Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Northwest labor press. (Portland , Ore.) 1987-current | View Entire Issue (April 2, 2010)
April 2, 2010:NWLP 3/29/10 5:32 PM Page 2 BrucePac union campaign becomes test case for legal battle over captive audience meetings By DON McINTOSH Associate Editor Two business groups, Associated Oregon Industries (AOI) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have chosen a union campaign at Silverton, Oregon, headquartered BrucePac as the test case in their lawsuit against a new worker freedom of conscience law in Oregon. But from a union perspective, the Bru- cePac campaign is a poster child for why the law is needed in the first place. BrucePac is a privately-held cooked meat and poultry processor with a largely immigrant workforce of about 350 employees at two plants in Silver- ton and Woodburn, Oregon. According to charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board, after employees met in June 2009 with representatives of La- borers Local 296 to talk about unioniz- ing, BrucePac fired 17 union supporters. ...Worker Freedom Act (From Page 1) paign becomes poster child for battle over captive audience meetings.”] Also in question is whether AOI and the Chamber have legal standing to challenge the law: No workers have yet sued any employers under the new law, so it could be hard to show that any em- ployer has been affected. Secunda said it’s unlikely that there will be a conventional trial in the case, because there’s no serious disagreement about the facts. Instead, lawyers for both sides get several opportunities to make written and oral arguments to the judge. Plaintiffs are asking for the judge to issue a quick ruling striking down the law, while defendants are asking the case be dismissed. Whichever way it goes, the case will have national ramifications, said law PAGE 2 professors in the amicus brief: “The de- cision in this case will have wide-rang- ing consequences for tens of millions of American workers and their ability to exercise a free choice concerning whether or not they wish to join a labor union.” Signers include William Gould, a former chair of the National Labor Relations Board, and local labor law professor Henry Drummonds of Lewis & Clark Law School. The AFL-CIO has sought to pass versions of the law in several states, but so far, Oregon is the only state to pass it. It was the top priority of the Oregon AFL-CIO in the 2007 and 2009 legisla- tive sessions. Broken promises to sup- port a similar bill caused a rift between the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, and some of that state’s top Democrats. It would be illegal to fire workers for supporting a union, so BrucePac cov- ered its tracks, union reps say, by laying off at least 25 other workers. The NLRB issued complaints in two of the charges, which were the subject of a week-long trial in mid-February before an adminis- trative law judge. A decision in that con- solidated case is still pending. BrucePac hired Jackson Lewis, the nation’s pre-eminent union-busting law firm, and held several mandatory meet- ings in the last half of 2009. Workers at- tending the meetings were reportedly told that signing a union card could put their jobs at risk. But to hear CEO Glen Golomski, BrucePac was the victim in all this. Golomski, in a document filed in sup- port of the AOI/Chamber lawsuit, com- plains that BrucePac and its employees have been “subjected” to hand-billing, picketing, and “the display of large in- flatable animals,” as well as “the dis- semination of buttons, T-shirts, and other pro-union paraphernalia.” Local 296 filed 20 unfair labor prac- tice charges on behalf of fired employ- ees. Golomski thinks Local 296 is re- sponsible for the company’s other legal troubles as well, including up to six dis- crimination complaints under investiga- tion by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, an audit by the Office of Fed- eral Contract Compliance, and a tar- geted audit of the personnel documents of 27 employees, conducted by U.S. Im- NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS migration and Customs Enforcement. But more to the point of the lawsuit, before the Worker Freedom Act took ef- fect, BrucePac’s “mandatory group meetings” to provide employees “the company’s perspective on the ongoing organizing,” were part of its “commu- nication structure,” Golomski wrote. To ensure that employees get information about the company’s stance toward unionization, BrucePac developed sev- eral communication pieces, at a signifi- cant cost, including speeches intended to be delivered to large employee groups. Now, Golomski lamented, in order to comply with the mandates of the new state law, “we would be forced to abandon a central tenet of our com- munication process about the union.” Under the Worker Freedom Act, em- ployers can hold such meetings, but can’t punish workers for not taking part; in effect, attendance at the meetings must be voluntary. “I remain very concerned,” Golom- ski wrote, “that continuing to hold mandatory meetings after Jan. 1, 2010, would expose the company to public ridicule and legal actions.” Conse- quently, he said, BrucePac has refrained from holding mandatory communica- tions since the law took effect. AOI found two other business mem- bers willing to become test cases by committing civil disobedience in defi- ance of the law. In legal declarations submitted in support of the lawsuit, Donald Adler, president of Care Med- ical Equipment, and Robert Freres of Freres Lumber, declared their intent not to post notices about the Worker Free- dom Act, as the law requires. But it’s not clear the posting requirement is that central to the case. BrucePac is central, because its experience gives AOI and the Chamber a target to sue. Rain Forest Boots Made in America! Try a pair on, you’ll like them. Tough boots for the Northwest. AL’S SHOES 5811 SE 82nd, Portland 503-771-2130 Mon-Fri 10-7:30 Sat 10-5:30 Sun 12-6 APRIL 2, 2010
