UFCW makes all unions look bad when they break labor laws.

There is a particular kind of institutional failure that becomes visible only when an organization is forced to live by the rules it expects others to follow.

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 is a labor organization whose work includes representing workers in retail grocery, food processing and healthcare. But the employees at the center of this case were not grocery-store workers bargaining with a supermarket chain. They were staff members working for the union itself, represented by another union: the Federation of Agents and International Representatives, known as FAIR.

That arrangement put Local 7 on the other side of a familiar line. It was no longer acting as the representative of workers confronting an employer. It was the employer, facing employees who wanted their working conditions addressed through collective bargaining.

The resulting dispute became a sprawling labor-law case involving equipment, credit cards, workplace complaints, grievance procedures, vehicle allowances and negotiations over successor contracts. On September 30, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board issued its decision in United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, finding multiple unfair labor practices and ordering remedies intended to address both individual losses and damage to the bargaining process.

A workplace dispute that began amid a difficult strike

The conflict unfolded against a demanding period for Local 7’s staff. In January 2022, workers represented by Local 7 at King Soopers grocery stores in the Denver metropolitan area went on strike for nine days. Local 7’s representatives and organizers helped support the strike, working long hours in difficult winter conditions.

The administrative law judge’s decision describes staff members reporting exhausting schedules, problems with paperwork and digital systems, disorganization and concerns about work-life balance. One representative testified that he had worked 60 to 70 hours a week in the lead-up to the strike and more than 90 hours during it. Another described working 100 hours per week during the relevant period.

These were not merely abstract disagreements about management style. The employees were describing the practical conditions under which they were expected to do their jobs: long shifts, difficult weather, operational problems and fatigue. Their complaints were made collectively, including during a video call attended by union management and representatives from other labor organizations.

After the strike, Local 7 President Kim Cordova held a meeting with representatives and organizers who had worked on it. Witnesses described a message that employees were highly compensated, that the work would become more difficult and that those who could not accept the conditions could work elsewhere or resign.

Cordova disputed aspects of the witnesses’ accounts. The administrative law judge credited testimony from employees who described the remarks as effectively presenting two options: accept the working conditions or leave. The judge concluded that inviting employees to quit in response to concerted workplace complaints could implicitly threaten their continued employment and violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.

The significance is broader than whether a particular manager used a particular phrase. When employees raise shared concerns about workload or working conditions, the law protects their ability to act together. Telling them to leave rather than pursue those concerns through collective activity can send a powerful message: speaking up may put their place at work at risk.

When bargaining ended for the day, employees were told to return their equipment

The equipment dispute brought the conflict between Local 7 and FAIR into sharper focus.

On June 25, 2022, the parties were negotiating successor collective-bargaining agreements. FAIR rejected a comprehensive proposal from Local 7, and the union representatives decided to end negotiations for the day and regroup. Additional bargaining dates were already scheduled.

Within minutes, FAIR representatives were told to return certain work equipment to Local 7’s Wheat Ridge office by midnight. An email directed staff to turn in their credit cards, computers and keys. A follow-up email clarified the instruction.

Local 7 subsequently required employees to check out and check in certain equipment each day. The Board found that the confiscation and daily equipment requirements were unlawful unilateral changes to employees’ working conditions. It also upheld the finding that the confiscation was discriminatory under Sections 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1).

The case was not simply about an employer’s right to keep track of its property. The Board’s order specifically prohibited Local 7 from confiscating work equipment and employer-provided credit cards, or requiring daily equipment check-in and check-out, because of employees’ support for FAIR. It also prohibited telling employees that their equipment had been confiscated because they supported FAIR or might strike.

The distinction matters. Employers can have legitimate interests in safeguarding equipment, including during a labor dispute. The Board expressly noted that its findings did not mean it was necessarily unlawful for an employer to require the return of its property in the event of a strike. The violation here concerned the circumstances and the legal obligations surrounding the action taken against represented employees.

Confiscating work tools and payment cards can also affect the practical ability to do a job. The Board’s decision identified a particularly concrete financial consequence of taking away employer-provided credit cards: employees were required to use their personal cards for work expenses and then seek reimbursement. The remedy therefore required Local 7 to make whole employees who incurred credit-card late fees or interest as a result, along with other direct or foreseeable financial harms covered by the order.

The grievance procedure didn’t simply poof out of existence when the contracts expired

Another central dispute concerned what happens when a collective-bargaining agreement expires before a successor agreement is in place.

Local 7 and FAIR had contracts covering two bargaining units — retail and meat — that expired on June 25, 2022. While the parties negotiated successor agreements, Local 7 took the position that elements of the grievance procedure were no longer in effect. The Board found that Local 7 unlawfully discontinued contractual grievance-procedure provisions and told employees that the procedures were no longer in force because the contracts had expired.

A grievance procedure is not just contractual housekeeping. It is a means by which employees can challenge workplace decisions and seek resolution through a process negotiated by their representative. If an employer can unilaterally declare that process unavailable as soon as a contract expires, workers may lose a practical avenue for addressing disputes precisely when negotiations are unsettled.

The Board ordered Local 7 to reinstate and continue the grievance-procedure provisions of the expired agreements. On request, it must also process grievances it had refused to handle since the agreements expired.

