Pace quickens at News-Press labor trial

BY ERIC LINDBERG
DAILY SOUND STAFF WRITER

Witness testimony started to speed up at yesterday’s federal hearing into alleged labor law violations at the Santa Barbara News-Press as lawyers started treading ground already covered earlier in the hearing.
Four witnesses took the stand yesterday, starting with former News-Press director of advertising Sarah Sinclair and continuing with former reporters Tom Schultz, Barney McManigal and Anna Davison.

Union attorneys filed federal charges against the News-Press alleging that the newspaper’s management illegally fired eight reporters, including Schultz, McManigal and Davison. Defense attorneys maintain that those reporters were fired for disloyalty or biased reporting.
Steve Wyllie, a lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board, opened yesterday’s proceedings by questioning Sinclair on management training she received in January after establishing that she had worked in management at the News-Press for about 10 years.
“The general emphasis they made was all of all management working together from a unified point of view,” Sinclair testified, adding later that the training also emphasized setting expectations for reporters and making sure they understood their job duties.
Under cross examination by defense attorney Matthew Clarke, Sinclair said the training did not lead her to believe that the News-Press employee manual had been replaced or was no longer in effect.
As Wyllie continued his questioning, Sinclair then testified that she had noticed a News-Press security guard filming two union rallies held in De la Guerra Plaza in February. She characterized the first rally as small, with about eight to 12 union employees standing on the sidewalk adjacent to the News-Press building as about 10 people watched.
Sinclair described the second rally as larger, estimating about 150 people in attendance as union supporters gave speeches. Again, she noticed the security guard filming the speakers.
Clarke later questioned Sinclair on those rallies, asking if media had attended both. She testified that no media had been present at the first, but that photographers and camera crews had attended the second.
Clarke also brought up the issue of a black wreath that he said had been placed on the News-Press door and the vandalism of several newspaper stands near that door, calling those events a “legitimate reason” for having security.
Sinclair said she knew a black wreath had been delivered, but not that it had been hung on a door. She testified that she did not know that the newspaper stands had been vandalized during the rally, but said they had been vandalized previously during her time at the newspaper.
After a short break, former reporter Tom Schultz took the stand and Wyllie began by questioning him on a letter newsroom employees attempted to deliver to News-Press owner and copublisher Wendy McCaw on Aug. 24, 2006.
Schultz explained that he had gathered with about 15 other newsroom employees and walked to McCaw’s office. After decided that she was not in her office, they went to the office of Yolanda Apodaca, director of human resources, who told them she would try to set up an appointment with McCaw, Schultz said.
Later that day, Apodaca told him on the phone that both McCaw and copublisher Arthur von Weisenberger were not available, Schultz said, and the group started to gather again to deliver the letter to Apodaca. At that point, associate editor Scott Steepleton told them to sit down and get back to work, eventually letting only Schultz deliver the letter, he said.
Schultz contradicted earlier testimony by Steepleton about the nature of the letter delivery, describing it as “normal walking” instead of marching as the associate editor characterized it during the first week of the hearing.
News-Press attorney Barry Cappello later questioned Schultz about an e-mail he sent to about 25 newsroom employees and union officials about delivering the letter, stating, “peeps. we rocked the house, crossed their wires and got em unglued. way to go.”
Cappello said that description did not seem to agree with Schultz’ earlier testimony that the event was quiet and professional. Schultz stood by his testimony and explained that “rocking the house” in that context meant doing something well.
The defense attorney also asked Schultz about the number of employees involved in the delivery of the letter, explaining to the judge that he believed the number to be closer to 20 or 25. Schultz stuck to his previous answer that about 15 people had been involved and said he was not trying to “play down the event” as Cappello had suggested.
Wyllie also focused Schultz’ attention on the incident on the Anapamu footbridge over Highway 101 when several newsroom employees held up banners reading “Cancel Your Newspaper Today!” and other signs in February.
