Federal judge tosses Colorado grocery chain’s lawsuit filed against union during strike

DENVER (CN) — A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a Colorado grocery chain’s lawsuit claiming a workers’ union had tried to force the company to engage with other unions while negotiating their new contract.

“The court analyzes King Soopers’ three claims individually, explaining in turn why King Soopers has failed to adequately allege the union had ‘prohibited objects’ underlying its conduct,” wrote U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney in a 16-page opinion.

UFCW Local 7, a union representing thousands of King Soopers employees filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the National Labor Relations Board on Feb. 5 before starting a two-week strike during the days leading up to the Super Bowl and Valentine’s Day, when shoppers often splurge.

King Soopers, owned by Dillon Companies, sued. In its February lawsuit, the grocery company claimed the union violated the National Labor Relations Act by using the strike in an attempt to force parent company Dillon to bargain with other unions including Teamsters Local 38 in Everett, Washington, UFCW Local 3000 in Des Moines, Washington, UFCW Local 770 in Los Angeles and UFCW Local 324 in Buena Park, California.

The union called off the strike on Feb. 17 and later filed to withdraw the labor complaint, a request the NLRB approved in May.

The union represents 23,000 workers across Colorado and Wyoming, including 12,000 King Soopers and City Market employees, about 10,000 of whom engaged in the two-week winter strike across Pueblo and the Denver metro.

In announcing the strike, the union claimed the grocery company questioned union members about union activity and refused to provide sales data needed for staffing proposals during contract negotiations.

When collective bargaining began in October 2024, King Soopers claimed the union presented a letter outlining its intent to work with other unions on negotiations.

In her analysis however, Sweeney found the law prohibiting “secondary boycotts” refers to unions pressuring other companies from ceasing to work with the employer engaged in bargaining, rather than prohibiting union collaboration.

“King Soopers’ allegations — square pegs — don’t fit into this doctrinal round hole,” the Joe Biden appointee wrote.

Although Sweeney supported with King Soopers refusal to bargain with members of other unions, the judge found insufficient evidence that UFCW forced the store into the multi-union negotiation the company feared.

“The court agrees with the union that, to the extent King Soopers alleges the union engaged in any form of ‘coordinated bargaining’ with other unions, or simply invited other union leaders to bargaining sessions with King Soopers, this coordination as alleged does not give rise to an impermissible labor practice,” Sweeney wrote.

In dismissing the suit against the union, Sweeney also denied several of the union’s counter-claims, keeping just one bad faith claim in play.

“Now more than ever, corporate interests are trying to squeeze working families in Colorado and across the nation. Workers in Colorado were forced to strike two different grocery giants this year, each of which sought to slash compensation for workers all the while dramatically increasing prices paid by consumers,” union president Kim Cordova told Courthouse News in an email. “This lawsuit was just another meritless effort to crush working people and silence their voices, something Judge Sweeney clearly recognized.”

King Soopers is represented by Colorado Springs attorney Raymond Deeny, who did not respond to an inquiry for comment.

Follow @bright_lamp