King Soopers claims Colorado union used illegal negotiating tactics, leading to strike, in new lawsuit
King Soopers/City Market filed a federal lawsuit in Colorado against United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 7 (UFCW Local 7) on Friday. This comes amid the beginning of the two-week worker strike across the state.
According to the lawsuit, this action is being taken due to damages King Soopers says it's suffering, "as a result of [the] Defendant's continuing pattern of threatening, coercive, and restraining actions, taken for unlawful purposes in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and actionable in federal court under Section 303(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act."
In response to the new lawsuit the workers union released a statement that said in part, "UFCW Local 7 learned that earlier this afternoon King Soopers filed a baseless lawsuit against the Union. The Union is confident it will successfully defend against the suit, and that King Soopers' claims will not survive initial scrutiny by a court."
King Soopers' parent company asserts UFCW Local 7 is violating, "with a purpose of forcing King Soopers to bargain with unions other than Local 7, culminating in repeated threats of strikes and calling and supporting an unlawful strike by Local 7 members against King Soopers for prohibited purposes under Section 8(b)(4) of the NLRA."
The other unions Local 7 is accused of unlawfully collaborating with included Teamsters Local 38, UFCW Local 324, UFCW Local 770 and UFCW Local 3000 to, "consolidate their bargaining and other efforts to force multi-union bargaining on King Soopers and other employers without bargaining relationships with the labor ... unions." The complaint asserts the activity between fellow unions began on or before October 2024.
CBS News Colorado has reported about ongoing negotiations for months between Local 7 and King Soopers. Fruitful negotiations continued to elude both parties, and that led to an overwhelming majority of workers in the Denver metro area and Colorado Springs/Pueblo areas voting for a labor stoppage.
In the complaint, King Soopers' parent company also claims Local 7 and the other unions sent a letter to confirm the intention of unlawful practices to King Soopers' lead negotiator.
King Soopers is requesting relief from the court in the form of payment from Local 7 for costs, expenses and damages sustained due to the labor strike deemed unlawful by the plaintiff. It also wants to be awarded payment for attorney's fees and costs incurred by the strike, as well as any relief the court might grant the plaintiff.
King Soopers is being represented by the Taft Stettinius & Hollister in both Denver and Colorado Springs areas.
Nowhere in the new lawsuit does the plaintiff call for the stoppage of the strikes taking place outside various King Soopers locations in the state. King Soopers released adjusted hours of impacted grocery stores as a results of the worker strike this week.
As of online publication, there was no indication other union workers outside of Colorado were striking under the purview or guidance of Teamsters Local 38, UFCW Local 324, UFCW Local 770 or UFCW Local 3000. However, there was some indication that workers for those unions had a presence in Colorado in support of the workers represented by Local 7, who are currently striking.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Yahoo
OLCC removes labor agreement rule for cannabis businesses after Measure 119 ruling
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – The Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission is no longer requiring cannabis businesses to enter labor peace agreements in order to obtain or renew a cannabis license, the agency announced Thursday. The decision comes after a federal judge ruled Oregon Ballot Measure 119 unconstitutional earlier in May. 'Earlier this month, a federal judge issued a ruling barring the enforcement of Ballot Measure 119. Given this ruling and in consultation with the Oregon Department of Justice, the OLCC will no longer require labor peace agreements as part of cannabis license applications and license renewals,' the OLCC said in a press release Thursday. Portland has the worst housing crisis outlook, LendingTree finds Measure 119, also known as the United for Cannabis Workers Act, was passed by Oregon voters in November 2024 and took effect in December of that year. The measure required cannabis retailers and processors to remain neutral in their communications to employees from labor organizations about bargaining rights. After Measure 119 passed, the OLCC adopted the labor peace agreement requirement in order to comply with the ballot measure, which required cannabis processors, retailers, and labs to provide labor peace agreements with a bona fide labor organization in order to obtain or renew cannabis licenses. The measure was challenged in a lawsuit filed in February by two Portland cannabis businesses, arguing the measure violates the First Amendment and will harm cannabis companies. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now United States District Judge Michael H. Simon in Portland agreed with the cannabis companies, ruling Measure 119 is 'preempted by the (National Labor Relations Act)' and violates the First Amendment. 