California Transportation Worker Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of National Labor Relations Board
Lawsuit joins challenges by three other employees against NLRB on grounds that structure of agency violates Article II of the Constitution
Los Angeles, CA (June 14, 2024) – On Tuesday, Victor Avila, an employee of Savage Services Corporation in California, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Avila is receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Avila filed Unfair Labor Practice charges with the NLRB against the Teamsters Local 848 union in August 2023. On February 9, NLRB Region 21 in Los Angeles issued a complaint against Teamsters Local 848 on the grounds that the union violated Avila’s rights when the Teamsters, through an agent, had “threatened unit employees with physical violence for not supporting the Union.”
This week a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge began hearing that case. Soon after that hearing began, Avila’s federal lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where the NLRB is based. The lawsuit raises fundamental constitutional concerns regarding the removal power vested in the President under Article II of the Constitution. Avila contends that the NLRB, composed of five members with limited removal authority, infringes upon the President’s constitutional prerogative to oversee and remove executive officials who wield substantial executive power. The complaint states that “Avila is entitled to have a constitutionally structured Board, properly accountable to the President, adjudicate his case and rule on his unfair labor practice charge.”
Avila’s lawsuit points to recent Supreme Court rulings, including Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen, which underscored the necessity for presidential control over executive officials exercising significant authority. Avila argues that the NLRB’s structure, as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), places impermissible limitations on the President’s removal power, thereby violating the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.
Starbucks Employees Also Challenging Federal Labor Board Structure in Two Federal Lawsuits
Avila’s case is not the only federal lawsuit filed by employees challenging the structure of the NLRB as unconstitutional with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Three Starbucks employees, each of whom has had their attempt to hold decertification votes to remove unwanted Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace blocked by NLRB officials, have made similar arguments in federal lawsuits.
Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two Starbucks employees from New York, recently filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their lawsuit. They are appealing a District Court judge’s ruling that they lacked standing to bring their challenge. The ruling didn’t address the core constitutional arguments their lawsuit raised. Another Starbucks employee, Reed Busler, filed another similar lawsuit that is currently pending in the Northern District Court in Texas.
“Labor law cannot and should not be immune from the requirements of the U.S. Constitution and Mr. Avila is entitled to have his case adjudicated by a constitutionally accountable body,” said Foundation President Mark Mix. “Too often the Biden NLRB has operated like a taxpayer-funded arm of the AFL-CIO, and this case is just one of many where employees are seeking to defend their rights against a biased agency that acts as if it’s power has no limits.”
Detroit School Bus Driver Slams Teamsters Union With Federal Charges for Seizing Full Dues Illegally From Paycheck
Teamsters officials ignored First Student driver’s request to opt-out of funding union politics, similar cases increase after MI Right to Work repeal
Detroit, MI (June 14, 2024) – Frances Dennis, a Troy-based school bus driver for First Student, Inc., has just filed federal charges against Teamsters Local 299 union officials for seizing full union dues payments from her wages even though she resigned her membership in the union. Dennis filed the charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 7 in Detroit with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.
Dennis is seeking to defend her rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which forbids union officials from forcing employees who have abstained from union membership into paying dues or fees for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions. Union political expenditures, which often make up part of full membership dues, are among those expenses that Beck prevents union officials from forcing nonmember workers into funding. Nonmember workers who exercise their Beck rights are also entitled to an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials spend forced contributions.
In non-Right to Work states, including Michigan where Right to Work was repealed earlier this year, union officials’ privilege to force workers to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment is limited by the Beck ruling. Under federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedents like General Motors v. NLRB, union officials also can’t compel workers to maintain formal union membership as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
In Right to Work states, in contrast, both union membership and all union financial support are strictly the choice of each individual worker.
Teamsters Continue to Take Money for Politics Unlawfully From School Bus Driver
According to the charges, in December 2023 Dennis sent a letter to Teamsters union officials exercising both her right to resign union membership and her right to cut off union dues deductions from her paycheck. At the time, Michigan’s Right to Work law was still on the books, meaning Teamsters union officials should have honored both of Dennis’ requests. However, her charges state that Teamsters agents “did not respond to this letter and continued to deduct dues from her wages.”
Knowing that the Michigan Legislature had set the Right to Work repeal for February 2024, Dennis sent another letter in January 2024 “objecting to the demand of any dues or fees without the protections guaranteed by Communications Workers of America v. Beck.” She also objected to union officials taking dues from her paycheck. Even where forced-dues arrangements are legal, federal law prohibits union bosses from requiring the payment of such dues through direct payroll deduction.
Dennis’ charges report that Teamsters union bosses have not responded to her letter, have not provided her with any of her Beck rights, and continue to seize full union dues out of her wages. Even worse, a union recording secretary told Dennis via text that “she was required…to complete and submit a dues checkoff form” authorizing direct dues deduction as a condition of keeping her job.
After MI Right to Work Repeal, Cases Challenging Forced Dues Pile Up
Dennis’ case is just the latest in a string filed by Foundation attorneys for Michigan workers seeking to challenge union bosses’ forced-dues arrangements in the wake of Michigan’s Right to Work repeal. Earlier this month, Sault Ste. Marie Meijer employee Joseph Arnold hit his employer with federal charges for compelling him to sign a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union membership form. In Milford, Kroger employee Roger Cornett levied federal charges against both a UFCW local and the store for jointly enforcing a scheme that forces employees to contribute to the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC) to stay employed. James Reamsma, a Grand Rapids-area security guard, is defending a “deauthorization vote” by security guards across Western Michigan to end the forced-dues power of a United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union.
“The Michigan Legislature’s cynical and partisan repeal of Right to Work was a blatant power grab for union bosses across the state at the expense of workers’ right to freely decide whether union bosses have earned their financial support,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As Ms. Dennis’ case and an increasing number of cases from around the state show, union bosses often seek to circumvent or flat out ignore workers’ free association rights, which is why those freedoms deserve stronger and not weaker protections.”
“Perhaps more unsettling is the fact that some of these cases involve union officials illegally funneling worker money into union politics – the same political machine that led to the demise of these workers’ free choice under Right to Work,” Mix added.
Michigan Meijer Employee Hits Supermarket with Federal Charges for Forcing Him to Join UFCW Union or Be Fired
Charges come as more workers challenge union bosses’ forced-dues power in wake of Michigan Right to Work repeal
Sault Ste. Marie, MI (June 11, 2024) – Joseph Arnold, an employee at the 3 Mile Road branch of Meijer in Sault Ste. Marie, has just slammed the supermarket’s management with federal charges for threatening to fire him if he didn’t complete a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union membership form. Arnold filed the charges at Region 7 of 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 federal labor law in the private sector. Under federal law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like General Motors v. NLRB, neither union officials nor employers can compel workers to maintain formal union membership as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
This applies even in non-Right to Work states like Michigan, where union bosses have legal privileges to enforce contracts that require workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Employees in non-Right to Work states who choose to abstain from formal union membership also have the right under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision to object to paying union fees for anything unrelated to the union’s bargaining functions, such as political activities.
In contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Indiana and Wisconsin, all union financial support is strictly voluntary.
With the demand that Arnold sign a UFCW membership form or else be fired, Meijer officials appear to be imposing both full union membership and full union dues payments on him. Other workers have reported receiving similar demands to join or be fired.
Workers Across Michigan Challenge Forced-Dues Schemes
“Even though Michigan isn’t a Right to Work state anymore, that doesn’t give my employer agency to dictate my options,” commented Arnold. “Through ignorance or intent, Meijer threatening my job because I don’t want to associate with the union is unacceptable. If Meijer truly respects our rights they would present us with all options, as it is the job of the union to advocate my interests with my employer, not the job of my employer to advocate the interests of the union with me.”
Since the state’s Right to Work law was repealed earlier this year, Foundation attorneys have handled a flurry of cases for Michigan workers seeking to end coercive union influence in their workplaces. One such case involves illegal UFCW practices at a Kroger in Milford, Michigan, where employee Roger Cornett has levied federal charges against both the union and the store for jointly enforcing a scheme that forces employees to contribute to the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC) to stay employed.
Elsewhere in Michigan, Grand Rapids-area security guard James Reamsma is currently defending his and his coworkers’ recent “deauthorization vote” to nullify the forced-dues power of a United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union. The UGSOA currently holds monopoly bargaining power over security guards posted at government buildings across Western Michigan, including in Sault Ste. Marie. Even though more of Reamsma’s colleagues voted for the deauthorization of the UGSOA than against it, litigation continues over the results. Reamsma’s case is one of many where Michigan workers are seeking to end union bosses’ power to compel payment of union dues or fees, and return to voluntary dues payments, as was protected under Michigan’s popular Right to Work law.
“Based on the cases that Foundation attorneys have already fielded in the short time that Michigan’s Right to Work law has been repealed, it’s clear that Michigan workers need more protection from coercive union power, not less,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials and complicit employers will often push the boundaries of what’s legal in an attempt to extend union power over workers regardless of whether they want or asked for the union.”
Starbucks Employee Takes Case Challenging Federal Labor Board Structure as Unconstitutional to Court of Appeals
NY Starbucks workers are challenging NLRB that refuses to let them hold decertification votes to remove unwanted SBWU union
Washington D.C. (June 10, 2024) – Ariana Cortes and fellow plaintiff Logan Karam, two Starbucks employees from New York, are taking their groundbreaking lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit, initially filed by Cortes, and later joined by Karam, follows NLRB officials’ refusal to process their respective petitions requesting a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace.
The lawsuit, filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, argues that the NLRA violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the President. The appeal challenges the District Court decision that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack legal standing. That decision did not address the underlying claim regarding whether the Labor Board’s structure complies with the requirements of the Constitution.
Multiple Starbucks Employees Are Suing the NLRB
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 workplace to remove SBWU union officials’ bargaining powers over workers at the store. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against Starbucks. 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’s 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.
Their lawsuit is not the only instance where Starbucks employees are challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB with free legal representation by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Reed Busler, an employee at the “Military Highway” Starbucks in Shavano Park, TX, brought a similar federal lawsuit against the NLRB in January, contending that the agency’s structure violates the separation of powers. Busler’s petition seeking a vote to remove the SBWU remains pending before the NLRB.
“Workers should never be trapped in union ranks they oppose, and they certainly shouldn’t be trapped on the whims of powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Despite the wishes of Big Labor and the NLRB who appear intent on squashing free speech and exercising unfettered power, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law of the land.”
Workers at Americold Logistics Win Campaign to Remove Teamsters Union from Workplace
Facing imminent workers’ vote in a decertification election, Teamsters Local 695 officials end forced “representation”
Darien, WI (June 6, 2024) – Employees at Americold Logistics in Darien, Wisconsin have won their freedom from Teamsters Local 695. Americold Logistics employee, Leo Garcia, originally filed a petition on behalf of a majority of workers at the facility seeking a vote to remove the Teamsters from their workplace. The decertification petition was filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Garcia filed the petition on May 16 with the NLRB, the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Garcia’s petition contained support from a majority of employees, which is more than is required to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
When it became clear that the election would be scheduled, Teamsters Local 695 disclaimed recognition on May 23, 2024, stating in an email to the employer that the union “unequivocally disclaims its interest in representing and collectively bargaining for the unit at Americold in Darien, Wisconsin…that this will end processing of the Petition.” On May 24, NLRB Region 18 acknowledged the union disclaiming recognition, meaning no election would be needed since the workers’ desired result – the removal of the union – had already been accomplished.
Because Wisconsin is a state with Right to Work protections, union officials can’t force employees like those at Americold Logistics to join the union or pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, non-Right to Work states like neighboring Illinois and Minnesota let union officials push for terms with employers that compel workers to pay dues as a condition of employment.
But even in Right to Work states, federal law grants union officials the power to impose their “representation” on all workers in a unit, even those who oppose the union or voted against its presence. However, workers can choose to exercise their right to decertify a union they disapprove of.
Until the union disclaimed representation, the workers’ were subjected to a one-size-fits-all union monopoly contract. Under the NLRB-created “contract bar” policy, workers cannot get a decertification vote for up to three years as long as a union monopoly bargaining agreement is in place. However, at Americold, the union contract was five years long and had already been in effect for over three years.
“Having already been subjected to Teamsters’ bosses so-called ‘representation’ and monopoly contract for years, these workers had more than enough information to decide they would be better off without the union, and apparently Teamsters officials knew it too since as soon as the vote became inevitable they left rather than contest it,” said Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we are pleased these employees have succeeded in their effort to remove an unwanted union, cases like this show why the NLRB’s non-statutory contract bar policy should be eliminated entirely.”
“Workers shouldn’t be trapped under a union contract they oppose for three years until they can avail themselves of their clear right under federal law to petition for a vote to end union affiliation they oppose,” added Mix.
DHS Security Guard’s Federal Lawsuit Forces IGUA Union Bosses to Stop Illegal Forced Union Dues Demands
After union officials did not provide legally required financial disclosures, guard wins reduction in mandatory union fees
Washington, DC (June 6, 2024) – Rosa Crawley, a security guard at the Department of Homeland Security’s Nebraska Avenue Complex, has triumphed after filing a federal lawsuit charging the International Guards Union of America (IGUA) with unlawfully demanding and seizing union dues from her paycheck. Crawley, who is employed by Master Security, forced the union to back off its illegal dues demands with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Crawley is not a member of the IGUA union, but is still subject to IGUA’s monopoly bargaining power over the security guards at the DHS Nebraska Avenue Complex. As part of the settlement, IGUA union bosses must reduce the compulsory fee that they seize from Crawley as a condition of keeping her job. Before she filed suit, union bosses demanded the equivalent of full membership dues from her.
In her federal lawsuit, which she filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Crawley sought to defend her rights under the 1988 Right to Work Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
While union officials can force private sector workers in non-Right to Work jurisdictions like the District of Columbia to pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs, the Beck decision prevents union bosses from forcing employees who have abstained from union membership to pay for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions, such as union bosses’ political activities. Full membership dues often contain charges for these unrelated items.
Beck also requires union bosses to furnish nonmembers who invoke their rights under the decision with an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials spend forced contributions.
Beck protections aren’t necessary in Right to Work states like neighboring Virginia, where union membership and all union financial support are fully voluntary.
IGUA Union Bosses Took Full Dues from Guard, Provided No Financial Disclosures
According to the suit, Crawley sent a letter to union officials resigning her union membership back in July 2023. Instead of immediately providing her with her Beck rights, union officials informed her that she would be charged a so-called “agency fee” which “is the same exact cost as what the union members pay.”
“So there will be absolutely no change in a financial sense,” the union’s reply letter stated.
Not satisfied with that explanation, Crawley in September 2023 formally invoked her Beck rights and asked union officials to reduce her dues payments in accordance with the decision. She also asked them to “provide [her] with an accounting, by an independent certified public accountant, that justifies Local 160’s calculation of its agency [forced] fee,” according to her lawsuit.
In an October 2023 reply to her Beck request, union officials used a confusing percentage averaging calculation to determine a fee amount that contradicted what they told Crawley when she resigned her membership. An independent audit of the union’s finances was nowhere to be found. Despite that, Crawley’s lawsuit reported that IGUA bosses continued to collect full union dues from her paycheck, and tried to impose extra steps that would need to be completed if she wanted to see the union’s financial info.
Workers Must Be On Guard for Illegal Union Uses of Worker Funds as Election Nears
After the filing of her lawsuit, Crawley expressed concern that her money was flowing toward union politics while IGUA bosses dragged their feet on honoring her Beck rights. “I shouldn’t have to pay for the IGUA union’s political activity just so I can continue to do my job,” commented Crawley. “Union officials have a legal obligation to stop charging me for politics and provide me with an accounting of how they are using my money, and so far they have done neither. This isn’t how they should treat the workers they say they ‘represent.’”
“We’re pleased that Ms. Crawley was able to terminate IGUA union officials’ outrageous seizure of full union dues from her paycheck,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, IGUA union officials’ inability to follow even the modest limitations that Beck places on their ability to impose mandatory dues on workers is ridiculous, and no worker should have to file a federal lawsuit to force union bosses into recognizing those rights.
“Workers’ right to prevent their money from going toward unwanted union activities, particularly politics, is especially important as union bosses try to push forward their agendas in advance of the 2024 election,” Mix added. “So workers should be vigilant of Beck violations, and remember they can contact Foundation attorneys for free legal aid in exercising their rights under that decision.”
Court of Appeals Hearing Arguments in Case Brought by Southwest Flight Attendant Who Was Illegally Fired for Criticizing Union Officials
District Court jury found and federal judge ruled: TWU union and Southwest violated multiple federal laws in firing Charlene Carter
New Orleans, LA (June 3, 2024) – Today, a three-judge panel of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing arguments in an appeal of a 2022 District Court decision that found that Southwest Airlines and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 556 illegally fired veteran flight attendant Charlene Carter in retaliation for Carter expressing her religious beliefs. Carter filed the lawsuit in 2017 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Her lawsuit against the TWU Local 556 union and Southwest challenged her termination by Southwest at the behest of TWU union officials as a violation of both the Railway Labor Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In 2022, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas awarded Carter $5.1 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages against TWU and Southwest for their respective roles in her unlawful termination.
In December 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered Southwest and the union to give Carter the maximum amount of compensatory and punitive damages permitted under federal law, plus back-pay, and other forms of relief that a jury originally awarded following Carter’s victory in a July 2022 trial. The Court also ordered that Carter be reinstated as a flight attendant at Southwest, writing that, “Southwest may ‘wanna get away’ from Carter because she might continue to express her beliefs, but the jury found that Southwest unlawfully terminated Carter for her protected expressions.”
Both the union and Southwest appealed their loss to the Court of Appeals, resulting in today’s arguments.
Flight Attendant Challenged Union Officials for Their Political Activism
Carter resigned from union membership in 2013 but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. The Railway Labor Act (RLA), the federal law that governs labor relations in the air and rail industries, permits the firing of employees for refusal to pay dues and preempts the protections that state Right to Work laws provide.
However, the RLA does protect employees’ rights to refrain from union membership, to speak out against the union and its leadership, and to advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.
In January 2017, Carter, a pro-life Christian, learned that then-TWU Local 556 President Audrey Stone and other Local 556 officials used union dues to attend a political rally in Washington, D.C., which was sponsored by activist groups she deeply opposed, including Planned Parenthood.
Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, sent private Facebook messages to Stone challenging the union’s support for political positions that were contrary to Carter’s beliefs, and expressing support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message emphasizing her commitment to a National Right to Work law after the union had sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.
After a meeting at which Southwest officials confronted Carter about her posts protesting union officials’ positions, the company fired Carter. In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit challenging the firing as a clear violation of her rights under two federal laws. She maintained that she lost her job because of her religious beliefs and criticized how union officials spent employees’ dues and fees on political activism.
Ultimately, after an eight-day July trial, a federal jury agreed with Carter and her Foundation staff attorneys. In email communications unearthed and introduced at trial by Foundation staff attorneys, TWU union militants advocated for “targeted assassinations” of union dissidents and mocked Carter for being unable to stop her money from going toward union-backed causes she opposed.
“Southwest and TWU union officials made Ms. Carter pay an unconscionable price just because she decided to speak out against the political activities of union officials in accordance with her deeply held religious beliefs,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Yet rather than comply with the jury’s decision and the District Court order, Southwest and TWU union bosses have decided to attempt to defend their ‘targeted assassinations’ against a vocal union critic.
“We are proud to defend Ms. Carter throughout this prolonged legal case to vindicate her rights,” added Mix. “Ultimately, her case should prompt nationwide scrutiny of union bosses’ coercive, government-granted powers over workers, especially in the airline and rail industries, because even after winning her reinstatement Charlene and her colleagues at Southwest and other airlines under union control are forced, as per the Railway Labor Act, to pay money to union officials just to keep their jobs.”
St. Louis KIPP Charter High School Educators’ Vote to Remove Unwanted AFT Union Bosses is Now Official
Federal Labor Board has now certified majority decertification vote to end AFT union officials’ “representation” at the school
St. Louis, MO (May 30, 2024) – Teachers, advisors, nurses, and other employees at KIPP St. Louis High School are officially free of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Local 420 union. Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified the results of the educators’ May 17 decertification vote in which a majority voted to end AFT union officials’ monopoly bargaining powers at the charter high school.
KIPP teacher Robin Johnston filed a petition to decertify the union on May 2 with NLRB Region 14 in St. Louis using free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The petition included the signatures of enough employees at the school to trigger the decertification election, resulting in the 19-17 vote against the AFT.
Because Missouri lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers (which includes employees at public charter schools like KIPP), union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that force workers to pay union dues or fees to get or keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials in a unionized workplace are empowered by federal law to impose a union contract on all employees in the work unit, including those who oppose the union. The successful decertification vote at KIPP St. Louis High School strips AFT union officials of both their forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers.
“AFT union officials never stood up for us and instead undermined our students’ success,” stated Johnston. “This was especially on display when union officials called a divisive strike to demand we abandon our classrooms and our students. I’m grateful for my colleagues who have decided to set our school on a better path without the union.”
The KIPP High School educators are not the only charter school employees who have removed unwanted unions with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. In 2023 in San Diego, CA, employees of Gompers Preparatory Academy prevailed in 2023 after a nearly four-year effort to vote out the San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union, an affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA).
“The decision by KIPP High School educators to remove the union from their school isn’t the first, nor will it be the last time charter school employees decide they are better off without teacher union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The fact is, if it were up to national teacher union bosses at the AFT and NEA, charter schools wouldn’t exist at all. So, it is hardly surprising that the educators at these schools, which provide an alternative to the public schools that are so often under union monopoly control, are choosing to kick out the union officials that oppose their very existence.”
Sofitel Lafayette Square Employees Have Successfully Obtained Secret Ballot Vote to Remove Unite Here Union from Hotel
Hotel employees’ petition seeks to challenge union’s installation without a vote through abuse-prone “card check” process
Washington, DC (May 28, 2024) – After Unite Here union officials imposed union control over hotel employees without a secret ballot vote, workers at Sofitel Washington DC Lafayette Square have successfully obtained an election to remove the union. Sofitel employee Mwandu Chibwe submitted on May 15 a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a decertification election at her workplace. Ms. Chibwe is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Ms. Chibwe’s decertification petition contains well over the threshold of employee signatures needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. The agency has now scheduled a vote to take place at her workplace on June 6, 2024.
Unite Here Local 25 union officials gained power in Ms. Chibwe’s workplace in March through a process called “card check,” which bypasses workers’ right to have an NLRB-administered secret ballot election and instead grants monopoly bargaining power to union officials on the basis of union-solicited “authorization cards.” During a card check drive, union officials can confront workers directly and demand they sign cards, a process that is often rife with threats and misinformation from union officials. Even AFL-CIO organizing manuals admit that workers often sign authorization cards during a card check drive to “get the union off my back.”
Because the District of Columbia lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Unite Here union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that require employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of their monopoly bargaining and forced-dues powers.
Biden Administration Attacking Reforms That Give Workers Opportunity to Vote Out Unions
“I believe that the majority of my fellow employees actually oppose this union and don’t want union bosses trying to speak for them,” Ms. Chibwe commented. “While I wish Unite Here had just respected our right to vote from the beginning, I’m glad we’re getting a chance to vote now.”
Ms. Chibwe and her colleagues were able to obtain an election to remove the union under the auspices of the Election Protection Rule (EPR), a set of Foundation-backed reforms that safeguards workers’ right to have secret ballot votes in the face of various coercive union tactics. The EPR gives workers 45 days after the conclusion of a card check campaign to challenge the union’s claims of majority support by filing petitions for union decertification elections. This process was pioneered by Foundation staff attorneys in the 2007 Dana Corp. NLRB decision; though the Obama NLRB overturned that decision, “Dana elections” were reestablished with the EPR.
The EPR also limits union officials’ ability to delay or stop worker-requested union decertification votes by filing so-called “blocking charges” alleging employer misconduct.
The NLRB adopted the EPR in 2020. However, the Biden NLRB is in the process of rulemaking to eliminate the EPR, as part of its broader agenda to give union bosses more tools to corral workers into unions despite polling showing most American workers are “not interested at all” in joining a union.
“Lafayette Square Sofitel employees successfully petitioned for a vote on whether to remove Unite Here officials, and they did so just steps away from the residence of the man whose administration is trying to strip them of that right – Joe Biden,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re proud that Ms. Chibwe and her colleagues will get their requested union decertification vote. But it’s outrageous that the Biden NLRB will soon condemn workers to a future where they can be forced into union-controlled ranks with little or no opportunity to vote in secret or otherwise challenge union bosses’ power grabs, and then become subject to forced-dues obligations and other union demands.”
Worker Advocate Testifies Before Congress on Need to Defend Employees Against Increasingly Coercive Union Tactics
Testimony: Biden Labor Board undermining rights of workers opposed to union affiliation, censoring speech critical of unions
Washington, DC (May 22, 2024) – This morning, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William L. Messenger is testifying before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions. The Subcommittee, which is chaired by Rep. Bob Good (R-VA), is holding a hearing titled “Exposing Union Tactics to Undermine Free and Fair Elections”.
As a National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney and now as Foundation Legal Director, Messenger has represented both public and private employees in numerous high-profile cases challenging coercive unionism. He was the lead counsel in multiple Supreme Court cases, including the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, where he successfully argued that the First Amendment protects public employees against being compelled to financially support union activities.
Building on his over two decades of experience litigating on behalf of workers, including in cases before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Messenger will testify on some of the ways federal labor law has been twisted, especially by Biden appointees to the NLRB, to undermine the rights of employees opposed to union affiliation in order to promote union bosses’ coercive power.
In his testimony, Messenger documents how the NLRB, including through its radical 2023 Cemex decision, is promoting unreliable and abuse-prone “card check” organizing, undermining the protections workers enjoy by voting on unionization in the privacy of a secret ballot election, and infringing on the First Amendment by censoring speech critical of union officials:
“To suppress speech unfavorable to unions, the Biden NLRB operates the most repressive regime of government censorship in the nation. Even though Congress sought to foster free speech and debate about unionization with NLRA Section 8(c)—which provides that speech cannot be evidence of an unfair labor practice “if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit”—the Biden NLRB flouts that limitation by declaring employer utterances unfavorable to unions, or even just questions about unions, to carry unspoken and implicit threats or promises of benefit…
“Cemex itself is designed to muffle speech critical of unionization. The Biden NLRB’s rationale for nullifying secret ballot elections if an employer engages in speech or conduct NLRB officials consider wrongful, and installing the union as the employees’ representative without an election, is to dissuade employers from engaging in such speech or conduct. This rationale is perverse—the agency plans to deprive employees of their right to vote if their employer says or does something NLRB officials disapprove of. This is like a kidnapper threatening to harm innocent hostages if his victim does not comply with his extortionate demands.”
Testifying alongside Messenger will be Stephen Delie of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michael Alcorn, a Trader Joe’s employee who saw firsthand the ways unions and their allies at the NLRB undermine the rights of workers who may be skeptical of unionization, and Lynn Rhinehart of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). EPI is a union-funded front group whose Board of Directors includes many of the most powerful union bosses in the country.
“This hearing shines a badly-needed spotlight on the many ways the Biden NLRB has abandoned its Congressional mandate to be a neutral enforcer of the law, and instead is acting as a taxpayer-funded organizing arm for Big Labor,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Through its oversight and legislative powers Congress has an important role to play in stopping the Labor Board from continuing to undermine the freedoms of the vast majority of American workers who want nothing to do with union affiliation.”
