Supervisor pushing for Union...

HCA

Have anybody ever had the scenario where a supervisor is pushing for his subordinates to unionize? We just got word through the grapevine that one of our department heads is going to attend a meeting regarding unionizing. Obviously, it wouldn't be for him since he's the supervisor and couldn't be in the same bargaining unit with his employees, so I'm assuming he's finding out info for the employees. Should I confront him? Thoughts?

TN HR

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-16-05 AT 05:55PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Confront him hell, terminate him. He's a moron.....let me rephrase that. He is a non-bargaining-unit-elegible and thus un-protected moron partaking in un-protected activity.

You are dealing with someone who is fundamentally incapable of being a leader in the company. It is obvious that he doesn't understand his role and how it affects the organization as a whole. I don't think that you can ever change people who are wired like that. They are internal terrorists who will always have an hourly mentality. Terminate him.

HCA

Believe me, I want to. I just don't know if I'm walking a fine line. Technically, I suppose he could form his own labor unit since he's an employee, or so I've been told. So I think I need to get more clarification in terms of why he's heading to this meeting. I just want to be sure I can call him on it and ask the question.

TN HR

Rest assured that the NLRA spcecifically excludes him from protection. In other words, his rallying the troops, for whatever reason, is not concerted activity. You do not need someone like him on-board, trust me. His mere presence at an organizing meeting puts him at odds with your common interests. But, best of luck.

LivindonSouth

Gene asked you to 'trust him' and 'rest assured'. I don't know if I'd go that far, but, I agree that you should have terminated this supervisor as soon as you learned of his activity. Period. If you do not, you deserve the results you will have.

Geno

"....just got word through the grapevine that one of our department heads...."

I'm going to weigh in on the side that thinks some caution is in order here. You might want to consult legal council (experienced in NLRB case law) before you just terminate someone for union activity based on information you've received through the "grapevine."


1. Your post doesn't describe your situation adequately enough for to-terminate-or-not-to-terminate advice. I have worked in a multi-craft union shop environment as a supervisor and as a member of a union.

2. Be careful, the rules concerning membership and concerted activity do not always mirror each other.

3. There are some NLRB rulings out there (counter-intuitive as they may be) that give non-union members the same rights as union members, e.g., Weingarten rights under certain circumstances.

I'm not saying that termination is not in order -- I just wouldn't take any action without doing my homework first.

Geno, SPHR

LivindonSouth

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-17-05 AT 03:29AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Weingarten certainly is not invoked in this scenario. If you have a company supervisor engaging in a union organizing campaign, fire him. Let us know if your attorney tells you to let him continue his efforts while employed.

Pixie

I would not take the work of the "grapevine" to be 100% accurate. I would investigate to be sure that he is guilty of the accusation prior to termination. I work for a non-union shop and we do have supervisors/foremen that attend these types of seminars. But, they attend so that they know what to look for with employees that may be interested in forming a union, which better enables the company to thwart a union organization. So, attending a seminar on unions doesn't have to be a bad thing.

TN HR

I could be wrong here, but I don't think we're talking about a seminar on union avoidance. We're talking about some sort of organizing meeting at a union hall.

Geno

I clearly did not infer that Weingarten was applicable to the referenced set of circumstances. My point was that there are Board decisions out there that are counter to so-called conventional wisdom on matters of labor relations. While the Wagner Act may be 70 year old, it is a moving target as far as where the boundaries are at any given time and hence the need for caution when dealing with these types of situations. Given the givens, consulting a competent attorney, experienced in such matters, would be advisable -- terminating someone based on information gleaned from the grapevine would not.

Geno, SPHR

LivindonSouth

Well Geno; given the givens, gleaning the gleanings and implying an inference, you could be right. x:-)

Let's fast forward my advice this way. If it is verified that a supervisor is engaging in or has engaged in an organizing campaign, he should be considered a prime candidate for termination. He is an immediate and continuing liability to the company and no good can come from retaining him.




"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
Charlie Chaplin

Whatever

I think you have to slow down. First of all, you heard it through the grapevine (grapevines are notoriously unreliable) that the supervisor is going to attend (this is a future event, has not happened yet and may never happen). Second, you are assuming (never make an assumption) instead of getting the facts. Third, there are shops where ees and supervisors are members of the same union.

I think you should have an open discussion (confrontation seems a little harsh) and try to ascertain the facts.

HCA

I have since learned that he is on some state board that is going to be looking at whether to create a union for this particular type of workers across the state. However, I am also informed that he has been very vocal in being pro-union and is one of the main voices for the union campaign. I am going to suggest to the powers that be that we bring him in for a meeting and get more specifics in terms of what's going on. It clearly is NOT a union avoidance meeting. I can't say for sure that he is trying to push his workers specifically to unionize (at least at this point I can't say that) but it is clear that he is pushing for the state to create a statewide union for these workers that our workers would then become "locals" of. Hope that makes sense.

I think the bottom line is "I can go ahead and pull him in to figure out what the heck is up and go from there."

Balloonman1

Based on being on the board, bring him in verify it and fire him.

My $0.02 worth,
The Balloonman

TN HR

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-17-05 AT 10:06AM (CST)[/font][br][br]HCA,

You are really struggling with this and trying to find every excuse not to terminate. It doesn't matter if he is on a steering commitee to form a state-wide union (which, potentially, your employees will ultimately join) or if he is handing out leaflets during lunch. The intent is clear regardless of the semantics.

This individual needs to be recognized for what he is. In your own words "pro union". If he has the drive to be involved in the state-wide implementation movement, what makes you think that he will exercise his responsibility to the company and avoid getting your shop organized?

Gene

HCA

I agree. I have advised a meeting and to immediately terminate if he is involved in any way, shape or form.

SMace

After you fire him, he will become the martyr for this group.

After he is gone, your job is not done.

LivindonSouth

Good point. You may have him out of the facility but he will continue his efforts and will be even more visible in organizing. Where I come from, one has to have the employer's approval (or at least knowledge) prior to serving on city, county, state, regional or any other kind of board or committee in which one claims to be representing the employer, speaking for the employer or whose employment qualifies him to serve in that capacity. He must not have this authorization.



"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
Charlie Chaplin

Gillian3

You need an attorney with this one. Does Montana still have "just cause" rather than "at will" as the standard for termination. If so, the attorney can help you determine whether the supervisors activity satifies "just cause" under Montana law. The attorney can also help you think through the martyr complex that termination will probably create and whether or not that should impact any termination decision.

LivindonSouth

G3; all that aside, what is your true feeling as to what you think would be the best action for the employer to take for its own sake? Wouldn't welcoming this employee to do whatever he likes be similar to your state's 'come on in' illegal alien policy specifically and your state's employer unfriendly policies in general.

What I am asking is, "How would you resolve this situation were it not for lawyers, state at will statutes, and how the martyrdom might be perceived? Would you really like to be the HR Manager at that company with that guy on the loose in the halls and the plant?



"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
Charlie Chaplin

Gillian3

In order:

Reread first sentence.
Irrelevant.
Reread first sentence.
No.