Overstreet v. Amphenol Griffith Enters. LLC
| Decision Date | 25 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-14-08017-PCT-GMS,CV-14-08017-PCT-GMS |
| Parties | Cornele A. Overstreet, Petitioner, v. Amphenol Griffith Enterprises LLC, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Temporary Injunction (Doc. 1). Cornele Overstreet, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), seeks a temporary injunction pursuant to § 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 160(j), pending disposition of a labor relations matter before the NLRB. For the following reasons the Director's temporary injunction is granted as to the reinstatement of the terminated employee, but denied as to the remaining relief requested.
Amphenol Griffith manufactures electrical support systems for aviation and aerospace customers at its small plant in Cottonwood, Arizona, with approximately sixty-three non-supervisory employees. Paul Valenzuela was an employee at Amphenol Griffith who decided to reach out to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW") over concerns he and other workers shared about their employment.
On July 30, 2013, Valenzuela held a meeting at his home with other employees and a representative from IBEW. (Doc. 1-3 at 15.) Somewhere between sixteen and thirty workers from Amphenol Griffith attended this first meeting. (Doc. 1-3 at 15, 30.) The IBEW representative spoke, answered questions, and distributed about thirty union representation cards. Eleven employees completed the cards and the employees chose five of their members to form an organizing committee with Valenzuela as their leader.
Over the next month, the employees began to solicit their fellow employees to support the union, but Amphenol Griffith quickly learned of their efforts and launched its own efforts in opposition. Five or six employees attended the next union meeting a week later on August 6. (Doc. 1-3 at 15, 30.) They submitted three additional signed union cards at this meeting. (Id. at 31.) They began handing out union authorization cards and some of the other employees they gave the cards to decided to give the cards to management and report the activity. On August 7, Amphenol Griffith held its first meeting at work to express its opposition to the idea of a union. The human resources manager held up one of the union authorization cards in front of all the employees and generally tried to discourage the employees from signing one.
Two days later the production supervisor Linda Mazas held a series of small group meetings with employees. She gave them a flyer opposing the union and again expressed the Company's opposition. Mazas had a list of the employees' attendance points and talked with them about how the Company was not very stringent in its current policies regarding attendance or drug testing. She talked about how that could change and implied that it might as a result of collective bargaining. Mazas talked to some employees about their attendance points and the employees contested the numbers she gave them. Some employees allege that she said or implied they could lose their jobs if they signed the union cards, but Mazas denied that allegation.
The next union meeting was held on August 13 with four employees in attendance and two signed cards submitted. On August 15, the Company included a flyer entitled "The Top Ten Reasons to Vote NO for a Union" in the envelopes with all the employees'paychecks. Valenzuela prepared a response flyer entitled "Ten Answers to Ten Lies," which he handed out in the parking lot on August 16 before work. In addition to other issues, the flyer referred to whether Mazas said that employees could lose their jobs if they signed a union card and also challenged the Company's assertion that it had an open-door policy. At the end of work that day, Amphenol Griffith called another meeting in which the General Manager Kelly Osborne stood in front of Valenzuela's desk. Osborne said that Mazas did not tell anyone they would lose their jobs if they signed a card. He also said he did have an open door policy and he challenged anyone who felt differently to speak up. While he said this, Osborne may have looked at Valenzuela and other members of the union organizing committee.
Valenzuela created another flyer entitled "The Union's Top Ten Reasons for Voting 'Yes'" and distributed it before work on August 21. On August 26, a Human Resources Director for the Company, Mimi Morgan, came to the facility to meet with employees. She met with groups of about ten employees at a time and again communicated the Company's opposition to the union. She also talked about employee concerns including raises and how the Company determines them. She said that a decision about raises had been made months ago but that because of the union effort she could not tell the employees about it because the Company did not want to be accused of trying to bribe the workers with a raise or punish them by denying one.
