Netflix Spy Kids Production Driver Demands Review From Federal Labor Board in Case Challenging Teamsters Discrimination
Texas-based driver exposes “hiring hall” scheme that operates in violation of federal law
Dallas, TX (June 9, 2025) – Jeff Norris, a transportation employee for Texas-based Netflix streaming productions like Spy Kids: Armageddon, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to review an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) ruling in his case. Norris is charging Teamsters Local 657 union officials with discriminating against employees who have abstained from formal union membership and against union members who have spoken out against union officials’ agenda. Norris is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Norris’ filing attacks Teamsters Local 657 union bosses’ “hiring hall” arrangement, in which they refer production drivers for jobs based on various “lists” that divide employees up by, among other things, member vs. nonmember status. Norris contends that prioritizing the hiring of union members over nonmembers is a form of discrimination that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) forbids.
Evidence presented during trial showed that, using this arrangement, it was virtually impossible for a nonmember to he hired for a driver job before a member.
Netflix Driver’s Brief: Workers Targeted by Teamsters Union’s Discrimination Deserve Compensation
The ALJ decision now under review by the NLRB agreed with Norris on his discrimination argument. However, Norris’ newest filing seeks to counter Teamsters lawyers’ position that the NLRB should reverse that holding. The brief also demands a ruling that all employees who experienced discrimination under this “hiring hall” scheme receive compensation, a form of relief that the ALJ puzzlingly decided not to grant.
Norris – whom Teamsters Local 657 President Frank Perkins sought to have booted out of the union – is also taking exception to the ALJ’s ruling that Perkins did not discriminate against Norris by seeking his removal.
Norris, who has been a longtime critic of Teamsters Local 657 leadership, argues that the expulsion attempt “was not the result of a good faith attempt to enforce the Union’s constitution and bylaws,” but involved trumped-up charges designed to punish him for speaking out and filing charges against the union. Similarly, Norris is contesting the ALJ’s rejection of his argument that Teamsters officials slow-walked referring him for a job on Spy Kids: Armageddon due to his advocacy against union bosses’ schemes.
Foundation staff attorneys have recently aided several groups of workers in efforts to challenge malfeasance by Teamsters union officials or vote the union out completely. These include truck drivers in California and Georgia, Frito-Lay warehouse workers in Ohio, metalworkers in San Diego, nurses in Michigan, and many more. Across the country, workers’ desire to exercise their right to vote out unpopular union bosses is increasing: Worker-filed petitions seeking union decertification votes are up more than 50% from 2020, according to NLRB data.
“While it’s all too common to see union officials use their government-granted exclusive ‘representation’ powers to discriminate against workers who decide not to be members, members who expose illegal union boss activities or otherwise question union boss misdeeds are also frequent targets of union abuse,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Netflix production drivers who are ready, able, and willing to help bring stories to the silver screen don’t deserve to be passed over simply for being at odds with union leadership, or because they choose to exercise their right not to affiliate with a union under Texas’ popular Right to Work law.
“We’re proud to help Mr. Norris in his legal battle to ensure that dissident union members and workers who refuse to associate with the Teamsters are not illegally targeted by union bosses,” added Mix.
Right to Work Foundation Submits Legal Brief Opposing Biden “Project Labor Agreement” Rule for Federal Construction Projects
Amicus brief at Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals exposes rule as discriminating against nonunion workers and contractors in violation of Constitution
Atlanta, GA (June 4, 2025) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief in Associated Builders and Contractors v. General Services Administration, a federal case that concerns the legality of the Biden Administration’s edict ordering federal agencies to contract only with unionized firms on most federal construction projects.
The Foundation’s brief explains that such arrangements, also known as “Project Labor Agreements” (PLAs), violate both the Constitution and conflict with federal law by discriminating against workers and employers who have chosen not to associate with a labor union. The case is currently pending at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
“Foundation attorneys have represented [employees] in cases to protect their right to refrain from subsidizing unions,” the amicus brief reads. “The Foundation has an interest in this case because it concerns whether the federal government can lawfully require construction workers to abide by union project labor agreements (PLAs) to work on certain federal projects.”
Biden PLA Order Violates Constitutional Rights of Workers and Employers
The amicus brief contends that the Biden Administration’s PLA mandate contravenes the Constitution in a number of ways, including by “forc[ing] workers into a mandatory agency relationship with a union” under which union officials become their sole “voice” on workplace issues. The brief cites both the Supreme Court’s decision in the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME case and similar Eleventh Circuit precedent, which hold that workers’ First Amendment right of free association is violated by compulsory union “representation” for employees who don’t want and never asked for a union.
