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