Page One

Berkeley Bowl Workers Reject Unionization Bid

By JAKOB SCHILLER
Friday October 31, 2003

After more than four months of intensive organizing efforts, Berkeley Bowl workers rejected unionization effort in a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)-supervised election Thursday.  

The final tally was 119 to 70. 

Many of the union advocates who weren’t working when the results were announced left the store in shock, gathering outside as the news sunk in. 

“I’m not beat down over this,” said Kevin Meyer, one of the most involved pro-union employees. “We’ve done good work.” 

Lea Hyke, the Berkeley Bowl’s Human Resource business partner, said she thought the vote was an accurate appraisal of the sentiment among employees. 

“While I don’t think we’ve been the best employer, we’re trying to work with employees,” she said. “I really think that the employees feel that the company is doing its best to take care of them.” 

Meyer and others union supporters attributed their defeat to a strong anti-union campaign. 

“I definitely think that if we had voted two weeks ago before their campaign I think it would have been different,” he said. 

Before the decision to file for an election, the union had signed up 70 percent of the employees on union authorization cards. They said the steep decline in support could only have come from the company’s campaign.  

Meyer said he isn’t going to walk away and hopes the store pursues the changes it has promised employees. 

“If they want me to make the store a better place I’m willing to do it,” he said. 

The announcement of the vote came the end of a day that for many had been characterized by nail-biting tension. Even though it was her day off, pro-union employee Cory Abshear arrived at the store at 6 a.m. and sat outside talking to employees or raced around town to track employees down and ensure they voted.  

The day began with the pro-union side challenging the anti-union side’s choice for election observer. Meyer and Eric Freezell, the pro-union election observers, arrived with Abshear in the morning and met with the National Labor Relations Board representative, lawyers from each side and anti-union observer David Craibe to ensure that everyone was clear about the voting process. They immediately challenged Craibe, saying they disagreed with his classification as a non-supervisor. 

Meyer said that Craibe closes the store on Sundays, the store’s busiest day, which is a duty performed by a supervisor. He also said he had recently been reprimanded by Craibe during one of his shifts. 

In a NLRB election only employees, not supervisors or managers, are eligible to vote, and one of the distinctions that defines a supervisor/manager is the ability to discipline employees. 

The NLRB agreed with the challenge and Craibe was replaced by Kai Huey, the head of the store’s accounting department. 

During the vote both Meyer and Freezell, switching off as pro-union observers, challenged more than 20 of the votes, claiming they were cast by supervisors. They said that over the past few weeks as part of the store’s anti-union campaign, many store and department supervisors had been demoted to make them eligible to vote and increase the anti-union numbers. 

“Everyone I challenged was a supervisor,” said Meyer. “I had no question about it.” 

He said one of those voting still had “supervisor” on his nametag and the tags of several other still bore the glue where the label “supervisor” had appeared only two days ago. 

A high point came for the pro-union side when Arturo Perez walked in and cast his ballot. Perez, one of the most outspoken supporters of the drive, was fired more than a month ago for what the store said were legitimate reasons but what organizers said was an attempt to silence him. 

Perez challenged the dismissal, and his case is pending—which meant that he was still affiliated with the store and thus eligible to vote. 

After the totals were announce Perez had to hold back tears and could only look at the store with frustration.  

“I’m going to win my case,” he said. “But I’m not going to go back. They don’t deserve people like me working for them to make them richer.”