Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:23 AM
Triana (21,692 posts)
WalMart loses: Fed judge awards millions to warehouse workers against WalMart
Warehouse workers win payment after charging abuse and fraud -- as parallel Wal-Mart supply chain battles rage on
Workers at a California Wal-Mart warehouse are owed $4.7 million for alleged theft of their wages, under a proposed settlement approved this week by a federal judge. The 568 workers were employed by the Wal-Mart contractor Schneider. All of the goods they move are for Wal-Mart, and the facility where they worked is partially owned by Wal-Mart.
A Schneider spokesperson emailed, “Per the settlement, I can only confirm for you that this matter has settled on terms acceptable to the parties.” Wal-Mart did not respond to a request for comment on the case, Quezada v. Schneider. A spokesperson noted to the Huffington Post that the workers were not legally employed by Wal-Mart, and said, “We’ve developed a program where we do independent audits of each of our third-party-run warehouses, to make sure they’re following all aspects of law.”
“The brave workers who came forward to expose a deep pattern of abuse and fraud in Walmart’s largest contracted facility risked their jobs and their livelihoods, but today they are vindicated,” said Warehouse Workers United Director Guadalupe Palma in an emailed statement. According to WWU, an expert’s review of 216,281 shifts there found that supervisors “shaved employees’ time” from time cards in 5.95 percent of shifts, denying them legally required pay.
WWU, a project of the Change to Win union federation, has worked in concert with the union-backed retail workers’ group OUR Walmart to pull off a series of strikes in the Wal-Mart supply chain since 2012. Workers’ lawsuits have represented one front in labor’s efforts to hold Wal-Mart accountable for conditions of its suppliers and contractors, which advocates argue are largely determined by Wal-Mart directives. In March, Judge Christina Snyder barred Schneider from communicating with employees about the Quezada suit without permission, on the grounds that it had behaved in “deceptive” and “coercive” ways in securing written statements from employees designed to undermine the plaintiffs’ case.
THE REST of the story:
0 replies, 363 views