The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed a fresh complaint against Apple, accusing the company of a fourth example of illegal union-busting.
The first Apple Store workers to unionize were denied employee benefits offered to other staff in the same store, in what the NLRB alleges was a (failed) attempt to influence a unionization vote at a second store …
Apple’s history of illegal union-busting
A unionization movement among Apple Store workers has seen the Cupertino company found guilty of a number of illegal union-busting measures. Complaints range from mandatory attendance at anti-union meetings through creating a fake union and penalizing union members to firing union activists and conducting coercive interrogations.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and a judge have already upheld claims of three illegal Apple union-busting tactics, and two members of Congress said there appears to be a recurring pattern of the Cupertino company breaking labor laws.
Apple said earlier this year that it is appealing the court ruling in the coercive interrogations case.
Apple Store unionized workers denied benefits
The Towson, Maryland store was the first in the world to unionize, and it appears Apple didn’t want other stores following its example.
Just days ahead of the second store unionization vote – at the Penn Square store in Oklahoma City – Apple took action. The company extended new benefits to non-unionized employees at the Maryland store, while denying them to union members.
If that was indeed intended to have a chilling effect on the Oklahoma City staff, it failed: they voted in favor of unionizing.
NLRB now investigating legality of Apple’s move
The Verge reports that the NLRB has now scheduled a hearing to determine whether Apple broke the law.
In the complaint, the NLRB alleges Apple didn’t extend enhanced benefits to Towson workers with the goal of “discouraging” other employees from unionizing. Some of those new benefits include new healthcare options, a free Coursera subscription, and prepaid tuition at some colleges.
The board said at the time that the move appeared to be illegal.
Wilma Liebman, a chairperson for the National Labor Relations Board, told Bloomberg that the company’s move to block benefits could be a violation of labor law, saying it was “hard to see how they could come up with a legitimate reason for the timing other than to influence the outcome of the election.”
Apple has until December 5 to respond to the complaint, and the hearing has been scheduled for February 20 2024.
The company had not responded to a request for comment at the time of writing.
9to5Mac’s Take
Apple will likely argue that once a store has unionized, it cannot introduce any changes in terms and conditions to union members without collective bargaining. In other words, it can do what it likes with non-union members, but must negotiate with the union in respect of union members.
This is correct. However, Apple could easily have written to the union to propose extending the same benefits to union members, with or without concessions from the union. It did not do so, and indeed failed to respond to a request for talks.
Given the circumstances, Apple is likely to have a tough time persuading a judge that it acted in good faith, and that the timing of the move was purely coincidental.
More generally, being repeatedly found guilty of breaking labor laws is a terrible look for the company. We’d repeat the suggestion we made right at the beginning of this mess: Act in cooperation with staff, rather than engaging in a series of very public fights.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments