Bus Driver Asks National Labor Relations Board to Overturn “Merger Doctrine” Used by Union Bosses to Block Worker-Requested Votes
By “merging” smaller individual bargaining units into mega-units, union officials block workers’ right to escape unwanted “representation” and forced dues
Battle Ground, Washington (February 14, 2025) – Theresa Hause, a school bus driver for First Student Inc. in Battle Ground, Washington, has just filed an appeal asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to overturn the so-called “merger doctrine” that is being used to block Hause and her colleagues from holding a vote to end forced union dues at their workplace. Hause’s Request for Review was filed with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB’s non-statutory “merger doctrine” allows union officials to “merge” employees in a smaller bargaining unit into much larger one. This legal tactic prevents rank-and-file employees exercising their rights under federal law to hold votes to remove unions (known as “decertification elections”) or to end forced-union dues requirements (known as “deauthorization elections”).
Because employees are suddenly part of a much larger and frequently geographically-dispersed “bargaining unit” with workers they have never met and likely don’t even know the names of, once “merged” it becomes effectively impossible for employees to ever reach the 30% threshold of signatures needed to trigger decertificiation or deauthorization elections.
Teamsters and other union officials frequently use non-statutory “merger doctrine” to trap workers in union ranks, forced-dues payments
In previous First Student cases, the “merger doctrine” was wielded by Teamsters officials to block votes at multiple locations on the grounds the workers there were actually part of one massive bargaining unit with over 22,000 drivers in over 100 locations in 33 different states. In another example, a group of less than 10 Wisconsin workers filed a majority-backed petition to remove (i.e. “decertify”) the Teamsters as soon as allowed by federal law, only to be stymied by the “merger doctrine” because they had been secretly “merged” into a multi-company unit of around 24,000 workers.
Hause’s request to end the non-statutory “merger doctrine” follows a decision by a NLRB Regional Director applying the doctrine to her request for a deauthorization election to end Teamsters Local 58 union officials power to require all drivers to pay fees or else be fired. Such a vote is necessary because Hause and her colleagues work in Washington State, which lacks Right to Work protections that make union financial support strictly voluntary.
Hause collected signatures from over 30% of First Student drivers at the facilities in Battle Ground and Hockinson, which is the unit originally organized by Teamsters Local 58 before First Student was even the employer. Rather than let the vote take place, Teamsters lawyers invoked the merger doctrine to disenfranchise the drivers. The Teamsters lawyers argued Hause and her coworkers are only a tiny fraction of First Student drivers under a “National Master First Student Agreement” involving Teamster affiliates across the country.
After the Regional Director sided with the Teamsters to block the workers from voting, an appeal was filed to the five-seat National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC. Currently the NLRB lacks a quorum to act because there are only two Board members. However, President Trump could appoint three new Members who could then rule on Hause’s request for review once they are confirmed by the United States Senate.
“This case shows how Teamsters bosses, aided by biased NLRB-concocted rules, disenfranchise workers and trap them in union ranks and forced dues payments, effectively in perpetuity,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s time for the NLRB to overhaul the arbitrary rules, including the so-called ‘merger doctrine,’ that are being used to eviscerate workers’ statutory rights under the National Labor Relations Act to hold a vote to remove a union opposed by a majority of employees or vote to end forced-dues requirements.”
“Quickly ending the ‘merger doctrine’ would be an excellent way for the incoming Trump NLRB majority to signal that, instead of prioritizing coercive union boss power as the Biden NLRB did, the Trump Labor Board will be putting employee rights and freedoms front and center,” added Mix.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice for Colorado King Soopers Workers Impacted by UFCW Strike
Despite union boss-ordered strike, all 10,000 affected King Soopers employees are free to exercise their right to return to work
DENVER, CO (February 10, 2025) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for workers affected by a strike at the King Soopers grocery chain in Colorado ordered by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials.
According to news reports, the UFCW has ordered around 10,000 workers to strike against King Soopers grocery stores. The Foundation’s legal notice informs these workers of the rights union officials often hide, such as that the workers have the right to continue to work to support their families.
Importantly, the notice gives workers who want to exercise their right to work information on how to avoid fines and punishment that could be imposed by union officials.
“The situation raises serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “That is why workers frequently contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and other oppressive union discipline for continuing to report to work.”
The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights workers’ rights to resign union membership and their right to revoke their union dues check-offs. The notice also provides helpful information for removing union by using a decertification petition to obtain a secret ballot election.
The National Right to Work Foundation is the nation’s premier organization exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employee victims of forced unionism abuse. The full notice can be found at: https://www.nrtw.org/KingSoopers/
The Foundation has a long history of providing legal assistance to workers in such situations. In fact, when UFCW bosses last ordered a strike against King Soopers, Foundation staff attorneys helped several King Soopers employees defend themselves against illegal attempts by UFCW officials to fine the workers for exercising their right to rebuff union strike demands.
“Workers always have the right to continue to work during a strike, despite what union officials may tell them or try to pressure them into doing,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “This legal notice reflects the Foundation’s decades-long commitment to offering free legal aid to workers to protect them from union bosses’ coercive tactics that regularly go hand-in-hand with union strike demands.”
“Foundation attorneys have assisted King Soopers employees in the past against illegal UFCW retaliation, and are here to assist employees facing unlawful retaliation during this latest strike as well,” added Mix.
Fourth Fred Meyer Grocery Employee Hits UFCW Union with Federal Charges
Unfair Labor Practice Charge: Union Bosses illegally threatening strike fine against nonmember worker
PORTLAND, OR (February 6, 2025) – Portland-area Fred Meyer grocery store employee Robert Wendelschafer has filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Local 555. The charges state that union officials broke federal law by ignoring his request to resign union membership during a union strike and are unlawfully retaliating against the employee by demanding nearly $1000 from him because he exercised his right to rebuff union boss strike orders and go to work.
Robert Wendelschafer has joined co-workers Sandra Harbison, Coyesca Vasquez, and Reegin Schaffer in filing charges against the UFCW with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. All four took legal action to challenge unlawful retaliation by union officials after the workers rebuffed union strike orders last year.
As detailed in his charge, on August 30, 2024 Wendelschafer exercised his right to resign union membership and return to work. Despite this, on December 18 union officials sent him a letter stating they had found him guilty of violating internal UFCW rules by crossing the picket line and as a result ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of $992.
If an employee is not a voluntary union member, he or she cannot be legally subjected to internal union discipline, like the fine UFCW union officials are attempting to impose on Wendelschafer, Harbison and Vasquez. UFCW union officials backed off their illegal discipline tactics in Shaffer’s case nearly immediately after her charges were filed in November, but the other charges are still pending with the agency.
UFCW Officials Were Previously Caught Illegally Imposing Massive Strike Fines Against Workers
During past UFCW–instigated strikes, workers faced similar unlawful fines, which union officials claim can only be disputed at internal union courts. In 2022, union officials illegally levied fines against King Soopers grocery chain workers in Denver, Colorado, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike.
The unlawful fines issued by union bosses against the workers were more per day than the workers earned in a day of work, in one case totaling nearly $4,000 throughout the 10 day strike. In that instance Foundation staff attorneys won multiple cases against the UFCW, ultimately resulting in union bosses rescinding the unlawful fines.
“UFCW union officials are again displaying their penchant for using strikes to consolidate power, by threatening rank-and-file workers who exercise their legally-protected right to work despite a union boss-ordered strike,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Workers have a clear legal right to resign from union membership and return to work without facing illegal fines or disciplinary actions, and Foundation attorneys stand ready to assist other Fred Meyer employees that have been subjected to illegal UFCW fines and threats.”
20 Wonderful Nurseries Farmworkers Seek to Join Federal Challenge to Biased Pro-Union Boss California Agricultural Labor Law
Filing: UFW union-backed law sweeps workers into union via coercive ‘card check’ scheme and imposes forced dues in violation of First Amendment
Bakersfield, CA (February 5, 2025) – A group of 20 employees of food and drink company Wonderful Nurseries’ Wasco, CA, facility have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging a California law that will force them under the control of United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials, to whom they have strenuously objected. The employees, who last year were subject to an aggressive “card check” unionization campaign from the UFW, are receiving free legal aid in their effort to defend their rights from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The federal lawsuit the workers seek to join was filed by Wonderful Nurseries against the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), and challenges the ALRB’s “mandatory mediation and conciliation” (MMC) process, which follows the ALRB’s highly-suspect certification of the UFW as the monopoly bargaining representative of the workers. The workers were denied intervention in Wonderful Nurseries’ state court lawsuit challenging the card check certification last July, one week before the court enjoined further proceedings based upon the certification. That lawsuit contends that UFW union agents claimed majority support by submitting to the ALRB union authorization cards that they had fraudulently obtained from workers.
As part of their motion to intervene in this new federal suit, the workers have also filed a proposed intervenors’ complaint detailing even more rights violations by the ALRB. The employees’ filing points out that the Wonderful Nurseries workers must be allowed to vindicate their own rights, which are inherently impacted by the lawsuit.
California labor law mandates that the ALRB should immediately certify a union as monopoly bargaining agent if it submits union cards from a majority of workers, even if there are objections as to how the cards were collected. “Card check” denies workers their right to vote in secret on whether they want a union, and instead allows union officials to demand union authorization cards directly from workers. Past Foundation-backed legal action by Wonderful Nurseries employees at the ALRB detailed the threats and discriminatory behavior that union agents used to obtain the cards.
The Wonderful Nurseries employees’ complaint and motion to intervene, filed by Foundation staff attorneys, joins Wonderful Nurseries’ challenge to the “mandatory mediation and conciliation” provisions of California labor law. Those provisions would force UFW officials and Wonderful Nurseries management to finalize a union contract that will almost certainly subject the workers to UFW union boss control for three years and payment of forced union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs.
“[T]he Employees seek this Court’s immediate intervention to protect their fundamental liberty interests, especially their freedom of association between and amongst themselves, and with their employer, and their rights to be free from State-compelled monopoly representation by a labor organization not legitimately chosen by a majority of employees, and from State-mandated payment of union dues or fees,” the complaint reads.
Radical CA Labor Law Violates First Amendment Janus Decision by Imposing Government-Mandated Forced-Dues Contracts on Workers
The complaint points out that state imposition of such a contract on the Wonderful Nurseries farmworkers would harm their First Amendment rights, as spelled out in the landmark Foundation-won Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME. “[Janus] barred state-mandated and –enforced forced-unionism schemes,” reads the complaint.
In the 2018 Janus decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government-enforced union contracts that required state employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs are a violation of First Amendment free association principles. In this case, Foundation attorneys argue, the State of California would be compelling Wonderful Nurseries and the UFW union to impose a similar contract over farmworkers – one which would require them to subsidize the union or be fired. For that reason, the state government would be violating the First Amendment in the same way as happened in Janus, Foundation attorneys contend.
Employees: UFW Union Created Atmosphere of Intimidation, Discrimination During Union Campaign
Wonderful Nurseries employees Claudia Chavez and Maria Gutierrez, who are part of the current effort, sought to intervene in this case before the ALRB, following the agency’s certification of the UFW’s dubious claims of majority support. In unfair labor practice charges before the ALRB, Chavez and Gutierrez described multiple fabrications – and even discriminatory behavior – that UFW union bosses used to get employees to sign authorization cards, including “representing that certain COVID-19-related public benefits available to farmworkers required signatures on union membership cards…that union membership cards were not, in fact, union membership cards to be used in any UFW organizing efforts…presenting to strictly Spanish-speaking discriminatees union membership cards only in English…[and] presenting to illiterate discriminatees union membership cards and misrepresenting their content and/or significance.”
“UFW union officials deceived us just so they could gain power in our workplace,” Chavez and Gutierrez commented after filing charges. “Instead of just letting us vote in secret on whether we want a union, they went around lying and threatening to get cards and now are cracking down on anyone who speaks out against the union.”
“Wonderful Nurseries workers, who are desperately trying to defend their freedom from an unwanted UFW union, are finding themselves fighting not only UFW lawyers, but also the full weight of California’s top-down, draconian labor policy,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “By granting union bosses the authority to sweep workers under their control with suspect ‘card check’ campaigns, then having the government impose a forced-dues contract over the objection of both workers and businesses, California legislators have created an environment where workers’ individual rights are being crushed to promote raw, unchecked union boss power.”
Dartmouth, MIT, Vanderbilt Graduate Students Challenge Forced Unionism
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-backed students defend rights as union bosses seek more power at universities
Ben Logsdon is a Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth College. But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that union officials’ refusals to accommodate his religious objections just don’t add up.
HANOVER, NH – Just weeks after National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys triumphed in anti-discrimination cases for Jewish Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate students who sought to stop forced dues payments to a radically anti-Israel union, union officials began creating other problems for university students.
In nearby New Hampshire, Dartmouth graduate student Benjamin Logsdon sought free Foundation legal aid against Graduate Organized Laborers of Dartmouth (GOLD-UE) union officials. The GOLD union — which is an affiliate of the same United Electrical (UE) union involved in the Foundation’s MIT cases — is forcing Logsdon to accept the union’s monopoly “representation” powers against his will, even after he voiced his religious objections to the union’s radical stances on the conflict against Israel.
Grad Students Exposed to Union Coercion & Privacy Violations
Meanwhile, several graduate students at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, are pushing back against an attempt by Vanderbilt Graduate Workers United (VGWU, an affiliate of United Auto Workers) union bosses to impose union control over them and their colleagues. Specifically, three students are seeking to intervene in a federal case in which VGWU union officials are illegally demanding the university hand over the students’ private information to aid in their unionization campaign. Foundation staff attorneys filed motions for intervention for these students in October 2024.
Foundation attorneys are arguing that union officials severely violate students’ rights in both of these cases. However, the reason that union officials are in power on college campuses at all traces back to flawed rulings from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under both the Obama Administration and Biden Administration. These rulings subject graduate students to pro-Big Labor provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which create issues for students’ freedom both inside and outside the classroom.
Logsdon, a Christian Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth, slammed the GOLD union with federal anti-discrimination charges in September 2024 at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to those charges, shortly after the GOLD union finalized its first monopoly bargaining contract with the Dartmouth administration, he sent a letter to United Electrical General Secretary-Treasurer Andrew Dinkelaker explaining that he objected to being affiliated with GOLD on religious grounds and needed an accommodation.
“I sought to be removed from the UE and GOLD-UE bargaining unit as a reasonable accommodation,” Logsdon’s Foundation-backed charges say.
Dinkelaker refused to offer Logsdon an accommodation that “satisf[ied] [his] religious conscience or beliefs,” according to the charges, which violated his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Courts have recognized a variety of Title VII religious accommodations over the years for men and women who have religious objections to union affiliation, including paying an amount equivalent to union dues to a charity instead of union bosses. However, Logsdon seeks a different accommodation: to remove himself from union bosses’ control entirely.
At Vanderbilt, three students who identify themselves in legal documents as “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” and “Jane Doe 1” are contending in their Foundation-backed motions for intervention that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) forbids the Vanderbilt administration from disclosing their personal information to any third parties without their permission, including the VGWU union.
At the union’s behest, NLRB Region 10 has already hit the Vanderbilt administration with a pair of subpoenas demanding personal student info, while ignoring objections from several students expressing concern at the disclosure.
So far Vanderbilt has resisted the NLRB’s subpoenas, and fortunately a federal court has temporarily allowed the university to refuse to comply with them.
The Foundation-backed students’ motions to intervene argue that the subpoenas “are an attempt to violate FERPA’s protections, privileging union interests over the graduate students[’] privacy rights.” It also points out that FERPA allows students to seek “protective action” if a university receives a subpoena seeking their personal information, as in this case.
The Vanderbilt students and their Foundation attorneys are demanding an opportunity to properly defend their privacy interests under FERPA. Foundation attorneys have already filed Requests for Review asking the NLRB in Washington, DC, to weigh in on the matter.
Union Monopoly Power Has No Place at Universities
“Graduate students around the country are discovering that union bosses don’t respect their individual rights and would rather use students as pawns to force their demands on a university administration, or advance an extreme political agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.
“Union monopoly bargaining is a system particularly ill-suited to an academic environment. Indeed, it is wrong for anyone to have a union monopoly imposed on them against their will and then be forced to pay union dues under threat of termination.”
Puerto Rico Police Bureau Employees Foil Anti-Janus Scheme
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Federal court strikes down discrimination against workers at the Puerto Rico Police Bureau who exercised First Amendment rights
Vanessa Carbonell (center) and other employees of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau won big at the Puerto Rico District Court in September 2024. Their Foundation-won decision forces their employer and the union to stop violating their Janus rights.
SAN JUAN, PR – The National Right to Work Foundation’s 2018 victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME opened new horizons for employee freedom across the country. For the first time, the Justices recognized that the First Amendment prohibits union bosses from forcing public sector employees to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment, and that union bosses can only take dues from a worker’s paycheck with their affirmative consent.
Foundation attorneys’ efforts to enforce the landmark decision yielded a big victory this September for a wide swath of civilian employees at the Puerto Rico Police Bureau (PRPB). In a class action federal lawsuit, more than a dozen PRPB employees charged officials of the Union of Organized Civilian Employees with violating their Janus rights by stripping them of an employer-provided health benefit because they refused to join the union.
A recent decision from the District Court of Puerto Rico found in favor of the employees’ arguments, stating that their employer had indeed taken away the health benefit because the employees exercised their right to not join or pay dues to the union.
Scheme Forced Workers to Join Union or Lose Access to Better Healthcare
“This is either retaliation for exercise of non-union members’ post-Janus non-associational rights under the First Amendment under the Constitution or simply discrimination,” said the Court.
According to lead plaintiff Vanessa Carbonell and her colleagues’ original lawsuit, they all exercised their Janus right to opt out of the union at various points after the 2018 Janus decision. They each began noticing that as dues ceased coming out of their paychecks, they also stopped receiving a $25-a-month employer-paid benefit intended to help employees pay for better health insurance.
The lawsuit demonstrated that PRPB officials cut the benefit off to employees who refused union membership — a clear case of discrimination against employees who exercise their First Amendment right to abstain from union affiliation.
Union and Employer Must Stop Discrimination
The District Court’s decision, in addition to declaring that the ploy by PRPB and the Union of Organized Civilian Employees is unconstitutional, orders an injunction to stop PRPB officials from continuing to withhold the benefit from Carbonell and other employees.
“Janus enshrined a very simple First Amendment principle: That union officials need to convince public employees to support their organization and activities voluntarily,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
DOJ Attorney Challenges NTEU Union Bosses’ Attempt to Grab Control Over Justice Department Divisions Ahead of Admin Change
Filings: Federal Labor Relations Authority’s decision to approve unionization attempts in Civil Rights and Environmental divisions violates precedent
Washington, DC (January 17, 2025) – A veteran Department of Justice trial attorney has just submitted two filings challenging a last-minute attempt by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) to gain monopoly bargaining control over attorneys at the Civil Rights Division (CRT) and Environmental and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). The attorney, Jeffrey Morrison, filed these Applications for Review at the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Morrison’s filings come after a unionization campaign during which DOJ management and NTEU union officials unilaterally “agreed” that the CRT and ENRD were work units appropriate for unionization, even though they are not appropriate bargaining units under longstanding FLRA precedent. Morrison’s Applications for Review argue that this and other legal issues with the proposed work units invalidate an FLRA Regional Director’s earlier decision to push forward the unionization process.
“Here, the Regional Director failed to apply established FLRA precedent that precludes finding CRT professional[s] to be an appropriate unit,” Morrison’s Application for Review says. “The Regional Director’s direction of election in this matter was thus in error. The Authority should grant review, stay the certification of the election results, reverse the Regional Director’s decision, and dismiss the petition.”
The FLRA is the federal agency responsible for adjudicating disputes between federal employees, union officials, and agencies within the federal government. The labor law governing federal agencies permits union officials to gain monopoly bargaining power over federal workers, even those who didn’t vote for the union or otherwise oppose it.
Despite 1984 FLRA Decision Rejecting Attempt to Unionize Civil Rights Division Attorneys, DOJ Abruptly Dropped Opposition to NTEU Unionization Attempt Shortly After Election Day
Morrison’s Applications for Review advance several arguments as to why NTEU bosses shouldn’t be able to gain control over the departments at issue. Notably, one brief points out that the FLRA ruled earlier in its Antitrust Division case that CRT lawyers “did not have a separate and distinct community of interest from other DOJ trial attorneys” and for that reason couldn’t stand as a distinct bargaining unit.
“[I]n that case, the Authority determined this very unit to not be an appropriate unit…The Regional Director’s failure to comply with current, binding Authority precedent is in error and must be reversed,” the brief says.
In fact, the brief notes, DOJ management maintained that very same concern about the NTEU’s unionization attempt until roughly three days after federal elections, when DOJ management abruptly reversed course and adopted the NTEU’s position.
Morrison’s applications contend that the FLRA “fail[ed] to conduct an independent investigation into the appropriateness of the unit,” despite the fact that it is required by law to do this before any unionization attempt on federal employees goes forward. “An agency agreeing with a union that a unit is appropriate does not mean that unit is actually appropriate. Agencies, like DOJ here, cannot usurp the Authority’s role in deciding unit appropriateness…” say the briefs.
“In the midst of a change in administration, NTEU union bosses and Biden DOJ officials appear to have colluded to flout longstanding precedent that says Justice Department attorneys cannot legally be unionized division by division,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The FLRA has ignored both standard procedures and established precedent to let this hasty unionization attempt go through, and our attorneys are proud to assist Mr. Morrison in opposing this suspect legal maneuver.
“No worker should be subjected to unionization they oppose, and it is especially egregious that an outgoing Administration would violate the law in an attempt to entrench union bosses at the Justice Department, whose employees are charged with defending and enforcing federal law,” added Mix.
Troy-Based Eaton Corporation Worker Challenges IAM Union Scheme Pushing Termination, Fines on Workers Who Oppose Union
Federal charge: IAM officials illegally demanded money, threatened termination of workers who resigned union membership after divisive strike
St. Louis, MO (January 9, 2025) – An employee of power management firm Eaton Corporation’s Troy, Illinois, facility has just filed federal charges against the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union for violating the rights of multiple employees at his workplace. The employee, Robert Jacobs, maintains that IAM officials are threatening to get him and other employees who resigned union membership fired unless they pay a so-called “reinstatement fee” concocted by the union. Jacobs filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Under federal labor law, which the NLRB is charged with enforcing, private sector employees have an absolute right to resign union membership. This right is codified in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and was affirmed by landmark Supreme Court decisions such as General Motors v. NLRB. Federal law further spells out that neither employers nor union officials can compel private sector workers to participate in union activities or refrain from such activities.
However, in states like Illinois that lack Right to Work protections for their private sector workers, union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that require every employee in a unionized workplace, including those who have abstained from formal union membership, to pay some portion of union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union financial support is fully voluntary and the choice of each individual employee.
“I and several of my colleagues don’t want to be part of the IAM union, but we are required by law to pay fees to union bosses just to keep our jobs,” commented Jacobs. “That’s already something that we don’t want to do. But IAM officials are going even further and hitting us with hundreds of dollars in made-up fees just because we exercised our right to not be union members.”
Post-Strike, IAM Lodge 660 Union Officials Impose $300+ Fine on Workers Who Quit Union Membership
Last October, IAM union officials ordered Eaton Corporation employees – which comprise a work unit of over 400 people – to strike. After the strike concluded, worker opposition to IAM union bosses’ priorities increased and many decided to end their union memberships, including Jacobs.
According to Jacobs’ federal charge, which was filed on the last day of 2024, “the Union is presently threatening Charging Party and [other employees who resigned from the union] with termination if they fail to pay a $306 ‘reinstatement fee’ by January 2025.” The charge argues that the IAM union is violating Eaton employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which safeguards employees’ “right to refrain from any or all of” union activities.
Foundation attorneys have recently assisted other employees nationwide in challenging IAM union bosses’ influence, including last August in Dover, Ohio, and Petaluma, California, where employees at two different Ford dealerships successfully forced out IAM Local 1363 and IAM Local 1596 union officials, respectively. In 2022, Foundation attorneys also successfully attacked an illegal dues scheme imposed by IAM union officials on Boeing engineer Don Zueger, which incorrectly calculated the amount of money he could be required to pay to the union as a nonmember.
“Instead of seeking to win Eaton employees’ voluntary support, IAM union officials have decided to effectively extort the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Threatening to terminate workers if they don’t pay a fee that is apparently intended to punish those who don’t want union bosses speaking for them tarnishes employee rights and freedom.
“Mr. Jacobs’ case shows the tactics union officials will use to force fealty out of independent-minded workers, which is why it’s important that workers in Illinois and across the nation have the Right to Work freedom to cut off all financial support to union bosses they oppose,” Mix added.
Fairmont, MN, Mayo Clinic Nurses Vote to Remove MNA Union From Facility
Latest in string of union ejections by Mayo Clinic healthcare professionals across state
Fairmont, MN (January 8, 2025) – Nurses at Mayo Clinic’s Fairmont Medical Center have just voted 26-15 to eject Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union officials from their facility. The push to remove the union was spearheaded by Mayo Fairmont employee Jamie Campbell, who submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in December 2024 a petition seeking a union decertification vote among her colleagues.
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. Campbell’s union decertification petition contained well over the number of employee signatures needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. According to Campbell’s petition, the work unit covered by the vote included all “registered general duty nurses and charge nurses.”
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, MNA union officials had the legal power to require all the Fairmont Mayo nurses to pay at least a portion of union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work jurisdictions, union membership and all union financial support are voluntary and the choice of each individual worker. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials are able to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on all employees in a work unit, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union.
Pending a certification of the vote result by NLRB officials, Fairmont Mayo nurses will be free from both the forced-dues and monopoly bargaining power of the MNA union.
“The MNA was a very divisive force in our workplace, and I think we’ll be able to better serve our patients and the community without the union,” commented Campbell on the vote. “We hope the NLRB quickly certifies the vote and that union officials respect our decision.”
Fairmont Nurses Join Other Healthcare Professionals Across MN in Ousting Unwanted Unions
Since 2022, several sizable units of healthcare workers in Minnesota have sought out Foundation legal aid to obtain removal votes against the MNA and other unions, and have often been successful in freeing themselves. Nurses and nurse support staff at Mayo Clinic’s Mankato branch voted MNA and American Federation of State County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1856 union officials out of their facility between 2022 and 2023, and nurses at Mayo’s St. James branch did the same with AFSCME Council 65 in August 2022. Employees from four Cuyuna Regional Medical Center locations across the Brainerd Lakes region of Minnesota also sought Foundation aid in their decertification effort against Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials in 2022.
“MNA union bosses’ influence and political connections did not shield them from suffering another defeat by rank-and-file nurses at the ballot box,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ironically, Minnesota’s lack of Right to Work protections – which are vociferously opposed by the MNA – likely removed an important accountability tool from the relationship between the MNA and the nurses they claim to ‘represent.’ It’s no surprise that union bosses who can force workers to pay union dues or fees on pain of termination wind up being far less effective and more out-of-touch than union officials who must earn the voluntary financial support of each worker.”
MIT Graduate Students Defeat Discriminatory Dues Demands From Radical Campus Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union must cease forced dues, inform thousands of MIT graduate students of right to defund union politics
Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman, who aided the MIT graduate students in their legal victory, told NTD News his phone is “ringing off the hook” because university students and faculty nationwide are seeking ways to defund radical campus unions.
BOSTON, MA – “Jewish graduate students are a minority at MIT. We can’t remove the [Graduate Student Union (GSU)] or disabuse it of its antisemitism. But we also can’t support an organization that actively works toward the eradication of the Jewish homeland, where I have family living now.”
These were the words MIT Ph.D. student Will Sussman used to describe his, and other graduate students’, battle against radical union bosses at his campus, both in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and in June testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. GSU union officials gained the legal privilege to force MIT graduate students to pay dues or lose their academic work thanks to biased rulings by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under both President Biden and President Obama. Since then, they’ve wasted no time in forcing even Jewish students with strong objections to the union’s anti-Israel agitating to fund their activities.
Students Battle Anti-Israel Sentiment Boosted by GSU Union Bosses
However, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Sussman and his fellow Jewish graduate students Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Adina Bechhofer, and Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky fought back against the GSU’s discriminatory dues demands. They each filed federal charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charging the GSU with denying them religious accommodations required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now they’ve won full accommodations that allow them to cut off all financial support for the union.
Separately, Foundation attorneys also filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the NLRB for Katerina Boukin, who objected on political grounds to the GSU’s ideological activity. Boukin sought to exercise her rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which lets workers who abstain from union membership opt-out of paying for the union’s political expenses.
In the wake of the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, Sussman and his fellow students experienced a massive wave of anti-Israel sentiment on MIT campus, including from GSU union chiefs.
“The blood had not yet dried when my colleagues at MIT declared, ‘Victory is Ours,’” related Sussman at a congressional hearing on anti- Semitism in unions. “The full-time GSU staff organizer told NBC10 Boston, ‘Those who rebel against oppression cannot be blamed for rebelling against that repression.’”
GSU Union Backed Off Unlawful Demands After Foundation Intervention
Sussman, Fried, Gordon, Bechhofer, and Zhitomirsky each requested in early 2024 that GSU union officials provide them with religious accommodations to paying union dues based on their objections to union officials’ extremist beliefs. Under federal law, such accommodations vary, but often take the form of letting the objector divert the dues from the offensive union to a 501(c)(3) charity instead. The GSU union’s brazen response was that “no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union” and that no religious conflict existed because one of the founders of GSU’s parent union was himself Jewish.
The GSU union backed down after Foundation staff attorneys filed EEOC anti-discrimination charges in response to the lack of accommodation. The students have secured full religious accommodations and will pay money to charities of their choice, despite initial pushback from union bosses. The charities include American Friends of Magen David Adom and American Friends of Leket.
Katerina Boukin’s NLRB case was spurred by her disagreements with the union’s political stances on Israel. She stated that she was deeply offended by GSU’s “opposition to Israel and promotion of Leninist- Marxist global revolution” and that “[t]he GSU’s political agenda has nothing to do with my research as a graduate student at MIT, or the relationships I have with my professors and the university administration.”
“[Y]et outrageously they demand I fund their radical ideology,” Boukin said.
Foundation-Won Settlement Informs Students They Can Defund ‘Marxist’ Union
Foundation attorneys won a settlement for Boukin that not only returned illegally-seized dues to Boukin, but also required GSU bosses to inform the entire MIT graduate student body of their rights to invoke the Beck decision.
GSU bosses were forced to declare by email that they will not restrict the ability of those who resign their union memberships to cut off dues payments for political expenses and pay a reduced amount to the union. This email notice went out to approximately 3,000 MIT students.
Legal Protections Should Protect Employees’ Right to Object on Any Grounds
“The Foundation-backed MIT graduate students who fought these legal battles have earned well-deserved victories. But defending basic free association rights shouldn’t require such complicated litigation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“This ordeal at MIT should remind lawmakers that all Americans should have a right to protect their money from going to union bosses they don’t support, whether those objections are based on religion, politics, or any other reason.”
