In the 75-page brief, the Co-Op miners are now accused of immigration “fraud,” in addition to unfair labor practices, defamation, and other charges.

The UMWA and its international officers, the Utah AFL-CIO, and several other unions and organizations that have supported the Co-Op workers remain targets of this lawsuit. The Militant and Utah’s two main dailies—the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret Morning News—are also cited for allegedly defaming the company by reporting on what workers had to say in the union-organizing fight at Co-Op.

At a June 14 hearing in Salt Lake City involving the three newspapers, Federal Judge Dee Benson ordered the coal company’s lawyers to resubmit their suit. Benson said the previous lawsuit was “amorphous” and did not clearly state who was being sued and what the alleged defamations were. In response, attorney Mark Hansen, who spoke on behalf of both C.W. Mining and the IAUWU at the hearing, said it would be necessary to rewrite the whole complaint.

C.W. Mining and the IAUWU filed their original suit in September 2004 and then amended it last December.

The coal bosses are using the court case as part of their campaign to counter efforts by the Co-Op miners for a union, better pay and safety conditions, and dignity on the job. The union-organizing struggle began in September 2003.

The newest allegation by the company—now at the forefront of the lawsuit—says a number of individual miners are guilty of fraud for securing employment at Co-Op with “false work papers.” Many of these miners had worked at the mine for years.

The company attorneys claim C.W. Mining was informed in May 2004 by the Social Security Administration that a number of employees did not have valid Social Security numbers. Because of this, they say, the company was forced to “terminate the employment of the fraudulent workers” last December after workers refused to “correct the problem.” The firings took place seven months after supposed government notification and a week before a union representation vote. The National Labor Relations Board has not announced yet the results of the election.

The company claims the miners were involved in “racketeering activity” because they had “devised schemes to obtain money by false pretenses.” This charge is explained as including schemes to obtain wages through “illegal employment” and schemes to obtain financial contributions from others while the miners were on strike.

The new complaint maintains the company’s charge that the UMWA and individual Co-Op miners are guilty of “unfair labor practices.” The company contends the workers were already represented by the IAUWU, which miners describe as a company-run outfit that never acted in the workers’ interests.  
 
‘Defamations’ by the workers
In response to the judge’s criticisms at the first hearing, the company attorneys rewrote the entire section of the case alleging who is guilty of defaming C.W. Mining and the IAUWU. Twenty-three pages now center on statements made by individual Co-Op miners. The alleged defamations include remarks by miners that conditions at the mine were unsafe, that miners were poorly paid compared to other miners in the area, that the company health insurance was so expensive it was the same as having no health coverage at all, and that workers were fighting for a real union.

The company singles out a number of miners—Ricardo Chávez, Bill Estrada, Celso Panduro, Alyson Kennedy, Gonzalo Salazar, Jesus Salazar, Juan Salazar, and Ana María Sánchez—as making the most “defamatory” statements. One miner, Raymundo Silva, who was not named in the earlier company legal briefs and did not join a 10-month strike that ended in July 2004, has been added to the lawsuit. He is cited for telling a newspaper earlier this year, “I saw the bosses laugh at the miners during the strike” and that the “abuses at the mine” got to him.

The UMWA is the subject of five pages of the complaint dealing with supposed defamatory statements against the company.

Thirteen pages of the new complaint catalog articles in the Militant the company deems libelous. In introducing the alleged defamations the company attorneys state, “The Militant and its agents made the following publications, not as reports of statements by others, but as their own representations.” They go on to cite more than 70 Militant news articles or editorials as being defamatory.  
 
Other charges
C.W. Mining has included one other new charge in its complaint—it now claims a number of the defendants are guilty of invasion of privacy. Their attorneys write that the defendants “gave publicity to matters concerning the Plaintiffs that placed Plaintiffs before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”

At the end of its complaint, C.W. Mining charges the defendants with invasion of privacy, intentional interference with economic relations, and civil conspiracy. It makes these charges against individual Co-Op miners, the UMWA and its officers, the Militant and its editors and reporters, the oil workers’ union PACE, George Neckel and Utah Jobs with Justice, and others.

Attorneys for the defendants will respond to the company’s legal challenge. The newspapers’ attorneys requested an extension of time to answer the complaint and were granted until August 16. Lawyers for the other defendants asked for and were given until September 1 to respond. After company lawyers file answers to those legal documents a new hearing will be set.

Judge Dee Benson said at the June hearing that he would rule first on the motions by the newspapers against the charges of defamation. He would then take up the motions having to do with the union defendants, all of whom are also alleged to have defamed the company along with other charges.
 
 
Related articles:
Arizona miners back union fight in Utah
Militant Fighting Fund gains support in Venezuela  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home