A National Labor Relations Board judge ruled on Wednesday that the employment policies of the wireless carrier T-Mobile violated United States labor law by restricting workers’ ability to organize and other rights, setting a potentially important precedent for unions.þþSome of the policies in question prevented workers from communicating with one another about wages, from speaking to the news media about workplace conditions and from speaking with co-workers to marshal evidence against disciplinary charges.þþOver all, Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble found that 11 of the 13 policies subject to the litigation were illegal.þþT-Mobile said the ruling was “about a technical issue in the law that relates to policies that are common to companies across the country.”þþBut labor experts argued that the ruling could have major ramifications because of its sweeping nature. The case consolidated separate complaints from T-Mobile facilities across the country, while the focus on policies devised at the corporate level made it difficult for the company to elude responsibility.þþ“This is not the case of a rogue manager here or there,” said Joseph A. McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown University. “This is saying that the company’s handbook contained a number of prohibitions that clearly violate the workers’ rights.”þþAnother labor expert, Prof. Gary N. Chaison of Clark University in Worcester, Mass., said the decision could prove particularly helpful in high-tech industries, which are attractive to union organizers because of their growth, but where employers frequently try to “create an all-enveloping sense of loyalty to the company.”þþThe complaints against T-Mobile arose from workers in Albuquerque; Wichita, Kan.; Charleston, S.C.; and New York City.þþJoshua A. Coleman, a former customer service representative in Wichita, said he was a top-performing employee when a T-Mobile vice president saw him wearing a union T-shirt in January 2012.þþAfter the encounter, according to Mr. Coleman, the company rescinded a free trip to Puerto Rico he had won for his job performance.þþHe was fired in May 2013 after publicly criticizing T-Mobile over its labor policies. He says that the company destroyed a notebook in which he kept details of his organizing activities.þþWhen asked about Mr. Coleman’s case, T-Mobile responded that “there are no allegations that any employee has been impacted by these policies.”þþThat is technically true, but incomplete: The individual complaints did not appear before Judge Dibble because every T-Mobile employee who has filed a complaint with the N.L.R.B., like Mr. Coleman, has settled with the company, many of them for tens of thousands of dollars.þþ“It was not possible for the judge to look at any of those allegations,” said Guerino J. Calemine, general counsel of the Communications Workers of America, which helped bring the complaints. “She was only looking at the policies themselves.”þþMoreover, Professor McCartin said that even if the judge could not rule that any specific employee was affected by the policies, she found that T-Mobile workers as a class were affected.þþContinue reading the main story Continue reading the main story þþContinue reading the main story þþT-Mobile must now decide whether or not to appeal the decision to the National Labor Relations Board. If the company loses before the board, it could then appeal in federal court.þþBut the decision for T-Mobile is perilous. Workers at Deutsche Telekom, the company’s principal owner, belong to an influential German labor union known as Ver.di. Allowing a series of appeals to move forward could create public relations problems for Deutsche Telekom in its backyard, a dynamic that the Communications Workers of America president, Larry Cohen, seemed to relish.þþ“Bonn, the headquarters of D.T., no longer can hide behind the false statements made by T-Mobile U.S. executives,” Mr. Cohen said in a news release.þþIn the end, this campaign for German hearts and minds may hint at the biggest legacy of Wednesday’s ruling. Many labor experts argue that violations of worker rights have proliferated as corporate chieftains have become more remote from the rank and file. The decision may be an important step in reversing that process.þþ“The onus is on the parent company to explain why it tolerates policies in the United States that it wouldn’t practice itself,” Professor McCartin said. “That are clearly illegal in the United States.”þ
Source: NY Times
