Puerto Rico Public Workers Defend First Amendment Right to Stop Union Dues Payments in Federal Court Arguments
Two arguments held this week at First Circuit Court of Appeals involve rights under landmark Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision
San Juan, PR (October 30, 2025) – Oral arguments for two lawsuits in which Puerto Rico public employees are defending their First Amendment rights under the Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision are taking place before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan this week. Both sets of workers are receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The Supreme Court recognized in the landmark Janus decision that all public sector workers have a First Amendment right to cut off dues payments to union officials. The Janus ruling further clarified that union officials cannot deduct union dues from any public sector worker’s paycheck unless he has affirmatively waived his First Amendment right not to pay. Foundation staff attorneys argued and won Janus in 2018.
Despite Janus’ clear standards, union officials have attempted to circumvent the decision in a number of ways, necessitating further Foundation legal action.
PRASA Employee Fights Blatantly Illegal Forced-Dues Statute
The first Foundation case, Cruz v. UIA, which the First Circuit heard Wednesday, involves Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) employee Reynaldo Cruz’s attempt to reclaim union dues money that officials of the Authentic Independent Union of Water and Sewer Authority Employees (UIA) took in violation of the First Amendment. Cruz’s lawsuit challenged both union bosses’ demands that he pay union dues or lose his job, as well as the Puerto Rico territorial laws that greenlight such unconstitutional demands.
As opposed to resolving the legal claims in his case, the Puerto Rico District Court confusingly ruled Cruz’s case “moot” after UIA union officials remitted his illegally-seized dues money to the Clerk of the District Court. Cruz has still not received his money, and argues that his Janus rights will not be vindicated until a judgment is entered in his favor.
UPR Workers Seek to Vindicate Years of Illegal Dues Deductions
The second Foundation case, which the First Circuit is slated to hear Friday (Ramos v. Delgado), is a challenge from University of Puerto Rico (UPR) maintenance employees Jose Ramos, Antonio Mendez, Jose Cotto, and Igneris Perez. They argue that union officials seized union dues from their paychecks for years both in violation of Janus and other legal protections that predate Janus.
Ramos and the other plaintiffs contend that union officials never sought their consent properly for dues deductions both before and after the Janus decision, and that they should receive refunds of all dues taken unlawfully within the 15-year statute of limitations.
“Janus laid out the very simple principle that public sector workers – not union bosses – should be in charge of deciding whether a union has earned their financial support,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Despite Janus’ clear constitutional command, union bosses and legislators still try to skirt it, and courts still allow obvious violations to go unpunished. In Mr. Cruz’s case, the District Court refused to even examine a Puerto Rico statute that authorizes illegal forced-dues language in public sector union contracts.
“All public sector workers deserve the free choice that Janus secures, and Foundation attorneys will continue to back them in their court battles for freedom,” Mix added.
Johns Hopkins Ph.D. Student Slams UE Union With Federal Charges for Demanding She Divulge Private Info
Union demanded student be discharged even though nothing in union contract or federal law requires students to give up such info
Baltimore, MD (October 24, 2025) – Andrea Ori, a molecular biophysics Ph.D. candidate at Johns Hopkins, has filed federal charges against United Electrical (UE) union officials at the university. She maintains that UE union bosses demanded her ouster from the academic program because she refused to turn over confidential financial records protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Ori filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between union officials, employers, and employees that arise under the statute. Even though the NLRA doesn’t include graduate students in its definition of “employees,” Obama NLRB appointees ruled in the controversial 2016 Columbia University decision that the NLRA allows union officials to gain monopoly bargaining power over graduate students at private universities, like Johns Hopkins.
Furthermore, Maryland is a state that lacks Right to Work protections, meaning union officials have the government-granted power to force those under their bargaining control to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
At private universities in non-Right to Work states, union bosses can effectively end the graduate programs of students who refuse to pay union dues.
However, graduate students can opt out of dues payment for union political activities by invoking their rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America vs. Beck SCOTUS decision. Federal antidiscrimination law also requires that union officials and university administrators provide religious accommodations for students who oppose union financial support on religious grounds.
Charges: Threatening Student With Termination for Guarding Confidential Financial Info is Illegal “Industrial Capital Punishment” Under Federal Law
Ori, who had successfully obtained a religious accommodation to union dues payment in 2024, now maintains in her charge that UE union officials ordered her for months to turn over pay stubs and other documents that contain private information. Her charges argue that union officials made these demands arbitrarily and in bad faith.
“Nothing in the [union contract], the Charging Party’s religious accommodation, or the NLRA required Charging Party to disclose this private financial information, which was also protected by FERPA,” Ori’s charges say. FERPA generally requires student or parental consent before educational institutions can disclose identifying information to third parties, like unions. Union officials have no right to receive students’ private information.
Even though these demands have no basis, the charges say, UE union bosses are still trying to upend Ori’s academic career. “After months of threatening Charging Party and harassing her to produce these unnecessary and private financial documents containing personal information, the [UE] formally demanded that the University discharge Charging Party,” the charges say. Ori’s attorneys are arguing that the NLRB should consider the union’s wrongful discharge request a form of industrial capital punishment.
“Ms. Ori’s case is just the latest Foundation legal action to show why giving union bosses power over graduate students was never a good idea,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials, who are often radical political operatives, have threatened academic freedom from coast-to-coast with their federally-enforced clout over university administrations. But, as Ms. Ori’s case shows, they are also threatening graduate students’ careers by acting as if they have a right to send them packing for not divulging their private information.
“Foundation attorneys stand ready to defend graduate students anywhere from these and other rights violations by union officials,” Mix added. “The obvious conflict between these union boss power grabs over graduate students and students’ statutory privacy rights under FERPA is yet another reminder that Congress never intended for such students to be subjected to monopoly unionism under the National Labor Relations Act.”
Heavy Equipment Operators File Federal Charges Against Operating Engineers Union for Illegal Retaliation
IUOE union officials unlawfully threatened “internal discipline” fines against workers who continued employment with nonunion contractor
Lawrenceville, GA (October 21, 2025) – A group of construction industry employees of Dennis Taylor & Co. have filed federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 926 alleging IUOE union officials subjected them to illegal post-resignation discipline after the employees legally resigned their union memberships.
The workers’ charges were filed at the NLRB with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
The employees, Michael Mitchem, Billy Johnson, David Johnson, and Chris Oaks resigned their IUOE memberships months or years ago. Despite this, union officials are threatening the workers with fines, apparently for working at Dennis Taylor & Co., which once was part of a “hiring hall” arrangement with IUOE, but no longer is.
The resignations came after Dennis Taylor & Co. removed itself from an arrangement to hire employees through an IUOE union boss-controlled hiring hall. In theory, both union members and nonmembers can utilize union-run hiring halls to find employment with employers that have decided to utilize the hiring hall to fill openings. However there is a long history of union officials using hiring halls to discriminate against nonmembers and coerce workers into formal union membership in order to attain employment.
The charges filed by Michael Mitchem, Billy Johnson, and Chris Oaks each state that even before formally resigning from the union, the employees were never voluntary union members, as they had been misled into believing that union membership was mandatory. Though union officials frequently mislead workers into believing that formal union membership is required, the problem is especially prevalent when employment involves union hiring halls.
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 such voluntary union membership.
“Contrary to the apparent wishes of IUOE Local 926 union bosses, formal union membership cannot be required as a condition of employment, a precedent in place since the early 1960s,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It is outrageous that IUOE union officials are attempting to barge back into the lives of these workers years after they’ve legally exercised their rights, and are now illegally threatening them with fines simply for working to provide for themselves and their families.”
