National Right to Work Foundation Issues Legal Notice to Yellow Trucking Employees as Teamsters Officials Threaten Strike
Are Top Teamster Bosses throwing Yellow drivers under the bus as part of their posturing for UPS strike threat?
Washington, DC (July 21, 2023) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice to employees of trucking company Yellow in light of news reports indicating that Teamsters union officials have issued a strike notice. The Foundation’s legal notice is available at the Foundation’s website here: www.nrtw.org/Yellow.
The Foundation is the nation’s premier organization dedicated to defending workers’ legal rights from forced unionism abuses. Rank-and-file workers who are interested in continuing to work and providing for their families during a strike often contact the Foundation for free legal aid to avoid strike discipline, or to resist intimidation often perpetrated by union officials.
The notice alerts workers that a strike could commence as soon Monday, July 24, and reminds workers that they should “learn about [their] legal rights from independent sources.”
“You should not rely on what self-interested union officials tell you,” the notice reads.
Employees Have Right to Rebuff Union Strike Orders
The legal notice informs Yellow workers who want to work during a strike that they should submit resignations prior to returning to work, because doing so is the best way to avoid vindictive union fines and often union discipline. “Your resignation letter must be postmarked the day before you return to work, or hand-delivered before you actually return to work,” the notice reads. Sample union membership resignation letters are available on the Foundation’s website.
The notice also informs employees of their other rights to disaffiliate from the Teamsters union, including how to stop funding unwanted union activities.
“If you work in a state with Right to Work protections, you have a right to cut off all payments of dues and fees to the union if you don’t support its activities,” the notice reads. “If you do not work in a state with Right to Work protections, you at least have a right to opt-out of dues payments for union politics, and may be able to avoid other union financial support.”
Foundation Attorneys Have Won Many Cases for Workers Against Illegal Strike Coercion
The Foundation frequently provides free legal assistance to workers who want to exercise their right to work during a union boss-ordered strike. During the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union’s strike against supermarket chain King Soopers in 2022, Foundation-assisted workers successfully forced union officials to back off of thousands of dollars in illegal strike fine demands.
Foundation staff attorneys also made headlines across the country in 2001, when they won a monetary settlement for UPS employee and former Dallas Cowboys linebacker Rod Carter, a victim of union violence during the 1997 Teamsters union officials’ nationwide strike against UPS.
“Many Yellow employees are likely questioning whether the hardline stance of Teamsters President Sean O’Brien and other Teamsters bosses is really in Yellow employees’ best interest,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “As O’Brien himself has acknowledged on social media, a strike could result in Yellow folding and a loss of work for 22,000 truckers – workers that Teamsters chiefs claim to ‘represent.’”
“More likely than not, O’Brien and the bosses atop the Teamsters union are playing such games with Yellow workers’ livelihoods in order to maintain a façade of strength for upcoming contract talks with UPS management,” Mix continued. “Yellow truckers who oppose such gamesmanship and would prefer to continue to do their jobs in defiance of Teamsters bosses’ orders should read the Foundation’s legal notice for a full explanation of their rights, and are welcome to seek free Foundation legal aid if they encounter any obstacles to exercising their right to work.”
Overwhelming Majority of Union Kitchen Workers File Petition Seeking to Remove UFCW Union
Request for end of union so-called ‘representation’ comes amid contentious boycott and picket ordered by union officials against rank-and-file workers
Washington, DC (July 14, 2023) – Employees of five Union Kitchen Grocery locations in the Washington, DC, metro area have filed a petition seeking to end United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400’s monopoly bargaining power over workers. The employees submitted their decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 5 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Union Kitchen employee Ashley Silva submitted a union decertification petition that was supported by the vast majority of her coworkers. Under NLRB rules, this should trigger an NLRB-administered decertification vote. Under federal labor law, it is illegal for employers to engage in monopoly bargaining that impacts the employment terms of all employees, even those opposed to unionization, with a minority union that lacks the support of a bare majority of workers.
With the petition now filed, the NLRB should now promptly schedule a secret ballot election so the workers can formally vote to end union officials’ power to impose a contract, including forced dues, on the workers.
