NLRB Advice Memoranda, Baltimore Sun., National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 12, 2025)

The Region submitted this case for advice as to whether the Employer—a newspaper—violated Section 8(a)(1) when it terminated an employee, ​     ​, for criticizing the Employer's ​     ​ decision-making during a meeting with ​     ​ and on the Employer's Slack platform. The Region also sought advice on whether the Employer's rule, which restricted certain types of Slack conversations, was unlawful. First, we conclude that the Employer lawfully terminated ​     ​ because ​     ​ effective demand for ​     ​ control rendered ​     ​ activity unprotected. Second, we conclude that the Employer's rule is lawful because employees would view it as a prohibition on employee demands for ​     ​ control. Accordingly, absent withdrawal, the Region should dismiss the charge.

The Employer's ​     ​ employees are represented by the Union, which has a collective bargaining agreement with the Employer. The Employer was purchased in January 2024, and in the following months, employees frequently used the Employer's Slack platform to express concerns about the Employer's collaboration with Fox 45, a local news station owned by the Employer's new co-owner. Specifically, employees cited what they perceived as a decline in the Employer's journalistic standards and raised issues about what they viewed as poorly sourced stories being shared with Fox 45 and the impact this had on their daily work. All ​     ​ employees have access to Slack and can view and respond to messages pasted there. ​     ​ joined the Employer as ​     ​ in ​     ​ and became a member of the Union. Soon after, ​     ​ also began raising concerns about the Employer's journalism practices in Slack conversations with colleagues. Prior to and shortly after joining the Employer, ​     ​ extensively on ​     ​, and developed ​     ​. As a result, ​     ​ regarded ​     ​ asserting that journalists typically maintain ownership over ​     ​.

Around ​     ​, just before ​     ​ the Labor Day weekend, ​     ​ saw and was upset that Fox 45 had published a ​     ​ story. Upon returning from the holiday on ​     ​ requested a phone meeting with ​     ​, to discuss the matter. Much of the conversation focused on ​     ​ frustration with the Employer's decision to publish the story, which ​     ​ believed should not have run. ​     ​ disagreed, maintaining that the story was newsworthy, ​     ​ responded that its publication jeopardized ​     ​ relationship with a ​     ​

Later on ​     ​ an employee posted in the Slack ​     ​ channel that the Fox 45 ​     ​ story had been updated with a factual clarification. ​     ​ responded to the post, tagged the ​     ​, and said that ​     ​ was unclear why it was so urgent for the Employer to run the Fox 45 story rather than wait for ​     ​ to return ​     ​. ​     ​ noted that the story was several days old by the time it was reported, and running an incomplete version threatened ​     ​ relationship with a ​     ​ also said that ​     ​ cannot do ​     ​ job if ​     ​ were going to undercut ​     ​.

On ​     ​ the Employer terminated ​     ​ for undermining the ​     ​ story by demanding ​     ​ control in ​     ​ conversation with ​     ​ and in ​     ​ Slack post tagging ​     ​ The Employer also cited an incident where ​     ​ had made a snide remark about questionable journalistic ethics, which it considered harassment.

On ​     ​ ​     ​ changed the description of the ​     ​ Slack to say, “This channel is for general ​     ​ communication, collaborating on journalism, and requesting contact info for ​     ​ If you have questions or concerns about individual stories or decisions, bring them to your supervisor or a supervising ​     ​

We conclude that the Employer lawfully terminated ​     ​ because ​     ​ effectively demanded ​     ​ control over any ​     ​ -related story. Although ​     ​ joined with other employees on Slack to discuss their concerns about the Employer and how it affects their jobs, the Employer specifically terminated ​     ​ for ​     ​ demands. Because ​     ​ asserts that ​     ​ conversations with ​     ​ and on Slack were protected concerted activity, and because it is undisputed that the Employer terminated ​     ​ for this activity, a Wright Line analysis is not necessary. Phoenix Transit System, 337 NLRB 510, 510 (2002), enforced per curiam, 63 F. App'x 524 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the only question is whether ​     ​ activity was protected. The Employer's right to retain editorial control over its newspaper is enshrined in the First Amendment. As a member of the press, a newspaper-employer has “absolute discretion to determine the contents” of its publication. Ampersand Pub., LLC v. NLRB, 702 F.3d 51, 56 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Passaic Daily News v. NLRB, 736 F.2d 1543, 1557–8 (D.C. Cir. 1984)), denying enforcement of Santa Barbara News-Press, 357 NLRB 452, 456 (2011). Issues of “what is published and not published are not generally a ‘legitimate employee concern [ ]’ for purposes of §7's protection.” Id. at 56. Thus, ​     ​ demands ran counter to the Employer's editorial prerogative and were unprotected under the Act.

Finally, the Employer's revised description of the purpose of the Slack ​     ​ channel is lawful under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023). The Board in Stericycle explained that a rule that does not expressly restrict employees' protected concerted activity under Section 7 is nonetheless facially unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) if an economically dependent employee who contemplates engaging in protected concerted activity “could reasonably interpret the rule to have a coercive meaning … even if a contrary, noncoercive interpretation of the of the rule is also reasonable.” Id., slip op. at 2. The reasonable employee here interprets rules as a layperson, not as a lawyer. Id., slip op. at 6. Here, the Slack ​     ​ channel pre-dated ​     ​ and hosted a variety of conversations, including about employees' working conditions. It was not until ​     ​ started using the channel to effectively publicly demand ​     ​ control that the Employer decided to put some limitations on the channel's use. Accordingly, the rule, as embodied by the channel's new description, would not and could not be interpreted by employees as restricting Section 7 activity. Rather, the description uses noncoercive language and reserves to employees the ability to discuss terms and conditions of employment that fall under “general ​     ​ communication” and “collaborating on journalism.”

Accordingly, the Region should dismiss the entire charge, absent withdrawal. Please contact us with any questions.

​     ​

National Labor Relations Board

1015 Half St. SE

Washington, DC 20570

​     ​

Please be aware that this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or other authorities, though exceptions may apply for certain case-related information, personal privacy, and other matters.