IBJNews

Marsh agrees to settle labor complaint

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Marsh Supermarkets Inc. has agreed to pay a total of $42,500 to settle a National Labor Relations Board case accusing the grocery chain of interfering with workers’ attempts to unionize.

The Fishers-based company, which has “vehemently” denied the charges brought by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, did not admit any wrongdoing.

Signed Tuesday, the settlement calls for Marsh to compensate two former employees for wages and other benefits lost as a result of disciplinary action against them. Neither of the workers, who were fired during attempts to organize a union, wants his job back.

"Marsh has consistently maintained that we did not violate the (federal labor laws) and insisted on including a non-admissions statement in the settlement as well as no reinstatement" for the fired employees, the supermarket chain said in a prepared statement issued Wednesday morning.

Marsh was accused of violating employee rights at its Beech Grove and Georgetown Road stores in advance of a scheduled vote to unionize in September. NLRB accused the chain of placing workers under surveillance and threatening employees with retaliation for supporting unionization.

An NLRB hearing was set for Wednesday.

Under the settlement, the company will be required to post notices informing employees at those stores of their rights to organize, and it must agree not to interfere with such efforts.

As IBJ reported last fall, the union drive picked up steam as Marsh's parent company tried to sell the chain then pulled it off the market after failing to find a buyer.  

Florida-based private equity firm Sun Capital Partners, which bought Marsh for $88 million in cash and the assumption of $237 million in debt, found no takers after it began marketing Marsh for $130 million to $150 million in late 2009.

The labor relations board certified a 44-employee bargaining unit at the Beech Grove Marsh store, and a vote to authorize the union was scheduled for September.

But Local 700 canceled the election after Marsh reportedly fired an employee in retaliation for his organizing activities, assigned corporate staff to the store on Albany Street in Beech Grove to intimidate employees, and trained security cameras on one employee.


ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. something to take iman's mind off CART,,,the league itsownself doesn't do it

  2. Someone mentioned a green roof. Every designer of a new urban building should be required to at least explore the feasibility of a green roof. The ability to cut carbon dioxide, save precious rainwater (drought this summer??) and re-use grey water, cool the building cheaper, and improve the view for neighbors, should be, not only the good neighbor thing to do, it should be the responsible neighbor thing to do. Too bad the city didn't require it when they gave up downtown green space for the Simon Building. Surprised they aren't requiring it now.

  3. About the same means down, like the TV ratings.

    My favorite tradition that needs to be brought back is the 25/8 rule.

  4. Your stats are incorrect. The 85k Government employees working in Marion County includes all government workers in Marion county. That is state, federal, non profit agencies, city and county. The stats the article list is the number of employees for all of the city/county employees and it is correct. That number includes the library, airport, convention center, and so on. The policy of extending benefits to domestic partners is consistent with private sector companies of the same size. Isn't the mantra of most conservatives "run the government like a business."

    Also, too say the "fiscal proposil is huge" without considering the actuarial factors involved is a bit of an overstatement. We really don't know if it is huge or not. If all of the people added to the plan are healthy and don't have claims then it could bring cost done or hold them neutral.

  5. There are 85,346 government employees in Marion county according to Stats Indiana.

    My understanding is that this proposal covers not only same sex partners and children, but opposite same sex partners who are not married and any kids.

    It also covers all city and county employees, plus municipal corporations which use city/county benefits packages including Health and Hospital Corporation (Wishard), Indianapolis Airport Authority, Indianapolis Convention Center,Lucas Oil,Bankers Life, Indianapolis Marion County Library, and Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo).

    Certainly Indianapolis Public Schools will also want more benefits also.

    The fiscal cost on this proposal is huge.

ADVERTISEMENT