International Airport, continue to enjoy the right to join labor organizations and to engage in collective bargaining.” 5 . Specifically, the defendants state: Compare Compl. in Loy I at 6 para. (2) (requesting an order '[djeclaring that the directive issued by Under Secretary Loy prohibiting airport screeners from engaging in collective bargaining or form being represented by an organization for the purpose of engaging in such bargaining deprives plaintiffs of ar that such speech deals with individual personnel disputes and grievances and that the information would be of no relevance to the public's evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies.” Id. (quoting McKinley, 705 F.2d at 1114); see Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-49, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (<HOLDING>). 8 . In particular, the plaintiffs point out
holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern holding that the plaintiffs speech was not a matter of public concern because it did not bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust on the part of the defendant and others recognizing the need to balance the states interest in fulfilling its responsibilities to the public the extent to which the speech in question involves a matter of public concern and the manner time place and context of the speech