Quantcast

Tuesday, July 29, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 5 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Government finds merit in labor claims against Wal-Mart

By Sam Hananel

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 02:52 p.m. HST, Nov 18, 2013


WASHINGTON >> Federal officials said today they are prepared to file formal complaints against Wal-Mart for allegedly violating the legal rights of protesting workers last year.

The National Labor Relations Board announced that its general counsel, Richard Griffin, found merit in charges that the retailer unlawfully threatened employees in California and Texas with reprisal if they engaged in strikes and protests ahead of Black Friday, the big shopping day after Thanksgiving.

Griffin also is ready to press charges that Wal-Mart illegally threatened, disciplined or terminated more than 100 employees in 13 states for participating in legally protected strikes and protests last November over wages and working conditions.

Formal complaints will be filed if Wal-Mart and the workers fail to reach a settlement in the next week or two, NLRB spokesman Gregory King said.

The protests last year were organized by the union-backed group OUR Walmart, which has been pushing the company for years to raise wages and benefits. The same group is preparing to launch similar actions at Wal-Mart stores across the country next week in an effort to highlight thousands of store employees who make "poverty wages" of less than $25,000 a year.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said the company disagreed with the labor board and planned to defend itself.

"We believe this is just a procedural step and we will pursue our options to defend the company because we believe our actions were legal and justified," Buchanan said. "The fact is we provide good jobs and unparalleled opportunities for our associates."

If complaints are filed, the cases would go before an administrative law judge. Wal-Mart could be subject to penalties and required to inform its employees about their legally protected rights. Workers could be awarded back pay, reinstatement and reversal of any disciplinary action.

Barbara Collins, a fired associate who worked at Wal-Mart in Placerville, Calif., said she was glad to hear that the board was pursuing the complaints of hers and others.

"We have the support of thousands of Americans standing with us for better jobs at Wal-Mart," she said.

The NLRB statement today said Griffin found no merit to other charges against Wal-Mart. He found the company did not interfere with workers' rights to strike by telling protesters in Texas and Illinois to move off store property. And he found that store officials in California and Washington did not unlawfully change work schedules or otherwise retaliate against workers who exercised their legal right to discuss wages and working conditions.

The United Food and Commercial Workers union has tried for years to organize workers at Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, with about 1.3 million employees. The company has vigorously opposed unionizing efforts.

Last year, Wal-Mart filed charges with the NLRB claiming that the UFCW was illegally picketing its stores for the purpose of unionizing workers. Wal-Mart claimed that under the law, the UFCW could not picket for more than 30 days without filing formal papers to form a union.

Wal-Mart and the union ultimately settled the charges, with the UFCW saying it wasn't seeking to form a union and agreeing not to picket the company for 60 days. But the union vowed to continue to press Wal-Mart to improve overall working conditions, including wages.

More than 50 Wal-Mart workers and other protesters were arrested in Los Angeles earlier this month protesting a newly opened Wal-Mart store in Chinatown. Wal-Mart officials say the company pays competitive wages and gives workers opportunities for career growth and economic security.






More From The Star-Advertiser

Union agrees to back off Wal-Mart protests




 Print   Email   Comment | View 5 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(5)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
serious wrote:
Did anyone think that a Democrat government would side with business?? Boeing has it right, close shop and move to a right to work state!! Unions had their say and look at the number of cities that are going under with the weight of union pensions--can't support it!! And Hawaii?? Just look and see.
on November 18,2013 | 02:29PM
HD36 wrote:
There is a very big distinction between public and private unions to be made. Private unions will be on one side while management is on the other in collective bargaining. Public unions however, will be on the same side of the table as their boss, the mayor, governor, etc the guy they elected. We get you elected, you give us a raise, tax payers foot the bill and we all go home happy.
on November 18,2013 | 04:46PM
serfboy wrote:
A company's deplorable management and workplace practices invite unions onto their property.
on November 18,2013 | 04:53PM
SandBar wrote:
Then find another job somewhere else. There will be change when less people apply for the position.
on November 18,2013 | 07:01PM
SteveToo wrote:
I see higher prices coming.
on November 18,2013 | 02:35PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News