Vans, Teamster Talks Collapse; Trial Stage Set : Dispute: The labor board had called the meeting in hopes of averting a May 1 court date. At issue is an earlier election.

Efforts to settle a long-running dispute between Vans Inc. and the Teamsters Union broke down Thursday, setting the stage for a trial next month on allegations that the shoemaker violated numerous labor laws to stifle an organizing drive at its factory in Orange.

The National Labor Relations Board in Los Angeles called the meeting in the hopes of averting a trial set for May 1. The federal agency proposed that Vans agree to a new union election and that the company also post a notice in the plant suggesting that Vans interfered with a previously failed unionizing drive.

A year ago, workers at Vans’ factory in Orange rejected 718 to 473 to join Teamsters Local 396. But last November, the labor board filed charges alleging that the company, prior to the election, threatened workers with physical harm, loss of job and plant closure if the union won an election. The company has denied those allegations.

*

The breakdown of talks Thursday makes it highly unlikely that another union election at Vans will take place in the near future, though a union victory in trial will ultimately force the company to accept another election.

The Orange-based Vans, a maker of casual shoes, is one of the few remaining companies still making footwear in the United States. Its factory in Orange employs about 1,000 manufacturing workers, down from 1,400 a year earlier. The plant is on a two-week shutdown, and the company has hinted that it may close or transfer production overseas from one of its two plants. Its other plant is in Vista in north San Diego County and employs about 300 workers.

Teamsters attorney Dennis M. Harley, who was at the closed meeting Thursday, said that Vans appeared willing to agree to a new election. But Harley said company attorneys walked away from the talks shortly after labor board officials insisted that Vans post a notice saying, in part, that “certain conduct occurred which interfered with the employees’ exercise of a free and reasoned choice.”

“As soon as the issue came up, it was all over,” said Harley, adding that a Vans’ attorney said he would never sign a settlement agreement given such a posting requirement.

Craig E. Gosselin, Vans’ vice president and general counsel, agreed that requirement was important to the company but there were other issues as well. He said, however, that the company will continue to talk to the labor board in the hopes of settling.

“We’ll reassess and talk further on the issue,” he said.

The trial set for next month will be conducted before an administrative law judge. On average, such labor board rulings take about six months or longer in complex cases, such as this one, where multiple allegations are involved. If the company loses, it can appeal the case to the labor board in Washington, which usually takes at least a few months to rule.