06-21-2017
Redhook, a construction company, was the object of a union organizing drive. Employees were considering whether to vote for union representation. During the union drive, Claudio Anderson asked for some time off because his mother was ill. He was given the extended leave of absence. Before taking off for his leave, Mr. Anderson signed an authorization card that showed his support for a representation election. Several other employees witnessed his signature.
When it turned out that his mother did not need him, he reached out to his supervisor via text, telling him of his availability for work. Because the conversation was done by text, there was a clear record of the conversation. The supervisor’s response was “What’s going on with you? U working for Redhook or u working in the union? U got to tell me what’s going on” Mr. Anderson responded that he had tried to speak with the supervisor. The supervisor did not respond immediately but finally stated that he had filled Mr. Anderson’s spot. In fact, Mr. Anderson was not given any more work for Redhook.
The National Labor Relations Board looked at the union question in the text, which was given in response to the request for work. It suggested that working in the union and working for Redhook could not coexist. As Mr. Anderson did not pledge his loyalty to the company in response, he was terminated. This interrogation by text was found to be an unfair labor practice.