Lee Mabry worked at Chef Solutions as a machine operator for more than a decade, mixing and shaping bakery products, including Subway restaurants. He was seriously injured on the job and had two surgical procedures to correct the damage. Nonetheless, he wanted to return to Chef Solutions. His bosses wouldn’t let him. Despite having written clearance from his doctor to return to work, Chef Solutions said he wasn’t healthy enough to do the job. Mabry doesn’t think his health had anything to do with it. Mabry believes the reason the company did not want him back in the plant was because a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election was to be held in January 2006, a few weeks after he attempted to return to work. Mabry is convinced the company did not want anyone in the plant who would speak in favor of the union and attempt to counter the company’s drumbeat of anti-union propaganda.

Mabry’s belief seems to be well founded. The NLRB issued a complaint alleging the company refused to allow him to return to work because of his union activity. Evidence was introduced before an administrative law judge that dozens of injured employees were allowed to return to work. The company did not produce a single example of an injured employee who wanted to come back to work who was not provided with light duty.

This was the second time the employees of Chef Solutions tried to exercise their rights in an NLRB election. Mabry and other workers started talking with UAW representatives in 2000, when they decided to do something about the poor treatment they felt they were getting on the job. Originally, everyone they spoke with at the plant was enthusiastic about forming a union and the majority of eligible workers signed cards stating their intent. "People understood that it could be better," says Mabry.

But the company would not agree to recognize those written requests and instead called for an election to be overseen by the NLRB. The election was scheduled for a month after the cards were collected and presented. The union lost that election and filed charges and objections. The NLRB issued a complaint charging that the company’s actions during the weeks between card collection and the election tainted the process. While a resolution of these law violations was pending, the company continued its anti-union campaign against its workers. Finally, the company entered into settlement agreements with the NLRB. Under the terms of those agreements, the company had to reinstate two workers fired for their union support and promise not to spy on workers’ union activities, threaten to close the plant, physically assault or threaten union supporters, restrict workers from distributing union literature and not to close or withhold pay increases if they voted for a union. The company also agreed to have the 2001 election overturned and a rerun election conducted.

Despite the difficulty in the first election, Mabry and other union supporters were determined to try again. They gained the support of their colleagues but once again the company refused to recognize the workers’ written choice to have a union. Two respected ministers independently reviewed the workers’ union cards and issued a public statement that a majority of employees had indicated they wanted union representation. In the weeks leading up to the 2006 election, workers were subjected to a barrage of anti-union rhetoric, including threats they would lose their jobs or their benefits if they had a union. Workers were interrogated about their union activity by supervisors and threatened that the plant would close if the workers selected the union as their collective bargaining representative. The NLRB charged the company with violating many of the labor laws they had just posted notices promising to obey.

Once again, despite initial majority support, the union lost. Mabry was not surprised by the outcome. "For people trying to make a living, that’s very powerful, to have those kind of people up there saying you might not have a job, that workers should think about that the company is helping workers with their immigration status. No worker can sustain the kind of onslaught they have to go through during the organizing campaign. The boss, he’s got the money, he’s got the power. He can put on a campaign that very few workers can endure."

Mabry and the union went to the board to protest his firing and to object to the employer’s unlawful pre-election conduct. The NLRB again initiated proceedings against the company for violating the law. An administrative law judge decision is pending.