The NLRB Finally Charges Wal-mart with Labor Violations!

In an investigation and negotiation with Wal-Mart over alleged abusive labor practices that have been ongoing since November of 2013, the NLRB has finally brought charges against the retailer:

The NLRB said the retailer illegally fired, disciplined or threatened more than 60 employees in 14 states for participating in legally protected activities to complain about wages and working conditions.

A complaint issued by the NLRB’s general counsel’s office said Wal-Mart representatives appeared on national news broadcasts and threatened to retaliate against workers if they went on strike. It also alleged they disciplined and fired workers for engaging in legally protected protest activity.

The complaint involves more than 60 employees, 19 of whom were allegedly fire as a result of their participation in the protests. Sixty-three Wal-Mart supervisors and one corporate officer are named in the board’s complaint.

“We believe that our actions were valid. We take our obligations very seriously. We look forward to sharing our side of the facts in these cases with a judge,” said Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for chain in an Associated Press report.

Wal-Mart has until Jan. 28 to respond to the complaint. The case will then go before an administrative law judge. If Wal-Mart is found liable, it could be required to award workers back pay, reinstatement and reverse any disciplinary action. The retailer could also try to work out a settlement as the case goes forward.

Ironically Wal-Mart may actually end up being a catalyst for a new labor movement in the United States.


Related Articles

2 thoughts on “The NLRB Finally Charges Wal-mart with Labor Violations!

  1. “…our side of the facts…”

    Aside from the lack of eloquence in the short company statement quoted above as proving the degeneration of our country’s overall educational standards, to my knowledge there are either facts or lies, misrepresentations if you will, our side of the story, maybe, but not different sides to any facts. Gee, I wonder which, “side of the facts,” I will favor in this argument.

    Do you suppose the spokesperson is another low wage earner, speak or you are fired, poor Brook, taking a job for the sake of having any job at all? Walton siblings not parting with an extra penny, neither wishing nor needing to hire a professional, win or lose on this case? Pay the fine, just an operating expense, lay off a few people to cover the loss and move on?

Comments are closed.