The Militant (logo)  
   Vol. 69/No. 13           April 4, 2005  
 
 
Kingstons ask for more time to reply to the
‘Militant’ motion to dismiss harassment case
 
BY NORTON SANDLER  
Attorneys for the Kingston family and the International Association of United Workers Union (IAUWU) filed a motion March 16 with the Central Utah Federal District Court requesting a month delay in responding to the motions filed by the Militant and the Socialist Workers Party to dismiss their harassment lawsuit.

The Kingstons own C.W. Mining, also known as the Co-Op Mine, in Huntington, Utah. The IAUWU is an outfit that workers say is organized and run by the bosses to serve their interests and to keep a real union out.

In the March 16 motion, the Kingstons requested that presiding Judge Dee Benson also grant them until April 15 to respond to the motions to dismiss from the 17 Co-Op miners named in the bosses’ lawsuit; the Utah State AFL-CIO and its president, Ed Mayne; Jobs With Justice; PACE union Local 8-286; and University of Utah professor Hans Ehbar.

Attorneys Randy Dryer and Michael Petrogeorge responded March 19, stating: “Defendants The Militant and the Socialist Workers Party have no objection to Plaintiff's’ request for additional time to respond to said Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint.” At the same time, they requested that the judge hold a consolidated hearing on the motions to dismiss the case filed by the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News, and the Militant and the Socialist Workers Party.

“Given the substantial similarity of the legal issues presented by the motions of the three newspaper defendants, a consolidated hearing would serve the interests of all parties and judicial economy and would otherwise be in the furtherance of justice,” the March 19 motion states. “Counsel for the Plaintiffs, The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret Morning News have indicated they have no objection to such a consolidated hearing,” the Militant and SWP motion continues.

The court has yet to issue a ruling on these requests.

The Kingstons originally filed their sweeping harassment lawsuit in September 2004—accusing the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and many individual Co-Op miners of unfair labor practices and defamation. A number of newspapers and other organizations and individuals were also cited with defamation. The Kingstons amended their complaint in December of last year. Those named as defendants are the UMWA and its officers, 17 workers at the Co-Op mine, the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret Morning News—Utah’s most prominent dailies--the Socialist Workers Party and the Militant, and other unions, labor organizations, and individuals who have backed the Co-Op miners’ struggle to win UMWA representation.

All the defendants filed motions to dismiss the case. The Kingstons, however, have thus far responded only to the briefs filed by the UMWA and one filed jointly by the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News.

A memorandum urging the court to continue C.W. Mining and the IAUWU’s case against the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret Morning News submitted by Attorney Mark Hansen on March 9 says the Kingstons have sued the two papers because they have republished statements not made “by a responsible organization but by a rabid labor union and its cohorts.”

The Kingstons’ response to the Utah papers repeats the allegation in their amended complaint that coverage by these papers of the labor dispute is “slanderous.” The alleged defamations includes quoting workers involved in the dispute describing the firing of miner Bill Estrada in September 2003, the company lockout that ensued after the workers walked off the job in protest of that firing, and comments by workers about the company’s low pay scale and the dangerous working conditions at the mine. The alleged defamations also include statements by the workers about their desire to be represented by the UMWA—because of the conditions they faced at that mine—and their contempt for the IAUWU, which the company claims is a union.

The Kingstons’ answer repeats their assertion that the two Utah papers intentionally gave inaccurate reports on the decisions of the National Labor Relations Board involving the company and the miners.

The bosses’ reply to the Utah dailies’ brief also describes as defamations opinions expressed in the papers such as that C.W. Mining is “part of an unfortunate American industry habit of exploiting immigrant workers,” or that “the Kingstons’ treatment of the miners is appalling.”

A footnote in the Kingstons’ memorandum states that the dispute, which had drawn wide attention in Utah and elsewhere, is a private one, not a public controversy. As a result, the Kingstons claim the papers are not subject to the freedom of the press protections afforded the media when reporting on a public controversy.
 
 
Related articles:
Utah miners protest boss plan to hire replacement unionists
Utah mine bosses respond to UMWA brief  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home