Terex’s “blatant and hallmark violations caused irreparable harm. [The company] should not be allowed to profit from its unlawful conduct.” — NLRB attorney Tyler Wiese
NLRB, Boilermakers argue for injunction to halt unfair labor practices, order bargaining
EMPLOYEES AT THE Terex construction equipment plant in Grand Rapids, Minn., are awaiting a decision from U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery on an injunction request to require the company to recognize the Boilermakers union as the workers’ exclusive bargaining agent and to engage in interim negotiations pending a related NLRB trial. Judge Montgomery heard arguments February 3 at the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis.
National Labor Relations Board attorney Tyler Wiese presented the NLRB’s case against Terex. Blake & Uhlig attorney Jason McClitis, representing the Boilermakers union, provided an amicus brief and an oral statement to the court.
The hearing stems from a Boilermakers organizing drive at the Terex manufacturing plant in 2014. The union, which had successfully organized the plant’s paint department, had received signed authorization cards from a majority of assembly unit workers.
However, as alleged in ongoing cases, Terex engaged in threats and coercion to prevent workers in the assembly unit from organizing. Employees reported that the company used union-busting tactics such as threatening to shut down the plant and retaliating against employees supporting the union. Those threats came from frontline supervisors and top plant management, the employees said. Even Terex’s Construction Division president flew in to add his voice to the coercive management atmosphere at the plant.
Under such a barrage, the Boilermakers union did not secure a majority of votes from the Terex assembly unit.
In response to the company’s actions, the Boilermakers union filed multiple unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board. The union also filed a ULP against Terex alleging retaliation after the company permanently laid off paint department employees just days after their successful union election. That ULP is also pending.
At the February 3 hearing, NLRB attorney Wiese argued that the company’s threats “touched the ears of every member of the bargaining unit.” He said such actions constitute “blatant and hallmark violations and caused irreparable harm” and that Terex “should not be allowed to profit from its unlawful conduct.”
The company’s behavior was so egregious that the NLRB general counsel has argued for the issuance of a bargaining order. If put into effect, the bargaining order would require Terex to recognize the Boilermakers as the exclusive bargaining representative for the assembly unit workers and to immediately begin negotiations for a first contract. Bargaining orders are generally used only in the most serious cases of employer interference. A decision on the bargaining order could take several years.
In the meantime, the injunction petition asks the court to require that Terex take the following actions: 1) cease threatening behavior toward employees; 2) recognize the union and bargain in good faith on an interim basis; 3) post copies of the District Court orders in employee areas; 4) conduct a mandatory meeting at which Terex Construction President George Ellis or General Manager James DiBiagio would read the District Court orders in front of all employees and managers; 5) allow NLRB agents access to company records to monitor Terex’s response to the court order; and 6) provide a sworn affidavit to the District Court describing its compliance with the court order.
