NLRB Judge Finds Large UFCW Local Engaged In Union Busting Against Its Own Union Workers
A large UFCW local and its president sought to undermine its own employees' union, as well as engaged in bad-faith bargaining, according to a NLRB judge.
In a blistering 56-page decision last week, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge ruled that the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 23,000 members in Colorado and Wyoming, and its president violated federal law when it came to dealing with its own unionized employees and their union, the Federation of Agents and International Representatives (FAIR).
In a 56-page decision, NLRB Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws ruled that Colorado-based UFCW Local 7 violated the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally changing unionized employees’ working conditions, retaliating against its own unionized employees, sought to undermine employee support for their union, as well as engaging in bad-faith bargaining.
Here are some of the excerpts of the judge’s ruling [in full here] against UFCW Local 7 and its president, Kim Cordova:
Unilateral changing of working conditions—the UFCW took equipment from its staff following rejection of a contract offer:
I find the General Counsel has established that requiring employees to return their work equipment was a material, substantial, and significant change to their working conditions. Testimony firmly establishes what common sense in the age of technology would tend to dictate, i.e., it was more time consuming and burdensome to do grievances and route books by hand using paper than it was to do them electronically. Moreover, taking union credit cards from some employees required them to incur a personal expense subject to reimbursement rather than the Respondent assuming the expense in the first instance. Finally, the duration of the Respondent’s action is sufficient to constitute a material change. [p. 19, emphasis added]
More…
In the instant case, the facts establish that in the immediate wake of FAIR’s rejection of UFCW Local 7’s comprehensive proposal, Cordova made the decision to require FAIR bargaining-unit members to return their work equipment. No other employees were treated in this manner. The timing, the rash and extreme nature of the decision and ensuing actions, and animus toward FAIR discussed in the following section, establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The justifications the Respondent articulated for its actions do not hold up for the reasons detailed above. I find, therefore, the evidence establishes that the employees’ equipment was taken away based on their status as FAIR members to discourage membership in violation of Section 8(a)(3) [p. 19, emphasis added]
The UFCW local president (Kim Cordova) allegedly sought to undermine support of its employees’ union:
I find that Cordova intentionally misled employees about Vice President Kennedy’s comments by saying that Kennedy had asked the Respondent to discipline employees more often and more severely. It is clear from Organizer Peterson’s testimony that she received the message that Kennedy wanted to “fire” the FAIR members “right away” because they were spoiled. Nobody present at the sidebar, or anywhere, testified to such a comment from Kennedy. On the contrary, Garcia, who was present both at the side bar and also at the June 27 meeting, admitted that Kennedy did not say UFCW Local 7 should discipline their members, but instead said it was unfair to give final warnings without previous progressive discipline. It is plainly apparent that Kennedy’s comments were intentionally contorted in an effort to turn the membership against FAIR leadership. [p. 22, emphasis added]
Following the expiration of the prior contract, the UFCW discontinued usage of the union grievance procedure:
I find the General Counsel has established that the Respondent violated Sections 8(a)(5)and (1) through its series of actions with regard to the grievance procedure. First, it is clear that, at least initially, the Respondent did not process grievances at all, and when presented with grievances, simply responded with canned (and incorrect) language, cited above, telling FAIR the grievance process was nonexistent because of the contracts’ expiration. [p. 27, emphasis added].
The UFCW sought to erode confidence in the staff union:
In addition to the conduct during bargaining, UFCW Local 7’s conduct away from the bargaining table demonstrates a clear intent to undermine FAIR and frustrate bargaining. Particularly troubling is the June 27, 2022, speech Cordova gave, detailed above, which casts no doubt that UFCW Local 7 sought to erode confidence in FAIR to strengthen its bargaining position. In addition, Cordova’s January 9, 2023, and May 23, 2023, correspondence with the FAIR membership indicates bad faith. [p. 37, emphasis added].
The UFCW “failed and refused to bargain in good faith”…
…I further find UFCW Local 7’s requirement for FAIR members to return their work equipment and their baffling and unwavering insistence that there was no post expiration grievance procedure, both found to be unlawful in this decision, were power plays designed to weaken FAIR and force them to accept the LBFOs. Based on the totality of the conduct, both at and away from the bargaining table, I find the General Counsel has met her burden to prove that UFCW Local 7 failed and refused to bargain in good faith, as alleged. [p. 38, emphasis added]
While there are more details in the full 56-page decision, ultimately, the NLRB judge ruled that an ‘affirmative bargaining order’ was warranted, as well as to cease and desist from:
(a)Telling employees the Respondent confiscated their work equipment because of the activities in support of the CP Union and because employees might strike;
(b) Telling employees they could work elsewhere and/or inviting them to resign in response to concerted complaints about their working conditions and other protected activities;
(c) Telling employees their grievance procedure provisions of their collective-bargaining agreements are no longer in force or effect because of the contracts’ expiration;
(d) Disparaging or denigrating FAIR by falsely telling employees that, during a bargaining session for a successor agreement, FAIR told the Respondent to discipline and fire employees;
(e) Confiscating the employees’ work equipment and requiring them to check-out and check-in their equipment daily;
(f) Failing to continue the grievance procedure provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements after their expirations;
(g) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with FAIR, including by insisting as a condition of reaching a successor collective-bargaining agreement that FAIR consent to a non mandatory bargaining proposal, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the following units of meat and retail employees…
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees inthe exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
In addition, the NLRB judge ordered the UFCW to post the notice below and to hold a meeting or meetings with UFCW employees “scheduled to ensure the widest possible attendance, where a Board agent, in the presence of a responsible management official” to read this notice:
To read the full NLRB ruling, go here.