Hundreds of Nurses at Henry Ford Genesys Hospital File Petition Demanding Election to Oust Teamsters
Nearly 70% of currently working nurses sign petition asking for decertification vote
Grand Blanc, MI (October 6, 2026) – Hundreds of registered nurses at Henry Ford Genesys Hospital backed a petition filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a vote to remove Teamsters Local 332 officials from their hospital. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions.
Genesys Hospital nurse Kristen Cox, who is spearheading the nurses’ effort, submitted a “decertification” petition with the NLRB, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, backed by the signatures of 264 nurses, which amounts to nearly 70% of the 385 nurses currently working at the hospital.
Teamsters Local 332 officials launched a strike at Genesys Hospital on Labor Day 2025, and more than a year later, the strike remains unresolved. What is certain, however, is that the overwhelming number of nurses working at the hospital no longer want to be represented by Teamsters Local 332.
Disregarding the voices of nurses who simply seek the ability to choose their representative, the Teamsters are blocking any decertification election at the hospital. This tactic, known as a “blocking charge,” allows union officials to halt workers’ decertification efforts by filing unproven charges against their employer. In June, Foundation staff attorneys filed a formal rulemaking petition asking the NLRB to scrap the non-statutory policies it uses to block workers’ decertification votes.
Foundation staff attorneys also represent Genesys nurses who have filed unfair labor practice charges against Teamsters Local 332 for retaliating against nurses who resigned their union membership and returned to work. In those cases, Teamsters officials stopped payment on checks they issued to employees who exercised their legal right to resign from the union and return to work in defiance of the union strike.
Michigan politicians repealed the state’s Right to Work law in 2023, meaning private sector workers in the state can once again be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs.
“Genesys nurses have made clear that they want the chance to vote Teamsters bosses out of their hospital. The NLRB should not rubber-stamp union lawyers’ attempts to disenfranchise them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “If Teamsters bosses are so confident they ‘represent’ what Genesys nurses want, they should stop hiding behind legal maneuvers and respect the wishes of the hundreds of nurses asking for this vote.”
Port Worker Files Brief at U.S. Court of Appeals Defending Labor Board Victory Over Years-Long Union Boss Discrimination
Brief: Labor Board correctly found that ILA union bosses violated dissenter’s rights and should be held to a “heightened” standard for abuse of power
Wilmington, DE, Philadelphia, PA (October 5, 2026) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a brief in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Stanford Fowler, a port worker who was the victim of union officials’ years-long campaign of abuse that included threats and loss of referrals from the union-controlled hiring hall.
The case started when Fowler, who worked at the Port of Wilmington in Delaware, filed an unfair labor practice charge at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in August, 2021. Fowler argued that he had been illegally blacklisted by International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA) Local 1694 union officials after voicing concerns to the ILA International about work assignment practices after a merger of several ILA locals.
Following the issuance of a complaint by the NLRB General Counsel, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled largely in Fowler’s favor, and a subsequent unanimous decision from a bipartisan panel of NLRB Members affirmed the ALJ’s findings and even extended them farther, ruling that the union officials’ actions had violated federal law in several respects. In its decision, the NLRB ordered the union to provide Fowler with back pay covering the past five years to remedy his loss of work due to the union bosses’ discrimination.
Rather than accept responsibility for their unlawful actions, ILA Local 1694 bosses instructed their lawyers to appeal the Board’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. They even attempted to block Fowler from participating in the defense of his Labor Board victory, but those arguments were overruled and the Court specifically allowed Fowler to participate as an Intervenor to ensure the Board’s decision stands.
Foundation Calls for Court to Reject Local 1694’s Misleading Brief, Fully Enforce NLRB’s Decision
The Foundation staff attorneys’ brief argues that the ALJ and NLRB were “correct in determining that Local 1694 violated the [National Labor Relations Act] and the duty of fair representation” by threatening and coercing Fowler for dissenting, interfering with his ability to gain employment, banning him from the port, and telling him that gaining further work through its hiring hall would be futile. The brief urges the Court to ignore the union’s smokescreen of arguments that attempt to distract from the real issues.
The brief points out that Local 1694’s defense “omits much more than it presents.” Among these omissions were the failure of Local 1694 President and Vice President to show up at the hearing as witnesses, even though both were explicitly mentioned in the complaint. Furthermore, the Foundation attorneys’ brief calls out the union’s lawyers for relying on previous NLRB decisions that were reversed and denied enforcement by two appellate courts.
The brief argues, under Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l, that when a union chooses to operate a hiring hall it is assuming an “employer’s role” and “its responsibility to exercise that power fairly increases rather than decreases.” Fowler urges the Court to apply a strict and “heightened” standard of fairness found in two earlier Foundation-won cases, Jacoby v. NLRB and Lucas v. NLRB, which both applied the heightened standard of fairness.
The brief observes that applying this heightened standard would “both clarify the state of the law in this circuit and prevent Local 1694 and other hiring halls from attempting to avoid liability by asserting ‘mere negligence’ as an affirmative defense to their patently discriminatory conduct.”
“We are proud to help Mr. Fowler as he defends his NLRB victory at the court of appeals. We are also gratified that we overcame the union’s underhanded attempt to block him from even participating in the appeal of his own legal case,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses must be held accountable when they use their control over hiring halls to retaliate against those who exercise their rights under federal law.
“This case, like our prior Foundation victories in Lucas and Jacoby, show why hiring halls are easily abused by unscrupulous unions, and they should be banned or at least strictly monitored,” added Mix. “Mr. Fowler’s livelihood was threatened by ILA officials’ actions, and we are proud to help him defend his NLRB victory against their illegal actions.”
Foundation Notice Offers Free Legal Aid to New York In-Home Medicaid Caregivers Targeted for Forced Unionization by SEIU
Notice: If SEIU gains monopoly control, CDPAP caregivers would be required to pay union dues and comply with other union mandates, just to care for family members
Albany, NY (September 30, 2026) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a special legal notice to roughly 190,000 personal assistants who care for people with disabilities through New York’s Medicaid-funded Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP).
The Foundation’s legal notice informs CDPAP personal assistants of their legal rights, which include the right to challenge an effort by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials to impose unionization on every assistant currently providing care, often to family members, through the program. The notice encourages caregivers to reach out to the Foundation for additional information about their legal rights and for free legal assistance.
“If certified, SEIU would become the exclusive representative of all personal assistants, irrespective of whether they support the union,” the notice reads. “SEIU would also gain the authority to enter into an agreement requiring that everyone must pay dues or fees to SEIU to act as a personal assistant. If this comes to pass, many personal assistants will have no choice but to give part of their wages to SEIU to continue to provide home-based care, often to their own loved ones.”
The full notice is available here: https://www.nrtw.org/NYCare/
Controversial NY Medicaid Home Care Contract Tied to Secret SEIU Deal, Federal Fraud Lawsuit
On September 22, SEIU officials filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking to gain monopoly control over all caregivers, many of whom provide in-home care for family members. SEIU’s scheme is premised on a secret agreement between SEIU and Public Partnerships, LLC (PPL), under which PPL assists SEIU to obtain a monopoly union “representation” over all personal assistants, after SEIU helped make PPL the sole fiscal intermediary of all CDPAP participants.
The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights that the caregivers, who are often family members or friends of the people they serve, are actually employed by the hundreds of thousands of individual CDPAP participants with disabilities who hire them to work in their homes.
Because of this and the myriad of other legal issues raised by SEIU’s unionization push, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have already filed a motion with the NLRB requesting that it pause the proceedings to allow for amicus briefs, and also so the NLRB can consult with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice (DOJ).
In June, DOJ filed a federal lawsuit against PPL, the New York State Department of Health, and the state’s Medicaid director, alleging fraud. In announcing the lawsuit, Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald said, “New York’s backroom deal with PPL has cost taxpayers millions of dollars and cast countless Medicaid patients to the curb.” The announcement also alleged PPL won the contract through “a sham bid process… resulting in a fraud scheme that remains unchecked.”
The Foundation has a long history of defending home care providers from forced unionism. In the Foundation-won 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case Harris v. Quinn, Illinois home care personal assistants, including Pamela Harris, successfully challenged a scheme that forced providers caring for family members with disabilities through Medicaid to pay fees to SEIU officials.
“Personal assistants who care for New Yorkers with disabilities, often their own family members, should not have to hand over part of their wages to SEIU union bosses just to keep providing that care,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “This backroom arrangement between SEIU and Public Partnerships is a naked grab for power and dues money at the expense of some of the state’s most vulnerable residents and those who care for them.
“Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to provide free legal aid to any personal assistant who wants to oppose SEIU’s petition and protect their right to refuse union affiliation,” added Mix.
National Right to Work Foundation Asks NLRB to Halt SEIU Scheme to Impose Union on 190,000 New York In-Home Medicaid Caregivers
Motion: Briefing needed as SEIU and PPL work together to impose unionization; PPL facing DOJ fraud lawsuit and isn’t actually caregivers’ ‘employer’
Washington, DC (September 28, 2026) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed a motion at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the agency to stay a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) petition seeking to unionize roughly 190,000 personal assistants who care for people with disabilities through New York’s Medicaid-funded Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program.
The Foundation’s motion, filed in Public Partnerships, LLC (NLRB Case No. 03-RC-395461), asks NLRB Region 3 to invite amicus briefs from the Foundation and other interested parties, to consult with the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, and to halt the proceedings until after that briefing and consultation are complete.
The motion argues that Public Partnerships, LLC (PPL), which 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East names as the employer in its petition filed on September 22, is “little more than a payroll processor” for the program. The caregivers, who are often family members or friends of the people they serve, are actually employed by the hundreds of thousands of individual participants with disabilities who hire them to work in their homes. Because of this, the filing notes, the single statewide unit proposed by SEIU is legally inappropriate and “unworkable.”
Motion: NLRB Must Not Rubber-Stamp Collusive Unionization Scheme
The motion observes that the Region won’t get complete briefing on these important issues from the parties because “SEIU and PPL are not adverse to one another, but are working together pursuant to an organizing agreement.” Consultation with federal agencies is also needed, the motion argues, because the U.S. Department of Justice has a pending lawsuit alleging PPL committed fraud to win its contract as the program’s sole fiscal intermediary in New York, and because certifying a union over every provider in a state Medicaid program could conflict with federal Medicaid law.
The motion notes that, especially in light of SEIU officials and the ostensible “employer” PPL working hand in hand to unionize providers, the NLRB must not act as a rubber stamp for the scheme:
“The Region cannot simply accept the parties’ proposals, but must fulfill its statutory duty to make an independent determination as to whether PPL is actually an employer of these personal assistants (it is not) and whether the petitioned-for unit is appropriate (it is not). SEIU and PPL ask the Region to expend considerable resources conducting a mail ballot election of 190,000 individuals.”
Foundation staff attorneys have long defended homecare providers against forced unionism, including winning a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn, which held that states cannot force homecare providers to pay union fees.
“Ever since losing Harris v. Quinn at the Supreme Court, SEIU bosses have tried one scheme after another to force Medicaid providers to pay union dues just to care for their own family members in their homes,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “SEIU’s NLRB filing is the latest attempt to siphon mandatory dues out of taxpayer-funded Medicaid programs, and, according to DOJ’s lawsuit, this dubious arrangement is the result of PPL acquiring the contract through a sham bid process rigged by New York State officials.
“The NLRB has a duty to take its time and closely examine the legal implications of this unprecedented scheme to herd 190,000 caregivers into paying forced dues to politically connected SEIU union bosses,” added Mix.
86-Year-Old Veteran Files Federal Charges Against UFCW Union for Causing his Illegal Firing from Part-Time Grocery Job
Charge: UFCW bosses ignored Village Market employee for four years, then suddenly had him fired claiming he owed over $3,500 in back dues and fees
Oakland, CA (September 28, 2026) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, an 86-year-old veteran who worked part-time at Village Market in Oakland has filed federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5 (UFCW) union. The charge says UFCW 5 union officials illegally had Phil Holland fired in early September claiming he owed thousands of dollars in back dues and fees.
Holland, a Navy veteran with 30 years’ of experience in law enforcement, who also works part-time as a YMCA fitness instructor, was hired by the Village Market grocery store that he shopped at for 30 years in February of 2022 after he noticed a “help wanted” sign in the window. During his first four years of employment, UFCW Local 5 union officials never contacted him, never asked him to pay union dues or fees, and never notified him of his legal rights under the 1988 Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which protects employees from being required to pay full union dues for activities unrelated to union bargaining like union-boss political activism.
