Recently Aramark issued an explanation of its checks of workers’ employment-eligibility documents, such as I-9 forms, and social security information, stating they are a part of two routine and internal projects. The Worker Support Committee(WSC) disputes this claim, maintaining that the checks are irregular and a means of intimidation that discourage employees from unionizing.

In its response to one Aramark statement, the WSC writes, "Last November, we checked 33 Aramark locations in New York, Philadelphia, and California. At none of these locations were they then, nor had they on an annual basis, conducted such document reviews."

In a response to an e-mail regarding the matter, Scott Parry, the senior Aramark manager for the Claremont Colleges, wrote, "The Workers Support Committee may have called some Aramark locations, however it is common business practice to keep such matters confidential and they more than likely were told that this was confidential or received a ‘no comment’ response."

Parry provided TSL with a listing of the schools to which Aramark provides food service. Calls to schools on the list turned up several institutions, such as Aurora University (Aurora, IL), MIT, Vassar and Yale where annual audits were in fact conducted.

A check of numerous college newspapers for matters concerning Aramark turned up little more than standard complaints about food quality. However, at Wesleyan University (Middletown, CT), the United Student Labor Action Coalition (a Wesleyan student group) collected signatures from 1200 students in support of the union’s demands that Aramark provide more full time jobs, better pensions, and healthcare for its workers.

Moreover, although the unfair business practices charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by the Los Angeles HERE Local against Aramark has recently been dropped (the WSC states that workers were afraid to testify, thus rendering the charge untenable), Aramark has had run-ins with the NLRB before.

In July 1997, the NLRB issued a judgement against Aramark for refusing to bargain with the union that its employees at The Citadel (Charleston, SC) had chosen to represent them. Aramark contested the ruling; it eventually lost in court (Aramark vs. NLRB, 179 F.3d 872).

Parry also provided a copy of a manual entitled "Global Food and Support Services District Manager Audit Policies and Procedures," a document detailing exactly how yearly audits are to be carried out. The payroll section of the audit instructs the District Manager to "obtain the most recent payroll register, time sheets, and time cards. Select at least 10 employees to detail testing. Document the testing in the table below." Among the table’s five fields are "W-4 on File and SS# Agrees?" and "I-9 Complete?"

While Aramark may conduct yearly audits at some or all locations, the WSC claims, "It is possible that at other locations they do indeed conduct such checks. If so, Aramark is probably violating the law."

The WSC invoked a legal brief written by the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights regarding the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA): "Once employees submit documentation which appears ‘genuine,’ any further inquiry into the eligibility to work constitutes an unfair immigration-related employment practice."

The relevant text of the IRCA reads as follows: "A person’s or other entity’s request, for purposes of satisfying the requirements of section 274A(b) [employment eligibility criteria], for more or different documents than are required under such section or refusing to honor documents tendered that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine shall be treated as an unfair immigration-related employment practice if made for the purpose or with the intent of discriminating against an individual in violation of paragraph (1)" (8 USCS § 1324b(a)(6)).

Though this section of the IRCA details the requirements that an employer must fulfill when hiring an employee—it does not expressly forbid employers from re-verifying documents. The IRCA requires employers to maintain the documents on file during the employee’s term of employment and for a period of up to three years after he or she leaves.

Aramark believes that because the company is choosing employees randomly during the annual audit, the document checks do not constitute an "unfair immigration-related employment practice."

Additionally, the WSC makes an extra-legal appeal: "Thus, even if Aramark conducts ‘routine’ annual reviews, this review was used to silence workers. Workers were told in one-on-one and group meetings that they had 30 days to produce documentation."

Aramark attached a letter to workers’ paychecks that included the line "a union can cost you your job." When asked to explain its presence, Parry expressed regret and admitted that it "could have been handled in a softer way."

Although he views the letter as a mistake, the tone was clearly intimidating, and could be ruled as a violation of NLRB guidelines.

"It doesn’t take much to frighten workers…it’s huge when you’re supporting a family," said WSC member Mike Flynn ’02.

Two workers in Frank Dining Hall, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, had been asked to produce employment eligibility documents during this academic year.

One of the workers had been asked to provide information under the auspices of the social security audit. The other, however, had been asked to provide employment eligibility information because his records had been lost,

Given that this worker had attended some of the union organizing meetings, the WSC concluded that the document request was a means of intimidation. Parry attributes much of the confusion over documents to problems associated with the transition from Marriott to Aramark.