Minneapolis Worker Files Federal Charges Against Union for Unlawful Dues Demands, ‘Pay Up or Be Fired’ Threats
OPEIU union bosses failed to follow federal law and Beck Supreme Court precedent, ignored and obstructed employee for exercising his rights
Minneapolis, MN (October 14, 2026) – William Kocke, an employee of CenterPoint Energy, has filed unfair labor practice charges against Office and Professional Employees International (OPEIU) Local 12. The charges state that OPEIU union officials ignored and obstructed Kocke when he attempted to exercise his right to refrain from union membership and his right to pay less than full union dues under the National Right to Work Foundation-won Communication Workers v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Kocke filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
In April 2026, Kocke reached out to union officials inquiring about how to opt out of union membership. After having received no response for almost a month, he sent a registered letter to union President Devin Hogan informing him of his intentions to be a Beck objector. Instead of honoring his request and sending him the required financial disclosures, Hogan insisted that Kocke sign a membership form without Beck language. When Kocke refused, Hogan told him he would need to fill out a so-called “Beck objector form,” but claimed that form was not yet ready.
Under the Foundation-won Beck decision, union officials are prohibited from requiring workers who opt out of union membership to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s monopoly bargaining functions. Such expenses include members-only activities and union officials’ spending on politics and lobbying.
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can enforce contracts that require workers to pay money to the union or be fired. However, this “pay-up-or-be-fired” power is limited by Beck.
After nearly a month of no response, Hogan sent Kocke an incorrect link to a union membership form instead of the “Beck objector form,” and subsequently sent him an undetailed, inadequate financial report claiming that nearly 90 percent of his union dues were required to keep his job.
On August 13th, Kocke again attempted to assert his Beck rights, requesting only to pay for monopoly bargaining activities, and again asked for a complete financial report along with a copy of his union membership and dues check-off authorization. Although union officials received his request, they refused to respond and deducted the full dues amount out of his paycheck.
“Time after time, union officials ignore their legal obligations and abuse the rights of hardworking people just to fill their coffers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Kocke’s experience is not an isolated case, but is one Foundation staff attorneys see repeated across the country.
“Cases like this show why all workers need Right to Work protections, so all union financial support is fully voluntary and every employee gets to decide for themselves whether union officials deserve a portion of their hard-earned paycheck,” added Mix.
Workers File Brief in Appeals Court Challenge to Biden-Era Labor Board Decision Preventing Halt of Union Dues Deductions
National Right to Work Foundation-backed employees are also challenging similar restriction on workers’ right to stop dues in ongoing NLRB cases
Washington, DC (October 13, 2026) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, two employees have filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case (Kroger Texas L.P. v. NLRB) challenging a Biden-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling blocking employers from ceasing union dues deductions after a contract expires.
The two workers, Brittani Butler and Cypress Meadowlark, are already challenging a separate but related NLRB precedent that restricts employees from stopping dues deductions when no union contract is in effect. Both had attempted to stop union dues deductions only to have those requests ignored by union officials, despite neither being subject to a union monopoly bargaining agreement.
Their brief urges the Court of Appeals overturn a 2022 NLRB decision in a case known as Valley Hospital II. The underlying May NLRB decision at issue in Kroger Texas L.P. v. NLRB, the Board applied Valley Hospital II to find that Kroger unlawfully stopped deducting union dues after contracts with the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 455 had expired.
Prior to Valley Hospital II, under a standard first decided in a 1962 Board Decision, employers could lawfully stop dues deductions after the expiration of a union contract. That decision said that dues collections, like union no-strike clauses, arbitration clauses, and compulsory unionism clauses, are exceptions to the general rule that the status quo must be continued after the expiration of a union contract.
In 2012, an Obama NLRB with two unconstitutionally appointed Board members overturned 50 years of precedent to require employers to deduct union dues even during a contract hiatus. Another lawfully appointed Obama NLRB reinstated the same rule in 2015. During the first Trump administration, the NLRB went back to the longstanding rule in Valley Hospital I, only to have the radical Biden Board reverse it again in Valley Hospital II.
Brief: The NLRB Disregards Federal Statue; Reverses Positions Regarding Dues Deductions
The brief filed by Foundation staff attorneys argues that Valley Hospital II and the subsequent Kroger decision wrongly disregarded the clear meaning of a statue that addresses payroll deduction of union dues, Section 302(c)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).
First, the brief notes that under Section 302(c)(4) of the LMRA, Congress stated that union dues deduction assignments must be revocable “beyond the termination date of the applicable collective agreement.” This demonstrates that Congress thought dues deduction assignments are “rooted in contract,” and therefore do not persist beyond the expiration of a monopoly bargaining contract.
The brief further argues that Section 302(c)(4) shows Congress separated dues deductions from other employment terms by establishing an employee’s right to stop dues deductions “at will” when there is no monopoly bargaining contract in place. Finally, the brief contends that if an employer must continue dues deductions when a contract has expired, that would impermissibly make the dues assignment “irrevocable” for employers, which violates the plain language of LMRA Section 302(c)(4).
“No worker should have to wage a legal battle just to exercise their right to stop union dues from being taken out of their paycheck, especially when there isn’t even a union contract in effect,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Brittani Butler and Cypress Meadowlark know firsthand how union officials exploit Valley Hospital II and similar NLRB precedents to keep dues flowing over workers’ objections.
“The Fifth Circuit should strike down this Biden-era scheme, and the current NLRB should finish the job by scrapping every Board precedent that traps workers in dues deductions they’ve attempted to revoke,” added Mix. “Doing so would not impede the payment of voluntary union dues at all, since union bosses are always free to collect dues directly from workers who want to pay them.”
Port Worker Files Brief at U.S. Court of Appeals Defending Labor Board Victory Over Years-Long Union Boss Discrimination
Brief: Labor Board correctly found that ILA union bosses violated dissenter’s rights and should be held to a “heightened” standard for abuse of power
Wilmington, DE, Philadelphia, PA (October 5, 2026) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a brief in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Stanford Fowler, a port worker who was the victim of union officials’ years-long campaign of abuse that included threats and loss of referrals from the union-controlled hiring hall.
The case started when Fowler, who worked at the Port of Wilmington in Delaware, filed an unfair labor practice charge at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in August, 2021. Fowler argued that he had been illegally blacklisted by International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA) Local 1694 union officials after voicing concerns to the ILA International about work assignment practices after a merger of several ILA locals.
Following the issuance of a complaint by the NLRB General Counsel, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled largely in Fowler’s favor, and a subsequent unanimous decision from a bipartisan panel of NLRB Members affirmed the ALJ’s findings and even extended them farther, ruling that the union officials’ actions had violated federal law in several respects. In its decision, the NLRB ordered the union to provide Fowler with back pay covering the past five years to remedy his loss of work due to the union bosses’ discrimination.
Rather than accept responsibility for their unlawful actions, ILA Local 1694 bosses instructed their lawyers to appeal the Board’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. They even attempted to block Fowler from participating in the defense of his Labor Board victory, but those arguments were overruled and the Court specifically allowed Fowler to participate as an Intervenor to ensure the Board’s decision stands.
Foundation Calls for Court to Reject Local 1694’s Misleading Brief, Fully Enforce NLRB’s Decision
The Foundation staff attorneys’ brief argues that the ALJ and NLRB were “correct in determining that Local 1694 violated the [National Labor Relations Act] and the duty of fair representation” by threatening and coercing Fowler for dissenting, interfering with his ability to gain employment, banning him from the port, and telling him that gaining further work through its hiring hall would be futile. The brief urges the Court to ignore the union’s smokescreen of arguments that attempt to distract from the real issues.
The brief points out that Local 1694’s defense “omits much more than it presents.” Among these omissions were the failure of Local 1694 President and Vice President to show up at the hearing as witnesses, even though both were explicitly mentioned in the complaint. Furthermore, the Foundation attorneys’ brief calls out the union’s lawyers for relying on previous NLRB decisions that were reversed and denied enforcement by two appellate courts.
The brief argues, under Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l, that when a union chooses to operate a hiring hall it is assuming an “employer’s role” and “its responsibility to exercise that power fairly increases rather than decreases.” Fowler urges the Court to apply a strict and “heightened” standard of fairness found in two earlier Foundation-won cases, Jacoby v. NLRB and Lucas v. NLRB, which both applied the heightened standard of fairness.
The brief observes that applying this heightened standard would “both clarify the state of the law in this circuit and prevent Local 1694 and other hiring halls from attempting to avoid liability by asserting ‘mere negligence’ as an affirmative defense to their patently discriminatory conduct.”
“We are proud to help Mr. Fowler as he defends his NLRB victory at the court of appeals. We are also gratified that we overcame the union’s underhanded attempt to block him from even participating in the appeal of his own legal case,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses must be held accountable when they use their control over hiring halls to retaliate against those who exercise their rights under federal law.
“This case, like our prior Foundation victories in Lucas and Jacoby, show why hiring halls are easily abused by unscrupulous unions, and they should be banned or at least strictly monitored,” added Mix. “Mr. Fowler’s livelihood was threatened by ILA officials’ actions, and we are proud to help him defend his NLRB victory against their illegal actions.”
86-Year-Old Veteran Files Federal Charges Against UFCW Union for Causing his Illegal Firing from Part-Time Grocery Job
Charge: UFCW bosses ignored Village Market employee for four years, then suddenly had him fired claiming he owed over $3,500 in back dues and fees
Oakland, CA (September 28, 2026) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, an 86-year-old veteran who worked part-time at Village Market in Oakland has filed federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5 (UFCW) union. The charge says UFCW 5 union officials illegally had Phil Holland fired in early September claiming he owed thousands of dollars in back dues and fees.
Holland, a Navy veteran with 30 years’ of experience in law enforcement, who also works part-time as a YMCA fitness instructor, was hired by the Village Market grocery store that he shopped at for 30 years in February of 2022 after he noticed a “help wanted” sign in the window. During his first four years of employment, UFCW Local 5 union officials never contacted him, never asked him to pay union dues or fees, and never notified him of his legal rights under the 1988 Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which protects employees from being required to pay full union dues for activities unrelated to union bargaining like union-boss political activism.
This suddenly changed in May 2026 when UFCW Local 5 union officials began sending threatening messages “welcoming” him to the union and later demanding that he become a member or lose his job.
Shortly after in July, UFCW Local 5 union bosses sent the part-time employee who worked 12 hours a week a letter demanding that he pay over $3,500 in retroactive dues and fees under the threat of termination. The union communication lacked the required information to inform him of his legal rights under the Beck decision.
Union Officials Rejected Proposed Partial Payment, Had Retired Veteran Terminated
With Holland not willing to pay the sudden and unlawful $3,500 dues demand, he proposed paying the Beck fee going forward and a partial payment of the back amount. UFCW officials not only rejected his request but also demanded that Village Market terminate his employment, which the company effectively did.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials can require workers to pay money to the union or lose their jobs. However, the Supreme Court’s NLRB v. General Motors decision forbids mandatory formal union membership.
The charge asks the NLRB to prosecute UFCW 5 for Holland’s illegal termination and also hold that the union committed an unfair labor practice when union officials knowingly ignored his employment for years without attempting to collect dues, then suddenly sprung a multi-year dues demand on the part-time employee. Mr. Holland’s charges will now be investigated by NLRB Region 32 officials.
“UFCW 5 union officials ignored Mr. Holland for more than four years while he worked part-time at his local grocery store, then out of nowhere ambushed the 86-year-old veteran with a bill for thousands of dollars and illegally had him fired when he didn’t give into their unlawful demands,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The abusive tactics on display in this case show the need for additional protections for employees against union boss attempts to collect years of back dues after the union itself failed to legally request the money at the time.
“Ultimately though, cases like this demonstrate why every worker in America deserves Right to Work protections to ensure that all union payments are strictly voluntary,” added Mix.
Nurse Files Federal Charges Challenging Union Policy that Conditions Contract Vote Participation on Signing Union Card
Nurse contends that union rule disenfranchising nonmembers is unlawful restraint on Section 7 right to refuse union membership protected by federal law
Baltimore, MD (September 22, 2026) – Jennifer Delaney, a nurse at Ascension Health’s St. Agnes Hospital in Baltimore, has filed federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenging a common union boss tactic designed to coerce employees into signing union membership and dues cards. The charges were filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Delaney’s charges argue that when union officials block nonmembers from voting on contracts that will apply to them, the union violates the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA’s) prohibition on unions restraining or coercing employees’ Section 7 right to refrain from union membership. Though the NLRB has long looked the other way when union officials engage in such discrimination during contract ratification votes, the charges argue that the Board can no longer brush aside this clear violation of the text of the NLRA in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
The charges were filed after National Nurses Organizing Committee-National Nurses United (NNOC/NNU) officials prevented Delaney and other nonmember nurses from participating in a vote on September 17 over whether to ratify a monopoly union contract that would apply to both member and nonmember nurses alike. Delaney, with the assistance of her National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, filed similar charges in April 2025 when union officials disenfranchised nonmembers from voting on a “partial deal” regarding a contract proposal. Those charges remain pending.
Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, NNOC/NNU officials are empowered to enforce union contracts on all of the approximately 600 nurses at St. Agnes that could require every nurse to make payments to the union or else be fired. Although this particular contract does not include a forced dues provision, union officials were nevertheless blocking nonmembers from voting on the monopoly bargaining contract unless they joined the union and authorized automatic dues deductions.
Nurse’s Challenge Follows Previous Discrimination Charge, Attempt to Vote Union Out
Ever since NNOC/NNU union officials gained power at the hospital, they have been a divisive force, with many nurses opposing the union. In January 2025, around 200 nurses voted to remove the union in a decertification election, but the union was narrowly able to maintain power despite less than half of eligible voters (244 out of 573) backing the union.
Delaney explains why so many nurses wanted nothing to do with NNOC/NNU: “This union proved itself to be a divisive force as soon as it began campaigning at our hospital. Many of the nurses opposed its agenda from the very beginning, and it is still making things difficult for both us and our patients. Little has changed since the union got in and now we are being denied a say over our own contract terms.”
Both the latest charge and the pending charge filed in April 2025 are being investigated by NLRB Region 5 officials based in Baltimore.
“The whole point of Section 7 is that workers get to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union, free of pressure from union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “For too long, union bosses have weaponized their monopoly bargaining power over all employees in a workplace, effectively imposing a poll tax on workers by conditioning voting eligibility on union membership and dues payment.
“If NNOC/NNU bosses are unwilling to let nonmember nurses vote, then they are free to renounce their power to impose their one-size-fits-all contract on nonmembers,” added Mix. “Until that happens, it is vital the NLRB enforce the clear letter of federal law and protect these nurses from union policies designed to coerce them into signing away their legal rights.”
KATU Photojournalist Hits IATSE Union, Station with Federal Labor Board Charges after Being Illegally Fired
Union officials and complicit management illegally demand photographer join union and authorize dues deductions, then had him fired when he refused
Portland, OR (September 17, 2026) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a former employee for KATU-TV has filed federal charges against the television station and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) union for violating his rights, culminating in his illegal termination.
Devon Carroll was employed as a photojournalist for ABC local affiliate KATU television station in Portland, Oregon. His federal charges detail how both IATSE Local 600 officials and KATU-TV demanded that he sign the union’s membership and dues check-off authorization, then violated federal law by terminating his employment when he declined to give in to their clearly illegal demands.
Because Oregon lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can require workers to pay money to the union or lose their jobs. However, IATSE union officials’ demands – which were later enforced by a complicit KATU human resources official – went far beyond what is legally permissible, even in a state without Right to Work protections for employees.
Union Bosses and Employer Ignore Supreme Court Precedent, Clear Federal Law
The Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. General Motors, decided in 1963, forbids mandatory, formal union membership as a condition of employment. Further, longstanding law says employees can never be required to sign a union dues deduction card. Federal law also says union officials cannot require payment of dues or fees without a union contract that includes a valid forced dues clause, and that, even when such a contract is in effect, no forced dues can be required of new hires until after 30 days of employment.
IATSE also ignored the NLRB’s 1962 Philadelphia Sheraton Corp. precedent, which includes mandatory procedural safeguards a union must follow when union officials are seeking to have an employee terminated for non-payment of union dues or fees. Furthermore, IATSE union bosses failed to inform Carroll of his Beck rights, a Supreme Court victory the Right to Work Foundation won in 1988.
According to his charges, an IATSE Senior Business agent told Carroll that he must join the union. When Mr. Carroll requested more information about the forced-dues requirement, the IATSE official responded by demanding he sign a union membership and dues check-off authorization.
At no point did the union officials provide information required under Beck or Philadelphia Sheraton. In addition, union officials’ initial demand for payment was based on an expired union contract, something the KATU HR official knew. Despite this, KATU ignored the union’s known misrepresentations and complied with union officials’ illegal demand that Carroll be fired.
Mr. Carroll’s federal charges will now be investigated by National Labor Relations Board Region 19 officials. A win in his case would result in Carroll being offered reinstatement, and issued back pay and reimbursement of other expenses associated with the unlawful termination. The union and station would also likely be required to post a notice to inform other employees of their legal rights.
“It is bad enough that Oregon workers can be forced to pay fees to union bosses just to earn a living,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In this case – aided by complicit company officials – IATSE union bosses violated numerous longstanding legal requirements in their rush to extort forced dues from Mr. Carroll.
“This case is a clear example of why more fundamental reform is needed, and especially why all American workers deserve Right to Work protections, so they can freely choose for themselves whether or not to fund a union with their hard-earned money,” Mix added.
Labor Board Decision Rules Region Wrongly Tossed Out McDowell County Employees’ Union Decertification Votes
NLRB majority finds Regional Director wrongly rubber-stamped gambit by SEIU and employer to destroy ballots in vote to remove union
Welch, WV (September 3, 2026) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., has just reversed an NLRB Region 9 official’s decision to dismiss a petition filed by McDowell County Commission on Aging employee John Reeves seeking to remove Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 officials from his workplace. Reeves received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys throughout the proceedings.
In its decision, Board Chairman James Murphy and Member Scott Mayer ruled that the Region 9 Director erred by dismissing Reeves’ decertification petition and refusing to count the ballots from a decertification election held in July 2024. The Board majority found that the Regional Director had simply repeated unproven, settled unfair labor practice allegations against the Commission as the stated basis for dismissal, without making any independent finding, as required by precedent, that Reeves’ petition was actually tainted by direct employer involvement.
Region Greenlit Employer and SEIU Bosses’ Collusive Deal to Block Workers from Voting Out Union
Reeves filed his decertification petition in June 2024 after the Commission’s contract with the SEIU expired. All parties, including the SEIU, agreed to hold a decertification election, which took place on July 9, 2024. However, NLRB Region 9 officials impounded the ballots without counting them, citing blocking charges the SEIU had filed at the last minute against the Commission.
On the final day before NLRB rules at the time mandated that the votes be counted, the Region rushed out a complaint based on the union’s charges to block the count. Later, the Region approved a “settlement” between the company and the union of the unfair labor practice charges. Notably, the settlement contained no admission of wrongdoing by the employer, yet it included a provision that the employees’ decertification petition would be dismissed and further decertification petitions would be blocked.
Reeves was not a party to that settlement, even though his legal rights under the National Labor Relations Act were abrogated by the union-employer agreement. Reeves had previously attempted to intervene in the blocking charge case, only for the Region to deny his participation despite its likely impact on his decertification effort. The Region nonetheless cited the settled, unproven allegations as grounds to toss out his petition and the ballots the employees had cast.
Soon after, in March 2025, Foundation staff attorneys asked the Board in Washington to review and reverse that dismissal, arguing the Region had no lawful basis to scrap a decertification vote based on allegations the employer never admitted and the Board never proved. That Request for Review noted that the Region has ignored longstanding precedent in its rush to protect incumbent SEIU union officials from being removed by the votes of a majority of employees.
Board Majority: Region Ignored Longstanding Law to Disenfranchise Employees
Citing the NLRB’s decisions in TruServ Corp., the Board majority held that a settlement lacking an admission of liability cannot, standing alone, justify dismissing a decertification petition. The majority further found that the Regional Director’s dismissal letter did nothing more than recite the settled complaint’s allegations, without the kind of independent administrative finding of direct employer instigation or solicitation that Board precedent requires before a petition can be thrown out. The Board granted review, reversed the dismissal, and ordered the ballots opened and counted.
Ultimately the ruling arrives too late to affect Reeves personally, as he and his coworkers took separate action to free themselves from SEIU 1199 with a majority-backed petition in November 2025. However, the case is just the latest example of union lawyers abusing NLRB rules and exploiting sympathetic regional officials to keep workers trapped in union ranks over the objection of a majority of employees.
“Mr. Reeves and his coworkers ultimately succeeded in freeing themselves from SEIU control through their own efforts, but far too many other workers are stuck under so-called ‘representation’ they oppose because the decertification process is subject to exactly this kind of bureaucratic manipulation and delay,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This case is a textbook illustration of why the Foundation’s pending rulemaking petition is necessary to end the various non-statutory barriers employees face when it comes to holding decertification elections and having their votes promptly counted.”
Washington State Registered Nurse Files Federal Civil Rights Charge Against Nurse’s Union for Illegal Religious Discrimination
EEOC Charge: AFT union officials unlawfully refused Christian nurse’s request for religious accommodation to union dues payment
Seattle, WA (September 2, 2026) – A Washington nurse has filed a federal Charge of Discrimination against the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA), an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), stating that union officials have engaged in religious discrimination by illegally denying her request for religious accommodation. The nurse, Rheanne Garrett, submitted her charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with free legal representation by National Right to Work staff attorneys.
Since Washington State lacks Right to Work protections, union officials have the power to compel workers under their monopoly bargaining power to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. However, under decades old precedents established by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, if funding a union violates employees’ sincere religious beliefs, then they are entitled to a religious accommodation to union financial support.
Both the WSNA and the AFT have extensive histories of using their power and significant resources to promote pro-abortion and pro-LGBT causes that are antithetical to Garrett’s faith. Due to her sincere religious convictions, Garrett chose to exercise her religious freedom by refusing to affiliate with, or financially support, either of the unions and their activism that conflicts with her religious beliefs.
EEOC Charge: Union Unlawfully Discriminating with Repeated Blanket Denials, Harassment
In early May, Garrett sent an email to the WSNA describing her sincerely held religious convictions and requested an accommodation from the requirement to join or pay dues to the union. For the next two months, email exchanges between Garrett and union officials proved unfruitful, despite Garrett even having provided a letter from her pastor that attested to her sincerely held religious beliefs. Although Garrett repeatedly sent the union more than sufficient information to justify her request, the union offered only blanket denials, insisting without explanation that she did not qualify for a religious accommodation.
If the EEOC finds merit to Garrett’s charges, the agency will either take legal action against the WSNA itself, or will issue a “right to sue” letter to Garrett, which will entitle her to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the union in federal court.
“By denying my repeated requests for a religious accommodation and holding the threat of discharge over me for refusing to compromise my religious beliefs,” Garrett explains, “the Unions are violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and parallel state laws.
“The Unions are also engaging in quid-pro-quo harassment by threatening my job unless I compromise my religious convictions by joining or paying monies to the Unions,” Garrett said.
“The Foundation is proud to help working women like Ms. Garrett who courageously stand up to protect their religious beliefs from the schemes of radical union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the battle to preserve the right of religious employees opposed to funding union activities for religious reasons is important, more fundamental reform is needed to ensure that no one is forced to fund or associate with union bosses against their will, no matter whether their personal objection is political, religious, financial, or otherwise.”
Seattle TV On-Air Talent Officially Wins Freedom from Unwanted SAG-AFTRA Union Bosses After Successful Decertification Vote
Labor Board certifies vote to remove SAG-AFTRA union officials who were reportedly unresponsive and ineffective
Seattle, WA (August 20, 2026) – The on-air staff at Seattle’s KOMO-TV have successfully won their independence from the union officials at the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA). The effort was led by Emmy-award winning reporter Jeremy Harris, who filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking “decertification” to end SAG-AFTRA’s monopoly bargaining power over all on-air talent. Harris’s petition was filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Decertification petitions require the support of at least 30 percent of workers in a unit to trigger an election to remove a union from a workplace. Over 60 percent of KOMO’s on-air talent signed the decertification petition. The election was held on August 12, and a majority voted to remove the union.
The NLRB certified the results of the election on August 20. This officially ended SAG-AFTRA union officials’ monopoly-bargaining and forced-dues powers over KOMO-TV talent. These powers are government-granted powers over every worker in the unit, regardless of whether they support the union.
While employees have many reasons for wanting to free themselves from union ranks, it has been reported that though union dues were mandatory to keep a job, SAG-AFTRA was largely ineffective, especially since on-air talent typically negotiate their own contracts above and beyond the union minimums. Another longtime Seattle journalist put it more bluntly: “My sources confirm that the union is AWOL and does nothing except collect dues.”
Washington is one of 24 states without a Right to Work law, which would safeguard workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. Harris and his colleagues were forced to pay union dues and fees to union bosses under the threat of termination, due to Washington’s non-Right to Work status. Now that the decertification has been certified, Harris and his colleagues are free to negotiate their contracts individually without union interference and without mandatory union dues or fees.
Though forced dues are frequently the catalyst for decertification efforts, even many workers in Right to Work states, where union dues payments are voluntary, frequently seek to free themselves of unwanted union monopoly “representation.” For example, just weeks ago, Texas Public Radio (TPR) news employees in Right to Work Texas also voted to remove SAG-AFTRA union officials from their workplace.
“No employee in America should be trapped under so-called union ‘representation’ they oppose, and it adds insult to injury to force employees to pay unwanted union officials just to keep their jobs,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We are proud to have assisted the on-air talent at KOMO-TV as they fought for their independence from union bosses who seemed to only be around when it came time to collect forced dues.”