Because the District of Columbia lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials have the power to enter into an agreement with Union Kitchen forcing Silva and her coworkers at the four DC locations to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work jurisdictions like those at Union Kitchen’s Northern Virginia location, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
Silva and her coworkers’ effort comes amid union boss-ordered pickets and boycotts against Union Kitchen Grocery locations, which have inflamed tensions among workers and raised questions about union officials’ motives. In some instances, reportedly union picketers have endangered workers by blocking exits, requiring the intervention of police.
“The vast majority of the workers at Union Kitchen are sick and tired of the UFCW’s picketing, harassment of employees, and constant disruptions of our day-to-day work life,” Silva said. “If the union cares at all about what we want, they will respect our wishes and immediately disclaim their interest in representing workers who have overwhelmingly rejected them.”
Union Kitchen Effort Latest in Wave of Union Decertification Efforts Nationwide
Foundation attorneys are currently assisting workers nationwide in a number of high-profile decertification efforts. Most notably, Starbucks employees at locations in Buffalo, New York City, Pittsburgh, and Bloomington, MN, are seeking to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union only one year after the union launched a highly-publicized campaign in an attempt to unionize the coffee chain.
In Miami, Foundation attorneys also recently aided XPO Logistics freight drivers in removing an unwanted Teamsters union from their facility. Teamsters bosses, including James Hoffa, considered the Miami XPO contract a breakthrough. Now those workers have rejected the Teamsters.
The NLRB’s data shows a unionized private sector worker is now far more likely to be involved in a decertification effort as their nonunion counterpart is to be involved in a unionization campaign. NLRB statistics also show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021. However, union officials still have many ways to manipulate federal labor law to prevent workers from voting them out, including by filing unrelated or unverified charges against management.
“Disrupting a work environment with continuous pickets and boycotts is not what Union Kitchen Grocery employees want or need. The employees’ overwhelming support for a union decertification vote should send a strong message to UFCW union officials that they need to leave,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation attorneys will defend these employees in the exercise of their rights, and will oppose any attempts by UFCW officials to disenfranchise the Union Kitchen workers of their legal right to remove a union they so clearly want nothing to do with.”
Mall of America Starbucks Employees Join Rising Movement Seeking to Remove SBWU Union
Starbucks partners at Minneapolis location join the growing list of workers looking to decertify Starbucks “Workers United” union
Minneapolis, MN (July 14, 2023) – Rebecca Person, an employee of the first floor Mall of America Starbucks location outside Minneapolis, MN, has just submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 18 that seek a vote to remove Starbucks Workers’ United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace. The Mall of America Starbucks is just the latest in a growing list of Starbucks locations where employees are seeking to oust union officials. Workers from locations in Manhattan, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo are also receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in union decertification efforts.
The union decertification petition contains signatures from a majority of workers at the Mall of America location. The majority support for removing the union is far more than the 30% requirement by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) needed to trigger the NLRB to hold a decertification vote among the workers.
With the workers’ petition filed with the NLRB, the NLRB’s rules dictate that a secret ballot election should be promptly scheduled to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ power to impose a contract, including forced dues, on the workers. Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SBWU union officials have the power to enter into an agreement with Starbucks that would require Person and her coworkers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. Meanwhile, in Right to Work states, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
Starbucks Workers Increasingly Seek to Vote out SBWU Union Officials
The Mall of America Starbucks workers are just the latest example of Starbucks workers seeking to exercise their right to vote out unwanted union officials. Foundation attorneys are currently assisting Starbucks employees in Manhattan, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh, in obtaining union decertification votes.
As with the New York and Pennsylvania locations, the SBWU union only came to power at the Mall of America Starbucks a little over a year ago – meaning workers began attempts to vote out SBWU nearly as soon as legally allowed. Federal labor law prevents workers from exercising their right to remove an unpopular union at least one year after installed.
A contributing factor to the growing worker dissatisfaction with SBWU union officials may be the controversial practice of “salting,” which involves union officials surreptitiously paying union agents to obtain jobs at non-union workplaces to agitate for union control. “Salts” generally hide their union-allied status from both managers and their coworkers, and may quickly depart the workplace once a union has been installed. The New York Post reported that one SBWU union agent was paid nearly $50,000 to “salt” a Buffalo Starbucks location, and concealed her affiliation from both her coworkers and Congress.
