Trader Joe’s unlawfully prohibited workers at one of its stores from wearing union insignia on their uniforms. This Trader Joe’s coercive actions to not wear union insignia got ahead of a 2022 vote by employees over whether to formally organize as members of Trader Joe’s United, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge has ruled.
(Image Credit: traderjoes)
According to the NLRB ruling, issued on November 8, supervisors told several workers at the grocer’s Hadley, Massachusetts, store that they could not wear pins demonstrating their support for the unionization effort because it violated the company’s dress code.
Trader Joe’s union insignia ruling
Those actions of threatening went afoul of the NLRB because “[t]he sole reason [Trader Joe’s] sent the two home was their protected union activity of wearing a union button at work,” the judge said.
“Employees long have had a [legal] right to wear union buttons and other insignia at work,” the judge wrote. “When an employer interferes in any way with employees’ … right to display union insignia (whether through buttons, pins, stickers, shirts, hats, or any other accessories or attire), that interference is presumptively unlawful, and the employer has the burden to establish special circumstances that justify its interference.”
Trader Joe’s coercive actions
Workers at the Hadley store voted in July 2022 to join Trader Joe’s United, making the location the first in the chain to unionize. Employees at Trader Joe’s stores in Minneapolis; Oakland, California; and Louisville, Kentucky, have also voted to become part of Trader Joe’s United, although Trader Joe’s contested the Louisville vote. Workers at a pair of Trader Joe’s stores in New York rejected calls for them to unionize.
Trader Joe’s unlawful practice
As per the NLRB ruling said most of the 18 allegations involved workers’ rights to wear union insignia, which were met by acts of “coercive threats by supervisors,” violating labor laws.
According to the NLRB ruling, supervisors unlawfully told workers at the Hadley store they had to remove pins they were wearing in support of the union drive or leave work. On two occasions, workers opted to keep the union buttons on and leave their shifts ahead of schedule, the judge said.
Trader Joe’s united on the ruling
The judge also determined that Trader Joe’s was within its rights to terminate a worker at the Hadley store who supported the union but also violated rules about how to behave at work on multiple occasions, including a direction not to use a jigsaw to build signage for the store.
The judge said the company’s move to give a warning to the worker and ultimately let them go did not violate the law because Trader Joe’s showed “that it would have discharged [the worker] absent his protected concerted activity.”
Seth Goldstein of Julien Mirer & Singla, who represents Trader Joe’s United, said members of the employee-led union are generally “happy” about the decision. But, they did not like that the judge found that the discharge of one employee was lawful.
Trader Joe’s on NLRB ruling
Trader Joe’s, in a statement, said, “We are pleased with the NLRB Administrative Law Judge’s determinations in favor of Trader Joe’s, including that we do not terminate Crew Members’ employment because they support unionization.”
“As we have always said, Trader Joe’s supports our Crew Members’ rights to choose whether or not they want to be represented by a union,” the statement continued.
However, Goldstein said, the decision is one of many, with 22 cases pending against the company at the Hadley store alone for a myriad of alleged violations.
