Meat Cutters to Vote Again on Rejected Contract Offer

In an effort to salvage a tentative settlement of the Southern California supermarket strike, members of three meat cutters union locals that rejected a new contract are being asked to vote again on the same pact Sunday.

Meanwhile, some members of the Teamsters Union, the other union involved in the 54-day-old labor dispute, began returning to work on Friday, a day after their membership easily ratified a separate pact.

While Teamsters had pledged solidarity with the meat cutters throughout the strike, hundreds of Teamsters are expected to return to their jobs by the end of the weekend, union leaders and employers predicted.

Teamsters officials said they will continue their support for the meat cutters by going back to work only at markets or other locations where there are no meat cutter picket lines.

The supermarket settlement fell apart on Thursday, when 55% of the meat cutters voted against ratifying their contract proposal.

In three of the six meat cutter locals, a majority approved the contract, but in the other three, sentiment against it ranged from 63% to 86%.

Sources familiar with the balloting said the request for the new vote was made from Washington by William H. Wynn, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which represents the meat cutters.

The meat cutters and Teamsters struck the Vons market chain Nov. 5 over work rule issues, and six other chains--Alpha Beta, Hughes, Ralphs, Safeway, Albertson’s and Lucky--locked out union members at nearly 1,000 stores from San Diego to San Luis Obispo. An estimated 22,000 workers were affected.

If the Teamsters and meat cutters do not return to work simultaneously, the deference Teamsters say they will pay to meat cutter picket lines could create scheduling difficulties for supermarkets, as larger numbers of Teamsters return in the coming weeks, observers said.

A source close to the meat cutters union said the loss of Teamsters on the picket line would put their union in a weaker position in trying to obtain more favorable contract terms from the supermarkets.

“This is an absolute cruncher,” the source said. “Nobody envisioned that one union would accept a new contract and the other one wouldn’t. It takes away a bargaining chip.”

A dual settlement of the labor dispute appeared to be set on Monday, when it was announced that negotiators for both unions had reached agreement on separate three-year contracts offered by the Food Employers Council, which negotiated on behalf of the seven supermarket chains.

Work Rules

However, while the Teamsters gave 70% approval to their contract, the meat cutters refused. Many said they were dissatisfied with the proposed pact’s weakening of union work rules and said it threatened their job security. Teamsters, by contrast, said their concerns over such issues had been mollified.

Mike Riley, president of Teamsters Joint Council 42, said Friday night that the Teamsters’ refusal to cross meat cutter picket lines, which are primarily set up at Vons and Safeway chains, satisfied the union’s pledge of loyalty.

“Our contract has been ratified . . . our coalition (with the meat cutters) is as solid as it has ever been,” Riley said. “When we go back to work is up to the meat cutters and the FEC,” because the locations where the meat cutters establish their pickets and the speed each chain uses in calling Teamsters back to work will dictate the union’s next moves.

Under the terms of the settlement, Teamsters are to contact their employers within 72 hours. A complete recall is expected within two weeks, the markets have said.

Dan Granger, a spokesman for Vons, said the chain was willing to put returning Teamsters to work, even if they refused to cross meat cutter picket lines. Substitute drivers would be used when necessary, he said. However, “we want to see what develops” in evaluating whether massive refusal among Teamsters would snarl the market’s delivery system, he said.

40% Turnout

An increase in the number of meat cutters voting for the proposed supermarket contract on Sunday could make such concerns academic. Only about 40% of those eligible to vote turned out on Thursday.

“If we have a very large turnout, it seems to go differently,” said Jim Bird, secretary-treasurer of the San Gabriel Valley-based Local 439, which voted 268 to 472 on ratification.

David Willauer, a spokesman for the food employers, said he thought there would be a stronger vote for ratification now that members of the dissenting locals “know that three sister locals voted to accept it. . . .”

“Going into that vote, I think they all thought they were turning it down,” he said.

One local representing a portion of the city of Los Angeles and a second representing Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties voted heavily in favor of the new contract. A third, in San Diego, narrowly ratified it. Bird’s local and two others in the Southeast Los Angeles-Orange County area and the Westside voted strongly against it.

Bird and Ray Long, the secretary-treasurer of the Westside-based Local 587, showed no enthusiasm for the coming vote.

Bird said he called his members to vote again because he believed he had been ordered to.

Added Long, “We’re doing it for expediency.”

Presented Offer

Bird, Long and the heads of two other locals presented the contract offer to their members without making a recommendation on ratification. Only in the two locals that voted heavily in favor--66%--did union leaders formally endorse the proposed contract.

The meat cutter contract offer made three changes that many members said threatened their job security by encouraging markets to replace them with lower-paid employees.

It created a “two-tier” wage system that would pay newly hired meat wrappers a starting wage of $5.53 an hour, less than half of what an experienced meat wrapper makes. It cut in half, from 16 to 8, the number of hours a day that a market must have a journeyman meat cutter on duty. It also cut the minimum day for newly hired workers from eight hours to four.