The push for decertification votes at Starbucks is part of a growing trend, with the NLRB’s data showing a unionized private sector worker is far more likely to be involved in a decertification effort as their nonunion counterpart is to be involved in a unionization campaign. NLRB statistics also show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021. However, union officials still have many ways to manipulate federal labor law to prevent workers from voting them out, including by filing unrelated or unverified charges against management.
“The deceptive tactics SBWU officials took in gaining control of multiple Starbucks locations are finally coming back to haunt them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Starbucks partners nationwide are seeing how the union organizers, including those secretly paid by the union pretending to be genuine coworkers, manipulated them to do what is best for union bosses but not in the best interests of rank-and-file workers.”
“These Starbucks workers have joined others in taking the first step in exercising their rights to oust an unwanted union, and we call on SBWU union officials and the NLRB to respect the wishes of these workers who simply want a prompt decertification vote,” continued Mix. “The right of workers to oust a union that lacks majority support should not be subjugated to the interests of incumbent union bosses seeking to retain power against the wishes of rank-and-file workers.”
Pittsburgh Starbucks Workers Seek Vote to Remove Unwanted SBWU Union
Pittsburgh employees latest to join growing number of Starbucks employees seeking decertificiation votes to oust union
Pittsburgh, PA (July 13, 2023) – Employees at Pittsburgh’s Penn Center East Starbucks branch just submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asking the federal agency to hold a vote at their workplace on whether to oust the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union. The employee who submitted the petition, Elizabeth Gulliford, is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The union decertification petition contains signatures from enough workers at the Penn Center East coffee shop to trigger a vote under the NLRB’s rules. With the petition filed, the NLRB should now promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ power to impose a contract, including forced dues, on the workers.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SBWU union officials have the power to enter into agreement with Starbucks forcing Gulliford and her coworkers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
“SBWU union bosses have not looked out for the interests of me and my fellow employees,” commented Gulliford. “We simply want to exercise our right to vote out a union that we don’t believe has done a good job, and both SBWU and Starbucks should respect that right and our final decision.”
Starbucks Workers Increasingly Seek to Vote Out SBWU Union Officials
The Pittsburgh Starbucks workers are just the latest group of Starbucks workers seeking to exercise their right to vote out unwanted union officials. Foundation attorneys are currently assisting Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY, and Buffalo, NY, in obtaining union decertification votes. As with the New York locations, the SBWU union only came to power at the Pittsburgh Starbucks about a year ago – meaning workers began attempts to vote out SBWU as soon as legally allowed. Federal labor law prevents workers from exercising their right to remove an unpopular union for at least one year after one is installed.
A contributing factor to the growing worker dissatisfaction with SBWU union officials may be the controversial practice of “salting,” which according to news reports is a tactic the SBWU union employed to install union power at New York Starbucks locations. “Salting” involves union officials surreptitiously paying union agents to obtain jobs at non-union workplaces to agitate for union control. “Salts” generally hide their union-allied status from both managers and their coworkers, and may quickly depart the workplace once a union has been installed. The New York Post reported that one SBWU union agent was paid nearly $50,000 to “salt” a Buffalo Starbucks location, and concealed her affiliation from both her coworkers and Congress.
Currently, the NLRB’s data shows a unionized private sector worker is far more likely to be involved in a decertification effort as their nonunion counterpart is to be involved in a unionization campaign. NLRB statistics also show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021. However, union officials still have many ways to manipulate federal labor law to prevent workers from voting them out, including by filing unrelated or unverified charges against management.
“As more Starbucks workers seek to kick SBWU from their stores, the agenda of these union officials is becoming clearer and clearer,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “SBWU union officials sought to extend their power over as many Starbucks workers as they could through controversial tactics, all in pursuit of greater dues revenue and scoring political points. Meanwhile, workers’ interests were ignored completely.”
“While we are happy that the Starbucks workers are able to take their first steps in exercising their rights oust an unwanted union, we call on SBWU union officials not to attempt to block or otherwise interfere with the rank-and-file workers’ right to hold this vote,” continued Mix. “Union bosses should not be allowed to keep their grip on power simply by disenfranchising those they claim to ‘represent.’”