The Biden Administration’s PLA mandate is also inconsistent with federal law, the amicus brief maintains, because it requires employers and unions to enter into labor contracts with one another. According to the brief, this is a power that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs private employers, denies to the federal government. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), which controls federal contracts, “does not empower federal agencies to take actions that are impermissible under the NLRA,” the brief says.
Foundation Comments: PLA Rule Is ‘Naked Political Payback’
The Foundation submitted comments opposing the Biden Administration’s rule in 2022, exposing that “[t]here is no legitimate legal or policy basis for forcing employees and contractors to abide by union-only PLAs to work on major federal construction projects,” and that the executive order was “naked political payback by the current administration to its union supporters.”
“The Biden Administration’s PLA mandate is a slap in the face to nearly 90 percent of American construction workers, who have chosen not to affiliate with a union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It also forces taxpayers to pick up the tab on the enormous costs of inefficient union work rules.
“Nonunion employers and construction workers who refrain from union membership deserve a fair shake at working on important federal projects. The Biden Administration’s bald-faced attempt to enrich its union boss allies is illegal in a multitude of ways and should be blocked immediately,” Mix added.
Farmworkers in NY and CA File Federal Challenges Against Statutes Letting Union Bosses Seize Control Without Employee Vote
Workers contend that “card check” unionization method leads to false claims of majority union support, intimidation, and constitutional violations
Washington, DC (May 27, 2025) – Agricultural workers from New York and California have just filed federal complaints to challenge laws in both states that permit United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials to force them under union control using highly suspect tactics. Both sets of workers are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
In New York, farmworkers Ricardo Bell and Jean Fenel Estrame, who work for Porpiglia Farms in Marlboro and Cherry Lawn Farms in Sodus respectively, are challenging the so-called Farm Laborers’ Fair Labor Practices Act (FLFLPA). In California, Wonderful Nurseries employees Claudia Chavez, Maria Gutierrez, and 18 others are challenging portions of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA).
The New York agricultural employees are challenging the FLFLPA because, among other things, it lets union officials sweep to power through the coercive “card check” unionization method. The California farmworkers assert that the ALRA forces employees and employers alike to accept government-mandated union contracts after such coercion has occurred, and challenge card check itself in a similar state court case.
The card check process lacks the security of a secret ballot vote, and exposes workers to intimidation and manipulation from union officials who seek to collect enough cards to claim “majority support” among workers. Under the rules of both California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) and New York’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a union that presents the agency with cards obtained from a majority of workers immediately gains certification as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.
Charges of improper behavior in obtaining this status, including union lies and coercion while collecting cards, can only be dealt with after the union is certified – if at all. Further, under both statutes, certification starts a countdown to a government-imposed union contract that can trap workers in union ranks for years.
Even worse, Bell and Estrame’s complaint argues that New York’s FLFLPA violates the U.S. Constitution because it lacks basic provisions to guard workers from union boss malfeasance. The statute “does not require that unions fairly represent employees, does not give employees a right to refrain from union activity, and does not give employees a right to file unfair labor practice charges against a union,” the complaint says.
In the Wonderful Nurseries case, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California permitted the 20 employees to intervene in a lawsuit against the ALRB. The employees’ current complaint was then filed on May 19. Meanwhile, in New York, Bell and Estrame filed a motion on May 21 seeking to intervene in a suit in which the New York State Vegetable Growers Association, Porpiglia Farms, and other farm operators are challenging the FLFLPA.
Workers Challenged Union’s Rise to Power Through Deceitful Techniques
Wonderful Nurseries employees sought to intervene in a case challenging UFW bosses’ card check organizing campaign at first before the ALRB, after the agency certified the union’s questionable claims of majority support. In unfair labor practice charges before the ALRB, Chavez and Gutierrez described multiple fabrications – and even discriminatory behavior – that UFW union bosses used to get employees to sign authorization cards, including “representing that certain COVID-19-related public benefits available to farmworkers required signatures on union membership cards…that union membership cards were not, in fact, union membership cards to be used in any UFW organizing efforts…presenting to strictly Spanish-speaking discriminatees union membership cards only in English…[and] presenting to illiterate discriminatees union membership cards and misrepresenting their content and/or significance.”
