Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Update on the Fresh Organics / Real Foods Labor Dispute
Following a formal complaint issued by the National Labor Relations Board, Fresh Organics will respond to unfair labor practices charges before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge.
At a hearing beginning in late March, Fresh Organics, Inc. d/b/a/ The Real Food Co. will respond to allegations of unfair labor practices recently put forth by the National Labor Relations Board, Region 20.
On Nov. 26, 2004, the Regional Board issued a consolidated complaint against Fresh Organics, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Utah-based Nutraceutical International Corp.. The complaint details the Board’s findings with respect to multiple unfair labor practices charges filed against Fresh Organics following the unannounced closure of Fresh Organics’ 24th St. outlet in San Franicsco, which took place just prior to Labor Day 2003. Former 24th St. employees were joined by the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union in filing charges with the Board.
According to the Board, Fresh Organics illegally interfered with and discriminated against workers who engaged in union and concerted activities by issuing threats, firing individuals, and adopting other coercisive measures - including closing or accelerating the closure of its 24th St. Real Food Co. outlet in San Francisco, and thereby terminating the employment of nearly thirty workers - in order to dissuade employees from organizing. The Board has also asserted that, in refusing to rehire one former 24th St. employee because of her union and concerted activities, Fresh Organics acted illegally.
While Fresh Organics is free to settle out of court on the Board charges at any point during present or future legal proceedings, the corporation has yet to indicate an interest in settling. The charges, consolidated into one case by an order from the Board, will be heard before a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge starting on Mar. 21, 2005. By Board order, the trial is scheduled for consecutive dates and may last for up to two weeks. ( The hearing is open to the public, and will take place at 901 Market St. in San Francisco. )
Following the March hearing, the Regional Board’s decision would be subject to appeal to the Board in Washington, D.C.. Subsequent to a decison from Washington, future appeals would then enter into the U.S. Court of Appeals system.
Fresh Organics presently operates four stores in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, includingThe Real Food Co. on Stanyan St. in San Francisco, Thom’s Natural Foods on Geary Blvd. in San Francisco, The Real Food Co. in Sausalito, and Cornucopia Community Market in Carmel. Fresh Organics’ Real Food Co. outlet on 24th St. remains closed, and the corporation has not indicated when it plans to reopen the store.
To date, over 1,200 residents who live in the vicinity of the 24th St. store have signed a pledge promising to boycott should Fresh Organics reopen on 24th St. without offering its former employees their jobs back and adopting a neutral stance vis-à-vis the right of its workers to organize.
On Nov. 26, 2004, the Regional Board issued a consolidated complaint against Fresh Organics, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Utah-based Nutraceutical International Corp.. The complaint details the Board’s findings with respect to multiple unfair labor practices charges filed against Fresh Organics following the unannounced closure of Fresh Organics’ 24th St. outlet in San Franicsco, which took place just prior to Labor Day 2003. Former 24th St. employees were joined by the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union in filing charges with the Board.
According to the Board, Fresh Organics illegally interfered with and discriminated against workers who engaged in union and concerted activities by issuing threats, firing individuals, and adopting other coercisive measures - including closing or accelerating the closure of its 24th St. Real Food Co. outlet in San Francisco, and thereby terminating the employment of nearly thirty workers - in order to dissuade employees from organizing. The Board has also asserted that, in refusing to rehire one former 24th St. employee because of her union and concerted activities, Fresh Organics acted illegally.
While Fresh Organics is free to settle out of court on the Board charges at any point during present or future legal proceedings, the corporation has yet to indicate an interest in settling. The charges, consolidated into one case by an order from the Board, will be heard before a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge starting on Mar. 21, 2005. By Board order, the trial is scheduled for consecutive dates and may last for up to two weeks. ( The hearing is open to the public, and will take place at 901 Market St. in San Francisco. )
Following the March hearing, the Regional Board’s decision would be subject to appeal to the Board in Washington, D.C.. Subsequent to a decison from Washington, future appeals would then enter into the U.S. Court of Appeals system.
Fresh Organics presently operates four stores in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, includingThe Real Food Co. on Stanyan St. in San Francisco, Thom’s Natural Foods on Geary Blvd. in San Francisco, The Real Food Co. in Sausalito, and Cornucopia Community Market in Carmel. Fresh Organics’ Real Food Co. outlet on 24th St. remains closed, and the corporation has not indicated when it plans to reopen the store.
To date, over 1,200 residents who live in the vicinity of the 24th St. store have signed a pledge promising to boycott should Fresh Organics reopen on 24th St. without offering its former employees their jobs back and adopting a neutral stance vis-à-vis the right of its workers to organize.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Since the "community" promises to boycott the business, why on earth would it consider reopening in hostile territory? Why would it bother to hire back the same troublemakers they got rid of? I'm sure the "organizers" have managed to move on to yet more jobs that they can use to shut down yet another business and put more people out of work. Good job!
..and now you are through celebrating the crowning of your
'hero'; another day that will ultimately live in infamy; you can turn your jaundiced eye back home. As a 30+ year resident of Noe Valley who has relied on Real Foods since the day it
opened I can attest to the disrespectful actions taken by the company and the negative impact it has had on other small
merchants on the street. The NLRB also found the company had violated employees rights. Enjoy the next four years
Thom, I hope you fare well. Meanwhile we will keep working
to try and restore ethics, morality and decency into our civil
affairs, and we may even be able to persuade you that..
"...inasmuch as you do it unto one of these, my children,
you do it unto me". A pretty righteous dude once said something like that.
Monk. Noe Valley.
'hero'; another day that will ultimately live in infamy; you can turn your jaundiced eye back home. As a 30+ year resident of Noe Valley who has relied on Real Foods since the day it
opened I can attest to the disrespectful actions taken by the company and the negative impact it has had on other small
merchants on the street. The NLRB also found the company had violated employees rights. Enjoy the next four years
Thom, I hope you fare well. Meanwhile we will keep working
to try and restore ethics, morality and decency into our civil
affairs, and we may even be able to persuade you that..
"...inasmuch as you do it unto one of these, my children,
you do it unto me". A pretty righteous dude once said something like that.
Monk. Noe Valley.
Didn't the IWW organize real foods? Why has the UFCW taken over and why are they taking all the credit? It's great to hear about the updates, but it's sad to see you not give credit where credit is due.
-anonymous autonomist
-anonymous autonomist
A clarification for A.A.
I agree that Kim neglected to mention that it was the IWW that the workers at Real Food first contacted (in early 2003) about organizing a union. It was the IWW that met with the workers and suggested organizing strategies to the workers (though many of our suggestions were politely ignored--which, in my opinion, is partly why the campaign didn't go so well). It was the IWW union that the store managers were probably trying to combat. It was IWW authorization cards that were signed, and it was IWW members who were fired and/or driven out of the store.
With most of the IWW supporters gone, Kim contacted the UFCW about filing ULPs (after the IWW suggested that the workers file ULPs) without asking the IWW to do the same.
I also explained that the authorization cards for IWW representation that were signed by the workers were probably not transferable to the UFCW, and that even if the workers all agreed that they preferred UFCW representation, they'd have to start their campaign for recognition over again. Kim Rorhbach and the remaning workers seemed to think that wasn't a problem.
Aout a year ago, the Bay Area IWW voted to officially wash our hands of this campaign--and yes--we are officially disgusted with the conduct of the workers inthis campaign, because we did what we could fo rthem and our proverbial door was always open, so-to-speak.
That said, regardless of how we feel about it, we respect the workers rights in the shop to democratically decide to choose their course of action (within limits of course--we would not agree to workers scabbing, for example). The Real Food workers--astonishingly--have decided that the UFCW (with all of its faults and corruption) is a better choice than the IWW.
An AFL-CIO union would probably file a lawsuit against the IWW were we to insert ourselvesin an organizing campaign such as this one the waythe UFCW did, but the IWW isn't a litigious organization, and we have bigger fish to fry, such as the STockton Truckers - (see http://www.iww.org/unions/iu530/truckers/).
It should also be pointed out, that the community based campaign (regardess of who gets credit for it) is consistent with the IWW's (and Staughton Lynd's) strategy of "Solidarity Unionism" (for more details see this page: http://www.iww.org/organize/strategy/).
In any case, the IWW is *used* to doing the lions share of the work and getting almost no credit anyway. It's the story of the IWW's life. **sigh**
I agree that Kim neglected to mention that it was the IWW that the workers at Real Food first contacted (in early 2003) about organizing a union. It was the IWW that met with the workers and suggested organizing strategies to the workers (though many of our suggestions were politely ignored--which, in my opinion, is partly why the campaign didn't go so well). It was the IWW union that the store managers were probably trying to combat. It was IWW authorization cards that were signed, and it was IWW members who were fired and/or driven out of the store.
With most of the IWW supporters gone, Kim contacted the UFCW about filing ULPs (after the IWW suggested that the workers file ULPs) without asking the IWW to do the same.
I also explained that the authorization cards for IWW representation that were signed by the workers were probably not transferable to the UFCW, and that even if the workers all agreed that they preferred UFCW representation, they'd have to start their campaign for recognition over again. Kim Rorhbach and the remaning workers seemed to think that wasn't a problem.
Aout a year ago, the Bay Area IWW voted to officially wash our hands of this campaign--and yes--we are officially disgusted with the conduct of the workers inthis campaign, because we did what we could fo rthem and our proverbial door was always open, so-to-speak.
That said, regardless of how we feel about it, we respect the workers rights in the shop to democratically decide to choose their course of action (within limits of course--we would not agree to workers scabbing, for example). The Real Food workers--astonishingly--have decided that the UFCW (with all of its faults and corruption) is a better choice than the IWW.
An AFL-CIO union would probably file a lawsuit against the IWW were we to insert ourselvesin an organizing campaign such as this one the waythe UFCW did, but the IWW isn't a litigious organization, and we have bigger fish to fry, such as the STockton Truckers - (see http://www.iww.org/unions/iu530/truckers/).
It should also be pointed out, that the community based campaign (regardess of who gets credit for it) is consistent with the IWW's (and Staughton Lynd's) strategy of "Solidarity Unionism" (for more details see this page: http://www.iww.org/organize/strategy/).
In any case, the IWW is *used* to doing the lions share of the work and getting almost no credit anyway. It's the story of the IWW's life. **sigh**
For more information:
http://www.iww.org/unions/iu660/realfood/
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network