a. Premeditation
Evidence indicates that Oak Harbor made a decision to permanently replace its
employees well before the current round of collective bargaining began. A representative
of the Teamsters stated that in a meeting with Oak Harbor management in 2007,
company Co-President David Vander Pol informed him that in preparation for the
upcoming round of negotiations later that year, the owners had met earlier with
management from several shipping companies on the East Coast that had successfully
defeated Teamster strikes and eliminated the union from their operations. According to
Hobart, Vander Pol indicated that the company was prepared to pursue this option.
Similarly, a former recruiter of truck drivers for Modern Staffing and Security
Consultants, Inc. (“MSSC”), a company that is now supplying replacement workers for
Oak Harbor, stated that in late 2006 he was told by MSSC President James Rexroat, that
MSSC would be hiring truck drivers to work during a upcoming strike for a “client” in
the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Rexroat informed the recruiter that the client was trying to
“get rid of the union” and that “
ome of the jobs would be permanent jobs . . . for the
client.” As subsequent events revealed, the client Rexroat discussed was Oak Harbor.
Although the collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters did, in fact, expire in
October 2007, employees continued working without a contract until the strike began in
September 2008.
MSSC’s efforts to recruit replacement drivers for Oak Harbor also suggest that
the latter’s prior intent was to permanently replace its workforce. On May 20, 2008, four
14 Code of Vendor Conduct, supra, at n. 2.
15 See generally, Jeffrey Sherman, The Striker Replacement Doctrine as Seen by a Management Attorney,
Perspectives on Work (LERA, 2006), available at:
LERA: Perspectives Online Companion.
9
months before the strike began, Mr. Rexroat posted a job listing on Craigslist for “CDL A
Drivers . . . (Washington State)” which stated that the “[p]roject is temp[orary] to
perm[anent] and 90% of our staff will be retained full time.” Drivers were requested to
respond to the website of a company named Pacific Transport Services, LLC.16 As of
this date, a posting for “Class A CDL Drivers Pacific Northwest” is the only job opening
listed on that site. Elsewhere on the site, it states that “91% of our Drivers are hired
directly by our Clients within one year.”17 The evidence from multiple sources suggests
that, as early as prior to the beginning of the strike, it was Oak Harbor’s plan to
permanently replace its employees.
b. Provocation
Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that, during the current round of
contract negotiations, Oak Harbor intentionally provoked a strike by proposing changes
to employees’ wages, benefits and working conditions that would be unacceptable to the
union and its members. Taking this approach in negotiations seems to have been the
result of a prior decision made by the company.