Update on Union Activity at Farmer Joe’s

by Daniel Swafford

Debate over the procedure by which about 90 employees will determine their preference about union representation at Farmer Joe’s Marketplace locations in Laurel and Dimond is now entering its eighth month.

Since January of this year the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 5 (UFCW) has held a number of rallies and has had members positioned at the store almost daily. The ongoing presence has prompted Farmer Joe’s owners, the Tam family, to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) charging the UFCW with unlawful picketing. A hearing on the complaint had been scheduled for October 10, 2007.

In a letter dated September 10, the NLRB reported that the UFCW executed an informal settlement agreement. To avoid the public hearing and judicial decision, the UFCW would meet the terms of the complaint, to cease all picketing and publicly acknowledge that they must refrain from illegal activity.

Despite the end of the picketing, the union presence will likely continue. Passing out flyers, especially by a third party, is still permissible. Customers have reported that since the NLRB finding more well-behaved union representatives have replaced a more aggressive group.

Misinformation on this dispute abounds and continues to be propagated. To be clear, the issue is not whether to unionize. It is also not about an unwillingness to sit down and work out the differences. The primary point of contention between Farmer Joe’s and the Union, one that has persisted since the opening of the second store, is about how to formally survey the employees’ views on representation.

According to the National Labor Relations Act (Section 8) the UFCW must file a petition with the NLRB within thirty days of first picketing the store, stating the UFCW be recognized as the organization representing employees. The UFCW has not officially declared their wish to formally represent Farmer Joe’s employees; instead the UFCW’s position was made known to Farmer Joe’s ownership and employees through a third party.

Farmer Joe’s recently petitioned the NLRB to conduct a vote to determine if in fact the employees wanted union representation. The request was dismissed, citing “there is no evidence that it (the UFCW) has ever demanded that the Employer (Farmer Joe’s) recognize it (the UFCW) as the majority representative of its employees.” For the purposes of collective bargaining, an employee representative must be designated for an NLRB vote to be held.

The UFCW persists with their request for a card check to determine if Local 5 represents a majority of the employees. The Tams maintain the card check violates their employees’ personal privacy rights and will not turn over the polling process to the UFCW.

Since past behavior has done irreparable damage, it is unlikely that common ground will ever be created between the Tams and the Union.