DENVER — National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge William Kocol issued a decision in which he concluded that Harborlite Corp. violated the National Labor Relations Act by threatening to lock out its employees and then by locking them out under the threat of permanent replacement.

Teamsters Union Local 455 attorney Michael J. Belo wrote that the judge had issued his ruling Thursday, March 11. “Thus he found the lockout to be unlawful from the start. He ordered the company to make them whole for back pay and other losses suffered during the three-month lockout.”

Belo added, “Harborlite will probably appeal the decision to the National Labor

Relations Board in Washington, D.C. It has 28 days from March 11, the date of the administrative law judge’s decision, to file an appeal with the NLRB. But this is a great start!”

Efforts to reach Teamsters Business Agent Jim Adams for comment were unsuccessful.

But no doubt the ruling means a great deal to 29 Teamsters miners, truck drivers and mill equipment operators who were locked out of work from October 8 last year to shortly before an NLRB hearing was held Jan. 20 in Alamosa.

The union members had begun to be replaced during the lockout by workers that Harborlite had hired from some San Luis Valley towns, including Alamosa and Monte Vista. The Santa Barbara headquartered firm had claimed the replacements were only temporary workers.

The locked out workers were primarily from Antonito or nearby, and worked at a loading mill a mile southeast of town as well as a perlite mine 15 miles south of the New Mexico border.

A contract negotiation period between the union and the company broke down at the end of August 2009, and after September the firm declared that “the final, best offer,” of a new contract had been made to the Teamsters, and no more negotiation would take place.

The union disagreed with several aspects of the final contract offer, including such facets as requiring longer and longer shifts without overtime pay.

In his March 11 decision, Judge Kocol stated that the main issue underlying the case was whether an employer could permanently replace employees who had been locked out. Citing court cases, the judge said “an employer may not lawfully permanently replace its locked out employees.”

The judge said he was unable to find any board case to support Harborlite’s position in favor of permanent replacement.

Judge Kocol added that Harborlite argued that its threats to permanently replace the employees it was locking out did not have adverse impact on their rights and argued that the threats would only increase the likelihood of a resolution to the bargaining impasse.

“But this argument ignores the fact that these unlawful threats complicated the bargaining process by inserting an issue (permanent replacement of locked out employees) that required resolution through the litigation process before Harborlite and the Union could return to the bargaining table in an atmosphere clear of the unlawful threats,” the judge wrote in his decision.

The judge ruled that by threatening to lock out and permanently replace employees unless the union agreed to bargaining demands, Harborlite enaged in unfair labor practices.

The judge added that Harborlite must cease engaging in unfair labor practices and must make the employees whole “for any loss of earnings and other benefits,” computed from Oct. 7, 2009 to Jan. 16, 2010, plus interest.

Kocol also ordered the employer to sign and post a notice with the court's ruling where employees would see it at the Antonito and No Agua, N.M., facilities.