Mark I reviewed the fax, it looks fine to me. Have you ever thought of creating a check list of the anticipated management scare tatics and checking the list as the tactics go on? Create a list of the predicable management statements and update the list with black check marks. Interesting idea see attached for a sample. MJT Michael J. Tedesco Law Office of MJ Tedesco 15050 SW 150th Court Beaverton, OR 97007 email@example.com THE THINGS MANAGEMENT TRY TO SCARE YOU WITH: (We Will Check Off The Scare Tatics As They Occur) ____________ THE UNION IS OUT FOR YOUR DUES ____________ THE UNION DOESN’T REALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR ISSUES ____________ IF THE UNION GETS IN THERE WILL BE LAYOFFS ____________ THE COMPANY AND NOT THE UNION IS MORE INTERESTED IN YOUR ISSUES ____________ ETC:
FACTS REGARDING THE GRANTING OF UNIT PAY INCREASES
PAY INCREASES WERE GRANTED BY EMPLOYER ON MARCH 15, 2004.
THE EMPLOYER HAD MADE THE DECISION TO GRANT THESE PAY INCREASES BY NO LATER THAN JANUARY 29, 2004.
THE UNION ALLEGES:
THAT THE EMPLOYER GRANTED INCREASES TO MORE UNIT EMPLOYEES AFTER THEY LEARNED OF THE ORGANIZING EFFORTS.
THAT THE EMPLOYER GRANTED UNPRECEDENTED INCREASES TO THE BARGAINING UNIT.
THESE INCREASES WERE GIVEN TO A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF WORKERS IN THE BARGAINING UNIT JUST DAYS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.
WITHIN A MONTH OF THE ELECTION THE EMPLOYER HELD A MEETING WITH EMPLOYEES AND ANNOUNCED THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE ORGANIZING EFFORTS AND INFORMED THE UNIT OF THE PENDING PAY INCREASES.
THE LAW ON UNILATERAL PAY INCREASES PENDING AN ELECTION
GRANTING OF UNPRECEDENTED WAGE INCREASES IS A “HALLMARK” ULP. OVERNITE TRANSP. 329 NLRB 990, 993 (1999).
A “HALLMARK” VIOLATION IS ONE THAT IS “HIGHLY COERCIVE” AND HAS “A LASTING EFFECT ON ELECTION CONDITIONS.” ID. SEE ALSO, AUDUBON REGIONAL MEDICAL CTR. , 331 NLRB 374 (2000).
AS SUCH, A NEW ELECTION MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE EMPLOYEES’ UNINHIBITED DESIRES REGARDING THE ELECTION.
A TYPICAL DEFENSE IS THAT EMPLOYERS OFTEN ARGUE THAT THE WAGE INCREASE WAS PLANNED BEFORE THE FILING OF THE PETITION.
THIS BECOMES LARGELY A QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY.
FACTS REGARDING THE CAPTIVE AUDIENCE ISSUE
TV MONITORS PLACED IN THE VICINITY OF WORKERS ON THE JOB
RIGHT AFTER THE UNIONIZING EFFORTS STARTED, THESE MONITORS SHOWED UP
WHERE WERE THEY PLACED
THEY WERE POWERPOINT SLIDES THAT WERE EASILY READABLE?
IN THE COURSE OF DOING YOUR NORMAL WORK, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT THEM
IN THE PRODUCTION PLANT, THERE IS NOWHERE YOU COULD STAND WITHOUT SEEING THESE TV’S
THE MESSAGES THAT APPEARED ON THE MONITORS WERE GENERAL INFORMATIONAL AND ANTI-UNION CAMPAIGN INFO
LIKE HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
IF YOU GO ON STRIKE, YOU WON’T GET UNEMPLOYMENT
THE COMPANY HAS THE RIGHT TO REPLACE YOU IF YOU GO ON STRIKE
IF YOU JOIN THE UNION, THE UNION WILL TAKE MONEY OUT OF YOUR CHECK
THE UNION WILL LIE TO YOU WHEREAS AIRGAS WILL TELL YOU THE TRUTH
BROADCASTS WERE PLAYED ALL DAY, EVERY DAY EVEN THE DAY IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDING THE VOTE
LAW RELATING TO THE CAPTIVE AUDIENCE RULE
PARTIES TO AN ELECTION ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED FROM MAKING STATEMENTS THAT ARE LIKELY TO INTERFERE WITH EMPLOYEES’ FREE CHOICE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF AN ELECTION. PEERLESS PLYWOOD , 107 NLRB 427, 332 LRRM 1151 (1953).
