Harrassment from the UAW

[vapor111]

What is the name of your state? Minnesota

My problem is a very complicated one, but here goes:

My employer after fighting to keep the UAW out for 8+ years, gave up, and allowed a closed shop when the contract was renewed Jan 31st. Our only way to get it back to open shop is to do a de-authorization, which is scheduled for July 14th.
As soon as the UAW was informed of the de-auth "application" they sent out a official "UAW newsletter". The only problem being, in that letter, they named 5 people by name, calling them whiners, trouble makers, lyers etc etc etc.
I verified with the president that it was not only a local UAW project, but a district project as well ( the big guy for the district UAW helped write the letter, and agreed to it before sending it to each and every employee). Mind you, I was included in that letter, 3 different times. I have sent a copy of that letter to the "big cheese" in the NLRB, and we will be filing a complaint as soon as the de-auth vote is over.
But until that time, anyone that is verbally against the UAW, has to deal with harrassment from the pro-union supervisors. There has been "almost fist fights" lots of name calling, yelling, people being treated like you know what.
My response was to send out my own newsletter stating that by law they could not name names, and they are now creating a "hostile work environment" etc etc etc.
My main question is, what kind of legal recourse could the 5 of us that have been named in their first newsletter have? If needed, I can always send to anyone, the copy of the newsletter that the UAW sent out to each employee.
Ive got copies of everything :>

Anyone have a idea what kind of legal recourse we may have?

Any help would be appreciated as the other guys named in the newsletter want answers and I get to do all the research. Lucky me :>

Joni

 

[Beth3]

If your employer does not have a labor attorney experienced in advising employers on these types of union matters, they need to get one NOW. This is a highly specialized and complex area of the law and is not a do-it-yourself job. Management could easily make a blunder (which includes you sending out your own newsletter) resulting in their forfeiting or negating the upcoming decertification election.

By the way, your assertion that the unions letter created a "hostile work environment" by sending out that letter is completely without merit. That term only applies when prohibited discrimination (race, gender, etc.) is occuring. They also were free to "name names," provided they didn't actually slander anyone. I promise you the union has plenty of legal counsel of their own in the wings, advising them what they can and cannot do within the confines of the National Labor Relations Act. If your employer does not have their own legal counsel, they are at a serious disadvantage.

 

[vapor111]

If your employer does not have a labor attorney experienced in advising employers on these types of union matters, they need to get one NOW. This is a highly specialized and complex area of the law and is not a do-it-yourself job. Management could easily make a blunder (which includes you sending out your own newsletter) resulting in their forfeiting or negating the upcoming decertification election.

Actually, the employer has nothing to do with the de-authorization. I have done everything with no help from the employer. As far as the newsletter that I sent out after their newsletter, I wasnt planning on sending out, but the NLRB told me to do it. Give my side of things, etc. As far as the employer, they do have a lawyer, but from what I understand is, they lawyer is busy right now taking testimony etc, from the UAW's former chief steward. In May, after the monthly meeting, the big guy in the district UAW told the President and chief steward of the local union that they had to do everything in their power to get me fired. Note, the chief steward told them it wasnt right, and walked out, signed out of full union member etc. He then came to me and told me to watch my back. We then in turn went to one of the "big guys" in the NLRB who talked to him. The chief steward when to who we call the "ax man" at our employer, and told him, who in turn got the company lawyer involved.

By the way, your assertion that the unions letter created a "hostile work environment" by sending out that letter is completely without merit. That term only applies when prohibited discrimination (race, gender, etc.) is occuring.

True, after reading more into it, thats what I understand as well, but what do they call it when supervisors try getting into fights with pro-no-union people? They do it so, if the people come back at the supervisors, yelling, or whatever else, those people then can get fired.

They also were free to "name names," provided they didn't actually slander anyone.

True, but from what everyone at work says, they would consider it slander, or libel. Hey, the UAW as far as I can tell, dug their hole even deeper because pro-union people have dropped out because of that letter. Saying they were un-professional etc.

I promise you the union has plenty of legal counsel of their own in the wings, advising them what they can and cannot do within the confines of the National Labor Relations Act. If your employer does not have their own legal counsel, they are at a serious disadvantage.

