SMITHFIELD AND THE LAW

Smithfield Packing is a serial labor law violator, repeatedly violating the U.S. law.  The company blatantly refused to abide by National Labor Relations Board decisions which ordered it to stop unlawfully assaulting, firing, intimidating and threatening workers with violence and arrest until the May 2006 court order issue. Even after a federal appeals court ruled against Smithfield and upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s cease and desist order, Smithfield’s official representatives stated in an interview that they had done nothing wrong and would continue business as usual.  Since that time, the company has engaged in additional unlawful conduct

Smithfield's History of Disregard for U.S. Law

1995: National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) general counsel issues its first complaint charging Smithfield with massive violations of labor law involving intimidation and threats against workers. In 1997, on the eve of trial, Joseph Luter, the Chairman and CEO of Smithfield Foods, the parent company of Smithfield Packing, agrees to rerun an NLRB election during which the Company pledges not to violate federal labor law by engaging in the illegal activities committed during the 1994 campaign.

1997: During the election drive Smithfield quickly breaks it promise and commits widespread violations of federal labor law.  The company management illegally fires, assaults, intimidates, falsely arrests, and threatens its workers with violence, profanity, arrest, plant closings and job loss.  Following the vote, Smithfield security guards and managers hurl racial slurs at the Black workers, beat a worker and a Union representative, and falsely arrest a worker and a Union representative.

1998: The NLRB General Counsel issues another complaint charging Smithfield with massive illegal activity during the 1997 campaign and election.

1998 and 1999: A 13-week trial culminates in a decision in 2000 by NLRB Administrative Law Judge John West finding Smithfield guilty of massive and hallmark violations of federal labor law; Judge West also rules that Smithfield’s lawyers lied during their testimony.

2000: Smithfield forms its own company police force.  The force patrols the plant, carries concealed weapons on and off duty, and has the power to arrest workers and detain them at the plant.  The company disbands the police force in 2005.

2003: Employees who worked for Smithfield plant cleaning contractor QSI banded together to protest demeaning working conditions, including the firing of first-line supervisor who championed their cause, and walked off the job.  Smithfield used its private police force to threaten employees with arrest by federal immigration authorities, cause the arrest of an employee, and physically assault employees.

2004: The NLRB rules that Smithfield engaged in massive illegal activity during both 1990’s organizing campaigns and the 1997 election and orders extensive remedies.   There were over 50 violations of the law.

2006: NLRB affirms administrative law judge’s finding that QSI employees’ walk-out was protected activity and a reasonable means of protest.  Following NLRB ruling, QSI is joined by Smithfield in appealing Board decision and order to court of appeals.

2006: The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit fully enforces the Board’s decision and order of the 2004 Tar Heel case. Smithfield representatives tell reporters that the Company disagrees with the decision even though they acknowledge that there is no legal basis for appeal.   The court affirms the NLRB’s broad cease and desist order because Smithfield engaged in such widespread misconduct as to “demonstrate a general disregard for employees’ fundamental statutory rights.”

2006: More than 5 ½ years after the Administrative Law Judge issued findings in a case filed against Smithfield Packing for unlawful conduct at its Wilson, NC plant, the National Labor Relations Board issues a decision which in large measure affirms the judge’s earlier findings of illegal intimidation of employees during a four-month organizing drive and election in 1999 at the pork processing plant. The Board sets aside the elections and concludes that Smithfield engaged in “objectionable conduct” that made a fair election impossible.  The Board rules that Smithfield committed a host of violations, including, discharging employees because of their union activities, threatening employees with plant closure because of their union activities;  unlawfully interrogating employees about their union activities; threatening employees with job loss because of their union activities;  threatening employees with loss of benefits because of their union activities;  threatening employees with loss of pay as well as unspecified reprisals because of their union activities;  threatening employees with the futility of selecting the Union; and interfering with an employee’s worker’s compensation benefits because of the employee’s union activities.

2007: QSI settles with NLRB while appeal is pending before the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals.  QSI pays 14 discharged employees $175,000 in back wages and agrees to clear their employment records.  QSI mails NLRB notice to all employees who worked for employer within 6 months following firings, acknowledging violations of law and agreeing not to interfere with employees’ right to engage in concerted activity.

2007: Smithfield complies with the 2006 DC Circuit order involving the 1990’s Tar Heel violations by paying illegally discharged employees $1.5 million in back wages and reinstating those who wanted to return to their jobs at the plant.

2007: Federal appeals court let stand NLRB decision and order that found that Smithfield committed massive violations against its Wilson plant employees who attempted to organize a union in 1999.

2007: Smithfield continues its appeal in 4th Circuit of 2006 NLRB decision in QSI case.  In December, 4th Circuit reversed the NLRB decision and order regarding Smithfield’s actions in connection with QSI employees.  4th Circuit ruled that QSI employee walkout was not protected because it was unreasonable means of protest, as it caused Smithfield financial harm due to production losses.  4th Circuit did not rule upon fired supervisor’s relationship with employees in assisting them to improve demeaning working conditions.