“The company tried to make us fearful of them by threatening to haul us into court, but we have the support of the UMWA in this case and we will defend ourselves even if we end up in court,” Chávez said. He also pointed out that the miners’ immediate response to this lawsuit is a March 12 rally at the UMWA hall here in solidarity with their 17-month-long battle for a union.  
 
Motions to dismiss case
The union’s lawyers filed motions on March 1 asking a Utah federal district court to dismiss the Kingston lawsuit, calling the legal action by the owners of C.W. Mining, which operates the Co-Op mine, “vexatious litigation.”

The UMWA and miners who worked at the mine and have led the fight to win UMWA representation are central targets of the harassment lawsuit filed by C.W. Mining and the so-called International Association of United Workers Union (IAUWU). Workers say the IAUWU is an outfit created by the bosses to keep out a real union. The Kingstons are suing the UMWA specifically for “unfair labor practices” and “defamation,” and 17 individual miners for acting as UMWA “agents” in relation to these charges. Scores of others who support the Co-Op miners, or have written about their fight for better working conditions, higher pay, and dignity, are also named in the suit.

The legal brief responding to the lawsuit submitted on behalf of the UMWA and its officers explains that the Kingstons are attempting to use the courts as yet another club against the union and the Co-Op miners. C.W. Mining bosses and their counsel “have initiated a substantial number of legal actions against those critical of the Kingston family enterprises, or their leaders,” says the UMWA legal brief. “The allegations herein are broad and sweeping, and not well-predicated on viable legal theories arising from the facts. Filing and serving the lawsuit on the fifteen or so of the most outspoken leaders among CW Mining’s low-wage workforce—not to mention members of a bargaining unit Plaintiff IAUWU is supposed to be representing—represents nothing more than hard-ball tactics intended to chill their free speech, not to mention their rights under federal labor law.”

“The Kingston lawsuit basically doesn’t have any merit,” Bob Butero, director of organizing for UMWA Region IV, told the Militant. “This is why we are trying to get the case thrown out before it gets very far in the courts. But you still have to defend against the lawsuit and put up a serious argument, which is what the union has done.”

The union brief says the Kingstons’ complaint “raises nothing more than a traditional—and peaceful—labor relations dispute.” As a result, it argues, there is no viable case for action and federal law preempts the claims the Kingstons are making. “It is well-settled, black letter law that Plaintiffs cannot pursue their unfair labor practice claim because the National Labor Relations Act preempts it,” the UMWA brief says. It explains that the bosses are asking for a “second bite at the apple” on matters already decided or before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in this dispute.

As for the Kingstons’ defamation allegations, the union brief asserts that national labor relations law gives wide latitude to the use of terms like “scab,” “unfair,” or “liar,” which are commonplace in labor disputes. In addition, the UMWA brief says, Utah state law applies and “opinion” is protected against malice claims. Other alleged defamations are protected as privileged reporting on public proceedings, like NLRB hearings. The UMWA brief says it stands in this regard on the arguments put forward by the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret Morning News in their response to the Kingstons’ lawsuit (see major excerpts from brief in this issue).

“The main reason the Kingstons filed their lawsuit was to muzzle the miners and mass group of people who support them,” said Butero. “It’s another part of the company’s intent to suppress workers’ rights. Every indication is that the support for the workers at the Co-Op mine continues, so in that sense the Co-Op owners have not accomplished what they set out to do with their intimidation tactics.”

Side by side with the UMWA answer, union attorneys also filed a separate motion to dismiss the Kingston lawsuit on behalf of 16 individually named miners. Most of these miners were served with court papers about the lawsuit the same day C.W. Mining fired them, one week before the December 17 union representation election. The bosses dismissed virtually all the foreign-born workers allegedly for not providing the company with additional proof of their eligibility to work in the United States.  
 
‘They got rich off our labor’
“The Co-Op mine owners have made themselves rich off of our labor,” Chávez said, pointing to the long years many of the miners worked at the mine for low wages and under terrible work conditions, and with the same work documents the company called into to question on the eve of the union representation election. “We want to be treated fairly and we want to see this fight through to the end. That is why, even though a lot of us are suffering real hardships, we have not buckled under the company pressures and left the area.”

“People who support us need to know that the Kingston lawsuit is an intimidation tactic,” said José Contreras, another Co-Op miner who is part of the fight for the union, in a March 8 interview.

“Even before filing the lawsuit the bosses used to tell some workers who are strong backers of the UMWA they could go back to Mexico to avoid being named in a lawsuit. They wanted people like that to quit the mine, and quit fighting for the union,” Contreras said. “Some of the miners like myself who are not named in the lawsuit were told those listed are the trouble makers trying to create a scandal against the company. All of us standing up to this lawsuit, whether we were named in it or not, are part of the fight for the union.”

The union’s brief on behalf of the individually named miners in the Kingston lawsuit records the efforts of the miners to win UMWA representation at the Co-Op mine and the various National Labor Relations Board charges filed and won by the union against C.W. Mining. It also recounts the company efforts to thwart the will of the majority of the miners every step of the way. “The parties have been engaged in a long and bitter labor dispute,” says the union response to the lawsuit filed on behalf of the miners. “This lawsuit represents nothing more than another form of retribution by Plaintiffs against Defendant Miners for lawfully protesting the working conditions and seeking different union representation.”

The Co-Op miners are pressing ahead with plans for a March 12 benefit and rally at the UMWA district union hall in Price, Utah. Workers say the event is an important answer to C.W. Mining’s many actions to frustrate the union organization of the Co-Op mine and the many intimidation tactics, like the lawsuit, the bosses have used against the miners and the UMWA.

Butero said the UMWA is looking for a good turnout for the March 12 solidarity event here. “Solidarity with the miners hasn’t died off, even after this long of a struggle,” he said. “We keep hearing of new labor groups discussing how to help the miners. So we hope that will be reflected at the rally in Price.”

“All of us Co-Op miners have our eyes on March 12,” said Chávez. “We have gotten a lot of support during this struggle and we are asking people to respond again on March 12. The solidarity from workers in Utah, but also from other areas of the country, has made our fight endure.”  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home