Oklahoma City Starbucks Employees Latest to Demand Vote to Remove SBWU Union from Workplace
One year after highly publicized unionization efforts, workers from coffee shops in at least seven different states move to remove SBWU
Oklahoma City, OK (October 10, 2023) – An employee of a Starbucks store in the Nichols Hills neighborhood of Oklahoma City has submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the federal agency to hold a vote among her colleagues to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from the workplace. The employee, Amy Smith, is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Smith’s petition contains signatures from enough of her coworkers to prompt a union decertification election under the NLRB’s rules. While Oklahoma is a Right to Work state, meaning SBWU bosses cannot compel Smith or her coworkers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of staying employed, SBWU is still empowered by federal law to impose a union contract on all employees of the coffee shop, including those who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote would strip union officials of that power.
Oklahoma City Starbucks Workers Join Burgeoning Worker Movement Against SBWU
Smith and her coworkers’ effort is the latest in a chain of SBWU decertification pushes across the country. Since May, Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY; Buffalo, NY; Pittsburgh, PA; Bloomington, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; and Greenville, SC, have all sought free Foundation legal aid in pursuing their decertification petitions at the NLRB. Last month, workers at Good Karma Café, an independent coffee shop in Philadelphia, successfully voted out the SBWU union with Foundation help.
The flurry of decertification attempts is occurring roughly one year after SBWU union agents engaged in an aggressive unionization campaign against Starbucks employees. Federal labor law forbids workers from decertifying a union for a year after its installation, meaning many workers are seizing on the earliest possible opportunity to rid themselves of the SBWU union’s “representation.”
Outside of Starbucks, union decertification efforts are becoming much more common. Currently, the NLRB’s data shows two consecutive years of increased decertification efforts, with a nearly 30% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021.
However, union officials have many ways to manipulate federal labor law to prevent workers from voting them out, including by filing unrelated or unverified charges against management. Foundation attorneys are assisting workers who have been targeted with such tactics by union officials.
“SBWU union officials are leveraging their legal privileges and the deep pockets of their affiliate, the Service Employees International Union, to try to install union control over as many Starbucks employees as they can as quickly as they can,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But as Starbucks and other coffee employees across the country continue to try to flee the union’s power, it’s becoming clearer that the SBWU’s campaign is rooted more in generating political buzz and expanding union power than actually standing up for workers’ interests.”
“Such union behavior is precisely why workers’ right to vote to remove unwanted union officials is so vital, and Foundation attorneys will continue to fight alongside Ms. Smith and numerous other coffee employees across the country to defend this right,” Mix added.
Full Foundation Action July/August 2023 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the July/August issue of Foundation Action are now on the website.
In this issue:
- Foundation Fights For Starbucks Workers Seeking to Oust Union
- Foundation Slams NLRB, ILA Union Officials in Brief to Fourth Circuit Court
- Former CT State Trooper Wins Over $250,000 in Political Discrimination Suit
- Don’t Believe the ‘Union Boom’ Hype: Workers Want Out as Biden Seeks to Keep Them In
- Foundation-Backed Workers Notch Victories Over Dues-Hungry UAW Bosses
- Foundation Defends Michigan Workers with Forced Dues Looming
- Invest in the Long-Term Battle for Worker Freedom
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
Foundation Defends Michigan Workers with Forced Dues Looming
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
With Right to Work repeal law passed, workers seek to escape mandatory payments
Michigan legislators’ unpopular decision to repeal the state’s Right to Work law helped prompt Mary Soltysiak and her coworkers’ move to vote out the IAM union.
LANSING, MI – Despite poll after poll showing 70 percent of Michiganders wanted Michigan’s decade-old Right to Work law left in place, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and union cronies in the Michigan Legislature voted to strip Wolverine State workers of their right to refrain from funding unwanted union bosses in March. In response, the Foundation sprang into action, issuing a Special Legal Notice to Michigan workers advising them of their legal options as the state transitions to a forced-dues regime. The notice reminded workers that, despite what union bosses may claim, the state’s Right to Work law remains in effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends later this year — and also what they can do in advance of forced dues being legal again. Unsurprisingly, given Right to Work’s popularity even among union households, Michigan workers are stepping up and taking action to defend their rights against coercive unionism.
Michigan Workers Battle Forced-Dues Schemes Ahead of Repeal
For example, Foundation attorneys are currently assisting Grand Rapids-area Kroger employee Roger Cornett’s challenge to an illegal dues scheme perpetrated by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials. Cornett hit UFCW bosses with federal charges this May, accusing them of ignoring a letter in which he exercised his right to cut off dues deductions from his paycheck. Cornett’s charges also maintained that UFCW bosses sought to seize money from him using a form that blatantly violates existing federal law. Cornett’s charge says the form is illegal because of its “dual purpose” nature, meaning just one signature confusingly locks a worker into both membership and dues deductions. Federal law requires any authorization for union dues deductions to be voluntary and separate from a union membership application. UFCW bosses’ contempt for longstanding federal protections in Cornett’s case likely indicates how aggressively union officials will pursue forced dues under a non-Right to Work regime. The Foundation’s legal notice also counsels workers that they can avoid forced-dues arrangements entirely by petitioning the NLRB to hold “decertification elections” at their workplaces, in which workers can vote unpopular unions out.
Legal Notice Counsels Workers of Right to Vote Out Unwanted Unions
Mary Soltysiak, who opposes forced dues, heard news of the upcoming repeal and filed a petition to decertify the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) District Lodge 60/Local Lodge 475 union with free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys. Soltysiak and her colleagues work at Terryberry, a manufacturing firm in Grand Rapids, MI.
Soltysiak stated that she and some of her colleagues “contacted [a Foundation attorney] and filled out paperwork to get out of paying union dues around the year 2018 because of the Right to Work . . . law.”
“The union has done nothing but hurt my paycheck and my vacation hours,” Soltysiak added.
Soltysiak and her coworkers achieved victory this May, when the NLRB certified their majority vote ousting the IAM union. Hopefully, their success portends the future success of the growing number of workers in Michigan and across the country looking to decertify the unions in their workplaces.
Foundation Also Defending Public Sector Right to Work Protections
As noted in the Foundation’s legal notice, the Michigan Right to Work repeal does not affect public sector Michigan employees. Under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, no public worker in America can be forced to subsidize a union as a condition of employment. But, as the repeal is looming, Michigan public sector union officials are nonetheless seeking to undermine public employees’ freedom to refrain from union support through so-called “fee-for-grievance” schemes.
This April, the Foundation submitted a brief in the Michigan Supreme Court case Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan (TPOAM) v. Renner, in which TPOAM officials are trying to enforce a “fee-for-grievance” policy against Saginaw County employee Daniel Renner. Under it, union bosses strip nonmember public employees of any power to file grievances themselves, and instead mandate that they pay fees sometimes exceeding yearly union dues to use the union’s grievance system.
Michigan legislators’ unpopular decision to repeal the state’s Right to Work law helped prompt Mary Soltysiak and her coworkers’ move to vote out the IAM union.
In the brief, Foundation staff attorneys refute the union’s claims for this newfound power, stating that “fee-for-grievance” schemes were never authorized by the Michigan Legislature and are inconsistent with federal law.
Foundation Attorneys Will Defend Worker Freedom in Michigan
“Michigan union officials and their allies in the state legislature have contempt for workers’ individual rights that knows no bounds,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “That was made clear by the repeal of the popular Right to Work law, and the attempt to undermine Right to Work protections for public sector employees which are safeguarded by the First Amendment under the Foundation’s Janus U.S. Supreme Court victory.”
“Michigan workers have a long road ahead to restore their rights against union coercion, but Foundation attorneys are fighting alongside these workers, and will continue to fight until no Michigan worker can be forced to pay union bosses they disapprove of just to keep a job,” Messenger added.
Employee Advocate Issues Legal Notice After Labor Board Fast-Tracks Union Control Over Workers Without Secret Ballot Votes
“Employees who are the targets of union organizing campaigns, and who do not want to be subject to monopoly union representation, must be vigilant about their rights after Cemex.”
