23 Jul 2025

Louisiana Poultry Employee Challenges Federal Labor Policy Preventing Coworkers From Voting Out UFCW Union

Posted in News Releases

Worker submitted petition in which over half of his colleagues demanded vote to remove union, but so-called ‘contract bar’ kept union in power

Hammond, LA (July 23, 2025) – Coty Hally, an employee of Wayne Sanderson Farms’ poultry facility in Hammond, LA, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to grant him and his coworkers a chance to vote United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 455 union officials out of their workplace.

Hally is challenging a decision from an NLRB Regional Director that blocked the Wayne Sanderson workers from exercising their right to vote on the basis of the so-called “contract bar,” a non-statutory NLRB policy which immunizes union officials from removal (or “decertification”) efforts for the first three years of a union contract. Hally is receiving free legal aid in his case from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Hally’s Request for Review argues the NLRB, the federal agency responsible for adjudicating disputes under federal labor law, should eliminate the “contract bar” entirely. “The contract-bar is a Board created limitation on employee statutory rights to seek an election and determine their own representative,” Hally’s Request for Review says. “It is not found in the text of the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA]…and it conflicts with the Act’s core purpose.”

“UFCW union officials have been dragging their feet and have not been negotiating good contracts for me and my coworkers,” Hally commented. “This union doesn’t represent us, and it’s ridiculous that the UFCW is manipulating this one dated NLRB policy to keep us trapped in the union, even though most of us have expressed interest in voting the union out. My colleagues and I – not union officials – should be deciding whether the union stays or goes.”

‘Contract Bar’ Policy Absent From Labor Statutes, Burdens Employee Free Choice

Hally’s Request for Review notes that he submitted a petition earlier this month in which over 50% of his 550-person unit demanded a vote to oust the UFCW. Normally NLRB rules only require a 30% “showing of interest” in order to trigger a union decertification vote, but even with this stronger support, “Region 15 dismissed Hally’s petition consistent with the Board’s contract-bar doctrine,” the Request for Review says.

In addition to pointing out that the contract bar policy appears nowhere in the NLRA and was instead the invention of biased NLRB decisions, Hally’s Request for Review contends the policy stifles worker freedom. “This bar contradicts the Act’s well-established ‘bedrock principles of employee free choice and majority rule’…because it grants monopoly bargaining status…even in the face of objective evidence proving the union has lost majority support,” the Request for Review says.

On top of that, NLRB decisions interpreting the “contract bar” rule have only made the rule more burdensome on employees’ free choice rights. A particularly egregious example mentioned in Hally’s Request for Review is the fact that even informal and unpublicized documents exchanged between management and union bosses without workers’ knowledge can be sufficient to trigger the “contract bar” and block employees from exercising their right to decertify.

Hally and his coworkers are not the first group of employees to challenge the contract bar policy with Foundation legal assistance. In 2020 through 2021, Foundation attorneys represented Delaware-based Mountaire Farms poultry employee Oscar Cruz Sosa in defending a vote by his coworkers to remove UFCW union officials. UFCW bosses tried to get the ballots thrown out on a contract bar-related technicality. While the NLRB granted UFCW officials’ outrageous request, Cruz Sosa and his colleagues eventually voted 356-80 to remove the UFCW union once the union contract had expired in their workplace.

“If union bosses are truly doing right by the workers they claim to ‘represent,’ they should have no problem letting workers exercise their right to vote on the union’s control,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, union officials hungry for dues and power still enjoy many legal privileges that let them override workers’ will and rights, not the least of which is the pernicious ‘contract bar.’

“If the Trump Administration’s incoming NLRB members are serious about reversing the dysfunctional policies of the Biden Administration, restoring worker freedom, and defending the rights of workers, they will see the injustice in cases like Mr. Hally’s and Mr. Cruz Sosa’s and move to eliminate the ‘contract bar’ right away,” Mix added.

