Case Study 10-2 Unfair Labor Practice by a Union
A decertification election was held at a plant owned by a Japanese company. The appeal to the NLRB by the company and one employee was that the election, in which the decertification petition was defeated, be set aside on the basis of the union’s unfair labor practice. The company and the petitioning employee charged that the union’s patterns of threats and intimidation, as well as its racially oriented acts, were so extensive and persuasive that they prevented the employees’ exercise of free choice.
The company presented testimony at the hearing regarding the following activities:
An employee’s tires were slashed after he had been identified in the union’s newsletter as withdrawing his union membership. In addition, one of his wheels fell off when he left work; he discovered that the lugs had been removed and were only a few feet from where the car had been parked.
Another employee, who had headed up the decertification petition, received numerous anonymous obscene telephone calls.
A union steward intimidated an employee along the roadway by slowing down so the employee would pass and then speeding up and quickly slamming on the brakes, causing the employee to do the same and swerve to avoid an accident. The union steward had used the same harassing highway tactics on another employee who was driving with her daughter and five grandchildren.
One employee was followed home and found her fuel line cut the next day.
Another employee discovered a scratch down the entire side of her car, which had been parked at the plant.
An employee wearing a “Vote No” button was threatened with physical harm by a fellow employee.
Several employees received intimidating telephone calls at their homes from both union agents and anonymous callers. The employees’ children answered some of the calls, and threatening statements were then made to the children.
Two employees were overheard discussing the rumors of threats surrounding the campaign, and one of the employees said, “Sometimes it takes this kind of thing to get the point across.”
At two union organizing meetings, at which more than 100 employees were present, a union official ended his speech with the following quote: “We beat the Japs after Pearl Harbor, and we can beat them again.” Anti-Japanese graffiti appeared on bathroom walls, and a steward wore a shirt and work tags printed with the phrases “Remember Pearl Harbor” and “Japs go home.”
The union’s position was that it should not be charged with an unfair labor practice because of the alleged activities of individuals who were not acting at the union’s direction. Union membership and support for the union can cause emotions to run high; it happens in every election. But no evidence indicated that the employees were prevented from exercising their free choice in the election itself. The anti-Japanese statements were unfortunate but mere rhetoric. Such rhetoric violates none of the established NLRB standards for conducting a fair election.
Questions
Would you set aside the election results and order another election? Explain your answer.
How could the union have stopped individuals from the intimidating actions that allegedly went on in this case?
Does the racial nature of the rhetoric involved in this case put a heavier burden on the union than does the usual rhetoric about an employer? Explain your answer.