'); } -->
RICHMOND, Va. -- The nation's largest pork producer, Smithfield Foods, settled a racketeering and extortion lawsuit against labor organizers today and the two sides agreed to hold a union election at the world's largest hog slaughterhouse, both sides said.
In return, the United Food and Commercial Workers union agreed to end a publicity campaign against Smithfield that included calls for product boycotts to support its calls for an organizing election at the slaughterhouse in Tar Heel, N.C.
The agreement was announced by Smithfield and the UFCW in a joint statement as the company's lawsuit was about to go to trial Monday in federal court.
The union began its campaign against Smithfield in June 2006 in an attempt to pressure the company into unionizing the plant, which has about 4,650 employees.
The campaign included calls for product boycotts, negative publicity and other actions that Smithfield claimed amounted to extortion. The company estimated the campaign cost it about $900 million.
Lawyers for the union argued in court papers and in pretrial hearings that using economic pressure to achieve a lawful purpose, such as setting a union election, is not extortion.
In a joint statement, Smithfield and the union said they "have agreed on what both parties believe to be a fair election process" on union representation at the Tar Heel plant.
"The UFCW agrees to end its public campaign against Smithfield," the statement says.
In addition, the company and the union agreed to work together to establish and operate a Feed the Hungry program.
The settlement was sealed, and U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne ordered the parties to say nothing further about the deal until after the union election. It was unclear when that election would take place.
Attorneys for both sides showed up in court Monday morning and milled around briefly before disappearing into separate conference rooms. They returned about 20 minutes later, shook hands with each other and their clients and began filing out of the courtroom without Payne ever convening court. They declined to answer questions, citing the judge's order.
Get it all with convenient home delivery of The News & Observer.
The News & Observer is pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the internet makes it impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting.
Since The News & Observer does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted on our website. In addition, we remind anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The News and Observer.
If you find a comment offensive, clicking on the exclamation icon will flag the comment for review by the administrators, we are counting on the good judgment of all our readers to help us.