On Friday, in its continuing attempt to hand over the American workplace to union bosses at all costs, the union-controlled National Labor Relations Board has thrown employees’ rights under the bus once again. This time, however, the NLRB’s obedience to union bosses could cause employees to get hurt.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees are presumably free to choose to unionize or not to unionize free from coercion or interference. In previous cases, the National Labor Relations Board had considered threats (even by third parties) enough cause for an election to be overturned. This was the case even recently:
Under NLRB precedent, the third party standard for determining if an election should be overturned is threatening behavior that makes a free choice in an election impossible through a general atmosphere of fear or reprisal.
The company charged several instances of union supporters threatening other employees with bodily harm and damage to their property if they crossed picket lines. In total, there were about 30 employees who had either been threatened or learned of the threats.
Unbelievably, on Friday, the union-controlled NLRB ruled that threats of physical violence by pro-union supporters is not coercive.
On August 22, 2008 the NLRB conducted an election where, by a vote of 14 to 12, the red-shirted Communications Workers of America (CWA) won the vote. Following the election, the employer filed objections, requesting the NLRB to overturn the election based upon alleged threats of physical violence made by pro-union supporters to their co-workers.
Specifically, the objections cite a statement by prounion employee Anthony Hodges to employee Matthew Abel that Hodges could “whip [employee Dennis Sheil’s] a*s” or sabotage his work; an anonymous telephone threat to employee Lou Mays that the caller would “get even” with him if he “backstab[bed] us”; and statements by prounion employee Chris Verbal to a group of three or four employees that Verbal would “b*tch slap” two other employees (who were not present at the time) or “whip their f—in’ ass” if they “cost us the election,” and that he would “whip [supervisor] Eddie’s ass” if the Union lost.
According to the union-controlled NLRB, the above threats were approved because…well…they just weren’t bad enough.
It is settled that the Board will not set aside an election based on third-party threats unless the objecting party proves that the conduct was “so aggravated as to create a general atmosphere of fear and reprisal rendering a free election impossible.”
In assessing the seriousness of an alleged threat, the Board considers the following factors: (1) the nature of the threat itself; (2) whether it encompassed the entire unit; (3) the extent of dissemination; (4) whether the person making the threat was capable of carrying it out, and whether it is likely that employees acted in fear of that capability; and (5) whether the threat was made or revived at or near the time of the election.
Given that the entire voting unit in this case was less than 30, it is hard to imagine that the threats from the pro-union supporters did not have some bearing on the outcome of the election—especially as the union only won by two votes.
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES In a move sure to excite millennials everywhere, the University of Texas police issued a disorderly conduct citation to a preacher for the heinous crime of “offending someone.” What’s more, the preacher in question was not even ON campus, he was just near campus and directing his voice TOWARDS the campus. The preacher named Joshua, who was an intern | Read More »
To combat the ability of terror groups to attract teenagers (note: there has only been one variety of terrorist doing this in the United States) the FBI has set up a website. It seems obviously incomplete
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES In almost all cases, when it comes to running an enterprise, most on the Right would agree that the private-sector can do a better job than the federal government. Moreover, in almost all cases, most on the Left would disagree with the above statement. So, why is it that the nation’s air traffic controllers’ union is ready to back | Read More »
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES This is what it is. A rumor. But it is a rumor sufficiently well-placed that Bill Kristol feels comfortable running with it: Trump 32; Cruz 26; Rubio 20; Bush 10; Carson 7; Kasich 2. Keep in mind this is not an internal campaign poll but one that will be published in the next day or so. Compare and contrast | Read More »
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES Nothing has been more disingenuous this entire campaign season – including Donald Trump’s entire schtick – than John Kasich pretending to be a nice guy for like a week in New Hampshire. Kasich got away with it because New Hampshire voters are apparently more addicted to heroin than previously believed, and also because everyone was busy watching Trump, Cruz, | Read More »