Republic Windows Workers Sit-In – What Does It Mean?
December 15th, 2008 | By Paul ChernerLast week, 240 unionized workers at Republic Windows & Doors in Chicago ended their week long “sit-in.” It is important to note what some of the issues were in case history repeats itself.
The term “sit-in” refers to workers refusing to leave their place of employment until their demands are granted. The workers may be represented by a union, like the United Electrical Workers Union who represented Republic’s employees, or they may be unrepresented by a union and simply be engaging in collective action. Sit-ins were popular during the first half of the twentieth century, particularly during the early days of union organizing. You rarely hear about such actions anymore , since they are against the law. While they are against the law, an employer is faced with the dilemma of having such workers forcibly removed by the police and facing possible adverse publicity or, as Republic did, trying to strike a deal that results in the workers leaving the premises.
The workers claimed that they had not been paid their vacation pay and other benefits due to them under the union contract. If that were true, the workers and/or the union had legal recourse to sue Republic for unpaid wages and benefits. However, they apparently determined that the quicker route would be to stage a sit-in protest that was well publicized to leverage the employer to quickly pay these monies.
Another issue involved was that the federal law (“WARN”), requires many employers to give at least sixty days notice to their employees before they close a plant or engage in mass layoffs. While there are some exceptions to that law, most employers, if they meet certain numerical criteria, are required to give such notice. Here, Republic’s employees apparently claimed that they were entitled to the sixty day WARN notice.
An underlying issue was the union’s claim that Republic was closing its union plant in Chicago, so that it could open a non-union factory in another state under another name, where it would be producing the same product. The concept of an alleged “runaway shop” raises issues under the National Labor Relations Act. Whether or not there was such motivation in this dispute is unclear, but avoiding protracted litigation over that issue may have been another motivation for Republic resolving the controversy with the workers and the union.
The final resolution was that Republic’s creditors agreed to loan it additional funds so that it could meet the union and the workers’ demands in return for the workers vacating the plant and settling all disputes. The union and certain elected officials are now looking for a new owner to resume operations at the former Republic plant. The success of the Republic workers well publicized sit-in may result in other workers and/or unions adopting similar tactics in the future.
