The November-December 2011 issue of The National Right to Work Committee Newsletter is available for download November-December 2011 Newsletter in an Adobe pdf format for your convenience…
The South Carolina Post and Courier shows how workers are often treated as pawn in labor disputes: Don’t get Glenn Taubman wrong: He’s glad the National Labor Relations Board union-busting case against Boeing Co. is over. It’s how it ended that bothers him. Taubman, a…
Union policies prevented nonunion employees from finding work on ABC’s Army Wives television show From The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation: Washington, DC (December 19, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency charged with administering most private sector labor law, has upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s decision awarding over $55,000 in back pay to a television employee who was discriminated against by Teamster officials. The Board’s ruling stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Thomas Coghill, an ABC driver who received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Teamster Local 509 union officials are party to a monopoly bargaining agreement with ABC in Charleston, South Carolina that forces workers to go through the union’s hiring hall to get a job with the studio. Because Local 509 union members were working on other sets when production of Army Wives started, Thomas Coghill – a member of a different Teamster local – was hired as a makeup driver during the show’s first two seasons. As more Local 509 members became available to work on Army Wives, a dispute arose among various Teamster officials over who should be eligible to work on the program. Coghill was eventually removed from Local 509’s “Movie Referral List” because he did not belong to Local 509 while its members continued to receive preferential access to jobs on the set of Army Wives. Coghill responded to Local 509’s biased hiring procedure by filing unfair labor practice charges against the union on the grounds that federal labor law prohibits union officials from discriminating against nonunion employees. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys subsequently persuaded an Administrative Law Judge to award Coghill over $55,000 in back pay. Union lawyers unsuccessfully appealed the ruling to the NLRB, which has now affirmed the judge’s decision in its entirety.
Union policies prevented nonunion employees from finding work on ABC’s Army Wives television show From The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation: Washington, DC (December 19, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency charged with administering most private sector labor law, has upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s decision awarding over $55,000 in back pay to a television employee who was discriminated against by Teamster officials. The Board’s ruling stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Thomas Coghill, an ABC driver who received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Teamster Local 509 union officials are party to a monopoly bargaining agreement with ABC in Charleston, South Carolina that forces workers to go through the union’s hiring hall to get a job with the studio. Because Local 509 union members were working on other sets when production of Army Wives started, Thomas Coghill – a member of a different Teamster local – was hired as a makeup driver during the show’s first two seasons. As more Local 509 members became available to work on Army Wives, a dispute arose among various Teamster officials over who should be eligible to work on the program. Coghill was eventually removed from Local 509’s “Movie Referral List” because he did not belong to Local 509 while its members continued to receive preferential access to jobs on the set of Army Wives. Coghill responded to Local 509’s biased hiring procedure by filing unfair labor practice charges against the union on the grounds that federal labor law prohibits union officials from discriminating against nonunion employees. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys subsequently persuaded an Administrative Law Judge to award Coghill over $55,000 in back pay. Union lawyers unsuccessfully appealed the ruling to the NLRB, which has now affirmed the judge’s decision in its entirety.
The Boston Herald takes the NLRB to task for forcing Boeing to “pay ransom” to Big Labor unions in order to get its complaint against the company dropped: The Obama administration was saved from yet another pre-election embarrassment late…
The Wall Street Journal looks at the political decision to file a complaint against Boeing and the political decision to withdraw it: What a sham, or scam, or choose a synonym. On Wednesday, the International Association of Machinists approved a new contract with Boeing in which the company agreed to make its 737 Max jet with union labor in Washington state. Yesterday, after getting the machinist all-clear, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dropped its lawsuit against Boeing's investment in South Carolina. Has there ever been a more blatant case of a supposedly independent agency siding with a union over management in collective bargaining? Boeing says the new contract wasn't tied directly to a settlement of the NLRB complaint, and that it always made sense to build the 737 Max in Renton, Washington because its work force has experience on the current 737 and offers natural efficiencies. But it's hard to resist the conclusion that Boeing felt obliged to make the agreement to save its more than $1 billion investment in South Carolina, where it is building 787s. Boeing might have won a legal battle in the end, but first it would have to run through an administrative law judge, then the politicized and Obama-stacked NLRB, and only then would it get to an appellate court. Meanwhile, its investment was in jeopardy and its legal bill was rising.
