Hidden Valley Lake >> Despite efforts in the recent weeks to try to delay it, the hearing between the homeowners association and union golf course workers is set to begin on Monday.
Relations with the two parties became rocky after Laborers’ Local Union 324 employee contract negotiations stalled more than a year ago. The union has since filed nearly 30 complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in which it claims to show that the association has “been engaging in unfair labor practices as set forth in the National Labor Release Act.”
Attempting to reschedule for a January date, the Hidden Valley Lake Association (HLVA) on Nov. 17 filed a second motion to postpone the hearing in front of a federal judge in Santa Rosa. In it, the HVLA claims that its primary witness, now former general manager Cindy Spears, would not be available.
Spears, who in multiple claims allegedly threatened, harassed and intimidated union employees, was out on medical leave beginning in October until Dec. 15 citing mental stress incurred performing day to day work duties, according to documentation attached with the motion to postpone. Evidence provided by the union in its opposition suggests Spears was actually on a road trip.
A Facebook post by Cindy Jones on Oct. 23, which union legal representatives claim is Spears, has photo showing changing tree leaves along a road in the mountains with the caption “Road trip to come!!!”
And Spears’ medical leave claim appears to conflict with a Facebook post dated Nov. 20 on the HVLA official page stating that Spears and the association had already reached an “amicable separation agreement” effective Nov. 9, more than a week before filing the motion to postpone. Yet nowhere in it does it show the change in Spears’ status as general manager.
Regardless, in his statement rejecting the second postponement Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham said the case was long overdue for a hearing on its merits. He noted — among several reasons — that “given the large number of claimed Act violations, combined with the seriousness of the charges, I find potential harm to the alleged discriminates … associated with a second trial postponement outweighs any added burden to Respondent associated with its unavailable witness.”
Among the slew of complaints, the union alleges unlawful surveillance of activities, that the HVLA was “interfering with, restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed” and suspending an employee because he “assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities” as well as to discourage such activities. The HLVA also allegedly employed seasonal workers to perform union duties outside of the time frame allowed for hiring.
Etchingham goes on to say that “to postpone hearing in this case would mean that an employer could engage in ongoing unfair labor practices to perpetually delay a hearing as this case has grown from the 4 charges listed in the consolidated complaint issued last March.”
The judge rejected the HVLA’s first request to postpone the original hearing date of June 15, which never occured after settlement negotiations went forward.
At the time, a dozen or so frustrated union workers had been on strike without pay for about two months with the hopes of reopening contract negotiations.
Just four days before the court date, however, Spears signed a settlement agreement verifying that the homeowners association “understands and agrees that the allegations … will be deemed admitted.” The HVLA agreed to make nearly $2,000 in back payments for lost work to be divided amongst the employees, and both parties had to return to the negotiating table.
Employees went back to work, but union representatives never signed the document claiming that unfair labor practices continued.
The HVLA allegedly changed the work schedules, set forth new production standards and was still hiring seasonal workers to do the job of union laborers.
On Aug. 31 the case was re-opened, with additional claims and the Monday date. It is unclear what the outcome of the hearing may be. Multiple phone calls to legal representatives from both parties and the NLRB were unreturned by press time. The hearing is expected to last about a week, and additional information will be published as it becomes available.
