Thread: Protestors fired for missing work now represented by Union

Employees fired after missing work to protest immigration law
Union attempting to get them reinstated
by Luci Scott - Jun. 29, 2010 12:16 PM
The Arizona Republic


Twelve employees of Pei Wei Asian Diner at 54th Street and Ray Road in Chandler were fired after they skipped work to participate in a May 29 protest of the new immigration law Senate Bill 1070.

That was nearly half the staff at that restaurant, which has a workforce of about 30, said Pei Wei spokesman Peter Marino.


The fired workers violated a well-established Pei Wei attendance policy, he said.

"When employees choose not to show up for a scheduled shift and choose not to give notice, it causes tremendous disruption to fellow co-workers and impedes our ability to serve our guests," the company said in a statement.

At the same time, Pei Wei said it respects the rights of people to peacefully protest, and it does not comment on local, state or federal laws.

The Phoenix branch of a union, the Industrial Workers of the World, is giving moral and financial support to the fired workers, although the employees were not unionized.

An e-mail from the union and one of the fired workers, who are Hispanic, has accused Pei Wei of selective enforcement of its attendance policy.

"Pei Wei has rarely terminated employees for not showing up and not calling in alerting the company to their absence," the union e-mail said.

"Most of those are treated with a write-up or disciplinary action rather than outright termination," the union said.

Elizabeth Serafin, a fired employee who had worked at the restaurant for about eight months, said the week before she was fired, a male Hispanic cook didn't call and didn't show up, but he wasn't fired. He was reprimanded and forced to take a week off without pay, she said.

"Why did they give him the opportunity but not to us?" she said.

The 12 worked as cooks, dishwashers and busers. Of the 12, 10 are men and two are women.

The union said at least some of the workers had asked to be granted the day off but were denied. So they decided to attend the rally in solidarity.

Marino said the company works with employees to allow them time off to pursue strong personal interests, but that the terminated Chandler employees had simply violated the policy.

A picketer showed up at Pei Wei in Chandler on Friday night but was shooed away by police. A handful of pickets collected a couple of blocks away. At the same time, 20 people picketed the Pei Wei at Seventh Avenue and McDowell Road in Phoenix, said Bill Krist, recording secretary of the Phoenix IWW.

Krist said the union is looking for a labor lawyer who would work pro bono. Jay Pierce, a volunteer organizer with the union, expects more picketing if the company continues to refuse to talk to the fired workers.

"They've refused all our requests," Pierce said. "We've e-mailed, called, visited. They have refused any type of negotiation."

The fired employees are asking for their jobs back, for back pay and an apology, Pierce said.

Marino would not address that issue, saying the company statement speaks for itself.

The union said that on June 16, a delegation of workers and supporters went to Scottsdale to visit the headquarters of P.F. Chang's, the parent company of Pei Wei.

Workers asked to talk to a company representative, but police were called and workers were threatened with arrest on a trespassing charge. No arrests were made.
The May 29 protest against SB 1070 was a march from Indian School Road and Seventh Street to the state Capitol.



http://www.azcentral.com/community/chan ... otest.html

So now you can be represented by a union retroactively? What next?

The IWW is representing them? Don't take this too seriously.

These people think that everybody in the U.S. is an endless supply of money for them. They target businesses all the time - I don't know how some of them manage to stay open.

If you dont show up for work and dont call...then you get fired. Especially when it is TWELVE WORKERS. They must have known that this would cause a hardship for the employer and also the other employees who had to work twice as hard because they were not there.