Skip to main content

First Union Election At a Target Store Is Upheld By The NLRB


Readers might remember that Target has traditionally been very tough in fighting to keep unions out of its workplace.  (An Inside Look at How Target Deals With Union Organizing).  There had previously been two union elections at Target stores:  One in 2011 and the other in 1990.  Note, the union lost both of those elections and Target has continued to remain union free.  However, it appears that anti-union rhetoric has taken a slight hit as of late.

Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") denied a petition by Target in which the retail giant petitioned to have a union election invalidated that occurred at one of its stores in Brooklyn.  At that location, pharmacy workers voted 7 - 2 to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.  

However, Target said the election should never have occurred because Target is selling its entire pharmacy operation to the drugstore chain CVS.  Target based its petition on the fact that the NLRB has traditionally dismissed union election petitions in the face of "imminent and certain change" at the employer (such as change that would lead to employee termination).  According to Target, when the sale with CVS closes this coming December or January, the pharmacy workers would be terminated.  Therefore, there was no purpose in holding the union election.

With this denial of Target's petition, Target still has options.  For instance, the company could take the case to federal court and ask that the NLRB's ruling be overturned.  However, as of this moment, it looks like a union could be in place at the first Target location (for however long those pharmacy workers are still employed there, that is...).



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more