Veolia Environmental Services Employee Slams Teamsters With Federal Charges for Illegal Termination Threats
Worker maintains that Teamsters Local 63 officials threatened to have her fired for not joining the union and refusing to pay for union politics
Colton, CA (February 2, 2026) – An employee of medical waste management firm Veolia Environmental Services has just hit Teamsters Local 63 union officials with federal charges, maintaining that union officials threatened to have her fired for refusing to join the union. The employee, Alexus Villanueva, also charges Teamsters bosses with unlawfully forcing her to pay full union dues, including dues for union political activities, via paycheck deduction.
Villanueva filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law in the private sector. Under federal labor law and Supreme Court decisions like NLRB v. General Motors, union officials cannot enforce contracts that mandate formal union membership as a condition of employment. Furthermore, the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision bars union bosses from compelling workers to pay for “nonchargeable” union expenses, like the union’s political or ideological doings.
California lacks Right to Work protections for its workers, meaning that union chiefs can force workers under their control to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Nevada and Arizona, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary for workers.
Teamsters Union Officials Blatantly Ignore Federal Labor Law
According to Villanueva’s charges, Teamsters Local 63 officials threatened to have her fired if she didn’t join the union and authorize the deduction of union dues from her paychecks. Federal law forbids union officials from requiring workers to pay union dues by direct deductions from their paychecks.
Villanueva’s charges also detail that Teamsters bosses violated other elements of the Beck decision, including by “fail[ing] to provide her with…a notice of the calculation of the amount of non-chargeable fees verified by an independent certified public accountant” and “an opportunity to challenge its calculation and have it reviewed by an impartial decisionmaker.”
Case Follows String of Actions by SoCal Workers Against Teamsters Local 63
In recent years, Foundation attorneys have helped numerous other workers in Southern California challenge Teamsters Local 63 union officials. In 2024, Dependable Highway Express driver John Cwiek slammed the union with charges after he faced retaliation for revealing publicly available data about Teamsters bosses’ salaries. Cwiek and his coworkers later sought a “decertification vote” with free Foundation aid and successfully forced the union out of their workplace. Foundation attorneys also aided Ozvaldo Gutierrez and his Los Angeles-based XPO Logistics colleagues in removing Teamsters Local 63 from power in 2021.
“Instead of seeking to win workers over voluntarily, Teamsters Local 63 union bosses continue to flout federal labor law in pursuit of more control and more dues money,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But worker opposition to Teamsters control is not limited just to Southern California – recent NLRB statistics suggest that no union faces more employee-backed removal attempts than the Teamsters.
“While it’s especially heinous that Teamsters officials are attempting to get Ms. Villanueva fired for refusing to pay for union political activity, ultimately no worker should be forced to subsidize any part of union bosses’ agenda just to keep their job,” Mix added.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Legal Notice to NYC Nurses Subject to NYSNA Strike Order
As strike continues, notice reminds nurses wishing to return to work that they must resign their union memberships to avoid potentially ruinous strike fines
Washington, DC (January 22, 2026) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for New York City-area nurses subject to New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) union bosses’ recent strike order against five major hospitals. News reports indicate that strike activity will continue even as bargaining talks proceed.
The legal notice informs these workers of rights that union officials often do not want them to know. First and foremost, nurses have the right to resign their union memberships and keep working to support their families, thereby avoiding union fines and internal discipline.
“The situation presents serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “That is why workers confronted with strike demands frequently contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and union discipline for continuing to work during a strike to support themselves and their families.”
The notice is available at: https://www.nrtw.org/nysna/
Foundation: Resign Union Membership Before Returning to Work to Avoid Fines and Discipline
Most importantly, the notice informs nurses who want to keep working that the safest way to avoid strike fines and other punishment by union bosses is to resign union membership before returning to work. “Unions cannot fine non-members for post-resignation conduct, and union members have the legal right to resign their membership at any time,” the notice says.
The Foundation’s special legal notice provides nurses sample union resignation letters, as well as information on how to exercise their right under the CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision to opt out of paying dues for union politics. The notice also gives workers information on how to begin a petition for a “decertification election,” in which employees request a workplace election to remove the union.
