NLRB judge overturns Target Long Island 2011 union election, orders new vote

An administrative law judge for the National Labor Relations Board has overturned the June 2011 union election at Target's Valley Stream store on Long Island and ordered a new vote after finding the company "engaged in certain unfair labor practices." The original election ended 137-85 against unionization; a successful challenge by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 led to a 40-page decision by Judge Steven Davis and follows a 10-day trial held earlier in the year.

The vote in June 2011 would have made the Valley Stream location Target's first unionized store. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 argued that Target illegally intimidated workers for months leading up to the ballot, a contention the judge credited in his ruling. The decision does not list the full factual findings in the excerpts available, and the specific unfair labor practice charges cited in the 40-page opinion were not provided in the materials reviewed here.

Union leadership framed the ruling as a vindication of workers who challenged the company. Patrick Purcell, assistant to the president of UFCW Local 1500, said, "Target completely poisoned the democratic process from day one. And now a judge agreed with everything we said." The union contest had centered on alleged sustained pressure on employees during the organizing drive and on whether that pressure distorted the election environment.

Target responded through spokeswoman Molly Snyder, saying the company "respectfully" disagrees with the ruling and maintains it acted within the law during the campaign at the Valley Stream store. "We firmly believe Target followed all the laws throughout the union's campaign at its Valley Stream store and that the process leading up to the June 2011 election was fair and legal," she said. Snyder added that the company "is evaluating the appropriate steps to take next."

A short, truncated statement attributed to a site labeled Targetchange also circulated; it read in part, "The ruling confirms Target had no regard for the law or the civil rights of their employees, poisoning the democratic election process in order to keep their" but the line ends mid-sentence and lacks context or authorship beyond the label.

For employees and organizers the ruling carries immediate practical consequences. A new election will give workers another chance to cast ballots free of whatever the judge found to be unlawful conduct. For Target's broader workforce the decision may influence organizing strategy and management training across roughly 1,700 U.S. stores; it also raises questions about company messaging, labor relations practices, and potential future litigation or NLRB review.

Key procedural details remain to be confirmed, including the judge's full factual findings, the exact date the decision was issued, and the timetable for the new election. Target is weighing next steps. Workers, union representatives, and labor observers will be watching for the full opinion and for whether the NLRB Board or the company seeks review, as those moves will determine the timing and mechanics of the ordered rerun vote.