Dallas-Based Danone North America Employee Slams Union with Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Money from Pay
Charge comes while employees seek vote to remove UFCW union from facility
Dallas, TX (July 11, 2023) – Alex Botello, a Dallas-based employee of food manufacturer Danone North America, has hit the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 540 union with federal charges after union officials illegally seized union dues from his paycheck. Botello filed his charges at Region 16 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Dallas with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Botello’s charge says that UFCW bosses rebuffed or ignored his two attempts to revoke a dues checkoff authorization. Botello maintains that the union’s actions violate his rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which is supposed to protect American private sector workers’ right to refrain from union activity.
Because Texas is a Right to Work state, UFCW union officials lack the legal authority to demand any money from Botello as a condition of employment. Right to Work laws provide more comprehensive protections than the NLRA by making union membership and all union dues payment strictly voluntary for private sector workers. In non-Right to Work states, in contrast, union officials can force workers to pay some union fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
Worker Followed Union Instructions to Stop Dues Deductions, But Union Continued to Take Money
Botello’s charge says that he first tried to stop dues deductions from his paycheck in October 2022. The UFCW rejected his request in a letter, which stated that his attempt was untimely and that he could only revoke his dues checkoff during a narrow union-created “window period” lasting from March 27, 2023, until April 11, 2023.
Botello resubmitted his revocation request on April 3, 2023, within the “window period” specified by the union. However, union dues did not stop coming out of his paycheck. “The Union’s failure to accept Charging Party’s timely revocation letter and immediately cease deducting dues violates the National Labor Relations Act,” reads Botello’s charge.
Workers Nationwide Battle Illegal UFCW Dues Schemes
Botello’s charge is just the latest Foundation-backed legal action that workers across the country have taken against UFCW union officials for illegal dues practices. Also in Texas, Houston Kroger employee Jessica Haefner is challenging UFCW Local 455 union officials’ collection of dues from her paycheck under the guise of a union card that was altered to show her consent to dues deductions she never agreed to. As in Botello’s case, Haefner followed union officials’ directions on how to end union dues deductions, but money continued to come out of her wages.
In Pennsylvania, Foundation attorneys represented Giant Eagle supermarket cashier Josiah Leonatti, who charged UFCW Local 1776KS union officials with refusing to accommodate his religious objections to union membership. His charges say union officials tried to subject him to an illegal “religion test” before they considered granting him an accommodation.
UFCW Officials Attempting to Remain in Power Despite Danone Employees’ Request for Union Decertification Vote
Separately, Botello and his coworkers submitted two petitions to the NLRB, asking the agency for a vote to remove, or “decertify,” the UFCW union. Botello submitted the first petition on August 29, 2022, but regional NLRB officials rejected the petition at UFCW bosses’ behest. NLRB officials claimed that a contract ratified by union bosses and management in 2019 would remain in effect until November 15, 2022. As per the NLRB’s non-statutory “contract bar” policy, union officials can block workers from exercising their right to vote them out of a workplace for up to three years after a contract is finalized.
Botello submitted the second petition after the 2019 union contract expired, based on the NLRB Region’s decision on the first petition finding that the 2019 contract was operative on August 29, the day that Botello submitted the first petition. However, regional NLRB officials blocked the second petition on the grounds that a more recent contract had actually been in effect since August 25. This is a contradiction to the regional NLRB decision blocking the first petition, as that decision rested on the conclusion that the 2019 contract was in effect on August 29, not the union’s August 25 contract.
Botello filed requests for review challenging the Region’s dismissals of both petitions. The NLRB granted Botello’s requests and directed Region 16 to take another look at these cases.
“The situation at the Dallas Danone plant illustrates how far UFCW union bosses, and in many instances NLRB officials, are willing to go to trap workers under union monopoly control and forced dues, even when there’s clear evidence that workers do not support them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Any worker under UFCW control who experiences similar infringements of their rights should not hesitate to reach out to the Foundation for free legal aid.”
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Legal Notice to UPS Employees as Nationwide Strike Looms
Notice provides important information to those who want to work during the strike
Washington, DC (July 10, 2023) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice to employees of UPS in light of news reports indicating that Teamsters union officials are on the brink of issuing a nationwide strike order against the shipping giant. The legal notice is available at the Foundation’s website here: www.nrtw.org/UPS.
