Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow Whatever happened with......... ?????

Whatever happened with......... ?????

Display posts from previous:
Author Message
John Briley
Post Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:40 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 616
MANY OF US FOLLOWED THE HEROIC EFFORTS OF OUR UFCW BROTHERS AND SISTERS DURING THE 2003-2004 GROCERY WORKERS DISPUTE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. INCLUDING THE LEGAL CHALLENGES THAT HAVE CONTINUED OVER THE YEARS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE 4 1/2 MONTH LONG STRIKE.

REGARDING THE LEGAL CHALLENGES, THERE WERE TWO (2) SEPARATE CASES THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FOLLOW TO THEIR CONCLUSION OVER THE YEARS.

SPECIFICALLY:

FIRST...... THE LAWSUIT FILED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER AGAINST ALBERTSONS, RALPHS (OWNED BY KROEGER), FOOD 4 LESS (OWNED BY KROEGER) AND SAFEWAY (OWNERS OF VONS AND PAVILIONS) ALLEGING THAT A MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT REACHED BY GROCERY CHAINS VIOLATES ANTITRUST LAW AND HARMS CONSUMERS.

SECOND..... THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE / FEDERAL GRAND JURY INDICTMENT OF RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY FOR ALLEGEDLY REHIRING WORKERS LOCKED OUT DURING THE 2003-2004 LABOR DISPUTE UNDER FALSE IDENTITIES.

SO THE QUESTION I'VE BEEN ASKING MYSELF LATELY WAS, WHATEVER HAPPENED WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASES AND ARE THEY FINALLY RESOLVED?

SINCE THERE ARE SOME THAT MAY NOT BE FULLY AWARE OF THE ABOVE CASES, I WILL ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE EVERYONE WITH AS MUCH INFORMATION THAT I COULD FIND AND PROVIDE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT I RAISED WITH THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE AND THE U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE.

LET US BEGIN WITH THE FOLLOWING CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF JUSTICE / OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NEWS & ALERTS BULLETINS:

NEWS & ALERTS DATED DECEMBER 1, 2003: ATTORNEY GENERAL LOCKYER LAUNCHES ANTITRUST PROBE OF GROCERS IN LABOR STRIKE:
http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1176&year=2003&month=12

NEWS & ALERTS DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2004: ATTORNEY GENERAL LOCKYER FILES LAWSUIT ALLEGING GROCERS AGREEMENT VIOLATES ANTITRUST LAWS:
http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=619&year=2004&month=

LAWSUIT LINK:
http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/cms04/04-014.pdf

NEWS & ALERTS DATED MAY 25, 2005: ATTORNEY GENERAL LOCKYER WINS LANDMARK RULING IN ANTITRUST CASE AGAINST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GROCERS:
http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=553&year=2005&month=5

THE ABOVE CITED NEWS & ALERTS WERE OBTAINED BY ACCESSING THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WEBSITE:
http://caag.state.ca.us/

IN AN EFFORT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS AND OBTAIN SOME ANSWERS CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED LEGAL CASE I CONTACTED THE FOLLOWING OFFICE:

PUBLIC INQUIRY UNIT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
PIU@doj.ca.gov
1.800.952.5225
1.916.323.5341 (FAX)

MY FIRST QUESTION I DIRECTED TO THE PUBLIC INQUIRY UNIT WAS ON 4/1/08. MY QUESTION WAS AS FOLLOWS;

To Whom It May Concern-- I would like to inquire about the status of the May 25, 2005 News & Alerts Press Release from former Attorney General Lockyer winning a Landmark Ruling in a Antitrust Case against Southern California Grocers.

The Federal District Court Holds Profit Sharing Agreement is subject to Antitrust Laws.

Has this case gone to trial? Has it been resolved ? etc..

THE PUBLIC INQUIRY UNIT RESPONSE TO ME ON APRIL 3, 2008 WAS AS FOLLOWS:

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INQUIRY TO THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL. A CURRENT STATUS OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GROCERS IS AS FOLLOWS: THE DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE NON-STATUTORY LABOR EXEMPTION WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ABANDONED ITS CHALLENGE TO THE REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT UNDER A FULL RULE OF REASON ANALYSIS. THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO AN AGREED-UPON EVIDENTIARY RECORD, WHICH THE COURT CONSIDERED IN ENTERING A FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST THE STATE, BASED ON ITS EARLIER RULINGS. SPECIFICALLY, THESE RULINGS HELD THAT THE REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT WAS NOT ILLEGAL UNDER THE PER SE RULE OR UNDER A QUICK LOOK ANALYSIS. AS A RESULT, THE STATE WILL BE FILING AN APPEAL, SEEKING REVIEW BY THE NINTH CIRCUIT OF APPEAL. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT DEFENDANTS WILL APPEAL THE DENIAL OF THEIR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE NON-STATUTORY LABOR EXEMPTION. THERE WILL BE NO TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR CONTACTING US WITH YOUR REQUEST.

MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION I DIRECTED TO THE PUBLIC INQUIRY UNIT WAS ON 4/3/08. MY QUESTION WAS AS FOLLOWS:

To Whom It May Concern -- I would like to Thank You for your response. However, I'm still a bit confused on your answer.

Specifically, referring to the Press Release dated May 25, 2005:

" The ruling is the first-ever to hold a profit sharing agreement like the grocers' is not immune from antitrust laws. The decision means Lockyer's lawsuit can proceed to a decision on the merits of his allegation that the profit-sharing agreement is unlawfully anti-competitive."

What does that mean? Is that what the Ninth Circuit of Appeal will be reviewing? Additionally, has the appeal been filed? when do you anticipate the court reviewing your appeal?

THE PUBLIC INQUIRY UNIT RESPONSE TO ME ON 4/4/08 WAS AS FOLLOWS:

IN MAY, 2005, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THE DEFENDANTS HAD CLAIMED THAT THE PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WAS IMMUNE FROM THE ANTITRUST LAWS. THE COURT SAID IT WAS NOT. ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT IMMUNE, THE STATE STILL HAD TO PROVE THAT THE AGREEMENT VIOLATED THE ANTITRUST LAWS. THE FINAL JUDGMENT JUST ISSUED HELD THAT THE STATE HAD NOT PROVEN THE REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT WAS AN ANTITRUST VIOLATION UNDER THE PER SE RULE OR APPLYING A QUICK LOOK ANALYSIS. THE APPEAL WILL SEEK REVIEW OF THESE DETERMINATIONS. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE DEFENDANTS WILL REQUEST APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WAS NOT IMMUNE FROM THE ANTITRUST LAWS.

THE STATE ANTICIPATES FILING AN APPEAL SHORTLY. UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE IN NO POSITION TO GIVE AN ESTIMATE ON TIMING FOR THE 9TH CIRCUIT REVIEW. THE COURT HAS A CROWDED DOCKET AND CASES CAN TAKE MANY MONTHS.

IT APPEARS THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE STILL HASN'T BEEN RESOLVED.

TO BE CONTINUED......


NOW LETS MOVE ON TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROBE ALLEGING RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY SECRETLY REHIRED HUNDREDS OF LOCKED OUT EMPLOYEES UNDER FALSE NAMES AND FALSE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS DURING THE 2003-2004 GROCERY WORKERS LABOR DISPUTE.

LET US BEGIN WITH THE FOLLOWING PRESS RELEASES FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS RELEASE DATED DECEMBER 15, 2005: FEDERAL GRAND JURY INDICTS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY FOR ILLEGALLY REHIRING WORKERS LOCKED OUT DURING 2003-2004 LABOR DISPUTE UNDER FALSE IDENTITIES:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pressroom/pr2005/171.html

RALPHS INDICTMENT LINK:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pressroom/pr2005/RalphsIndictment.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS RELEASE DATED JUNE 30, 2006: RALPHS AGREES TO PLEAD GUILTY AND PAY $70 MILLION FOR ILLEGALLY REHIRING WORKERS DURING LABOR ACTION:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pressroom/pr2006/090.html

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS RELEASE DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2006: RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY PAYS $70 MILLION TO RESOLVE CRIMINAL CASE OF REHIRING WORKERS DURING LABOR DISPUTE:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pressroom/pr2006/157.html

THE ABOVE CITED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS RELEASES WERE OBTAINED BY ACCESSING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WEBSITE:
http://www.usdoj.gov/index.html

IN AN EFFORT TO ASK A QUESTION AND OBTAIN AN ANSWER CONCERNING THE STATUS OF A PORTION OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE I CONTACTED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THE FOLLOWING LINK:
ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov

MY QUESTION I DIRECTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON 4/22/08 WAS AS FOLLOWS:

To Whom It May Concern --- I would like to ask some questions concerning the U.S. department of Justice "Press Release" dated November 14, 2006 re: "Ralphs Grocery Company Pays $70 Million To Resolve Criminal Case Of Rehiring Workers During Labor Dispute."

"Federal Judge Formally Sentences Supermarket Chain in Deal that Brings Nearly $50 Million to Reimburse Locked-Out Workers and Unions."

Specifically, I'm referring to the following language found in said Press Release.

" Under the plea agreement with Ralphs, the United States Attorney's Office may continue to investigate and could prosecute current or former executives or employees of Ralphs or related entities if they were involved in the criminal conduct".