Complaint: NY Ag Labor Statute Also Disrupts Workers’ Immigration Status
In addition to citing issues with card check, Bell and Estrame’s complaint notes that the FLFLPA’s imposition of UFW bargaining control over them interferes with Bell’s legal status in the country under the H2-A agricultural visa program. “The inclusion of H2-A employees in the FLFLPA statutory scheme and in bargaining units certified by PERB under the statute is preempted by the federal government’s general power to regulate the field of immigration…” the complaint says. According to the complaint, that overreach by the NY statute violates the Supremacy and Contract Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
“These farmworkers from New York and California are challenging the use of so-called ‘card check’ organizing campaigns in the agricultural sector. But they really speak for countless workers across industries who have faced intimidation, harassment, and other rights violations during card check campaigns just so union officials can seize bargaining control over them and collect dues,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Workers everywhere in the country should have the right to vote in a secure secret ballot election on whether they want a union. And, just as importantly, they should have a right to refrain from union activity and challenge union boss misdeeds if a union they oppose does gain control over them. Card check is a process designed to trample workers’ individual rights.”
Austin Worker Files 5th Foundation-Backed Lawsuit Arguing NLRB Violates US Constitution
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Case joins others for employees nationwide arguing Labor Board’s structure is illegal
Dallas Mudd helps connect people with the social services they need, and his and many other workers’ ability to do their important work shouldn’t be stymied because unaccountable NLRB bureaucrats are forcing union “representation” on them.
AUSTIN, TX – In November, Dallas Mudd, an employee for online social service coordination platform Findhelp, filed a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the grounds that the agency’s structure is unconstitutional. Mudd’s case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is the latest in a series of legal actions by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for employees challenging the NLRB’s authority.
Mudd’s case comes after he filed a decertification petition with the NLRB, seeking a vote to remove the Office & Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) from his workplace. However, NLRB officials blocked the vote, disenfranchising Mudd and his colleagues on the basis of unproven charges union bosses made against Findhelp. Mudd appealed the decision to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C., while also filing a federal lawsuit to challenge NLRB members’ removal protections.
Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Mudd’s Foundation attorney also asked the Northern District Court of Texas to issue a preliminary injunction stopping the NLRB from adjudicating his appeal until the issue of the NLRB’s constitutionality is resolved. Mudd argues that he is suffering ongoing and irreparable harm by being forced to navigate a statutory process before an agency that he claims is unconstitutionally structured.
Constitutional Challenge: A Broader Legal Campaign
Meanwhile, in its own case against the NLRB, Findhelp has successfully secured an injunction against the NLRB in a federal district court making arguments similar to those raised by Mudd.
Mudd’s lawsuit follows four other constitutional challenges backed by the National Right to Work Foundation, targeting the NLRB’s structure. This includes a case for New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, who filed the first constitutional challenge to NLRB Board Member protections.
Their case is currently being briefed at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but since their groundbreaking lawsuit, numerous major employers have utilized the arguments first made in federal court by Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the radically pro-union boss BidenHarris NLRB.
“Independent-minded workers should not be forced to depend on biased agencies staffed by bureaucrats who exercise power in violation of the Constitution,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“The Constitution does not permit a powerful federal agency to operate as the judge, jury, and executioner without proper oversight.
“Contrary to the wishes of Big Labor bosses, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the U.S. Constitution,” added Semmens.
Hundreds of Sunoco Logistics Drivers Across TX, OK, LA, and NM Free Themselves From Steelworkers Union
Majority of drivers across large work unit backed petition to send USW union bosses packing
Washington, DC (May 20, 2025) – Crude oil drivers for Sunoco Logistics Partners (also known as Energy Transfer) have successfully forced unpopular United Steelworkers (USW) union bosses out of their work unit. The victory for workers comes after Jay Fifer, a driver for the oil transportation company, gathered signatures from the majority of his coworkers on a petition demanding that Sunoco Logistics officials end their recognition of the USW union as the majority “representative” of the drivers.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) acknowledged Sunoco Logistics’ withdrawal of recognition from the USW union on May 12. As the result of Fifer and his coworkers’ effort, over 420 drivers from around 30 Sunoco Logistics facilities across Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and New Mexico are free of the union’s control.
“I’m glad that my coworkers and I were able to band together to force this Steelworkers union out,” commented Fifer. “The union was not a positive force in our workplace, and we are better off without it. I am lucky to live in the Right to Work state of Texas where I could at least choose to stop sending my money to this union while it was still in power, but unfortunately the same can’t be said for all of my fellow drivers.”
The NLRB is the agency charged with enforcing federal labor law in the private sector, which includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Thanks to the 2019 Foundation-won Johnson Controls NLRB decision, workers who want to remove unwanted union officials 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 test the employees’ opposition to the union.
Fifer lives in Texas, a Right to Work state barring union bosses from enforcing contracts that require employees to pay dues or fees to union officials as a condition of keeping their jobs. Oklahoma and Louisiana are also Right to Work states, but Sunoco Logistics drivers in New Mexico do not have the benefit of Right to Work protections and can be forced to sacrifice part of their paychecks to union bosses or be fired. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, federal law lets union officials impose their monopoly “representation” on all workers in a work unit, regardless of whether they support the union or not.
Rank-and-File Oil Truck Drivers Gathered Hundreds of Signatures in Favor of Removing USW
Fifer’s effort to remove the USW union kicked off when he began collecting signatures on a petition asking the NLRB to administer a union removal (or “decertification”) vote at his workplace. Fifer easily met the 30% signature threshold needed to trigger such an election under NLRB rules. However, soon after the NLRB scheduled a decertification vote to take place over a range of dates in May, Fifer’s petition gained even more traction and soon garnered support from a majority of the work unit.
Fifer opted to submit his petition to his employer, who withdrew recognition from the USW union in accordance with the Johnson Controls decision. USW union officials are now stripped of their monopoly bargaining power and can no longer enforce bargaining obligations against Sunoco Logistics.
Foundation staff attorneys have helped several groups of workers exercise their right to remove unwanted USW unions within the last few years, including healthcare workers in Minnesota, metal workers in Pennsylvania, chemical employees in Louisiana, building products employees in New Jersey, and more. Across the country, workers’ desire to exercise their right to vote out unpopular union bosses is increasing: Worker-filed petitions seeking union decertification votes are up more than 50% from 2020, according to NLRB data.
“Rank-and-file workers across the country like Mr. Fifer and his fellow drivers don’t enjoy the same structural and legal advantages that union officials do under American labor law. That makes it all the more impressive that he and his colleagues were able to gather signatures across a huge work unit and break free of the Steelworkers union’s control,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “American workers’ increasing interest in escaping union ‘representation’ should serve as a reminder to the Trump Administration that it should pursue labor policy that enhances workers’ freedom to escape unwanted union affiliation.”
UNITE HERE Local 11 Faces Third Round of Federal Unfair Labor Practice Charges From LAX Flying Foods Employees
Workers have reported union officials using mob-like tactics, physical confrontations, false accusations, and more in retaliation for union dissent
Los Angeles, CA (May 13, 2025) – Esperanza Maciel, an employee of Flying Food Group, has hit the Unite Here Local 11 union with new unfair labor practice charges. This is the third round of federal charges since September 2024 that the union has faced from employees of the LAX foodservice provider. Maciel’s charge details another flash point in a pattern of harassment and intimidation tactics that Flying Foods workers say they are facing at the hands of Unite Here officials. Maciel filed her charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 21 with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
“Unite Here union officials do not care about creating a workplace where everyone is treated with respect,” commented Maciel. “They demonize anyone who disagrees with the union and try to cut them off from the rest of the workplace. This makes it even more ridiculous that I am forced to pay them every month.”
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes adjudicating disputes between management, union officials, and individual employees. NLRB officials are now reviewing Maciel’s charge. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs labor relations in the private sector, forbids both union officials and employers from retaliating against employees who speak up for or against union control.
Unite Here Rep Screamed False Accusations at Worker
Maciel’s charges state that she has openly engaged in advocacy against Unite Here union officials, and submitted a petition asking the NLRB to hold a vote among her colleagues to remove the union (“decertification election”). “Because of her dissident activities, [Maciel] has been the target of harassment, bullying, and retaliation or attempted retaliation by the Union and through its representative,” the charges read.
The charges detail a clash union bosses instigated against Maciel on May 3. A Unite Here representative replied to a question Maciel asked about health benefits by saying he would not talk to her because she was not part of the union, and promptly accused her, falsely, of “[going] to San Francisco to participate in an anti-immigrant protest.” He also shouted in front of other employees that the company was paying Maciel to oppose the union.