THE PURPOSE OF THE PEERLESS PLYWOOD RULE IS TO PREVENT “MASS PSYCHOLOGY” FROM CREATING AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.
HOWEVER, ONLY STATEMENTS MADE TO “CAPTIVE AUDIENCES” ARE PROHIBITED.
SPEECHES MADE AT VOLUNTARY GATHERINGS ARE PERMITTED.
FACTS REGARDING THE SPYING ISSUE
THE UNION HELD AN ORGANIZING MEETING AT JANTZEN BEACH ON FEBRUARY 27
A NUMBER OF WORKERS ATTENDED THE MEETING, ABOUT 12 OR 13
THE MEETING STARTED AT ABOUT 3 PM
THE OWNER’S SON DROVE BY THE WINDOW OF THE RESTAURANT ABOUT A HALF HOUR AFTER THE MEETING STARTED
HE WAS IN THE COMPANY PICK UP TRUCK, A WHITE FORD F-150 PICKUP WITH THE AIRGAS LOGO ON THE SIDE OF IT.
HE WAS PARKED OUTSIDE BY A WINDOW
HE WAS THERE LONG ENOUGH FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES TO SEE HIM
THE WORKERS ATTENDING THE EVENT PARKED IN THE RESTAURANT PARKING LOT.
LAW RELATING TO SPYING
WHILE EMPLOYERS MAY OBSERVE EMPLOYEES ATTENDING UNION MEETINGS AT THE WORKSITE, SURVEILLANCE OF EMPLOYEES AWAY FROM THE WORKSITE IS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SECTION 8(A) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT. SEE E.G. KELLY CONSTRUCTION , 333 NLRB NO. 148 (2001).
THE BOARD FOUND THAT SUCH SURVEILLANCE WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF INTIMIDATING EMPLOYEES BEFORE THEY VOTED.
SIMILARLY, VIDEOTAPING EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN HAND BILLING TWO BLOCKS FROM THE WORKSITE VIOLATED SECTION (8). ROBERT ORR - SYSCO FOOD SERVICES , 334 NLRB NO. 122 (2002).
Approximate Number of Eligible Voters 60
Void Ballots 0
Votes Cast for Petitioner 20
Votes Cast Against Participating Labor Organization 36
Valid Votes Counted 56
Challenged Ballots 3
Valid Votes Counted Plus Challenged Ballots 59
April 6, 2004 Cathleen Callahan, Officer in Charge National Labor Relations Board Subregion 36 601 Southwest Second Ave. Suite 1910 Portland, OR 97204-3170 RE: Airgas-Norpac, Inc 36-RC-6239 Dear Ms. Callahan: We are in receipt of your letter regarding our objections to the election that was conducted by your office in the above case. Teamsters Local 162 provides the following evidence to support our objections: Objection #1 That the Employer unilaterally granted pay raises on March 15, 2004, retroactive to March 1, 2004, to employees participating in the election on March 24, 2004.
⇒ Airgas employees Danny Moseley and James Roberts (both eligible voters in the election) will testify that on March 15, 2004, employees participating in the March 24, 2004, election, including themselves, were unilaterally granted pay raises retroactive to March 1, 2004, and that said pay raises interfered with the employees right to a free, fair and honest election. ⇒ Danny Moseley will testify that he received a fifty-six cent ($0.56) per hour pay raise, which increased his hourly rate from $14.94 per hour to $15.50 per hour (see attached payroll stubs as evidence). ⇒ James Roberts will testify that he received a thirty-nine cent ($0.39) per hour pay raise, which increased his hourly rate from $13.86 per hour to $14.25 per hour.