The order addresses more than the wording of a policy. It seeks to restore a mechanism through which employees can raise disputes and obtain consideration of their claims, rather than leaving those claims stranded while contract negotiations continue.

A $59 monthly reduction became a bargaining-law violation

The dispute also reached a recurring expense for staff who used their personal vehicles for work: the monthly in-town car allowance.

The contracts specified an in-town allowance of $780 and provided for an annual review of the average cost of union cars. Local 7 had historically calculated the rate internally, using vehicle-related expenses, and announced the results to staff. In 2021, it raised the in-town allowance to $868.

After the 2022 review, Local 7 announced that the in-town allowance would fall from $868 to approximately $809, while the out-of-town allowance would rise. The reduction was announced without first notifying FAIR and offering it an opportunity to bargain over the change. Employees expressed frustration about the reduction, particularly in light of rising gas prices.

The administrative law judge initially found that FAIR had waived its right to bargain over the reduction. The Board rejected that conclusion.

The Board reasoned that a history of reviewing the allowance and announcing rates did not clearly and unmistakably establish that FAIR had given up its right to bargain over a decrease. Before 2022, the allowance had not been reduced from the existing rate after an annual review. A history of accepting the continuation of a rate or an increase did not prove that FAIR had knowingly surrendered its right to bargain over a cut.

The Board therefore found that Local 7 violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally reducing the in-town car allowance. It ordered Local 7 to compensate affected employees for losses of earnings and benefits attributable to the unlawful reduction, as well as other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms covered by the remedy.

The decision illustrates a basic rule of collective bargaining: a past practice does not automatically give an employer unrestricted authority to change a mandatory employment term. The fact that a union previously accepted one kind of adjustment does not necessarily establish that it surrendered the right to negotiate a different one.

The dispute at the bargaining table was about who would be represented

Local 7’s conflict with FAIR was not confined to equipment and expenses. The negotiations themselves became a major part of the case.

Local 7 proposed removing executive secretaries from the bargaining unit, asserting that they were confidential employees. FAIR objected, noting that the executive secretaries had been included in the unit for a considerable period. Local 7 presented a comprehensive proposal on an all-or-nothing basis, rather than allowing the parties to agree separately on an otherwise acceptable provision.

The Board found that Local 7 conditioned agreement on successor contracts on FAIR accepting a nonmandatory bargaining proposal. In labor law, mandatory subjects generally include wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. A nonmandatory subject cannot lawfully be imposed as the price of reaching agreement on mandatory subjects when the legal standard prohibits that insistence.

The Board also upheld the finding that Local 7 engaged in overall bad-faith bargaining. Its conclusion rested on the totality of conduct, including behavior at and away from the bargaining table. The Board’s order required Local 7 to bargain in good faith with FAIR over successor agreements without insisting that FAIR consent to a nonmandatory proposal as a condition of an overall agreement.

This is where the institutional stakes become especially clear. Collective bargaining depends on a process in which each side can advance proposals, reject terms and negotiate toward an agreement within the boundaries of the law. If one side uses its control over employees’ working conditions to pressure the representative into surrendering a disputed position, the bargaining process itself is undermined.

The Board also ordered Local 7 to compensate FAIR for bargaining expenses incurred through August 27, 2023, when Local 7 finally abandoned its demand to exclude executive secretaries. It further ordered compensation for affected employee negotiators for qualifying earnings lost while attending bargaining sessions, to the extent FAIR had not reimbursed those losses.

Those remedies recognize that bad-faith bargaining can impose costs beyond the immediate disagreement over contract language. Time spent in negotiations that are conducted unlawfully is time and money that cannot be recovered simply by declaring that the process should have been fairer.

What the ruling means for workers — and for the credibility of labor institutions

The immediate consequences in this case are practical. Employees may be entitled to compensation for losses tied to the unlawful car-allowance reduction, credit-card fees and interest, and other covered financial harms. Local 7 must restore grievance procedures and process qualifying grievances on request. It must bargain in good faith, and it must post notices informing employees of their rights and the Board’s findings.

The wider lesson is about institutional accountability. Labor organizations often ask employers to respect workers’ collective rights, maintain fair procedures and negotiate in good faith. Those demands are central to the role unions play in the workplace. But the legal protections do not disappear when a union itself becomes an employer.

When employees’ equipment is taken away in the context of union activity, when grievance procedures are treated as expired and unusable, or when negotiations are conditioned on accepting a disputed nonmandatory proposal, the effects extend beyond a single meeting or contract clause. Workers may face added expenses, lose a route for resolving workplace disputes, or become less willing to raise concerns together. A bargaining representative may also have to spend resources responding to conduct that the law requires it to be protected from.

These are the kinds of consequences labor law is designed to address. It is not enough for an organization to endorse collective bargaining as a principle; the process must be respected when its own employees invoke it.

Primary source: National Labor Relations Board, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 and Federation of Agents and International Representatives and Elizabeth Wesley and Eduardo Alvarado, Cases 27–CA–298239, 27–CA–301489, 27–CA–303052 and 27–CA–298873, Decision and Order (September 30, 2026). The Board decision and related case materials are available through the NLRB case page.