Sue Lee, left, of AFSCME's California office with Laidlaw paratransit driver Vinnie Watts.

When Laidlaw transit workers in Spokane were asked at the end of October whether they wanted to be represented by Council 2, their answer was overwhelming.

Twice as many said “Yes” as said “No.”

What makes the result even more stunning is that only a year and a half ago the same workers had voted in favor of Council 2 by only 3 votes. This time the majority was 68 votes.

The story of how Council 2 turned a narrow victory into a landslide is a dramatic and exciting one that is testimony to what can happen when officers and workers — with help from the International — throw all they have into a campaign.

The saga began in 1996 when Spokane employees of Chicago-based Laidlaw Transit, North America’s biggest school bus company, voted to join Council 2. Consisting of bus drivers, para-transit van drivers and school bus attendants, the employees all work in School District 81 in Spokane. Laidlaw is the only transit company in the district.

Their action marked the first time employees from the private sector had become

•	•
COUNCIL 2 VERSUS LAIDLAW: THE TIME LINE December 1996: Laidlaw employees in Spokane vote to join Council 2. 1997: Laidlaw ties down contract negotiations throughout the entire year. April 1998: Laidlaw assists employees to file an application for decertification of the union. May 1998: Council 2 wins decertification contest by three votes (110-107). Laidlaw challenges six ballots, putting entire election result on ice. August 1998: Council 2 wins hearing on contested ballots. November 1998: Laidlaw appeals ruling to the regional National Labor Relations Board in Seattle. February 1999: Regional NLRB overthrows appeal. Laidlaw appeals to national NLRB in Washington, D.C., which remands issue back to regional board. Laidlaw agrees to Council 2 suggestion that workers be asked to decide again whether they want union representation. September 1999: Campaign for election starts. October 1999: Council 2 wins twice as many votes as Laidlaw in election.	•
•

members of Council 2, which until then had represented only those who worked for public bodies.

When Council 2 began to bargain the contract, Laidlaw adopted various stalling tactics to tie down the negotiations. The stalemate continued throughout all of 1997.

“We were down to three issues,” says Council 2 Staff Representative Bill Keenan. “Everything was agreed to except wages, medical benefits and union security.”

In December 1997, Laidlaw assisted employees to file an application for decertification of the union.

The election was held in May 1998. The union won the election to defeat the decertification application by the narrow margin of three votes out of 300.

Laidlaw challenged six ballots, an action that put the entire election results on ice.

In August 1998, Council 2 won the hearing held on the contested ballots. Laidlaw, in turn, challenged that decision. In November 1998, the company appealed to the regional National Labor Relations Board in Seattle.

“We won there, too,” Keenan says. The ruling in favor of Council 2 was made in February 1999.

Laidlaw was not done yet.

“They then appealed to the national board in Washington D.C.,” explains Keenan. The national board remanded the issue back to the regional board in Seattle.

“At this stage, Council 2 finally said, enough is enough,” Keenan says. “We said, let’s let the workers decide what they want to do. Let’s get it out of the court and out of the hands of the appeals procedures.”

Laidlaw agreed, in effect, to hold the decertification election again. The company believed that the union was facing sufficient opposition at that time and was confident it could win the replay. So it dropped the litigation and consented to an election. The election was set for Oct. 28, 1999. Council 2 had little time to wage its campaign as the election date was set only at the end of September.

“That gave us 30 days to campaign,” Keenan says.

Council 2 enlisted the support of afscme and threw all its resources into the campaign.

“This campaign was unlike any other we have conducted,” says Keenan.

Among the actions that were taken:

• Special radio advertisements were aired.

• AFSCME sent David Miller from their regional office in California to assist Council 2 in putting together professional brochures.

• AFSCME sent organizer Sue Lee to work full-time on the campaign.

• The Carpenters Union sent in voluntary organizers to help.

• Council 2 officers and members visited the homes of 250 of the 300 employees who were eligible to vote in the month covered by the campaign.

“We worked weekends, evenings, seven days a week for the whole month,” says Keenan, who is based in Everett, but spent the entire month in Spokane working virtually every waking hour on the campaign. “We never took a day off because all we had was 30 days. It was a make-or-break effort.

“I really needed a break after that. But I was not alone. Everyone involved put all they had into the campaign.”

• Laidlaw employees put together a strong organizing committee that allowed their names to be used both in the brochures and on radio advertisements.

“That helped turn the campaign around,” Keenan adds. “One employee said, ‘I voted against the union before, but now I am supporting them.’ ”

The result was that 142 said “yes” to the union and 79 said “no.”

The workers had spoken — and they had spoken loudly.

As Council 2 prepares to enter contract negotiations once again with Laidlaw on behalf of Local 780, Keenan says their actions will be different this time than they were last time.

“We will conduct a community campaign to educate the Parent Teachers Associations, the School Board and the citizens of Spokane to the atrocities going on in Laidlaw and why they need the contract,” Keenan says.