In 2005, a number of the nation’s largest and most powerful unions formed the Change to Win Coalition with the stated intent to devote significant resources toward organizing and rebuilding the union movement.  This new focus on organizing, however, does not necessarily include National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) representation elections.

            Despite a win rate of 57.8% of elections, union leaders have eschewed the NLRB electoral process as being too slow and cumbersome.  Union leaders also believe the NLRB is out of touch with the realities of the modern workplace.  Unions have therefore focused their attention toward using an aggressive legislative agenda, consumer boycotts, Internet and e-mail blasts, and the “corporate campaign” to reach their organizing goals.

            The corporate campaign, also referred to by union leaders as the “comprehensive campaign,” brings public pressure to bear on the employer by striking at its public image through the news media, the boardroom and the public in general.  Responses to this organizing tactic have proven to be difficult given the free speech and other constitutional and statutory protections afforded to labor unions, their members and sympathizers.  Recently, however, a California employer struck a decisive blow in combating a union’s corporate campaign tactic by successfully pursuing claims against the union in a California State Superior Court.  (Sutter Health v. UNITE HERE, Cal. Super Ct., 7/21/06).

            UNITE HERE, which already represented a significant portion of employees of Angelica Textile Services, Inc., announced a nationwide campaign to organize the remaining Angelica employees.  As part of its campaign, the union mailed a postcard to prospective maternity patients of Sutter Health claiming that reports had surfaced that Angelica, a supplier to Sutter Health, did not make sure that their bed linens were free of “blood, feces, and harmful pathogens.”  The postcard urged the prospective patients to “Protect your newborns.  Choose your birthing center wisely.”

            Sutter Health sued UNITE HERE.  A jury awarded the employer approximately $17.3 million in damages, finding that UNITE HERE had committed libel, trade libel, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and unfair business practices in violation of California law.  This lawsuit was one of the first of its kind to reach a jury.

            Employers should be familiar with recent union organizing trends and tactics to decrease their vulnerability to potential union campaigns.  An effective program should include familiarity with the morale factors that influence why employees seek union representation, common union organizing danger situations, and recognizing potential union activity.  Employers must also be aware of the legal parameters within which they may mount an effective union-free campaign and the innovative and creative tactics that are available to them.

         If you have any questions about union-free training or other labor issues, please contact the author at bwilson@elarbeethompson.com.