Managers at a Smithfield Foods subsidiary, the world’s largest pork processing plant, are to appeal a judge’s decision that they committed “egregious and pervasive” labour law violations during the last decade.
Judge John West ruled on 15 December 2000 that management action was illegal at the Tar Heel plant, which operated as Carolina Food Processors, in that they tainted two union election campaigns in 1994 and 1997. The court heard that 36 unfair acts were committed in a bid to prevent the construction of a union, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). These included a plant manager’s instruction to employees that voting for a union could result in plant closure, and the fact that eleven employees were fired for union activity.
Working for the National Labor Relations Board, Judge West ruled that the company, which enjoys enormous power in the local community, arguably to the detriment of its employees, must adopt numerous policies to ensure the union a fair election next time. He also overturned the 1997 election where the company won with 63% of the vote.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Bullying interrogations
Because of bullying interrogations and intimidations by the management, the judge ruled that further elections should be held outside the plant and maybe even the county.
Furthermore, the eleven men fired must be reinstated and provided back pay.
Case far from closed
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataThe case is far from closed, however. Situated in North Carolina, a state with laws against compulsory unionisation, vice president for corporate communications at Smithfield Foods, Jerry Hostetter, maintains that the company has “a history of very decent labour relations.” It is preparing to appeal to the full National Labour Relations Board, and prepared to go to the federal courts if it fails there. Lawyers on both sides agree that the appeals process could take years.
Hostetter claims, “the union is protesting the discharge of 11 people out of 16,000 from 1993 through 1997, the majority of whom quit or were terminated as a result of attendance-related rule violations.” The eleven men did not want to commute a long distance to work according to the company, which argues that many employees have left without complaining or filing lawsuits. This fact, says Smithfield, “speaks much more loudly than the UFCW’s protest of 11 allegedly union-related discharges.”
Delaying tactic for justice
Bryan Murphy, president of the Local 204 of the UFCW, is angered by the move to appeal, believing it to be a delaying tactic: “Smithfield management clearly violated the law and the judge saw that. The company’s ploy is to take as much time as possible and not do what the judge told them to do.”
“It was a clear victory for the union,” he said, revealing that another union election would be held soon.