True, you have a good point there, but since the employer has nothing to do with this, and I can't imagine them offering their lawyer to us as employees, I think we are up a creek without a paddle, so to speak.

 

[Beth3]

Under NLRB reg's that govern this type of thing, the employer's role is very limited. It appeared to me from your first post that you are in a supervisory positon. If that is the case, senior management most certainly should be advising you on what you may and may not do within the confines of the law. If you are in a position that falls within the collective bargaining unit, then management cannot lawfully advise you.

 

[vapor111]

No, not a supervisor

Under NLRB reg's that govern this type of thing, the employer's role is very limited. It appeared to me from your first post that you are in a supervisory positon. If that is the case, senior management most certainly should be advising you on what you may and may not do within the confines of the law. If you are in a position that falls within the collective bargaining unit, then management cannot lawfully advise you.

Sorry, Im not a supervisor, Im just a "peon" like the rest of them :> Im the one that has started this de-authorization, from day one. It actually began when one of the union people "dared" me, saying that I could never in a million years find a way to get rid of them. Too bad they didnt realize that I do alot of surfing on the web, and ran into the right people at the right time, who have helped me tremendously. Introduced me to the right guy in the NLRB etc.

But anyways, I think Im getting the point that legally, we have no real way of "suing" them. We can though file charges against them thru the NLRB but only after the vote. Thank you for your help :>

Joni

 

[Beth3]

You're welcome. I doubt you have any basis to sue unless you really were slandered (which seems unlikely) but you certainly can file complaints against them with the NLRB for various unfair practices.

Good luck to you.

P.S. Please ignore my comments above regarding potential problems caused by your newsletter. I thought you were a member of management. As you're not, you can pretty much can do whatever you please in voicing your anti-union opinions.

 

[John/nyc]

What is the name of your state? Minnesota

My problem is a very complicated one, but here goes:

My employer after fighting to keep the UAW out for 8+ years, gave up, and allowed a closed shop when the contract was renewed Jan 31st. Our only way to get it back to open shop is to do a de-authorization, which is scheduled for July 14th.
As soon as the UAW was informed of the de-auth "application" they sent out a official "UAW newsletter". The only problem being, in that letter, they named 5 people by name, calling them whiners, trouble makers, lyers etc etc etc.
I verified with the president that it was not only a local UAW project, but a district project as well ( the big guy for the district UAW helped write the letter, and agreed to it before sending it to each and every employee). Mind you, I was included in that letter, 3 different times. I have sent a copy of that letter to the "big cheese" in the NLRB, and we will be filing a complaint as soon as the de-auth vote is over.
But until that time, anyone that is verbally against the UAW, has to deal with harrassment from the pro-union supervisors. There has been "almost fist fights" lots of name calling, yelling, people being treated like you know what.
My response was to send out my own newsletter stating that by law they could not name names, and they are now creating a "hostile work environment" etc etc etc.
My main question is, what kind of legal recourse could the 5 of us that have been named in their first newsletter have? If needed, I can always send to anyone, the copy of the newsletter that the UAW sent out to each employee.
Ive got copies of everything :>

Anyone have a idea what kind of legal recourse we may have?

Any help would be appreciated as the other guys named in the newsletter want answers and I get to do all the research. Lucky me :>

Joni

Just curious:

How many people are in your "bargaining unit?"

FYI:

The National Labor Relations Act prohibits the "closed shop" (which would require union membership before getting hired). What you are probably talking about is the agency shop which does not require bargaining unit employees to join the union but does require them to pay the dues. The rationale behind this is that the union, under the Act, must represent all employees in the bargaining unit whether they are union members or not, so, since the union is providing the service, it is entitled to the fees. You must pay the dues under this provision but you don't have to be a member of the union. The union has an obligation to represent you for contract enforcement (grievances, pay raises, health benefit and pension contributions, etc.) whether you're a member or not. However, you do not have to pay that portion of your dues that goes to activities unrelated to collective bargaining (such as activities in the political arena). This, I think, is expressed as a percentage but I don't know what the percentage amount is.