On February 27, 2004, a representative of the Employer engaged in surveillance of employees attending a union organizing meeting away from the worksite.
⇒ Airgas employee Danny Moseley and James Roberts will testify that company representative Matt Clemens, the son of Airgas President Mark Clemens, engaged in surveillance of employees attending a union organizing meeting away from the worksite. They will testify that Matt Clemens drove through the parking lot of the meeting at 3:25 p.m. and stopped in front of the restaurant window where the meeting was taking place so he could see who was in attendance. Matt Clemens was driving an Airgas company truck, a Ford F150 with license plate #X8G181. The meeting was held from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 27, 2004 at BJ’S Restaurant & Brewhouse at 12105 N. Center, Jantzen Beach, Oregon.
⇒ Local 162 Representative Mark Davison, Local 162 Representative Scott Campbell and Joint Council 37 Organizer Dave Tully, are eye witnesses and will support the testimony of Moseley and Roberts.
The Employer made campaign speeches to assembled groups of employees on company time within the 24-hour period before the election via electronic communication using television monitors in the employees work areas.
⇒ Airgas employees Danny Moseley and James Roberts will testify that two 25-27 inch television monitors were installed in the production plant in eligible voters work areas (loaders, fillers, plant operators, etc.), and that one 15 inch flat screen monitor was installed in the dispatch office where eligible voters (drivers, etc.) process paperwork.
⇒ Moseley and Roberts will testify that these monitors broadcast company campaign speeches within the 24-hour period before the election. And that said campaign speeches contained anti-union propaganda about union strikes, the Employer’s ability to hire replacement workers, negative statements regarding union dues, the percentage of Airgas facilities represented by the union and a host of other anti-union messages.
⇒ Moseley and Roberts will testify that they, as well as other eligible voters, were paid by the Employer to watch said campaign speeches, and had no alternative but to watch.
It is the Union’s position, supported by witnesses, that all of the above objections support our claim that the conduct of the Employer interfered with the rights of the employees to a free, fair and honest election. Teamsters Local 162 requests a full investigation by your office and we seek all recourse under federal labor law.
We can be reached at (503) 257-0162. Our legal counsel in this matter is Michael Tedesco.
THE DECLINE(?) OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT GETMAN ARTICLE 1986
Violence Results in Restraining Order The Steelworkers' strike against RMI Titanium has featured numerous acts of intimidation and violence. Just before Common Pleas Judge Peter Kontos issued a temporary restraining order against the union, USWA Local 2155 President Bob Walsh was quoted saying, "No one from this union is causing any trouble." Here are some of the incidents which have been reported so far: Large rocks were thrown at security guards, injuring two of them and destroying a company guardhouse Rocks were thrown through the windows of a business owned by David Ornelas, part of RMI's management team. Strikers threw firecrackers and launched paintball volleys at the plant
LABOR’S PROBLEM IS MANIFESTED BY :
DECLINE IN MEMBERSHIP
FAILURE TO ORGANIZE NEW MEMBERS
WHO DID THEY BLAME?
ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES
WHAT ABOUT BLAMING THEMSELVES?
LABOR'S ORGANIZING FAILURES HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE
UNIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLACENT,
HAVE LOST THEIR SENSE OF MISSION,
HAVE ASSIGNED INCOMPETENT PEOPLE TO ORGANIZING,
HAVE FAILED TO ADOPT INNOVATIVE ORGANIZING TACTICS IN RESPONSE TO CHANGING CONDITIONS.
ORGANIZING DRIVES ARISE OUT OF
ANXIETY ABOUT CHANGES
EMPLOYEES WHO FEEL UNFAIRLY TREATED
SUBJECT TO ARBITRARY CHANGE
HOW DOES THE ORGANIZER PROCEED?
