7 Nov 2024

Portland–Area Fred Meyer Employees Slam UFCW Union with Federal Charges for Illegal Threats Linked to Strike

Posted in News Releases

UFCW union bosses begin dropping fines against workers, but union faces investigation on federal charges

PORTLAND, OR (November 7, 2024) – Two employees of a Portland-area Fred Meyer grocery store have filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Local 555. The charges state that union officials broke federal law by ignoring their requests to resign union membership during a union strike and are unlawfully retaliating against the workers by seeking to fine them for exercising their right to disagree with union boss strike orders and go to work.

The employees, Coyesca Vasquez and Reegin Schaffer, filed their charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that governs private sector labor relations in the United States.

As detailed in the charges, on August 30, 2024, each of the employees exercised their right to resign union membership, and return to work. However, on September 24, 2024, UFCW union officials notified Vasquez, and on October 14, 2024, UFCW union officials notified Reegin Schaffer, that the union had started internal proceedings against them and their presence would soon be required at a union “trial,” which is the first step towards imposing fines.

If an employee is not a voluntary union member, he or she cannot be legally subjected to internal union discipline, like the kind UFCW union officials are attempting to impose on Vasquez and Schaffer. In such internal discipline tribunals, union bosses frequently levy punitive fines against workers amounting to thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.

UFCW Officials Were Previously Caught Illegally Imposing Massive Strike Fines Against Workers

During past UFCW–instigated strikes, workers faced similar unlawful fines, which union officials claim can only be disputed at internal union courts. In 2022, union officials illegally levied fines against King Sooper’s grocery chain workers in Denver, Colorado, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike.

The unlawful fines issued by union bosses against the workers were more per day than the workers earned in a day of work, in one case totaling nearly $4,000 throughout the 10 day strike. In that instance Foundation staff attorneys won multiple cases against the UFCW, ultimately resulting in union bosses rescinding the unlawful fines.

“UFCW union officials are again displaying their penchant for using strikes to consolidate power, by threatening rank-and-file workers who exercise their Right to Work during a UFCW strike,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Workers have a clear legal right to resign from union membership and return to work without facing illegal fines or disciplinary actions.”

12 Dec 2019

Yotel Boston Housekeepers File Charges Challenging Illegal Employer Assistance in UNITE HERE Unionization Push

Posted in News Releases

Workers file federal charges against union and hotel for pact to assist union organizers during coercive “card check” union organizing drive

Boston, MA (December 12, 2019) – Four Boston housekeepers have filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against their employer Yotel Boston and the UNITE HERE Local 26 union with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The employees’ NLRB charges allege UNITE HERE union officials violated federal law by imposing union representation on workers through a coercive “card check” drive with their employer’s assistance.

Housekeepers Cindy J. Alarcon Vasquez, Lady Laura Javier, Yestca Perez Barrios, and Danela Guzman charge that Yotel Boston provided UNITE HERE’s organizing campaign with more than “ministerial aid” and recognized the union as the employees’ exclusive representative in the workplace even though union officials had not demonstrated that an untainted majority of workers support the union. The workers contend that by doing so Yotel Boston and UNITE HERE officials violated their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The NLRB has long held that an employer taints employees’ efforts to remove a union if it gives those employees support such as a list of bargaining unit employees or use of company resources. The workers here argue that Yotel Boston similarly tainted the union’s organizing campaign by providing to UNITE HERE union organizers assistance amounting to more than “ministerial aid.”

These charges were filed just weeks after NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, the Board’s top prosecutor, ordered NLRB Region 19 to prosecute Embassy Suites and the UNITE HERE Local 8 union for similarly assisting UNITE HERE in foisting the union on that hotel’s workers through a card check. Granting an appeal by Seattle housekeeper Gladys Bryant, the General Counsel found that the union’s “card check” recognition was tainted because Bryant’s employer, Embassy Suites, provided significant aid to the union officials’ organizing efforts through their “neutrality agreement” in violation of the NLRA.

Bryant’s appeal successfully argued that the “ministerial aid” standard must also apply when an employer aids union officials’ efforts to gain monopoly bargaining power over workers. Thus, the General Counsel’s ruling applied the “ministerial aid” standard consistently, no matter whether the employer’s assistance favors or opposes unionization.

“It is long past time that the National Labor Relations Board ended its double standard that helps union bosses abuse workers’ rights through coercive card check unionization drives,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The General Counsel correctly recognized recently that what qualifies as more than ‘ministerial assistance and support,’ and thus violates the National Labor Relations Act, cannot depend on whether the employer is helping outside union organizers impose unionization on workers or assisting workers in exercising their right to remove an unwanted union.”

“This case shows that union bosses are not only willing to manipulate and ignore the rights of the workers they claim they want to ‘represent,’ but that their coercion has gone unchecked for far too long because of double standards in how the NLRB has interpreted the law,” Mix added.