Vans Agrees to Union Election at Orange Plant : Labor: The shoemaker settles federal case but does not admit intimidating workers as alleged by U.S. regulators. Teamsters lost 1994 bid by 718-473 vote.
Vans Inc. said Thursday that it has consented to a new union election as part of an agreement to settle federal charges that the sneaker maker interfered with a union vote last year.
Under the settlement, in which Vans did not admit to any wrongdoing, the National Labor Relations Board will hold an election on June 30 at the company’s factory in Orange. About 1,000 production workers will be eligible to cast ballots for or against the Teamsters union.
In April, 1994, workers at Vans voted 718 to 473 against representation by Teamsters Local 396. But the election was marred by accusations that company supervisors and paid consultants intimidated and threatened workers sympathizing with the union. Although Vans’ officials denied the allegations, last fall the labor board’s regional office filed charges against the company, and a trial date was set for May 1.
If the settlement is approved by the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, as is expected, all of the charges against Vans will be dropped.
Raul Lopez, head of Teamsters Local 396, said he has mixed feelings about the settlement. “We feel not quite vindicated,” he said. But Lopez and union attorneys also said they do not object to the settlement because they see it as the quickest way to get a new election.
Craig Gosselin, Vans’ vice president and general counsel, said the company settled to avoid the expense and delay of protracted litigation. “We welcome the opportunity for our employees to once again decisively reject union representation,” he said.
Vans is one of the few remaining shoe companies with manufacturing facilities in the United States. But the 175,000-square-foot plant in Orange was idled for two weeks this month, and because of competitive pressures, the company has suggested that it might close or scale back production in Orange or at its smaller facility in San Diego County.
Lopez expressed confidence Thursday that most workers were behind the union. He said that 45 to 50 of the original 60 members of the organizing committee are still active at the plant, where employment is down to 1,000 from about 1,400 a year ago. But Lopez said he feared there would be layoffs and another hard-line campaign by the company in the next two months.
If the union wins in June, it will provide a huge lift to the region’s labor movement, which has not had much success in Orange County, let alone at predominantly immigrant workplaces. Most of the workers at Vans, who stitch, glue and assemble canvas shoes, are Latino.
Gosselin said workers were told of the new election in a memo Thursday morning. He stressed that the company would never close the plant or lay off workers, or threaten to take such measures, because of a union drive. Gosselin added: “If the union wins, we’ll bargain in good faith.”
As before, the key issues for the workers will likely be wages and benefits. Gosselin says Vans pays workers an average of $6 an hour and provides a health maintenance organization plan that is partly paid by the company. The union says most workers receive closer to $5 an hour, with 10-year employees making an hourly rate of $6, and they do not get adequate benefits.
The settlement announced Thursday came after Vans rejected a proposal two weeks ago in which the labor board agreed to drop the charges if the company consented to a new election and posted a notice at the plant suggesting that it had interfered with the union vote last year. Vans agreed after the language in the posting requirement was modified to its favor.
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
Vans’ Labor Troubles
Workers at Orange-based Vans Inc. last year rejected Teamsters representation by a wide margin. But union officials contend that the company pressured employees unfairly, and now it faces a second election. A chronology of unionization attempts at Vans:
* April, 1994: Workers vote 718 to 473, rejecting Teamsters’ bid to represent 1,400-member work force. Union officials file unfair labor-practice charges against company.
* November: National Labor Relations Board alleges Vans violated federal labor law while battling the Teamsters’ representation drive. NLRB seeks to overturn April election results and calls for new balloting; Vans denies allegations.
* March 6, 1995: Vans lays off 380 workers at two Southern California factories. Teamsters allege Vans let go those supporting union representation. Vans officials say layoffs were necessary because more of its shoes are being manufactured abroad.
* March 27: Vans shuts down Orange and Vista plants for two weeks, idling nearly 2,000 workers and signaling possible permanent closure. Teamsters say closure is attempt to squelch unionization efforts; Vans maintains it is based on consumer demand for new shoe line manufactured offshore.
* April 6: NLRB meets with Vans in attempt to avoid trial set for May 1. Company agrees to allow new union election, but talks break down when NLRB insists that officials admit to unfairly pressuring employees to reject the union at previous election.
* April 20: Talks resume; Vans agrees to allow election on June 30, but refuses to admit wrongdoing.
Source: Times reports.
Researched by JANICE L. JONES / Los Angeles Times
