Settlement Keeps Firm From Move to Avoid Union

A Gardena jewelry manufacturer who was blocked from moving his operation to Mexico by a court order last month has agreed to remain open here, rehire all fired employees, and bargain in good faith with their union.

The settlement signed Monday by Vladimir Reil, president of Quadrtech Corp., which employs 118 low-wage immigrant workers, cements a rare union victory handed down by a federal judge in late November.

The company had announced it was moving in mid-July, the day after workers voted to join a union. By the time Quadrtech was stopped by a preliminary injunction, it had already moved two truckloads of equipment to a Tijuana warehouse.

Quadrtech representatives were set to appear Monday before an administrative law judge at the National Labor Relations Board to answer charges that it was moving to spite the newly unionized workers. The company had argued that the relocation was economically necessary, which would be legal.

To the surprise of NLRB attorneys, the company offered instead to settle the case by signing a court-enforceable agreement. Among other things, Quadrtech agreed to rescind any contracts for work in Tijuana, return equipment to the Gardena facility, rehire several discharged employees, and pay employees for two days in which they were locked out of the plant during the union campaign.

In addition, Quadrtech agreed to “recognize and bargain in good faith with the union.”

Many employees have worked at the company for more than 10 years, and earn the minimum wage of $5.75 per hour. Several said they work at high speeds in high temperatures, making body-piercing jewelry.

The union drive was sparked by a manager’s refusal to give an injured worker a chair, despite her doctor’s note recommending she be seated.

Reil and his attorney did not return phone calls seeking comment. Jaime Martinez, organizing director of the Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America, said employees were pleased with the settlement. “They’re very happy that at least they have a fighting chance at the bargaining table,” he said. “The order is very strong. Now we just have to stay on top of it.”

The settlement, and the injunction that preceded it, flabbergasted labor and management attorneys, who said it may be the first of its kind. Although fighting a union campaign with threats of moving to Mexico is illegal, employers routinely use the tactic, said Cornell University professor Kate Bronfenbrenner, who has collected data on hundreds of campaigns.

Unions often withdraw or lose the election as a result. It is rare for a union to fight a proposed move, and rarer still for the National Labor Relations Board to back up a union in court.

“This settlement is very significant because it doesn’t give the courts a chance to overturn [the preliminary injunction],” Bronfenbrenner said. “If the employer had appealed it, everyone would have wondered, ‘Was this just one aberrant judge?’ Since that didn’t happen, this says to other employers, ‘Maybe you ought to think twice if you try to blatantly avoid a union.’

“The settlement says it’s legitimate to stop an employer from moving to avoid unionization. And it may give both the courts and the [NLRB] the courage to do it again.”

“This goes to the core of organizing the unorganized,” said Martinez of the CWA.

“When employers find it’s cheaper to violate labor law than obey it, we must take them on. And that’s just what we did.”