Washington, DC (October 6, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a special legal notice informing workers across the country about the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) significant rollback of workers’ right to vote in secret ballot elections to determine whether or not to unionize. The Biden NLRB’s August ruling in the Cemex Construction Materials Pacific case effectively mandates the “card check” method of union installation, which lets union officials seize power in a workplace without winning an election, or even after workers vote against union affiliation in a secret ballot vote.
“Employees who are the targets of union organizing campaigns, and who do not want to be subject to monopoly union representation, must be vigilant about their rights after Cemex,” the notice warns. “Under Cemex, unions can impose their mandatory representation on employees quickly and without employees being able to vote on whether they want union representation.”
The card check process is a union organizing tactic in which a union becomes the monopoly representative of all employees in a unit—including employees who want nothing to do with the union—by collecting union authorization cards directly from a majority of workers. The lack of privacy during a card check exposes workers to coercive tactics from union officials, including misinformation about the true purpose of the cards or threats made against workers who refuse to sign.
The notice emphasizes that the Cemex ruling forces employers to make a decision after union bosses simply claim majority support that will often result in the union gaining power without a worker vote. Under Cemex, if a union claims a majority of workers signed union cards, within two weeks the employer must either “[r]ecognize the union as the monopoly representative of its employees without allowing employees to vote,” or petition the board to hold an election – though the NLRB can strip workers of their right to vote under this option if it believes the employer has committed an unfair labor practice, even if the employees themselves have done nothing wrong.
The full notice is available at: www.nrtw.org/Cemex
Workers Have Right to Campaign Against Unwanted Unions and Can Refuse to Sign Union Cards
The notice explains that all employees have the right to refuse to sign a union authorization card, and to revoke any union authorization card they previously signed. It also reminds workers that “it is a good practice to inform both the union and your employer in writing that you revoked the card so that the union and your employer do not wrongfully count you as a supporter of union representation during a card check.”
Workers also have the right to “sign and circulate cards or petitions against union representation, on non-work time and in non-work areas,” the notice states. Such petitions or cards can be used later to request the NLRB hold an election at the workplace to remove (or “decertify”) the union, and can also be provided to the employer as evidence to contest union claims of majority support.
The notice provides links to sample letters revoking union authorization cards and sample union decertification petitions. “If you have questions about your rights during a union organizing campaign, you can contact Foundation staff attorneys for more information and assistance with exercising your rights,” the notice concludes.
“Not that long ago, bipartisan opposition in Congress blocked legislation to mandate coercive card check unionization. In an unprecedented move, the Biden NLRB is bypassing Congress to mandate this abuse-prone process all on its own by federal fiat,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Make no mistake, this is not about the rights or freedom of rank-and-file workers, but empowering union bosses to the detriment of regular workers and their freedom of choice.”
“While this is a significant blow to the rights of independent-minded workers, they still have options to oppose unwanted union representation. It’s vital that they know those rights going into this new legal landscape, and National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to defend their rights,” added Mix. “Foundation staff attorneys have a long history of helping employees challenge union card check schemes, and workers should not hesitate to contact the Foundation for free legal aid if they believe union organizers are attempting to use Cemex to impose a union in their workplace.”
Buffalo Starbucks Worker Files Groundbreaking Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of NLRB Structure
Regional NLRB blocked employee and her coworkers from voting out union majority disapproved of, new lawsuit challenges agency’s authority
Buffalo, NY (October 4, 2023) – Buffalo “Del-Chip” Starbucks employee Ariana Cortes has hit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with a federal lawsuit, arguing that the federal agency’s current structure violates the separation of powers. The lawsuit, filed with the District Court for the District of Columbia, follows Cortes’ challenge to an NLRB Regional Director’s dismissal of her and her coworkers’ petition seeking a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their store.
Cortes is receiving free legal aid in both proceedings from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The lawsuit contends that, because NLRB Board Members cannot be removed at-will by the President, the NLRB’s structure violates Article II of the Constitution.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law which established the Board, restricts a president’s ability to remove Board members except for neglect of duty or malfeasance. The complaint argues that “[t]hese restrictions are impermissible limitations on the President’s ability to remove Board members and violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. Thus, the Board, as currently constituted, is unconstitutional.”
