More RICO stories: here



A jury will consider Smithfield Foods Inc.'s racketeering and extortion allegations against a union that has orchestrated boycotts and protests in an attempt to organize workers at the world's largest hog slaughterhouse, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne rejected the United Food and Commercial Workers International's motion for a ruling that the union did nothing illegal, leaving the matter on the docket for trial starting Oct. 20. The judge also rejected three of the defenses the union wanted to use in the case, which he said centers on whether the union advocated a sham election and demanded company neutrality in a scheme to gain representation without the support of a majority of the workers at Smithfield's plant in Tar Heel, N.C.
However, Payne had difficulty grasping the company's theory of how the union's campaign violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, which originally was designed to fight organized crime. He asked Smithfield attorneys for additional briefs on that issue.
In its lawsuit, Smithfield claims the union used economic threats - including product boycotts, e-mail campaigns and interference in the company's contractual relationships - in an attempt to force the company to unionize the Tar Heel plant, which employs about 5,000 workers.
"It was an effort to get something from Smithfield that they couldn't get otherwise," said company attorney Gregory Robertson. "That's the essence of extortion."
Attorneys for the union and several affiliated organizations and individuals named as defendants argued that using economic pressure to achieve a lawful purpose is not extortion.
One major issue is whether the union proposed a sham election - one in which ballots are cast but not counted, and the union is declared the winner. Smithfield claims that's what the union wanted, but the union says the idea was never taken seriously or pursued after being mentioned by a union representative who had no real negotiating power.
The company also says the union's demand that Smithfield give up its right to speak out against unionization, and its threat to continue its hardball tactics until it achieved its goal, amounted to extortion. The union says it's not extortion if the objective - in this case, neutrality in a union election - is lawful.
Payne granted Smithfield's motions to prohibit the union from using the First Amendment as a defense. He also ruled the union cannot fight claims that it interfered with company contracts by arguing that its allegations that Smithfield mistreated employees were true. Among the contracts at issue was one in which celebrity chef Paula Deen was to use Smithfield products in a segment of the Oprah Winfrey Show.
The judge also said the union cannot argue that its alleged misdeeds sprang from wrongdoing by the company - the so-called "unclean hands" doctrine. Earlier this year, Smithfield reached a settlement to pay $1.1 million in back wages, plus interest, to workers it fired during past union-organizing elections. A federal appeals court ruled in 2006 that the company improperly influenced elections in 1993 and 1997.
Lawyers for the union also said in court Tuesday that a consultant for Smithfield employed a person to infiltrate union rallies and meetings and report back to the company. Smithfield attorneys did not directly address that allegation in court, but Robertson said later that the man neither worked for Smithfield nor supplied any information.
While Payne ruled that the First Amendment, the truth and the "unclean hands" doctrine cannot be used as an absolute defense, he left open the possibility that those issues could bear on the evidence at trial.
(hamptonroads.com)