WILL ESTABLISH AN ORGANIZING COMMITTEE MADE UP OF EMPLOYEES TO SIGN AUTHORIZATION CARDS DESIGNATING THE UNION AS THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT
STRESS THE PROSPECT OF IMPROVED WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS,
THE DIGNITY THAT COMES FROM HAVING CONTRACTUALLY-DEFINED RIGHTS ENFORCED THROUGH A MEANINGFUL GRIEVANCE PROCESS
THE FAIRNESS OF USING SENIORITY
IF YOU GET THE CARDS
WRITE A "'RECOGNITION LETTER"' TO THE COMPANY THAT THE UNION HAS SIGNED UP A MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES
OFFERING TO PROVE THIS TO AN IMPARTIAL OBSERVER
REQUESTING THE COMPANY TO ENTER INTO A BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP
IMMEDIATE BARGAINING IS RARE
MOST EMPLOYERS STRONGLY DESIRE TO AVOID DEALING WITH A UNION, AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO INSIST UPON AN ELECTION.
A VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION AGREEMENT
Voluntary Recognition Agreement
By and between the Central Oregon Community College (“College”) and the Oregon School Employees Association (“Union”), it is agreed that the College recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative under ORS 243, for the College employees who are described in the following Unit Description:
All employees of Central Oregon Community College in the classifications performing the work of Adult Basic Education Teacher.
It is understood that this unit description includes both full and part-time employees.
For the Union:
Steven Araujo Date
For the College
IF RECOGNITION FAILS
UNION'S RESPONSE IS TO FILE AN ELECTION PETITION
THE PETITION WILL SPECIFY WHICH EMPLOYEES IT CLAIMS TO REPRESENT.
THE EMPLOYER MAY THEN CHALLENGE THE PETITION CLAIMING THAT THE UNIT DESCRIBED IS INAPPROPRIATE
THE TERMS OF THE ELECTION AND QUESTIONS OF ELIGIBILITY ARE TYPICALLY WORKED OUT
USUALLY THE UNION MAKES MAJOR CONCESSIONS TO AVOID A BOARD HEARING
DELAY WORKS IN THE EMPLOYER'S FAVOR
THINGS AREN’T AS BAD AS THE UNION SAYS
THEY WILL GET WORSE WITH THE UNION
THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYEES ARE TIED TO THE EMPLOYER'S PROFITABILITY.
THE UNION DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ENDANGERING BOTH THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEES
OTHER EMPLOYER ARGUMENTS
YOU ARE LUCKY YOU HAVE A JOB
IF THE UNION COMES IN AND GETS MORE FOR SOME, OTHERS WILL HAVE TO BE LAID OFF
WE (THE EMPLOYER) WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HELP YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE TO LIVE BY THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF THE LABOR AGREEMENT THAT ARE INFLEXIBLE
MORE FROM THE EMPLOYER
THE UNION CAN GUARANTEE YOU NOTHING
WE WILL BARGAIN TOUGH
THEY WILL TAKE YOU OUT ON STRIKE
THERE WILL BE VIOLENCE
YOU WILL LOSE YOUR JOB TO SOMEONE ELSE
OTHER EMPLOYER TACTICS
DISCIPLINE OR DISCHARGE THE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZERS
THE MESSAGE SENT BY SUCH ACTIONS IS CLEAR
GOOD COP/BAD COP
WHILE THERE ARE SOME EMPLOYEES WHO ARE DISCIPLINED
THE REST GET GOOD TREATMENT AND RESPECT
INFORMATION IS PUT OUT IN A FRIENDLY “INFORMATIONAL” WAY
NOT IN THE SHRILL COMPLAINING WAY OF THE UNION
THE “BAD” UNION
THE UNION ORGANIZERS ARE OUTSIDERS
INTERESTED IN THE EMPLOYEES ONLY FOR DUES
THE UNION IS RUN IS NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN THE EMPLOYEES,
THE UNION WILL INEVITABLY CREATE A LESS FRIENDLY AND MORE ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP
THE UNION HAS NO STAKE IN THE COMPANY,
THEY WILL JEOPARDIZE ITS FUTURE
THE JEOPARDIZE JOBS
UNIONS MAY MAKE SENSE IN OTHER INDUSTRIES OR THAT THEY DID A LOT OF GOOD ONCE,
THEY ARE NO LONGER NEEDED
UNION’S RESPONSE-ON THE DEFENSIVE
UNION WILL STRESS THAT IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES CONTRACTS ARE NEGOTIATED WITHOUT A STRIKE,
THAT DECISIONS CONCERNING BARGAINING POSITIONS ARE MADE BY THE EMPLOYEES THEMSELVES.
