City officials contend law is matter of health
DOWNTOWN LA A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has cleared the way for the California Grocers Association to sue the City of Los Angeles over a law that protects grocery workers from being fired once a store is sold.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have implications for City Hall after elected officials in Santa Monica passed a similar law last year. If the Los Angeles law is struck, Santa Monica’s could be next.
The law is the first attempt in the nation to require a certain class of supermarket retailers to retain workers when a store changes ownership, according to Peter Larkin, president of the association.
“We are pleased that Judge (Ralph) Dau has ruled to allow our case to proceed,” Larkin said.“Since the grocery worker retention ordinance has been in effect, retail grocery sales transacting in the city of Los Angeles have ceased. Stopping the growth of new retail in the city demonstrates the first of many harmful impacts this law will have on city residents.
“Our lawsuit charges that the ordinance is unlawful and unenforceable because it is preempted by federal labor relations laws, violates the equal protection rights of employees, conflicts with state food-related health and safety laws and improperly dictates rules of employment,” Larkin added.
Worker retention is heavily supported by local unions, and grocery workers who have been affected by a transfer in ownership in the past have testified before the Santa Monica City Council at least twice, offering horror stories of poverty and despair following such a sale.
The workers said the parent company of Albertsons is planning to close several of its unionized stores and replace them with nonunion Whole Foods markets.
Representatives from Albertsons did not return phone calls seeking comment.
There are two Albertsons within Santa Monica, in addition to a Whole Foods Market.
As a result of the law, grocers over 15,000 square feet in size are required to retain employees for up to 90 days following a transfer in ownership. During the period, employees could only be fired for just cause.
Within five days of the sale or transfer, the current employer must also post a notice of the change in ownership, and leave that notice up for the entire time of the transfer.
Within 15 days of the sale or transfer, the former owner is required to provide new management with a list of the names, addresses, dates of hire and employment classification for each grocery worker currently employed. If it is found that the store can be operated with fewer employees than hired under the previous owner, the current store operator must retain workers based on seniority, according to the law.
A HEALTHY OUTLOOK While the association is focused on the Los Angeles law, it could also challenge that passed in Santa Monica.
“We will evaluate future options based on the outcome of our present legal challenge,” said Dave Heylen, spokesman for the association. “It’s definitely on our radar.”
The council was warned in May of last year that the association may file suit if it passed the retention ordinance. Despite that, and charges that elected officials here are beholden to unions, the council approved it.
Councilmember Kevin McKeown, who sponsored the law, said at the time of its passage, that the law was not to help unions, but rather protect the public. If 30 to 60 employees were to leave a grocery store all at once and be replaced by new employees who need to be trained, McKeown said he is concerned that food quality could be jeopardized.
The council also expressed concern for low-wage grocery workers who may suffer hardship by suddenly losing their jobs to a change in ownership. With the retention ordinance in place, it is the council’s intent to protect the health, safety and welfare of these families, who may have to scramble for new employment and could therefore lose their homes in the city’s highly competitive and expensive housing market. n a report to the council last year, City Attorney Marsha Moutrie seemed confident that Santa Monica’s law would be upheld if challenged in court. That said, she did express some concern about arguments claiming federal law preempts local authority.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 16, 2007. Read the original PDF.