Incidents at Highlands Regional Medical Center Highlands Regional Medical Center is a 137 bed facility with 459 employees, 290 of whom are members of the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees (1199). On March 23, 1981, at midnight, 290 Dietary, Maintenance and Housekeeping personnel, Technicians and L.P.N.'s struck the hospital. All ambulatory patients were discharged and the 2nd. floor was vacated prior to the strike. The 3rd and 4th. floors and the Emergency Room were kept in operation. Those persons not on strike, i.e. office workers, management personnel and other non-union personnel were provided quarters during the early part of the strike on the vacant 2nd. floor. Just prior to walkout time, unknown persons moved from room to room cutting telephone cords. This occurred even though we had guards on every floor. Equipment was taken by departing strikers (i.e. electric thermometers) and sterile medical supplies were contaminated. Pickets stopped our ambulances to check for "scabs" and told visitors and potential patients we were closed. They attempted to frighten non-striking employees in many ways. They jumped in front of and onto vehicles passing through the picket line and fell to the pavement screaming. Persons crossing the picket lines could expect nails in their tires and rocks, bottles and eggs thrown at them. Bomb threats occurred. -2 Some of our employees had their homes shot into and groups of pickets followed employees' cars from work to their homes. Employees received threatening phone calls at all hours. Pickets physically beat a female personnel assistant. Rocks and bottles were thrown at our buildings and firecrackers were set off day and night. A major problem was with the police protection. Police were often unable to respond to our calls and according to Ky. State law, the crime had to be committed "in the presence of the law officer" for an arrest to be made. The warrant procedure for victims required up to 4 hours for completion and arrests on the warrants were delayed as much as two weeks. Police also misinterpreted injunction orders and allowed additional picketers as captain and messengers. Eventually, the judge had to call the police commander to tell him to enforce his orders correctly. The police were frequently slow to respond. They tired of our calls and a warrant was issued for one of the outside security guards for making a "false report" regarding the number of picketers on the line. Actually, the report was factual, but during the time it took police to arrive, many of the picketers had gone. Some of the difficulties with the police may have stemmed from the fact that they alledgedly had relatives walking STATEMENT OF SAMUEL EISENBERG UNION, AFL-CIO I thank the Committeee for allowing me the opportunity to submit this statement in opposition to S. 613, and particularly to rebut the statements of Reed Larson, President of the National Right To Work Committee, and of Mike Matthews, President of Electro-Harmonix, which were received by this Committee on December 10, 1981. I am particularly pleased to have been given this opportunity to respond before this honorable forum, for we were denied such an opportunity by WNBC TV, which aired a one-sided and distorted report, and then refused to permit us to present the real facts and set the record straight. I did not participate in the strike at Electro-Harmonix, but I have knowledge of some of the facts, and I have reviewed the matter in detail with the Union agents who were involved. Based upon their reports and my own knowledge of the facts, it is clear, as I will demonstrate, that the statements of Mr. Larson and Mr. Matthews, with regard to the labor dispute at Electro-Harmonix, consist largely of fabrications, constructed to suit their ideological predisposition against labor unions. The incidents which occurred at Electro-Harmonix in August 1981 resulted from the provocations and illegal activities of Mr. Matthews and his agents. Had they not violated the rights of their employees under the National Labor Relations Act to choose (or not to choose) a bargaining representative, there would have been no dispute and no strike, and the workers would have chosen this Union to represent them in collective bargaining with Electro-Harmonix. Moreover, the Electro-Harmonix strike stands as an example of how police authorities are totally responsive to the complaints of employers, in policing or over-policing strike and picket line situations. A few years ago, this Union made an attempt to organize the employees of Electro-Harmonix. Contrary to the statement of Mr. Matthews, these attempts at organization did not include slapping and kicking of workers or any other abusive behavior. There was no picketing at that time. All that happened was that Union agents attempted to convince a substantial number of employees to support the Union and when that failed, these efforts were abandoned at that time. Common sense dictates that one does not convince others to join an organization with threats of violence. I specifically deny Mr. Matthews' allegation that I engaged in a conversation with him at that time. This did not happen. In late July 1981, as a result of these earlier As a Union agents, organization attempts, employees of Electro-Harmonix contacted an official of this Union and advised him that they were interested in joining the Union and having the Union represent them. result, Union organizers visited the area of the Electro-Harmonix factory during the week beginning August 3, 1981. varying in number between four and six, spoke with employees outside the plant. After August 3, they also distributed Union literature and authorization cards. Contrary to the statement of Mr. Matthews, employees were not threatened in any way. Early in the week, employees were responsive to the Union agents and some of them signed authorization cards of their own free will. As the week progressed, however, it became increasingly more difficult to even speak to the employees. Union agents were informed by employees that from the inception of the Union campaign on August 3, Mr. Matthews and his supervisors engaged in a systematic and pervasive campaign of unlawful activities to interfere with, restrain and coerce the employees in their exercise of rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The Union thereupon filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Regional Office of the NLRB, in Case No. 2-CA-18283. A copy of the Complaint issued by the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board upon the Union's Charge is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". As indicated in the Complaint, beginning on August 3, 1981, the day the Union began its campaign, Electro-Harmonix promised and granted wage increases to induce employees to reject the Union, and threatened employees with reprisals, including discharge, if they joined or supported the Union. It is important to note that the witnesses interviewed by the NLRB in support of this charge were employees of Electro-Harmonix, not Union officials. (I should say former employees of Electro-Harmonix, 92-211 0-82-17 since these witnesses have all since been terminated by the firm, as I will explain.)* By Friday, August 7, 1981, it was clear that Mr. Matthews' illegal practices had succeeded in defeating the organizing campaign. A decision was then made to picket the Electro-Harmonix factory to protest these unfair labor practices. This decision was prompted, in large part, by the Union's desire to demonstrate its committment to those employees who had supported the Union in the face of the illegal activities engaged in by Mr. Matthews and his supervisor. The picketing began on the morning of Monday, August 10,. 1981. Contrary to the statement of Mr. Matthews, a limited number of Union agents participated in the picketing along with approximately 10 to 15 employees of Electro-Harmonix, who actively engaged in picketing. Many other emplyees indicated that they supported the Union, but that they did not want to be seen picketing by Mr. Matthews or his supervisors, in view of the earlier threats of retaliation against Union supporters. Problems began almost immediately. As picketers picketed peacefully, Mr. Matthews stayed out on the street in the area of the picket line, and ordered striking employees to go to work. At one point, a pushing match ensued after Mr. Matthews physically grabbed one of the workers and directed her to go upstairs. I imagine that this is the altercation that Mr. Matthews refers to in his statement. Contrary to the statements of Mr. Matthews and Mr. Larson, "vicious attack by eight Union agents," which Mr. Matthews was singlehandedly able to fend off without injury, according to them, did not, in fact, occur. What happened was that Mr. Matthews engaged in a pushing match with a Union agent who attempted to assist the worker whom Mr. Matthews had grabbed and directed to go inside to work. Mr. Matthews' persistently overbearing and belligerent manner resulted in the police directing him away from The Committee should note that while this NLRB |