A federal appeals court decision issued this morning cited La-Z-Boy of Neosho for unfair labor practices designed to discourage union organizing.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit partially backed a decision made earlier by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which said the company unfairly disciplined two employees, John Phillips and Klint Guinn, during a union organizing drive.
The appeals court agreed with the NLRB as far as Phillips was concerned, but said that Guinn had not been unlawfully disciplined.
The Phillips incident occurred on June 16, 2000, when Phillips, a parts inspector, was called to a meeting with supervisors Dave Harris and Wayne Allen. According to the court ruling, they told Phillips that La-Z-Boy had received a complaint from another employee "alleging that Phillips had threatened to reject products from the employee, thereby negatively affecting that employee's pay, if the employee failed to sign a union authorization card."
Phillips said he had not made that threat. Harris testified he and Allen had warned Phillips about a company policy against union solicitation during work hours and then excused him.
Harris's version did not jibe with Phillips' recollections. He said that Harris did not just give him a simple reminder, but told him to "consider this your verbal warning."
The supervisors also created a written record of the conversation, according to the court decision, and e-mailed it to the director of human resources to put in Phillips' file.
The administrative law judge for the NLRB who investigated the case found the e-mails documenting the meetings that were put in Phillips' file and further said the company took that step to discourage union activity.
The judge also found that Phillips had never threatened the other employee, so he determined the company had no justification for the discipline and could not show that it would have done the same thing if Phillips had not been involved with the union.
The second incident involved Guinn, a parts picker, who claimed he was unfairly disciplined for not telling a supervisor he would be gone on Friday, Aug. 11, 2000.
The judge decided in Guinn's favor partially relying on information about tactics La-Z-Boy officials had used in the past to discourage union organizing and noted that Guinn had been "treated differently" from another employee, who was not involved in union activity, but who had committed the same transgression.
Though the NRLB said that Guinn was disciplined solely because of his union activity, the appellate court said it could not be determined that was the sole reason.
The case will now be returned to the NLRB to modify its order to comply with the court decision.
***
It's easy to get tired of some of the stories news outlets recycle year after year. I never assigned any stories about the shopping rush on the day after Thanksgiving. I also did not want to do any stories on shoppers returning gifts the day after Christmas.
The annual story about how much it would cost to recreate the 12 days of Christmas ceased to interest me even before the first time I read it.
But as much as some stories should be put to rest, there are others that should never be. Journalists should keep reporting on Sept. 11 and the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the true meaning of the Christmas holiday, the patriotic stories that surround July 4, and so many others.
One story that should continue to be told as long as there are people alive to tell it is the Dec. 7, 1941, sneak attack that brought the United States into World War II. These stories must continue to be told. The reason why was pointed out to me during my first year of teaching at Diamond Middle School during the 1999-2000 school year.
I brought in my old friend, Dick Ferguson of Carthage, who was at Pearl Harbor, to tell the story to my seventh and eighth grade students.
The best part about his presentation was that the classroom VCR was not working, so instead of a video about Pearl Harbor, we had the opportunity to hear Dick's stories and the kids were fascinated.
After his talk, a question-and-answer session was held. One eighth grade girl, sitting in the back of the classroom, raised her hand. After she was recognized, she said, "This is really interesting. Who won that war?"
Before Dick could answer, another girl chipped in, "Yeah, I'd like to know that, too."
Unfortunately, according to the curriculum at the Diamond school and so many others, World War II does not really come into play in the history classes until you get to high school. Dick said that was not the first time he had heard that question when he spoke at area schools.
It shouldn't be that way. We have a valuable opportunity to teach lessons about World War II, the Korean War, the Great Depression, and other occurrences of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s with in-person assistance from those who actually lived through those events.
So many times, though, the schools are not able to do that because there is simply not enough time to teach the curriculum and to bring in an array of guest speakers.
That makes it even more important that our local media keep the news in perspective, whether it be news that happened yesterday or news that happened 63 years ago.
That's why it was so disappointing this morning to read The Joplin Globe today and not see one word about Pearl Harbor. Yes, the stories have been done before, time after time, but sometimes the reminders are necessary and important because of what they contribute to the fabric of American society.
When we forget the sacrifices that were made for us, whether those sacrifices be today in Iraq or more than six decades ago at Pearl Harbor, the entire country is diminished.
Hopefully, the Globe editors have a big story in mind for the Wednesday edition detailing how the Pearl Harbor anniversary was observed locally and throughout the country.
***
An article on page 3 of this morning's Globe details how Jasper County officials have authorized the money to hold videotaped arraignments from the county jail.
Sheriff Archie Dunn says that 2,100 inmates were taken from Carthage to the courts building in Joplin for hearings from January to September of this year.
Most of those trips were for simple arraignments, he said. So the county is spending $8,600 for a video arraignment system, according to the article.
I have no problem with this system, but the whole situation raises a bigger question, one which was posed by a letter-writer in The Globe recently...Why are these prisoners being taken from Carthage to Joplin, when there is a perfectly good courthouse in Carthage where these arraignments could be held? Apparently, the judges are so comfortable in their Joplin offices that they cannot bring themselves to drive over to Carthage and conduct business.
The judges were quite content with taking the risk of one or more of these prisoners escaping or hurting someone or being involved in an accident that could bring a lawsuit against the county just so they wouldn't have to drive 20 miles to Carthage.
You can make a convincing safety argument for videotaping arraignments, but spare me the line about saving the taxpayers money. That ship sailed a long time ago.