Federal Appeals Court Hears Arguments in Starbucks Baristas’ First-In-The-Nation Suit Challenging Constitutionality of NLRB
Trump Administration is relying on similar arguments in another lawsuit defending its removal of Biden appointee from labor board
Washington, DC (May 15, 2025) – Today, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in Cortes v. NLRB, a federal case in which New York-based Starbucks employees are challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as unconstitutional. The baristas, Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, are receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Cortes and Karam’s case, originally filed in 2023, was the first in the nation to advance the argument that NLRB board members’ removal protections – which insulate members of the federal labor board from accountability to the President except on very rare occasions – violate separation of powers doctrines in Article II of the Constitution. Since Foundation attorneys filed the baristas’ case, the Trump Administration advanced the same arguments to remove Biden NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox from the Board, which is now the subject of ongoing litigation.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement on the oral arguments:
“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam stand up for untold numbers of workers around the country in their battle to reform the NLRB. For nearly a century, the federal labor board’s structure has let unelected bureaucrats grant their union boss cronies massive power over the nation’s workers, all while gutting workers’ right to decide freely for themselves whether or not union association is right for them.
“Nothing in Supreme Court case law permits a blatantly partisan agency like the NLRB to operate free of virtually any accountability to the elected President. While we’re glad that the Trump Administration is now fighting the NLRB’s unconstitutional structure as well, it should be remembered that behind every labor case and policy are American workers like Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam, who deserve to have their rights adjudicated before an agency that is in harmony with the Constitution.”
The D.C. Circuit Court will hear Wilcox v. Trump, the case in which the Trump Administration is defending its decision to remove Gwynne Wilcox from the Board, tomorrow, May 16.
Starbucks Baristas’ Federal Case Began After Biden NLRB Disenfranchised Workers
On April 28, 2023, Cortes submitted a petition, supported by a majority of her colleagues, asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election at her Buffalo-area “Del-Chip” Starbucks store to remove SBWU union officials’ bargaining powers over workers. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification request.
Similarly, Karam filed a decertification petition seeking a vote to remove the union at his Buffalo-area Starbucks store. Like Cortes’ petition, NLRB officials refuse to allow the vote to take place, citing claims made by SBWU officials. As a result, the workers remain trapped under union “representation” they oppose. This led Cortes and Karam to file their own federal lawsuit – the first in the nation challenging the NLRB’s structure as unconstitutional as a whole.
UNITE HERE Local 11 Faces Third Round of Federal Unfair Labor Practice Charges From LAX Flying Foods Employees
Workers have reported union officials using mob-like tactics, physical confrontations, false accusations, and more in retaliation for union dissent
Los Angeles, CA (May 13, 2025) – Esperanza Maciel, an employee of Flying Food Group, has hit the Unite Here Local 11 union with new unfair labor practice charges. This is the third round of federal charges since September 2024 that the union has faced from employees of the LAX foodservice provider. Maciel’s charge details another flash point in a pattern of harassment and intimidation tactics that Flying Foods workers say they are facing at the hands of Unite Here officials. Maciel filed her charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 21 with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
“Unite Here union officials do not care about creating a workplace where everyone is treated with respect,” commented Maciel. “They demonize anyone who disagrees with the union and try to cut them off from the rest of the workplace. This makes it even more ridiculous that I am forced to pay them every month.”
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes adjudicating disputes between management, union officials, and individual employees. NLRB officials are now reviewing Maciel’s charge. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs labor relations in the private sector, forbids both union officials and employers from retaliating against employees who speak up for or against union control.
Unite Here Rep Screamed False Accusations at Worker
Maciel’s charges state that she has openly engaged in advocacy against Unite Here union officials, and submitted a petition asking the NLRB to hold a vote among her colleagues to remove the union (“decertification election”). “Because of her dissident activities, [Maciel] has been the target of harassment, bullying, and retaliation or attempted retaliation by the Union and through its representative,” the charges read.
