ADT's "Serial" Anti-Union Tactics Draw Scathing Court Ruling
A federal appeals court declared ADT a "repeat" unfair labor practices offender and called company's most recent effort to eject a union a "disappointing and transparent attempt by an employer to avoid its obligations under the National Labor Relations Act."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, states that the company has "been found to have committed unfair labor practices in no fewer than seven cases since 2015."
Describing the company's most recent violations as "extraordinary," the court upheld a cease-and-desist order and remediation requirements issued by the National Labor Relations Board over ADT's attempt to decertify union representation for employees in Rockford, Illinois.
In this post, we examine the circumstances which led to the ruling, ADT’s history of dealing with unions, and the likely ramifications of the decision.
Office *************
** ****, *** ********* ** *** closing ********** ** **** *******, ********* and ********, ******** *** ************* ***** operations ** * *** ****** ** Janesville, *********, ***** *** ******* ******* in ******* ***** *** ******.
********* ** ********, ******* ***** ** hour ******* ** *******, **** *********** by *** ************* *********** ** ********** Workers ***** ***. ***** *********** ******** "all ****-**** *** ******* ****-**** **********, technicians *** ******* *********" ******** ** ADT ** *** ******** ********. ******* workers **** *** *********** ** * union.
********* ** *** ******, *** ********** **** *** ******** workers ********* **** "******* ***** ******" except **** **** ***** ***** * different ******** **** * **** *** that **** ***** "'**** ** *** union' *** **** *** **** ******* area ****** ******** **** **** *** been ******** *** *******."
******* ******* **** ********* ** ******* substantially *** **** **** ** *** same ********* ** **** *** ****** the *************. ***** **** * ***** training ******* *** ****** ** ********** that ****** * ****** ** *****, followed ** *********, *** ******** *** Madison ********* "*** **** ***** ** more **** **** *** ****** *** move," *** ***** **** ** *** ruling.
"Extraordinary ****"
* *** ****** ***** *** *************, "ADT **** ** ************* **** ******* the *****," *** ******* ***** ****. "It ********* ** ******** *********** ** the ***** *** *** ******** *********."
*** ******* *** ** ***** * decertification ******** **** "*** *** **** signed *********** ** *** ********* ********** ****, let ***** *** ******** **** ***** be ********," ********* ** *** ******. "ADT **** ************ ******* ******* ***** and ********** ** *** ***** *******' employment."
**** ***** ********* ********** *** *******, "management **** **** **** **** ** longer '** *** *****, **** ********** 'had **** ** ** ***** ********,' and **** '** *** *** *****.'"
******** ************** * ************* *** ******** ***** ********* *****,***** ********* *** *** "********** ********* *********** from *** *****, ********** **** ********** changes ** *** ******** **** *********' terms *** ********** ** **********, *** unlawfully ************ *** ********** * ******** unit ******** ***** *** ******* *** the *****."
*** ******** *** **** ** * manager **** ** ***** *** ** eligible *** * ***** ******* ** he *** "**** ** *** *****," according ** *** ********. *** ******* also ***** *** ******** "*** ** wanted ** ** ** *** *****," which ** * **** ** *********** that *** ** ********** "******** *************" by ****** ** ***** ********. *** board ******** **** *** ******* *** changes ********* *** ********* ** *** Rockford ********* *** "**** **** ********* whole, **** ********, *** *** **** of ******** *** ***** ******** ******** as * ****** ** *** ******** unilateral ******* ** ***** *** ********** of **********."
ADT's **** **********
**** *****, *******-***** *** ** *** of *** ******* **** ******** ****** providers (*** *** *** ** *** largest ********** ****) ** *** *.*. and ** *** *** ******, ****** been ******* ** *********, ******** ** the ***** ********** ******** *********. **'* **** ******* **** ***** unions **** **** **** ** *** competitors, ***** ******* **** ***** ********* that *** *** ****** ** ** unionized.
*** ******* ***** ***** **** *** has **** ***** ** *** **** to **** ********* ****** ***** ********* "in ** ***** **** ***** ***** since ****" ********** *** *******, *** including *** ********** ********* *** ******** employees. **** ********** ******** *** *********:
- ******** ** ******* * ***** **** information
- ******* ** ******* ****** *********** ********** changes ** ***** *** ********** ** employment
- ********* * ***** *** ******* ******** with *********
- *********** ********* *** ******* ** ********* union ********
- ********** ************* ********* ********* ******* *** a *****, ********** ********** ***** ***************
- ********** *********** *********** ** * *****, refusing ** *******, *** ******* ** abide ** *** ***** ** * collective ********** *********
- ******* * ******** ******* ********* *** union ** *********** ** ******* **** the ******* ** *** ********
*** ***** ***** **** *** *** a "********** ******** ** ***" ******** Labor ********* ***" *** ****** "******* disdain" *** *** ****** ** ********* under *** ***, ********* ** *** appeals *****. *** ***** ****** **** those ********. *** ********* ** "******** this *******" ** ******** **** *** other ***** ***** **** "********* *******," according ** *** ******* *****.
** ******** *** ***********, *** ***** compared *** ** * ****** ****** defense:
*** **** ****** **** ********** *** be ***** **** ***** ** ******** has ********** ******** *** ****** ** the **** ******** *****. *** **** do ** “**** ********* ** ***** the ****** ** **** ******** ******* [ADT] *** *** ***** ** ****** the *****,” *** **** ******** *** no ***** ** ***...** ** ***, we ***** **** * “****** ****** just * "******." ***** *** ******** Labor ********* ***, ** ******** **** not ******* *** ****** ** *** same ****** ** ** * ****** offender.
Effects ** *** ********
*** **** * ******* ******* ***** has *****, *** ******** *** **** be ******* ******** ** *** *.*. Supreme *****. ** *** **** *** challenge *** ******, ** **** **** to ***** *** ***** ************** *** pay ******* *** ********* ** ***** and ******** **** ***** **** *** from *** ***************. ******* *** ***** determined *** *** * "********** ********," the ******* **** **** **** ** "read *** ******** ****** ** *********". Specifically, *** **** ***** ******:
** ***** *********** ***** *** ********** to **** * ******* ** ******** during ******* ***** ** *** **********, Wisconsin ********, ********* ** ****** *** widest ******** ********** ** *********, ** which *** ******** ****** ** ** be **** ** ********* ** * high-ranking ******* ** *** ******** ** a ***** ***** *** * ***** representative ** *** ****** ** *** Union ** *******, **, ** *** Respondent’s ******, ** * ***** ***** in *** ******** ** ********** ***, if *** ***** ** *******, * union **************.
** *** ***** **** ***** ****** to **** ** **** ***** **** to *** **** **** ***** **** had ** *** ** **** ****'* done ****? ** *** **** ** read **** *********. ** **** ***** or ********?