Loading...
02. Hear the PublicCara Check/Neutrality Agreement Summary A card check/neutrality agreement is an agreement negotiated between a union and an employer that establishes ground rules for conduct by each party during a union organizing campaign. The agreement enables employees to make a decision to unionize or not, expeditiously and without employer opposition, and allows business operations to proceed without a labor dispute. The details of the agreement are usually negotiated by the union and the employer. Under such an agreement, the employer typically agrees to: { Recognize the union as the official representative of the employees if a majority of the employees sign cards stating that they want the union to represent them. (This is an approved procedure under US labor law and replaces the alternative, an NLRB "secret ballot" election. The results of government conducted elections are routinely appealed, delaying union recognition for months, or even years. { Remain neutral, and not do anything to oppose its employees' or the union's organizing efforts { Enable the union to talk to employees about organizing by providing a list of the employees and access to them inside the work site. The union typically agrees to: { Not harass or threaten any employee to get him or her to sign a union card ( Not picket, strike, or boycott the hotel If employees choose the union and the employer recognizes the union under a card check/neutrality agreement, union and employee representatives and the employer then negotiate a collective bargaining agreement which specifies employees' wages, benefits, and working conditions. The agreement is enforceable through expedited and binding arbitration. In some cases the agreement also mandates binding arbitration of all issues which the parties are not able to resolve in negotiations for a first collective bargaining agreement. Absence of a signed card checkineutrality agreement most often leads to protracted, high profile, bitterly contested disputes. The Park 55 Hotel organizing drive in San Francisco, for example, where management did not accept a card check, ended only after 4 years of demonstrations, court proceedings, and a wide-ranging consumer boycott. In recent years, a good number of employers in the hotel and gaming industries in Nevada and California have signed card check/neutrality agreements with the Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union (HERE) to allow this basic set of rules for union organizing among thousands of their employees. (Please see attached list.) Where these agreements have been used, successful business operations and cooperative labor- management relations have usually been the result. EMPLOYERS SIGNATORY TO CARD CHECK/NEUTRALITY AGREEMENTS IN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA California Sacramento Sheraton Grande Sacramento (proposed project) IN the undersigned hcusekeepers, laundry qftndarrts� laundry housekeeping leads, hot, persons & bell persons wfish in be added to the current labor agreement which covem the cuffnary effect Wehave read approved the attached s • s-sties • -t wr Juty 3rd) and whc(ehearbacity support the bargaining ccmmfttee- --J,-�Ir S,- �i� a hcusekeeping Desds� heusa pemns & bodf persmm wfth to be added to the current labcr agremnent which ccvemtha cLdkumry - &mkn at Cavanaugft Oudew Inn, wfth aff terms and c:mxgtkm in dlect. We have read & appmved the attached pmpcsafs (dated Juty W and vibc(eheartecffy suppertthe bargaining commftbes— Nerne Decartment Date AC) (s 6 '! �e - el of, - 7, �'4 C.,/-) �- 7/, D' -71 effect.We., the under-rAgned hcusekeepem laundry a.,dendanim, laundry Wehave readapproved the attached • proposals • .items Juty Name De artment Dade l nRGt�j PERMITTED LABOR ACTIONS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODIES 1, Where a city DOES NOT have an ongoing proprietary interest in a project, but is acting only as a regulator or as an investor whose financial return (tax revenues aside) does not depend upon the performance of the project, A. The city CANNOT_ 1. Condition its approval or rejection of a project upon whether the bidder's agrees or refuses to do something in the areas of union organizing and bargaining between management and unions covered by federal labor law. R The city CAN. 1. Reject a project based upon a bidder's failure to meet some condition set by the city, or based upon information provided by a labor union or any other organization about a bidder, as long as the condition or information does not have to do with the bidder's agreement or refusal to do something in the area of union organizing or bargaining, and as long as the public and private recordreflects that. 2. Mandate, as a condition of a project's approval as or of receiving public assistance, that bidder agree to minimum labor standards", which deal with alill aspects of employees wages and hours, and many aspects of employee benefits and working conditions, other than those related to union organizing and bargaining. 3. pass a non -binding resolution stating its opinion with regard to a labor matter. 1I. Where a city DOES have an ongoing proprietary interest In a project, and is acting an investor whose financial return DOES depend upon the ongoing performance of the project and could be adversely affected by a labor dispute, A. The city CAN do the things listed above under "LB. ", and CAN also: 1. mandate that its "partner(s)" in such projects take steps to guarantee that the city's interest in the project will not be adversely affected by labor disputes. This includes mandating that there be some kind of agreement in place between an operator and local unions guaranteeing that there will not be labor disputes in the union organizing and collective bargaining process. In addition to the bar on labor disputes, such an agreement between a union and management could provide for union authorization through employee signatures, employer neutrality, union access to employees in the hotel and through a list, and dispute and union contract arbitration. For more information, see: Golden Stare Transir Corp. v.City of Los .Angeles 1, 475 U.S. 608 (1986); Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles 11, 493 U.S. 103 (1989); International Paper Co. v Jay, 736 Fsupp 359 (DC Maine 1990); Buidling & Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders & Contractors, (Boston Harbor) 113 S.Ct. 1190 (1993); Livadas v. Bradshaw, 114 S.Ct. 2068 (1994), Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985), a Q G) t o'o 51 0, (D CL Ef O ^^ O E p ~ R. C 00 1°'r ih 7T A 9, o V O S�� C: y Qb � O 1 ma �° r CL co P � p0� [rp,p'R � ceG a. o a QoQ ag00 IZ 6 aC).o 0R* r, g-R.� P y. R 0 aC, S a ,� �; p H 0 SA, mmpp??- oo o iE9: {e IS oa o• g o °o c► 3 �Q h o c °c No•��p.o a s o� R;o ErCb .`a O �d7 o S 'G o io a o n F �' G(D - R �°C, e.�A a q �z &� 2-A taw . b �' J, a 6aoi.=F < aO tl. CL F" o E 5 °aK,e m°ca• P.oa a w 6; $ � d ~°n C7 �.w o 00 Er O m G O r7. W ff m O S ao '° � c E �.►' � `° gCD o� �, pp- °° ° o. it ? ° •, E 101. -CD o Q• ��.� E� - HEr l �y C Q. '� Zvi q' O �•'C . Q' 7 P Hgc E'G coEr P.— 0 as n co No THwEST MONTANA .-n.r�y_f-'.r°Y�. Y By Tim MacDonald Staff Reporter The. long battle between the management of Grouse Mountain Lodge and' the Hotel and restaurant Employees Union is still rag- ing. It appears, however, the union has won at least one skirmish. The National Labor' Relations Board has ruled July 16 that Grouse Mountain engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, but the resort promises to appeal the ruling. Burton Litvack, an admin- istrative law judge from the NLRB, based. in San Francisco, ruled that Grouse Mountain has "engaged in serious unfair labor prac- tices." .The judge .ordered that Grouse Mountain owners and management cease and desist from: • Interrogating employees as to their' Union member- ship, sympathies, -and activi- ties and the Union member- ship, sympathies, and ai:tivi- ties of their fellow employ- ees; • Promising unspecified benefits to employees in order to induce them to forgo their support for the Union; . • Threatening their emp- loyees with loss of unspeci- fied privileges if'required to negotiate a collective -bar- gaining agreement with the Union in order - to induce themto forego their support for the Union; • Threatening its employ- ees that it would change its staffing practices during non - peak months to induce them to forego their support for the Union; • Publishing and maintaining a work rule in its Employees' Manual mandating that employees initially discuss work "problems" with their supervisors rather than with their fellow employees; -Offering to implement a 401(k) savings plan for its employees in order to dis- suade them from supporting the Union - Making veiled threats to terminate known supporters of the Union; • Informing its employees. that its delay in implementing new benefits was as a result of the Union's organizing campaign; • Informing its employees that the Union's organizing campaign had failed due to lack of employee support, thereby creating in the minds of its employees that it was engaging in surveillance of its employees' Union activi- ties; • Assisting or supporting the QA program, a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act; and • In any .lice manner inter- fering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed them by Section 7 of the Act. Grouse Mountain was ordered to expunge the order to discuss work problems from its employee manual and to post a notice saying that. it would no longer take part in the violations listed, above. Grouse Mountain Director of Operations, Toby Slatter, expressed disappointment in the ruling and vowed to appeal the decision. "While the decision is not what Grouse Mountain Lodge had hoped for, it is not surprising considering past decisions of the NLRB which seem overly supportive of Please see Page 3 o n moo..o c c o ^ "j � 0 oCD v GL ._..'f� (� p y C) CD G �' p A0 (D a^� ao_ ��'�o. go� st CD w. CD o w a CD C_D ID C"T3 O-•�',� ST3 Q'sn N as L'' `� `• n �. iD .'