The charges detail a clash union bosses instigated against Maciel on May 3. A Unite Here representative replied to a question Maciel asked about health benefits by saying he would not talk to her because she was not part of the union, and promptly accused her, falsely, of “[going] to San Francisco to participate in an anti-immigrant protest.” He also shouted in front of other employees that the company was paying Maciel to oppose the union.
Maciel responded by asking why the union took money from her wages every month and reiterated her question about healthcare. The Unite Here official ignored the question and instead yelled, “She wants the Union to leave but no one is getting rid of us!” Maciel’s charge argues that the confrontation was a blatant violation of her right to oppose the union, which is activity protected under the NLRA.
Flying Foods Worker Reports Union-Incited Mob Demanded Her Firing
Unite Here Local 11 is already under federal investigation for violating workers’ rights at Flying Foods. Maciel filed charges against Local 11 in September 2024 after a union organizer illegally incited a mob of employees to demand her firing. At the end of April, another Flying Foods employee, Kenia Solano, reported in federal charges that Unite Here shop stewards manipulated other employees into isolating her and even instigated a physical altercation over her opposition to the union.
Solano’s and Maciel’s charges come as Foundation attorneys are aiding foodservice and hospitality workers across the country in challenging illegal tactics from Unite Here union officials, including threatening organizing tactics and refusing to respect workers’ rights to refrain from dues payment. Two such workers, Maria Uriostegui and Erika Chavez, hotel workers in Chicago and San Francisco respectively, were recently featured in a Foundation mini-documentary titled “The Reality of Union Bullying by UNITE HERE,” which recently surpassed 1.6 million views on YouTube:
“Independent-minded workers in the foodservice and hospitality industries are standing up to unmask Unite Here as an aggressive organization that prizes consolidating power in workplaces far above respecting employees’ rights and opinions,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foodservice and hospitality workers nationwide should know that they have rights to end union membership, speak out against union bosses, and refuse to pay some or potentially all union dues without having to fear retaliation, and that Foundation attorneys stand ready to help them exercise any and all of those rights.”
Statement on Charlene Carter Appeals Court Victory in Case Against Southwest and TWU Union
Earlier today a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in flight attendant Charlene Carter’s case against Southwest Airlines and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 556 for illegally firing her in retaliation for expressing her religious beliefs. The decision affirms that Southwest and TWU violated federal law for their respective roles in her termination.
Carter is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in the case, which was originally filed in 2017. More details can be found here.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement about the latest victory in Carter’s case:
“This decision is another victory for Charlene Carter. The Court of Appeals has affirmed that both TWU union bosses and Southwest Airlines violated Carter’s legal rights when the union instigated her termination by Southwest in response to voicing her opposition to union political activism, including union activities that violated her religious beliefs.”
“We are proud to help Charlene defend her legal rights. But her case exposes a bigger injustice in American labor law: that workers can be forced to accept union ‘representation’ they oppose and, adding insult to injury, can be forced to pay fees to that union. It is outrageous that, even though the court confirmed that the TWU union and Southwest violated Carter’s legal rights, Carter is still forced to subsidize TWU union bosses or else be fired by Southwest. We hope Carter’s victory today will prompt an overdue conversation about how coercive union boss power infringes on the rights of millions of hardworking Americans.”
Chicago-Area Chemical Plant Worker Asks National Labor Board to End Policy Letting Union Bosses Trap Workers in Unions
Employees submitted valid petition requesting vote to remove Teamsters union, but union bosses manipulated unproven charges against employer to block vote
Chicago, IL (May 8, 2025) – An employee of Rowell Chemical Corporation, a chemical plant based in Willow Springs, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to overturn a regional labor board’s decision blocking a vote to remove the Teamsters Local 710 union. The worker, Jeffrey Johnston, is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB, based in Washington, D.C., is the federal agency responsible for administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions, as well as adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. Johnston’s Request for Review argues that regional NLRB officials blocked his and his coworkers’ requested union removal vote based on dubious “blocking charges” Teamsters union officials filed against Rowell management.
Union officials often file blocking charges to delay or cancel union decertification votes, despite the fact that their charges are often unproven and have little, if any, connection to the reasons workers cite for wanting to get rid of a union. The NLRB in 2020 adopted Foundation-backed reforms that gave workers a chance to vote before the agency handled litigation related to the election, but the Biden NLRB adopted a new rule in 2024 that lets union officials manipulate blocking charges to stop election proceedings completely.
Request for Review: NLRB “Blocking Charge” Policy Violates Multiple Federal Laws
Johnston’s Request for Review contends that the NLRB should eliminate the Biden-era rule permitting blocking charges and schedule a union decertification election for him and his coworkers as soon as possible. Johnston argues that holding up an election pursuant to blocking charges violates the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the statute that the NLRB is supposed to enforce, which states that a decertification election should occur if there is a question concerning representation. Johnston also argues that the Biden-era rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) on multiple grounds.
At the very least, Johnston’s Request for Review maintains, the NLRB should hold a hearing into whether the employer misconduct alleged by Teamsters union officials actually has a connection to Johnston and his coworkers’ desire to kick the union out. The regional NLRB did not order such a hearing and simply blocked the vote.
“My coworkers and I requested a vote to remove this union almost two months ago and somehow the NLRB is letting Teamsters bosses throw around specious charges to stop us from doing so,” commented Johnston. “My coworkers and I have spent two years under Teamsters control, and I believe that the vast majority of us agree that the Teamsters don’t represent our interests. It’s not fair that union bosses and the NLRB can trump our free choice.”
“The NLRB, through its ‘blocking charge’ rule has let union officials stifle the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent’ in violation of the statute the NLRB is supposed to enforce,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Johnston speaks for workers across the country in challenging this NLRB-invented policy, which is completely antithetical to the idea expressed in federal labor law that employees should choose the union, not the other way around.”
City of Everett Employee Slams AFSCME Union and City With Labor Board Complaints for Illegal Dues Seizures From Paycheck
Washington State labor board finds merit in charges, demands response from union bosses and management
Everett, WA (May 2, 2025) – Xenia Davidsen, a custodian employed by the City of Everett, filed complaints against American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 2 union bosses and her employer for seizing dues money from her wages in violation of the First Amendment. Davidsen, who filed her complaints at Washington State’s Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Davidsen invoked her rights under the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, under which American public employees have a First Amendment right to refuse to pay dues to an unwanted union in their workplace. In addition to establishing that no public sector worker can be fired for declining to subsidize union activities, Janus also held that union officials can only deduct union dues and fees from a public sector worker who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights. Janus protects public sector workers from forced union dues even in states like Washington that lack Right to Work protections.
Davidsen’s complaints explain how she ended her union membership and exercised her right under Janus to cut off dues payments for AFSCME, but City of Everett officials continued to deduct dues money from her paycheck for several months after her request. Even worse, Davidsen’s complaints reveal that AFSCME officials also violated Washington State labor law by accepting those deductions, not telling the employer to correct the issue, and not returning the illegally seized money to Davidsen.
Just this week, PERC agents issued a “Cause of Action Statement” finding merit in Davidsen’s charges and requesting a response from AFSCME union officials and the City of Everett. A hearing in the case will likely follow.
“I exercised my constitutional right to stop my hard-earned money from going to the AFSCME union or its officials, but neither my employer nor the union is respecting my freedom” commented Davidsen. “I’ve made it clear that I don’t support the AFSCME union. Union bosses shouldn’t get to hold onto my money simply because my managers violated the law by continuing to take it after I demanded a stop.”
Union Refuses to Return Money Illegally Seized From Worker’s Wages
According to Davidsen’s complaints, in June 2024 she submitted to AFSCME Council 2 a request to cut off dues deductions. Even though City of Everett officials received word of this request that same month, Davidsen’s complaints explain, “the Employer unlawfully continued to deduct dues from Davidsen’s paycheck, and [AFSCME Council 2] continued to accept those dues.”
“The unlawful deductions continued until February 2025,” the complaints say – which was when Davidsen obtained legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. Even though the City of Everett continued to take money from Davidsen’s paycheck for several months after she exercised her Janus rights, the union refuses to “return the monies that they were not legally entitled to back to Davidsen,” reads the complaint.
By ignoring her Janus rights, the complaints argue, AFSCME and the City of Everett violated multiple portions of Washington State labor law, including its provisions that permit workers to refrain from supporting a union and require unions to represent workers fairly.
“Janus might as well not exist at all to Washington State AFSCME union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “They believe they are entitled to hold on to a worker’s ‘dues money’ despite strong evidence it was taken against their will. That’s not far off from union bosses’ pre-Janus practice of forcing every worker under their control to pay union dues, whatever their objections might be.
“Under Janus, union bosses must now convince workers to voluntarily support their agenda, and are not entitled to take – or keep – any money they know was seized without that voluntarism,” Mix added.
New Campaign Exposes UNITE HERE’s Anti-Worker Tactics
National Right to Work Foundation offers free legal aid to hotel industry employees nationwide
Washington, DC (May 1, 2025) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is launching a nationwide campaign offering free legal aid to hotel workers in the wake of widespread abuse by UNITE HERE officials.
The groundbreaking new campaign, featuring the mini-documentary “The Reality of Union Bullying by UNITE HERE,” shows the reality of deceptive promises and intimidating behavior from one of America’s most powerful unions, as well as the steps workers are taking to safeguard their rights from union bosses. “They’re supposed to protect us, but they just take our money and our voice,” says Erika, a San Francisco hotel worker who has been forced to pay dues for years. “The only time UNITE HERE would talk to us was when we would get paid.”
Erika is not alone. Across the country, Maria, a Chicago Hilton worker, has faced the same intimidating behavior as UNITE HERE officials attempt to muscle into her workplace. The video detailing these heartbreaking experiences has already gone viral, amassing well over a million views.
“I hope this video and my story helps inspire others,” Maria said of the video and campaign. “My message to other hotel employees is: Don’t let UNITE HERE bully you. The National Right to Work Foundation helped me stand up for my rights and they can help you too.”
Foundation staff attorneys have in recent years aided many hospitality workers in fighting coercion from the UNITE HERE union, including at hotels and resorts in Los Angeles, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Washington, D.C.; Boston, Massachusetts; Seattle, Washington; Orlando, Florida; and elsewhere. Employees helped have included housekeepers, concierges, foodservice staff and providers, casino maintenance workers, Disney crew members, and others.
“UNITE HERE officials have engaged in practices that undermine the very workforce they claim to want to protect,” said Foundation President Mark Mix. “Maria and Erika have bravely stood up for their friends and coworkers in the face of intimidation and coercion. The National Right to Work Foundation is proud to have provided them with free legal aid.”
“We’ve heard from many workers and we know there are many more out there who need help – they should know they have resources,” continued Mix. “Foundation staff attorneys are prepared to assist any hotel employees facing UNITE HERE’s abusive tactics.”
To learn more about free legal aid, visit hotelworkersrights.com.
The full video can be seen here.
Flight Attendant Asks SCOTUS to Hear Case Challenging Union Boss Scheme to Discriminate Against Nonmembers
Petition: Ninth Circuit wrongly ruled that federal labor law lets union officials take away on-the-job benefits for refusal to pay union fees
Washington, DC (April 23, 2025) – Flight attendant Ali Bahreman has just filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case challenging a Transportation Workers Union (TWU) contract that deprived him of his ability to use his seniority to bid on flight assignments and secure other valuable job benefits. Bahreman, who refrained from formal union membership, is arguing that a union monopoly contract between Allegiant Airlines management and TWU union bosses violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by conditioning flight attendants’ “bidding privileges” on their payment of fees to the union.
The RLA governs employment arrangements like Bahreman’s in the rail and air industries. The RLA is a federal law that permits union officials and employers to enforce so-called “union security agreements” that require workers in a unionized workplace to pay union fees to keep their jobs.
Bahreman’s petition points out that although the RLA grants union officials the power to enter into contracts that require payment of union fees as a condition of employment, it has long been illegal for unions to enter into contracts that otherwise discriminate against certain classes of workers, like nonmembers. This goes all the way back to the 1944 Steele Supreme Court precedent that created what the court called the “Duty of Fair Representation” (DFR) in order to save the RLA from being declared unconstitutional after union officials used their power to impose a contract that discriminated against workers based on their race.
The petition argues that not only does the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the discriminatory scheme conflict with opinions from other federal courts of appeal, but if left in place, the decision calls into question the constitutionality of union exclusive bargaining powers under both the RLA and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA):
“Having unraveled the DFR, the Ninth Circuit’s decision allows unions to wield congressionally delegated exclusive representation power without the DFR’s limitations. That raises ‘serious constitutional questions’ regarding exclusive representation’s constitutionality…
“Ensuring that the Ninth Circuit’s decision does not dismantle employees’ RLA and NLRA speech and associational freedoms from forced unionism is of national importance. The Ninth Circuit’s decision jeopardizes employees’ ability to do their jobs free from union coercion, hostility, and discrimination in the workplace.”
Petition Exposes That Lower Court Decision in Favor of TWU Allows Union Bosses to Discriminate in Workplace
The petition comes after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals puzzlingly ruled that the RLA permits union officials to enforce contracts that require employers to eliminate on-the-job benefits from workers who refuse to pay union fees. Bahreman’s petition goes on to explain that the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning greenlights discrimination by union bosses in their treatment of union members and nonmembers, which flies in the face of the duty of fair representation that federal law imposes on all union officials.
Federal law permits union officials to extend their monopoly bargaining powers over all workers in a unit, including those who oppose the union, but requires that union officials not discriminate against nonmembers. Therefore, the petition says, monopoly bargaining itself should be reexamined if the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is upheld.
“Mr. Bahreman’s case shows how deep the rabbit-hole of union boss legal privileges goes,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision turns the U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘duty of fair representation’ on its head, and exposes the underlying constitutional tensions that the Court identified long ago in the 1944 Steele High Court decision.
“Originally created in Steele as a bulwark against union bosses wielding their monopoly representation and forced dues powers to discriminate, the Ninth Circuit’s reinterpretation of the DFR doctrine allows union officials to engage in discrimination to coerce fee payment from union dissidents,” added Mix. “The Supreme Court should take Mr. Bahreman’s case to settle the circuit split and make it clear that Big Labor officials cannot wield their extraordinary government-granted powers to undermine the working conditions of workers who oppose union affiliation.”
Energy Transfer Drivers Across Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana Demand Vote to Remove Steelworkers Union From Power
Hundreds of employees of oil and gas transportation company could be free from union’s grip if vote goes forward
Washington, DC (April 21, 2025) – Drivers for Energy Transfer, an oil and gas transportation company with nearly 30 facilities across Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, are petitioning a federal labor board for a vote to end United Steelworkers (USW) union officials’ bargaining control over their work unit.
Driver Jay Fifer, who is based at Energy Transfer’s workplace in Hearne, TX (near College Station, TX), submitted the petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) this week with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. If Fifer and his coworkers’ requested vote is successful, over 420 Energy Transfer drivers will be free of USW union officials’ control.
The NLRB is the agency charged with enforcing federal labor law in the private sector, which includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Fifer’s petition contains signatures from his coworkers well in excess of the percentage required by the NLRB to trigger a union decertification vote within his work unit. The NLRB will now review Fifer’s petition.
Right to Work laws in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana prohibit USW union officials from enforcing contracts that require Energy Transfer drivers to pay union dues or fees just to get or keep a job. In contrast, in non-Right to Work states, union officials can force workers to pay dues or fees on pain of termination. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work jurisdictions, USW union officials can still impose monopoly bargaining contracts over every employee in a work unit, whether or not they voted for or support the union. As Fifer’s case demonstrates, union-controlled work units can often span hundreds of workers in different cities or even across state lines.
“Support among us drivers for this Steelworkers union is very low where I work. My colleagues at other locations have said similar things as well. It’s not fair for Steelworkers officials to dictate major things about our work lives when very few drivers at all are union members,” commented Fifer. “I filed this petition because I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of my coworkers don’t think this union represents us, and we hope the NLRB lets us exercise that right without any delays.”
Workers Across Country Increasingly Seeking Exit from Union Control
Foundation staff attorneys have helped several groups of workers oust unwanted USW unions within the last few years, including healthcare workers in Minnesota, metal workers in Pennsylvania, chemical employees in Louisiana, building products employees in New Jersey, and 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.
“American workers should not have to accept the ‘representation’ of a union that lacks worker support in the workplace, and more and more workers are standing up to free themselves,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That’s why it’s important that they be able to freely exercise their right to vote to remove a union, a right that unfortunately was consistently under attack under the previous Administration’s National Labor Relations Board.
“As President Trump seeks new appointees for the NLRB, he should remember that workers all over the country like Mr. Fifer and his colleagues believe they are better off free from union influence, and those workers deserve to have their voices and will respected,” Mix added.
Ascension St. Agnes Nurse Slams NNOC Union With Federal Charges After Union Restricts Workplace Vote
Nurse contends that union is discriminating against nonmember nurses and violating duty of fair representation
Baltimore, MD (April 16, 2025) – A nurse at Ascension Health’s St. Agnes Hospital has hit the National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union with federal charges, maintaining that union officials are discriminating against nonmembers as a vote on workplace issues approaches. The nurse, Jen Delaney, filed the unfair labor practice charge at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law and adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. Delaney details in her charges that NNOC union officials are forbidding nurses who are not formal union members, like herself, from voting on a “partial deal” that is part of a wider contract negotiation. The union is restricting the voting pool despite the fact that the union monopoly contract will impose conditions on all nurses at the facility, members and nonmembers alike.
Delaney is arguing that NNOC union officials are violating the “duty of fair representation,” a legal mandate that requires union officials not to discriminate in its bargaining functions, including on the basis of union membership. The duty originates from a 1944 Supreme Court case, Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co., in which the Court recognized that rail union bosses were manipulating their powers over the workplace to discriminate against African-American railway workers.
Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, NNOC union officials can impose working conditions on the nurses that require them to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work jurisdictions like nearby Virginia and West Virginia, union membership and all union financial support are the choice of each individual worker.
“NNOC union officials have been extremely abrasive to any nurse who isn’t gung-ho for the union’s agenda,” commented Delaney. “It wasn’t long ago that my coworkers and I backed an effort to try to vote this union out, and this new development shows exactly why. NNOC union bosses are freezing out nurses from the voting process who are unwilling to sign a membership form that states it is ‘voluntary,’ yet they require signatures to vote, even though that vote is going to have very significant consequences for all of us at St. Agnes.”
Federal Charges Follow Nurses’ Attempt to Vote Union Out
Delaney led an effort to “decertify” (or remove) the NNOC union earlier this year. Delaney and her coworkers reported that union officials made taking care of patients more difficult and that the union generally served as a divisive force in the workplace.
“NNOC union officials are clearly not interested in ‘representing’ all nurses at St. Agnes, and have instead actively discriminated against nurses who are critical of the union’s priorities and who have exercised their legally-protected right to reject formal union membership,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While this is a violation of the duty of fair representation, it exposes a more fundamental problem with federal labor law: Union officials shouldn’t have the power to foist their ‘representation’ on workers who have disaffiliated with the union to begin with, and certainly shouldn’t have the ability to force those same dissenting workers to subsidize a union they don’t want and never asked for.”
