Labor Board Hearing Concludes Management Coerces Witnesses

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hearings on management’s objections to our union vote have concluded after seven full days of hearings.  We are confident the company’s allegations will be dismissed and our vote will be certified.  The judge expects to issue his decision by the middle of March.

Many of the company’s allegations of threats and intimidation were unsubstantiated.  Witnesses made accusations about nameless union representatives.  They complained of being ridiculed by colleagues.  While it was upsetting to hear co-workers testify against co-workers, we understand that some of this is the aftermath of a very intense anti-union campaign by management.  

It was brought to light during the hearings that management scheduled a few employees to come to Hartford in place of their workday to testify that they did not understand the vote.   Under cross-examination by our union attorney, one company witness testified that she was scheduled without her knowledge to attend the hearing.  She testified she was put on a bus to Hartford with a pit manager, without knowing what it was all about.  During and since the hearings, workers have come forward to tell us that they were interrogated or coerced by management.  It is illegal for management to coerce witnesses and we filed charges at the NLRB.

We appreciate the support from everyone who attended and witnessed the hearing, as well as the hard work of our attorneys and our coworkers.  We would like to also acknowledge everyone who testified.  Witnesses included floor supervisors, union staff, and a dealer who passed all of the tests in the training school but was denied a job because of her lack of English proficiency.

The hearings were just part of management’s delaying tactics.  Clearly, they are going to try to derail our efforts but we won’t let them stop us.

We will stay strong and united.  And, most importantly…we will prevail.

Were Some Voters Confused About The Vote? The company alleged many Chinese dealers cannot read and understand English and therefore were confused about the union vote. While many Chinese dealers refused to cooperate and testify against the union, there were a few who went to Hartford and testified they only speak a little English. In fact, only two dealers testified that they were confused. Management referenced technical language on the ballot, “collective bargaining”, as supposed evidence that people didn’t know they were voting for a union. Each Chinese dealer was asked by the management attorney, “Do you know what ‘collective bargaining’ means? All answered – no. A light moment in the hearings came when an American born, English-speaking dealer was asked unexpectedly the same question by the union lawyer, and this person also said no. The very last witness, an attorney who practices immigration law, who at times has worked for Foxwoods also was asked by the union lawyer, “Do you know what collective bargaining means?”, she also answered no! On a serious note, evidence compiled at the request of the labor board showed that out of 447 Chinese dealers, only 14 used an interpreter to fill out their state licensing application.