18 Jul 2025

San Fernando Valley Kaiser Permanente Nurse Hits UNAC Union With Federal Charges for Forcing Nurses to Fund Union Politics

Posted in News Releases

UNAC union officials stated she would be fired if she refused formal union membership and dues payments for political expenditures

Los Angeles, CA (July 18, 2025) – Sarah Warthemann, a nurse at Kaiser Permanente’s branch in Woodland Hills, has just filed federal charges against the United Nurses Association of California (UNAC) union at her workplace. She maintains that UNAC officials threatened that she would lose her job if she did not formally join the union, and have ignored her attempt to exercise her legal right to opt out of paying for union political expenses. Warthemann filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes adjudicating labor disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects workers’ right to refrain from participating in or supporting union activities.

Warthemann’s charge concerns her rights under CWA Union v. Beck, a Foundation-won case in which the Supreme Court ruled union bosses could not require those abstaining from union membership to fund union ideological activities just to keep their jobs. The General Motors v. NLRB Supreme Court decision also forbids union officials from requiring formal membership as a condition of employment.

Because California is not a Right to Work state, UNAC chiefs can enforce union monopoly bargaining contracts that require Warthemann and her fellow nurses to pay union dues to keep their jobs, but Beck limits this amount to only the portion of dues that UNAC officials use for bargaining functions. In contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Arizona and Nevada, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.

“The radical political agenda promoted by the UNAC union is something I do not—and should not—be compelled to support,” Warthemann commented. “While I’m required to pay union dues to remain employed at the hospital, that obligation should not include funding extreme political activities. It is both unethical and, in my view, illegal.”

UNAC Union Bosses Snub Both Federal Law and Recent Settlement

Warthemann reports in her charges that a UNAC representative emailed her a union membership form in June, insisting that she “fill this out ASAP. It is a condition of employment.” Warthemann also notes that UNAC bosses have been ignoring her request to exercise her rights under Beck, and have persisted in demanding she pay full union dues. According to the charges, the union flouted other requirements mandated by the Beck decision – including that union officials provide nonmember employees with a financial breakdown of how the union spends employees’ money.

The UNAC union’s failure to follow Beck is especially flagrant in light of an NLRB-approved settlement union bosses recently reached with another Kaiser Permanente Woodland Hills nurse, Jillian Clausi. Clausi also accused the union of Beck violations, and the settlement in her case contains declarations by the union that it will “not charge Beck objectors the full amount of union membership dues,” among other things. This appears to be exactly the misbehavior Warthemann is describing in her new charge.

“It’s no surprise that UNAC union officials – who spent millions of dollars to influence the 2024 California elections – are trying to keep nurses in the dark about their right to stop their money from enriching the union’s political machine,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But workers’ right to say ‘no’ to funding union boss agendas shouldn’t be limited to just politics. No worker should be forced to fund a union hierarchy that has been abrasive or just flat out incompetent while claiming to ‘represent’ workers.

“Ms. Warthemann’s case is Exhibit A in why all American workers deserve Right to Work protections. Union officials must rely on voluntarism – not government-backed force – to gain worker support,” Mix added.

15 Jul 2025

Comfort Systems USA Pipefitters and Welders Win Two-Year Battle to Escape Steamfitters Local 52 Union

Posted in News Releases

Union officials made dubious charges concerning pipefitter who collected worker signatures opposing union, but charges were dropped just before hearing

Montgomery, AL (July 15, 2025) – Brandon Davis and his fellow pipefitters and welders at Montgomery-based HVAC company Comfort Systems USA Mid-South have successfully removed Steamfitters Local 52 union bosses from their workplace. Davis, who spearheaded the nearly two-year struggle to oust the union, received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Davis’ effort kicked off in March 2023, when he filed a petition backed by his coworkers asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a workplace vote to remove (or “decertify”) the union. The NLRB is the federal agency in charge of enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes adjudicating labor disputes and administering elections to install or remove unions.

While Davis’ petition contained more than enough employee signatures under federal law to trigger a union decertification election, he had a backup plan: To avoid any attempts by union officials to use litigation to hold up or cancel the election, he also submitted a copy of his petition to his employer. Under the 2001 Levitz Furniture Co. NLRB precedent, employers can legally withdraw recognition from union bosses as the “exclusive representative” of their employees upon receiving a petition that shows the union does not enjoy majority support among workers – which Davis’ petition did.

Because Davis and his coworkers work in the Right to Work state of Alabama, state law barred Steamfitters union officials from enforcing contracts that required union membership or dues payments as a condition of employment. However, in Right to Work states and non-Right to Work states alike, union officials still have the ability to impose their “exclusive representation” on every worker in a unionized facility, even those who vote against or otherwise oppose the union.

Steamfitters Union Bosses Sought Order Compelling Workers Under Union Control

Comfort Systems stopped recognizing the Steamfitters union in March 2023 based on Davis’ petition. Unfortunately, Steamfitters union officials still tried to trap Davis and his coworkers under their control. Steamfitters union bosses filed a number of unfair labor practice charges against Comfort Systems management in an attempt to elicit an order from the NLRB that would force the company to submit to bargaining with the union – despite the petition showing that the union no longer enjoyed majority support from the workers. One union boss charge even accused Davis of being a manager or being put up to seeking an election, alleging his collection of worker signatures was part of an illegal company plot.

In February 2025, NLRB Region 15 issued a complaint finding merit to the union’s unfair labor practice charges, including the claim that Davis was a member or agent of management. Davis’ Foundation attorneys quickly sought to intervene in the case between the Steamfitters union and Comfort Systems to rebut the union’s allegations. “Should Mr. Davis be denied Intervenor status, an unfavorable determination in this case could destroy the impact of the decertification petition he prepared, i.e., the lawful withdrawal of recognition by his Employer,” read the motion to intervene.

Under pressure from Davis and his Foundation-provided legal team, the NLRB abandoned the allegations that threatened to reimpose the union and agreed to settle all others just three days before a hearing was scheduled to take place. With no remaining challenges to the company’s withdrawal of recognition, Davis and his colleagues are finally free of the Steamfitters union’s control.

“We’re proud to help Mr. Davis and his fellow Comfort Systems employees escape the clutches of Steamfitters union bosses who weren’t standing up for the employees’ interests, but their legal battle should have never lasted this long,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As the Trump Administration selects new NLRB members, it should seek members who will eliminate policies that let union officials seize forced ‘representation’ powers over workers on the basis of unproven allegations. The Board should instead plan to defend equally workers’ right to associate or disassociate with a union as they please.”

14 Jul 2025

Cornell University Graduate Student Files Federal Charges Seeking End to Union Boss Control Over Graduate Students

Posted in News Releases

Student case attacks Obama-era federal labor board ruling that exposed graduate students to union boss power

Ithaca, NY (July 14, 2025) – Russell Burgett, a Ph.D. candidate in chemical physics at Cornell University, has just launched a groundbreaking federal labor case challenging the Cornell Graduate Student Union’s (an affiliate of United Electrical) authority to maintain exclusive representation powers over him and his fellow graduate students.

Burgett, who opposes the union and is not a member, filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law. Burgett’s case is a direct challenge to the Obama NLRB’s 2016 Columbia University ruling, which overturned longstanding precedent and permitted union bosses to gain monopoly bargaining powers over graduate students at private universities like MIT, Columbia, and Cornell.

While union monopoly bargaining schemes in academia were already controversial at the time of the Columbia University ruling, student opposition to the policy has spiked in recent years as union officials have pursued increasingly radical and divisive ideological activities on campuses.

Charges: NLRB Must Reexamine Union Powers Over Students, Including Forced-Dues Mandates

Burgett’s charges assert that Cornell graduate students are not “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act. For that reason, the charges say, CGSU-UE union officials’ attempts to force them to abide by a union contract – including provisions that effectively mandate the students pay union dues or fees to complete essential parts of their graduate programs – violate federal labor law.