The Foundation is the nation’s premier organization dedicated to defending workers’ legal rights from forced unionism abuses. Rank-and-file workers who are interested in continuing to work and providing for their families during a strike often contact the Foundation for free legal aid to avoid strike discipline, or to resist intimidation often perpetrated by union officials.
“The Foundation wants you to learn about your legal rights from independent sources,” the notice reminds UPS workers. “You should not rely on what self-interested union officials tell you.”
Employees Have Right to Rebuff Union Strike Orders
The legal notice informs UPS workers who want to work during a strike that they should submit resignations prior to returning to work, because doing so is the best way to avoid union fines and vindictive union discipline. “Your resignation letter must be postmarked THE DAY BEFORE you return to work, or hand delivered BEFORE you actually return to work,” the notice reads. Sample union membership resignation letters are available on the Foundation’s website.
The notice also informs employees of other actions they can take to disaffiliate from the Teamsters union, including how to stop funding unwanted union activities.
“If you work in a state with Right to Work protections, you have a right to cut off all payments of dues and fees to the union if you don’t support its activities,” the notice reads. “If you do not work in a state with Right to Work protections, you at least have a right to opt-out of dues payments for union politics, and may be able to avoid other union financial support.”
Foundation Attorneys Have Won Many Cases for Workers Challenging Teamsters Coercion
The Foundation frequently provides free legal assistance to workers who are victims of coercion and even violence from Teamsters militants. Foundation staff attorneys made headlines across the country in 2001, when they won a monetary settlement for UPS employee and former Dallas Cowboys linebacker Rod Carter, a victim of union violence during the 1997 Teamsters union officials’ nationwide strike against UPS.
More recently, Foundation attorneys have aided several groups of workers in voting Teamsters officials out of power at their workplaces. Since 2021, Foundation attorneys have assisted at least five groups of XPO Logistics employees in decertifying unwanted Teamsters unions, including in Miami, FL, where truck drivers voted out the union despite Teamsters officials’ claims that the union’s contract at the Miami facility was a breakthrough.
Also in recent years, Foundation staff attorneys have won a series of victories for UPS workers challenging Teamsters union officials’ attempts to coerce workers into union membership or full dues payments. In one case brought by Foundation attorneys, the National Labor Relations Board ruled Teamsters officials “repeatedly and deliberately” engaged in illegal coercion against UPS workers, and ordered notification of thousands of workers affected by the Teamsters officials’ violations of federal law.
“UPS employees across the country will undoubtedly have very reasonable concerns about whether Teamsters officials’ sweeping strike order is really in workers’ best interests,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix.
“The fact is Teamsters bosses have a long history of pursuing their own agenda and what advances their interests with respect to internal union politics at all costs, even if it means tossing aside the well-being of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” Mix continued. “Fortunately, UPS workers seeking to exercise their right to work despite Teamsters bosses’ strike order can turn to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for free legal assistance.”
“National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have a well-established track record of winning cases on behalf of workers, especially UPS workers, against Teamsters union bosses’ illegal tactics,” added Mix.
Foundation Slams Biden Labor Board’s Biased Ruling in Federal Appeals Court
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief contends NLRB distorted precedent to trap workers in union they oppose
A majority of J.G. Kern employees petitioned to oust the UAW, which has seen two of its former presidents (Gary Jones, right, and Dennis Williams, left) go to jail for corruption. But a biased NLRB ruling trapped the workers in UAW ranks anyway.
WASHINGTON, DC – Foundation staff attorneys recently filed an amicus brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision reversing workers’ attempt to remove union “representation” they oppose.
In the case, J.G. Kern employees, frustrated with the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 228 union, decided to petition to decertify, or formally remove, the union from their workplace. The workers presented this majority petition to their employer, leading to the company removing its recognition of the union.
The petition contained overwhelming support from workers in favor of removing the union. Yet, after the company withdrew recognition from the union, UAW officials ran to the Biden Labor Board in an attempt to remain in power. The Biden-appointed NLRB majority sided with the union officials by re-imposing the unpopular union over the workers’ objections.
