Choose a union with no less than 100,000 members
1-Report on the union profile. How many members does the union have? How is the union’s organizational structure designed? In what industry(ies) does the union operate? How long has the union been in existence? Etc. (Approximately 250 words for this section).
2-Report on a minimum of three (3) legal disputes in which the union has been involved in the last 10-15 years (approximately 250 words for each dispute). For each dispute, discuss:
-
- Who were the parties?
- What was the nature of the dispute (i.e. what was the conflict)?
- Were any adverse actions taken by either the union (strikes, etc.) or the employer (ULPs, etc.)?
- How was the dispute resolved (i.e. mediation, arbitration, litigation, etc.)?
- What was the final outcome?
Solution
1-United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW)
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, also known as UFCW, is a large labor union that operates in both United States and Canada. It is one of the largest unions in North America, and it wields substantial power, which it can translate into political-economic influence whenever it requires or desires. As per statistics, the size of the Union is almost 1.3 million (precise numbers are not available), and workers, who constitute this large union, come from various industries that include food retail, hospitality, healthcare and chemical trade. Also, the union has several affiliations, which include Canadian Labor Congress.
Origin
For the study, of United Food and Commercial Workers’ history, we learn that the union is a consequence of a merger of two different unions. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Retail Clerks International Union (RCIU) amalgamated to form United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) during the convention, held in the year 1979. The first president was the union hailed from RCIU, William H Wynn, who played a very crucial role in the birth of the UFCW.
Structure
From the study of the organization’s structure, we learn that it has several organizational departments and institutions, which deal with different matters. For instance, the litigation department deals with the matters of the law; whereas the Legislation and Political Action Department coordinate with the government and it uses various means to influence legislation. The sheer size of the union allows it to influence the political system in some ways. Therefore, in both United States and Canada, it has great relevance and significance (UFCW, 2017).
2-Legal Disputes
Since its emergence, as the result of amalgamation, United Food and Commercial Workers have been part of several litigations. In some of these litigations, UFCW was plaintiff, while in other such litigations UFCW had been the defendant. These disputes were not only legal, but also political. Therefore, the decisions/judgments, regarding the legal matters, had not only legal ramifications but also political and social ramifications.
The three legal disputes, which have been identified in this academic exercise, are 1) Ralphs Grocery Co. v. UFCW, 2) UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL, etc., et al., Appellants, v. WAL–MART STORES, INC., Appellee, and 3) UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health.
There were three (3) different litigation, in which UFCW was involved directly or UFCW was a party, allow us to identify and understand the objectives of United Food and Commercial Workers. As the union is a large and operate in various industries; therefore, nature of litigation is unique to other. We also learn that these litigations not only address certain legal and constitutional matters, but also they implement, to an extent, the political agenda of the UFCW. Therefore, we can say that the disputes, both legal and non-legal, are an instrument for a union to implement its socio-political and political-economic agendas, which is not an unusual strategy, but rather a very common and frequently employed strategy.
A-UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health
a-Who were the parties?
The parties in this legal dispute/litigation were Sutter Health and Commercial Workers and Employers Benefits Trust (EBT). The plaintiff in this litigation was UEBT (an amalgamation of UFCW and EBT), whereas the defender was Sutter Health.
b-Nature of the Dispute
As per information, UEBT sued Sutter on behalf of self-funded payers, and it accused Stutter of signing such contracts with the vendors, which were anticompetitive. Under the Cartwright Act and California’s anti-competition law sought not only damages, but also restitution, and injunctive relief (Justia, 2017).
c-Adverse Actions
The union usually relies on various strategies and tools, other than litigation, to meet their objectives. For instance, strikes, demonstrations, and picketing are employed with great care. However, in this matter, the union (EBT) relied primarily on legal war, rather than on the use other tactics that were at its disposal to meet the set and well-defined objectives (Sutter Health, 2017).
d-Dispute Resolution
The plea of the defendant was that UEBT was legally bound not to arbitrate its claim under an agreement, of which it is not part of (it did not even witness the contract). However, this plea of the defendant was dismissed, and the court allowed UEBT to seek damages (class-action antitrust suit).
e-Outcome
The defendant filed the appeal in appellant court, where its appeal was dismissed. As per fresh information, the plaintiff is preparing a strong class-action antitrust suit; whereas the defendant may opt for settlement, which could save both time and money of not only defendant but also of the plaintiff.
