AUXVASSE - Despite the National Labor Relations Board's ruling, the fight over the Auxvasse Dollar General store workers' vote to unionize might not be over.
Dollar General officials have requested a review of the NLRB's ruling in favor of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 655. This request was filed April 13 with the national NLRB, according to the NLRB's website. On April 19, UFCW Local 655 officials filed in opposition of that request.
Dollar General spokesperson Crystal Ghassemi repeated the company's prior position that it believes a union is "not in the best interest" of employees.
"The company has taken and will continue to take the necessary steps to ensure that any subsequent vote is conducted under circumstances that permit employees to exercise their free will without impermissible influence or coercion," she said late Thursday.
UFCW 655 members said the NLRB will continue to side with the union, spokesperson Collin Reischman said.
"We remain confident for a very simple reason," he said Thursday. "We have the truth on our side."
Four of six employees at the location voted Dec. 8 to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 655. Days later, Dollar General Corp. officials filed objections to the vote with the NLRB, claiming after votes were counted, two of the four people who voted "yes" told the company they wanted to change those votes. Dollar General officials claimed those individuals were pressured into their "yes" votes.
Following the hearing process, on Feb. 8, NLRB Hearing Officer John Holderman of the St. Louis Regional Office filed a report in which he recommended dismissing each of Dollar General's eight objections. On March 23, NLRB Acting Regional Director Mary Tobey adopted the hearing officer's recommendations - allowing the election results to stand.
Former regional Director Leonard Perez said in January that filing a request for review doesn't guarantee the case will be reviewed.
"I wouldn't say we are surprised DG is still fighting the clear will of their employees," Reischman said. "But I would say it's very disappointing to see a massively profitable company spending time and resources to undermine a fair election instead of committing to helping their employees."
Documents filed by Dollar General in the case claim Dollar General employee Adam Price and, to a lesser extent, union organizer Billy Myers, pressured employees into voting to unionize. Dollar General's legal team claimed Price threatened to slash tires of anyone who voted "no," offered to pay for "yes" votes and nagged fellow employees about joining the union via text message, among other claims.
A brief filed by UFCW Local 655 counters those claims, stating Price was not a union agent and "did not engage in conduct that created general atmosphere of fear and reprisal that rendered a fair election impossible."
In his recommendation, Holderman decided Price was not a union agent before the vote and therefore is held to a different standard.
"The conduct ascribed to the employee supporters of the union does not rise to the level of objectionable conduct as it must be analyzed under the third party misconduct standard," Holderman stated. "Further, the alleged threat to slash the tires of any employee who voted no, even if it was made, was made outside the critical period."
The request for review filed by lawyer Michael Lignowski on behalf of Dollar General on April 13 objects to those findings.
"Contrary to the overwhelming evidence in support of Dollar General's exceptions to the election (Tobey's decision) incorrectly found that neither the Union nor Adam Price engaged in objectionable conduct that interfered with the employees' right to choose freely in the election seemingly 'rubberstamping' the Hearing Officer's report," Lignowski states.
In the lengthy document, he goes on to make the case each of Dollar General's eight objections to the election should have been sustained. Lignowski argues Price was, indeed, an agent of the union and did act in a way meant to intimidate his fellow employees.
"The Hearing Officer's credibility and factual findings were based on misinterpreting the evidence and completely ignoring corroborated testimony," he stated.
In the response filed April 19 by lawyer Janine Martin on behalf of UFCW Local 655, Martin stated a review is not warranted.
"Both the (regional director) and the hearing officer properly applied existing board precedent," she said. "Neither the RD nor the hearing officer made any erroneous findings on substantial factual issues."
She reiterated the claim Price was not a union agent.
"There was no significant argument by the employer that Price had actual authority to act on behalf of the union," Martin stated. "He was an employee seeking to organize his workplace."
No documents pertaining to a decision about whether to review the case have been posted on the NLRB document. As of Thursday, the case was marked as closed March 23.
Reischman added that following the regional director's ruling, the union could technically begin bargaining with Dollar General, but has thus far chosen to wait.
"It's our experience that when a company continues to appeal an election, they tend to refuse to bargain until the matter is resolved," he said. "So while we are legally in a position to bargain, the process has not yet begun."