NLRB hearing officer sides with union

Four of six eligible employees at the Auxvasse Dollar General voted to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 655 in early December. The legal battle over that vote continues as a National Labor Relations Board hearing officer recommended in favor of UFCW Local 655.
Four of six eligible employees at the Auxvasse Dollar General voted to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 655 in early December. The legal battle over that vote continues as a National Labor Relations Board hearing officer recommended in favor of UFCW Local 655.

AUXVASSE, Mo. - A National Labor Relations Board hearing officer has recommended in favor of the UFCW Local 655 union, but the battle over the vote at Dollar General's Auxvasse location isn't over.

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 voting "Yes."

Following the hearing process, on Feb. 8, NLRB Hearing Officer John Holderman of the St. Louis Regional Office filed a hearing officer's report in which he recommended dismissing each of Dollar General's eight objections. Parties in the case had until Feb. 22 to file exceptions to the report.

"Dollar General continues to believe that a union is not in the best interests of our employees at the Auxvasse store or elsewhere at the Company," Dollar General spokesperson Crystal Ghassemi said Wednesday. "To that end, the company has filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Report on the Auxvasse election, reiterating its view a new election should be ordered. The company's exceptions are pending."

Collin Reischman, director of communications for UFCW Local 655, has said he's optimistic.

"We're obviously all happy about (the report)," he said in early February. "Our hope is that this means we can come to the table and negotiate in good faith. No hard feelings - let's just move on."

Report revelations

Documents from the dispute released this week give previously unavailable details about the claims made by both sides.

"The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates that (Auxvasse Dollar General employee) Adam Price, either as an agent of the union or as a third-party, engaged in conduct that destroyed the laboratory conditions necessary for a free and fair election," wrote Michael Lignowski, attorney for Dollar General at law firm Morgan, Lewis and Bockius.

Each of the eight objections at least partially revolved around claims about Price's actions.

Dollar General's legal team claimed Price threatened to slash tires of anyone who voted "no," offered to pay for "yes" votes and pressured fellow employees about joining the union via text message, among other claims.

Objection three also mentions union organizer Billy Myers. Two Auxvasse Dollar General employees, Jennifer Miles and Joanna Durlin, testified during the hearing that they felt pressured while participating in a group chat with Myers and Price. Durlin also said Myers and Price showed up at her house to discuss the union.

While testifying at a hearing, Human Resources Vice President Kathleen Reardon said Miles and Durlin approached her on the day after the vote. Miles and Durlin told her they wanted to change their votes, with both saying they had felt pressured into a "Yes" vote, Reardon said.

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."

Ultimately, Holderman recommended dismissing each of the objections.

Union agents and third-party actors are held to different standards of conduct in the critical period before a union election, Holderman explained in his report.

Holderman determined Price was not a union agent during the critical period.

"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 said. "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."

Holderman said Miles and Durlin signed union authorization cards, signaling willingness to vote "yes" and negating the need for bribes, and Miles appeared to be a willing participant in group chats.