This material was originally produced for the Ski Area Management Magazine Clinic at Park City, Utah, in June, 1965. It is reproduced here for the benefit of those area operators unable to attend the Park City clinic.
The Aspen decision and the results of the Aspen union election have led the unions to believe they have obtained a foothold in the ski resort industry, an industry from which they had largely been excluded. Now you can expect an honest and conscientious attempt by the unions to increase the foothold they gained in Aspen.
Of course, Park City is organized and also Sun Valley, but right now we’re primarily interested in preventative maintenance. Just as your lifts need preventative maintenance to prevent complete shutdown, or at least to attempt to alleviate a shutdown, in your labor management problems, preventative maintenance can be used to attempt to exclude unions from your areas.
This is something that should be done prior to the beginning of union activity. Because many employers start gearing themselves after the organizing takes place, in most instances it’s too little and too late.
First of all, I will try to suggest actions that you can take prior to the advent of the union—the reasons that cause employees to organize. I will also touch briefly on what an employer can do to prevent or minimize a union organizing campaign once it begins in this particular industry. Finally, we will consider what an employer can do when presented with a demand by the union that the union represents a majority of his employees.
To state that unions are successful because you have dissatisfied employees, or employees that you think are dissatisfied, is, of course, to state the obvious. But to put your finger on the exact causes of dissatisfaction among your employees and the resulting unionization of your particular operation is another problem.
However, a recent article listed these categories—and I will list them in two groups. Group I is the lack of communication, lack of a grievance procedure to handle minor inconveniences or grievances that the employees have that management is not aware of. This comprises over half of the triggering devices of union activity and successful union organization.
If the employer doesn’t have general conferences with his employees and doesn’t show an interest in his employees, this is lack of communication. You must realize that this is just human philosophy and psychology—employees want to feel wanted and they want to feel that they are important to your organization, which, of course, they are. They want to think that you are at least concerned enough with them to take an interest in their needs.
This approach may take a little time if you implement it, but it is a non-cost item. It isn’t an increase in wages, an increase in benefits or days off or paid vacations. This is something that is basically a matter of time and effort on your part.
The second item, a lack of a grievance procedure, is not significant to an area with 10 or more employees. If you have an operation that is small, you should make it known to all your employees that if they have a grievance or a complaint about their working conditions that they should come to you. In a larger organization, 30, 40, 50 or even 100 employees, some groundwork has to be laid because the man at the top doesn’t have the time to discuss with 30 or 40 employees their individual problems.
Therefore, your employees should be told to go to their individual supervisor and try to straighten out the grievance. If the supervisor is sure he knows how you would want a problem to be handled, then give him the authority to dispose of it or at least make sure that he has the time to talk to this person. If this doesn’t work, you might have a procedure by which he can come to you. In other words, the employees’ immediate supervisor would be screening out the trivial or unimportant objections to working conditions that an employee may have.
The third item is minor grievances that you usually aren’t aware of—perhaps not having cigarette, candy or coffee vending machines in the area in which employees take breaks, or perhaps a desire on the part of the employees to have these machines moved, lack of heat in the rooms in which they change clothes, a drinking fountain, etc. You’d be surprised how many unions use these minor inconveniences or the lack of communication as a foothold in gaining strength and perhaps in the final job of organizing your employees.
Group II includes wages, benefits and increased holidays. These, of course, are cost items, yet they comprise less than half the triggering devices of union activity. You can see where time and effort spent in the problems outlined in Group I can mean the difference between unionization and non-unionization of your area.
The action to take to minimize the effect of unionization is, of course, through intelligent contract negotiations. But prior to this, I think it behooves the employers to compartmentalize their employees. When a union requests to represent a majority of your employees, they have to do it in an appropriate bargaining unit. The employees they want to represent have to have a community of interest. In the ski resort business, maintenance men and lift operators certainly have a community of interest. However, I think ski patrolmen do not.
I’m aware that in Aspen ski patrolmen are in the same unit of maintenance as lift operators. But the skill necessary for a ski patrolman is different from that necessary for a lift operator. If you instituted different wage rates, different days on which you pay them, different break periods, maybe working hours, and maybe you can pay one group on a salary basis and the other on an hourly rate, these are all ways to make the two groups different. This may succeed in defeating an organizational effort of all your employees. The philosophy behind this is, why let the union have the whole pie if by cutting the pie beforehand you can prevent complete union takeover.
You may be familiar with the Board (National Labor Relations Board) process and in the way a demand is made. It is important to go into detail because the reaction the employer takes to a demand made by the union can mean the difference between unionization and non-unionization. First of all, if a union has less than 30 per cent of the employees, it cannot force an election. It has to have more than 30 per cent signed up on union authorization cards. If the union has between 30 and 50 per cent, an election has to be carried out. If the union represents in excess of 50 per cent of your employees in the appropriate group, then the union has a choice of either holding an election or petitioning and demanding that the employer recognize the union without the election. This is important.