-• N N G O O .r. �D O G - cn' N `G CD lG Q o CAD c n7 o C G 4 F 9Rom'•. `< O a Cr ,�.� O .fin- .< T Q O CD fn o CD a y �aCD rn ao•y xo ZCD CD Q - a a co .-. O Q Q.� � O O C � v C� O ry '•�. C OQ O () '< ^+ R <. N '-G G �..h 0. „as Cj' �_ Cl N� :D. O "• C'D O 'IQ CD G r O .N�-. N R CD CD - � N ry n CD ? .. Q =..,C QO O = 7. O y CD (ID co ^ r•'� CD O ff-• O 0 =' Q a CD� C,- co :1C �. ^_. o G m n n CD CL O O c, Fa .OG-. (D O' O G T. � i CD 'QG P1 O m CL m .. m O O CDCD e• a C) m CC c -rt N V 2) 07 0 07 C) m THE TEXAS fvee DATELINE TEXAS 1 Union -Busting Democrats BY HATE BLAKESLEE arty "Buzz" Crutcher and George Bristol are unlikely union -busters. Both have been involved in Democratic Party politics in Texas for over thirty years. And both have highly - placed friends in organized labor. Now a Dallas businessman, Buzz worked for Texas Congressman Earle Cabell in the mid-1960s. He still serves as a host for Democratic fund-raisers in Dallas, and contributes regularly, both to candidates and to the party itself. George Bristol worked on the Kennedy -Johnson campaign in 1960. Now he is an Austin lobbyist and a Democratic party fund-raiser at both the state and national level. He has been na- tional co-chair for the Democratic Con- gressional Campaign Committee (directed by Dallas Congressman Martin Frost), and, two years ago he hosted a fund-raiser for Patrick Kennedy in his Austin office. He is currently working with ..the Democrat's Senate campaign committee, headed by Fort Worth Senator Mike Moncrief. Crutcher and Bristol are also part owners of Grouse Mountain Lodge in Whitefish, Montana, where Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Local 427 have been attempting to organize without suc- cess since 1995. In July, Local 427 orga- nizer Jacquie Heldt, Grouse Mountain maintenance worker Jerry Wheeler, and fired shuttle bus driver John Hirsch flew to Texas to bring their fight to their absentee bosses' home territory. Their visits to Austin (where they appeared on Jim High - tower's radio program), and Dallas (where they met with Catholic clergy in Crutcher's neighborhood) have been a headache for Crutcher and Bristol, whose involvement in the lodge was not widely known. The Grouse Mountain story has also stirred up some sleeping dogs that leaders of orga- nized labor and the Democratic Parry in Texas would rather let lie. As the managing partner in charge of day -today operations, Crutcher told work- ers from the outset that he would "oppose vigorously any efforts to unionize Grouse Mountain Lodge." In the past three years his opposition has been more than just vig- orous: according to the National Labor Re- lations Board, it's also been in violation of federal labor law. On July 16, the N.L.R.B. ordered management, to cease and desist from, among other things: interrogating employees about union . membership or sympathies; threatening loss of privileges or changes in staffing practices if the lodge went union; offering bribes in exchange for rejecting the union; making veiled threats to terminate known support- ers of the union; and estab- lishing a bogus company union. Workers have also al- leged that several union sympathizers — including John Hirsch — have been fired, or in some cases "de scheduled," a management tactic resulting in a sort of permanent unpaid . limbo for uncooperative em- ployees. "It's one of those new words that doesn't put food on the table," says Heldt. Grouse Mountain Lodge is known for its golf — surrounding the hotel are ten courses carved out of some of the most beautiful scenery in North America. ' Glacier'h National Park is just a few miles away, as v 4 j is the world -class $! Big Mountain skit area The Lodge caters to corporate` clients and high- From the Grouse7mc Mountain Lodgeoa promotional brochure end tourists, with room rates ranging from $130 to $190 per night. Yet, according to G.M.L.'s employees, pay and benefits have never measured up to the hoters reputation as the premier resort in the region. "My son quit G.M.L. after ten years," says;mainte- nance. worker Jerry Wheeler, "and started out at Red Lion [m nearby Kallispell] at twenty-five cents more per hour." The two other upper -tier hotels in the Valley are owned by the Cavanaugh Hospitality Cor- poration, which, according to Heldt, has a good working relationship with the hotel and restaurant union. Cavanaugh only re- cently acquired one of the hotels, the Best Western Outlaw Inn, where food and bev- erage workers had been represented by Local 427 for twenty-five years. The union is now in contract negotiations with Ca- vanaugh. "We surveyed