Idaho Teamsters Face Federal Prosecution for Illegal Threats, Fines Targeting UPS Employee Post-Membership Resignation
Teamsters Local 983 falsely told worker that informing coworkers how to resign was a “federal crime,” then fined him for exercising his federally protected rights
Pocatello, ID (July 28, 2026) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued a complaint against a Teamsters Local union for illegally threatening a United Parcel Service (UPS) worker and fining him after he resigned his union membership and filed federal charges against the union.
The UPS employee, Andrew Davis, filed his charges against the Teamsters with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
According to the July 22 complaint issued by NLRB Region 27, four Teamsters Local 983 officials told Davis in front of other workers that informing employees how to exercise their right to resign their union membership was “illegal” and a “federal crime.” This is blatantly false. Federal law protects the right of employees to resign formal union membership at any time and to inform coworkers of that right.
The complaint further states that after Davis submitted his membership resignation in writing, Local 983 officials violated his rights by refusing to promptly honor it. Davis then filed federal charges against the union for the threats.
In response, according to the complaint, Local 983 officials brought internal union “charges” against Davis for filing his NLRB charge, a violation of federal law. Additionally, this past April, the union issued a fine against Davis, even though he was no longer a union member and had the right, under federal law, to go to the NLRB.
The NLRB complaint states that Local 983 has maintained unlawful rules barring members from seeking recourse from any outside court or agency, including the NLRB, without first exhausting internal union appeals. Union officials invoked that rule to retaliate against Davis for exercising his rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
The Regional Director for NLRB Region 27 has determined the charges have merit and issued a formal complaint. A hearing before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge is scheduled for September 15, 2026, unless the Teamsters back down and settle beforehand.
“Union bosses lied to Mr. Davis and his coworkers about basic legal rights, then punished him for daring to go to federal authorities,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Even after being caught red handed lying to workers and violating Mr. Davis’ rights, Teamsters union bosses continued to double down on their unlawful coercion by attempting to fine him for defending his rights at the NLRB.
“Once again Teamsters bosses show their true colors, prioritizing their own power, even when it means violating the rights of the very rank-and-file workers they claim to ‘represent,’” added Mix.
Dissident Philly Port Worker Successfully Defeats ILA Union Attempt to Exclude Him from Federal Case Defending Win at NLRB
Labor Board found Longshoremen Local 1694 illegally blacklisted worker for raising concerns to national union official over operation of the union and its hiring hall
Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, PA (July 27, 2026) – The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a motion to intervene by Stanford Fowler, a longshore worker at the Ports of Philadelphia and Wilmington, in a suit between the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) Local 1694. The successful motion, filed with assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, comes over the objection of union lawyers, who attempted to keep Fowler out of a federal case that arose from his legal victory against that union at the NLRB.
Fowler filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against ILA Local 1694, located in Wilmington, DE, in August of 2021, arguing that he had been discriminated against for voicing dissent against the union, including going to the national ILA Secretary-Treasurer when local officials ignored his complaints regarding operation of the hiring hall. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, a task which includes adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
An NLRB Administrative Law Judge found largely in Fowler’s favor. A unanimous decision from a bipartisan panel of NLRB Members affirmed and ordered the union to pay Fowler five years of back pay to remedy the loss of work due to its discrimination. ILA Local 1694 lawyers appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. Fowler then moved to intervene in that appeal to preserve the legal and financial victory that he had won before the NLRB.
Union Bosses Deprived Longshoreman of Work and Seniority for Expressing Concerns
Fowler was the victim of a series of union moves that hindered his ability to get better benefits. He consistently accrued hours through the hiring hall, but also sent an inquiry to the Secretary-Treasurer of the ILA, complaining about issues with a recent union merger. When Local 1694 union bosses found out about the inquiry, they aggressively confronted him and refused to let him participate in their hiring hall. Union bosses continually interfered with Fowler’s ability to gain work, including by attempting to ban him from the Port of Wilmington without sufficiently explaining their actions, to the point that he had to begin seeking work at the Port of Philadelphia instead.
“We are proud to assist Mr. Fowler as he fights for his Right to Work, free of interference from the malicious actions of union bosses,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Fowler raised common sense concerns regarding his treatment both before and after his original ILA Local was merged into another, yet rather than take his concerns seriously and treat him fairly, union bosses began a campaign of retaliation designed to prevent him from working to put food on the table.
“We are proud to help him defend his NLRB victory at the court of appeals, and have already overcome the union’s underhanded attempt to block him from participating in the continuation of his own legal case,” added Mix.
Labor Board to Prosecute UFCW Union for Illegal Strike Fine Against Oregon Fred Meyer Grocery Worker Who Resigned
On appeal, NLRB General Counsel finds UFCW union bosses violated the law by fining worker nearly $1,000 for supposedly working one hour during strike
Portland, OR (July 24, 2026) – Portland-area Fred Meyer grocery store employee Coyesca Vasquez has been vindicated in her nearly two-year dispute with United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 555 union bosses, as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel has just moved to prosecute the union for violating Vasquez’s rights.
Vasquez filed federal charges against UFCW Local 555 after union bosses targeted her with a strike fine for exercising her right to continue working during a union boss-ordered strike action in 2024. The charges were originally filed with NLRB Region 19, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a task that includes adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
Vasquez exercised her legal right to resign UFCW union membership, in order to continue working, on August 28, 2024. However, UFCW officials claimed the resignation letter was not received until after she had returned to work for one hour.
UFCW bosses then apparently attempted to use this supposed one-hour delay as a technicality to justify a fine for $992, announced in a December 2024 letter, after finding her “guilty” of violating internal UFCW rules. Longstanding law says union bosses cannot impose “union discipline” against workers who are not voluntary union members. Such discipline frequently takes the form of four- or five-figure monetary fines payable to union boss-controlled funds.
Vasquez’s charge was initially dismissed by the NLRB Regional Director on May 11, 2026, following an “investigation” that only took into account the union’s timeline of events. Foundation staff attorneys appealed the decision to the NLRB General Counsel on May 26, detailing how Vasquez had validly resigned her union membership before returning to work and had significant evidence of her efforts to deliver her resignation to the union.
After examining the facts of the case, the General Counsel sustained Vasquez’s appeal, finding that UFCW union officials violated the NLRA by refusing to recognize her resignation. The case has now been remanded to the Regional Director where UFCW union bosses will be prosecuted for violating Vasquez’s rights under the NLRA unless they agree to settle the case, which would include rescinding the fine attempt and notifying other Fred Meyer employees of their legal rights in such situations.
Earlier this year, and with assistance from Foundation staff attorneys, fellow Oregon Fred Meyer grocery store employee Robert Wendelschafer—who was subjected to the same UFCW Local 555 illegal fining after he exercised his right to work during the 2024 strike by resigning his union membership—had his fine rescinded by the union.
“We welcome the General Counsel’s decision to move forward in Ms. Vasquez’s case against UFCW union bosses for ignoring her resignation and then attempting to claim a one hour delay justified a nearly $1,000 fine,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials have a long history of attempting to obstruct workers’ union resignation requests, then using those obstruction tactics to attempt to justify punitive fines, and it is critical that the NLRB not look the other way when Big Labor deploys these anti-worker tactics.”
National Right to Work Foundation Files Brief in Support of Grad Students’ Legal Challenge to Being Forced to Fund Radical Campus Union
Amicus brief at Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals argues NLRB coercion over bargaining means mandatory union dues requirement violates First Amendment
Chicago, IL (July 16, 2026) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in support of University of Chicago graduate students who are challenging the requirement that they pay fees to a union they oppose. Currently, these students must pay the union in order to keep their research and teaching jobs, which are a requirement of completing their graduate program.
The lawsuit, Graduate Students for Academic Freedom, Inc. v. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, was brought by a group that includes Israeli and Jewish graduate students who oppose being forced to fund the union, especially due to UE union officials’ “virulent anti-Israel advocacy.”
The Foundation’s brief, filed on Wednesday, July 15, supports the graduate students by arguing that the compulsory fee requirement they are subjected to violates the First Amendment, because it is the direct result of extensive and coercive bargaining requirements mandated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB):
“[T]he First Amendment prohibits the government from coercing one private party to infringe on the speech rights of another private party. This is what the NLRB does when it requires employers to bargain over forced fee requirements—the NLRB coerces one private party (an employer) to agree to compel other private parties (employees) to subsidize union speech.
The NLRB would violate the First Amendment by directly compelling employees to pay for union speech. Three times in the last 25 years the Supreme Court has struck down compelled subsidies for third-party speech… There is no constitutionally meaningful distinction between the compelled payments invalidated in those cases and the compulsory union fees at issue.”
The brief notes that in multiple decisions, including Janus v. AFSCME and Harris v. Quinn (both argued by Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys), the Supreme Court held that the government violates the First Amendment by compelling employees to subsidize union speech. More recently, in the 2024 NRA v. Vullo decision, the court reiterated the “principle that a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.”
The Foundation amicus brief argues that, under those Supreme Court precedents, the NLRB’s highly coercive requirements that force employers in non-Right to Work states to bargain with union officials over forced fee requirements mean that the resulting mandatory dues requirement is unconstitutional government-compelled speech. As the brief points out, employers face NLRB prosecution for refusing to consider such a requirement, and even seeking to defend the conscience rights or academic freedom of those subjected to forced dues does not allow an employer to escape this requirement.
“Union bosses’ forced dues powers are the direct result of government coercion, and it is past time that federal courts take a closer look at how this results in compelled funding of radical speech in violation of the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These students would have never been forced to fund union boss speech they find abhorrent if it weren’t for the NLRB’s actions, which first controversially subject graduate students to monopoly unionism and then require bargaining with union officials over a forced dues requirement.”
New Jersey Cannabis Workers Beat Union Abuse and Delay Tactics, Win Freedom in Decertification Election
After nearly two year delay, Labor Board certifies vote to remove unwanted UFCW union originally installed in abuse-prone “card check” process
New Jersey (July 14, 2026) – Employees of Green Thumb Industries have finally regained their freedom, removing United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 360 union officials from their workplace. This comes over 21 months after an initial petition was filed by Michael Potter, a Lead Warehouse Technician for Green Thumb, on behalf of his coworkers at four locations across New Jersey.
With assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Potter filed the petition for a “decertification” election with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in October of 2024. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions.
The election was finally certified on July 14, 2026, freeing approximately 270 workers from UFCW union officials’ monopoly bargaining power, which is the government-granted power to represent every worker in a unit, regardless of whether they support the union. The workers voted 94-13 against the union. Union officials challenged ballots cast by 74 other employees causing them not to be counted, but not enough to change the outcome of the vote.
“The UFCW did not advance our interests here, and many of us believed we would be better off without them,” said Potter. “This was our opportunity to exercise the right to a secret-ballot election, which was denied to us when the union was installed. We are grateful the votes were finally counted, and we have determined for ourselves what the majority of Green Thumb employees want.”
Process Mired by Union Abuse Tactics from Beginning to End
Potter and his coworkers were angry that the union had been installed via an abuse-prone process called a “card check,” wherein union officials can bypass the secret-ballot election process that has long been recognized as the most secure and reliable way to determine if a majority of employees want to unionize. During card check drives, union officials can repeatedly solicit and pressure workers face-to-face, demanding they sign union authorization cards in front of union organizers, with those cards then counted as “votes” to impose the union on workers. Unsurprisingly, without the privacy of the secret ballot, such card check drives regularly result in union coercion, intimidation tactics, lies, or even sometimes threats of violence.
After Potter filed the decertification petition, local UFCW bosses opposed a stipulated election agreement they themselves had initially signed. Foundation staff attorneys won on that issue with the NLRB Regional Director, and the election was held on November 7 and 8, 2024.
However, union officials immediately threw up another road block by filing so-called “blocking charges,” which are disingenuous charges of misconduct against the employer. These charges often have nothing to do with the election, but because of NLRB rules not found anywhere in federal law, they prevent the votes from being counted. This issue was finally settled in 2026, which triggered the opening and counting of the ballots on June 29, with the certification issued on July 14.
“We are proud to have assisted the workers at Green Thumb Industries as they fought for their right to a secret-ballot election; however, workers should not have to wait the better part of two years just to have their votes counted,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“This case demonstrates why the NLRB needs to take action to defend employees’ legal right to free themselves of unwanted unions, including by eliminating non-statutory rules, such as the current ‘blocking charge’ policy that lets union bosses trap workers in union ranks, no matter how overwhelming the opposition to the union is,” added Mix.
Sacramento Charter School Educators Seek Freedom From CA Labor Tyranny
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2026 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Majority-backed effort to oust union may shift labor landscape for California charter teachers
After enduring years of bad “representation” and divisive behavior, Beth Simonton (center) and a majority of educators at St. HOPE charter schools in Sacramento are ready to vote the SCTA union out.
SACRAMENTO, CA – A majority of educators for charter school operator St. HOPE Public Schools are supporting a legal effort that may not only free them from the control of Sacramento City Teachers Association (SCTA) union officials, but may soon free charter school teachers across the state from the onerous California labor bureaucracy.
With free assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, St. HOPE educator Beth Simonton filed a union decertification petition in January seeking a vote among her colleagues to oust the SCTA union. SCTA is an affiliate of the California Teachers Association (CTA) union and the National Education Association (NEA) union — the latter of which is headed by the radical Becky Pringle.
Simonton filed her petition at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency tasked with enforcing federal labor law for most private sector employees. That task includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions.
The work unit covered by the petition includes over 50 teachers from PS7 Elementary School, PS7 Middle School, and Sacramento Charter High School. Because a majority of teachers in the unit signed the petition, the NLRB should promptly approve and schedule a decertification election.
“SCTA union officials have been extremely divisive and have not had a positive impact on teachers, students, or the St. HOPE community as a whole,” commented Simonton.
“They’ve spent much more time trying to demonize school leadership than simply standing up for our interests. I’m proud to represent the majority of educators at St. HOPE who are standing up and saying ‘enough is enough.’”
SCTA Union Bosses Cause Discord in Sacramento Schools
The SCTA first gained monopoly bargaining power over the charter system in 2018 in a process overseen by the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). That agency foisted the union on educators through a mandatory “card check” process that bypassed any secret ballot vote. The PERB is notorious, even compared to the NLRB, for its bias in favor of union bosses and against the rights of employees opposed to union affiliation. By 2021, St. HOPE teachers banded together and petitioned for a union decertification vote, but SCTA union officials filed misconduct charges and got the PERB to block the vote under the PERB’s extreme “blocking charge” regulations.
These mandate that any union boss allegations be assumed true, even if there is no evidence to support them. As a result, the teachers were never allowed to cast votes on whether to remove the union.
Petition: Charter School Not Properly Under Authority of CA Labor Bureau
This time, with National Right to Work Foundation legal assistance, the teachers filed their decertification petition with the NLRB instead of the extremely biased California PERB. Foundation staff attorneys believe, contrary to the wishes of the SCTA union officials, that California charter school employees fall under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act.
This would allow the decertification to take place under NLRB rules. While far from perfect, they are not as rigged as the PERB’s kangaroo courts. Not only does U.S. Supreme Court precedent support the argument that the NLRB is the proper venue for this petition, but in recent years Foundation attorneys have successfully filed multiple decertification petitions at the NLRB for public charter school employees in other states.
Statewide Impact Possible
“St. HOPE educators serve some of Sacramento’s most underprivileged young people, and they deserve to have their voices in the workplace heard,” commented Mark Mix, National Right to Work Foundation president. “California’s legislature and administrative state are deep in the pockets of CTA teacher union bosses, who overwhelmingly seek to further their own interests and power over the rights of educators themselves.
“We at the Foundation hope that Ms. Simonton and her colleagues’ effort to break free of both CTA union officials and the onerous California labor bureaucracy is just the first step in achieving greater freedom for charter school educators across the Golden State,” commented Mix.
Phoenix Logistics Workers Send Teamsters Bosses Packing With Successful Petition for Decertification
Medical equipment operators supporting Fort Dix overwhelmingly vote out Teamsters Local 35 after being ignored for years
Fort Dix, NJ (July 6, 2026) – Employees at Phoenix Logistics, LLC in Fort Dix have successfully regained their independence from International Brotherhood of Teamsters union bosses. This came as a result of employee Nicholas Rapa filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which called for a “decertification” election to remove Teamsters Local 35 as the exclusive bargaining “representative” of Rapa and his coworkers, medical equipment operators assigned to Fort Dix for training.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. The petition, which Rapa filed with assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, surpassed the threshold of signatures necessary to trigger a decertification vote.
The election was administered on June 17, and the vast majority of workers voted to remove Teamsters bosses from power. New Jersey does not have state Right to Work protections, which means the union bosses at Phoenix Logistics were able to exercise both of their government-granted forced unionism powers: the ability to force workers into a contract they may not want (monopoly bargaining), and the ability to force workers to pay dues or fees to the union in order to keep their jobs (forced dues).
Successful Decertification Latest Blow to Teamsters Power
The election was certified by the NLRB on June 26, meaning that Rapa and his coworkers are now officially free from both of these abuses by Teamsters union officials. This comes after officials from Teamsters Local 35 had neglected these employees, despite supposedly “representing” the workers for over five years.
In the last few years, decertification efforts have been on the rise. This successful petition was the latest in a long line of decertification efforts specifically against Teamsters officials. Recent NLRB statistics suggest no union faces more decertification petitions than the Teamsters.
“Around the country, workers are questioning union bosses’ priorities, as those officials demonstrate that they are out of step with the needs of the workers they supposedly ‘represent,’” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We are proud to have supported Mr. Rapa and his coworkers as they exercise their individual right to refuse union power.”
Sioux City Hospital Nurses Win Vote to Eject UFCW Union Bosses
Labor Board certifies election result; 191 registered nurses officially free of unwanted union at UnityPoint Health – St. Luke’s – Downtown location
Sioux City, IA (July 1, 2026) – Registered nurses at UnityPoint Health – St. Luke’s – Downtown hospital have successfully voted to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 222IN union officials from their workplace. The nurses’ “decertification” effort was spearheaded by nurse practitioner Timaree Henneman, who filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on May 26, seeking a decertification election to end the UFCW’s unwanted monopoly control over the hospital’s registered nurses. The nurses’ petition was filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Henneman’s petition was signed by enough of her coworkers to trigger the NLRB to administer a secret-ballot election among all 191 nurses, including full-time, regular part-time, and PRN registered nurses employed at the UnityPoint Health – St. Luke’s – Downtown facility.
The election, which took place on June 18, saw the nurses vote 80-71 to end the presence of UFCW Local 222IN at their hospital. The NLRB certified the election result on June 30, formally revoking the UFCW’s status as the nurses’ monopoly “representative.”
Iowa is one of 26 states with a Right to Work law, which safeguards workers by making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, federal law grants union officials the power to impose exclusive “representation” over every employee in a work unit—including those who never voted for, joined, or supported the union—dictating their terms and conditions of employment.
“We congratulate this group of nurses on exercising their legal right to remove unwanted UFCW union bosses from their hospital,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ultimately, this case is a reminder of the twin powers that have been granted to union officials to the detriment of the rights of individual workers: forced union dues and union boss monopoly bargaining powers.
“While Iowa’s popular Right to Work law protects these nurses and others from being forced to fund a union they oppose, under federal law employees—whether or not they enjoy Right to Work protections—can be forced under the so-called ‘representation’ of union officials they oppose,” added Mix. “We look forward to the day when every individual employee has the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to associate with a union.”
Wisconsin Painter Files Federal Charges Against Painters and Trades Union for Unlawful Forced Membership, Dues Deductions
IUPAT union bosses lied to worker, claiming union membership and dues payment authorization were mandatory for employment
Waukesha, WI (June 23, 2026) – Caryn Johnson, an employee of Olympic Companies, has filed charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) District Council 7. The charges state that IUPAT union officials unlawfully coerced her into formal union membership and dues payment by claiming, contrary to federal law, that both were mandatory conditions of her employment at Olympic.
The charges were filed at the NLRB with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, a task that includes adjudicating labor disputes between union officials, employers, and individual employees.
According to the charges, Johnson was coerced into “joining” the union after IUPAT District Council 7 union bosses told her that she had to be a dues-paying union member in order to be employed at Olympic Companies. Under longstanding federal law, full union membership cannot be required, nor can an employee be required to sign a card authorizing the deduction of union dues from her paycheck, which IUPAT officials also demanded Johnson sign to be employed.
Johnson resigned her union membership after she found out that IUPAT union officials misled her about her legal rights. Johnson’s charges state that despite validly resigning her union membership, IUPAT continued to extract dues from her wages, apparently relying on the “dues authorization” form she was coerced into signing. Union officials are claiming she cannot cut off dues for approximately eight months, and even then must provide additional written revocation during the union’s arbitrary revocation window.
Wisconsin is one of the 26 states with a Right to Work law, which protects workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. This means, not only could dues deductions not be required for employment, but, because of the Right to Work, no union payments of any form can be mandatory as a condition of employment.
“Time after time, union officials turn to lies, threats, and coercion to expand their power and fill their coffers, rather than attempt to convince workers to voluntarily support union activities,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Johnson’s experience is not an isolated case, but is one Foundation staff attorneys see repeated across the country by union officials who think their government-granted monopoly privileges sanction them to violate the rights of those they claim to ‘represent.’”