There were additional union meeting held on August 20, 27, and September 3, each attended by about five people. During this time tensions began to build between employees in favor of the union and those opposed to it. Some of the employees felt they were being unfairly blamed for defects or mistakes in the products by employees on the other side of the debate over unionization. On August 27, some employees alleged that Valenzuela used profanity in reference to another employee and her brother, Josh Schimikowsky. Management investigated this, gathered signed statements, and believed it occurred even though Valenzuela denied it.
On August 28, one of the employees in the union organizing committee, JenniferPerry, went to talk to Josh Schimikowsky. Perry said that Valenzuela wanted to meet with Schimikowsky after work at a location away from work in order to work out their problems with each other. Josh Schimikowsky did not want to meet and no meeting occurred. This event was reported to management, with the employees describing it as a threat or invitation to fight. Again management investigated and gathered signed statements.
The conversation occurred on August 28 but management did not call Perry in and question her until a week later on September 4. Although management was aware of the union organizing effort and knew which employees were involved, September 4 was the first day that Valenzuela saw a member of management come out into the parking lot before work and see him distributing flyers. That day was also the first day that Valenzuela and others began wearing yellow wristbands at work, openly indicating their support for the union.
During its investigation, management determined that the request to meet was not a threat. After Valenzuela denied asking Perry to arrange a meeting, management called Perry in again and told her that she had to give a signed statement even though she had earlier declined to do so. In her statement she indicated that she had been asked to arrange the meeting. Perry later recanted that statement and told the NLRB that she was under duress and only wrote what she felt management wanted because she worried about her job and the job of her mother who also worked there. Management decided that she was telling the truth and that Valenzuela was lying when he said he did not ask Perry to talk to Josh Schimikowsky and arrange a meeting.
On September 5, Amphenol Griffith fired Valenzuela because his "statements during a Company investigation were determined to be untruthful and an attempt to obstruct the investigation." (Doc. 1-3 at 73.) The next day, the IBEW submitted a complaint to the NLRB against Amphenol Griffith over Valenzuela's termination. (Id. at 1.) The Director issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing ("Complaint") against the Amphenol Griffith on November 29, 2013. (Id. at 3-8.) The hearing on the Complaintbefore an administrative law judge of the NLRB is scheduled for February 25, 2013. (Id.) The Director filed a Petition seeking a temporary injunction under § 10(j) of the NLRA on January 31, 2014. (Doc. 1.) The matter is now fully briefed (Docs. 14, 23, 25) and this Court held a hearing on the matter on February 20, 2014.
Two months after the Company fired Valenzuela, another union organizing committee member, Devin McBryde, asked a coworker how the coworker was doing. (Doc. 1-3 at 54-56.) McBryde alleges that the employee responded with profanity-filled comment about how the coworker will be doing better after McBryde and the union supporters get out. (Id.) There were also statements against the union being written in the break room with knowledge of the management. (Id.) McBryde reported this to management at the Company because he felt harassed and the Human Resources Manager from Amphenol Griffith reportedly told him that "employees were entitled to their own opinion" and that McBryde should "meet [the employee] after work to resolve [their] differences." (Id.) McBryde noted to himself the similarity between that suggestion and what got Valenzuela fired. (Id.) McBryde also indicated that support for the union has diminished since Valenzuela was fired, with employees indicating that they do not want to be involved because they do not want to be fired or lose their Christmas bonus. (Id.)
I. Section 10(j) Injunctive Relief
The administrative process by which the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") addresses unfair labor practices can be slow. Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334, 1340 (9th Cir. 2011). Its General Counsel issues a complaint and commences proceedings before the NLRB, which then issues an order that is followed by an enforcing decree from the circuit court of appeals. Id. This process can take years, and by then it may no longer be possible or feasible for the NLRB to restore the status quo. Id.
Congress addressed this problem by adding § 10(j) to the National Labor Relation Act. See Labor-Management...
To continue reading
Request your trial