys a House
  4. Brad Ebner’s Comeback
  5. Cold Springs Trail—East Fork
  6. Hydromulching Completed at Los Padres National Forest
  • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
Google
 
Independent.com Web
Copyright ©2008 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
This is our Privacy Policy.