Union files federal labor complaint over Kim’s restaurant closure

A union representing former workers at the recently shuttered Kim’s restaurant has filed a federal labor complaint against the business, alleging the owners refused to negotiate with the union as required before making the decision to close.

Unite Here Local 17 filed a complaint on Monday against both the Vestalia Hospitality group and the former Korean-American restaurant in Minneapolis’ Uptown neighborhood, run by award-winning chef Ann Kim. The allegations range from union-busting efforts to refusal to give the union a chance to bargain over the closure of the restaurant last month, said Sheigh Freeberg, secretary-treasurer of Local 17.

“We want Ann Kim and Vestalia to be held accountable for their actions,” said Freeberg. “And we also want the entire restaurant industry in Minneapolis to know that they have to respect their workers if they choose to organize.”

Kim’s closed at the end of August, citing “ongoing financial losses.” The union requested proof of the financial losses, Freeberg said, but the business never provided it as required. The union was also never included in bargaining discussions about the closure, Freeberg said.

Kim and representatives for Vestalia did not respond to requests for comment.

The union released a statement on Monday about the the eight charges it filed with the National Labor Relations Board. The charges follow the restaurant’s turbulent history and financial struggles, starting with the closure of Ann Kim’s previous restaurant at the same location, Sooki and Mimi.

A few weeks after that first restaurant closed in October 2023, Kim’s opened and received rave reviews, with lines out the door. But some employees voiced complaints about feeling disrespected and working unstable hours. They also expressed concerns about the restaurant’s decision to use a service charge instead of standard tipping.

A group of workers in June announced their intention to organize. Shortly afterwards, someone vandalized Kim’s and threw a concrete slab and paint through a window.

Kim voiced her opposition to the unionizing effort days later, saying her staff “can come together as a Kim’s team without a union.” The workers voted 65% in favor of forming a union after Kim and Vestalia said they would not recognize it voluntarily. Two months later, Kim’s announced it would close at the end of August.

Two lawyers who specialize in labor and employment issues said the union appears to have a case if it turns out that the business didn’t include the union in discussions about the impacts of shutting down.

“If the employer did basically close up shop and didn’t provide any notice or information to the union, that could be a very troublesome fact for the employer,” said Mark Nelson, a Denver-based attorney who handles employment cases nationwide.

Charlotte Garden, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, said union negotiations on the impact of a closure, also known as “effects bargaining,” are typically required. That can include bargaining for severance payout and lining up jobs for workers at other company branches. Garden added that union negotiations are required regardless of the reason for the closure.

“Whether the closure was for economic reasons or anti-union reasons, the effects bargaining is still required,” she said.

Garden said that even in a situation where the union had not finalized a contract with Vestalia and Kim’s, companies are still required to bargain with the union.

The National Labor Relations Board now will determine if the union’s claims are legitimate. If the board agrees that the restaurant broke federal worker laws, there could be financial penalties.

Nelson said that although he could see an argument for Kim’s that they needed to close because of vandalism and financial struggles, he suspects it will be an “uphill battle” for the restaurant based on what he’s read.