The corporation that owns the Preschool of America West End Day Care Center in New York City illegally fired several workers who voted for a union in their workplace, charges AFSCME DC 1707, the union they elected to represent them.
According to a statement from union officials, the company fired the workers August 5th just after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that oversees union elections, certified the pro-union vote on August 2.
Employees of the daycare said Preschool Site Director Robin Mauro told them blatantly that the company was angered by their support for a union and would terminate all employees it believed had voted for the union. The workers also said that the company CEO, Joanna Fan, told them at a meeting that she would not negotiate a contract with the union. Both situations are apparent violations of federal labor laws.
In protest of the mass firings, the union has organized a public demonstration at the pre-school for Thursday August 19th and has filed new NLRB charges against the company.
Employees filed NLRB charges back in June against the company for illegal harassment of pro-union workers. Federal labor law prohibits employers from harassing, threatening, or firing workers for union activity. Company officials also apparently told parents that they would fire employees until all who supported the union are terminated.
“Representation elections are held daily across the nation without such dire actions," DC 1707 Executive Director Raglan George, Jr. said. "But employers like Preschool of America and Joanna Fan must be compelled to respect the law and respect the basic rights of their employees."
Labor law experts and union advocates say situations like this happen everyday in the U.S. and show why labor law reform is needed. Corporations like this one regularly violate federal labor laws because enforcement has been intermittent and punishments are typically mild.
Rather than a uniform system of legal protections, enforcement usually depends on the political will and motives of federally appointed NLRB and Labor Department officials. Labor union leaders have noted, for example, that under the Bush administration, anti-union appointees typically sided with employers. Further, President Bush's refusal to fill vacant posts or provide meaningful financial support for Labor Department investigators allowed employers to regularly get away with violations of the law.
By contrast, Obama administration appointments to the NLRB and its funding increases to the Labor Department for workplace enforcement are important gains for the labor movement, they say. These moves have made the Obama administration a "strong advocate" for working families, labor activists state.
Still, no matter how well one pro-working families administration enforces existing law, it obviously hasn't been a strong enough signal to companies like this New York daycare that they must stop illegal actions against their employees.
The reason for this was documented in a 2009 report from Human Rights Watch (HRW). That internationally organization found that "[s]anctions for illegal conduct are too feeble to adequately discourage employer law breaking" or "sufficiently disuasive to deter violations."
Union supporters say that passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill pending in Congress, would provide important remedies to this ongoing problem. By imposing stiffer penalties on companies that flout labor laws, speeding up the certification process, and providing workers with a choice about how to vote for the union, the law would give workers stronger workplace protections. The HRW report concurred, saying the "Employee Free Choice Act ... would remedy many of these deficiencies and create a more level playing field for US workers."