B-United Food and Commercial, Etc., Et Al., V. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc.
a-Who were the parties?
In this legal battle, there were two parties. The plaintiff in this legal case was Walmart, whereas the defendant was the United Food and Commercial Workers. The plea, of the plaintiff, was that it is illegal and unconstitutional of UNFCW to trespass at Walmart stores and to hold a protest or demonstrations within the stores. The defendant argued that unions had the right to protest on the property and unions can picket at the private property (Find Law, 2016).
b-Nature of the Dispute
The dispute was regarding the legality of protests and demonstrations on the private property. As the party of strategy, the UFCW had decided to protest and demonstrate within the stores. Wal-Mart was of the view that such protests did not only violate private property law, but also they created a nuisance that affects Wal-Mart economically (adverse effect).
c-Adverse Actions
In fact, the legal battle started because of the adverse/extreme action, which UFCW took to mount pressure on Wal-Mart stores. The objective of UFCW was to gradually mount pressure on Walmart so that it could eventually unionize their stores in North America. Wal-Mart was resisting/fighting unionizing of its stores both on the ground and in the courts.
d-Dispute Resolution
The dispute was resolved in the appellant court, where the court found UFCW’s plea/claim weak, and it identified that UFCW did not invoke NLRA’s protection. Therefore, the appellant court decided in favor of Wal-Mart and deemed the protests illegal (exceptionally).
e-Outcome
The outcome of the decision is in favor of Wal-Mart, and it temporarily stopped UFCW from holding protests and demonstrations within the stores.
C-Ralphs Grocery Co. v. UFCW
a-Who were the parties?
In this case, the parties were Ralphs Grocery Co. and United Food and Commercial Workers. The plaintiff/Appellant in this litigation was Ralphs Grocery Co.; whereas the defendant was United Food Commercial Workers.
b-Nature of the Dispute
In this case, Ralph and other trade organizations requested/asked the Supreme Court to grant review regarding the picketing by a trade union on private property. The plaintiffs demanded constitutional address of the statues that allow unions to picket on private property, as the law/statues were discriminatory as they only allowed unions to picket/protest on private property.
c-Adverse Actions
UFCW was picketing and protesting on private property, which compelled that plaintiff to move court. Therefore, protest and picketing were employed as a tool to the objective and apparently, the strategy was working.
d-Dispute Resolution
The court denied the review of the decision by California’s Supreme Court decision. This victory, of labor unions over the employers, gave a massive boost to entire campaign, as in the United States the stature, worth and presence of unions is on the decline.
e-Outcome
The outcome of the decision was in favor of all the labor unions that operated in the United States. We must recognize that unions rely on strikes and protests to meet their objectives and avoid litigations, as the process is long and cumbersome (Emanuel, 2013).
References
Emanuel, W. (2013, July 15). U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review of Union. Retrieved from https://www.littler.com/files/press/pdf/2013_07_ASAP_US_Supreme_Court_Denies_Review_
Union_Trespassing_Case_CA.pdf
Find Law. (2016, May 20). United Food And Commercial V. Wal Mart Stores Inc. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1735726.html
Justia. (2017, 22 August). UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health. Retrieved from https://www.google.com.pk/search?q=UFCW+%26+Employers+Benefit+Trust+v.+Sutter+Health&oq=UFCW+%26+
Employers+Benefit+Trust+v.+Sutter+Health&aqs=chrome..69i57.409j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Sutter Health. (2017, November 21). Information Regarding UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health. Retrieved from https://news.sutterhealth.org/2017/11/21/4390/
UFCW. (2017, December 1). Our Structure. Retrieved from http://www.ufcw.org/about/our-structure/
+447462439809