Management violated labor law at NC meat-packing plant

By Kevin Sack

Tar Heel, North Carolina, Jan. 4— Managers at the world’s largest pork processing plant, the Smithfield Packing Company’s slaughterhouse in Tar Heel, NC, committed “egregious and pervasive’’ labor law violations during two unionizing campaigns in the 1990s, an administrative law judge has ruled. The judge, John H. West, also ordered the company to adopt numerous policies giving the union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, a fair shot in its next election.

Judge West’s sweeping opinion, which was issued on Dec. 15 and runs 436 pages, finds that 11 Smithfield workers were illegally fired because of their union sympathies and must be rehired with back pay. The judge concluded that other workers had been threatened and improperly interrogated about their union activities, that the company had warned of layoffs and a possible plant closing if the unionization campaign succeeded and that one pro-union employee had been assaulted in retaliation for his organizing efforts.

Workers at the Smithfield plant were so intimidated by management, Judge West ruled, that any future election should be held outside the plant and possibly even outside the county because of the company’s influence in the area.

Judge West, working for the National Labor Relations Board, set aside the results of the most recent election, in 1997, which the company won with 63 percent of the vote. He also wrote that several of the company’s lawyers and managers had lied under oath in hearings on the case. He raised the possibility that one lawyer had committed perjury and that another had knowingly introduced false statements at the hearing.

The case is far from over. A spokesman for Smithfield Foods of Smithfield, Va., the parent of the packing company, said today that it would appeal the judge’s findings to the full National Labor Relations Board, and that if it failed there, it would appeal to the federal courts.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a generally conservative bench that hears labor law cases originating in North Carolina, has sometimes reversed pro-union findings by the board.

The appeals process could take years, lawyers on both sides agree. The company, which had sales of $5.2 billion last year, does not plan to rehire any of the workers until a final ruling is issued, said Jerry Hostetter, the vice president for corporate communications at Smithfield Foods. Despite the inevitable delay in carrying out the ruling, union officials greeted Judge West’s decision jubilantly and said it would give them a significant lift in their effort to unionize the North Carolina plant. Because the plant is the world’s largest pork-processing plant, with more than 5,000 employees, the lack of a union there has depressed wages across the industry, said Greg A. Denier, director of communications for the union.

Mr. Denier said he hoped the ruling would buffer Smithfield workers from the company’s pervasive influence in Tar Heel and Bladen County. “Smithfield has such power in the community that there is tremendous pressure that they put upon workers,’’ he said.

Among the judge’s findings was that company officials had sought to scare the plant’s sizable Hispanic work force by warning that the union, if successful in organizing the plant, would report workers to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The New York Times found last year that labor at the plant was largely stratified by race among white workers, black workers and Hispanic workers and that racial tensions emerged regularly.

North Carolina, with its laws against compulsory unionization, is a difficult place to organize.

But the union may have reason for hope. In 1999, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees won a unionization vote at a Fieldcrest Cannon plant in Kannapolis, NC, that had beaten back organizing efforts for 25 years. That vote also came after the National Labor Relations Board had repeatedly penalized the company, though the union’s success was attributed more to a change in corporate ownership, the demands of modern production lines and the growing presence of union-friendly immigrants in the work force.

Source: The New York Times

Wal-Mart CEO named in federal charges for threatening workers

Washington, DC, Jan. 4— The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a complaint charging Wal-Mart Stores Division CEO Tom Coughlin and other managers with widespread violations of federal law in the period before a scheduled union representation election at the company’s Kingman, Arizona store. The federal complaint contends Coughlin and the other managers “interfered with, restrained, or coerced, and is continuing to interfere with, restrain or coerce” employees in violation of federal law.

A majority of the 18 associates working in the Tire and Lube Express at the Kingman, Arizona Wal-Mart Supercenter signed cards authorizing the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) Local 99R to give them an organized voice on wages, health benefits, scheduling and working conditions. The UFCW filed a petition with the NLRB for a secret ballot union representation election in August, 2000.