“The Supreme Court made clear in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) and Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) that under Article II of the Constitution, the President must be able to remove federal officials who exercise substantial executive power,” the complaint states. “The five-member NLRB exercises substantial executive power because it issues binding rules, adjudicates unfair labor practices and representation disputes, issues subpoenas, and decides whether and how to direct and conduct elections in representation cases.”
Regional NLRB Dismisses Starbucks Employees’ Request to Vote Out Union
On April 28, Cortes filed a petition, backed by the majority of her coworkers, that requests the NLRB conduct a decertification election at her workplace to end the monopoly bargaining power of SBWU union officials. NLRB Region 3 dismissed Cortes’ petition based on unfair labor practice charges SBWU union officials filed against Starbucks, despite there being no proven connection between those allegations and the decertification petition.
Cortes’ Foundation-provided attorneys filed a Request for Review with the Board challenging this dismissal order. That appeal contrasted the standard the NLRB often applies to petitions to certify unions, which usually proceed with little to no delay, with the standard the NLRB applies to petitions to decertify unions, which are often hamstrung and delayed.
New Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Temporarily Enjoin Unconstitutional Proceedings
Cortes’ new federal lawsuit seeks a declaration from the District Court that the structure of the NLRB as it currently exists is unconstitutional, and an injunction halting the NLRB from proceeding with her decertification case until her federal lawsuit is resolved.
“For too long the NLRB, especially the current Board, has operated as a union boss-friendly kangaroo court, complete with powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As the story of Ms. Cortes shows, the NLRB’s unchecked power creates real harms for workers’ rights, especially when workers seek to free themselves from the control of union bosses they disagree with.”
National Right to Work Foundation Files SCOTUS Brief Defending Alaska’s Protections Against Forced Union Dues
Alaska facing ASEA union lawsuit over arrangement which requires union bosses to obtain affirmative consent from employees before deducting dues
Washington, DC (September 29, 2023) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Alaska v. Alaska State Employees Association. The brief supports the State of Alaska’s attempt to safeguard public sector workers’ First Amendment right to refrain from paying dues to a union they disapprove of. This right was first recognized in the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, which was successfully argued at the High Court by Foundation Legal Director William Messenger.
In the 2018 Janus decision, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects public sector employees from being forced to pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. The High Court further recognized that unions must obtain a worker’s freely given waiver of his or her Janus rights before deducting union dues or fees from his or her paycheck.
In an attempt to ensure his state wasn’t violating its employees’ constitutional rights, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued an executive order to protect workers’ Janus rights: The order requires the state to obtain consent from workers each year to deduct union dues from their paychecks. This arrangement ensures that the “freely given consent” element of Janus is satisfied, while also preventing union bosses from continuing to deduct money from a worker’s wages based on a “yes” given years ago.
However, Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA) union bosses sued the State of Alaska over its Janus protections, and were able to get the state’s highest court to block the arrangement. Even worse, as Foundation staff attorneys point out in the amicus brief, “five Circuit Courts have now held that states and unions can constitutionally seize payments for union speech from dissenting employees without proof they waived their constitutional rights.”
Amicus Brief: Lower Courts and States Are Letting Unions Seize Dues Without Workers’ Consent
The Foundation’s amicus brief maintains that, after the Janus decision, at least seventeen states either “amended their dues deduction laws…to require government employers to enforce restrictions on when employees can stop payroll deductions of union dues,” or “enforced restrictions on stopping payroll deductions under preexisting state laws.” Both lead to unacceptable restraints on public sector workers’ Janus rights, the amicus brief argues.
The amicus brief further contends that lower courts, especially the Ninth Circuit, have misinterpreted Janus to not require public employers to notify public workers of their Janus rights before collecting dues, which dips below the “waiver” standard mandated by the decision. Additionally, the amicus brief points out that the Ninth Circuit has issued decisions that free public employers from any obligation to prove that union bosses obtained authentic consent from workers before dues are taken from their wages.
“Unless the Court grants review and breathes new life into Janus’ waiver requirement, unions and their government allies will continue to severely restrict the right of millions of employees to stop subsidizing union speech,” the amicus brief concludes. “The Court should not tolerate this resistance to its holding in Janus.”