“While Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani use this strike as an opportunity to grandstand alongside NYSNA union officials, many rank-and-file Big Apple nurses simply want to get back to caring for their patients,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation staff attorneys are already receiving inquiries from nurses who have already been threatened by union bosses with five figure fines for refusing to strike.
“In addition to those who have already contacted Foundation attorneys, there are likely countless other nurses feeling the pressure as they face a choice between caving to union officials’ intimidation tactics or continuing to care for their patients and support their families,” added Mix. “New York City-area nurses need to know that union bosses have no legal power to require them to abandon their patients and Foundation attorneys stand ready to ensure they can fully exercise their rights.”
Sacramento St. Hope Educators Ask Federal Labor Board to Hold Vote to Eject SCTA Union Officials
Majority of St. Hope teachers support union decertification vote, petition submitted to National Labor Relations Board
Sacramento, CA (January 14, 2026) – A majority of educators for charter school operator St. HOPE Public Schools are requesting a vote to end Sacramento City Teachers Association (SCTA) union officials’ bargaining power over their schools. SCTA is an affiliate of both the California Teachers Association (CTA) and National Education Association (NEA).
St. HOPE educator Beth Simonton filed a petition backed by the majority of her coworkers late last week, requesting the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hold a union removal vote among St. HOPE teachers. Simonton is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. The work unit covered by the petition includes over 50 teachers from PS7 Elementary School, PS7 Middle School, and Sacramento Charter High School.
The SCTA first gained monopoly bargaining power over the charter system in 2018. St. HOPE teachers petitioned for a union decertification vote in 2021, but SCTA union officials were able to manipulate allegations of employer misconduct to scuttle it.
CTA Union Officials Cause Division in Sacramento Schools and Other CA Schools
“SCTA union officials have been extremely divisive and have not had a positive impact on teachers, students, or the St. HOPE community as a whole,” commented Simonton. “They’ve spent much more time trying to demonize school leadership than simply standing up for our interests. I’m proud to represent the majority of educators at St. HOPE who are standing up and saying ‘enough is enough.’”
St. HOPE Public Schools operates public charter schools within the Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD). In the past, California’s public schools have been subject to state labor boards and regulations. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in NLRB v. Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County strongly suggests that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) covers charter school operators like St. HOPE within its definition of “employers” subject to the NLRB’s authority.
The Foundation has aided numerous charter school employees over the years in opposing unwanted union hierarchies. Elsewhere in California, charter school teachers at Gompers Preparatory Academy in San Diego sought Foundation aid in obtaining a vote to remove San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union officials from the school. After two such efforts (one in 2019 and another in 2023) and much litigation over union delay tactics, the educators finally voted the SDEA out in 2023.
Educators Seek Escape from Teacher Union and California Labor Bureaucracy
“St. HOPE educators serve some of Sacramento’s most underprivileged young people, and they deserve to have their voices in the workplace heard,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “California’s legislature and administrative state are deep in the pockets of CTA teacher union bosses, who overwhelmingly seek to further their own interests and power over the rights of educators themselves.
“We at the Foundation hope that Ms. Simonton and her colleagues’ effort to break free of both CTA union officials and the onerous California labor bureaucracy is just the first step in achieving greater freedom for charter school educators across the Golden State,” commented Mix.
Workers in North Carolina and California Ask Federal Labor Board to Nix Policy Letting Union Bosses Block Elections
With new quorum, National Labor Relations Board can eliminate “blocking charge” policy used to stop union removal elections
Washington, DC (January 6, 2026) – Workers in North Carolina and California are pushing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to strike down its “blocking charge” policy, which is preventing them from removing unwanted union officials from their workplaces.
The workers, which include miners employed by The Quartz Corp. in Spruce Pine, NC, and Fresno, CA-based construction materials workers for CalPortland, both backed petitions in late 2025 asking the NLRB to administer votes to remove (or “decertify”) unions from their workplaces. Despite both petitions containing enough signatures to trigger union decertification elections, regional NLRB officials blocked both votes pursuant to the NLRB’s current blocking charge policy. This Biden-era policy permits union officials to stymie the union decertification process simply by filing unproven or unrelated “unfair labor practice” charges at the NLRB alleging employer misconduct.
Quartz Corp. employee Blake Davis and CalPortland worker Darrell Dunlap have both submitted Requests for Review to the NLRB in Washington, DC. These filings ask the Board to overturn the blocking charge policy and let their coworkers’ requested votes to remove the United Mine Workers and Teamsters unions (respectively) go forward. Davis and Dunlap are both receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. While vacancies on the NLRB have caused a backlog of cases, the U.S. Senate recently approved two new presidential appointees to the NLRB, meaning the Board now has a “quorum” and can hear these and other cases.
“Blocking Charge” Policy Inconsistent With Federal Labor Law
Dunlap’s Request for Review argues that the NLRB’s blocking charge policy directly conflicts with the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that the NLRB is responsible for enforcing. “Allowing a self-interested party to unilaterally block elections conflicts with [the NLRA], which requires the Board to hold an election” if employees submit a valid decertification petition, Dunlap’s brief says. “The blocking charge policy does not just contravene a clear Congressional command, but also offends the entire structure and purpose of the Act: employee free choice.”
Dunlap’s brief also maintains that the blocking charge rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary and fails to accomplish even its own stated goals. For example, the Request for Review says, NLRB bureaucrats impose the policy without considering key data showing the blocking charge policy has caused substantial delays in the union election process. Furthermore, the Board has argued that the rule is required to stop “coercive elections” from happening – even though its only mechanism for doing this is giving self-interested union bosses massive power to block elections or let them proceed.
Davis’ Request for Review makes many similar arguments, but adds that even if the Board were to uphold the blocking charge policy, regional NLRB officials egregiously misapplied it in his case. As his brief points out, even before he and his colleagues had submitted the union decertification petition, “the union filed a barrage of [unfair labor practice charges],” some of which were just speculation about employer activity aiding the union removal process. Even so, the regional NLRB appears to have blocked Davis and his coworkers’ requested election based on the mere quantity of the union’s charges, without explaining which allegation justified blocking. “By failing to distinguish between allegations that might warrant blocking and those that plainly would not, the Region reduced the rule to a numbers game,” the Request for Review says.
Trump NLRB Can Undo ‘Blocking Charge’ Policy and Empower Independent-Minded Workers
The National Right to Work Foundation has long advocated for the NLRB to return to the Election Protection Rule, which prevented many aspects of blocking charge-related gamesmanship before the Biden NLRB overturned it in 2022. Under the Election Protection Rule, allegations of misconduct related to a union decertification election could not block employees from exercising their right to vote, and in most cases permitted the immediate release of the vote tally as opposed to ordering ballots to be impounded during litigation over blocking charges.
“The NLRB’s ‘blocking charge’ policy serves only to let union officials stop the workers they claim to ‘represent’ from making a free choice about whether a union in their workplace is right for them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Davis speak for countless workers across the country who are trapped under union boss dictates and forced-dues payments because of this rule.
“If President Trump’s new NLRB appointees are serious about putting American workers back in control of their own livelihoods, reversing this union boss power giveaway is an excellent place to start,” Mix added.
Legal Aid Lawyer Hits Union and NYLAG With Charges for Religious Discrimination and Labor Law Violations
Employer and union officials ignored request for religious accommodation and seized union dues in violation of lawyer’s Jewish faith
New York, NY (December 9, 2025) – Felicia Gaon, a legal aid attorney for the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), has just filed federal charges against both NYLAG and the Association of Legal Advocates and Attorneys (ALAA)/United Auto Workers (UAW) unions for religious discrimination, failure to accommodate her religion, and unlawful deductions of dues. Gaon maintains that both ALAA and NYLAG officials ignored her requests for a religious accommodation from the requirement that she pay union dues as a condition of her employment. Instead, they illegally seized money from her paycheck without her authorization. Gaon is receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.
Gaon filed parallel sets of charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law in the private sector, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which prosecutes discrimination in the workplace. Gaon notes in her charges that she is “an Orthodox Jew with strong familial and religious ties to the Nation and Land of Israel” and her faith “prevents [her] from joining or financially supporting a union that directly or indirectly supports the destruction and annihilation of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.” She reports to have never signed any union membership or dues-deduction-authorization documents since beginning work for NYLAG.
UAW Unions and NYLAG Have Obligations to Provide Religious Exemption to Union Dues Payment
New York lacks Right to Work protections for its private-sector employees, meaning that union officials can impose contract provisions that require workers to pay union fees or be fired. However, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates that both union officials and employers provide reasonable accommodations to workers who submit sincere religious objections to financially supporting a labor union. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) also forbids seizing dues money directly from employees’ paychecks without their written authorization.
Gaon’s charges state that, shortly after NYLAG hired her, she submitted a letter to the treasurers of both the ALAA and the UAW “explain[ing] my religious faith and how it prevented me from joining or financially supporting the Unions…My letter also placed NYLAG on notice of my need for a religious accommodation.”
However, her charges note that after Gaon received her first paycheck, “[it] showed that NYLAG had deducted union dues and initiation fees.” Gaon subsequently retained Foundation staff attorneys and sent letters to officials of NYLAG, the UAW, and the ALAA, asking them to refund the money that they illegally seized from her paycheck and to stop all further deductions from her paycheck while her request for a religious accommodation is being processed.
NYLAG Management Illegally Seized Dues Again After Worker Made Valid Request
Aside from a token acknowledgment of her request, Gaon’s charges note that she has not received any other communication from her employer or a union official regarding the religious accommodation. And after she sent her letter, NYLAG once again deducted full union dues from her paycheck. By seizing dues illegally from her wages, Gaon’s charges argue, both union bosses and NYLAG management “discriminated against my religious beliefs” and “failed to accommodate my religion.” Union officials and her employer have never laid out any way in which she can be accommodated going forward.
“Ms. Gaon’s case shows the damaging reality of forced unionism: Union bosses often push extreme and divisive political agendas rather than focus on being constructive and effective in the workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This has horrendous results for religious workers, who often must obtain legal help to battle both union bosses and management to exercise what limited rights they have to disassociate from a union. Even then, current law forces them to be ‘represented’ by union bosses whose ideology they find abhorrent, demeaning, and unconscionable.
“Foundation attorneys have successfully defended many employees and graduate students against being forced to fund union bosses who push positions that violate their beliefs,” Mix added. “Workers should be free to say ‘no’ to funding union bosses they oppose for any reason, religious or otherwise, which is why every American deserves the protection of a Right to Work law.”
Viking Corporation Employee Slams Steelworkers Union With Federal Charges for “Closed Shop” Firing Threats
Charge: Steelworkers officials’ unlawful dues scheme to automatically deduct money from worker paychecks to support union politicking
Hastings, MI (December 4, 2025) – Kristen Dickinson, an employee of fire sprinkler manufacturer The Viking Corporation, has just hit the Steelworkers union at her workplace with federal unfair labor practice charges. Dickinson filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The charges detail that Steelworkers union officials are unlawfully characterizing Viking as a “closed shop,” where formal union membership is required to avoid termination. The charges further state that union bosses are mandating direct dues deductions from workers’ paychecks as a condition of staying employed.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for adjudicating federal labor law, a task that includes adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. Although the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) permits union officials in states without Right to Work protections (like Michigan) to enforce contracts that require workers to pay union fees or be fired, U.S. Supreme Court cases like General Motors v. NLRB ban “closed shop” arrangements where formal membership is required to work. Another Supreme Court case, the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck ruling, also established that union bosses can’t compel workers who abstain from formal membership into paying dues for union political expenses.
Federal labor law also forbids requiring workers to authorize direct paycheck deduction of union dues or fees. This means that even when some forced fees can be required, workers retain the option to pay by other methods, like via mailed check. Up until February 2024, Michigan was a Right to Work state, in which all union financial support was the voluntary choice of each individual worker.
Requiring Formal Union Membership Is Still Illegal, Even in Non-Right to Work Michigan
“Steelworkers union bosses are just interested in gaining more power over us and our pocketbooks,” commented Dickinson. “If they really believe they are doing right by us, they shouldn’t feel the need to force everybody to join or trick people into supporting the union’s politics, yet that’s exactly what they’re doing.”
Dickinson’s charges recount that union officials began circulating documents among workers in August, giving them September deadlines to turn in union “checkoff” authorization cards that would permit direct dues deductions from their paychecks. The union documents alleged that workers had to do this “to be in compliance with new contractual closed shop language” (emphasis added).
When Dickinson emailed a Viking HR representative for clarification on her obligations, the HR rep claimed that “Per the new Michigan [Right to Work repeal] law and the Contract…those employees who do not sign the check-off authorization card, will not be allowed to work at Viking.” Dickinson’s charges include a charge against Viking management for repeating the misrepresentations of union officials.
Dickinson’s charges also maintain that Steelworkers union bosses “violated the NLRA because [they] demanded that Charging Party, and all similarly situated nonmember discriminatees, opt-out of paying for political and ideological activities, instead of opting-in to make such political and ideological payments.” Supreme Court precedent, including the Foundation-won Knox v. SEIU case, establish the principle that union officials cannot assume that workers have waived their right to abstain from funding union politics.
“Just because Michigan legislators gave into union political pressure and rammed through a party-line repeal of Michigan’s popular Right to Work law does not mean that union bosses can make any demands of workers that they want,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Michigan workers still have the right to abstain from membership and union political support, and should contact Foundation attorneys immediately if they experience any pushback in their exercise of those rights.”
Majority of Dallas Penske Leasing Workers Request Vote to Remove Teamsters Local 745
In last year, several groups of Penske employees across the country have sought to escape coercive union control
Dallas, TX (December 2, 2025) – A majority of employees at Penske Truck Leasing’s facility in the Redbird neighborhood of Dallas are demanding a vote to remove Teamsters Local 745 union officials from power at their workplace. Penske employee Epifanio Hernandez submitted a union “decertification petition” backed by his colleagues to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions in workplaces. By law, the NLRB should administer a decertification election if an employee submits a petition in which at least 30% of his coworkers demand such an election. Hernandez’s decertification petition contained signatures from a majority of his coworkers, well exceeding that threshold.
Texas is a Right to Work state, meaning that Teamsters union officials cannot enforce union contracts that force Hernandez and his coworkers to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs. In non-Right to Work states, union bosses can get workers fired for refusing to financially support union activities. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials can wield exclusive “representation” power over every employee in a workplace, unless the union is decertified.
“I support decertifying the Teamsters union because the union isn’t benefiting us the way it should,” commented Hernandez. “The union rules aren’t beneficial to everyone, and instead of helping us progress, they end up holding many of us back. We deserve the freedom to exercise our own rights, speak for ourselves, and make decisions that reflect what we actually want — not what the union decides for us.”
Texas Penske Workers Join Wider Opposition to Teamsters Officials & Other Union Bosses
In just the last year, Foundation staff attorneys have helped several groups of Penske employees around the country break free from unwanted union control. These have included Penske workers in Minneapolis and Nashville, who last year overwhelmingly voted to oust International Association of Machinists (IAM) union bosses. In December 2024, Philadelphia-area Penske Logistics workers also voted to remove Teamsters Local 500 union officials.
Teamsters union officials’ workplace actions and political activity have also come under increased worker scrutiny recently. During the 2024 election cycle, the union’s upper echelon chose not to endorse Donald Trump because he would not commit to eliminating Right to Work and granting forced-dues power to union bosses nationwide. Teamsters top officials’ prioritizing of their forced-dues powers comes despite polls showing nearly 80% of American union members support Right to Work and voluntary union dues.
Foundation staff attorneys have also noticed a marked rise in requests from workers seeking legal assistance in Teamsters decertification cases. Recent NLRB statistics also suggest no union faces more decertification petitions than the Teamsters.
“It seems that hardly a week goes by without Teamsters union officials showing how out-of-touch they are with the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re proud to support the growing number of workers engaged in the transportation and trucking industries who are standing up for their interests in the workplace.”