Starbucks Baristas File Brief Urging Supreme Court to Allow President to Remove Rogue Agency Officers
National Right to Work Foundation-backed federal case for Starbucks employees was first federal case to argue that NLRB officials can’t be shielded from the President’s oversight
Washington, DC (October 20, 2025) – Two Starbucks employees represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed an amicus brief at the United States Supreme Court in the case Trump v. Slaughter. The brief argues that restrictions on the President’s authority to fire members of executive bodies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), are unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers.
The amicus brief was filed on behalf of Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two New York Starbucks employees who challenged the constitutionality of the structure of the NLRB in a separate federal court case with the assistance of Foundation staff attorneys.
Since 2023, Foundation staff attorneys have pioneered the legal argument that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional because it places restrictions on the President’s authority to fire the NLRB’s members, despite it being part of the executive branch of government. This disconnect exemplifies the problem of federal bureaucrats operating as an unaccountable, “headless fourth branch,” something clearly at odds with the government’s constitutional structure.
Now, the Trump Administration is using this same argument as a justification to fire members of the FTC. Rebecca Slaughter, a Biden appointee to the FTC, has sued to be reinstated, and the case is now before the Supreme Court. The Foundation-backed amicus brief argues that as the Court considers the FTC, it must keep in mind that other so-called “independent agencies” that wield executive power, such as the NLRB, must be subject to Presidential control and removal.
Supreme Court May Reverse Humphrey’s, Must Recognize Its Limitations
Trump v. Slaughter provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to reverse its decision in the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Court crafted an exception to the general rule that the President can remove principal officers at will under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In theory, Humphrey’s exempted agencies that exercised “quasi-judicial” or “quasi-legislative” power, but not those that exercise executive power.
But regardless of the Court’s reevaluation of the case, “the NLRB fails the Humphrey’s Executor test,” the brief argues.
“The NLRB is a policymaking body that enforces the [National Labor Relations Act] based on its legal conclusions, not scientific or technical judgments,” write Foundation staff attorneys. “[T]he Board does not exercise quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial authority. It exercises executive power in everything it does.”
The brief concludes with the Foundation’s legal argument that Humphrey’s “cannot neuter the President’s ability to supervise those who exercise substantial parts of [executive] power.” Therefore, the Supreme Court “should make clear that the President’s removal power applies to every agency that exercises executive power, including the NLRB.”
Clear Separation of Powers Would Support Workers’ Individual Rights
A proper understanding of the limitations of Humphrey’s when it comes to executive bodies like the NLRB would support workers like Cortes and Karam as they exercise their individual rights. Cortes and Karam are trying to exercise their right to remove local union bosses from their respective workplaces. But non-statutory policies enforced by the pro-Big Labor Biden NLRB have stymied their efforts. Success in this case could help ensure that Cortes and Karam receive a fair judgment from the NLRB in their cases.
“Unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats have caused direct harm to independent-minded workers and their individual rights, and the Supreme Court should rightfully restore the proper separation of powers, including at the NLRB,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We are proud that the very legal arguments made by Foundation attorneys are now being utilized by this administration to dismantle the unaccountable fourth branch of government and restore proper constitutional structure.”
City of Everett Employee Appeals to Washington State PERC in Case Challenging Unconstitutional Money Seizures by AFSCME Officials
Appeal: Employer botched handling employee request to cut off dues deductions, AFSCME union officials refuse to return ill-gotten money
Olympia, WA (October 17, 2025) – City of Everett employee Xenia Davidsen is asking the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) to reverse a ruling letting union bosses and city officials off the hook for taking union dues from her paycheck after she requested a stop to further deductions. Davidsen is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Davidsen’s case charges American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials and City of Everett officials with seizing union dues from her paycheck after she invoked her First Amendment rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Supreme Court recognized that public employees have a First Amendment right to refuse to pay dues to an unwanted union in their workplace. Janus also held that union officials can only deduct union dues and fees from a public sector worker who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Davidsen’s latest filing in her case, which is an appeal from a PERC Hearing Examiner’s ruling, maintains that after revoking her dues-deduction authorization, “on 14 separate pay periods…dues were nevertheless deducted from her paycheck.” According to the appeal, Davidsen requested that dues deductions end in June 2024, at which point union officials informed the City of Everett that it should cease remitting money from her paychecks into the union’s accounts.