With the case now in the federal court of appeals, the Foundation filed an amicus brief arguing the NLRB’s April 2022 ruling ignores precedent and misapplies longstanding law in siding with union officials.
Decertification Rules Already Rigged Against Workers Opposed to Union Affiliation
As the brief points out, workers looking to file a petition to remove a union they oppose already face numerous hurdles due to NLRB rules, most of which are contained nowhere in the federal statute the NLRB is charged with enforcing.
For example, a petition must be gathered outside of work hours, and outside of work-related areas. Also, unless employees use certain Board-specified language in their petition, the petition is invalid. Furthermore, employees cannot ask their employer for further information regarding the decertification process or the petition will be invalid.
The Foundation’s brief observes how workers must operate “in the dark, without help from their employer, and even if they do everything right, their efforts might come to naught through no fault of their own.” It also shows how the Biden Board has made it more difficult for individual workers to express their right to decertify unwanted, unpopular unions.
Biden NLRB Aims to Force Union on Workers Who Overwhelmingly Object
Under the Board’s “certification bar” doctrine, a union that wins a secret ballot election cannot be challenged for one year after its victory is certified by the NLRB. In this case, the UAW’s certification bar ended on October 3, 2019. In November 2019, J.G. Kern employees delivered a majority-backed petition to their employer.
The Biden Board claimed, however, that because J.G. Kern did not bargain in good faith during a three-month period at the beginning of the certification year, the employees’ majority petition was invalid. According to the Biden Board, the employer’s alleged unfair labor practices prospectively “extended” the certification year beyond its normal 12-month period.
The brief highlights the disingenuousness of the Board, pointing out that “the employees would have to divine the future to know they were collecting a petition during the ‘extended certification year.’” The Foundation urges the D.C. Circuit to command the Board to follow precedent that requires the Board to determine whether there was a “nexus” between the employer’s unfair labor practices and the decertification petition.
NLRB’s Power Grab Takes Away Workers’ Rights
The Foundation’s brief emphasizes how the Board’s decision can abolish employees’ rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. An example of that is the J.G. Kern workers’ petition, where it was only after the petition was gathered that the Board extended the union’s certification bar period.
The brief notes that usually “an employee’s decertification petition is presumptively valid unless there is a causal nexus between the unfair labor practice and the petition.” However, this is not the case under the J.G. Kern ruling.
Should the NLRB’s ruling be upheld, it “will further incentivize incumbent unions to file unfair labor practice charges to chill employees’ Section 7 ability to collect petitions,” the brief concludes.
“The NLRB’s blatant disregard for the rights of workers who don’t want anything to do with coercive unionism is on full display in this case,” commented Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The arbitrary cherry-picking of legal precedents to fit the Board’s agenda is outrageous, while expected, given the Biden Administration’s all-out effort to expand Big Labor’s coercive ranks.
Teen Supermarket Cashier Fired for Refusing to Join and Fund UFCW Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union officials required teen to violate his religious beliefs or be fired
Josiah Leonatti may be young, but he’s not afraid to stand up to UFCW bosses, who got him fired over objecting to union membership and dues on religious grounds.
PITTSBURGH, PA – Josiah Leonatti, a high schooler, was fired last year for his religious beliefs. Giant Eagle and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union compel employees, like Leonatti, to either join or fund the union to keep their jobs. The problem for Leonatti is that he cannot do so without compromising his religious beliefs.
When Leonatti was hired, he never expected that union bosses would force him to choose between his job and his religious convictions. But the union officials did just that.
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Leonatti hit UFCW union officials and Giant Eagle in January with federal discrimination charges. Although Giant Eagle rehired Leonatti to limit liability, neither Giant Eagle nor the union agreed to accommodate his religious beliefs. So Leonatti faces discharge, again, unless he funds the union.
Moreover, the union demands that Leonatti submit to an illegal “religion test.” Before the company and union will consider accommodation, they demand that Leonatti answer irrelevant and inappropriate questions to determine whether his religious beliefs are valid.
UFCW Bosses Tried to Get Teen Fired After He Voiced Religious Objections
Foundation attorneys filed charges for Leonatti against the union at both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) based on federal law. Foundation attorneys also filed charges against Leonatti’s employer, Giant Eagle.
