Posts Categorized: Local Union Resources

The month of June is Pride Month, a time to celebrate the accomplishments of LGBTQ+ individuals in our union family. Pride Month is also an opportunity to reach out to LGBTQ+ workers seeking union representation, and commit to the ongoing pursuit of equal justice and true equity for the LGBTQ+ community.

UFCW OUTreach has many resources available free on their website and by request to help locals celebrate Pride Month, including a new 2023 Union Pride sticker in English, Spanish and French; pronoun pins and stickers; and educational pamphlets in English, Spanish and French.

Many UFCW locals across the U.S. and Canada already participate in Pride Month events, which are another way to show workers who want to organize that the UFCW is LGBTQ+ inclusive. The UFCW OUTreach Pride Guide is available to help locals show their support for all of our LGBTQ+ members during Pride Month and you can get more information here. UFCW OUTreach is also hosting a training session with the UFCW Women’s Network on May 31 and June 6, titled “Bystander Intervention + Conflict De-escalation.” You can find more information about the training session here.

“We urge all local unions to speak out against the anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and hate messages happening across our countries,” said UFCW OUTreach Chair Michele Kessler. “Let’s be loud and proud in our support for our LGBTQ+ members and their families. Our work places must be inclusive and safe for all.”

You can learn more about UFCW OUTreach here. If your local is interested in sharing photos of events or highlighting a member during Pride Month, please submit that information to Julie Anderson at janderson@ufcw.org.

The National Labor Relations Board recently ruled that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects recordings workers make in certain circumstances. The Board also ruled that the NLRA supersedes or preempts state laws that make recordings under those circumstances illegal.

In the case, Starbucks, the Board ruled that workers have the right to record managers and supervisors for the purposes of enforcing the contract or preserving evidence for a future proceeding, for example, a grievance or arbitration. The NLRA also protects recordings of what companies say in meetings during organizing campaigns for the purpose of providing the union with an accurate account what the company is telling workers so the union can respond, and to document possible unfair labor practices.

The Board explained that in many instances, workplace recordings, including secret recordings, have been essential in vindicating worker rights.

In Starbucks, one worker recorded meetings with managers because of concerns that the company was going to retaliate because of the worker’s protected activities. The worker wanted to preserve a neutral account of what the company said. Another worker recorded to preserve evidence of what the manager said in case the company illegally disciplined the worker.

The Board also ruled that although a company can in general lawfully maintain a no-recording rule, companies may not apply the rule to workers who are trying to:

            • obtain evidence of violations of the contract or possible unlawful conduct, or

            • preserve an accurate record of the company’s anti-worker campaign.

Lastly, the Board ruled that because the NLRA protects workplace recordings for these purposes, the NLRA preempts state law that makes the recordings illegal.

While these rights are potentially very important, the International’s Legal Department cautions that workers should record managers or supervisors only when doing so could make a difference in a grievance, arbitration, unfair labor practice charge, or other legal case. There is a chance that an appeals court could overrule the Board or that a state prosecutor may ignore the Board’s ruling and take the position that the worker violated state law.

How This Case Can Help You

Union representatives can use workers’ recordings of meetings or discussions that help prove that the company violated the contract. Organizers can use recordings to prove that companies committed unfair labor practices or to respond to the company’s anti-union campaign or lies. The case is Starbucks, 372 NLRB No. 50 (2023). Starbucks’ motion requesting the Board to reconsider its decision is pending. If you have any questions about this case, contact Sarah Anderson at slanderson@ufcw.org.