Patterned Responses to Organizing: Case Studies of the Union-Busting Convention Richard W
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Articles and Chapters ILR Collection 1994 Patterned Responses to Organizing: Case Studies of the Union-Busting Convention Richard W. Hurd Cornell University, [email protected] Joseph B. Uehlein Labor Heritage Foundation Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons, and the Unions Commons Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. Support this valuable resource today! This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the ILR Collection at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles and Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Patterned Responses to Organizing: Case Studies of the Union-Busting Convention Abstract [Excerpt] In June 1993, the Industrial Union Department (IUD) of the AFL-CIO initiated a project to gather cases from affiliated unions that would highlight aspects of the National Labor Relations Board process deserving attention from those shaping labor law reform proposals. Based on the cases submitted, we conclude that in its current form the National Labor Relations Act serves to impede union organizing. Particularly problematic are NLRB policies that allow employers to wage no-holds-barred antiunion campaigns. Even where there are legal restrictions on specific cta ions, the penalties for violations are so meager that they serve no deterrent effect. The cases described below cover many industries, all parts of the country, large units and small, and collectively suggest that union busting has become the convention among U.S. employers. Keywords unions, labor movement, organizing, worker rights, United States, labor law, National Labor Relations Board, NLRB Disciplines Labor and Employment Law | Labor Relations | Unions Comments Suggested Citation Hurd, R. W. & Uehlein, J. B. (1994). Patterned responses to organizing: Case studies of the union-busting convention [Electronic version]. In S. Friedman, R. W. Hurd, R. A. Oswald & R. L. Seeber (Eds.) Restoring the promise of American labor law (pp. 61-74). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/320/ Required Publisher Statement Reprinted with permission of Cornell University. This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/320 4 Patterned Responses to Organizing: Case Studies of the Union-Busting Convention Richard W. Hurd and Joseph B. Uehlein In June 1993, the Industrial Union Department (IUD) of the AFL-CIO initiated a project to gather cases from affiliated unions that would highlight aspects of the National Labor Relations Board process deserving attention from those shaping labor law reform proposals. Based on the cases submitted, we conclude that in its current form the National Labor Relations Act serves to impede union organizing. Particularly problematic are NLRB policies that allow employers to wage no-holds-barred antiunion campaigns. Even where there are legal restrictions on specific actions, the penalties for violations are so meager that they serve no deterrent effect. The cases described below cover many industries, all parts of the country, large units and small, and collec tively suggest that union busting has become the convention among U.S. employers. Overview of the IUD Case Studies Project The request for case studies that the IUD circulated was relatively broad but focused primarily on union organizing. By October 1, 1993, we had received 213 case studies from twenty-one national unions. Of these, 167 reported on organizing campaigns; included were campaigns in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Most were submitted as brief summaries of one to four pages. This chapter highlights aspects of nineteen representative cases for which additional information was gathered through database searches and requests from the organizing and legal depart ments of the unions involved. The picture that emerges from a review of the cases is clear. Under the current legal structure, companies faced with an organizing drive are free to 61 62 Richard W. Kurd and Joseph B. Uehlein Patterned Responses to conduct intense antiunion campaigns. Even those companies that have good ings, a suggestion box, letters to employe relations with unions at other facilities often bitterly oppose union organiz strikes and permanent replacements, adv ing. Union avoidance routinely involves the use of a management lawyer or arbitration system to resolve worker comp consultant who is expert at defeating worker efforts to organize. Although vocal union advocates, and even a promise i many antiunion campaigns are run within the limits of the law, many others very end and that could take years." In spit openly violate NLRB policies. The most common violation is discrimination the July 21, 1992, election and has prev against union activists in job assignments, discipline, and discharge. If the decision. Nonetheless, there was still no cc union manages to win the election, the employer often appeals certification to months after 97 percent of the employee delay bargaining, in some cases for years. Even if the union is ultimately representation. certified as bargaining agent, management may engage in hard bargaining as Although most management campaigns part of a long-term strategy to decertify the union. some are more narrowly focused. In Februa The remainder of this chapter is devoted almost exclusively to summaries ing and Textile Workers Union (ACTWU] of the cases themselves. We believe that they offer compelling testimony to a majority of workers in a two-plant unit the need for labor law reform. In each topical section below, we offer several turing and Jennings Manufacturing. The brief examples plus one case summary to give the reader a taste of the intensity Vote union and you will lose your job. Thi 1 of employer hostility toward workers who attempt to organize. audience meetings, one-on-one discussion tin boards, lawn signs, and radio ads. Wall newspaper articles, blown up to five feet b) Union-Avoidance Routine twelve-foot-by-three-foot banner proclai A typical scenario has evolved for the employer's response to an organizing UNEMPLOYED." Sets of two identical pairs of campaign. Consider, for example, the case of Aero Metal Forms in Wichita, ries, and supervisors explained that the on Kansas. When twelve of the fifteen employees approached the International made in Crowley or Jennings for five dolla: Association of Machinists (IAM)2 about organizing a union, the company in Mexico for three dollars per day. The NI hired an attorney to design an antiunion campaign. Supervisors were trained unfair labor practice charges, in essence cot to identify and combat union supporters, and captive audience meetings were the election 275-222. held. Workers were warned that the union would take them out on strike and that they could be replaced; they also were threatened with plant closure. The CWA v. HarperCollins, San Francisi two most vocal union supporters were fired. The April 22, 1991, election HarperCollins in San Francisco, owne resulted in a 6-6 tie with three challenged ballots. By the time the NLRB psychology, feminist, and religious books reached a final decision and declared the union a 7—6 winner on April 5, employees are eligible for union member 1993, only one union supporter still worked for Aero Metal. Months of effort on employee-manageme Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their employees want union change, prompting a group of workers to o representation, some companies will go to great lengths to avoid recognition ers of America (CWA). On December and bargaining. On May 27, 1992, Local 26 of the United Food and Commer petition for a unit of eighty-three employe cial Workers (UFCW) requested recognition from Home Style Foods in HarperCollins sought to exclude twent Hamtramck, Michigan, based on thirty-four signed cards from the thirty- agreed to four). The NLRB held eight five employees. The company denied the request, hired a consultant, and February 1993- The hearings were prolon implemented a textbook union-resistance campaign: captive audience meet- for example, questioned a receptionist for NLRB ultimately ruled with the union ; 1. The examples and case summaries are based on material submitted by the unions involved. A list of contact persons and supporting citations will be provided by the authors on request. employees in the unit. The decision was 2. Standard union abbreviations are used throughout, as indexed in Gifford 1992. and the election was scheduled for June 11 ird and Joseph B. Uehlein Patterned Responses to Organizing 63 gns. Even those companies that have good ings, a suggestion box, letters to employees at home, warnings about union lities often bitterly oppose union organiz- strikes and permanent replacements, advance payment of bonuses, a new volves the use of a management lawyer or arbitration system to resolve worker complaints, discipline and dismissal for :ing worker efforts to organize. Although vocal union advocates, and even a promise from the owner to "fight this to the t within the limits of the law, many others very end and that could take years." In spite of the campaign, the UFCW won : most common violation is discrimination the July 21, 1992, election and has prevailed on every subsequent NLRB emments, discipline, and discharge. If the decision. Nonetheless,