Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, NLRB NEWS—No unlawful agreement existed between King Soopers and Albertsons/Safeway regarding striking employees, according to advice memo, (Sep 11, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

The advice was sought regarding emails between Albertsons/Safeway and King Soopers relating to a union strike, wherein Albertsons/Safeway indicated that it did not intend to hire King Soopers’ striking workers.

Recently, the Division of Advice of the National Labor Relations Board released an advice memo it had provided to regions in response to questions about actions taken by supermarket employers King Soopers and Albertsons/Safeway in 2022 relating to a strike.

On January 5, 2022, the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 (UFCW Local 7), which has for decades represented thousands of employees at King Soopers and Albertsons/Safeway stores in Colorado and Wyoming, initiated a strike against King Soopers due to stalled CBA negotiations. Historically, the union had coordinated bargaining efforts with both employers, and representatives from each company often attended the other's negotiation sessions, including the ones at issue.

Union’s information requests. After the membership voted to strike against King Soopers, the union sent information requests to both King Soopers and Albertsons/Safeway, seeking any agreements or understandings between the two employers relating to the ongoing negotiations and/or potential disputes. The union was concerned that Albertsons/Safeway might be cooperating with King Soopers to undermine the strike. The employers repeatedly denied having any such agreements.

The day after the strike was announced, the union advised Albertsons/Safeway that it should prepare for incoming business from King Soopers’ customers who refused to cross the picket line, including by ramping up its staffing. The union also agreed on that day to extend its collective-bargaining agreements with Albertsons/Safeway indefinitely until either party provided written notice to terminate.

The email exchanges. Both before the strike announcement and thereafter, there were emails being exchanged between King Soopers and Albertsons/Safeway. Before the strike was announced, Albertsons emailed King Soopers regarding whether the union “could actually afford to take a strike.” After the strike was announced, there was this exchange via email: first, King Soopers emailed Albertsons stating: “We have also heard union representatives inform our associates that if there is a strike that they should go work at Safeway. Can you please inform me of Albertsons/Safeway intent as to how you plan to handle this to [sic] subjects?” and then, Albertsons’ response: “We don’t intend to hire any King Soupers [sic] employees and we have already advised the Safeway division of our position and the division agrees."

Antitrust lawsuit reveals emails. The strike began on January 12 and ended on January 21. In the meantime, the union continued to request any information regarding any agreements or understandings between the employers and were told there were none. The union and King Soopers reached an agreement on successor CBAs and the union ended the strike. Subsequently, the email correspondence came to light because of an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Colorado Attorney General.

The advice division was asked to evaluate whether the email exchanges constituted a violation of labor law—specifically, whether they amounted to an unlawful agreement under Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and whether the employers violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to provide the emails in response to the union’s information requests.

No violation. The Division of Advice concluded that the employers did not violate Section 8(a)(3), as there was no employment-related action taken to either encourage or discourage union activity. The division explained that there was no evidence that any King Soopers employee even applied for a position at Albertsons/Safeway, “let alone was denied employment,” and an employment action was required. The Board has found in the past that an employer’s refusal to consider or hire job applicants in retaliation for them striking against another employer is a violation of Section 8(a)(3), but in those cases there were identified striking employees who had applied to work for the second employer.

The Board also determined that the emails did not constitute an agreement that needed to be disclosed under Section 8(a)(5). Even if they had, pursuing a complaint would not serve the purposes of the Act, the division explained, also noting that the union obtained copies of the “pertinent emails” through the Colorado AG’s actions.

It recommended that the Region dismiss both charges.

News: AgencyNews LaborNews Labor UnfairLaborPractices Bargaining