“Public sector union bosses, who prize their own dues-funded political influence far above the individual rights of the employees they claim to ‘represent,’ have tried everything in their power to dodge the Janus ruling and keep siphoning money from workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The Supreme Court has an opportunity in the State of Alaska’s case to set the record straight and ensure that workers’ free association rights can’t simply be molded according to their own schemes.”
Foundation-Backed Workers Notch Victories Over Dues-Hungry UAW Bosses
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
UAW caught using threats and coercion to illegally seize workers’ dues
Ford employee Shiphrah Green excoriated UAW bosses in the Louisville Courier Journal over their blatant disregard for her rights. Foundation attorneys are helping her and others battle the notoriously corrupt union.
LOUISVILLE, KY – United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials have a well-deserved reputation for looking out for their own interests while throwing rank-and-file workers under the bus. The most prominent recent example is the corruption and embezzlement scandal, in which federal investigators revealed that UAW officials had siphoned millions of dollars in workers’ money to fund opulent golf vacations in luxury condos and private villas, spa and amusement park visits, $60,000 cigar-buying sprees, and much more.
But the federal corruption probe that led to eleven top UAW bosses pleading guilty, including former union presidents Gary Jones and Dennis Williams, is hardly the only time greedy UAW bosses abused their government-granted monopoly bargaining powers.
In a series of recent cases brought by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys against the UAW, workers are utilizing the Foundation’s free legal aid to vindicate their rights in the face of illegal dues demands by UAW officials.
Foundation-won Settlements Force UAW to Return Money to KY, IA Workers
Shiphrah Green, an employee of Ford Motor Company’s Louisville Assembly Plant, prevailed over UAW Local 862 bosses with free Foundation legal aid in April. UAW bosses were forced to settle and return money they had unlawfully taken from Green’s pay.
Green’s federal charges against the union maintained not only that UAW officials had made her jump through unnecessary hoops to exercise her right to cut off union dues, but also that UAW bosses made threats against her job when she tried to resign, with one union official warning her “if it were up to me, you’d lose your job for leaving the union.” Green’s settlement also forced UAW officials to refrain from such illegal threats in the future.
Meanwhile in Iowa, four employees of air filter manufacturer Donaldson won a recent settlement in which UAW officials were required to return over $1,000 in illegally-seized dues.
In each Donaldson worker’s case, UAW bosses had either refused to stop dues deductions despite producing no original documentation showing the workers had consented to such deductions in the first place, or had kept seizing money after an employee resigned union membership and revoked authorization to deduct dues, which should have been effective in stopping the flow of dues.
Because Ms. Green and the Donaldson workers reside in Right to Work states, the Foundation-won cases mean they will be free from all union financial support going forward.
Philly Public Defender Hits UAW with Charges
Even in non-Right to Work states where union officials have the power to compel workers to pay some fees under threat of termination, UAW bosses still go far beyond what is legal in their greedy forced-dues demands.
For example, Foundation staff attorneys recently filed a case for Philadelphia public defender Brunilda Vargas. Vargas, a vocal opponent of the UAW’s unionization drive, was told by UAW organizers that the union would reduce her and her coworkers’ wages if they did not grant the union the power to automatically deduct union dues directly from their paychecks.
Not only is the threat illegal, but further, employees can never be required to authorize automatic dues deductions from their paychecks under long-established federal law. This is true even in a state like Pennsylvania where workers lack the protection of a Right to Work law. Vargas’ charge, filed in June, is now being investigated.
“American workers likely have a plethora of reasons for wanting nothing to do with UAW union officials, including but not limited to the dizzying corruption in the union that has led to so many union officials going to prison,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “As Foundation attorneys have experienced, UAW officials will often resort to clearly illegal methods to squeeze money out of dissenting workers in violation of federal law.”
“Union bosses who cannot convince workers to pay union dues voluntarily should not be allowed to seize union dues under threat of termination,” Semmens added.
Foundation Op-Ed: ‘Public Employees Never Waived Their 1st Amendment Rights’
Recently, Newsmax published an op-ed by National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix, highlighting a case from Alaska pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case the State of Alaska seeks protect the First Amendment rights of public employees under the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, by requiring an affirmative waiver before state agencies deduct any union dues:
If you’ve ever watched a television show featuring law enforcement, you probably know these words by heart, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…”
Such a “Miranda” warning ends the following way, “Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
Police “Mirandize” suspects because, although a citizen can waive a constitutional right they have, the government cannot assume that such a right has been waived.
