| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 14, 2002 |
|
|
Judge Orders Reinstatement, Backpay for Wal-Mart Worker WASILLA, AK, On the same day the head of Wal-Mart's "people division" was cited in a New York Times article about its anti-union program as bragging the giant retailer had "never been found guilty of firing any employees" for supporting a union, an administrative law judge for the National Labor Relations Board ordered an Alaska worker reinstated with full backpay. Ken Stanhope was fired in March, according to Wal-Mart, over a conversation he had with a co-worker about supporting the union. The co-worker said Stanhope had used profanity in the course of this conversation. The judge found that the conversation was union activity, that Stanhope was, among other things, informing the co-worker about "his perceptions of the necessity of union representation for [Wal-Mart] associates," and that Wal-Mart knew this. The judge also found that the co-worker who accused Stanhope of using profanity struck him as a witness "who could not be trusted." The judge found that store managers, based on advice from Wal-Mart's home office in Bentonville, Arkansas, denied Stanhope's lawful request for an employee witness -- a right commonly known as a "Weingarten right" when management sought to question him about the conversation. Instead of permitting Stanhope to exercise his Weingarten rights, Wal-Mart demanded that he continue to participate in the interview and unlawfully fired him after he twice refused to participate without a witness. Judge Burton Litvack wrote that Wal-Mart "effectively eviscerated Stanhope's [legal] rights" and thus violated the National Labor Relations Act. "Whether in a union or non-union context, it is, of course, patently unlawful for an employer to terminate an employee because he/she invokes his/her Weingarten rights," the judge said. The judge also found that out of eight employees disciplined for using profanity at the store, Wal-Mart had only previously immediately terminated two of them. He ordered Stanhope reinstated with full back pay and benefits, and ordered Wal-Mart to post a notice stating: "WE WILL NOT require that our employees, who have a reasonable believe that the matters to be discussed may result in their discipline, continue to participate in investigatory interviews after their request for the presence of their own witness has been denied by us. "WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because they request the presence of their own witness before participating in an investigatory interview which they reasonably believe may result in discipline against them." In October, Wal-Mart agreed to a similar posting in College Station, Texas, to avoid a trial on a similar Weingarten complaint issued by the NLRB. In that case, the company's posting stated: "WE WILL NOT deny our associates/employees, upon request, representation during investigatory interviews which the associate/employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary action." Wal-Mart also agreed not to ask employees about union activities or leave them under their impression that their activities are under surveillance, not to interfere or threaten employees with termination for lawfully soliciting for the union during breaks, meals and other non-work times, and not to threaten to reduce their bonuses or promise them benefits in order to influence employees about the union. The NLRB also issued yet another complaint against Wal-Mart, this time for discharging Steven Lockyer, an employee in its Boone, N.C., store who posted his own leaflet protesting low pay in the breakroom. Lockyer was fired in March of 2000, and a hearing before an administrative law judge was scheduled for February 19, 2003, in Boone. The Boone complaint also alleges the company established an overly-broad rule against union solicitation and distribution of union literature. Prior to the Alaska decision, the New York Times reported on November 8, 2002 ("Labor Opens a Drive to Organize Wal-Mart) that the chain had been found guilty of illegal practices in 10 cases and had settled 8 others. The paper said, "Coleman Peterson, the executive vice president of Wal-Mart's people division, said the company instructs managers not to violate labor laws and has never been found guilty of firing any employees, Wal-Mart calls them associates, for supporting a union." "While I'm proud that Local 1496 exposed Wal-Mart's hypocrisy," said Walter E. Stuart, president of the UFCW local union in Anchorage, "it is terrible that Mr. Stanhope has had to suffer the indignity of unemployment for so many months at the hands of the world's largest and richest corporation." Stuart called on Wal-Mart to "prove you put people first and immediately put Mr. Stanhope back to work and don't contest his back pay. Let him resume his life." |
|
 |
 |
