HI Superferry: News from Mobile, Alabama Shipyard

Union keeps eyes on Austal Shipyard‏
From: Dick Mayer
Sent: Wed 12/26/07 8:37 PM

Aloha,

I thought you may wish to know about this.

Austal USA built the superferry and is now building the second superferry. It seems that Austal does not want union workers.

Were all the Democratic Party legislators aware of that when they passed Act 2, the Superferry bailout bill?

Dick

----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------

Union keeps eyes on Austal

MOBILE, Ala. – Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 441 is continuing its efforts to organize workers at Austal USA, nearly three months after the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the downtown Mobile shipyard broke federal labor laws
in alleged actions linked to a failed 2002 union vote. The company, which can appeal the NLRB ruling to federal circuit court, now awaits a board decision on back pay owed to Austal employees who were allegedly fired because of their union association, said Bill Pfister, Austal’s vice president of government programs. Unionization efforts at Austal date to spring 2002, only about a year and a half after the Australian maker of aluminum-hulled vessels opened in Mobile.
(Source: Mobile Press-Register, 06/13/07)
Source: http://www.mscoastshipbuilding.com/shipbuildingnews2007.html

Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 441 is
continuing its efforts to organize workers at Austal USA
after the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Austal
broke federal labor laws in alleged actions linked to a failed
2002 union vote. Union officials said that Austal fired
10 employees because of union activities and threatened to
fire all who signed the cards, or to fire everyone if a
union succeeded. Austal has denied those allegations. – PR 6/13/2007
Source: http://www.flotte2.com/MobileEconomics

From the NLRB March 21, 2007 decision:

More specifically, we adopt the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and engaged in objectionable conduct by: coercively
questioning employees about their union sentiments; threatening plant closure,
job loss, stricter discipline, and other unspecified reprisals if the employees
voted for the Union;3 promising or impliedly promising benefits if the employees
rejected the Union;4 giving informal evaluations to three employees because
of their union activity; and instructing employees not to read or discuss
union material during working time.5 We also adopt the judge’s finding that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by: terminating team leader
Charles Gates because he would not support the Respondent’s position
on unionization;6 refusing to allow Gates to return to the Respondent’s premises
as an employee of a contractor the day after he was terminated; terminating
eight employees on May 9, 2002;7 suspending employee Tony Causey and
terminating him; giving employee Darrell Spencer a 3-day suspension;8 and,
giving employee Hank Williams a verbal warning.9

For complete decision details, see:
http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/349/v34951.htm


Aloha, Brad