New Document: NLRB Admin Law Judge Decision in Hartford - August 08, 2007

Following the election victory by Home Delivery drivers in Windsor, CT who chose to join Teamster Local Union 671, the company unsurprisingly raised objections to the election procedures.  Since the company tried the exact same delay tactic in the Wilmington election (and failed), it follows they'd try again.  And it looks likely they will fail again.

A hearing into the company's objections was held by an NLRB Administrative Law Judge on July 2 and July 3 in Hartford.  The two objections addressed in that hearing were ruled upon by the NLRB ALJ on August 2.

FedEx's Objection 1 in its entirety is:

During the critical period before the representation election on May 11, 2007, Teamster Local Union 671, affiliated with IBT, by and through its agents and others with whom it acted in concert improperly conferred valuable benefits, including legal services, to eligible voters and caused two civil actions on their behalf to commence in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The civil actions identify six (6) voters as named plaintiffs.  The Union's conduct constitutes, among other things, an impermissable benefit with laboratory conditions necessary to conduct a free and fair election.

So, the company claims that since HD drivers in Windsor were p.o.'d enough to file lawsuits at around the same time they were p.o.'d enough to want to elect Local 671 as bargaining representative, then....then what is not clear.  Somehow a series of legal activities by these drivers, the Teamsters and independent lawyers were "impermissable."

After two days of multiple witness testifying to what happened in Windsor, the ALJ came to his decision based on the facts and not on company conspiracy theories.  The ALJ wrote:

The uncontradicted testimony establishs that the Union did not initiate or pay any part of the legal fees or any incidental expenses of the lawsuits against the Employer, either directly or indirectly, or confer any valuable benefit upon the unit employees as alleged in the objection...The only 'support' provided by the Union relating to the lawsuits involves the maintenance of two websites that provide information relating to the Employer, its attempts to classify contract drivers as independent contractors and the resulting lawsuits...As a union is entitled to notify employees of their rights, I find nothing objectionable about the maintenance of, or publicity about, either of these websites.

And Objection 1 was kicked to the curb.  Objection 2 was a technical issue about the status of two single vehicle contractors.  That got kicked to the curb also.  The full ALJ decision is now among the documents at the Resource page about the Windsor HD facility.

The strained legal arguments by FedEx and its legal team - in front of the NLRB, in front of the MDL judge, in front of the CA Court of Appeals and elsewhere - sure stink of desperation.

There is a saying among lawyers: "When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; when you have the law on your side, pound the law; when you don't have the facts or the law, pound the table."  Or in FedEx's (weak) case, offer conspiracy theories.