Many employers believe they have the right to an election. The statutory provisions in the Taft-Hartley Act do not provide for this. The union has the choice. If a union feels it has the majority of the employees and doesn’t want an election, the union can come to the employer with a letter requesting recognition by asking the employer to commence bargaining immediately as they represent a majority of the employees. The letter would describe the unit the employees were in that the union represented. This is presently subject to amendment in Congress so that the union would be forced to have an election.
Without an election there is a great hardship on the employer. A union man or representative talks to employees and tells them what the union is all about—all the good points—then obtains signed cards that permits them to present you with the demand that they be recognized. This does not give the employer time to counteract any propaganda or to give his side of the story about benefits—the benefits the employer has given his employees. Of course, if you can hold an election, you would have time to present your side of the management picture and union-management problems.
If you are presented with a unionization demand, there are certain points every employer should raise. First, you should question whether or not the union has jurisdiction over your particular group of employees. This is important, but you can’t rely upon it.
The second question you should raise if a demand is made to you, assuming it’s made in person, is to make sure the signatures on the cards authorizing unionization are authentic. If there are 20 cards persented representing 20 of your 35 employees, for example, look them over carefully, analyze them and see if there is any indication that the signatures are not genuine. Perhaps by knowing your employees you’ll know a particular person doesn’t want a union, so his signature on a card may indicate some duress. In many instances the union will inform an employee that the card merely states approval of an election—as some cards do. If the union can get over 50 per cent of your employees endorsing the union, recognition can be forced without election.
The third item worth discussing is the matter of appropriateness of the unit, or employee classification. If, for instance, you want ski patrolmen, cafeteria employees, hostesses, lift and maintenance men treated differently, they have to be treated differently by the employer. This would be in pay structure, the way they are paid, etc.
By raising all these questions, an employer can at least force a hearing. If a hearing is held, it gives you a two-month period for a breathing spell in which you can gather your forces and tell your side of the story to your employees. If you do not raise these issues you will be forced to recognize the union and if you refuse, you can be subject to an unfair labor practice charge.
It is important to remember that these issues must be raised promptly. When the union organizer comes into your office or requests an audience with you, you must raise your objections then. If you wait a day or a week, the Board will say that you waive any objections even though there may be some.
The second point to remember in raising these questions (jurisdiction, appropriateness of the unit, whether or not it is an uncoerced majority, authenticity of signatures, etc.) is that an employer acts at his peril. By that I mean you must act in good faith. You can’t simply say you think the signatures are forgeries or that the unit is not appropriate. You may honestly believe what you say is true, but if at a hearing it develops you were wrong, the old expression “Ignorance of the law . . . ” applies. The Board will say that the employer acted at his peril and will therefore, if the union has 50 per cent signatures from the employees, recognize the union.
What are the advantages in raising these issues? First, you get breathing time. This means you can counteract the union philosophy that was used by the union to obtain signatures. The second is that by raising these issues, and forcing a hearing, it is possible you may be able to destroy the union majority. For example, if you have 20 employees and 11 cards are signed and, in your opinion, three of the 11 card signers were supervisors, they would be excluded. It would cut your union down to 17 and the number of cards to eight—less than half. You would at least have the benefit of an election, which employers feel gives them a lot better chance than if you are presented with the demand to recognize the union and to bargain immediately.
Board processes in many instances are involved. Sometimes it would be better for any employer to consent to an election in a less inclusive unit. Let’s say they want to represent all your employees. Discuss with them the fact that you would like them to represent just one category—excluding, let’s say, the ski patrol. The union is going to think about this and it may be a week, 10 days or two weeks before they make a decision. This extra time will give you the opportunity to present your side of the story to your employees.
These suggestions are certainly no cure-all for the area operator who doesn’t want his area unionized. Today unions form a huge force in the labor management field as well as a huge and successful element in society in general. In large industries many employers feel that they are better off having a union because they may have 300 or 400, maybe thousands, of employees and there is an advantage in having one spokesman for all.
In the ski area business where areas employ relatively few people, the advantages to an employer of having one spokesman for his employees through a union are limited. If you believe you are better off without unionization, remember that your employees are one of the greatest assets to your business. Look at their problems, correct minor grievances, do what you can to give your employees the feeling that they do have a say in how your company is operated—these are the acts of preventative maintenance that may be the difference between the successful or non-successful union drive.
Ross Thorson, an attorney who has handled about 400 union drives and negotiates about 30 union agreements each year, will dip further into the ski area management-labor relations problem in the winter issue of Ski Area Management to continue the discussion started in this issue by Alan M. Lipman.
Alan M. Lipman, a practicing attorney in Salt Lake City, is a graduate of the University of Utah and Georgetown University in Washington, D. C. His experience includes two and one-half years as an attorney with the National Labor Relations Board in Denver, Colorado.
