Skip to main content

Transfer of Work to Mexico Was Unlawful Retaliation for Strike By Workers


Amglo Kemlite Laboratories, Inc. v. NLRB - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Amglo makes specialty lights, often for those on airplane wings.  Before Amglo's President, Izabella Christian ("Christian"), visited an Illinois facility, several employees complained about low wages.  During her visit, Christian indicated wages would not go up.  The next morning, nearly all of the plant's 94 employees went on strike to protest the low wages.  The plant manager, Anna Czajkowska ("Czajkowska"), told the employees to go back to work or go home.  When pushed on the matter, Czajkowska produced resignation forms and said that if they did not like their wages, they could quit.  Christian then mentioned that companies can move production to China and Mexico (where Amglo already had plants).  The employees subsequently made a written demand for guaranteed annual raises but heard nothing in response.  

Over subsequent days, the strike continued.  However, many employees chose to return to work with no raise.  A week or so later, after the remaining employees on strike (over 50) signed an unconditional offer to return to work without a raise, Christian informed the workers that she could not give them a timeline for recalls as Amglo was transferring some work to Mexico "because of the situation."  Ultimately, all but 22 employees were recalled.  The 22 employees who were not recalled were sent a letter that their jobs were no longer open as the work had been transferred to Mexico.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Amglo engaged in unfair labor practices by (1) threatening to fire employees for striking and (2) transferring work from Illinois to Mexico in retaliation for the strike.  The National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") asked the Seventh Circuit to enforce the order while Amglo asked the Court to set it aside.

Holding:  Note, Amglo did not challenge the contention that it warned employees work would be transferred to a foreign location if the strike continued.  Therefore, the Court only considered whether the actual transfer of work was an unlawful retaliation for the strike.  When the Seventh Circuit looked at the facts, it found "substantial evidence" supported the NLRB's finding that Amglo chose to transfer work to Mexico as a direct result of the strike.  The Court noted that Amglo demonstrated a pattern of hostility towards the strike by mentioning a globalization effort to send work to another country, threatening termination when the strike occurred, and saying Amglo was moving work to Mexico "because of the situation."  In fact, during an initial investigation, it was discovered that Czajkowska admitted that Amglo "accelerated" plans to transfer work out of the Illinois plant "because of the strike."

Judgment:  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Amglo's petition for review and held that the NLRB's order would be enforced as the facts demonstrated that Amglo had unlawfully retaliated against its employees as a result of their strike.

The Takeaway:  This is a classic case of the facts, when looked at in their entirety, showed that Amglo had in fact chosen to retaliate against its employees because of the strike.  As the Court noted, Amglo demonstrated hostility towards the strike as soon as the employees started to protest their wages.  That, coupled with the statements by Christian and Czajkowska, did Amglo no favors.  Employers should take note of this case and the importance of training management and supervisors and how to act (and what to not say) when confronted with a strike.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Williams

Date:  August 17, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/AmgloNLRB081716.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more