This site is a static archive. Visit the current IWW website at iww.org ▸
Skip to main content

Close Election Gives East End Food Co-op Right to Deny Collective Bargaining

By a razor-slim margin (22-21), employees at the East End Food Co-op failed in their attempt to win legally guaranteed collective bargaining rights.  On August 30th Co-op workers participated in a union recognition election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.  Voting turnout topped 84%, but the East End Food Co-op Workers Committee, affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World, fell just two votes short of a majority that would have given the union the right to bargain collectively over terms and conditions of employment. National labor law compels an employer to recognize a union for the purpose of collective bargaining if a majority of employees vote for the union in a secret-ballot election run by the NLRB. 

The current Co-op organizing campaign, which began on May 15th 2006, is the second and most progressive attempt by employees to establish legally protected collective bargaining rights.  In June the Co-op’s Board of Directors and General Manager refused to voluntarily recognize the union through the legally accepted union authorization card-check procedure, claiming that card counting was not a democratic indication of majority support for the union.  In July the union held an independent card count and verified through the impartial Thomas Merton Center that a majority of Co-op workers did in fact support the union as their collective bargaining agent.  Unable to move the Co-op into accepting such evidence, the union then tried to negotiate with management over terms for a non-NLRB election.  During such talks the union unsuccessfully tried to establish a number of agreements over a basic meeting protocol, employer neutrality, and the Co-op’s continued use of known anti-union consultants.  Additionally, the union felt that during such talks the employer was unfairly favoring an intervening party in the negotiations.  Citing unnecessary complications to the process by management and certain impasse around particular issues, the union broke off negotiations with the Co-op in late July and petitioned the NLRB to facilitate a recognition election.        

The union’s narrow loss in the election means that the Co-op is not legally obligated to recognize the union, nor is it compelled to negotiate a labor contract with the workers.  Despite this setback for the union, the Workers Committee plans to continue organizing at the Co-op and to speak on behalf of its members and their desire for improved wages, better health care coverage, and job security.  “As long as the East End Food Co-op continues to be yet another low-wage, high-turnover employer in this city,” said IWW organizer Kevin Farkas, “the union is committed to helping workers organize.”  Farkas also added that the IWW would continue its affiliation with the Co-op Workers Committee “because the East End Food Co-op is typical of most employers in the consumer food co-operative industry.  Despite their rhetoric of social consciousness and so-called alternative business practices, these are not the same grass-roots, collectively owned and operated co-operatives of the 1960s and 70s; today’s Co-ops are sophisticated businesses increasingly concerned with profit-making and complete managerial control over operations and staff.  The industry as a whole, in part guided by specialized anti-union consultants such as the one used by the East End Food Co-op during this campaign, is simply opposed to unionization.”    
          
Since the August 30th election, the Co-op union and the IWW have reviewed the proceedings and determined that there are grounds to contest the NLRB election.  A challenge to the election would set aside the results until the Labor Board could hear any objections and rule on their validity.  “With such a narrow outcome,” said Evan Wolfson of the Co-op Workers Committee, “we have an obligation to review the campaign carefully to make sure that no unfair labor practices were committed, thereby unfairly influencing the outcome.  We think certain behaviors by management may be legally questionable; that’s why we’ve asked the Labor Board to investigate the situation.”