Second vote on union likely at RathGibson
JANESVILLE — Four months after a close election to form a union at RathGibson in Janesville, all indications are pointing toward a second election.
RathGibson is a worldwide maker of stainless steel, nickel and titanium tubing. In Janesville, the company has about 180 employees, some of whom serve other RathGibson operations.
In April, about 96 percent of eligible RathGibson production workers in Janesville voted in favor of representation by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 139. The vote was 60-59 after three ballots were held out.
After the election, Local 139 argued to the National Labor Relations Board that the three ballots were cast by supervisors or clerical staff who were not eligible to vote.
The union argued that if the three ballots—presumably votes in opposition to the union—were kept out, the final tally would stand at 60-59 and the union would win the election. If the NLRB allowed the three ballots, the final vote would likely be 62-60 in opposition to union representation.
In a ruling earlier this week, the NLRB said the union did not provide enough evidence the three ballots in question should be discounted.
But the NLRB also ruled RathGibson engaged in objectionable conduct in one-on-one conversations with employees, including threats of reprisal and plant closure if the employees supported the union.
Therefore, the NLRB hearing officer recommended the April election be set aside and a new election scheduled.
Irv Gottschalk, the NLRB's regional director in Milwaukee, said both sides have two weeks to file an appeal to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C. Barring any appeals, Gottschalk said his office would contact the parties Tuesday, Aug. 18, to schedule a second election.
Thad Steinke, organizing director for Local 139, said he expects RathGibson will appeal the hearing officer's ruling on the objectionable conduct in an effort to avoid a second election.
"Due process is being utilized here," Steinke said. "My local is proving that we're standing up for these people and doing what's right, and we will press forward."
John Fortin, RathGibson vice president and general manager in Janesville, said the company is weighing its appeal options.
"Overall, we are extremely pleased with the hearing officer's findings and conclusions," Fortin said. "We felt strongly from the beginning that those three ballots should be counted."
As to the union's charges of objectionable conduct, Fortin said the hearing officer sustained only five of the union's 25 or so allegations.
"While we're very pleased with the substantial number that she dismissed, we strongly feel that our conduct in the other five situations was valid," he said.
RathGibson workers approached the union in February with concerns that their wages and benefits were diluted by RathGibson's acquisitions of other companies.
Company officials countered that RathGibson has faced economic challenges and has changed some of its benefits to make them consistent from plant to plant and ensure the competitiveness of the local plant.
The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in July in an effort to shed debt and position itself for long-term success.
Steinke said employees he's spoken with haven't changed their opinion of the need for union representation. Those employees, he said, are wondering why a top executive received a bonus when other employees were losing benefits and the company was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.
RathGibson makes tubing for industries such as chemical, petrochemical, energy, food and beverage, pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, medical, biotechnology and general commercial. Corporate headquarters are in Lincolnshire, Ill. In addition to Janesville, it has plants in New Jersey, Arkansas and Louisiana.
The company traces its roots to Rath Manufacturing, which Virgil Rath started in Janesville in 1952. The company has changed hands several times, most recently in 2007 when DLJ Merchant Banking Partners bought it for $440 million.
Aug 8, 2009 at 1:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Best of luck to all who work there hope everything works out for the employees but don't think the Union is going to save jobs. GM is a perfect example.
Aug 7, 2009 at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes paychecks are still there and a damn good one at that! The problem is, is that a lot of these clowns have never worked for a union. They think that with a union that nothing will be taken away LOL! At the end of the day the company runs the company not the union! Why take a chance of losing your ass when there is hardly any good paying jobs left in town?! Think about it you dont know what you are getting yourself into!
Aug 7, 2009 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Those employees, he said, are wondering why a top executive received a bonus when other employees were losing benefits and the company was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy."
Really, have you not been watching the news. Union or not, this is the story all across the US, bringing in a union is not the answer. Are the Rath workers getting their paychecks? Have they had to take a pay cut? If you don't like your job, then find a different one. No one is forcing you to work there. My spouse would be more than happy to have your job!
Aug 7, 2009 at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Commonsense123 makes some very good points..I worked for a rather large building supply company thats no longer in the area whose "benefits" were an absolute JOKE..they wouldn't pay out NO MATTER WHAT you did and the so-called "management" couldn't care less about the issue...It was kind of like the drunk driving situation we have here...SURREAL.
I also informed the "management" about back injuries that were just WAITING TO HAPPEN..might as well told it to the wall..I watched dangerous stuff happen regularly and had to watch ALL THE TIME so as not to get hurt..I've seen this stuff at more than one non-union "employer"...Whether a union would have helped or not I don't know, but the notion that all employers are responsible is absolutely false.....I will say that if you DO have a responsible employer, you do NOT need a union....I also don't think an employer should have to provide anything other than a paycheck.
Aug 7, 2009 at 12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
You don't need a union to negotiate away your healthcare benefits. Why would anyone want their employer to provide health insurance when we have the best health care in the world at the cheapest, most affordable prices.
Aug 7, 2009 at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
packerfan says: "The main reason they want a union in there is for job security."
**********
There is NO such thing as "job security."
*********
Just ask all the GM employees that had to pick up and move to Texas, Ohio and Kansas. Not to mention all the union employees at Lear Seating. What security do they have.....??
Aug 7, 2009 at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
i know a few people that work at Rath. The main reason they want a union in there is for job security. after how Rath sliced their benefits; whats stopping them from getting new less paid workers in there!!!
Aug 7, 2009 at 7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
All the union will do is take your pay, and tell you that you have the right to a good job with good benefits. That is further from the truth. The market dictates what companies will pay and provide, and right now it is slim pickens. No union is going to solve that. They may get you more in the short term, but you will loose in the long run. Unions are very short sighted. Good luck to all at Rath, and I hope you and the company are successful what ever way you choose.
Aug 6, 2009 at 11:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
I am glad to hear you work for a company that values your opionion. Not all companies do. I do not work for a company that has a union. I can see where one may help. Remember, the contract is decided by both company and employee. I really think if management follows procedures, document issues with employees, and does it consistantly, they won't have any problem getting rid of lazy workers. But as many lazy workers that there are, there are also lazy supervisors/leaders/managers that don't due what they need to do. If they do follow procedures for one, maybe not another. THAT is why it is hard to get rid of bad employees. Consistency in downsizing, write ups, transfers, attendance, and other everyday happenings at work is what is called for. Some companies have worked hard to see all management knows that. Some are not so good at it.
Aug 6, 2009 at 9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Look what the union did for GM folks. Where are your heads right now? If you show up for work every day and do your job, why do you need to pay a union to create a contract between you and your employer? From what I have heard most people working at Rath make $15+ per hour. Sure, you may have had changes to some of your benefits etc. but then again, who isn't getting hit with changes like these now days?
Vote the union in and you will some day be working next to one of the few people you are paying dues to protect, the guy who calls in sick all the time or comes to work and does nothing all day while you pick up the slack. The company will try to fire the bum but guess what, your union will save his sorry butt and you will continue to do his share of the work.
I worked for a company for many years that was threatened with a union about every 3 years. Each time, we voted no. Those of us that showed up for work and did our jobs knew we didn't need to pay 2-3 hrs. of our wages to the union clowns each month to keep our jobs. The company also allowed employee input whenever they felt a policy or procedure needed to be updated. They also allowed employees on hiring committees etc. so we had some say in who we would be working with. (some of us were much better judges of character than the management)
Maybe you should all try thinking outside the box the union wants you in so they can collect your wages and then sit back and do nothing for you but bargain your way out of jobs. Just a thought, and no, I don't work for Rath and only know a few people that do.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.