Sanders White House Campaign Hit with Federal Labor Complaint

[Gothmog]

82. ULP Charge Against Sanders' Campaign Details Classic 'Union-Busting' Allegations

These are serious charges https://laborunionreport.com/2019/07/25/ulp-charge-against-sanders-campaign-detail-classic-union-busting-allegations/

Here is the statement of the complainant, which also indicates the individual will be filing a charge against the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) for allegedly breaching its Duty of Fair Representation (the ‘DFR’ referenced below):

“The employer failed to notify us upon hire that we had a CBA and maintained that we were “at-will.” Employer violated the CBA by requiring additional work days, and failing to provide days off as required. Employer further violated the CBA in multiple ways, and the Union did nothing (I will be filing a DFR against them). At hiring, employer promised some employees housing, and not others; some were promised expenses, and others were not. The CBA requires relocation expenses be paid. Employer retaliated against me when I organized the bargaining unit and sent an email requesting compliance with the CBA (I understand CBA violations are not ULPs– the ULP arises from the retaliation).”

The allegations contained within the unfair fair labor practice charge are the type that employers often face when they are accused of so-called ‘union busting’. . . except the Sanders campaign purposefully unionized its own staff.

These are classic union busting type allegations are taken seriously by the officials and the courts. The petition has the following specific allegations

Here are the specific alleged violations of law, as contained in the unfair labor practice charge agains the Sanders campaign:

Within the previous six months, the Employer discharged an employee(s) because the employee(s) joined or supported a labor organization and in order to discourage union activities and/or membership.

Within the previous six months, the Employer discharged an employee(s) because the employee(s) engaged in protected concerted activities by, inter alia, discussing wages and/or other terms and conditions of employment and in order to discourage employees from engaging in protected concerted activities.

Within the previous six months, the Employer discharged an employee(s) because the employee(s) engaged in protected concerted activities by, inter alia, protesting terms and conditions of employment and in order to discourage employees from engaging in protected concerted activities.

Within the previous six months, the Employer disciplined or retaliated against an employee(s) because the employee(s) joined or supported a labor organization and in order to discourage union activities and/or membership.


Within the previous six months, the Employer disciplined or retaliated against an employee(s) because the employee(s) engaged in protected concerted activities by, inter alia, discussing wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment and in order to discourage employees from engaging in protected concerted activities.

Within the previous six months, the Employer disciplined or retaliated against an employee(s) because the employee(s) engaged in protected concerted activities by, inter alia, protesting terms and conditions of employment and in order to discourage employees from engaging in protected concerted activities.

Within the previous six-months, the Employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights protected b Section 7 of the Act b interrogating employees about their union activities.

Within the previous six months, the Employer failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the union as the collective bargaining representative of its employees by making unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment.