That may as well have been the management philosophy at United Food & Commercial Workers Local 7.
Earlier this week, an NLRB administrative law judge found that UFCW Local 7 unlawfully suspended and fired one of its own employees because of his union activity and because he testified against the union in an NLRB proceeding.
Yes, you read that correctly.
A labor union retaliated against an employee for engaging in protected union activity.
You can't make this stuff up.
Randy Blea worked for UFCW Local 7 for more than a decade as a union representative, assisting employees at Denver-area grocery stores. But Blea was also an employee of the union. And he and the union's other representatives were themselves represented by another union, the Federation of Agents & International Representatives Union, or FAIR.
That arrangement created a deliciously awkward situation: UFCW Local 7 was both a labor union and an employer.
And according to Administrative Law Judge Charles Muhl, it behaved exactly like the kind of employer unions love to condemn.
Blea had served as a FAIR steward for approximately four years. On August 31, 2023, he testified in an earlier NLRB trial supporting allegations that UFCW Local 7 had committed unfair labor practices against its own union-representative employees. Seven days later, Local 7 suspended him. Fifteen days after that, it fired him.
Local 7 claimed the termination resulted from poor performance, failure to follow directives, and dishonesty.
The judge wasn't buying it.
Among other problems, the timing was terrible. The union argued that it had begun investigating Blea before his testimony, but the judge found that its investigation into his overall performance actually began on September 6 — less than a week after he took the witness stand against his employer.
Then there was progressive discipline.
Local 7 insisted that it had treated Blea consistently with other employees. Yet the judge found otherwise. Blea had not received any discipline for more than a year before his termination. Other employees who were ultimately discharged had accumulated substantially more serious disciplinary histories, including multiple suspensions, final warnings, and last-chance agreements.
In other words, the union apparently believed in progressive discipline when it benefited other employees. Just not this employee.
The hypocrisy gets richer.
In an earlier case, another NLRB judge had found that Local 7 told its employees that grievance and arbitration procedures under their expired collective bargaining agreement no longer existed. It also told employees who complained about working conditions that they could work elsewhere or resign, disparaged FAIR, and failed to bargain in good faith with the union representing its employees.
This should sound familiar. It's the exact sort of conduct unions routinely accuse employers of committing.
Then Local 7 somehow managed to make things worse.
After his termination, Blea went to work for King Soopers, where — irony upon irony — Local 7 represented him.
Five days before the end of Blea's probationary period, one of Local 7's representatives confronted him about flyers supposedly critical of the union president. After the confrontation, the union representative falsely reported that Blea had threatened him with physical violence. Local 7 then passed that accusation along to King Soopers and asked whether Blea had been suspended pending investigation.
King Soopers investigated. It determined there wasn't enough evidence to substantiate the alleged threat.
The ALJ concluded that Local 7's conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act because it attempted to cause King Soopers to take adverse action against Blea based on his perceived dissident union activity.
So Local 7 wasn't merely accused of retaliating against its own employee for protected union activity. It then became his bargaining representative and tried to get his new employer to discipline or fire him for dissident union activity.
Chef's kiss.
The judge found that Local 7 violated Sections 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(4) by suspending and firing Blea, and Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) by trying to get King Soopers to discipline or discharge him. The recommended remedy includes reinstatement, back pay, removal of references to the unlawful discipline from Blea's personnel records, and a notice promising employees that the union won't do it again.
And yes, there is something extraordinarily satisfying about a union being ordered to post this:
And:
A couple of important caveats: this is an ALJ decision, not yet a final Board decision, and the recommended order will be subject to the NLRB's normal review process if exceptions are filed.
Still, the case illustrates something I've said for years:
Five days before the end of Blea's probationary period, one of Local 7's representatives confronted him about flyers supposedly critical of the union president. After the confrontation, the union representative falsely reported that Blea had threatened him with physical violence. Local 7 then passed that accusation along to King Soopers and asked whether Blea had been suspended pending investigation.
King Soopers investigated. It determined there wasn't enough evidence to substantiate the alleged threat.
The ALJ concluded that Local 7's conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act because it attempted to cause King Soopers to take adverse action against Blea based on his perceived dissident union activity.
So Local 7 wasn't merely accused of retaliating against its own employee for protected union activity. It then became his bargaining representative and tried to get his new employer to discipline or fire him for dissident union activity.
Chef's kiss.
The judge found that Local 7 violated Sections 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(4) by suspending and firing Blea, and Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) by trying to get King Soopers to discipline or discharge him. The recommended remedy includes reinstatement, back pay, removal of references to the unlawful discipline from Blea's personnel records, and a notice promising employees that the union won't do it again.
And yes, there is something extraordinarily satisfying about a union being ordered to post this:
"WE WILL NOT suspend or discharge employees for engaging in union activity or for testifying in a National Labor Relations Board trial."
And:
"WE WILL NOT attempt to cause an employer to discipline or discharge an employee due to the employee's dissident union activities."
A couple of important caveats: this is an ALJ decision, not yet a final Board decision, and the recommended order will be subject to the NLRB's normal review process if exceptions are filed.
Still, the case illustrates something I've said for years:
When I say I don't like labor unions, it's not because I'm a management-side employment lawyer. And it's not because I'm anti-employee. Neither is true.
It's because we too often romanticize labor unions as if they are somehow fundamentally different from the employers they organize against.
They're not.
A union is a business.
It collects revenue. It pays employees. It has executives. It negotiates contracts. It manages labor costs. It protects its institutional reputation. It worries about dissent. It has political interests. It makes strategic decisions designed to preserve its power and advance its organizational objectives.
None of that is inherently wrong. Businesses do exactly the same things. But that's precisely the point.
We shouldn't expect a union to subordinate its institutional interests to those of its members any more than we should expect a corporation to subordinate its institutional interests to those of every individual employee.
Sometimes those interests align. Sometimes they don't.
And when they don't, unions can behave every bit as selfishly, defensively, vindictively, and illegally as the employers they spend their existence criticizing.
UFCW Local 7 apparently wanted employers to respect employees' rights to organize, complain about working conditions, file grievances, testify before the NLRB, and engage in union dissent.
It just wasn't nearly as enthusiastic about those rights when its own employees exercised them against the union.
Do as I say. Not as I do.
It's because we too often romanticize labor unions as if they are somehow fundamentally different from the employers they organize against.
They're not.
A union is a business.
It collects revenue. It pays employees. It has executives. It negotiates contracts. It manages labor costs. It protects its institutional reputation. It worries about dissent. It has political interests. It makes strategic decisions designed to preserve its power and advance its organizational objectives.
None of that is inherently wrong. Businesses do exactly the same things. But that's precisely the point.
We shouldn't expect a union to subordinate its institutional interests to those of its members any more than we should expect a corporation to subordinate its institutional interests to those of every individual employee.
Sometimes those interests align. Sometimes they don't.
And when they don't, unions can behave every bit as selfishly, defensively, vindictively, and illegally as the employers they spend their existence criticizing.
UFCW Local 7 apparently wanted employers to respect employees' rights to organize, complain about working conditions, file grievances, testify before the NLRB, and engage in union dissent.
It just wasn't nearly as enthusiastic about those rights when its own employees exercised them against the union.
Do as I say. Not as I do.