This suddenly changed in May 2026 when UFCW Local 5 union officials began sending threatening messages “welcoming” him to the union and later demanding that he become a member or lose his job.
Shortly after in July, UFCW Local 5 union bosses sent the part-time employee who worked 12 hours a week a letter demanding that he pay over $3,500 in retroactive dues and fees under the threat of termination. The union communication lacked the required information to inform him of his legal rights under the Beck decision.
Union Officials Rejected Proposed Partial Payment, Had Retired Veteran Terminated
With Holland not willing to pay the sudden and unlawful $3,500 dues demand, he proposed paying the Beck fee going forward and a partial payment of the back amount. UFCW officials not only rejected his request but also demanded that Village Market terminate his employment, which the company effectively did.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials can require workers to pay money to the union or lose their jobs. However, the Supreme Court’s NLRB v. General Motors decision forbids mandatory formal union membership.
The charge asks the NLRB to prosecute UFCW 5 for Holland’s illegal termination and also hold that the union committed an unfair labor practice when union officials knowingly ignored his employment for years without attempting to collect dues, then suddenly sprung a multi-year dues demand on the part-time employee. Mr. Holland’s charges will now be investigated by NLRB Region 32 officials.
“UFCW 5 union officials ignored Mr. Holland for more than four years while he worked part-time at his local grocery store, then out of nowhere ambushed the 86-year-old veteran with a bill for thousands of dollars and illegally had him fired when he didn’t give into their unlawful demands,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The abusive tactics on display in this case show the need for additional protections for employees against union boss attempts to collect years of back dues after the union itself failed to legally request the money at the time.
“Ultimately though, cases like this demonstrate why every worker in America deserves Right to Work protections to ensure that all union payments are strictly voluntary,” added Mix.
Richmond-Area Penske Workers Latest to Eject Teamsters Following Unanimous Vote to End Teamsters’ So-Called ‘Representation’
Virginia Penske employees join growing movement of rank-and-file workers cutting ties with the Teamsters
Sandston, VA (September 23, 2026) – Employees at Penske Truck Leasing are officially free from the unwanted “representation” of Teamsters Local 592 union officials, after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified a vote of Penske workers to “decertify” Teamsters union bosses. The decertification effort was spearheaded by Penske employee Jordan Cutrell, who received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys during the decertification process.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Cutrell’s petition was signed by an overwhelming majority of his coworkers, triggering the NLRB to administer a secret-ballot election, which took place on September 10 at Penske’s Trampton Road location in Sandston, Virginia, among all full-time and regular part-time technicians and customer service representatives.
Ultimately, the employees voted unanimously 9-0 to terminate Teamsters officials’ power as the workers’ monopoly bargaining “representative.”
Virginia is one of 26 states with a Right to Work law, which safeguards workers by making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, federal law grants union officials the power to impose their exclusive “representation” on every employee in a work unit, including those who never voted for, joined, or supported the union.
Cutrell and his colleagues are the latest in a growing number of workers who have approached the Foundation to exercise their legal right to remove Teamsters union officials from their workplaces. In just the past few years, Foundation-assisted Penske employees have successfully removed unwanted union bosses from their facilities at several locations across the country, including Dallas, TX, Bloomington, IN, Eagan and Roseville, MN, Nashville, TN, and Swedesboro, NJ.
Just this month, Foundation attorneys also secured a settlement for UPS worker and former Teamsters president Andrew Davis, in his dispute with the Teamsters over union bosses targeting him for informing his coworkers of their legal rights to not be union members and for filing charges against the union with the NLRB. Davis filed his charges after Teamsters officials falsely claimed, in front of his coworkers, that it was a “federal crime” to discuss how to resign their union membership.
“Every day Teamsters bosses give workers new reasons not to want to associate with the union, and we are pleased to have assisted Mr. Cutrell and his coworkers in reclaiming their workplace freedom,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation attorneys will continue to be a resource for all rank-and-file workers wanting to exercise their legal right to end their affiliation with the Teamsters.”
Nurse Files Federal Charges Challenging Union Policy that Conditions Contract Vote Participation on Signing Union Card
Nurse contends that union rule disenfranchising nonmembers is unlawful restraint on Section 7 right to refuse union membership protected by federal law
Baltimore, MD (September 22, 2026) – Jennifer Delaney, a nurse at Ascension Health’s St. Agnes Hospital in Baltimore, has filed federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenging a common union boss tactic designed to coerce employees into signing union membership and dues cards. The charges were filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Delaney’s charges argue that when union officials block nonmembers from voting on contracts that will apply to them, the union violates the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA’s) prohibition on unions restraining or coercing employees’ Section 7 right to refrain from union membership. Though the NLRB has long looked the other way when union officials engage in such discrimination during contract ratification votes, the charges argue that the Board can no longer brush aside this clear violation of the text of the NLRA in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
The charges were filed after National Nurses Organizing Committee-National Nurses United (NNOC/NNU) officials prevented Delaney and other nonmember nurses from participating in a vote on September 17 over whether to ratify a monopoly union contract that would apply to both member and nonmember nurses alike. Delaney, with the assistance of her National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, filed similar charges in April 2025 when union officials disenfranchised nonmembers from voting on a “partial deal” regarding a contract proposal. Those charges remain pending.
Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, NNOC/NNU officials are empowered to enforce union contracts on all of the approximately 600 nurses at St. Agnes that could require every nurse to make payments to the union or else be fired. Although this particular contract does not include a forced dues provision, union officials were nevertheless blocking nonmembers from voting on the monopoly bargaining contract unless they joined the union and authorized automatic dues deductions.
Nurse’s Challenge Follows Previous Discrimination Charge, Attempt to Vote Union Out
Ever since NNOC/NNU union officials gained power at the hospital, they have been a divisive force, with many nurses opposing the union. In January 2025, around 200 nurses voted to remove the union in a decertification election, but the union was narrowly able to maintain power despite less than half of eligible voters (244 out of 573) backing the union.
Delaney explains why so many nurses wanted nothing to do with NNOC/NNU: “This union proved itself to be a divisive force as soon as it began campaigning at our hospital. Many of the nurses opposed its agenda from the very beginning, and it is still making things difficult for both us and our patients. Little has changed since the union got in and now we are being denied a say over our own contract terms.”
Both the latest charge and the pending charge filed in April 2025 are being investigated by NLRB Region 5 officials based in Baltimore.
“The whole point of Section 7 is that workers get to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union, free of pressure from union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “For too long, union bosses have weaponized their monopoly bargaining power over all employees in a workplace, effectively imposing a poll tax on workers by conditioning voting eligibility on union membership and dues payment.
“If NNOC/NNU bosses are unwilling to let nonmember nurses vote, then they are free to renounce their power to impose their one-size-fits-all contract on nonmembers,” added Mix. “Until that happens, it is vital the NLRB enforce the clear letter of federal law and protect these nurses from union policies designed to coerce them into signing away their legal rights.”
Ex-Teamsters President Wins Case Against Teamsters’ Retaliation, Union Threats for Filing Federal Charges
Charge: Teamsters threatened UPS employee, claimed it was a “federal crime” to inform others of protected legal right to resign from union membership
Pocatello, ID (September 21, 2026) – Andrew Davis, an employee of United Parcel Service (UPS), has prevailed in his dispute with Teamsters Local 983, after union bosses settled Davis’ National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case against them. An NLRB investigation, initiated by an Unfair Labor Practice charge filed by Davis, found that union officials engaged in illegal threats and retaliation against him after he resigned his union membership and informed coworkers of their legal right to do the same.
Davis, who was president of Teamsters Local 983 from 2014 until 2024, filed his charges at the NLRB with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency tasked with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and with adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual workers.
After the Regional Director for NLRB Region 27 issued a formal complaint against the union in July, determining that the charges against the Teamsters for violating Davis’ rights had merit, an NLRB trial had been scheduled for September 29. Teamsters union bosses settled the case to avoid facing federal prosecution for harassing Davis for exercising his rights under the NLRA. Now that Teamsters officials have backed down in the face of overwhelming evidence against them, the trial has been postponed indefinitely.
According to the complaint, four Teamsters Local 983 officials, contrary to federal law, told Davis in front of other workers that informing employees how to exercise their right to resign their union membership was “illegal” and a “federal crime.” These coercive statements led to Davis filing federal charges against Teamsters Local 983. The charges were later amended to include additional allegations against the union that included threats and fines.
In response to the charges being filed, the complaint noted, Teamsters union bosses retaliated against Davis by filing internal union “charges” and imposing a fine upon him.
Under longstanding law, only fully voluntary union members can be subjected to internal union discipline, which often involves fines levied against workers at odds with union boss demands. Workers cannot face discipline for actions that occur after a worker has resigned from union membership.
The NLRB complaint also stated that Teamsters Local 983 maintained unlawful rules barring members from seeking recourse from any outside court or agency, including the NLRB, without first exhausting internal union appeals.
The settlement requires Teamsters Local 983 to post and e-mail a notice informing UPS employees that Teamsters officials “will not” tell them it is “illegal or a federal crime to inform members on how to resign their union membership.” The settlement further requires the Teamsters Local to declare that they “will not” require members to “exhaust internal union remedies” before filing Unfair Labor Practice charges with the NLRB.
In addition to having all Teamsters’ records mentioning the unions charges and fines filed against Davis removed, the settlement also grants NLRB agents access (without notification) to Teamsters offices to confirm compliance.
“We are pleased to have aided Mr. Davis in defending his and other UPS workers’ rights from Teamsters union thugs’ threats and lies,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, there is a long history of Teamsters bosses engaging in underhanded, often blatantly illegal, tactics targeting the very rank-and-file workers they purport to ‘represent.’
“Cases like this demonstrate why workers, even former union presidents, need more protections under federal law from union bosses’ abuses who all too frequently target workers who simply voice any dissent,” added Mix.
KATU Photojournalist Hits IATSE Union, Station with Federal Labor Board Charges after Being Illegally Fired
Union officials and complicit management illegally demand photographer join union and authorize dues deductions, then had him fired when he refused
Portland, OR (September 17, 2026) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a former employee for KATU-TV has filed federal charges against the television station and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) union for violating his rights, culminating in his illegal termination.
Devon Carroll was employed as a photojournalist for ABC local affiliate KATU television station in Portland, Oregon. His federal charges detail how both IATSE Local 600 officials and KATU-TV demanded that he sign the union’s membership and dues check-off authorization, then violated federal law by terminating his employment when he declined to give in to their clearly illegal demands.
Because Oregon lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can require workers to pay money to the union or lose their jobs. However, IATSE union officials’ demands – which were later enforced by a complicit KATU human resources official – went far beyond what is legally permissible, even in a state without Right to Work protections for employees.
Union Bosses and Employer Ignore Supreme Court Precedent, Clear Federal Law
The Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. General Motors, decided in 1963, forbids mandatory, formal union membership as a condition of employment. Further, longstanding law says employees can never be required to sign a union dues deduction card. Federal law also says union officials cannot require payment of dues or fees without a union contract that includes a valid forced dues clause, and that, even when such a contract is in effect, no forced dues can be required of new hires until after 30 days of employment.
IATSE also ignored the NLRB’s 1962 Philadelphia Sheraton Corp. precedent, which includes mandatory procedural safeguards a union must follow when union officials are seeking to have an employee terminated for non-payment of union dues or fees. Furthermore, IATSE union bosses failed to inform Carroll of his Beck rights, a Supreme Court victory the Right to Work Foundation won in 1988.
According to his charges, an IATSE Senior Business agent told Carroll that he must join the union. When Mr. Carroll requested more information about the forced-dues requirement, the IATSE official responded by demanding he sign a union membership and dues check-off authorization.
At no point did the union officials provide information required under Beck or Philadelphia Sheraton. In addition, union officials’ initial demand for payment was based on an expired union contract, something the KATU HR official knew. Despite this, KATU ignored the union’s known misrepresentations and complied with union officials’ illegal demand that Carroll be fired.
Mr. Carroll’s federal charges will now be investigated by National Labor Relations Board Region 19 officials. A win in his case would result in Carroll being offered reinstatement, and issued back pay and reimbursement of other expenses associated with the unlawful termination. The union and station would also likely be required to post a notice to inform other employees of their legal rights.
“It is bad enough that Oregon workers can be forced to pay fees to union bosses just to earn a living,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In this case – aided by complicit company officials – IATSE union bosses violated numerous longstanding legal requirements in their rush to extort forced dues from Mr. Carroll.
“This case is a clear example of why more fundamental reform is needed, and especially why all American workers deserve Right to Work protections, so they can freely choose for themselves whether or not to fund a union with their hard-earned money,” Mix added.
