Comfort Systems USA Pipefitters and Welders Win Two-Year Battle to Escape Steamfitters Local 52 Union
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.”
Cornell University Graduate Student Files Federal Charges Seeking End to Union Boss Control Over Graduate Students
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.
National Right to Work Foundation Files Legal Brief Defending Wisconsin Act 10 as Union Bosses Seek to Regain Coercive Powers
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.
Evansville Electrician Files Federal Charges Against IBEW Local 16 for Union Bosses’ $1.29 Million Retaliatory ‘Fine’
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.”
Holistic Industries Cannabis Packing and Delivery Workers Overwhelmingly Request Vote to Remove UFCW Union
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.
Cornell Univ. Graduate Students Hit UE and GSU Unions with Discrimination Charges for Harassing Religious Objectors to Compulsory Unionism
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.
National Right to Work Foundation Attorney to Appear Before U.S. House in Hearing on Labor Board Reforms
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.”
Netflix Spy Kids Production Driver Demands Review From Federal Labor Board in Case Challenging Teamsters Discrimination
Texas-based driver exposes “hiring hall” scheme that operates in violation of federal law
Austin, TX (June 9, 2025) – Jeff Norris, a transportation employee for Texas-based Netflix streaming productions like Spy Kids: Armageddon, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to review an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) ruling in his case. Norris is charging Teamsters Local 657 union officials with discriminating against employees who have abstained from formal union membership and against union members who have spoken out against union officials’ agenda. Norris is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Norris’ filing attacks Teamsters Local 657 union bosses’ “hiring hall” arrangement, in which they refer production drivers for jobs based on various “lists” that divide employees up by, among other things, member vs. nonmember status. Norris contends that prioritizing the hiring of union members over nonmembers is a form of discrimination that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) forbids.
Evidence presented during trial showed that, using this arrangement, it was virtually impossible for a nonmember to he hired for a driver job before a member.
Netflix Driver’s Brief: Workers Targeted by Teamsters Union’s Discrimination Deserve Compensation
The ALJ decision now under review by the NLRB agreed with Norris on his discrimination argument. However, Norris’ newest filing seeks to counter Teamsters lawyers’ position that the NLRB should reverse that holding. The brief also demands a ruling that all employees who experienced discrimination under this “hiring hall” scheme receive compensation, a form of relief that the ALJ puzzlingly decided not to grant.
Norris – whom Teamsters Local 657 President Frank Perkins sought to have booted out of the union – is also taking exception to the ALJ’s ruling that Perkins did not discriminate against Norris by seeking his removal.
Norris, who has been a longtime critic of Teamsters Local 657 leadership, argues that the expulsion attempt “was not the result of a good faith attempt to enforce the Union’s constitution and bylaws,” but involved trumped-up charges designed to punish him for speaking out and filing charges against the union. Similarly, Norris is contesting the ALJ’s rejection of his argument that Teamsters officials slow-walked referring him for a job on Spy Kids: Armageddon due to his advocacy against union bosses’ schemes.
Foundation staff attorneys have recently aided several groups of workers in efforts to challenge malfeasance by Teamsters union officials or vote the union out completely. These include truck drivers in California and Georgia, Frito-Lay warehouse workers in Ohio, metalworkers in San Diego, nurses in Michigan, and many more. Across the country, workers’ desire to exercise their right to vote out unpopular union bosses is increasing: Worker-filed petitions seeking union decertification votes are up more than 50% from 2020, according to NLRB data.
“While it’s all too common to see union officials use their government-granted exclusive ‘representation’ powers to discriminate against workers who decide not to be members, members who expose illegal union boss activities or otherwise question union boss misdeeds are also frequent targets of union abuse,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Netflix production drivers who are ready, able, and willing to help bring stories to the silver screen don’t deserve to be passed over simply for being at odds with union leadership, or because they choose to exercise their right not to affiliate with a union under Texas’ popular Right to Work law.
“We’re proud to help Mr. Norris in his legal battle to ensure that dissident union members and workers who refuse to associate with the Teamsters are not illegally targeted by union bosses,” added Mix.
Right to Work Foundation Submits Legal Brief Opposing Biden “Project Labor Agreement” Rule for Federal Construction Projects
Amicus brief at Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals exposes rule as discriminating against nonunion workers and contractors in violation of Constitution
Atlanta, GA (June 4, 2025) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief in Associated Builders and Contractors v. General Services Administration, a federal case that concerns the legality of the Biden Administration’s edict ordering federal agencies to contract only with unionized firms on most federal construction projects.
The Foundation’s brief explains that such arrangements, also known as “Project Labor Agreements” (PLAs), violate both the Constitution and conflict with federal law by discriminating against workers and employers who have chosen not to associate with a labor union. The case is currently pending at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
“Foundation attorneys have represented [employees] in cases to protect their right to refrain from subsidizing unions,” the amicus brief reads. “The Foundation has an interest in this case because it concerns whether the federal government can lawfully require construction workers to abide by union project labor agreements (PLAs) to work on certain federal projects.”
Biden PLA Order Violates Constitutional Rights of Workers and Employers
The amicus brief contends that the Biden Administration’s PLA mandate contravenes the Constitution in a number of ways, including by “forc[ing] workers into a mandatory agency relationship with a union” under which union officials become their sole “voice” on workplace issues. The brief cites both the Supreme Court’s decision in the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME case and similar Eleventh Circuit precedent, which hold that workers’ First Amendment right of free association is violated by compulsory union “representation” for employees who don’t want and never asked for a union.
The Biden Administration’s PLA mandate is also inconsistent with federal law, the amicus brief maintains, because it requires employers and unions to enter into labor contracts with one another. According to the brief, this is a power that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs private employers, denies to the federal government. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), which controls federal contracts, “does not empower federal agencies to take actions that are impermissible under the NLRA,” the brief says.
Foundation Comments: PLA Rule Is ‘Naked Political Payback’
The Foundation submitted comments opposing the Biden Administration’s rule in 2022, exposing that “[t]here is no legitimate legal or policy basis for forcing employees and contractors to abide by union-only PLAs to work on major federal construction projects,” and that the executive order was “naked political payback by the current administration to its union supporters.”
“The Biden Administration’s PLA mandate is a slap in the face to nearly 90 percent of American construction workers, who have chosen not to affiliate with a union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It also forces taxpayers to pick up the tab on the enormous costs of inefficient union work rules.
“Nonunion employers and construction workers who refrain from union membership deserve a fair shake at working on important federal projects. The Biden Administration’s bald-faced attempt to enrich its union boss allies is illegal in a multitude of ways and should be blocked immediately,” Mix added.
