May 24, 2012

Missouri Company Agrees to Significant Backpay and Access Remedies to Settle Charges of Unlawful Behavior During Union Organizing Campaigns

American Directional Boring, a Missouri company that installs cable and fiber optics, has paid $262,500 to eight former employees who were fired for trying to organize a union at the company’s St. Louis facility. The company also agreed to significant remedies, including granting access and providing employee names to union organizers.  

In addition to posting a formal Board notice, the company agreed to have a  high-level manager read the notice aloud to employees, to mail the notice to current and former unit employees at the St. Louis facility , and to include a second notice to current employees apprising them of their right to report incidents of intimidation or coercion to the Board’s St. Louis regional office.

The company will allow the union access to its St. Louis and Union, Missouri facilities to meet with employees.  At the St. Louis facility, the union is allowed access to a non-work area for up to one hour every two-weeks until June 30and can  hold one half-hour mandatory employee meeting on paid time. At the Union facility, the union can hold two half-hour mandatory employee meetings on paid time  

The company also agreed to provide the Union with a list of names and addresses of current employees at both facilities. 

During the nascent organizing campaign, a company manager threatened that the facility would close if the organizing drive was successful, repeatedly emphasized that the company would never recognize a union, encouraged supporters of the union to get jobs elsewhere, and threatened to discipline employees for wearing union pins.  The company’s anti-union campaign culminated with the firing of 13 union supporters.

An Administrative Law Judge found that the company’s actions violated the National Labor Relations Act.  The Judge’s ruling was upheld by the National Labor Relations Board in Washington.  The company then appealed the Board’s decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Board filed for enforcement of its decision in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

While the case was pending in court, the settlement was reached through the efforts of the Board’s Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Branch, Region 14, and the Eighth Circuit’s settlement program.  The settlement resolved all issues in the court case and also resolved all pending unfair labor practice charges.

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees’ rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.

© Copyright 2012 National Labor Relations Board

About the Author

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees' rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.

866-667-6572

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.