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.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. 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.