the housekeepers after Cavanaugh came in, and 98 percent requested representation," says HeIdt. "Mat's the difference between a hostile environment and a neutral one." Netionally, hotel and restaurant work- rs have been, at the forefront of abor's new organizing push, or- chestrated by AFL-CIO president John Sweeney. Because of its growing.low-wage service industry economy, western Montana. was one of several.regions targeted in last year's Union Summer campaign, in which professional organizers, accompanied by an army of college students, lived and worked in communities where organizing campaigns' were underway. An important new tactic actually a revival of an old labor strategy — involves taking the struggle out of the work- place and into the community, as Local 427 did when they canvassed Buzz Crutcher's neighborhood in Dallas. When they learned Crutcher was Catholic, they even discussed the situation at the Montana. lodge with the clergy at Crutcher's neighborhood church. In Montana, the union wants Crutcher to agree to another new organizing tool — the card check Under the card check sys- tem, union and management agree to forego a traditional election, relying in- stead on a survey of employees' authoriza- tion cards to determine if a majority of workers favor forming a union. It's a strat- egy that has worked well for hotel and restaurant workers in recent years, particu- larly in Las Vegas, where union member- ship is skyrocketing. Card checks circum- vent the secret -ballot election process, which has traditionally been highly vulner- able to management delay and manipula- tion. And card checks usually involve a "neutrality agreement, in which manage- ment agrees not to influence the process in exchange for the workers' promise not to picket or boycott during the organizing campaign. Even after the N.L.R.B. ruled that he had engaged in "serious unfair labor practices," Crutcher has refused to sign an agreement or consent to a card check. He did not return calls from the Observer. George Bristol was once a union member himself, as a hod carrier (a worker who hauls building materials on a construction site). "I have inspect for unions," he said when con- tacted about the visiting Montana workers. But Bristol emphasized that he is only a pas- sive investor in Grouse Mountain, with no direct role in daily operations. "It's not my job, not mine to deal. with, and I don't know anything about it," he said of the recent N.L.R.B. decision. Bristol, .one of a small group of partners involved in the lodge since it opened in 1984, has yet to'see the N.L.R.B. findings, and said he didn't believe Harry Crutcher could be at fault. Asked if he would consider withdrawing from the operation if he confirms that Crutcher is responsible for the violation of federal labor law, Bristol re- fused to comment. Another person who had trouble believ- ing the N.L.R.B.'s findings .is Cmtcher's long-time friend Gene Freeland, executive director of the Dallas AFL-CIO. Freeland said he was "mildly surprised" at what the Montana delegation had to say about Crutcher. `But then I didn't even know he was in the hotel business," Freeland said. Freeland says he asked Crutcher if he would meet with the hotel and restaurant union's Dallas local, but Crutcher refused. Billy Martinez, who. represents- Dallas Local 353, said he is "shocked by the story. "It's a lodge that's geared toward corporate Amer- ica — that's what I really found sickening," Martfnez said. "He's acting more like a Re- publican than a Democrat." But Martinez probably knows that Texas is full of Democrats who have no interest in organized labor. If he doesn't, the leader of the state's AFL-CIO does. "They haven't been over to the Texas Legislature if they believe every Democrat is in' our camp," Joe Gunn said. Gunn added, "The party is big enough to have a conservative group and a labor group, and he [Bristol] comes from a more conservative group." In any event, Gunn said, Montana Local. 427 was misguided in thinking that the Texas AFL CIO could help them out with George Bris- tol. Although the Montana workers missed a scheduled meeting with Gunn, they had asked for his help with Bristol. "I told 'em that I don't have any way to bring George Bristol to the table," he said, "and I'm not gonna burn everybody that claims to be a Democrat, either. What makes anybody think that Joe Gunn calling is gonna make a change?" asked Gunn, whose organization represents roughly 225,000 Texans and do- nates hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates every election cycle. He did say he was willing to do "ev- erything in his power" to help out the Mon- tana group, but that a call to Bristol was not within his power. "They might as well tell me to call Bill Clinton," he said. Gunn suggested the Montana union or- ganizers might have better luck calling, someone like Martin Frost, the veteran Dallas congressman charged with dealing with his parry's funders in Texas and across the country. However, Gunn was equally pessimistic about Local 427's prospects in Frost's office. "How many campaign people accept or reject contribu- tions based on philosophy; that's a dream world," Gunn said. A call to Frost aide Matt Angle, coordinator of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, con- firmed .Gnnn's , pragmatic predictions. Angle declined to speak on the record about Bristol and Crutcher. Asked if, in general, it would make a difference to Democrats if money came from anti -union sources, Angle had no comment. ❑ ��1' W iLabor Intensive Radio Radio of the union, by the union and for the union. (News tips: call Paul Sherr at 512-448-1935) Tuesdays 6:30-7:00 p.m. KO.OP 91.7 FM 6 • THE TEXAS OBSERVER AUGUST 28, 1998 FOP-" MRS UM (427 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD GROUSE MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATE 11, A limited partnership, d/b/a GROUSE MOUNTAIN LODGE and HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES UNION, - LOCAL 427 THE REMEDY CASE 19-CA-24764 19-CA-24765 JD(S F)-74-98 I have found that Respondent has engaged in serious unfair labor practices herein. Accordingly, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from said activities and to 5 take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act, including expunging the unlawful provision from its Employees' Manual and the posting of an appropriate notice to its employees.27 On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record 10 herein, I issue the following recommended:28 ORDER The Respondent, Grouse Mountain Associates 11, A Limited Partnership, d/b/a Grouse 15 Mountain Lodge, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Interrogating its employees as to their Union membership, sympathies, and activities 20 and the Union membership, sympathies, and activities of their fellow employees; (b) Promising unspecified benefits to employees in order to induce them to forego their support for the Union; 25 (c) Threatening its employees with loss of unspecified privileges if required to negotiate a collective -bargaining agreement with the Union in order to induce them to forego their support for the Union; (d) Threatening its employees that it would change its staffing practices during nonpeak 30 months in order to induce them to forego their support for the Union; (e) Publishing and maintaining a work rule in its Employees' Manual, mandating that employees initially discuss work "problems" with their supervisors rather than with their fellow employees; 35 (f) Offering to implement a 401(k) savings plan for its employees in order to dissuade them from supporting the Union; (g) Making veiled threats to terminate known supporters of the Union: 40 27 Inasmuch as I have found that Respondent only offered unlawful assistance to the QA 45 program and did not dominate said labor organization, I shall not recommend that it disestablish said entity. 28 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 21 J O(S F)-74-98 (h) Informing its employees that its delay in implementing new benefits was as a result of the Union's organizing campaign; n Informing its employees that the Union's organizing campaign had failed due to lack of 5 employee support, thereby creating in the minds of its employees that R was engaging in surveillance- of its employees' Union activities; 6) Assisting or supporting the CA program, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act; 10 (k) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act 15 (a) Expunge from its Employees' Manual the provision, mandating that employees initially discuss work "problems" with their supervisors rather than with their fellow employees; (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Whitefish, Montana, 20 copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.'3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director of Region 20, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and main wined by for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not 25 altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or dosed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since September 5, 1996. 30 (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director of Region 19 a sworn certification of a responsible official, on a form provided by the Region, attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. 35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed as to any other alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act not specifically found herein. 40 45 Dated at San Francisco, California this 16`h day of July. 1998. &AW, - -- �* BURTON LITVACK Administrative Law Judge 29 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board' shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 22