'Measure 119 is not limited to restricting only threatening, coercive, false, or misleading speech, but instead prohibits all speech by employers that is not 'neutral' toward unionization. Therefore, Measure 119 violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to free speech,' Judge Simon wrote, in part. In response to Judge Simon's ruling, the plaintiff's attorneys with Fisher Phillips LLP told KOIN 6, 'We are pleased with Judge Simon's ruling. Judge Simon reached the right conclusion on this important case of first impression regarding National Labor Relations Act preemption and Constitutional First Amendment speech protections as related to laws requiring businesses to enter into labor peace agreements.' Armed man who threatened Papa Murphy's employees was pepper-sprayed multiple times, police say The plaintiffs' attorneys continued, 'This case is poised to have far-reaching impacts, as many states are considering imposing similar requirements not only on cannabis licensees, but also in other sectors, and this decision helps maintain the proper balance between labor and management and allows cannabis employees to decide for themselves whether to organize without undue influence.' Governor Kotek's office added that the governor — who was named among defendants in the lawsuit — 'respects the court's ruling.' Meanwhile, a spokesperson for UFCW 555, a labor organization that has been a strong proponent of Measure 119, told KOIN 6 News 'We now have conflicting federal rulings, with a judge in Oregon putting Measure 119 on hold while a California judge has upheld a similar law. One of these rulings is destined to be overturned on appeal. Our strong suspicion is that Judge Simon's opinion, which flaunts Supreme Court precedent, will be the one reversed.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
28-05-2025
- Forbes
Lawsuit By Former Milwaukee Brewer Ruf Is Latest In Line Of Field Safety Cases
Photo byOn May 22, 2025, Darin Ruf, a former utility player for the Milwaukee Brewers and several other clubs, sued the Cincinnati Reds in an Ohio state court arising out of an allegedly career-ending knee injury that Ruf suffered at the Reds' Great American Ball Park on June 2, 2023. Ruf injured his knee when he ran into the end of the rolled up tarp chasing a foul ball down the first base line which, according to Ruf, was not properly padded. Ruf's case is the latest in a series of cases brought by both MLB and NFL players concerning injuries suffered due to field conditions. Those lawsuits have a mixed record of success against the leagues' argument that the lawsuits are preempted by the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the players unions. The Preemption Playbook All of the major American sports leagues have negotiated comprehensive CBAs with their counterpart unions which address a wide range of issues affecting the terms and conditions of employment for the players. Those CBAs also require that should there be a dispute as to whether the league, a club, a union, or a player abided by their obligations under the CBA, such dispute be settled through a confidential arbitration process. As a result, in each league, dozens of grievances are commenced and resolved each year, typically without any public awareness. Nonetheless, players have occasionally brought lawsuits against a league or clubs in state or federal courts for conduct which they have argued is not covered by the CBA. The leagues and clubs involved seek to have the cases dismissed, arguing that claims are preempted (i.e., barred) by the CBA, pursuant to the federal Labor Management Relations Act. Indeed, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) has also taken a broad view in favor of the preemption argument. In the 1985 case of Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, the Supreme Court established the controlling principal on this issue, holding that claims whose resolution are 'substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of' a CBA are preempted. In other words, claims that are 'inextricably intertwined' with the terms and provisions of the CBA cannot proceed. Instead, such claims must be brought pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the CBA. The intended and frequent result is the dismissal of the claims. Preemption in Practice The cases that have presented the most difficulty for leagues (and courts) are those like Ruf's, where a player has alleged that they suffered an injury due to negligently maintained field conditions. One of the most well-known cases concerns former NFL running back Reggie Bush. In 2016, Bush sued the St. Louis Rams and their stadium authority when, at the conclusion of a play, he slipped and fell on a concrete surface surrounding the turf playing field causing a knee injury. A federal court denied the Rams' arguments that Bush's claims were preempted by the CBA. The court held that although at the time the NFL and NFLPA had a 'Joint Committee for the purpose of discussing, among other things, the player safety and welfare aspects of playing equipment, playing surfaces, and stadium facilities[,] [t]he Joint Committee d[id] not have the power to commit or bind any of the signatories to the CBA… nor does the CBA establish a contractually agreed upon standard of care applicable to Plaintiff's claims.' In 2020, a jury awarded Bush $12.5 million for the injury which effectively ended his career. The same decision was reached the following year in a case brought by then Philadelphia Eagles player and now Houston Texans head coach DeMeco Ryans after Ryans injured his Achilles tendon due to what he alleged was a dangerous playing surface at the Texans' NRG Stadium. A Texas state court held that it did not need to analyze the CBA to evaluate Ryans' negligence claim and it was therefore not preempted. Whether in response to these legal losses or not, the NFL changed certain of its practices in such a way to seemingly avoid similar litigation in the future. As part of the 2020 CBA, the NFL and NFLPA added a section establishing and discussing the responsibilities of the joint