Wal-Mart ponders appeal in LV case

Grace Leong

Monday, Oct. 7, 2002 | 11:06 a.m.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., arguing it obeys federal labor laws, said its lawyers are considering whether to appeal a ruling by a federal officer that found the giant retailer violated labor laws in its fight against a national union organizing drive originating at 14 Las Vegas stores.

National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge Albert Metz, acting on a complaint issued by the NLRB on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, on Sept. 24 ordered Wal-Mart to post notices at three Las Vegas stores pledging to obey the law.

Wal-Mart was also ordered to reverse disciplinary action against two union supporters and to stop interfering with its workers' union activities.

The NLRB, in a complaint, alleged more than 20 management personnel at three Las Vegas Wal-Mart stores at 3615 S. Rainbow Blvd., 3075 E. Tropicana Ave. and 1807 W. Craig Road disparaged workers -- including Avis Hammond and Norine Sorensen at the Rainbow store and Diana "Angie" Griego at the Tropicana store -- who showed union support and told them they weren't worthy of working at Wal-Mart or invited them to quit.

But the Bentonville, Ark.-based giant retailer disputed union officials' opinions that the ruling is a "tremendous" victory for workers against Wal-Mart management and is significant in that it "represents one of the first times, where on such a broadscale basis, Wal-Mart has been forced to obey the law."

"Out of 43 unfair labor practice charges, the judge found in our favor 30 allegations, 13 in favor of the union. The union doesn't normally have this good a percentage," Bill Wertz, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said last week.

"Still, if you look at the number of associates and stores we have, the number of incidents alleged is small and the number of allegations upheld by the judge is smaller still. This shows that day-in and day-out, Wal-Mart follows the law," he said.

"It shows how poor a record (the union) has if they call this a 'major victory,"' Wertz said. "Their most serious allegation, in our opinion, wasn't upheld. Norine Sorensen, who claims she wasn't allowed to return to work because of her union activity, wasn't terminated on that count."

The government had argued Wal-Mart seized on Sorensen's medical complaint to rid itself of a union supporter by forcing her into a leave of absence and placing "disparate conditions" on her return to work.

But Metz said he found Wal-Mart has proven that it treated Sorensen's non-work injury consistent with its policies and that it would have placed her on medical leave of absence with conditions for her return to work regardless of her union activities.