THE UNION WILL AFFIRM ITS DESIRE TO BE REASONABLE AND PERMIT THE EMPLOYER A FAIR PROFIT.
MORE UNION RESPONSES
THE UNION WILL CRITICIZE THE EMPLOYER'S CAMPAIGN.
THE EMPLOYER IS TRYING TO WIN THE ELECTION BY UNFAIRLY FRIGHTENING THE EMPLOYEES
OR BY TRYING TO BUY THEM OFF
UNIONS MAKE THE COMPANY LAWYER OR MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT AN ISSUE BY ATTACKING BOTH THE UNFAIR STYLE AND THE HIGH FEES.
UNIONS RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY ARE OUTSIDERS BY STRESSING LOCAL CONTROL.
LARGE UNIONS WILL STRESS THEIR POWER.
HARD LINERS ON EACH SIDE ARE LARGELY UNAFFECTED
THE FIGHT IS OVER THE UNDECIDED
GETMAN CONCLUDES THAT THE EMPLOYER WHO CONDUCTS AN AGGRESSIVE CAMPAIGN GAINS NO OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE
THE MYTH OF THE INVINCIBLE MANAGEMENT LAWYER OR CONSULTANT
THEIR STOCK RISES FROM THEIR PERCEIVED SUCCESS.
MANAGEMENT HAPPY BECAUSE THEY WON
UNION ENCOURAGES THIS BY BLAMING MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS FOR THE UNION’S FAILURE
GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THE UNION’S DEMONIZING CAMPAIGN
WHAT WORKS FOR MANAGEMENT
APPEALS TO LOYALTY NOT THREATS
ACCESS TO EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYEES RETICENCE TO CHANGE
DESIRE NOT TO PAY UNION DUES
WHAT WORKS FOR THE UNION
LET WORKERS, NOT ORGANIZERS SPEAK FOR THE UNION
ONE ON ONE CONTACT IS ESSENTIAL
DON’T USE COOKIE-CUTTER MATERIAL
MASS MEETINGS ARE NOT THE WAY
MASS LITERATURE DOESN’T WORK
STRONG INTERNAL COMMITTEE
KEEPS THE “OUTSIDER” CHARGE AT BAY
OVERCOMES THE DIFFICULTIES IN GETTING EMPLOYEE ACCESS
WHAT ELSE CAN THE UNION DO?
PREDICT THE EMPLOYER CAMPAIGN
FERVOR IS INFECTIOUS
CARE ABOUT PEOPLES LIVES, LISTEN TO THEM AND EARN LOYALTY
DESIRE TO PROTECT SO CALLED “LABORATORY CONDITIONS”
GETMAN SAYS THE UNION IS OVERLY CONCERNED WITH THIS
THREATS ARE INEFFECTIVE ANYWAY
EVEN IF YOU WIN THE ULP-YOU GET AN ELECTION RE-RUN THAT YOU LOSE ANYWAY
BARGAINING ORDERS ARE LARGELY INEFFECTIVE
YOU DON’T HAVE MAJORITY SUPPORT ANYWAY
LIMITATIONS ON UNION ACTIVITIES BY THE COURTS
ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE LIMITATION ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES BY MANAGEMENT
YET THE MANAGEMENT LIMITATION DOES THE UNION LITTLE GOOD, WHILE THE LIMITATION ON UNION ACTIVITY IS SIGNIFICANT
ARE TERRIBLY DAMAGING TO THE EFFORT TO ORGANIZE
AGAIN THE LIMITATION ON THE UNION CORRESPONDS TO THE LIMITATION ON EMPLOYER SPEECH
IT IS FREE SPEECH AND ALRIGHT FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT