California Journalists Fired For Disloyal Conduct

Alan Childress (Tulane), of the Legal Profession Blog, writes to point out a story to us about a group of unionized California newspaper reporters who were fired after hanging a sign urging motorists not to subscribe to their newspaper (via Yahoo! News and AP):

Six journalists have been fired from the Santa Barbara News-Press for placing a sign over a freeway overpass urging people to cancel their subscriptions, an attorney for the newspaper said.

Three reporters were dismissed late Monday followed by another three on Tuesday, attorney Barry Cappello said. They helped hang a banner last Friday during morning rush hour that read "Cancel Your Newspaper Today" and "Protect Free Speech," Cappello said.

"They are trying to injure and disparage the company," Cappello said. "People who want to engage in conduct that harms the newspaper ... will not remain."

This whole dispute stems from a larger labor-management show-down. In September, newsroom employees voted overwhelmingly to join the union, "but the paper and employees have been clashing since then over the legitimacy of the vote. A hearing will be held next month on four other charges of unfair labor practices the union made against the newspaper."

Although the union has already filed a ULP charge on behalf of the fired workers, this seems like a classic Jefferson Standard "unlawful means" scenario.  Employees are not considered to be engaged in lawful Section 7 protected activity if their conduct disparages the product of their employer and is unconnected to the underlying labor dispute. 

In other words, activity is not protected under the labor law if the attack on the employer product is related to no labor practice of the company and does not make reference to wage, hours, or working conditions.  On the other hand, there may be an argument that the "Cancel" sign asked for public sympathy and support and that might cut in the other direction. 

But without Section 7 rights, the employer is free to fire them for their conduct without worrying about committing a ULP violation.  From the facts of this article, it sounds like at least one of the signs the workers were hanging amounted to product disparagement and disloyal conduct (indeed very much like the facts of the Jefferson Standard case itself), and therefore, they may not have any protection under the NLRA.

PS