Wal-Mart’s systematic intimidation and other illegal activities against its workers forced the union to block the scheduled election. At that time, company executive Jay Allen claimed that the union blocked the election “when they knew they would lose.” Actually, the NLRB held up the election pending its investigation of the union charges, which led to the Board’s complaint against the retail giant.

The complaint cites Wal-Mart for illegal surveillance of its employees, illegally soliciting complaints from workers, and making implied promises to remedy problems as a way to dissuade support for the union. Managers also illegally threatened workers with loss of benefits such as their store profitability bonus card and discount card, and made changes to working conditions to discourage workers from organizing.

“Wal-Mart would rather break the law in order to break its employees’ will to exercise their federal right for a free and fair voice on the job. Bentonville executives like Tom Coughlin think they are above the law. Now, the Labor Board is setting the record straight that Wal-Mart breaks the law and then lies to the public,” said Mike Leonard, UFCW Director of Strategic Programs.

A spokesperson for the retail giant consistently deflects questions about employees’ efforts to get a voice on the job by claiming the union is “wasting everybody’s time.” Since Sam Walton died, however, employee voices aren’t heard in Bentonville, and his successors have resorted to legal and illegal actions to delay, discourage, or prevent its employees from gaining a voice.

“Wal-Mart workers want and deserve to earn a living wage that can support a family with decent health insurance and retirement security. The UFCW will work as long as it takes to help Wal-Mart workers reach their dream of a better workplace and a better life. Wal-Mart insults its employees by insinuating that the desire for fairness and respect is a waste of time,” said Leonard.

A full hearing on the recent NLRB complaint is scheduled for May 1, 2001.

UFCW Local 99R is the largest private sector union in Arizona, representing more than 15,000 workers at Safeway, Smith’s and Fry’s supermarkets. The UFCW is the largest organization of retail workers in North America, with 1.4 million members. Workers at retail food industry leaders such as Kroger and Safeway are members of the UFCW.

Source: Labourstart: www.labourstart.org

South Carolina longshore workers face felony charges, jail

Charleston, South Carolina, Jan. 5— For defending their jobs, five longshore workers — members of ILA longshore Local 1422 and clerks and checkers Local 1771 in Charleston, South Carolina — face possible imprisonment on state criminal charges.

They and some 150 coworkers planned to picket a ship in their port that was using a non-union longshore crew when the state responded with a massive contingent of law enforcement officers and an altercation ensued. The five have been indicted for rioting, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. They could face trial as early as this February. The South Carolina AFL-CIO, with the help of the national AFL-CIO, has initiated an international campaign to defend them and their locals — one of which, Local 1422, is overwhelmingly African American.

“This is a very compelling case, one that brings together all the issues: voice at work, the right to organize, issues of racial justice, and issues of democracy,” said Bill Fletcher, assistant to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and AFL-CIO liaison to the campaign.

Besides the criminal charges, the stevedoring company that hired the scabs is suing the two Charleston locals, their presidents, and 27 members for $1.5 million in alleged losses it suffered because of the picket line disrupting work. The suit raises the issue of whether workers can be held financially responsible for industrial actions, and raises the specter of bankruptcy for the locals and these individual workers and their families.

The trouble began Oct. 1, 1999 when Nordana Lines notified the ILA locals that it was ending its 23-year relationship with the union and would begin using non-union labor to work its ships. The local responded with picket lines. After peaceful pickets resulted in slight delays to two Nordana ships, the state of South Carolina – which prides itself on being a right-to-work state and advertises itself to investors as having the lowest rate of unionization in the country — decided it was going to break the longshore union’s power.

On January 20, to protect the “right” of some 20 scabs to work the Nordana ship, Skodsborg, the state sent in some 600 police in riot gear. Some rode on horses and others drove armored vehicles. Helicopters circled overhead and police patrol boats cruised the waterside of the terminal.

“You would think there was going to be a terrorist attack on the State of South Carolina,” Ken Riley, president of Local 1422, said of the police presence.