NFL-NFLPA Field Surface Safety & Performance Committee. In short, that Committee is responsible for establishing and enforcing playing field standards, codified as the Field Surface Manual. The scope of that Committee was relevant in a 2023 lawsuit brought by former Denver Broncos linebacker Aaron Patrick. During the October 17, 2022 Monday Night Football game between the Broncos and Los Angeles Chargers, Patrick, after trying to make a tackle near the sideline on a punt, tripped over television cables and mats and collided with the NFL's television liaison, the person responsible for coordinating commercial breaks. Unfortunately, Patrick, an undrafted second year player, tore his ACL in the process. Patrick recovered and participated in the Broncos' training camp the next year but did not make the team. Patrick sued the NFL, ESPN, the Chargers, the entities that own and operate SoFi Stadium, and others, in California state court for negligence and premises liability. A federal court granted a motion to dismiss by the NFL and the Chargers based on preemption, holding that 'resolution of Patrick's claims, and specifically determination of the scope of each defendant's duty and potential liability, would require interpretation of the CBA,' including the Field Surface Manual. Baseball too has faced such cases. In June 2017, in the first inning of his Major League debut, New York Yankees' outfielder Dexter Fowler injured his knee when it hit a metal electrical box along the right field wall in foul territory at the Chicago White Sox's Guaranteed Rate Field. Fowler sued the Illinois Sports Facility Authority, which managed the stadium, and the White Sox for alleged negligence. The defendants sought to have the case dismissed on preemption grounds. Specifically, they argued that Fowler's claim required interpretation of Article XIII of the CBA, which established a joint MLB-MLB Players Association (MLBPA) Safety and Health Advisory Committee 'to deal with emergency safety and health problems as they arise' and 'to engage in review of, planning for and maintenance of safe and healthful working conditions for Players.' An Illinois federal court was not persuaded. It held that Fowler's claims were not preempted by Article XIII because that Article 'leaves no doubt that the clubs were in a vastly better position than the Committee to assess the safety of their own premises. [Moreover,] [t]he clubs did not give up any control over their premises to the Committee, nor did they even grant it any consistent supervisory role.' In sum, the court concluded that it did not need to consult the CBA to evaluate the White Sox's duty of care to Fowler and his claims were therefore not preempted. The case subsequently settled. The Reds' At Bat The Reds will likely move to dismiss the case on preemption but face an uphill battle in light of the Fowler decision, even though it is not binding precedent on an Ohio state court. The 2022 CBA between MLB and the MLBPA did not add any additional field safety obligations for either party. MLB declined to comment on whether it has negotiated a field safety manual with the union, a la the NFL and NFLPA. Should the Reds lose that argument, they would then most likely be in the position of having to evaluate whether its employees were in fact negligent in rolling and covering up the tarp and all of its parts. Such claims would typically have to be decided by a jury. Were the case to make it that far, the Reds would face significant financial risk. Although Ruf was 37 years of age at the time of the injury, he had a $3 million salary in 2023 and thus any lost career earnings would still have been significant (an issue faced by doctors accused of medical malpractice by athletes). Expect the Reds to take a swing at the preemption argument first. If they miss, the club (and its insurer) will likely seek to end the matter with a settlement rather than serving up a home run during a jury trial.
Washington Post
28-05-2025
- Washington Post
The Trump administration is pure progressivism in action
Actual conservatives thinking about the 2028 presidential election should begin with this counterintuitive but correct proposition: Today's administration is the most progressive in U.S. history. Consider progressivism's nine core components. 1. Combating the citizenry's false consciousness by permeating society, including cultural institutions, with government, which is politics. 2. Confidence in government's ability to anticipate and control the consequences of broad interventions in modern society's complexities. 3. Using industrial policy to pick economic winners and losers because the future is transparent, so government can know which enterprises should prosper. 4. Central planning of the evolution of the nation's regions and the economy's sectors, especially manufacturing. 5. Melding governing and party-building by constructing coalitions of government-dependent factions, as Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal did with the elderly (Social Security, 1935), labor (the 1935 National Labor Relations Act favoring unions) and farmers (the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act). 6. Rejecting conservative growth-oriented tax simplification — lowering rates by eliminating preferences — to use taxes (including tariffs) as tools of social engineering. Bypassing the appropriations process, the tax code can transfer wealth to favored constituencies. 7. Limitless borrowing from future Americans to fund today's Americans' consumption of government goods and services. 8. Presidential supremacy ensured by using executive orders to marginalize Congress. 9. Unfettered majoritarianism, hence opposition to the Senate filibuster.
