Charges fly in Carpenters organizing drive

Grace Leong

Friday, June 30, 2000 | 10:58 a.m.

Concrete products maker Jensen Precast says its workers should decide whether to join the Carpenters Union and the company should not be forced by the government to recognize the union.

The National Labor Relations Board filed a lawsuit June 13 in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas seeking an order to force Jensen to negotiate a contract with the Carpenters and reinstate five terminated workers. The government said it is seeking a bargaining order because the company has repeatedly flouted labor laws.

But Jensen, in a response filed Tuesday, said the government's petition should be denied. "At this interim stage, and without the benefit of first-hand witnesses and evidence, the court should be extremely cautious not to interfere with the NLRB's traditional and preferred method for assessing employee free choice -- the secret ballot election."

"(The law gives) employees -- not unions or employers -- the right to join or refrain from union organizing activities. In only the most extreme situation, where the court is convinced that employees cannot exercise those rights without fear of reprisal, would a bargaining order be appropriate," Jensen said.

But Kathleen Jorgenson, the Carpenters' attorney, disagreed. "The employees are unable to exercise free choice in an atmosphere of threats and coercion ... They don't have the confidence to exercise their rights to free choice."

"That's why in such situations, the board states the employer has to recognize the union without election," she said.

Juan Carlos Leyva, a union organizer, said the union is trying to organize about 450 workers in Jensen's five non-unionized plants in North Las Vegas; Sparks; Sacramento, Calif.; Fontana, Calif. and Bend, Ore.

In its fight with the union, Jensen claims the the union is being investigated by the FBI for alleged witness tampering.

Jensen alleged the FBI is investigating allegations that the union tried to bribe witnesses, obstruct justice and interfere with an NLRB administrative hearing that began March 21.

Jensen claimed the union "bought" support by "paying workers huge weekly stipends, apparently unreported to the Internal Revenue Service, and reimbursed striking employees for rent payments, car payments, electric bills, water bills and health insurance premiums."

NLRB administrative law judge Gerald Wacknov began hearings in March on charges the union filed in August 1999 against Jensen.

The union alleged Jensen threatened to terminate and subsequently fired five workers who participated in a strike from June 8 through Aug. 20 and allegedly offered large wages and bonuses to workers and promised to correct worker grievances if they agreed to stop supporting the union. It also alleged a Jensen labor consultant threatened union supporters' job security.

The union has since accused Jensen of illegally laying off 14 temporary workers in March and another 11 workers in May.

But Jensen, which said 45 workers were reinstated after the strike, argued against reinstating the five fired workers -- Adan Marquez, William Ornelaz, Raul Perez, Norberto Gaytan and Arnulfo Gomez -- because they allegedly engaged in improper picket line conduct, violated company policy by failing to show up for work and lied to a supervisor.

Jensen's suit noted that a former Jensen worker, Andres Avila, testified that Leyva, the Carpenters' organizer, had visited Avila prior to his testimony at the hearing and allegedly offered to find him a job if he didn't testify.

But the Carpenters' attorney, Jorgenson, disagreed.

"The employer made arguments in the federal hearing about witness tampering. But that hasn't been supported by evidence. The NLRB will be putting on rebuttal evidence regarding the Avila meeting and we believe that the rebuttal testimony will be credited over Avila's testimony."

Jensen, which claimed it wasn't unaware of any union organizing efforts until June 1999, also disputed the union's allegations that its wage increases were timed to defeat the union.

The contractor said Nevada's low unemployment rate caused it to consider hiking salaries as early as January 1999. It said it decided to give raises in March and that they would be effective in July, but they were delayed by the strike.

Jorgenson, however, disputed Jensen's claims. "Jensen's own internal documents showed that the wage increases weren't planned until after the strike began. They claimed they wanted to create a job description for each job category they had and that would include a description of the range of wages employees will be paid. It says nothing about wage increases."