Schultz testified that one of the banners had been previously displayed at a union rally in September 2006 next to union supporters as they delivered speeches. He also described pledge cards, radio advertisements and press releases asking the community to cancel their News-Press subscription during the latter part of 2006.
Cappello objected to that area of testimony, arguing that each specific event is separate and should be judged alone, attempting to support his position that the activity on the footbridge should not be considered protected by labor law because none of the signs included union identification.
Wyllie responded that the test of whether the Anapamu footbridge incident is protected activity or not depends on how the public perceived the event and that a widespread cancellation campaign would have an impact on that perception.
Judge William Kocol ruled in favor of Wyllie, allowing the testimony and calling the context “clearly relevant.”
Cappello later focused on the same incident in his cross examination, questioning Schultz on his intent in holding up the banners and signs. Judge Kocol did not allow that line of inquiry after objections from Wyllie, reminding Cappello of his ruling on Tuesday that he will only consider objective facts concerning the union activity, not the intent of the participants.
Cappello also asked Schultz if he applied for a permit from Caltrans to hang the sign, explaining to Judge Kocol that if the employees had violated a law deliberately, their activity would not be protected by labor law. Schultz testified that he had no knowledge of that traffic law.
Wyllie focused his last line of questioning on a meeting held at the public library on Anacapa Street. Schultz said union supporters and News-Press advertisers met at 7:30 in the evening and that News-Press attorney David Millstein and another man entered 10 minutes later. Union organizer Marty Keegan told the two men that they were interrupting a union meeting and asked them to leave, Schultz said.
Although Schultz was not able to identify the other man who came, he said he described himself as a News-Press advertiser. Schultz said Millstein and the man left after about 25 minutes. Cappello asked him if Keegan asked both men to leave, and Schultz replied affirmatively, later admitting that the invitation to the meeting was open to all advertisers.
During his cross examination, Cappello also questioned the reporter on a letter he helped write to members of the public following his termination at the News-Press that contained negative language about McCaw, arguing that it will affect Schultz’ reinstatement rights.
Although testimony from Schultz lasted well into the afternoon, questioning of former reporter Barney McManigal went quickly as attorneys glossed over areas already discussed earlier, picking out a few new details to highlight.
McManigal’s testimony under questioning by Wyllie on the letter delivery and Anapamu footbridge incident corresponded largely with answers from Schultz. However, as News-Press attorney Dugan Kelley delved into his cross examination, McManigal said former reporter Dawn Hobbs had warned him not to tie the “Cancel Your Newspaper Today!” banners to the fencing.
Kelley also brought up Schultz’ “rock the house” e-mail, asking McManigal if he remembered receiving that message. McManigal said although his e-mail address appeared in the heading, he did not specifically remember reading the e-mail.
“That’s just not credible,” Kelley said, prompting Judge Kocol to say that he will be taking credibility into account in his final ruling.
Kelley also questioned McManigal about turning that e-mail over to the defense along with other documents. After McManigal testified that he hadn’t, Kelley said he found it “troubling” that the defense did not receive that document as part of McManigal’s subpoena.
Under further questioning by federal and union attorneys, McManigal said he doesn’t keep all his e-mails and did not delete that particular e-mail so he wouldn’t have to turn it over to the defense.
Following McManigal, former reporter Anna Davison took the stand. Wyllie ran her through a list of several awards and fellowships she received for her science writing at the News-Press, also delving into the fact that she holds a master’s degree in botany and a graduate certificate in science writing.
Davison testified that at the time she was fired in January, she had been assigned to cover Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, science and the environment, along with writing other general assignment stories. She said when Steepleton asked her to cover Santa Barbara in early January she felt she was being “set up.”
However, that is as far as Wyllie got with his questioning, as Judge Kocol ended the hearing for the day and announced that testimony will resume at 9 a.m. at the Bankruptcy Court building on State Street today.