Federal law requires unions and employers to accommodate employees who have religious objections to joining or paying dues to a union. And federal law also prohibits forced union membership regardless of a worker’s reason for not wanting to affiliate with a union.
Leonatti’s charges report that he attended employee training last year as a cashier trainee. There, a store manager told new hires that they “must sign papers to join the United Food And Commercial Workers.” According to the NLRB charges, “No other options were even hinted at.”
After reviewing the papers with his family, Leonatti’s charges explain, he mailed a letter to UFCW officials detailing his sincere religious objections to joining and supporting the union. He also presented the same letter in person at training.
Rather than accommodate his religious beliefs as required by law, a company official “dismissed [Leonatti] from training and sent [him] home.” The same official later called Leonatti and told him that union membership is compulsory at Giant Eagle, and admitted the grocery store had terminated him over his refusal to join.
UFCW officials responded to Leonatti’s letter by mail on November 10, 2022, rejecting the written explanation of his religious objection and demanding he “complete its religious examination” before they even considered granting him an accommodation. Even if he passed this “test,” the charges say, union officials threatened that he would still have to pay an amount equal to full UFCW union dues to a charity approved by union bosses. Giant Eagle has not offered a religious accommodation to Leonatti, and the union has not retracted its threats or agreed to accommodate him.
Teen’s Firing Shows Need for Pennsylvania Right to Work Protections
Leonatti’s EEOC charges seek to compel the UFCW union and Giant Eagle to provide him a legally required religious accommodation. In addition, the NLRB charges state that relief must include unitwide notice and corporate training regarding workers’ right to refrain from union membership, among other remedies.
“Union bosses’ attempt to coerce a high school student to violate his religious beliefs is unconscionable and illegal,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “We’re proud to support Mr. Leonatti as he defends his rights and beliefs. This should serve as a stark reminder that all Americans deserve Right to Work protections.”
“If Pennsylvania were a Right to Work state, Leonatti wouldn’t be forced to present his religious objections to expectedly hostile union chiefs,” Semmens added. “In a Right to Work state, he and other dissenting employees would have a statutorily protected right to cut off dues payments for any reason. All employees deserve the right to choose whether to fund a union.”
Disney Worker Hits UNITE HERE Union with Federal Charge for Illegal Dues Seizures
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union officials ignoring worker’s right under Florida Right to Work law to stop dues payments
Not so magical: Lurking behind Disney World’s cheery exterior are UNITE HERE union officials who apparently don’t respect employees who exercise their right to free themselves from unwanted union membership and dues deductions.
ORLANDO, FL – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Disney Parks and Resorts employee in Orlando, Florida, has filed federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the UNITE HERE Local 362 union, stating that union officials ignored his resignation and dues checkoff revocation letter.
Since 1943, Florida’s Right to Work protections have made union membership and financial support strictly voluntary. However, when Jose Class filed his unfair labor practice charge, UNITE HERE union officials had not acknowledged his unequivocal exercise of his rights to abstain from both.
According to the charge filed in December 2022, Class resigned his union membership and revoked the union’s authorization to deduct dues from his paycheck. That December letter also requested, if union officials did not immediately accept his dues checkoff revocation, that the union, within 14 days of receipt, provide him with a copy of any checkoff he may have signed.
As of the filing of the charge, union officials had not stopped collecting dues from his wages, nor had they provided him with the requested copy of a signed checkoff authorization, which might specify when revocation is allowed.
Long History of Union Bosses Violating Disney World Workers’ Rights
UNITE HERE is not the only union that has violated Disney World workers’ right to stop all dues payments as guaranteed by Florida’s longstanding Right to Work law. In a series of cases brought against Florida-based Teamsters Local 385, Foundation attorneys ultimately won an NLRB decision that Teamsters officials violated workers’ rights by “repeatedly and deliberately” failing to honor the workers’ requests that deduction of union dues from their wages stop.
“In what is an unfortunately familiar story, union officials ignored Mr. Class’ resignation letter and his dues deduction revocation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse.
“No American worker should ever be forced to subsidize union activities, which is why a longstanding priority of the National Right to Work Foundation is assisting workers in exercising their right to cut off financial support for union officials they oppose.