Miranda warnings protect citizens’ Fifth Amendment rights, but the principle applies to any constitutional right. (See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 1966).
The State of Alaska has recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case about Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s attempt to apply this principle to protect the First Amendment rights of state employees.
Five years ago, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys argued and won the landmark Janus v. AFSCME case at the U.S. Supreme Court.
That decision established that the First Amendment prohibits government unions from requiring that public employees pay union dues and fees without their explicit and informed consent.
In the wake of Janus, the State of Alaska was among the first jurisdictions to proactively enforce the decision.
Citing Janus, Gov. Dunleavy issued an executive order directing state officials not to deduct union dues from the paychecks of public employees, unless the state has clear evidence that a worker has knowingly waived their First Amendment Janus rights.
Dunleavy set up a system that required such proof be submitted annually as a condition of the state continuing to deduct union dues.
The state cannot assume state employees want to waive their rights indefinitely: Talking to a police officer voluntarily years ago is not evidence of waiving Fifth Amendment rights in perpetuity.
Despite the straightforward justification, not to mention the fact that Dunleavy’s order doesn’t prevent a single worker from having dues deducted voluntarily, government union bosses in Alaska were livid…
Find the rest of the op-ed online on the website of Newsmax here.
NJ Medieval Times Employees Appeal to National Labor Relations Board in Ongoing Joust with Union Officials
Majority of Lyndhurst Medieval Times cast members signed petition asking Labor Board for election to remove union, but union is stalling vote
Newark, NJ (September 21, 2023) – Artemisia Morley, a cast member at the Lyndhurst, NJ, location of Medieval Times, has submitted a Request for Review to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., defending her and her coworkers’ right to vote unwanted officials of the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA) union out of the workplace. Morley is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Morley’s Request for Review challenges NLRB Region 22’s hurried dismissal of a petition she filed on behalf of her coworkers seeking an election to remove the AGVA union (also known as a “decertification election”). Her petition contained the signatures of a strong majority of her coworkers, but the Regional Director dismissed it “without any hearing, and without citing any evidence that there was a ‘causal nexus’ between the Employees’ disaffection from the Union” and unproven allegations that union officials had levied against the employer.
Because New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, AGVA union officials have the power to force Morley and her coworkers to pay union fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in states with Right to Work laws, union bosses can’t enter agreements with employers that force employees to fork over a portion of their paychecks to the union just to get or keep a job.
“Secretive” and “Self-Interested” AGVA Union Officials Tried to Stifle Worker-Requested Vote
The Request for Review notes that AGVA union officials were “secretive, self-interested, and divisive,” and “regularly advocated that the [Medieval Times] employees go on strike, something that had no support among the unit employees.” After waiting out the statutory one-year bar on union elections that follows a union’s certification, Morley filed the petition requesting a union decertification vote.
According to the Request for Review, instead of processing the petition as NLRB rules dictate, NLRB Region 22 issued a complaint against the employer and dismissed Morley’s petition based on unproven “blocking charges” AGVA union officials filed against Medieval Times management. The Request for Review argues that the hasty dismissal violated NLRB election rules, the Administrative Procedure Act, and well-established NLRB precedent requiring a hearing to demonstrate whether union allegations of employer misconduct actually caused employee discontent with the union.
“None of the alleged unfair labor practice allegations…concern the Employees’ collection of the decertification signatures or the Employer’s domination of the Union. Thus…an election should be held and the votes immediately counted,” the Request for Review contends. “Even if the Board determined the allegations warranted consideration under [NLRB rules], its plain terms prohibit dismissing a petition prior to an election.”
Case May Be Used to Push Radical Agenda of Biden-Appointed NLRB General Counsel
In 2020, the NLRB adopted Foundation-backed reforms that made it less difficult for workers to eliminate an unwanted union. One reform pared back union officials’ ability to use “blocking charges” to stop worker-requested decertification elections from happening. The reform instead created a process in which charges surrounding an election are litigated after employees have gotten to exercise their right to vote. Instead of applying this rule, NLRB Region 22 dismissed Morley and her coworkers’ requested election.
The Request for Review notes that NLRB Region 22’s complaint, which incorporated AGVA union officials’ unproven allegations against the employer, does not appear designed to help workers “but rather to twist the law and facts beyond recognition in order to aid the current [NLRB] General Counsel’s ideological crusade to overturn decades of settled Board law about bargaining obligations and employer free speech.” Biden-appointed NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a former union lawyer, has thrown her weight behind other recent cases to uproot longstanding NLRB precedent, often to give more power to union bosses at the expense of workers’ freedom.
“Aided by regional NLRB officials, AGVA union officials seem determined to send the individual rights of Medieval Times workers back to the Dark Ages,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “NLRB election rules clearly forbid union officials from using completely unproven charges of employer misconduct to derail workers’ ability to have a vote on whether they want continued union representation.”
“Federal labor law is supposed to protect the fundamental right of workers to freely decide who will speak for them in workplace matters, and Foundation staff attorneys will fight for Morley and her coworkers as AGVA bosses try to turn this commonsense principle on its head,” Mix added.
Piscataway L’Oreal Employees Demand Vote to Remove RWDSU Union Officials from Facility
RWDSU rejected twice by Alabama Amazon workers; union may soon also lose power over large unit of beauty company employees
Piscataway, NJ (September 19, 2023) – Employees of L’Oreal USA Products’ facility in Piscataway, NJ, have just filed a petition requesting a vote to remove Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU-UFCW) Local 262 officials from power at their workplace. L’Oreal employee Ana Maria Hoyos Lopez submitted the petition to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 22 in Newark with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Hoyos Lopez’s petition contains signatures from the required number of her coworkers to prompt the NLRB to hold a union decertification vote at the Piscataway facility. The work unit under the control of the RWDSU union is large (over 100 employees) and includes production workers, maintenance workers, truck drivers, and warehouse workers.
Because New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, RWDSU union officials have the power to force Hoyos Lopez and her coworkers to pay union fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in states with Right to Work laws, union bosses can’t enter agreements with employers that force employees to fork over a portion of their paychecks to the union just to get or keep a job.
“RWDSU union officials have spent a lot of time campaigning around our workplace, but they have not been standing up for me and my coworkers,” commented Hoyos Lopez. “My coworkers and I deserve a chance to exercise our right to vote the union out, and I’m confident we will decide to kick them out.”
Biden NLRB Planning New Restrictions on Workers’ Right to Vote Out Unwanted Union Officials
Hoyos Lopez and her colleagues’ effort comes as the Biden NLRB in Washington, D.C., is attempting to make it more difficult for employees to obtain votes to remove unwanted unions, while giving union officials more tools to gain power in a workplace without even a vote. The NLRB will soon issue a final rule overturning the Election Protection Rule, a Foundation-backed 2020 reform which made commonsense improvements to the decertification process.
The Election Protection Rule’s repeal, among other things, will grant union officials greater power to use so-called “blocking charges” to stop union decertification elections from happening. “Blocking charges” are often unverified allegations of employer misconduct that frequently have no relation or connection to workers’ desire to oust a union.
The repeal will also likely block workers from seeking a union decertification vote for a year after union bosses attempt to install themselves in a workplace via “card check.” The card check process lets union officials bypass the NLRB’s traditional secret ballot vote procedures and instead allege majority support by collecting union authorization cards directly from workers – often using coercive or intimidating tactics.
“It’s not particularly surprising that L’Oreal employees are seeking to oust RWDSU union bosses, who seem to have a penchant for ignoring workers’ will,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “RWDSU is still trying to impose itself on workers at the large Amazon facility in Bessemer, Alabama, despite those workers voting not once, but twice to reject the union’s presence.”
“Unfortunately, the Biden NLRB is trying to make it easier for union officials who seek to undermine worker votes to cling onto power, but Foundation attorneys will continue to defend Ms. Hoyos Lopez and any other employee who seeks to exercise their individual right to vote out unwanted union officials,” Mix added.