Based on the above paragraph, has the United States Attorney's Office concluded their investigation? Have any current or former executives or employees of Ralphs or related entities been implicated in any criminal conduct?

AS OF TODAY'S DATE, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2008, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CONCERNING MY QUESTIONS RAISED IN MY APRIL 22, 2008 E-MAIL.

TO BE CONTINUED..........

IN CLOSING, I HOPE THAT I HAVEN'T BORED EVERYONE WITH THIS INFORMATION. I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO MAY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ENTITIES, TO CONTACT THEM ASAP. PLEASE BE
SURE AND SHARE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU MAY RECEIVE WITH THE REST OF US.

Thank You
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 1:41 am

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2883
Location: the 'puter 		This looks like a different version of the perpetual motion ball game. Players stand in a circle and the game begins by tossing a ball in the air. Another ball is added each round etc. etc.. The goal is to keep as many balls (objects) as possible in motion.

In the labour version of the perpetual ball game teh goal is obviously to keep as many member complaints as possible in motion and going around the circle. From player to player to player and then back again.

The game ends when one ball is dropped.

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
Laboryes
Post Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 2:13 pm

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 1959
Hey John

Most of us know what a cluster fuck dealing with any of these government agencies is like, how they lean towards protecting the corporate end of things while workers get the shaft!

So my question is what can members/workers in So Cal do to force a deeper investigation on these issues and maybe even prosecute a few of these corporate robber barons?

One other question...why hasn't the UFCW IU done more to press some of these government officals(you know the ones that get their pockets lined by the IU with our dues money during election time) to try and prosecute the Ralphs managament morons responsible for the social security fraud deal during the 03-04 grocery strike?

You would think that the UFCW would want real justice for the Sol Cal UFCW members that suffered so badly during the strike? Then again maybe not? I must remember they are "partners" http://groceryworkers.org/partnership.pdf Wink

_________________
"When people refuse to obey, then democracy comes alive."
Howard Zinn
Back to top profile :: pm
John Briley
Post Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:23 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 616
As a follow up, I just happened to find the following website link today, Sunday, May 4, 2008.

Ralphs Restitution Fund:

http://www.ralphsrestitutionfund.com/index.html

I would hope that the affected Ralphs Members were already provided this information prior to the extended May 21, 2007 claim filing deadline.

Does anyone have any update information concerning the Ralphs Restitution Fund? How many Ralphs members were eligible? How many responded? Will there be any additional opportunities for those Ralphs Members who may not have been informed and or responded to the extended May 21, 2007 filing deadline, be able to file a claim now? If there is any money left over in the fund where will it go and or how will it be distributed? etc....
Back to top profile :: pm
John Briley
Post Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:35 am

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 616
I just got back into town Sunday night and wanted to Thank Jeff-Hulk-Hemp... for his recent post pertaining to this subject matter. Thanks Jeff for monitoring this subject. Great News!!!

"5 Indicted on charges stemming from Ralphs hiring during labor dispute."

http://forums.uncharted.ca/viewtopic.php?t=1250

Quote:
Specifically, I'm referring to the following language found in said Press Release.

" Under the plea agreement with Ralphs, the United States Attorney's Office may continue to investigate and could prosecute current or former executives or employees of Ralphs or related entities if they were involved in the criminal conduct".

Based on the above paragraph, has the United States Attorney's Office concluded their investigation? Have any current or former executives or employees of Ralphs or related entities been implicated in any criminal conduct?

AS OF TODAY'S DATE, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2008, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CONCERNING MY QUESTIONS RAISED IN MY APRIL 22, 2008 E-MAIL.

TO BE CONTINUED..........


It appears that justice will finally be served.

Department of Justice Press Release dated September 19, 2008.

"Eight Associated with Ralphs Grocery Company indicted for rehiring workers locked out during labor dispute."

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pressroom/pr2008/129.html

Maybe we should have some UFCW members present in the court room next month when they are supposed to be arraigned??

Would it be possible for someone to monitor the court date and let us all know??

Thanks again Jeff......
Back to top profile :: pm
John Briley
Post Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:32 am

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 616
Here is a link to a very interesting article pertaining to the Big Three (3) Food Employer's who tried to get "slick" during the So. Cal. Strike back in 2003-2004 and subsequently got "busted"!!!.

http://supermarketnews.com/news/Strike_Collaboration_0817/

The question remains will the UFCW go for the "juggler" concerning these three (3) Food Employer's? With Major Food Negotiations just around the corner for Northern and Southern California (So. Cal. early 2011 & Northern Ca. late 2011) the UFCW has a "great opportunity" here.

The Ninth Circuit Decision.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1535194.html

We shall see.......
Back to top profile :: pm
Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow Whatever happened with......... ?????
Page 1 of 1
Display posts from previous:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group