Previous Story
Dai-Ichi denies union-busting
|
Posted on Aug 20 1999
Denying charges of harassment and union-busting, Dai-Ichi Hotel said yesterday it would “vigorously defend” itself against the lawsuit filed by the National Labor Relations Board in the US District Court on Saipan.
“Dai-Ichi categorically denies that it has engaged in union-busting or that in any way target union supporters for discriminatory treatment,” said Douglas W. Hall, attorney for Dai-Ichi.
NLRB sued Dai-Ichi for alleged violation of the National Labor Relations Act on behalf of 35 nonresident workers, whose contracts were not renewed allegedly because of their involvement in union activities.
The board charged that the hotel management engaged in unfair labor practice by “threatening job loss, nonrenewal of employment contracts or reprisals if they engage in union activities.”
Hall, however, explained that some of the employees whose contracts were not renewed had been replaced by qualified locals “as required by CNMI law.”
Others were not re-hired “because of the severe economic hardships facing Dai-Ichi and the entire hotel industry on Saipan,” Hall added, describing the lawsuit as NLRB’s “last ditch effort to save its weak case against Dai-Ichi.”
The harassment and union-busting allegations were raised by the board during a four-week hearing before an administrative law judge.
“We demonstrated at the hearing that the stories told by the board’s witnesses were simply not credible, and that Dai-Ichi’s actions were not discriminatory in the least. We think it is telling that rather than wait for the administrative law judge’s decision on the merits, the board has decided to file this lawsuit,” Hall said.
In its lawsuit, NLRB sought the reinstatement of the 35 discharged employees pending the outcome of NLRB’s administrative process.
Hall suggested that the labor board lawsuit was a merely tactic which involves only the bid for the workers’ reinstatement and not a resolution of the merits of the allegations.
“The actions challenged by the board all occurred between February and December 1998 or eight to 19 months before the board’s lawsuit,” Hall said.
“This massive delay shows that there is no need for the immediate injunctive relief the board wants,” he added (MCM)
