‘Forced to capitulate’

Jamie Gillette took over J&R Flooring from her parents back in 2003. The company employs about 40 people now, but can have more than 100 workers when business is booming.

Initially, the J&R contract with the installers union had an expiration date — there was no obligation for the family business to sign a new contract when the existing contract expired. The union wanted to change that.

J&R agreed, providing the union could prove that’s what a majority of employees wanted, via a “card check” procedure conducted by a third party as provided by law. But when the union went forward, Ms. Gillette told the Nevada News Bureau, it did not follow the National Labor Relations Board rules. The union claimed the right to unilaterally announce the card check, to unilaterally set all procedures for the check and to unilaterally select of a third-party arbitrator.

J&R Flooring refused to recognize the card check results, and the union appealed to the National Labor Relations Board. The union lost. So the union sought arbitration, was turned down, and then took the case to federal court, claiming the company had committed an unfair labor practice.

On Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments.

Traditionally, Americas are accustomed to hearing about unions as the underdogs in such fights, facing off against huge corporations with vast bank accounts. But this case started with the union against at least four different companies, all but one of which have now folded their cards, based mainly on the prohibitive legal costs. Only J&R, which has incurred $300,000 in costs, now remains.

Union legal costs must be similar. Does anyone believe 40 local carpet installers are footing that bill?

If the 9th Circuit reverses what has been a series of legal victories for J&R, it could set a new precedent that would potentially impact other businesses, warns the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce.

Las Vegas attorney Greg Smith, who is representing Ms. Gillette, told the Nevada News Bureau that the intent of the union seems to be “to cost J&R and others so much they are forced to capitulate or go out of business. Indeed, that is exactly what has happened to all three of the other companies that were in this litigation with J&R at the beginning.”

What better argument for changing the system? A losing side that keeps a matter like this in the courts for years — despite defeat after defeat — should be required to pay the legal fees of the blameless party.