The judge held off a decision on eight other motions before him. The Militant, United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), 16 miners fired by C.W. Mining in December 2004 for trying to organize a union, and Utah Jobs with Justice—which have also requested dismissal of the case and attorneys fees—all remain in the lawsuit. Benson said he needed more time to consider these motions and would deal with them in a subsequent written ruling. No date is set for when he will issue such a ruling.

Before the hearing, attorneys for the company and the oil workers union PACE agreed to release this union from the lawsuit.

The C.W. Mining lawsuit was filed in September 2004 as part of the mine owners’ attempts to strangle a UMWA organizing campaign at its Co-Op mine in Huntington, Utah. The mining company and its closely allied International Association of United Workers Union (IAUWU), who are the plaintiffs, initially cited over 120 newspapers, organizations, and individuals that backed the miners’ fight to unionize, or wrote about what the miners had to say in the struggle. All the defendants were charged with making defamatory statements that allegedly damaged the mine’s owners. The 16 miners and the UMWA were also charged with violating federal labor laws.

The plaintiffs amended and began serving their complaint in December 2004, within days of a union representation election. The company fired 30 miners who supported the UMWA as the vote approached. Many of these fired workers are defendants in the lawsuit.

A first hearing was held on the case in June 2005. Judge Benson instructed the plaintiffs at the time to rewrite what he called an amorphous lawsuit to make it clear who was being sued, for what, and who was specifically damaged. Many of the original defendants were dropped when C.W. Mining and the IAUWU rewrote the lawsuit last July.

Nine attorneys representing the various defendants sat to the judge’s left in the courtroom. Sitting behind these lawyers were Berthila Leon, Bill Estrada, Guillermo Hernandez, and Alyson Kennedy—four of the miners named in the suit; Mike Dalpiaz, international vice president of UMWA District 22, and Roy Fernandez, an organizer for the union in the West; Militant editor Argiris Malapanis; three supporters of the Militant Fighting Fund; and directors of Utah Jobs with Justice.

Attorney Mark Hansen, representing the IAUWU, and Carl Kingston, for C.W. Mining, sat to the right of the judge. Hansen spoke on behalf of both of them throughout the hearing.

Reporters for the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret Morning News, and the Militant covered the hearing.  
 
‘Best defamation claim?’
A good portion of the hearing was taken up by Judge Benson questioning Jeffrey Hunt, attorney for the Deseret Morning News, about the legal basis for dismissing the case against the two dailies.

The judge asked Mark Hansen for the plaintiffs’ best example of a defamation. He added at this point in the proceedings that the Militant’s attorney Randy Dryer might have a tougher case than the other two newspapers.

Hansen pointed to a Deseret News editorial that said Co-Op miners were “fired for trying to organize a union.” This was false and caused public ridicule for the company because the miners were not fired but quit, Hansen claimed. The judge questioned the example noting that opinion pieces like editorials have extra protections against libel claims. “Who is suffering” from that statement, he repeatedly asked the company lawyers.

The judge then asked why C.W. Mining and IAUWU filed such a serious lawsuit against two longstanding Utah newspapers without direct evidence that someone was truly injured. Is that a proper use of the court? he asked.  
 
Same legal questions for ‘Militant’
Randy Dryer, representing the Militant, pointed out the same legal principles apply in this case to the newsweekly as to the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret Morning News. The Militant articles cited as defamatory contain the same statements made by miners, the UMWA, and others, as those printed in the two dailies.

Dryer told the court the suit against the Militant should be dismissed for an additional reason. The plaintiffs failed to comply with the judge’s instruction at the June 14 hearing to rewrite the lawsuit so each defendant would know exactly who is being sued, for what alleged defamations, and who was harmed.

Dryer said that while some attempt was made to carry out the judge’s instructions in regards to the Salt Lake dailies, no such attempt was made with the Militant. The plaintiffs “just repackaged” their alleged defamations and added eight new articles to the lawsuit. Virtually every article and editorial the Militant published since September 2003 about the fight at Co-Op is cited in the lawsuit.

