A National Labor Relations Board judge ruled that the Wal-Mart Stores management unlawfully retaliated against workers who participated in strikes in 2013 and must offer to reinstate 16 dismissed employees.
The U.S. retailer violated labor law by "disciplining or discharging several associates because they were absent from work while on strike", administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter said in a ruling posted on the board's website.
While Wal-Mart indicated it would likely appeal the decision to the labor agency's board in Washington, and pointed to its recent efforts to improve worker benefits and raise pay, the ruling was hailed by one labor group as a "huge victory" for employees.
"We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's recommended findings and we will pursue all of our options to defend the company because we believe our actions were legal and justified," Wal-Mart spokesman Kory Lundberg said.
The ruling was made by Carter on a complaint filed that was filed by the NLRB on behalf of a union-backed worker group, OUR Walmart, in 2014.
A coordinated set of strikes collectively referred to the "Ride for Respect" because they involved traveling by bus to the company's headquarters in Arkansas for protests at its shareholders' meeting in June 2013 were the primary cases of allegations.
Wal-Mart had argued that the strikes constituted "intermittent work stoppages" not protected under labor law and it was necessary and lawful to discipline workers with unexcused absences to participate in the protests.
The "Ride for Respect" differed materially from other previous work stoppages not protected by law, the judge found. The reason for this as cited was that the strike was not a brief strike -- meaning the risk for workers was higher -- and because it was not scheduled close in time with other strikes.
The 16 former workers should be made "whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them" after the US retailer offered them their previous jobs, Carter ordered Wal-Mart. In order to inform workers of their rights to organize under U.S. labor law, Wal-Mart was also ordered to hold a meeting in more than two dozen of its stores.
The ruling was described as a "huge victory" for the dismissed workers as well as "Walmart workers everywhere" by Jessica Levin, spokeswoman for labor group Making Change at Walmart, which is backed by the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW).
It is however not yet certain how the efforts by Making Change at Walmart and other groups to pressure Wal-Mart on wages and benefits be impacted, if at all, by the decision. The hurdles of organizing Wal-Mart workers by the UFCW for year still remain high.
Just a day before the ruling, Wal-Mart had made announcements about raising of wages for 1.2 million U.S. workers in 2016 as part of a $2.7 billion investment over two years in wages and training.
Wal-Mart has said the investments are helping improve customer service and worker engagement scores even as this would dent the company profits in the near term.
(Source:www.reuters.com)
The U.S. retailer violated labor law by "disciplining or discharging several associates because they were absent from work while on strike", administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter said in a ruling posted on the board's website.
While Wal-Mart indicated it would likely appeal the decision to the labor agency's board in Washington, and pointed to its recent efforts to improve worker benefits and raise pay, the ruling was hailed by one labor group as a "huge victory" for employees.
"We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's recommended findings and we will pursue all of our options to defend the company because we believe our actions were legal and justified," Wal-Mart spokesman Kory Lundberg said.
The ruling was made by Carter on a complaint filed that was filed by the NLRB on behalf of a union-backed worker group, OUR Walmart, in 2014.
A coordinated set of strikes collectively referred to the "Ride for Respect" because they involved traveling by bus to the company's headquarters in Arkansas for protests at its shareholders' meeting in June 2013 were the primary cases of allegations.
Wal-Mart had argued that the strikes constituted "intermittent work stoppages" not protected under labor law and it was necessary and lawful to discipline workers with unexcused absences to participate in the protests.
The "Ride for Respect" differed materially from other previous work stoppages not protected by law, the judge found. The reason for this as cited was that the strike was not a brief strike -- meaning the risk for workers was higher -- and because it was not scheduled close in time with other strikes.
The 16 former workers should be made "whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them" after the US retailer offered them their previous jobs, Carter ordered Wal-Mart. In order to inform workers of their rights to organize under U.S. labor law, Wal-Mart was also ordered to hold a meeting in more than two dozen of its stores.
The ruling was described as a "huge victory" for the dismissed workers as well as "Walmart workers everywhere" by Jessica Levin, spokeswoman for labor group Making Change at Walmart, which is backed by the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW).
It is however not yet certain how the efforts by Making Change at Walmart and other groups to pressure Wal-Mart on wages and benefits be impacted, if at all, by the decision. The hurdles of organizing Wal-Mart workers by the UFCW for year still remain high.
Just a day before the ruling, Wal-Mart had made announcements about raising of wages for 1.2 million U.S. workers in 2016 as part of a $2.7 billion investment over two years in wages and training.
Wal-Mart has said the investments are helping improve customer service and worker engagement scores even as this would dent the company profits in the near term.
(Source:www.reuters.com)