Organized Labor

Case Underscores Need for Passage of Employee Free Choice Act 

by Roy San Filippo
Staff Writer

In an important post-Kentucky River ruling (C&C Roofing Supply Inc., 349 NLRB, No. 64, 3/29/07) the National Labor Relations Board unanimously ruled that Phoenix based roofing company, C&C Roofing, must bargain with United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local 135, AFL-CIO. The Board concluded that the employer unlawfully failed to bargain with the union after a majority of workers voted for union representation in December of 2005 and the NLRB certified the election in August of 2006.

C & C Roofing admitted its refusal to bargain with the union and instead contested the validity of the certification. The company claimed the Board’s decision in the set of “Kentucky River” cases last fall created a special circumstance warranting the reexamination of the NLRB’s ruling in the representation case. C & C Roofing asserted that 10 of the voters were foremen who should have been considered supervisors and thus ineligible to vote. In October of last year, in a three case decision collectively know as “The Kentucky River” cases, the Republican dominated NLRB broadened the definition of who can be considered a supervisor and thus denied union representation. C&C Roofing’s claim was rejected by the NLRB and they were ordered to bargain with the union.

“All representation issues raised by the [company] were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding. The [company] does not offer to adduce at hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence,” the Board wrote in its 3-0 decision.

While this decision is seen as an important victory for workers, it also underscores the need for greater protections for worker’s right to organize and collectively bargain with employers, said Sharon Seidenstein, with the Law Offices of Ellyn Moscowitz and one of the attorneys who represented Local 135.

“The Board’s decision ordering the company to recognize and bargain with Roofers Local 135 is a victory for the employees, the union, and the labor movement,” said Seidenstein. “However, as this decision comes fifteen months after employees voted for union representation, and as the company has yet to comply with the Board’s order, this case epitomizes the need for the Employee Free Choice Act.”

The Employee Free Choice Act would provide increased protections for workers organizing for union representation and increase penalties on employers that violate workers rights to form a union. The Act would also allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation. Advocates of the Employee Free Choice Act say that this will prevent employers from delaying worker representation through current NLRB election process. The legislation recently passed the House of Representatives and awaits passage in the Senate. The Bush Administration has vowed to veto the bill.