The police marshalled at the terminal and, for extra provocation, in front of the union’s hall about 150 yards away. The longshore workers stayed away from the terminal, letting the police stay out in the rain and cold by themselves and waste lots of taxpayer money. Late in the evening the workers reassembled at the hall and then went out toward the terminal to exercise their legal right to picket.

According to Riley, the police initiated the clash, pushing back the group of pickets. Trying to calm the situation, Riley and other union officers created a buffer between the police and the pickets. At that point one of the cops ran out of formation and clubbed Riley on the head. Then a fight began.

When it was over the police arrested eight longshore workers on charges of misdemeanor trespassing. At this point State Attorney General Charlie Condon rushed in, took the case away from local law enforcement officials, and raised the misdemeanor charges to felony rioting charges. At a preliminary hearing a judge dismissed the felony charges for lack of evidence, but Condon then went to the Grand Jury and sought and obtained indictments against five of the defendants, on the same charges that had just been dismissed. Condon has made it clear that he intends to prosecute the workers vigorously and has said his plan for them includes “jail, jail, and more jail.”

At the same time WSI, the non-union stevedoring company that supplied the scab workers, sued Local 1422, Ken Riley, Local 1771, the Charleston checkers and clerks local, and its president John Alvones for $1.5 million in alleged financial losses.

in three days the company and the union came to an agreement both sides could live with. Nordana said high costs pushed it to abandon the union, so the two sides sat down with the ILA contract to see if they could find a solution. The contract includes a provision called the “small boat agreement” for container ships with a capacity of 500 TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) or less. Under that section working a “small boat” requires the same wages, but some reduced manning and only a four- hour guarantee as opposed to the regular eight hours. It turned out that all along Nordana’s ships had fallen into that category.

Having reached an agreement with the local, Nordana urged WSI to do the same. But WSI pressed on, filing for a summary judgment, claiming the union was clearly at fault and the company had obviously suffered damages, so there was no need for a court hearing. But WSI lost that motion.

The company then amended its complaint to add the names of 27 longshore workers to the list of defendants liable for its losses. It got the names by asking people under oath in depositions to identify all the workers they recognized from pictures of earlier peaceful picketing. The judge allowed the amendment, but warned WSI that if any of its accusations turn out to be frivolous, the company could be sued in return.

The locals immediately responded by filing unfair labor practice charges against WSI with the National Labor Relations Board for retaliating against the workers for exercising their legally protected right to picket.

Locals 1422 and 1771 met with WSI to discuss an out of court settlement Oct. 27, but the company wouldn’t make any reasonable compromise. Riley said the local was willing to settle the lawsuit for some nominal amount without admitting any guilt because of what it could cost in legal fees to vindicate themselves. “We have more serious charges to concentrate on,” he said, referring to the criminal indictments. “We need to focus on these other guys who stand a chance of going to prison. If these guys are convicted based on being identified through photos, by just having been there, the next time there’s a struggle and we have to go to a picket line, workers will be reluctant to picket.”

Currently the local’s attorneys figure the criminal case will not go to court until February 2001. In the meantime the Charleston 5 are still under a strict curfew that requires them to stay home between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. if they are not working or at a union meeting and travel restrictions that don’t allow them to leave the state.

The South Carolina AFL-CIO and the national AFL-CIO, are mounting a campaign in defense of the Charleston 5. They know they have an uphill fight.

“The Attorney General is planning to run for governor next time around and he’s trying to make a name for himself,” said South Carolina AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt. “I think he plans to make himself a name at the expense of these five guys.”

The Jan. 20 incident happened about the same time as 47,000 people — mostly African Americans — marched and demanded the Confederate flag be taken down from the state capitol.

“That scared the Republicans to death in this state,” Dewitt said. “And here you have a minority local union that’s strong and is very involved in the political roots of the community. They’re using the longshore union as an example because they are strong leaders and the state doesn’t want others to see them that way.”

Source: International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)