Special Legal Notice Notifies Temporary/Seasonal Employees of Legal Rights When Faced With Union Dues Demands
National Right to Work Foundation defended seasonal UPS worker who received $0 paycheck after Teamsters bosses illegally took full dues from wages
Washington, DC (November 25, 2025) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has published a special legal notice for workers in transportation, retail, foodservice, and other industries who have been hired temporarily to meet demand during the 2025 holiday season. The notice reminds seasonal workers that, in many cases, they have no legal obligation to formally join a union or pay union dues, even if union bosses demand that they do so.
The notice also provides contact information for the Foundation’s staff attorneys so temporary workers can obtain free legal assistance in exercising their right to be free of unwanted union affiliation. In one instance, Foundation attorneys aided a Stockton, CA, seasonal UPS worker, who received a paycheck for $0 after UPS management deducted full union dues from his paycheck at the behest of Teamsters union officials.
The full notice is available here https://www.nrtw.org/holiday/.
“Retailers, package delivery companies, restaurants, and other companies often hire temporary workers during the Holiday Season,” the notice reads. “Knowing that many of these workers may be unaware of their right not to join a union, union officials often deceive temporary workers into believing they must join or pay dues to the union to keep their jobs… Employees have a right not to be members of unions.”
Even in States Lacking Right to Work Protections, Seasonal Employees Can Avoid Forced Dues
In the 26 states that have Right to Work protections, there is no obligation for private sector employees to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of staying employed. The 24 states that lack Right to Work protections let union officials enforce contracts that require workers to pay dues or be fired, even workers who abstain from membership. However, the notice explains, “even in a state that lacks Right to Work protections, if you are working for LESS THAN 30 DAYS on the job, you cannot be legally obligated to pay union fees.”
The notice also urges temporary workers not to sign any documents authorizing union membership or permitting union officials to deduct dues directly out of their wages, explaining that forcing a worker to sign either kind of document is illegal. Finally, the notice encourages seasonal employees to reach out immediately to the Foundation’s legal team if they encounter pressure from their employer or union officials or have questions about their situation.
“Seasonal workers should be commended for stepping up to make the holidays run smoothly. But in the hustle and bustle they shouldn’t forget about their individual rights,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses may use the holiday rush as their opportunity to trap delivery drivers, shelf stockers, and many others in union membership and dues deductions without them even noticing. But the Foundation’s legal notice provides vital information so they can be on guard against such illegal demands.
“Many Americans pick up extra jobs this time of year to put a little extra money in their pocket for the holidays, which makes it especially outrageous when union grinches mislead workers into paying dues money in violation of their rights,” Mix added. “Seasonal employees should not hesitate to contact the Foundation if they believe they are being forced to fund or otherwise associate with an unwanted union in violation of their legal rights.”
National Right to Work Foundation Sues UCLA Over Public Records Request for Union “Strategic Research” Workshops
UCLA administrators have stonewalled requests regarding taxpayer-funded events designed to expand Big Labor’s forced-dues ranks
Los Angeles, CA (November 20, 2025) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has just filed a lawsuit against the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The case challenges the university’s failure to produce public records regarding two conferences promoting aggressive union campaign tactics. Foundation attorneys filed the lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday.
The Foundation litigates hundreds of cases each year for working men and women who face abuses of their individual rights due to compulsory unionism. Foundation cases often involve men and women who want to resist unionization campaigns at their workplaces, but face intimidation, threats, and other coercion from union officials and other union operatives.
Both events about which the Foundation requested information dealt with so-called “strategic research,” a tactic that “prioritizes gathering targeted information” to find new businesses and workers on which to launch unionization campaigns or other campaigns. The events, titled the “UCLA Strategic Labor Research Conference” and “Private Equity Research Strategies,” both had heavy political overtones as well, with the former drawing attendees “working outside labor in adjacent social movements, like climate change, food justice and housing,” according to UCLA’s website. Both gatherings took place between April and August of 2024.
Union officials wield significant influence at UCLA. Currently, the university is subject to at least 16 union monopoly bargaining contracts, including with the powerful United Auto Workers (UAW), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and other unions.
According to the complaint, the Foundation submitted public records requests for documents, presentation materials, speaker information, and related items for both events on August 18, 2025. UCLA public records staff acknowledged the requests promptly, but have delayed any substantive response.
Notably, the Foundation’s requests are similar to requests made by others about the same events near the beginning of 2025. As the lawsuit points out, this means UCLA officials should have compiled and produced these documents earlier this year. Their failure to produce the documents to the Foundation in late 2025 shows the officials have ignored their legal obligation under the California Public Records Act for nearly a year now.
“The CPRA requires that an agency produce records responsive to a request made by a member of the public promptly, and Defendants’ conduct constitutes an unlawful and bad-faith delay in violation of this statutory duty,” the complaint says. “Through this unjustified delay, Respondents have denied Petitioner access to responsive public records without legal basis.”
Section 6258 of the California Government Code authorizes declarative or injunctive relief for those who wish to enforce their right to inspect or receive a public record.
“Poll after poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly oppose forcing workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. So it is outrageous that taxpayers appear to be funding conferences specifically designed to coordinate how to expand union bosses’ forced-dues ranks,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The public deserves to know what kind of tactics – and potentially radical political activity – the UCLA administration is using taxpayer dollars to promote, as well as what role union officials have in pushing their agenda at one of the nation’s largest public college campuses.”
After Year-Long Effort, McDowell County Commission on Aging Employees Free Themselves From SEIU Union Bosses
Majority of employees signed petition demanding Commission stop bargaining with SEIU; success follows months of union stonewalling
Welch, WV (November 14, 2025) – Following an effort lasting more than a year, employees of senior homecare nonprofit McDowell County Commission on Aging have successfully freed themselves from the control of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 1199 officials. Commission employee John Reeves spearheaded the union removal effort with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The success follows Reeves’ submission of a petition in which the majority of his fellow employees demanded that their employer stop recognizing the SEIU as their exclusive “representative.” Reeves submitted the petition to Commission management in late October. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), an employer may not engage in bargaining with union officials that lack majority support in a workplace. Commission management announced on November 4 that they had withdrawn recognition from the SEIU union.
West Virginia is a Right to Work state, meaning that union officials cannot enforce contracts that require workers to pay dues or be fired. In contrast, in states like neighboring Pennsylvania and Ohio that lack Right to Work protections, union officials can mandate dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union bosses have exclusive representation power over every worker in a unionized workplace, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union.
SEIU Officials Used Litigation to Block Workers From Voting
The effort by Commission employees to oust SEIU union bosses started back in June 2024, when Reeves submitted a union decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 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.
Commission management and SEIU chiefs agreed to the terms of a union decertification vote, which Reeves and his coworkers participated in on July 9, 2024. However, NLRB officials held up the ballot count, claiming that SEIU officials had unfair labor practice charges pending against Commission management.
After six months of delays, Commission officials and SEIU union bosses announced they had reached a settlement in the unfair labor practice case – but a provision of that settlement stipulated that they would “not entertain a new decertification for a…period of four months.” A regional NLRB official approved this settlement in its entirety, effectively tossing out Reeves’ and his coworkers’ ballots. Reeves urged the NLRB in Washington, DC, to reverse this decision, as the regional NLRB had never proven the alleged unfair labor practices, nor had the Commission admitted to them in the settlement.
As of November 2025, Reeves’ appeal was still pending, but he and his coworkers have now successfully removed the union through a different process.
“Mr. Reeves’ and his coworkers’ situation shows that, in practice, NLRB bureaucrats will frequently stifle workers’ rights simply to advance the interests of union officials or management,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That is antithetical to the overarching purpose of federal labor law, which is to protect workers’ free choice, not protect incumbent union bosses’ power.
“Currently, the union decertification process is overly complex and prone to legal manipulation, delays, and derailment,” Mix added. “It is in dire need of reform, and both the NLRB and federal legislators have a role to play to prevent workers from being trapped under union so-called ‘representation’ opposed by a majority of employees.”
Breakthru Beverage Workers Across Florida Seek Vote to Oust Teamsters Union
Drivers in work unit spanning six cities sign petition asking federal labor board to hold union removal vote
Florida (November 6, 2025) – Across Florida, drivers for beverage distributor Breakthru Beverages are supporting a petition that asks the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove Teamsters union officials from several distribution facilities. Breakthru driver Tim Zulinki submitted the petition to the NLRB with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
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. Zulinki obtained signatures on his decertification petition well exceeding the necessary threshold to trigger a secret ballot election. Breakthru employs drivers at distribution centers in Jacksonville, Midway, Pensacola, Orlando, Fort Myers, and Tampa.
Florida is a Right to Work state, meaning Teamsters union officials cannot demand that Breakthru drivers pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In states that lack Right to Work protections, union officials can have workers fired for refusal to pay dues or fees to a union. Though forced dues are prohibited in Florida and other Right to Work states, union officials can still impose their exclusive “representation” powers on every worker in a workplace, including those who oppose the union or voted against it.
Now the NLRB will examine the petition and should schedule an election quickly. If Zulinki and a majority of those participating in the decertification election vote against the Teamsters, hundreds of Breakthru drivers across the Sunshine State will be free from Teamsters union officials’ exclusive representation power.
Drivers Back Union Removal Effort After Months-Long Strike Ordered by Teamsters Bosses
In June, Teamsters union bosses ordered Breakthru drivers on strike. The strike order ended at the close of October, as union officials announced that they and Breakthru management had finalized a new contract. Zulinki submitted his decertification petition just before the contract became effective – which is crucial timing considering the NLRB’s non-statutory “contract bar” policy normally blocks workers from filing decertification petitions for up to three years after a contract is approved. The contract bar appears nowhere in the text of federal labor law, but is the invention of union boss-friendly NLRB decisions.
Teamsters union officials have a track record of supporting agendas that are opposed by the workers they claim to represent. 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. Nearly 80% of American union members back Right to Work.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have also seen a marked rise in requests from workers seeking legal assistance in Teamsters decertification cases.
“Sean O’Brien & Co.’s propaganda about the Teamsters union’s supposed ‘victory’ across Florida after the Breakthru strike is being contradicted by rank-and-file workers in real time,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Zulinki and his coworkers want freedom from the Teamsters hierarchy, which is increasingly proving to be radical and out-of-touch with what workers want.
“While Florida provides important protections for independent-minded workers through its Right to Work law, ultimately no worker should be subject to union monopoly bargaining control they disagree with,” Mix added.
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.”
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.
NY Starbucks Barista Asks Federal Labor Board to Restore Employees’ Right to Vote Out SBWU Union Officials
SBWU union bosses prevented worker-requested union removal vote by filing unverified charges, never demonstrated link to worker effort
Niskayuna, NY (September 12, 2025) – Starbucks barista Nadia Kuban is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to overturn federal policies that are preventing her colleagues from having a vote to remove unwanted Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace. Kuban 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, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Kuban’s effort to remove SBWU from the Niskayuna Starbucks began in February, when she submitted a petition backed by her colleagues asking the NLRB to hold a decertification vote at their store. Despite Kuban’s petition containing enough employee signatures to trigger a vote under NLRB rules, regional NLRB officials dismissed her petition and denied her colleagues their right to vote on the union’s continued control.
Kuban’s latest NLRB filing challenges the dismissal of her decertification petition. Regional NLRB officials issued the dismissal due to alleged unfair labor practice charges that SBWU bosses filed against the Starbucks Corporation at the national level. Her Request for Review argues that the NLRB violated employees’ due process rights by tossing her petition without a hearing into whether the allegations had anything to do with workers’ desire to oust the union at her location. It also contends that the NLRB’s Rieth-Riley precedent – which lets union bosses manipulate such allegations (also known as “blocking charges”) to derail worker-requested decertification votes entirely – is inconsistent with federal law.
Starbucks Employee Challenges NLRB Policy That Lets Union Bosses Block Votes
The NLRB’s Rieth-Riley decision in 2022 permits the agency to make so-called “merit-determination” dismissals of decertification petitions. Such dismissals let NLRB officials stop union decertification elections entirely – and invalidate already-cast ballots – based on union boss-filed “blocking charges” that haven’t even been litigated yet. Kuban’s brief explains that the ruling is at odds with federal labor law, which mandates that the NLRB conduct an election if employees submit a valid decertification petition.
“This is inconsistent with the plain language of [National Labor Relations Act] Section 9(c), which states what the NLRB ‘shall’ do, a nondiscretionary term,” the brief says. “The Board…should overturn Rieth-Riley’s merit-determination [ruling]….”
The Request for Review also explains that even under existing NLRB cases – including Rieth-Riley – the dismissal of Kuban’s decertification petition is not justified. NLRB case law doesn’t allow the dismissal of employees’ decertification petitions unless there is an outright refusal by an employer to negotiate with union officials, the brief says, which is not the case in Kuban’s situation. Furthermore, the NLRB’s Saint Gobain decision, won by Foundation staff attorneys, holds that “an evidentiary hearing is required when a union alleges that an employer’s unfair labor practice caused disaffection with the union.” Kuban never got such a hearing in her case, meaning she “has been significantly disadvantaged in defending her petition, to the point of being denied due process of law,” the brief says.
Trump NLRB Can Use Case to Defend Workers’ Freedom
Earlier this year, Rayalan Kent, a Foundation-backed asphalt worker in Michigan whose union decertification effort was stifled in the Rieth-Riley case, submitted a brief to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This brief defended his employer (Rieth-Riley Construction Company) in a case over its refusal to negotiate with International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) officials. IUOE bosses had dredged up years-old unfair labor practice charges to cancel the counting of Kent and his coworkers’ already-cast election ballots in 2022. Kent is now urging the Sixth Circuit to use the current case against his employer to undo the disastrous “merit-determination” doctrine, and order the NLRB to finally count his colleagues’ ballots.
“The NLRB’s so-called ‘merit-determination’ dismissal policy serves no purpose other than letting union officials block workers’ right to make a free decision on whether they want union monopoly ‘representation’ in their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Kuban speaks for countless independent-minded workers across the country in seeking to eliminate this unfair policy. Upon confirmation, President Trump’s new appointees to the NLRB should prioritize cases like hers, and defend workers’ freedoms from union bosses’ attempts to gain more control over their working lives and pocketbooks.”
