The coal bosses went to court in September 2004, charging the UMWA, Co-Op miners, and their supporters in the labor movement, as well as newspapers that have written about the miners’ fight for a union, with charges ranging from unfair labor practices to defamation and conspiracy.

At a June hearing on motions to dismiss the case filed on behalf of the Militant and Salt Lake City’s two main daily papers, the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News, the judge ordered lawyers for C.W. Mining and its company-allied International Association of United Workers Union (IAUWU) to rewrite their complaint. He described the lawsuit as “amorphous” and said the defendants needed to know who was being sued, for what, and by whom.

In the briefs they presented, attorneys for the UMWA and the miners explained that the charges of unfair labor practices are an attempt to circumvent proceedings of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The firings of UMWA supporters at the Co-Op mine and the resolution of a union representation election held in December 2004 are now before the NLRB. “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 noted in its brief.  
 
Defamation claims still vague
The two Salt Lake dailies and the Militant have already filed new motions to dismiss the charges of defamation against them in the C.W. Mining lawsuit. The UMWA, Co-Op miners, and AFL-CIO briefs “incorporate and adopt herein the arguments… by the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret Morning News,” and “further rely on the arguments advanced by the Militant in its motion to dismiss” in putting forward their cases for dismissal of this charge.

“At this court’s June 14 hearing on the three newspaper Defendants’ motions to dismiss, [C.W. Mining and the IAUWU] were permitted to amend their complaint a second time to cure numerous deficiencies …,” says the UMWA filing.

“Especially with regard to the defamation claims, the Second Amended Complaint remains vague and rambling, and still fails to articulate how the alleged defamatory statements were false and how they injured Plaintiffs.”

The union lawyers point out there are numerous legal precedents that protect “freewheeling use of the written and spoken word” and “uninhibited, robust and wide open debate” in labor disputes. “Under the well-established free-speech principles protecting language used during labor disputes, Plaintiffs simply cannot demonstrate that the statements at issue were defamatory.”

C.W. Mining attorneys “allege defamation by almost anyone for any comments that they made during the labor dispute that [the coal company] viewed as contrary to their interests. This shotgun approach does not sufficiently allege a viable defamation claim,” says the brief filed on behalf of the miners.

A further example of the company’s failure to present a case proving defamation in its rewritten lawsuit is provided in papers filed on behalf of Ed Mayne, president of the Utah AFL-CIO. C.W. Mining quotes from a Dec. 28, 2004, article in the Militant that it claims is defamatory, “Ed Mayne faxed a letter to [Co-Op mine manager] Charles Reynolds, saying, ‘It has been brought to my attention that just days before a scheduled union election, you have terminated and are threatening mass firings of Co-Op miners. These actions by C.W. Mining are a direct violation of the July 1, 2004 National Labor Relations Board settlement.’” The AFL-CIO attorney pointed out that the company “adds nothing to illuminate what part of the statement is false, malicious, damaging and/or defamatory. It is clearly opinion, not defamatory, protected under federal law….”  
 
Challenge to immigration charges
A new charge was added in the second amended complaint accusing individual Co-Op miners of fraud for allegedly securing work at the mine without proper work papers. The UMWA’s attorneys replied that the company has no standing to charge the workers with immigration violations, since those laws are monitored and enforced by the federal government, not private citizens or businesses.

In addition, the union noted, the company is supposed to demonstrate they have been damaged as a result of the workers gaining employment at the mine, but have utterly failed to do so. “Even as alleged, C.W. Mining clearly received the benefit of these workers’ labor before discharging them for inadequate documentation,” says the UMWA brief. “Moreover, the NLRB has already indicated it has found merit to the UMWA’s claim that the discharges were in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.”

The union brief pointed out that the labor board is now trying to reach a settlement between the company and the union, based on its findings that the firing of some 30 miners one week before the union election for failing to provide additional work documents was illegal.  
 
Court and attorneys fees
Because of the retaliatory nature of the C.W. Mining lawsuit, each of the defendants is asking the judge to grant them attorneys fees and cover their court costs. The UMWA says the company filed this broad and sweeping lawsuit with few facts or legal precedents to back up their claim. In particular, “Filing and serving the lawsuit on fifteen or so of the most outspoken leaders among the C.W. 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.”

At the same time, attorneys for the UMWA, individual Co-Op miners, and the Utah State AFL-CIO were filing their objections to the C.W. Mining lawsuit, company lawyers were asking the court for an extension of 30 more days to answer the recently filed briefs by the newspapers. C.W. Mining has already had 15 days to answer the newspapers.

A second hearing on the lawsuit has not been set yet. That will now depend on how the judge rules on the coal company’s request for more time.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home