Church, Union Saga Is Far From Over

The tactics being used by Los Angeles Archbishop Roger M. Mahony to keep a small band of gravediggers in archdiocese cemeteries from successfully forming a union provide a powerful argument for the need to overhaul the nation’s major labor law.

Although churches are not covered by the law, Mahony and union organizers agreed to abide by the National Labor Relations Act, and the law is clearly working to his advantage, just as it does for employers generally.

The law was passed 55 years ago specifically to protect workers and encourage the growth of unions by, among other things, preventing employers from retaliating against workers who support a union.

Last year, nearly 100 of the 130 gravediggers signed cards saying they wanted to be represented by the union. Mahony could have recognized the union at that point, but he did not, complaining that union supporters unfairly criticized both him and the church.

He refused to accept the cards as valid and demanded that the National Labor Relations Board conduct an election, gaining time for him to mount a major campaign against the union.

Then he reversed his position and fought his own election plan on advice of lawyers, who said the government should not entangle itself in church affairs.

The NLRB agreed, and so the California Mediation Service conducted the election instead.

When the union won by a 66-62 vote last February, Mahony challenged the results, which is legal under NLRB rules. He claimed that union supporters coerced the workers.

But Fred W. Alvarez, a neutral arbitrator selected by Mahony and the union, rejected Mahony’s accusations, saying the union won a fair election. (Alvarez is a former NLRB attorney and assistant secretary of labor who now represents management in labor cases.)

By usually following the letter, though not the spirit, of the law, Mahony almost prevented the AFL-CIO Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers, which organized the gravediggers, from winning the election.

The union won, but the fight is far from over, as indicated by Mahony’s recent letter to the union saying that “many of our Catholic cemetery employees are now expressing to me both verbally and in writing their resistance to any participation in your labor union. That voice of the workers cannot be simply disregarded by me.”

Contract talks are finally scheduled to begin Jan. 4 between the union and Mahony’s representatives. Although the law requires both sides to negotiate “in good faith,” it doesn’t require Mahony and the union to reach agreement. If no agreement is reached relatively soon, anti-union workers, encouraged by Mahony, can demand a new election.

And that, too, is legal under federal law as long as Mahony isn’t actually leading the drive for an oust-the-union election.

One of the law’s major advantages for Mahony and all other employers is the opportunity it provides to stall elections--the longer it takes, the more time they have to erode union support, by, say, firing the most active union backers.

Several of the cemetery workers have been fired since the election on charges that their conduct was “inconsistent with the mission of the sacred ministry of Catholic cemeteries.”

The union filed a court suit on behalf of three of six fired workers, contending that they were really fired because of their vigorous support of the union. Suits are being prepared for the others.

But with a court decision months, if not years, away, the suit isn’t likely to help the union or the workers. And even if the workers ultimately win, the lengthy legal battle isn’t going to encourage other workers to stick out their necks. If no agreement is reached, the workers could strike, but they have to beware of the ludicrous law.

Sure, it does clearly state that workers in this free society can strike without fear of being fired. However, court interpretations of the law also allow employers to “permanently replace” striking workers.

Some great legal minds decided years ago that there is somehow a meaningful difference to workers between being permanently replaced if they go on strike and being fired for doing the same thing.

The law allows employers a good deal of leeway in their fights against a union, but Mahony has a special advantage.

For instance, employers can get some mileage by sending anti-union letters to their workers. When the archbishop sent letters to the cemetery workers strongly urging them not to vote for the union, he was able to add pressure on them by just signing his name over his imposing title: “Sincerely yours in Christ, Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles.” And next to his signature was a small, hand-drawn cross.

The prestige of his position alone certainly was a major factor in reducing support for the union among the workers, most of whom are poor Latino Catholics.

Mahony himself is continuing to visit the cemeteries to meet with the workers to reinforce his firm stance against the union, and he probably weakened the union’s appeal further by raising wages by about $2 an hour and increasing benefits after the union campaign began.

That still leaves the gravediggers here earning an average of $8 an hour, compared to $14.95 an hour earned by the unionized gravediggers in Catholic cemeteries in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Despite that enormous difference, the archbishop may well manage to persuade the workers to abandon the union sooner or later.

But the fact that his tactics appear to be legal only serves to emphasize the need for Congress to make major reforms in the law. The changes are particularly important because Mahony’s conduct as the archbishop of the largest Catholic archdiocese in the nation gives a sort of blessing to anti-union forces.