Oregon Steel Found Guilty of Labor Law Violations

The following was issued yesterday by the United Steelworkers of America: 

In a long-awaited ruling, a federal administrative law judge has found Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. (NYSE: OS) and its wholly owned subsidiary, New CF&I, Inc., guilty of massive violations of federal labor law and ordered the company to reinstate and make back-pay restitution to approximately 1,000 formerly striking members of the United Steelworkers of America, the union announced at a press conference here Saturday.

The 111-page ruling by National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge Albert Metz upheld every major charge against Oregon Steel and New CF&I, finding that:

-- The company unlawfully refused to bargain with the union.

-- The company unlawfully threatened and intimidated the work force.

-- The company unlawfully refused to reinstate strikers to their jobs after they made an unconditional offer to return to work.

Because of its refusal to reinstate the workers, the company owes back pay to all former strikers from December 30, 1997, a liability that has reached approximately $120 million, and is accumulating at a rate of up to $1 million a week.

"We're thrilled. We're thankful. But we're not surprised, because anyone who knew this case -- including the company -- knew that CF&I and Oregon Steel were in deep, deep trouble," said Terry Bonds, director of USWA District 12, which covers the southwestern United States.

Bonds pointed out that, because of the detailed nature of the decision, and the judge's finding of facts, there is virtually no chance of the decision being overturned on appeal.

"The biggest problem for the company, beyond all the legal wrangling, is that when an impartial federal judge heard the company's arguments and listened to the testimony of its witnesses, he didn't believe them," he said. In describing the testimony of the company's witnesses, the decision is filled with terms like "unconvincing," "evasive," "hesitant," and "not persuasive." In contrast, the judge found the testimony of steelworkers who witnessed and were harmed by the company's illegal activity to be "compelling," "candid" and "more believable."

Bonds said that "Oregon Steel's express contempt for federal labor law and the administrative law process is once again evident in its pathetic response to the judge's decision, which mocks the legal process and attempts to divert attention from the real issue-the company's lawbreaking."

"The company claims that any decision that discounts management testimony as not believable must be biased, but there is a more obvious explanation for that finding -- that their witnesses simply weren't believable, a conclusion that is obvious to anyone who reads the decision," he said.

Bonds noted that each day that goes by increases the company's liability, and called on management to settle the dispute. 

"The Pueblo mill was the company's main money-maker before this dispute began, and it's done nothing but lose money since," Bonds said.

"Shareholders have seen the value of their investment decline by 90%, and nearly a thousand working families in Pueblo have been deprived of their livelihood for more than two years. It would only compound the tragedy if this management prolongs this dispute by engaging in an essentially pointless round of appeals," he said.

Bonds' contention is supported by an analysis of NLRB decisions appealed to federal courts by Prof. James Brudney of the Ohio State University School of law. The study found that the Board was affirmed by federal courts of appeals more than 80% of the time. It also found that back-pay awards were upheld by the courts in 78% of all cases --including 11 instances where the back pay award was upheld even when the case was reversed.

Bonds also noted that, while Oregon Steel has previously appealed adverse decisions of the NLRB, the company has never won an appeal.

"This is a management that's betting the solvency of its Pueblo subsidiary -- and possibly of the company itself -- on a strategy that's never been successful for them before. It just doesn't make sense," he said.