UNITE HERE Pays $17.3M For Airing Dirty Laundry | by Brian Herman

Thuggish tactics are nothing new in union organizing, and the high-stakes battles in corporate campaigns often bring out the nastiest maneuvers the unions have in their arsenals. In 2005, UNITE HERE, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, unleashed a weapon in an organizing campaign that was so brazen, it makes typical union campaign attacks look tame.

Now, more than a year after its actions, a California jury has ordered UNITE HERE to pay its target more than $17 million in compensatory damages. Sutter Health v. UNITE HERE

It all started innocently enough…
In early January 2004, UNITE HERE initiated a corporate campaign to organize the workers of Angelica Textile Services, a linen rental and laundry company that specializes in servicing hospitals and nursing homes. UNITE HERE represented some of Angelica’s workers at over 30 facilities nationwide, but sought to gain a card-check/neutrality agreement with the company in order to easily gain representative status at the other non-organized facilities. Angelica initially resisted the campaign, but eventually succumbed in response to strike threats.

As a tactic during the campaign, UNITE HERE exerted pressure on Angelica’s clients, notifying them of the labor dispute, and informing them that the dispute could cause service interruptions. By notifying Angelica’s clients, UNITE HERE hoped to entice them to encourage Angelica to give in to the union’s demands. UNITE HERE also pursued meetings with Angelica’s clients to achieve the same results. ...then it got ugly.

But not all of Angelica’s clients were willing to grant UNITE HERE an audience. Sutter Health, a California hospital chain that used Angelica’s laundry services, refused to meet with union representatives. In response, UNITE HERE sent postcards to past and present patients of Sutter Health hospitals, as well as to women of childbearing age, warning them of cleanliness issues with the hospitals’ linens. The front of the postcard displayed a picture of a sleeping baby and read: “Expecting? You may be bringing home more than your baby if you deliver at a Sutter birthing center.” The reverse of the postcard read: “You will do anything to protect your vulnerable newborn from infection – but your Sutter birthing center may not be taking the same precautions. Reports have surfaced that Angelica, the laundry service utilized by Sutter, does not ensure that ‘clean’ linens are free of blood, feces, and harmful pathogens. Protect your newborn. Choose your birthing center wisely.”

The $17 Million Cleaning Bill
The National Labor Relations Act makes it unlawful for a union to threaten, pressure, or coerce any person, including a business, to cease doing business with another person. Federal law gives employers the right to sue for damages to their business or property that stem from a union’s unlawful secondary pressure or boycott. This federal statute is the usual means by which victims of secondary pressure recoup the losses their businesses suffer.

Instead of filing suit in federal court, Sutter Health sued UNITE HERE in California state court, claiming that the union committed libel, trade libel, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and unfair business practices. Specifically, Sutter Health argued that the union’s allegations that there were problems with Angelica’s laundry services were false. Further, Sutter Health claimed that UNITE HERE’s postcard caused its hospitals injury by discouraging potential patients from using the hospitals’ services.

The trial lasted for three weeks, and the jury deliberated for three days before awarding Sutter Health the $17.3 million verdict. The verdict was for compensatory damages only; the jury had the opportunity to award Sutter Health punitive damages, but elected not to.

Union Needs Fabric Softener
Union organizing by corporate campaign is a difficult thing for an employer to face. Not only is the target company exposed to harsh actions by their employees across the nation, other entities who do business with the target may be affected as well. Hopefully the climate of these campaigns may now take a softer or at least a more civil tone.

The California jury in this case took an important step in showing the unions that a corporate campaign is not a no-holds-barred match and that illegal maneuvers will be sanctioned harshly.

Brian Herman is an associate with Fisher & Phillips Law Firm. Fisher & Phillips limits its practice to representation of management in labor and employment matters. Prior to joining the firm, Brian interned with the National Labor Relations Board Region 10 in Atlanta. He also interned with the Labor Relations department at the Metropolitan Transit Authority Bridges and Tunnels Division/Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in New York City. Brian can be reached at at 404.231.1400 or [email protected].

This information provided is general and educational and not legal advice. For additional information go to .