Posted on 01/03/2004 5:43:02 PM PST by calcowgirl
The Ralphs supermarket chain has been secretly asking, and in some cases coercing, locked-out clerks to come back to work since the beginning of the 82-day grocery dispute, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday by the grocery workers union.
Saying they have proof, including a paycheck issued to a 4-month-old baby, United Food and Commercial Workes union officials allege that Ralphs is rehiring union members under false names and Social Security numbers.
The alleged activities by Ralphs violate several state and federal laws, including at least four sections of the California Labor Code, according to the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.
"This is not isolated," said Mickey Kasparian, president of UFCW Local 135 in San Diego. "It has happened here and in several other areas in Southern California. We know the identities of 50 people (who had been contacted), and it may be as high as 100."
A Ralphs spokesman said the chain "would not knowingly hire someone under false pretenses."
The lawsuit is another escalation of the standoff between 70,000 Southern California grocery workers and the companies that operate 860 Ralphs, Albertsons, Vons and Pavilions stores from San Diego to San Luis Obispo.
Ralphs and Albertsons locked out their union employees Oct. 12 after UFCW members went on strike against Vons. The union pulled pickets from Ralphs stores in late October, saying that Kroger, which owns Ralphs, has been the "most reasonable employer."
Ralphs managers, union officials say, are contacting locked-out union workers because they need experienced people to staff key positions.
"They say they are operating business as usual," union spokeswoman Ellen Anrider said. "But they are obviously having trouble with the scabs and need the professionals back."
Anrider and others say the chain is acting in secret because Ralphs and the other chains could be on the hook for unemployment benefits if it were discovered that they were selectively hiring back workers.
"Certain conduct can undermine the legitimacy of the lockout," said Joseph Paller, a Los Angeles attorney involved in the case for the union. "There is a real incentive to keep this quiet."
Paller said he has copies of paychecks issued to children of locked-out workers, including a 4-month-old baby. Also, he said he has pictures of people working under phony names and several willing to testify.
Paller and union officials acknowledge that the case is highly unusual.
"This is something that is unheard of," Kasparian said.
Ralphs managers sought out locked-out employees, contacting them at their homes or on the picket lines, according to union officials.
Some employees were threatened, according to the lawsuit.
Ralphs spokesman Terry O'Reilly said the case has no merit.
"We believe the union is once again trying to take attention off the real issues rather than using its resources to come up with realistic and workable solutions at the bargaining table."
A federal mediator recessed talks between both sides Dec. 19 after little progress was made on the key issue of health benefits. No new talks have been scheduled.
They've got to get their priorities straight. It's okay to let illegals get jobs under just those circumstances, but when union employees do it, it's a controversy.
BTW Mickey Kasparian is a jerk. I hear him on the radio all the time - I hate that guy.
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | Nevada | 200.00 |
1 |
200.00 |
114 |
1.75 |
50.00 |
2 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
LOL! So True!
They've got to get their priorities straight. It's okay to let illegals get jobs under just those circumstances, but when union employees do it, it's a controversy.
I vote this the best, most logical assessment of the idiotic insanity of California in 2004. Bravo!
Translation: We Whiney Union thugs are angry that workers are dealing direcly with employers! If people deal with their own lives we wont have any power! Whaaa Whaaa
I am not sure what the Agreement is there but my only experience with the union was if you hired into a union job you didn't have to join the union but were GOVERNED by the union rules.
Its like having 2 masters. :^(
I'm not so sure. My first reaction was that this was perfectly plausible -- though not for the reason the union would have you believe.
I can see a clerk with a 4-month old baby going up to the supermarket where she had been employed and pleading with her boss to get her old job back. I can see a soft-hearted manager saying, "Sure, Suzie, you were a good worker and this is none of your fault. Let's see if we can figure out a way to help you out."
So, either the union is going to punish good-hearted charity or...Suzie set her boss up.
There is no reason -- none -- why the supermarkets should be unable to replace the clerks by hiring off the streets. Shelf stocking is not what you'd call skilled labor...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.