The Wall Street Journal looks at the political decision to file a complaint against Boeing and the political decision to withdraw it: What a sham, or scam, or choose a synonym. On Wednesday, the International Association of Machinists approved a new contract with Boeing in which the company agreed to make its 737 Max jet with union labor in Washington state. Yesterday, after getting the machinist all-clear, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dropped its lawsuit against Boeing's investment in South Carolina. Has there ever been a more blatant case of a supposedly independent agency siding with a union over management in collective bargaining? Boeing says the new contract wasn't tied directly to a settlement of the NLRB complaint, and that it always made sense to build the 737 Max in Renton, Washington because its work force has experience on the current 737 and offers natural efficiencies. But it's hard to resist the conclusion that Boeing felt obliged to make the agreement to save its more than $1 billion investment in South Carolina, where it is building 787s. Boeing might have won a legal battle in the end, but first it would have to run through an administrative law judge, then the politicized and Obama-stacked NLRB, and only then would it get to an appellate court. Meanwhile, its investment was in jeopardy and its legal bill was rising.
Conn Carroll of the Washington Examiner raises an interesting question: Did the National Labor Relations Board violate federal law? What if there were emails showing Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor coordinating with Attorney General Eric Holder and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on how the Obama administration should fight judicial challenges to Obamacare? At a bare minimum, Justice Sotomayor would have to recuse herself from the case, she might be impeached, and Holder would face serious ethics questions as well. But such emails do not exist ... concerning Obamacare. When it comes to the National Labor Relations Board suit against Boeing, that is a different story. Cause of Action, a government accountability nonprofit, has obtained emails through a Freedom of Information Act request showing then-NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and NLRB Public Affairs Director Nancy Cleeland coordinating the board's response to its own decision to sue Boeing for opening a factory in the right to work state of South Carolina. But, since the NLRB is an independent agency, shouldn't they be allowed to coordinate about ongoing litigation? Yes and no. The NLRB is supposed to be an independent agency, capable of creating rules, enforcing them and adjudicating them. But because the NLRB has within itself all of the governing powers our Founding Fathers believed should be separated (legislative, executive and judicial), its creators also wrote rules making it illegal for board employees who perform different functions from communicating with each other under certain circumstances. Specifically, 29 C.F.R. 102.126 and 29 C.F.R. 102.127 forbid a member of the board from requesting or "knowingly caus[ing] to be made" any ex parte communications with any interested person outside the agency relevant to the proceeding. That same regulation also forbids any "interested person outside this agency" from making any ex parte communications to board members.
From U.S. House Education & Workforce Committee press release: NLRB biasis a menaceto business When so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work and America is competing against other countries to land businesses, the National Labor Relations Board continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery and continuing to place our companies at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. Virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of overreach and union pandering, which is the complaint against Boeing. Despite not a single example of job loss and despite not a single worker benefit in Washington State being lost, the NLRB sued Boeing seeking to have it close its South Carolina plant, displace the workers hired, and return the work to Washington State. That is Exhibit A in proving the NLRB has become a sycophant for Big Labor but is by no means the only piece of evidence. Currently, union elections take place on average within 31 days of the filing of an election petition. Additionally, unions are victorious more often than not when there is an election, but that is not good enough. Unions want more, so they persuaded the NLRB to propose sweeping changes to the election process, shifting the balance of power even further toward union seeking employees. By promoting "rush elections," and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 10 days, the board severely limits the opportunity for workers to hear all sides of the issue and make an informed decision. Additionally, employers would have only seven days to retain legal counsel and decipher the complex labyrinth of federal labor law before presenting their case before an NLRB hearing officer. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline smartly introduced H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to level the playing field. This legislation requires no union election occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach an informed decision.