Furthermore, Burgett’s charges contend the union contract is illegal because it forbids the university from doing business with students who abstain from union membership or union financial support. Union agreements that require an entity to cease doing business with persons who refuse to associate with the union are a clear violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

“Mr. Burgett’s case is the latest chapter in a continuing saga showing why union bosses’ one-size-fits-all bargaining schemes have no place in academia,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “At America’s elite universities, union bosses empowered by the Obama and Biden NLRBs are coercing dissenting students into funding their political radicalism and constant agitation – including Jewish students who have sincere religious objections to the anti-Israel vitriol that campus unions push.

“Forcing students to choose between completing their graduate degrees or affiliating with an ideological group they find unconscionable is antithetical to principles of academic freedom, and Mr. Burgett’s case directly attacks the Obama NLRB’s and Biden NLRB’s flawed rulings allowing such coercion to happen in the first place,” Mix added.

9 Jul 2025

National Right to Work Foundation Files Legal Brief Defending Wisconsin Act 10 as Union Bosses Seek to Regain Coercive Powers

Posted in News Releases

Amicus brief exposes lower court’s flawed argument that union bosses have “right” to monopoly bargaining powers over workers and government

Washington, DC (July 9, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has submitted an amicus brief to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Abbotsford Education Association v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. The case, which is on appeal from the Dane County Circuit Court, is a challenge by a cadre of labor unions against Act 10, a 2011 state law that set important restrictions on public sector union officials’ ability to control Wisconsin public services and public workers.

Act 10, among other provisions, prevents unelected union bosses from enforcing monopoly bargaining contracts that would let them dictate key aspects of work and compensation for large portions of state government – even over the objections of public workers themselves and their managers. It also requires union officials to periodically submit to employee votes (or “re-certification”) to ensure that they still enjoy majority employee support in public workplaces where they are in power. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional in 2014, but union officials believe that the changed ideological makeup of the Court gives them a new opportunity to get the law overturned and regain power.

“[T]he Foundation has frequently offered its views as amicus curiae in cases impacting upon important aspects of employee freedom,” the Foundation’s amicus brief reads. “Most importantly here, the Foundation has provided free legal aid to employees in other challenges mounted by unions against various provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.”

Lower Wisconsin Court Ignores Clear Supreme Court Precedent in Flawed Act 10 Ruling

The Foundation’s amicus brief first contends that a state like Wisconsin “can define and limit the parameters of exclusive representation as it sees fit,” and union officials’ public sector monopoly bargaining powers are not a “right” that the U.S. or Wisconsin constitutions require the government to acknowledge.

“The United States Supreme Court recognized this principle long ago” in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, the amicus brief says. The Dane County Circuit Court erroneously called monopoly bargaining a “right” the Wisconsin legislature could not ban in certain public departments but allow in others.

In 2007, Foundation attorneys won a victory at the United States Supreme Court in Davenport v. Washington Education Association that established a similar point to Smith: Union officials have no constitutional “right” to seize money from nonconsenting workers. Wisconsin’s Right to Work law and the Foundation’s Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME continue to protect Wisconsin workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs.

The Foundation’s amicus brief also states that the Dane County Circuit Court failed to consider whether, instead of striking down Act 10 as a whole, it could have expanded the statute’s pro-employee liberty provisions to cover all public departments to correct the alleged imbalances the court perceives in the law. “[T]he Circuit Court could have expanded the protection of Act 10’s re-certification requirements to all public employees in the State,” the brief says.

In addition to Act 10’s benefits for independent-minded public workers, public spending analyses indicate that the law has relieved Wisconsin taxpayers from the enormous financial weight of wasteful union contracts. Some estimates show that Act 10 has saved the state roughly $35 billion since it was enacted.

“Act 10 is a simple recognition that voters and taxpayers – not unelected union bosses – should be in control of how the public services Wisconsinites fund are managed,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But the union boss attempt to nix it is an even more egregious attack on Wisconsin public workers, who under union officials’ proposed regime would be forced to sacrifice to unions the right to freely choose who will speak for them on workplace matters. Even convicted felons have the right to choose their own representation, but union officials seek to deny this right to dissenting public employees.

“The latest attempt to get Act 10 overturned is a power play by Wisconsin union officials that will severely harm the public interest, and no Wisconsin court should be complicit in that scheme,” Mix added.

