Union files grievance against West Columbia chicken plant after workers fired
The union for workers at a West Columbia chicken processing plant hit the company with an official allegation that the company broke its contract when about a dozen workers were fired after asking for better pay and better working conditions.
The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1996 filed the grievance against House of Raeford, which operates the West Columbia poultry plant sometimes called Columbia farms, after a May 6 protest by about a dozen workers. The workers wanted increased pay and better safety measures amid the increased risk of working during the coronavirus outbreak
The union began an investigation of the firings the following week. The union doesn’t comment on the details of specific grievances or investigations, UFCW 1996 spokesperson Valerie Barnhart said.
House of Raeford confirmed it received the grievance and said the issue concerned “an unauthorized work stoppage by a small group of employees.”
“We think the grievance is without merit, and we look forward to a conclusion of the matter,” House of Raeford spokesperson Dave Witter said.
Workers contend they protested and were fired during a break.
In a unionized workplace, a grievance typically refers to a formal complaint process used to address issues related to an employer not complying with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, she said.
Meatpacking and poultry processing workers and companies are being hit hard by the coronavirus across the United States. House of Raeford’s West Columbia plant hasn’t had any known cases of the virus, according to the company.
Amp Furman worked at the plant putting together boxes for the processed chicken. He was fired after taking part in the protest. The union’s grievance filing gave him no satisfaction.
He didn’t feel the union supported workers as well as they could have when he was employed there, he said. When workers wanted better pay for working during the coronavirus, he thought the union would have his back, but they didn’t he said.
The union’s process for addressing workplace concerns was not followed by workers, Barnhart told The State. If workers had issues, they could have brought them to their union representative who would have started negotiations with the company.
The union’s grievance with the company signals a change in how the union perceives the workers’ firing.
Following the workers’ action on May 6, UFCW 1996 called the protest “unsanctioned activity,” likening their action to a “wildcat strike.”
While the union still considers the protest unsanctioned activity, the grievance indicates the union may now be considering the workers should have been protected from firing because they were engaging in “concerted activity,” or when a group of workers engage supervisors about workplace concerns. Workers who engage in concerted activity are protected from firing by federal labor law.
Even if the grievance process ended with an offer for Furman to have his job back at the plant, he wouldn’t take it, he said.
“I ain’t going back to work there,” he said.