Federal judge tosses Bush anti-union executive order
by Mark Gruenberg
WASHINGTON — For the second time in three months, a federal judge in Washington threw out an anti-union executive order GOP President George W. Bush imposed in his first weeks in office.
In a stinging ruling on Jan. 7, U.S. District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. ruled Bush broke labor law when he ordered government contractors to post notices telling workers they could quit unions, or refuse to pay for anything except collective bargaining.
Such so-called Beck notices, coming from employers at government orders, would intimidate workers and are intended to be anti-union, violating the neutrality of the National Labor Relations Act, the judge said.
Bush backed his Feb. 17, 2001, order with an edict that government contractors who didn't post the notices would have their contracts yanked and be suspended or barred from bidding for other government work. All of that is illegal, Judge Kennedy wrote.
UAW challenged order
UAW President Stephen P. Yokich hailed Kennedy's ruling.?His union, along with Office and Professional Employees Local 357, challenged Bush's order.?
'This decision is a loud and clear rebuke to an effort by the Bush administration to require even employers with good collective bargaining relationships to adopt an anti-union stance and further circumvent collective bargaining,' Yokich said.?
Bush's order was one of a batch of anti-worker orders he pronounced immediately after the Supreme Court seated him in the Oval Office in January 2001.
Another anti-worker order, banning project labor agreements on all federally financed construction, was also tossed out by a federal judge, last November.?But Bush has forced the government to take that stand against PLAs through administrative action.
UAW members do government work at auto plants and in a non-profit corporation that receives federal contracts to train economically disadvantaged people to work.?Local 357 represents the non-profit's staff. That led the UAW and the local to challenge Bush's order.
'Not neutral'
Workers 'are likely to interpret a (government-mandated) official notice saying they don't have to join a union not as a neutral statement...but as a pointed employer admonition to resign...and withdraw financial support from their union,' the judge wrote.
Further, he said, Bush's order only told workers of 'their rights against unions, not of their NLRA rights against employers, including their right to participate in union activity without employer interference.
'The unions contend employees will perceive' Bush's required notice 'as an indication of employers' anti-union bias and thus feel pressured to disassociate themselves from unions,' Judge Kennedy added.
That's different from Beck notices from unions.?They tell workers of their rights to pay for nothing except collective bargaining, but also present all sides of the issue, he said.
Bush's Labor Department argued his order should be upheld, because it affects employees, not the UAW. Judge Kennedy tossed out that defense by quoting the Bush administration's own brief as saying “the order is intended to inhibit the unions.”
'The (Bush) order targets union behavior and seeks to modify it,' the judge wrote. He also noted Bush forced employers to obey: 'They are not free to disregard it, even if a technical sense, and the sanctions if they do are not a risk, but a certainty.'
AFL-CIO response
The AFL-CIO also praised Judge Kennedy's decision.?It said the pro-Beck order, the anti-PLA order, and the others 'were sought by Bush's corporate contributors and right-wing ideologues and were an early salvo in a far-reaching campaign' to 'undermine workers' rights.'
Ironically, the UAW relied on a 1996 case that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce won against a pro-labor executive order by President Clinton.?
That order, Judge Kennedy noted, banned government contracts with employers who hired 'permanent replacement workers' during a strike.?'The court held that order was in unacceptable conflict with the NLRA' — just like Bush's order ? 'because the NLRA does not prohibit hiring permanent replacements.'