The penalty stems from an unfair labor practice charge filed by United Food & Commercial Workers Local 789. The union said that, in the course of its metro-wide organizing campaign in the spring of 2009, a Wal-Mart corporate union buster told an employee at the Hastings store he would be fired due to his union activity.
Wal-Mart claimed the employee was a manager so their threats were legal. The National Labor Relations Board ruled against the company and issued a formal complaint.
In the settlement, Wal-Mart agreed to post a notice for 60 days in prominent locations inside the store. Under current labor law, the posting is the maximum penalty for such activity.
The notice outlines workers’ rights to unionize under federal law and states that Wal-Mart “will not in any manner frustrate your exercise of any of the above rights . . . threaten employees with termination because of their union activities . . . [or] solicit grievances from employees in order to discourage union activity.”
Local 789 President Don Seaquist called the penalty “just a slap,” but said it felt good nonetheless to humble the notoriously anti-union company, if even modestly.
Organizing continues among the 400 employees of the Hastings store, but it’s rough sledding due to the company’s pattern of intimidation and the nature of its workforce.
Most of the workers are part-time, some working only a few hours a week, Seaquist said.
“They’re putting together four jobs or three jobs, just to survive,” he said. “That’s our problem with developing any continuity or committee in the workplace.”
Ultimately, the best solution to dealing with employers like Wal-Mart would be passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, federal legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, Seaquist said. The bill has been held up as Congress debates health care reform.
Share
The penalty stems from an unfair labor practice charge filed by United Food & Commercial Workers Local 789. The union said that, in the course of its metro-wide organizing campaign in the spring of 2009, a Wal-Mart corporate union buster told an employee at the Hastings store he would be fired due to his union activity.
Wal-Mart claimed the employee was a manager so their threats were legal. The National Labor Relations Board ruled against the company and issued a formal complaint.
In the settlement, Wal-Mart agreed to post a notice for 60 days in prominent locations inside the store. Under current labor law, the posting is the maximum penalty for such activity.
The notice outlines workers’ rights to unionize under federal law and states that Wal-Mart “will not in any manner frustrate your exercise of any of the above rights . . . threaten employees with termination because of their union activities . . . [or] solicit grievances from employees in order to discourage union activity.”
Local 789 President Don Seaquist called the penalty “just a slap,” but said it felt good nonetheless to humble the notoriously anti-union company, if even modestly.
Organizing continues among the 400 employees of the Hastings store, but it’s rough sledding due to the company’s pattern of intimidation and the nature of its workforce.
Most of the workers are part-time, some working only a few hours a week, Seaquist said.
“They’re putting together four jobs or three jobs, just to survive,” he said. “That’s our problem with developing any continuity or committee in the workplace.”
Ultimately, the best solution to dealing with employers like Wal-Mart would be passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, federal legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, Seaquist said. The bill has been held up as Congress debates health care reform.