Dryer also emphasized the issues in this case touch on important questions of public concern. “Miners’ safety is in the news,” he said, referring to the spate of miners killed on the job this year. One of the main questions in the fight at Co-Op was safety, Dryer said, noting that part of that mine was shut down recently when a fire forced the evacuation of 10 miners.

In response, Hansen said the Militant was not in the same category as the Tribune and Deseret News. The allegations against the Militant “are much broader, more numerous. There are many more statements that can be attributed to the authors of articles,” he said. It may be possible for the court to dismiss the case against the two dailies, but not the Militant, he added.

Hansen insisted the coal company would need “discovery” to prove its charges against the Militant and other defendants. Discovery would allow C.W. Mining’s attorneys to probe the Militant and other defendants for a wide range of information and documentation relating to the case.  
 
Heavy hand to stifle organizing
UMWA attorney Judy Rivlin described the C.W. Mining lawsuit as a “heavy hand trying to stifle union organizing at this mine, in Utah, and around the country.” Regarding the numerous defamation charges against the UMWA, the union finds itself in the same position as the Militant, she said. Additional charges of immigration law violations, fraud, and racketeering were also lodged against the union and the miners when the case was rewritten.

Rivlin told the court the Co-Op bosses have no legal standing for most of their claims. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is ruling on charges and countercharges by the company and the union in the dispute, she pointed out. Because the case is open the NLRB proceedings take precedence over action by a federal court. Equally inappropriate, she said, is the company’s attempt to bring immigration charges against the union and the miners.

Richard Rosenblatt, attorney for the 16 Co-Op miners, pressed the same point. “How can the company say someone working for you without proper documentation is injurious?” he said. “How is that damaging to them?”

The attorney pointed to statements by the miners that the bosses’ lawsuit describes as slanders. “Alyson Kennedy, a Co-Op miner is cited in the lawsuit saying, ‘We were fired from our jobs for trying to organize a union,’ and ‘Female employees still don’t have a separate bathroom to shower,’” he said. “How are those statements defamatory?”

Rosenblatt also said the way the suit was served made it clear it was filed to intimidate the miners. Co-Op miners were served the court papers on their way to exercise their right to vote in a union representation election.  
 
‘Illegals’ can’t expect higher wages
According to Co-Op’s lawyers the defendants were guilty of “hundreds of acts aimed at defaming and injuring” the company.

The workers got jobs illegally and defrauded the company, Hansen said. They then went to the UMWA to help them “muscle C.W. Mining” to give them higher wages and benefits they knew they were not entitled to because they were “illegals.”

As a result of the workers’ actions and the extensive publicity generated by the struggle, Hansen said, C.W. Mining was unable to hire qualified replacement workers, could not fulfill coal sale contracts, and many vendors would not sell the company spare parts.

The judge said it looked more like the company was damaged by the adverse publicity coming about because of the labor dispute, rather than the fact the workers might not have had proper work papers.

Wasn’t it true the workers felt the IAUWU didn’t represent them? the judge asked. When Hansen claimed his client stuck up for the miners, the judge interjected: Were the workers then trying to get rid of the IAUWU “for absolutely no good reason?”  
 
Judge’s ruling
Addressing why he was not making a decision from the bench on the Militant’s motions, the judge said he thought the company lawyer “was correct” that the volume of articles cited was both qualitatively and quantitatively different for the Militant. Benson added that he shared some of the concerns expressed by attorneys for the Militant and the UMWA that the lawsuit had failed to make clear who was being sued and for what.

Hansen told the Deseret Morning News following the hearing that the coal company and the IAUWU would likely not appeal the judge’s ruling on the dismissal of the case against the two Salt Lake papers.
 
 
Related articles:
Miners support labor defense case  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home