On August 3, Teamsters Local 455 members at Cargill’s Fort Morgan, Colorado, beef plant rejected a tentative agreement on a contract proposal by 25 votes. Two weeks later, they approved the same contract in a contract ratification vote by a margin of 902 votes.
More than 1,700 employees had been locked out since May 20. After the first vote failed 749 to 724, more than 1,000 workers reportedly signed a petition asking for another vote. The Colorado Sun reported confusion among workers about the first ballot, and union officials pointed to language barriers as part of the problem.
Chris Suazo, a Teamsters business agent representing the locked-out workers, told Fight Back! News, “We had a large group of members that felt like there was some misunderstanding through the language barriers.” The publication reported that workers at the plant speak 27 languages.
Before the second vote, Local 455 changed its communication process. Colorado Public Radio reported that the union expanded translations from a handful to nearly a dozen languages and added more explanation about the agreement and what a yes-or-no vote would mean. Suazo told Fight Back! News, “[We’re] being very clear what a no vote would entail and what a yes vote would entail. We’re now doing the ballots in their languages – Haitian Creole, Arabic, Spanish, French, Somali, Tigrinya.”
On August 17, the agreement passed 1,113 to 211, ending the 89-day lockout.
The First Vote Was Poorly Managed
Local 455 knew it represented a workforce that spoke multiple languages. It also knew members had been locked out for nearly three months and were being asked to decide whether to return to work under a new contract. The Colorado Sun reported that Teamsters strike benefits were sharply reduced after the August 3 rejection. Translation and explanation should have been built into the first ratification process.
Instead, more than 1,000 members asked for another vote after the first one failed.
That sequence raises a fair question about the level of representation those members received before the first ballot. Dues-paying members should reasonably expect enough information from their bargaining representative to understand the agreement they are being asked to approve.
Why was that work not done before the first vote?
That is the harder question for Local 455. A union that represents a multilingual workforce must communicate with its members, especially when they are being asked to approve a collective bargaining agreement after months away from work.
Employers Should Pay Attention
Employers can make the same mistake. A policy, bargaining update, or campaign communication does little good if employees cannot understand it. Local 455 fixed the problem before the second vote. Its members had every reason to expect that work to be done before the first vote.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Cargill workers vote twice on the same agreement?
The first vote failed 749 to 724. Afterward, more than 1,000 workers reportedly petitioned for another vote, and union officials said language barriers and confusion about what a yes or no vote meant contributed to the result.
Did the contract proposal change before the second vote?
No. Workers voted on the same tentative agreement. What changed was the union’s communication process, including more translations, translated ballots, and additional explanation of the agreement.
How much did the result change?
The first vote failed by 25 votes. Two weeks later, the agreement passed 1,113 to 211, a margin of 902 votes.
What should employers take away from this?
Sending information is not the same as communicating it effectively. For multilingual workforces, important policies, bargaining updates, and other employee communications need to be understandable, not merely available.
