notices created by employees, the employer discrimi- nates when it does not allow union-related notices. The court found tha t the employer’s policy was not discrimi- natory against unions because it did not single out union messages for special treatment.

While in this particular case the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disapproved of the Board’s approach, campaigners should be aware tha t federal courts in other jurisdictions have agreed with the Board. Thus, company rights, a t present, depend on the jurisdiction in which the employer is located.

Second Election Ordered Because Employer Paid Workers To Come In and Vote

Management won the election at the Perdue Farms poultry plant in Lewiston, North Carolina, by a vote of 952-851 last year. But the Board ordered a second election after finding tha t the company committed an unfair labor practice when i t paid four hours’ pay to employees who were not scheduled to work on election day if they came in to vote. In the rerun election, management again won against the United Food and Commorcial Workers Union by 947-755.

Management Comments on “FLexibility”

A common statement by employers during a union campaign is to tell employees tha t the current flexible and informal work atmosphere would change for the worse i f a union were elected. Unfortunately, such statements may be unfair labor practices.

In one recent case, a supervisor toldan employee tha t if the workers became i!nionized, they would not have the freedom to come and go tha t they currently enjoyed. “The only way tha t the company would be able to keep a tab on you is to put in a time clock, so you would have to punch in and punch out each day,” he said.

Another supervisor said, “You won’t be a s flexible, and employees may not enjoy the informal flexibility we have now.”

When the union objected to these statements, an administrative law judge, with the Board’s approval, found that they were improper threats by the employer to impose more onerous working conditions on employ- ees merely because they selected a union, particularly since the supervisors offered no factual basis Sor predict- ing a change for the worse under a union contract. (Allegheny Ludluirz, 320 NLRR 32)

I I 1 Union Tactics [ SEIU’S Goals

The goal of new Service Employees International Union (SEIU) president Andy Stern is a growth of 3.5 to 5 percent per annum for the union through organizing. Since the 1.1 million-member union must recruit about 35,000 new members every year jus t to maintain its membership, an additional 5-percent growth per year requires a greater commitment to organizing by locals and the international. Stern said the international is “reorganizing to provide more resources to local unions on how to shift from representation to organizing with- out abandoning one for the other.”

Stern declares he will change the union’s approach to politics. He said SEIU will judge candidates by their positions, not their party; the union will devote more resources to finding out what its members think and following the members’ judgment of candidates. A four- year goal is to have 10,000 grassroots SEIU member- activists working on political issues. The union also plans to take a leaf from the Christian Coalition’s book and start lending support to members who want to run for local political offices, such as city councils and school boards.

UFCW Gets Catholic Church Involved in Strike

Implementing the strategy of enlisting support from community organizations to further union aims, a Colo- rado United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) local persuaded a Roman Catholic administrator to prepare a directive urging the 340,000 Roman Catholics in Colorado to support UFCW strikers. More than 14,000 union members were on strike against the two largest grocery store chains in the state. The Archbishop of the Diocese recalled the nun administrator’s memo, stating tha t he had not approved it and tha t “the church should not direct its members to any specific course of action.” The nun who wrote the memo resigned from her admin- istrative position following the reprimand. H

Unions Join Forces To Organize Employer

“Two unions a re better than one” seemed to be the guiding principle behind a recent coalition between the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the Steelworkers in a campaign to organize a metal foundry in Ohio.

When the UAW started to organize the plant, it

Management Report/September 1996

0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

7

received a call from a Steelworkers local across the border in Michigan which had i ts own drive going to organize another plant owned by the same company. Organizers from the Steelworkers made the t r ip to Ohio six times to help the UAW. Organizers said foundry employees were particularly excited about the plans for the Steelworkers, UAW, and Machinists to form a single union by the year 2000, believing tha t there would be greater power in numbers from belonging to a larger union.

The UAW won the election. The Steelworkers elec- tion has not yet been held, but UAW members have pledged to return the favor and travel to Michigan to assist the organizing drive.

Union Wins When Employer’s Threats Prove Hollow

During a UAW organizing drive a t auto parts maker SPX Contech in Dowagiac, Michigan, the company cam- paigned on the idea tha t voting for the union would jeopardize worker’s jobs. It said unionization could re- sult in the loss of supplier contracts. I t also pointed to another local company that was represented by the UAW when the company was sold to a different owner tha t moved jobs to Mexico. The company said tha t the same thing could happen at its plant. These tactics proved effective in the short run. The union lost an election in January 1996.

Subsequently, however, the UAW was able to win a new contract a t the other UAW-represented company that broughtjobs back from Mexico. The NLRB ruled that some of the company’s threats ofjob loss had been illegal; thus, the company was barred in the future from making some ofthe campaign statements i t had previously made.

At another election in March, the UAW won, and the NLRB’s Regional Director has recommended tha t the union be certified.

Supervisors’ Workshop

Job Performance Counseling Follow- Up

The following concludes our continuing series of articles on job performance counseling. The checklist below on following up a session of job perfbrmance counseling is adopted from one prepared by Manage-

ment Associated Results Company (MARC), a West Terre Haute, Indiana, management consulting firm.

I f the session reveals the need for additional training, follow up to make sure the training occurs, even if i t must be done one-on-one, within the time frame tha t the employee is expected to improve. If misconduct recurs, the supervisor must take ac- tion. This may be a follow-up counseling session or proceeding to formal discipline and corrective action, depending on the supervisor’s judgment and the employer’s corrective action policy. Repeated sessions ofjob performance counseling may be warranted when performance continues to im- prove but has not yet reached the desired standard. The supervisor should make i t clear, however, that counseling will not continue indefinitely and tha t disciplinary action may occur. When the employee’s performance improves, the su- pervisor should acknowledge the improvement, usu- ally in a brief meeting with the employee, and should make a note for the employee’s file documenting the improvement.

I I

Question & Answer

Q: A union has jus t started attempting to get our employees to sign authorization cards. Our attorneys have told us tha t we have a valid no-solicitation rule. However, we have occasionally allowed some instances of soliciting for charities on our premises. Does this mean we have undercut our no-solicitation rule and cannot enforce i t to bar solicitation for the union?

A: Some cases, such as Hammary FMG Corp., 265 NLRB 57, and Riesbeck Food Markets, 315 NLRB 940, seem to hold that an employer does not discriminate against a union when it enforcesits no-solicitation rule, but has previously permitted a few isolated instances of chari- table solicitation. Other cases warn that the Board may hold it an unfair labor practice to enforce a no-solicitation rule against a union when the employer has allowed charitable solicitations. Thus, the Board’s decisions ap- pear to be somewhat inconsistent, reflecting perhaps the fact that the makeup ofthe Board changes every few years.

The Board does not have a clear, bright-line rule tha t employers can easily rely on. If you enforce your no- solicitation policy and the union files an unfair labor practicecharge, theoutcome ofthe case willdependon the particular facts as well a s on legal interpretations made by the Board and, perhaps ultimately, a federal court. H

0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

8 Management Report/September 1996