3 Jul 2025

Pittsburgh-Area Coca-Cola Driver Slams Teamsters With Federal Charges for Threatening Firing Over Refusal to Fund Union Politics

Posted in News Releases

Worker’s case seeks to change federal standards so that union bosses must convince workers to ‘opt-in’ to supporting union politics

Pittsburgh, PA (July 3, 2025) – Josh Hammaker, a driver for ABARTA Coca-Cola’s Houston, PA, distribution center, has filed federal charges against Teamsters Local 585 union officials at his workplace. Hammaker is charging Teamsters union officials with violating federal law by threatening to get him fired if he did not formally join the union, and with forcing him to pay for union expenditures – including union political activities. Hammaker filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Hammaker’s charges state that Teamsters union officials breached federal labor law by “telling [him] that he is not permitted to become a Beck objector and that formal union membership is a condition of employment,” – i.e. they would demand his firing if he refused to join. Under the Foundation-won Communication Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, union bosses cannot force workers who have opted out of union membership to pay fees for union political or ideological expenditures.

While the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects workers’ right to abstain from formal union membership, states like Pennsylvania that lack Right to Work laws permit union officials to enforce contracts that mandate workers pay dues or fees to keep their jobs. However, this forced-dues power is limited by Beck. In contrast, in Right to Work states, all union financial support is strictly voluntary, so workers can freely withhold dues payments if they find union officials’ monopoly “representation” is harming them.

Coca-Cola Driver’s Case Challenges NLRB Precedent Regarding Dues for Politics

Hammaker’s charges go on to challenge the fact that Teamsters union officials’ policies force workers to “affirmatively opt out of paying for non-chargeable expenditures” (if such requests are accepted at all), as opposed to letting workers voluntarily opt in to such support. Moreover, “the Union has violated the Act by failing to inform [Hammaker] and similarly situated employees of the true amount of dues they are required to pay” under Beck to stay employed, the charges conclude.

Union officials often neglect to inform workers of their Beck rights, and sometimes don’t even seek worker consent before deducting full dues (including dues for political expenses) from their paychecks. If Hammaker’s case is successful, the NLRB could create a new federal standard mandating union officials to seek clear consent from workers before extracting full union dues payments from their paychecks.

“I don’t support Teamsters politicking. My job definitely shouldn’t hinge on whether or not my hard-earned money is funding it,” commented Hammaker. “It’s bad enough I have to pay any money to Teamsters officials just to keep my job, but the NLRB should at least prevent union officials from automatically taking political funds from an employee’s wages by default and instead place the responsibility on the union to obtain the employee’s consent.”

“Like the rest of top Big Labor bosses, Teamsters kingpins oppose popular Right to Work laws so they can extort dues from unwilling workers and use that money to fund a radical political agenda that is completely out of touch with the priorities of most rank-and-file employees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The solution to this problem is ensuring all union payments are completely voluntary, so union officials cannot have workers fired solely for refusing to pay dues or fees.

“While we wait for the day when Congress takes action to strip union officials of their government-granted forced-dues powers, the NLRB should help protect workers from the worst forced-dues-for-politics abuses,” added Mix. “It’s long past time that the NLRB require union officials to earn political support from those workers they claim to ‘represent’ and end schemes that require workers to opt-out of funding union political activities.”

30 Jun 2025

Evansville Electrician Files Federal Charges Against IBEW Local 16 for Union Bosses’ $1.29 Million Retaliatory ‘Fine’

Posted in News Releases

Electrician validly resigned union membership and left union to purchase a non-union electrical firm, but union used sham proceeding to levy massive fine

Evansville, IN (June 30, 2025) – Brian Head, an Evansville-based electrician, has just filed federal charges against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 16 union for threatening him with a $1.29 million fine after he exercised his right to resign from the union. Head filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

IBEW Union Bosses Threaten Fake Limits on Membership Resignation, Bogus Discipline

Head’s charges to the NLRB, which is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, report that he resigned his IBEW union membership on March 27, 2025, in a notarized letter that IBEW officials acknowledged in an April 3 reply letter. However, the reply letter claimed that “[i]t is a six-month process before the resignation is finally effective.”

