Wal-Mart Must Meet Union Over Meat Department Restructuring

From Occupational Health & Safety Magazine:

One of the actions that cemented Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s anti-union reputation in the public’s mind was its decision in February 2000 to convert many of its stores’ meat departments so their employees would simply sell prepackaged meats, rather than cutting it themselves.

This conversion is often viewed as a direct response to ten meat department employees at Wal-Mart’s Jacksonville, Texas, store. Those ten employees elected United Food and Commercial Workers Local 540 as their bargaining representative earlier that same month, a move that led Wal-Mart to scrap its meat-cutting department altogether. Wal-Mart decided it would no longer need skilled meat cutters, instead electing to bring in pre-cut and pre-packaged rather than allow said employees to become the first to organize at a U.S. Wal-Mart store.

It should be noted that, as technology has advanced, many stores have taken a similar path, eschewing bringing meat in boxed whole to be cut in-store in favor of pre-packaged meat. That doesn’t change the fact perception that Wal-Mart’s timing for their conversion seemed to have everything to do with the unionizing efforts.

Wal-Mart and UFCW took their case to the NLRB, which ruled that while there is no bargaining to be done over a meat department that doesn’t exist anymore, Wal-Mart must still engage in bargaining over the effects of the conversion. The U.S. Court of Appeals has just affirmed that decision:

The Board concluded that Wal-Mart has no general duty to bargain with the Union representing the meat-department employees. But according to the Board, Wal-Mart nonetheless must bargain with the Union over the effects of the conversion on the Jacksonville meat-department employees...the Board reasonably applied its precedents in finding that Wal-Mart committed an unfair labor practice by failing to engage in effects bargaining with the Union.

So, you can check out the opinion yourself - it happens to be a fairly short one - but this means Wal-Mart will either have to sit down to the bargaining table with UFCW, or appeal the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Wal-Mart Loses Meat Cutters Bargaining Appeal [Occupational Health & Safety Magazine]

One of the actions that cemented Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s anti-union reputation in the public’s mind was its decision in February 2000 to convert many of its stores’ meat departments so their employees would simply sell prepackaged meats, rather than cutting it themselves. This was significant because 10 meat department employees at Wal-Mart’s Jacksonville, Texas, store had elected United Food and Commercial Workers Local 540 as their bargaining representative earlier that month. Wal-Mart won because the National Labor Relations Board agreed that, because of the conversion, the meat department had become an inappropriate bargaining unit, meaning Wal-Mart had no general duty to bargain with the UFCW. But the NLRB said Wal-Mart nevertheless must bargain with the union over the effects of the conversion on those meat department employees, and on Friday, a federal appeals court upheld both of the board’s decisions.

Both the union and Wal-Mart sought relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with UFCW claiming the meat department unit is still appropriate and Wal-Mart claiming it has no duty to bargain over the effects of its change.

The NRLB has historically treated meat department units as presumptively appropriate, but meat departments in general use more prepackaged meats and require little or no meat cutting skills of their workers, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. Relying now on its ordinary community-of-interest test in which cutting skill is central to the appropriateness determination, the board decided the Jacksonville unit did not meet the test because the workers do no specialized cutting. The board’s precedent establishes that when a plant closes, the employer has a duty to bargain over the effects of the closing, and the board here found that the Jacksonville department’s conversation was analogous to a closing because it eliminated the bargaining unit. The judges agreed the board reasonably applied its precedents in finding Wal-Mart committed an unfair labor practice by failing to engage in effects bargaining with UFCW, so they denied Wal-Mart’s petition for review.

Posted by Corey Himrod on Monday, March 17, 2008