|
Updated Position Paper from UFCW Union Local 186-D
|
Jerry Barlow
|
Oct 25, 2001 14:18 PDT
|
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, ALF-CIO, CLC
Local 186D (Charles Krug Winery, St. Helena, CA)
====================================================================
October 25, 2001
At the onset of contract negotiations, the Charles Krug winery postulated
genuine concern for its employees, claiming that union hostility, and the
Union's refusal to meet and bargain, were what had prevented a satisfactory
agreement between the winery and the workers.
Despite these allegations against the union, the winery made its real
intentions apparent. The Littler Mendelson law firm worked with the
winery to force an impasse on mandatory subjects of bargaining, and
thus gave the union no alternative but to call a strike, a strategy
meant to result in eventual decertification.
Relevant facts give an accurate depiction of events:
1. March 1, 2001, the first day of negotiations: the company
threatened an end to medical benefits if the contract was not ratified by
the last day of March. M. Mondavi challenged the union committee: "Why
don't you just get it over with and strike us, I can afford it?"
The union filed charges of surface bargaining, cessation of medical
benefits, and refusal to bargain in good faith; and sought injunctive
relief, charging that the lockout was illegal, a charge that is still under
appeal.
2. The company's purported seven-day-a-week negotiating commitment
disappears upon examination. Actually, the first two months of
negotiations during March and April were prescheduled in early
February. The company dramatically reduced wages (by $3.00/HR for
some) in its first proposal, which also eliminated job
classifications, threatened workers with loss of medical coverage and
excessive discipline, and sought union approval for as-yet-unwritten
work performance standards.
The winery repeatedly denied union requests to have these performance
standards (including skills, safety records, and attendance) in writing.
Faced with insufficient information, the union spent the entire day of June
28th in caucus, transmitting a proposal to the company the next morning.
3. The winery claims that if the union had guaranteed no strike during
the harvest season workers would have suffered no loss of pay. However, the
Company's unwillingness to bargain in spring made it abundantly clear that
there would be no bargaining once the harvest was home. Having failed to
coerce the union to go back to work without a written contract, the winery
fabricated a scenario on which it then acted.
4. The threat made in March by M. Mondavi became reality in April and
May, when the workers and employees of the Charles Krug winery (some
with 30 and 40 years' seniority) were deprived of all medical
coverage. The union received numerous calls from members who required
medical attention but could not pay for it.
5. The winery claims to be offering most of its employee's wage
increases, and is tempting some with large jumps in pay (as much as 21%)
while other paychecks are being reduced, some by as much as 18%.
The winery's "proposal" had been rejected unanimously so now it seeks to
divide that solidarity through the use of bribes to a few if they will
betray the rest.
The foregoing is a summary of the present status of things between Local
186D and the Charles Krug winery under the ownership of M. Mondavi. Thanks
to tremendous support from the community, other unions, and labor councils,
we have been able to maintain solidarity and continue pressing the winery to
end its strong-arm tactics against its workers and their families, so that
we can return to work on terms that are fair and fully disclosed. We thank
those who together with us keep faith not only with the workers at Charles
Krug winery, but with all workers and families.
On behalf of the workers on strike, their families, and their friends, we
thank all of you for the past, present, and continuing support that sustains
us.
Sincerely and Fraternally,
Jerry Barlow
President
|
|
 |
|