Putting such restrictions on workers’ right to resign their union memberships has no basis in law. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Pattern Makers v. NLRB spell out that workers have a right to end union membership and union officials cannot require such membership as a condition of getting or keeping a job (though states that lack Right to Work laws like Indiana’s let union officials force workers to pay dues or be fired). Union officials also may not impose union discipline, like fines, on workers who aren’t members.

In the interim between the two letters, IBEW Local 16 pursued union discipline against Head for “purchas[ing] a non-union electrical contractor and…decid[ing] not to sign a Letter of Assent” that would have likely handed the business over to union control without any kind of worker vote. Notably, the union’s discipline took place after Head’s March 27 union resignation – meaning Head was legally beyond the union’s powers to impose any sort of internal punishment.

Union Letter Imposes Million-Dollar-Plus ‘Punishment’ on Electrician

Nevertheless, IBEW Local 16 officials sent Head correspondence on May 1 demanding he appear before a union tribunal. Head later received a letter from IBEW Local 16 bosses on June 9 finding him “guilty” of violating the union’s constitution and imposing a “$1.29 Million dollar fine” as a penalty.

“IBEW Local 16 union bosses’ imposition of this cruel million-dollar-plus ‘punishment’ on a rank-and-file worker shows that their real priority is maintaining cartel-like control over Indiana electricians – not standing up for workers’ rights or freedom,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “IBEW bosses have no legal grounds for this obscene exploitation. But as ridiculous as this situation is, it’s important to remember that union monopoly bargaining is still the law of the land in all 50 states – a power that allows overtly self-interested union bosses like IBEW officials to extend their so-called ‘representation’ over every worker in a unionized facility, no matter how strenuously any worker opposes the union.”

20 Jun 2025

Holistic Industries Cannabis Packing and Delivery Workers Overwhelmingly Request Vote to Remove UFCW Union

Posted in News Releases

Effort comes as UFCW union officials try to rush contract to establish control over Western Mass facility

Springfield, MA (June 20, 2025) – A majority of production employees at cannabis company Holistic Industries’ Monson facility have requested a vote to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1459 union officials from their workplace. Packaging associate Scott Browne submitted the union decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of his colleagues with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) or remove (or “decertify”) unions. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) stipulates that a decertification petition must contain signatures from at least 30% of employees in a work unit to prompt a decertification election. Browne far exceeded this threshold, submitting a showing of interest that contained signatures from over 70% of his work unit.

Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can enforce contracts that require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary and the choice of each individual worker. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union monopoly bargaining contracts control the working conditions of all workers in a unionized workplace, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union.

“UFCW union officials are trying to strike a deal with our employer that will require us to pay fees out of our wages just to stay employed here. But with this petition, I and all of my coworkers have made our position clear: We don’t want or need a union,” commented Browne. “UFCW bosses haven’t convinced us that they’re going to deliver on the promises they made when they first came to our workplace, and the prospect of being forced to pay for that kind of ‘representation’ isn’t exactly appealing.”

UFCW Bosses Rush Contract Despite Worker Opposition

UFCW Local 1459 recently called a vote on a contract drafted by union officials. Union officials will often rush to finalize a contract in order to trigger the “contract bar,” a non-statutory NLRB policy that bars workers from requesting a union decertification vote while a union contract is active, up to three years.

Because there is no legal requirement to abide by the results of a worker contract vote, situations sometimes arise in which union officials ratify a contract that workers rejected to keep them trapped in the union under the NLRB’s non-statutory “contract bar” policy. However, because Browne submitted his decertification petition before any contract ratification occurred, Holistic Industries employees have likely avoided this situation.