However, the appeal says, “the [City of Everett] failed to follow these instructions because it failed to monitor the email address that it had designated for the Union to communicate dues revocations.” Even worse, AFSCME union officials twelve times accepted dues money that City officials wrongfully took from Davidsen’s paycheck.
“On none of those…instances did the Union stop to question why it was accepting dues that it knew were unauthorized to it,” Davidsen’s brief says, yet the PERC Hearing Examiner did not find any violation of Washington labor law on the union’s part. Davidsen also contests the Hearing Examiner’s logic freeing the City of Everett from any fault regarding its improper handling of the notification to stop dues deductions: “Under the Hearing Officer’s reasoning…[the City of Everett] could indefinitely deduct dues that it has constructive notice it must put a stop to.”
Davidsen’s appeal argues that the PERC Hearing Officer incorrectly ruled Davidsen’s complaint as being filed too late under the six-month statute of limitations. Instead of treating each dues deduction from Davidsen’s paycheck as a separate violation of the law, Davidsen’s attorneys argue, the Hearing Examiner arbitrarily treated City of Everett officials’ ignoring her instruction to stop dues deductions as the only event at issue, putting the date of her original complaint outside the statute of limitations.
“AFSCME union officials believe they should be able to hold onto the hard-earned money of dissenting employees like Ms. Davidsen simply because they and City of Everett officials refuse to correct their own misdeeds,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While this certainly shows the contempt that AFSCME officials have for public employees’ First Amendment Janus rights, it’s even more worrying that PERC officials are doing legal gymnastics to let union bosses get away with it.
“Under Janus, union bosses must now convince public sector workers to voluntarily support their agenda, and are not entitled to take – or keep – any money they know was seized without that voluntarism,” Mix added.
Right to Work Foundation Urges Ninth Circuit to Reject CA Law Granting Union Bosses Massive Power Over Cannabis Industry Workers
Amicus brief: “Labor peace agreement” mandate violates federal law and subjects workers to coercive union organizing tactics
San Francisco, CA (October 8, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Ctrl Alt Destroy v. Elliott, arguing that California’s regulatory regime imposing so-called “labor peace agreements” on the cannabis industry violates federal law.
These so-called “agreements,” which cannabis companies must adhere to in order to maintain a license under California law, rig the law against workers opposed to union control by censoring speech critical of unionization. They also mandate that employers grant union campaigners access to employees.
“Since 1968, the Foundation has been the nation’s leading litigation advocate for employee freedom to choose whether to associate with unions,” the amicus brief reads. “The Foundation has an interest in this case because it concerns whether California can lawfully subject employees of cannabis retailers to union organizing agreements.”
The Foundation’s amicus brief argues in particular that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts California’s “labor peace agreement” statutes. The NLRA is the federal law that governs most private sector labor relations. The four conditions mandated for cannabis companies under California law, “an agreement with a…union, a ban on disrupting union organizing, a ban on union members picketing, boycotting, or striking, and a clause granting union organizers access to employees at work” all concern activity that the U.S. Congress intended the NLRA to deal with – not state law.
CA Statutes Force Employers to Bargain With Union Bosses Their Employees Never Voted For
Notably, the brief explains that California’s labor law requires cannabis employers to bargain with union officials – even if a majority of employees have not expressed that they want a union in the workplace. “California obligating employers to simply bargain with unions over labor peace agreements runs also afoul of [Supreme Court precedent] because the NLRA contains no such obligation,” the brief says. “The NLRA only requires employers to bargain with unions after a majority of employees choose that union to be their exclusive representative, but not before as California’s law does.”
Federal law also preempts California’s mandate that cannabis employers provide union bosses access to workers, the brief contends. The mandate lets union agitators intrude on private property so they can subject employees to campaign activity whether they want it or not. “This requirement unconstitutionally deprives employers of their property rights,” the brief reads. “The requirement also deprives employees who oppose unions of being able to work free from unwanted solicitations by outside union organizers.”
“California and several other states are pushing forward so-called ‘labor peace agreements’ to appease powerful union special interests, while workers and entrepreneurs in the fledgling American cannabis industry are left in the lurch,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While federal labor law certainly has its flaws, California’s statutes and similar ones around the country provide even less protection for workers, and seemingly treat employees’ free association rights as an obstacle to greater control over the industry.
“California’s scheme has no legal underpinning and will cause employees great harm. The Ninth Circuit should invalidate it,” Mix added.
Pratt & Whitney Employee Slams IAM Union With Federal Charges For Imposing Illegal Post-Strike Discipline
Union officials insulted worker for wanting to resign membership and keep working, incorrectly told workers P&W was “closed shop”
Middletown, CT (October 6, 2025) – An employee of jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney’s Middletown facility is filing federal charges against International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local Lodge 700 union officials at the facility. The worker, Christopher Utley, is charging IAM union bosses with unlawfully imposing internal union discipline on him because he exercised his right to resign his union membership and continue working during a May strike. He also details IAM officials telling him that Pratt & Whitney is an illegal “closed shop” in which he needed to maintain union membership or be fired.
Utley filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency charged with enforcing federal labor law in the private sector, a task that includes adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual workers.
Federal labor law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like NLRB v. General Motors forbid union officials from enforcing “closed shop” union contracts that require formal union membership as a condition of employment. Workers who abstain from formal union membership are immune from internal union rules and discipline regarding things like strikes.
Because Connecticut lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, however, IAM union officials can impose contract provisions that require every employee in a workplace (even those who are not union members) to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. In contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary in Right to Work states.
“Instead of letting me exercise my right to leave the union and go back to work during the strike, IAM union bosses just insulted me and kept stonewalling,” commented Utley. “It’s almost like they wanted to trap me in the union just so they could subject me to internal discipline and punish me for daring to disagree with them.”
“Good Luck With That”: IAM Union Officials Ignore Resignation and Threaten Discipline on Worker
According to Utley’s charges, he called IAM Local Lodge 700 President Wayne McCarthy one day before the May strike began and informed him that he wanted to resign from the union. McCarthy “responded with various invectives, refused to identify any process to resign, said ‘good luck with that,’ and hung up the phone,” Utley’s charges say. After trying other methods of resigning, the charges read, IAM Local Lodge 700’s Vice President Chuck Hermann informed Utley that Pratt & Whitney was a “closed shop” and “he would have to be and remain a formal member of the union or face termination from his employment.”
On September 19 – months after the strike had concluded – Utley learned that IAM union bosses were “processing internal union disciplinary charges against him” for continuing to do his job during the strike. The charge argues that union officials calling Utley before a union tribunal, after he exercised his right to end union membership, violates his rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
“Instead of convincing workers to voluntarily support their agenda, IAM union officials are trying to turn Mr. Utley into an example of what happens when workers defy them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Federal labor law unambiguously permits workers to decline formal union membership and to continue to work during union-ordered strikes. But IAM bosses misled Mr. Utley about his rights so they could attempt to subject him to their illegal retaliation.
“Foundation attorneys stand ready to provide legal aid anywhere in the country to defeat union bosses’ attempts to discipline workers for making decisions about their own livelihoods,” Mix added.
Texas Workers at Multiple Workplaces Latest to Successfully Free Themselves from Unwanted Teamsters Union ‘Representation’
Dallas-based workers at two companies petitioned the NLRB for decertification elections to remove Teamsters Local 745 bosses
Dallas, TX (October 3, 2025) – Two successful union decertification efforts have freed workers from the control of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 745 Union bosses in Dallas, Texas. Both Dallas-based delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. and employees at FCC Environmental Services in Dallas filed decertification petitions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees. When employees are dissatisfied with union officials and want to remove the union from their workplace, they may file a “decertification” petition with the NLRB.
Union bosses often try to block elections with charges of unfair labor practices, and vigorously campaign to keep workers under their control. In both of these cases, workers ultimately were able to remove the union.
Teamsters Local 745 Can’t Win Decertification Efforts
Local Teamsters officers tried to block a decertification election at FCC Environmental Services last year, filing numerous charges of unfair labor practices, but despite these stalling attempts, the employees were successful in their effort to remove the union. The union ultimately withdrew all of their objections but one, which the NLRB Regional Director dismissed as it had no bearing on the election itself in which a majority opposed union affiliation.
Meanwhile, Local 745 officials couldn’t even put up a fight against delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. After workers filed a decertification petition at the NLRB in April, a decertification election was set for September. Only three days before the election was scheduled to take place, union officials themselves decided not to contest it, and instead disclaimed any further interest in representing the employees, who are now free from their control.
Workers Fleeing Teamsters Union Nationwide
These successful decertification efforts are part of a larger trend across the country. For four years, the Foundation has seen increasing demand for assistance from groups of workers seeking votes to remove unions. This trend has disproportionately affected the Teamsters Union, as NLRB statistics for the past 12 months show that one of every five decertification cases involved the Teamsters union.
“More and more, American workers across the country are deciding they are better off without Teamsters union bosses who prioritize their own interests over that of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These successful decertification efforts demonstrate what happens when courageous and independent-minded workers assert their rights.”
“Union bosses often do not speak for the workers under their so-called ‘representation,’ and statistics show that over 90% of employees have never had a chance to vote on the union that purports to represent them,” Mix added. “That one in five decertification petitions filed last year involved the Teamsters only drives home the point that workers are increasingly rejecting the union’s coercive agenda.”
Builders FirstSource Workers Join Other KY Construction Industry Workers in Ending Teamsters Local 89 ‘Representation’
Majority of workers backed petitions calling for Teamsters removal as second workplace ejects Teamsters Local 89 bosses in recent weeks
Louisville, KY (October 2, 2025) – Kenneth Moore, an employee of Builders FirstSource, and his coworkers have been freed from the hold of Teamsters Local 89 union bosses after Builders FirstSource ended its recognition of the Teamsters as the workers’ “representative.” The employer took this decision following a petition signed by a majority of the workers demanding that Builders FirstSource end the recognition of the Teamsters.
This development comes after Moore filed a petition last month at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a decertification election to remove the union from his workplace. Moore filed his petition at the NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Moore and his colleagues now join Chris Smith and other IMI – Irving Materials drivers who were successful in removing the Teamsters Local 89 in Scottsville, KY last month.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
Thanks to the 2019 Right to Work Foundation-won Johnson Controls NLRB decision, workers seeking to remove unwanted union bosses can also do so by submitting a majority-backed petition asking their employer to stop recognizing the union. If there is a dispute about the petition, the NLRB can administer a secret-ballot vote to assess the employees’ opposition to the union.
The workers’ petition to Builders FirstSource managers provided the company with proof that the majority of their employees do not support the Teamsters presence at their facility. In compliance with the Johnson Controls decision, the employer withdrew the Teamsters’ recognition.
Moore and his Builders FirstSource colleagues are amongst the most recent workers who have made strides to remove the Teamsters from their workplaces. According to the NLRB’s owns statistics, over the past 12 months over 20% of all decertification cases involved the Teamsters union.
Kentucky is one of the 26 states with a Right to Work law that protects workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can still impose monopoly bargaining control upon all workers within a workplace, even those who oppose the union.
“These two groups of Kentucky workers are the latest to come to the conclusion that the interests that Teamsters bosses are pursuing are at odds with the wishes of the rank and file,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation will continue to assist workers in their efforts to free themselves from the Teamsters or any other unwanted so-called ‘representation.’”
