Some of the tension from the battle over the future of labor is playing out in organizing campaigns. Back in May, we learned of a tiff between UNITE-HERE and CWA over who should organize workers at tribal casinos in California. UNITE-HERE sued CWA in federal court alleging breach of contract, arguing that UNITE-HERE was granted exclusive jurisdiction to organize California’s casino industry and that CWA agreed to that. The stakes are high because we’re talking here the right to represent tens of thousands of workers.

Well, the fight is still pretty hot, which shows how badly relationships are fraying. On June 9th, CWA prez Morty Bahr send a letter to John Sweeney about this, which I just got (see below). For the uninitiated, when Bahr talks about “registration,” he is essentially referring to the process where the AFL-CIO referees dispute between unions over which union should be given sole jurisdiction to organize a group of workers. Interestingly, UNITEHERE has forged a joint effort with the Teamsters and Laborers, two of their partners in the Change To Win Coalition–a fact that seems to annoy Bahr.

I also find interesting that, though Bahr refers to the lawsuit by UNITEHERE that alleges that he violated an agreement he made, he doesn’t come right out and say there was no such agreement–though perhaps he is…ummmm….barred from speaking about the issue given the litigation.

=========================================================

June 9th 2005

Mr. John J. Sweeney, President
AFL-CIO
815 16th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear President Sweeney

Re: California Tribal Casinos

CWA objects to the request of UNITE-HERE, IUOE, IBT and LIUNA to extend the registration of its strategic organizing campaign for the State of California Indian Gaming Casino service workers. Unlike the two previous requests, the current request seeks to expand the registration to all employees rather than solely service workers. CWA objects to this request for several reasons.

First, UNITEHERE has been granted five years of strategic registration to organize the service workers at tribal casinos. As you know, CWA already represents employees at tribal casinos. We have repeatedly sought to work with HERE. Now, UNITEHERE seeks strategic registration with three other new partners, none of whom have any current interest in the California casinos.

Second, despite CWA’s current representation of workers in two California casinos, UNITEHERE’s request for registration ignores CWA’s interest in non-service workers at the tribal casinos. UNITEHERE’s request for registration actually expands its prior registration from “California Tribal Casino Service Workers” to all “California Tribal Casino Workers.” Again, if the registration is granted, it will unfairly discriminate against CWA where a clear interest exists in favor of other unions where there is no interest whatsoever.

Finally, for the first time since Article XXI was enacted, an AFL-CIO union has filed a lawsuit in federal court against another AFL-CIO union. UNITEHERE has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia against CWA’s alleged breach of an agreement between President Wilhelm and me.

Notably, this lawsuit was filed before the Article XXI hearing. Article XX specifically prohibits such lawsuits. It was not included in Article XXI as there appeared to be no reason to include a prohibition against something that would not conceivably occur. Taking a dispute between affiliates outside of “the House of Labor” when the Constitution proscribes a dispute’s resolution process should not be rewarded with an extension of the certification.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we remain committed to working together as part of a joint organizing effort.

Sincerely and fraternally,

Morton Bahr
President

cc: Stuart Acuff, AFL-CIO Organizing Director