Union-Label Legislators Seek to Strip Cannabis Workers Nationwide of Freedom to Resist Unionization

Foundation staff attorneys recently assisted employees of Green Thumb Industries – a New Jersey-based cannabis company – in filing a petition to remove UFCW union officials from power at their facility. Foundation attorneys have also opposed state legislative schemes that would require cannabis companies to grant union bosses special access to their workers just as a condition of operating. Such arrangements – misleadingly called “labor peace agreements” – infringe workers’ right to freely decide for or against union control, yet have become law in California, New York, and other states. Massachusetts legislators filed a bill last legislative session to establish such a framework.

“Holistic Industries workers have joined the groundswell of workers nationwide who are exercising their right to declare independence from union bosses who don’t represent their interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re confident that they will succeed in their effort to oust UFCW officials, union-label legislators are trying to stifle cannabis industry employees’ rights across the country as a sop to their union boss political allies.

“State lawmakers have no shortage of factors to wrestle with when deciding whether to greenlight the cannabis industry, but one thing should be non-negotiable: Letting the industry take root shouldn’t mean that workers’ individual rights go up in smoke,” Mix added.

19 Jun 2025

Cornell Univ. Graduate Students Hit UE and GSU Unions with Discrimination Charges for Harassing Religious Objectors to Compulsory Unionism

Posted in News Releases

EEOC Charges: Instead of respecting valid requests for religious accommodation, union officials sent harassing “questionnaires” to illegally interrogate students’ beliefs

Ithaca, NY (June 19, 2025) – Two Cornell University graduate students have just slammed the Cornell Graduate Student Union (GSU) and its parent the United Electrical (UE) union with federal antidiscrimination charges. The students, David Rubinstein and Louie Gold, maintain that union officials are illegally harassing graduate students who submit valid religious objections to paying union dues.

Rubinstein and Gold are both Jewish and believe affiliating with or financially supporting the UE unions conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The graduate students filed their charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with free legal representation by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

In their charges, Rubinstein and Gold explain that they are targets of an illegal practice in which UE union officials harass and interrogate religious objectors rather than comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination, including on the basis of religion.

As their charges explain, rather than comply with their valid requests for religious accommodations, UE union bosses instead sent “questionnaires” containing invasive and legally irrelevant questions to religious objectors. The questionnaires include intrusive demands like, “[P]lease include the name and address of the organization sponsoring the [religious] services you attend and the name of the faith leader(s),” and “How long have you had your religious belief?” The end of the questionnaire indicates that union officials may not even respect a student’s religious objection after completion of the form, stating ominously that “The UE national union will review your religious objection upon receipt and may have follow-up questions” (emphasis added).

Union Officials Ignored Students’ Valid Exercise of Religious Freedom

Rubinstein and Gold argue in their charges that they and other students who received this dubious questionnaire already discharged their legal duties when they informed the union of their objections to paying dues. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that objectors must only describe a sincere religious objection to union affiliation, which Rubinstein and Gold both did in letters to the national UE union. Federal law requires union officials to provide a religious accommodation to such objectors. An accommodation often permits the objector to divert an amount of money equal to dues to a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity instead.

“Both nationwide and on the Cornell campus, the UE, CGSU, and their other campus affiliates have been at the forefront of demonizing Israel, seeking its destruction, and supporting Hamas’s violent and barbaric terrorism against Israel and its inhabitants,” the charges read. “The unions had no objective or bona-fide reasons to doubt the basis for my accommodation request or to question my sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices.”

Because New York lacks Right to Work protections, UE and Cornell GSU union officials are enforcing a contract that requires graduate students to pay union dues or fees just to keep their work. While Title VII creates an exception for those like Gold and Rubinstein who have sincere religious objections to union affiliation, Right to Work states provide even more protection by making union membership and financial support a voluntary choice.

Jewish Graduate Students at MIT Forced GSU and UE to Back Off Illegal Dues Practices

Since 2023, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have assisted dozens of Christian and Jewish graduate students across the country in defending their religious freedom from union forced-dues demands – particularly demands from UE union officials. In 2024, five Foundation-backed Jewish graduate students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) scored religious accommodations that allowed them to pay money to pro-Israel charities instead of to the UE union hierarchy. In a related case for another MIT graduate student, Foundation attorneys secured a settlement that required union officials to inform the entire MIT graduate student body (over 3,000) of their rights under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision. Beck permits nonmembers to cut off dues payments for union political or ideological activities.

“This situation at Cornell again shows students and the public at large exactly what GSU and UE union officials’ priorities are: radical political mobilization and agitation, not respecting the individual rights of the students they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses may not like it, but federal law is clear that they must comply with valid requests for a religious accommodation based on sincerely held objections to union affiliation, and cannot harass and interrogate those who object to the union’s activities on religious grounds.

“While the battle to preserve the right of religious students and workers to opt out of objectionable union support is certainly important, true reform is needed to ensure that no one is forced to associate with union bosses or their agendas, whether their objection to the union is political, religious, financial, or otherwise,” added Mix.

11 Jun 2025

National Right to Work Foundation Attorney to Appear Before U.S. House in Hearing on Labor Board Reforms

Posted in News Releases

Aaron Solem will call for demise of coercive Biden-era policies

Washington, DC (June 11, 2025) – In a hearing today, veteran National Right to Work Foundation Staff Attorney Aaron Solem will testify before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions. He will discuss the reforms needed to reverse the ways the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), especially under the Biden Administration, rigged the rules to promote union boss power at the expense of the rights of independent-minded workers.

During a hearing titled “Restoring Balance: Ensuring Fairness and Transparency at the NLRB,” Solem will discuss how current NLRB rules allow union officials to corral and keep workers in union ranks without a vote, and let union officials force workers to subsidize union ideological activities. Solem, who has a thirteen-year career of defending workers from union coercion before the courts and administrative agencies like the NLRB, will be urging several reforms to protect workers’ individual rights.

Solem will appear as an expert witness at the hearing chaired by Georgia Congressman Rick Allen. Also appearing on the witness stand will be Jennifer Abruzzo, a former high-ranking lawyer for the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union and ex-General Counsel of the Biden NLRB, who during her time at the agency pushed to make it more difficult for workers to escape union control.

“These are anti-employee policies because they cancel worker choices and replace them with decisions made by unions and the government,” Solem’s written testimony reads. “President Trump won reelection because he was the candidate who listened to employees. The Board should follow in those footsteps by pursuing a truly pro-employee agenda. This agenda would put power in the hands of workers—not unions or employers—— to decide whether they want to be represented by a labor union.”

Biden-Era NLRB Policies Stripped Workers of Right to Exit & Defund Unwanted Unions

Solem’s written testimony breaks down several policies advanced by the Biden NLRB that strip workers of their right to vote themselves free of unwanted union influence. Among these are the “blocking charge” policy, which “allows unions to unilaterally block [union] decertification elections just by filing a charge against an employer, no matter how meritless it may be,” and the so-called “voluntary recognition bar,” which prevents workers from requesting an election to remove a union after union officials gain power through the unreliable “card check” method. Card check abandons the security of a secret-ballot union vote and instead relies on union authorization cards collected by union officials from workers – often through coercive tactics.

Solem also urges the NLRB to “follow Supreme Court precedent and require non-member employees to opt-in to paying for union political expenditures.” As it currently stands, employees who are not union members must “jump through several procedural hoops” to pay a reduced amount of union dues that excludes expenses for union political activities they may staunchly disagree with. The right to pay this reduced amount is enshrined in the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, but current NLRB policies don’t sufficiently protect it.

Freedom vs. Coercion for Workers on Display

“At this hearing, House members will see two starkly differing visions for American workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Aaron Solem will advocate for a future where workers can decide for themselves whether or not a union in their workplace is right for them, while Jennifer Abruzzo will double down on granting union officials sweeping coercive powers to impose their will on working people.

“American workers, who are affiliating with unions at near-record-low numbers and overwhelmingly support voluntary and not forced unionism, deserve to have an NLRB where their individual rights are protected and not ceded to union officials and their political cronies,” Mix added. “The incoming Trump NLRB should relegate the cynical, top-down, forced-unionism approach of Jennifer Abruzzo and the Biden NLRB to the dustbin of history, and empower workers by protecting their individual freedoms.”