Royal

Trader Joe's Location Pushes to Remove Union: What’s Happening?

August 14, 2024

By: Sabba Salebaigi-Tse, Esq.

Recent developments at the Trader Joe’s location in Hadley, MA have garnered attention as employees filed a petition to decertify their union. The petition, submitted on July 30, 2024, with the help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, marks a significant shift for a store that was the company’s first to unionize less than two years ago.


Employee Dissatisfaction

Employees at the Hadley store have expressed dissatisfaction with the union’s performance. Some who initially supported union representation are now claiming that the union has failed to negotiate effectively and address workers’ concerns. As a result, nearly 50% of the store’s employees are backing the decertification effort.


Decertification Process

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has yet to fully review the decertification petition. If the NLRB approves it, an election will be scheduled to determine if the majority of employees want to keep or remove the union. Trader Joe’s has stated it supports the employees’ right to choose their representation freely and is committed to a fair process.


Concerns Raised

Employees have criticized the union for using aggressive tactics and making misleading claims about working conditions. They argue that the union has caused division rather than improving the work environment. Some have publicly stated that they felt more respected by management before the unionization process.


Next Steps

As the NLRB reviews the petition and decides on the next steps, the outcome will be pivotal for the Hadley store’s workforce. A successful decertification vote could reshape the store’s labor relations landscape and influence discussions on unionization at other locations.


The situation at the Trader Joe’s location in Hadley, MA illustrates how employee views on unions can change over time. It emphasizes the need for clear and effective labor representation and shows the evolving nature of workplace advocacy. Employers who stay informed and adapt to these changes can better manage union-related issues and potentially benefit from a well-handled unionization process.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.


Sabba Salebaigi-Tse is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: