Piscataway L’Oreal Employee Says RWDSU Union Boss Threats and Misinformation Undermined Vote to Oust Union
Worker’s objections to election assert that union bosses threatened employees critical of union and sowed racial division; new election sought
Piscataway, NJ (November 6, 2023) – Ana Maria Hoyos Lopez, an employee of L’Oreal USA Products, is asking for a rerun election based on charges that Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU-UFCW) Local 262 officials interfered in a vote she and her coworkers requested to remove the union. In election objections filed with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 22 in Newark, Hoyos Lopez maintains that union officials threatened workers who voiced objections to union officials’ performance, misrepresented facts about the employer’s healthcare plans, used racially-charged tactics, and perpetrated other coercive conduct in the weeks leading up to the election.
Hoyos Lopez is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. In September, also with Foundation aid, she filed a petition which contained enough signatures from her coworkers to prompt the NLRB to hold a vote to remove the union (a “decertification election”) at her workplace. The vote took place at L’Oreal USA’s Piscataway facility through October 19 and October 20.
Objections Assert RWDSU Union Officials Yelled at, Chased Employees Who Expressed Concerns with Union, Made Racial Appeals
Hoyos Lopez’s objections focus on a September 22 meeting that union bosses held to push workers to vote for the union. According to the filing, during the meeting, Hoyos Lopez and some other employees brought up problems with the union’s performance, including lack of communication between the employees and union officials, and the poor quality of the union contract. In response, “[t]he pro-decertification employees were yelled down, the president of the Union shouted expletives at them in a threatening and coercive manner, and union officials demanded that they leave the meeting.”
During the same meeting, the objections state, Hoyos Lopez attempted to film the threatening actions of union officials, but a union official accosted her further and “proceeded to chase after Petitioner despite the fact that she had already left the pavilion” at the public park the meeting was occurring at.
“Outside the pavilion [a union official] demanded that Petitioner leave the park entirely, and threatened to call the cops on her if they did not comply,” the objections state. During the same meeting, union officials also asked Hoyos Lopez to withdraw her petition or asked other employees to request she do so.
Hoyos Lopez also asserts in the objections that, in the weeks leading up to the election, union officials “misrepresented the difference in health insurance policies offered by the Union compared to those offered by the Employer,” interfered with the laboratory conditions of the election by speaking to employees as they were in line to vote, and sent text messages that “intrusively asked employees on which day they would be voting.”
The final objection states that RWDSU-UFCW bosses engaged in racial tactics to swing the vote in favor of the union. Union officials told employees that white managers in the U.S. are racist and don’t want to promote Hispanics, and that employees “should vote for the Union to defend their rights.”
“This appeal to racial and ethnic prejudice is coercive and despicable, and is grounds to set aside the election,” the objections conclude.
As RWDSU Union Bosses Shut Down Employee Vote, Biden NLRB Seeks Less Worker Freedom
Hoyos Lopez’s objections will now be investigated and a rerun election will occur if the NLRB determines union officials’ actions were objectionable and interfered with employees’ free choice in the election.
“If RWDSU union officials truly believed they would win an election among L’Oreal employees, they would not engage in such acts of coercion, including threatening the employees they claim to ‘represent,’ misrepresenting facts prior to the vote, and shamelessly sowing division,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We will continue to fight for Ms. Hoyos Lopez and her coworkers to get a fair opportunity to freely choose whether RWDSU bosses should remain in their workplace.”
“Unfortunately, instead of beefing up protections on worker-requested elections, the Biden NLRB is seeking big policy changes that will make it easier for union officials to gain power without a vote,” added Mix.
Seattle Mariners Retail Employee Challenges Seattle NLRB Officials’ Refusal to Certify Overwhelming Vote Against Union
By not certifying vote of over 80+ percent against UFCW, NLRB Region 19 officials permit union to dodge legal consequences of losing vote
Seattle, WA (October 20, 2023) – Following an overwhelming workplace vote to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials, Seattle Mariners MLB retail employee Tami Kecherson filed a Request for Review defending the election result at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC. The Request for Review comes after NLRB Region 19 officials in Seattle refused to certify the 50-9 vote result, and instead permitted UFCW union officials to “disclaim” interest in the bargaining unit and avoid restrictions on regaining control over the employees that normally apply to unions that lose elections.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are providing free legal aid to Kecherson in her effort to defend the election victory. The Request for Review recounts that, after the worker-requested union decertification vote finally took place, UFCW union officials filed “blocking charges” against Mariners management in an attempt to delay the certification of the vote. “Blocking charges” contain unverified and often groundless allegations of employer interference in a union election.
NLRB Region 19’s investigation of UFCW officials’ “blocking charges” delayed the certification of the employees’ vote for months, the Request for Review notes, but in September UFCW bosses withdrew their apparently frivolous blocking charges and instead filed paperwork announcing they were “voluntarily” leaving the facility.
When Foundation attorneys contacted NLRB Region 19 to determine when the vote certification would occur now that the meritless charges were withdrawn, NLRB officials instead declared that certification would not occur, presumably because the union had just disclaimed interest and walked away. Further, NLRB officials effectively stated that the UFCW union would be allowed to skirt the statutory one-year restriction on regaining control in the workplace that applies to unions that lose elections, and would only be barred from the workplace for a much shorter period.
“This is akin to an employee fired for insubordination yelling ‘you can’t fire me, I quit,’ but only much worse,” the Request for Review argues. “That is so because Region 19 is arbitrarily allowing Local 3000 to get away with a rather grotesque form of gamesmanship…This cannot be allowed to occur under the [National Labor Relations Act] and the Board’s rules.”
Union Legal Maneuvering Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Diminish Worker Vote
Foundation-backed reforms that the NLRB adopted in 2020 (also known as the “Election Protection Rule”) permitted the Seattle Mariners employees to challenge UFCW officials’ ascent to power, which the union accomplished via “card check” – a scheme that bypasses the NLRB secret-ballot election process. The Election Protection Rule permitted the employees to petition for a secret ballot decertification election and vote the union out after the card check occurred. However, the Biden NLRB has already announced a proposal to repeal the “Election Protection Rule” and make card check organizing drives much harder for employees to contest.
In light of that, the one-year period of freedom from union control that the NLRB denied the Seattle Mariners workers is absolutely vital. Without it, UFCW officials could move to foist the union back on the employees through card check in less than a year, and, if the Election Protection Rule has been wiped out by then, the workers may be unable to challenge the card check with a secret ballot vote.
“The game UFCW union officials are playing with Seattle Mariners employees’ rights is sinister, but obvious: Game the system to avoid the full consequences of losing an election among the workers they claimed to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It doesn’t help that the Biden NLRB is simultaneously pursuing policies that make it nigh impossible for employees to free themselves of the control of union officials who attempt such manipulation.”
“Refusing to certify an overwhelming worker vote against a union due simply to union legal maneuvering is disrespecting workers’ free choice rights, plain and simple,” Mix added.
Federal Charge: East Bay-Area Construction Materials Worker Illegally Fired for Refusing to Join Union
NLRB investigating IUOE union bosses for retaliatory termination and seizing dues from employee’s paycheck in violation of longstanding law
Pleasanton, CA (October 17, 2023) – Alexandra Le, an employee of Pleasanton-based materials testing company Construction Testing Services (CTS), has hit International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) officials and CTS with federal charges. The charges state IUOE bosses illegally demanded she join the union as a condition of keeping her job and instigated her firing by CTS when she refused to join. Additionally, Le’s charges maintain that company and union officials violated the law by deducting union dues directly from her paycheck without her permission.
Le, a firestop inspector, filed the charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 32 in Oakland, CA, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. She notes in her charges that IUOE officials not only failed to inform her of her right to abstain from union membership, but also never notified her of her right to pay a reduced amount of union dues as a nonmember.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Le and her coworkers can be forced to pay some dues to the union as a condition of keeping their jobs, even if they’ve abstained from formal union membership. However, as per the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, even in non-Right to Work states union officials can’t force nonmember employees to pay for union expenses beyond what the union claims goes to bargaining, such as union politics. Other Supreme Court precedents and federal labor laws protect workers’ right to refrain from formal union membership and require union bosses to seek workers’ express consent before deducting dues directly from their paychecks.
In Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are fully voluntary.
“It’s outrageous that IUOE union officials believe they can get me fired simply because I don’t agree with their organization and don’t want to support or affiliate with them,” Le said. “IUOE union officials have been far more concerned with consolidating power in the workplace and collecting dues than caring about me and my coworkers, and I hope the NLRB will hold them responsible for their illegal actions.”
Worker Demands NLRB Step in to Reverse Union-Instigated Firing, Illegal Demands
Le’s charge against the IUOE union states that, after she refused to affiliate with the union, IUOE bosses “caused Charging Party to be removed from the work schedule by her Employer as of October 2nd.” The NLRB v. General Motors Corp. U.S. Supreme Court decision protects the right of workers to refuse formal union membership, even in a non-Right to Work state.
As a remedy, the charge asks the NLRB Regional Director in Oakland to “invoke its authority under Section 10(j)” of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which empowers the Board to seek an injunction from a federal court to stop IUOE and CTS management from committing the unfair labor practices.
“Le’s charges show that IUOE union officials, in their apparent greed for forced dues, have ignored numerous longstanding legal protections for workers opposed to union affiliation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the union’s anti-worker actions would be wildly unlawful in any state in the country, they reveal the importance of state Right to Work protections: No worker should be forced to give any amount of their hard-earned paycheck to union officials who threaten and misinform the employees they claim to ‘represent,’ or simply haven’t earned workers’ support.”
Buffalo Starbucks Worker Files Groundbreaking Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of NLRB Structure
Regional NLRB blocked employee and her coworkers from voting out union majority disapproved of, new lawsuit challenges agency’s authority
Buffalo, NY (October 4, 2023) – Buffalo “Del-Chip” Starbucks employee Ariana Cortes has hit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with a federal lawsuit, arguing that the federal agency’s current structure violates the separation of powers. The lawsuit, filed with the District Court for the District of Columbia, follows Cortes’ challenge to an NLRB Regional Director’s dismissal of her and her coworkers’ petition seeking a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their store.
Cortes is receiving free legal aid in both proceedings from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The lawsuit contends that, because NLRB Board Members cannot be removed at-will by the President, the NLRB’s structure violates Article II of the Constitution.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law which established the Board, restricts a president’s ability to remove Board members except for neglect of duty or malfeasance. The complaint argues that “[t]hese restrictions are impermissible limitations on the President’s ability to remove Board members and violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. Thus, the Board, as currently constituted, is unconstitutional.”
“The Supreme Court made clear in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) and Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) that under Article II of the Constitution, the President must be able to remove federal officials who exercise substantial executive power,” the complaint states. “The five-member NLRB exercises substantial executive power because it issues binding rules, adjudicates unfair labor practices and representation disputes, issues subpoenas, and decides whether and how to direct and conduct elections in representation cases.”
Regional NLRB Dismisses Starbucks Employees’ Request to Vote Out Union
On April 28, Cortes filed a petition, backed by the majority of her coworkers, that requests the NLRB conduct a decertification election at her workplace to end the monopoly bargaining power of SBWU union officials. NLRB Region 3 dismissed Cortes’ petition based on unfair labor practice charges SBWU union officials filed against Starbucks, despite there being no proven connection between those allegations and the decertification petition.
Cortes’ Foundation-provided attorneys filed a Request for Review with the Board challenging this dismissal order. That appeal contrasted the standard the NLRB often applies to petitions to certify unions, which usually proceed with little to no delay, with the standard the NLRB applies to petitions to decertify unions, which are often hamstrung and delayed.
New Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Temporarily Enjoin Unconstitutional Proceedings
Cortes’ new federal lawsuit seeks a declaration from the District Court that the structure of the NLRB as it currently exists is unconstitutional, and an injunction halting the NLRB from proceeding with her decertification case until her federal lawsuit is resolved.
“For too long the NLRB, especially the current Board, has operated as a union boss-friendly kangaroo court, complete with powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As the story of Ms. Cortes shows, the NLRB’s unchecked power creates real harms for workers’ rights, especially when workers seek to free themselves from the control of union bosses they disagree with.”
National Right to Work Foundation Files SCOTUS Brief Defending Alaska’s Protections Against Forced Union Dues
Alaska facing ASEA union lawsuit over arrangement which requires union bosses to obtain affirmative consent from employees before deducting dues
Washington, DC (September 29, 2023) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Alaska v. Alaska State Employees Association. The brief supports the State of Alaska’s attempt to safeguard public sector workers’ First Amendment right to refrain from paying dues to a union they disapprove of. This right was first recognized in the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, which was successfully argued at the High Court by Foundation Legal Director William Messenger.
In the 2018 Janus decision, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects public sector employees from being forced to pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. The High Court further recognized that unions must obtain a worker’s freely given waiver of his or her Janus rights before deducting union dues or fees from his or her paycheck.
In an attempt to ensure his state wasn’t violating its employees’ constitutional rights, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued an executive order to protect workers’ Janus rights: The order requires the state to obtain consent from workers each year to deduct union dues from their paychecks. This arrangement ensures that the “freely given consent” element of Janus is satisfied, while also preventing union bosses from continuing to deduct money from a worker’s wages based on a “yes” given years ago.
However, Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA) union bosses sued the State of Alaska over its Janus protections, and were able to get the state’s highest court to block the arrangement. Even worse, as Foundation staff attorneys point out in the amicus brief, “five Circuit Courts have now held that states and unions can constitutionally seize payments for union speech from dissenting employees without proof they waived their constitutional rights.”
Amicus Brief: Lower Courts and States Are Letting Unions Seize Dues Without Workers’ Consent
The Foundation’s amicus brief maintains that, after the Janus decision, at least seventeen states either “amended their dues deduction laws…to require government employers to enforce restrictions on when employees can stop payroll deductions of union dues,” or “enforced restrictions on stopping payroll deductions under preexisting state laws.” Both lead to unacceptable restraints on public sector workers’ Janus rights, the amicus brief argues.
The amicus brief further contends that lower courts, especially the Ninth Circuit, have misinterpreted Janus to not require public employers to notify public workers of their Janus rights before collecting dues, which dips below the “waiver” standard mandated by the decision. Additionally, the amicus brief points out that the Ninth Circuit has issued decisions that free public employers from any obligation to prove that union bosses obtained authentic consent from workers before dues are taken from their wages.
“Unless the Court grants review and breathes new life into Janus’ waiver requirement, unions and their government allies will continue to severely restrict the right of millions of employees to stop subsidizing union speech,” the amicus brief concludes. “The Court should not tolerate this resistance to its holding in Janus.”
“Public sector union bosses, who prize their own dues-funded political influence far above the individual rights of the employees they claim to ‘represent,’ have tried everything in their power to dodge the Janus ruling and keep siphoning money from workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The Supreme Court has an opportunity in the State of Alaska’s case to set the record straight and ensure that workers’ free association rights can’t simply be molded according to their own schemes.”
NJ Medieval Times Employees Appeal to National Labor Relations Board in Ongoing Joust with Union Officials
Majority of Lyndhurst Medieval Times cast members signed petition asking Labor Board for election to remove union, but union is stalling vote
Newark, NJ (September 21, 2023) – Artemisia Morley, a cast member at the Lyndhurst, NJ, location of Medieval Times, has submitted a Request for Review to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., defending her and her coworkers’ right to vote unwanted officials of the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA) union out of the workplace. Morley is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Morley’s Request for Review challenges NLRB Region 22’s hurried dismissal of a petition she filed on behalf of her coworkers seeking an election to remove the AGVA union (also known as a “decertification election”). Her petition contained the signatures of a strong majority of her coworkers, but the Regional Director dismissed it “without any hearing, and without citing any evidence that there was a ‘causal nexus’ between the Employees’ disaffection from the Union” and unproven allegations that union officials had levied against the employer.
Because New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, AGVA union officials have the power to force Morley and her coworkers to pay union fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in states with Right to Work laws, union bosses can’t enter agreements with employers that force employees to fork over a portion of their paychecks to the union just to get or keep a job.
“Secretive” and “Self-Interested” AGVA Union Officials Tried to Stifle Worker-Requested Vote
The Request for Review notes that AGVA union officials were “secretive, self-interested, and divisive,” and “regularly advocated that the [Medieval Times] employees go on strike, something that had no support among the unit employees.” After waiting out the statutory one-year bar on union elections that follows a union’s certification, Morley filed the petition requesting a union decertification vote.
According to the Request for Review, instead of processing the petition as NLRB rules dictate, NLRB Region 22 issued a complaint against the employer and dismissed Morley’s petition based on unproven “blocking charges” AGVA union officials filed against Medieval Times management. The Request for Review argues that the hasty dismissal violated NLRB election rules, the Administrative Procedure Act, and well-established NLRB precedent requiring a hearing to demonstrate whether union allegations of employer misconduct actually caused employee discontent with the union.
“None of the alleged unfair labor practice allegations…concern the Employees’ collection of the decertification signatures or the Employer’s domination of the Union. Thus…an election should be held and the votes immediately counted,” the Request for Review contends. “Even if the Board determined the allegations warranted consideration under [NLRB rules], its plain terms prohibit dismissing a petition prior to an election.”
Case May Be Used to Push Radical Agenda of Biden-Appointed NLRB General Counsel
In 2020, the NLRB adopted Foundation-backed reforms that made it less difficult for workers to eliminate an unwanted union. One reform pared back union officials’ ability to use “blocking charges” to stop worker-requested decertification elections from happening. The reform instead created a process in which charges surrounding an election are litigated after employees have gotten to exercise their right to vote. Instead of applying this rule, NLRB Region 22 dismissed Morley and her coworkers’ requested election.
The Request for Review notes that NLRB Region 22’s complaint, which incorporated AGVA union officials’ unproven allegations against the employer, does not appear designed to help workers “but rather to twist the law and facts beyond recognition in order to aid the current [NLRB] General Counsel’s ideological crusade to overturn decades of settled Board law about bargaining obligations and employer free speech.” Biden-appointed NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a former union lawyer, has thrown her weight behind other recent cases to uproot longstanding NLRB precedent, often to give more power to union bosses at the expense of workers’ freedom.
“Aided by regional NLRB officials, AGVA union officials seem determined to send the individual rights of Medieval Times workers back to the Dark Ages,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “NLRB election rules clearly forbid union officials from using completely unproven charges of employer misconduct to derail workers’ ability to have a vote on whether they want continued union representation.”
“Federal labor law is supposed to protect the fundamental right of workers to freely decide who will speak for them in workplace matters, and Foundation staff attorneys will fight for Morley and her coworkers as AGVA bosses try to turn this commonsense principle on its head,” Mix added.
Wisconsin Spartek Workers Successfully Force Out UE Union Officials as Labor Board’s Policy Shift Looms
United Electrical union flees Spartek after majority of workers petition against union
Sparta, WI (September 14, 2023) – Employees from metal manufacturing company Spartek have prevailed in their effort to oust United Electrical Workers (UE) Local 1161 union officials from their facility. Following the workers’ submission of a petition asking National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 18 to hold an election in the workplace on whether the union should be removed, UE union bosses sent a letter to Spartek management disclaiming interest in continuing their control over the workplace.
Spartek employee Carl Berg filed the petition with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The petition, which contained signatures from the majority of Berg’s coworkers, exceeded the 30% threshold NLRB rules require to trigger a union decertification vote in a workplace.
Because Wisconsin is a state with Right to Work protections, union officials can’t force private sector employees like those at Spartek 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 enter into agreements 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.
“UE union officials hadn’t really done anything for us. After making a bunch of promises, they barely showed their faces around the workplace,” commented Berg. “I filed the decertification petition because a majority of my coworkers wanted to remove the UE union, and the fact that the union disclaimed interest so fast probably speaks to the fact that the union officials knew they hadn’t been doing a good job.”
Biden NLRB Seeks to Further Burden Workers’ Right to Decertify Unwanted Unions
In 2020, the NLRB adopted Foundation-backed policy reforms that made the union decertification process less difficult for workers. The reforms, among other things, pared back union officials’ ability to use unverified allegations of employer wrongdoing (also known as “blocking charges”) to stall a worker-requested decertification vote. However, the Biden NLRB has announced that it will soon issue a rule overturning these commonsense reforms.
The repeal of the Election Protection Rule will also let union officials shut down worker attempts to obtain a secret ballot decertification vote for a year after union officials install themselves in a workplace via the so-called “card check” process. This move will be particularly dangerous to workers’ rights now that the Biden-appointed majority on the NLRB has voted to mandate card check recognition. Under the abuse-prone card check process, union officials bypass the NLRB’s traditional secret ballot vote procedures and instead use cards collected directly from workers – often through coercive or intimidating tactics – as “votes” for unionization.
“Workers across the country are successfully exercising their right to kick out unwanted union officials, especially with Foundation aid,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This trend is a threat to the Biden Administration’s union boss political allies, and the Administration has been pursuing a radical agenda to trap workers under unions’ so-called ‘representation’ and increase the influence and dues revenue of its favorite special interest.”
“This agenda is toxic to workers’ individual rights, and Foundation staff attorneys will continue to assist workers in defending their right to decertify a union even amidst this legal and regulatory assault,” Mix added.