Maciel responded by asking why the union took money from her wages every month and reiterated her question about healthcare. The Unite Here official ignored the question and instead yelled, “She wants the Union to leave but no one is getting rid of us!” Maciel’s charge argues that the confrontation was a blatant violation of her right to oppose the union, which is activity protected under the NLRA.
Flying Foods Worker Reports Union-Incited Mob Demanded Her Firing
Unite Here Local 11 is already under federal investigation for violating workers’ rights at Flying Foods. Maciel filed charges against Local 11 in September 2024 after a union organizer illegally incited a mob of employees to demand her firing. At the end of April, another Flying Foods employee, Kenia Solano, reported in federal charges that Unite Here shop stewards manipulated other employees into isolating her and even instigated a physical altercation over her opposition to the union.
Solano’s and Maciel’s charges come as Foundation attorneys are aiding foodservice and hospitality workers across the country in challenging illegal tactics from Unite Here union officials, including threatening organizing tactics and refusing to respect workers’ rights to refrain from dues payment. Two such workers, Maria Uriostegui and Erika Chavez, hotel workers in Chicago and San Francisco respectively, were recently featured in a Foundation mini-documentary titled “The Reality of Union Bullying by UNITE HERE,” which recently surpassed 1.6 million views on YouTube:
“Independent-minded workers in the foodservice and hospitality industries are standing up to unmask Unite Here as an aggressive organization that prizes consolidating power in workplaces far above respecting employees’ rights and opinions,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foodservice and hospitality workers nationwide should know that they have rights to end union membership, speak out against union bosses, and refuse to pay some or potentially all union dues without having to fear retaliation, and that Foundation attorneys stand ready to help them exercise any and all of those rights.”
Michigan Security Guards Overwhelmingly Vote to End Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
After Big Labor-backed Right to Work repeal, Michigan workers including security guards continue fighting forced dues
James Reamsma and his fellow security guards finally secured their right to stop their hard-earned money from going to UGSOA union bosses after a months-long legal battle. Such anti-forced-dues cases continue to increase in Michigan.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Ever since Michigan legislators repealed the state’s popular Right to Work law, Michigan employees have been turning to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to help them fight to protect themselves from union bosses’ forced-dues demands. In a long-running case, security guard James Reamsma and his colleagues at Triple Canopy Inc. not only ended union officials’ power to require union dues payments as a condition of employment, but also freed themselves of unwanted union ‘representation.’
With Foundation legal aid, the security guards organized a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) “deauthorization election” to strip United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) Local 288 union officials of their power to compel union financial support.
Overwhelming Vote Against Forced Dues Triggers End of Unwanted ‘Representation’
Despite an overwhelming vote by participating workers against forced union dues, union lawyers’ delay tactics stalled final certification of the results until October. At that point, the dissenting security guards were officially free to cut off all union dues payments, as had been the case when Michigan’s Right to Work law was in place and all union financial support was strictly voluntary.
At that point, faced with the prospect that the vast majority of the guards would likely stop dues payments, UGSOA bosses announced they were ending their so-called “representation” at Triple Canopy. This means the security guards are now not only free of forced dues, but also of monopoly union representation they oppose.
“UGSOA union officials have threatened to have everyone who does not join the union fired,” Reamsma said soon after his case was filed. “Many of us are retired police officers, or military, working part time, supplementing our income by providing security for government buildings across Michigan. When Right to Work was in place, guards were never forced to join the union.”
In addition to the deauthorization petition, Reamsma filed unfair labor practice charges against UGSOA, citing illegal union dues demands. The charges note that union officials were violating his rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision by denying Reamsma a required breakdown of how the forced-dues amount was calculated, and also by attempting to require that he let the union automatically deduct dues out of his paycheck. Those charges remain pending with the NLRB.
Despite a vast majority of Michiganders — including those in union households — expressing support for Right to Work, union boss partisans re-granted forced-dues powers to Michigan union officials in 2023.
Foundation attorneys filed more than twice the number of cases for Michigan workers in 2024 (the year the repeal went into effect) than through all of 2023. That increase includes a number of deauthorization cases. In states that lack Right to Work protections, like Michigan does currently, the only way that workers can end union bosses’ pay-up-or-be-fired dues demands is by voting as a majority against forced dues in a “deauthorization election” or by voting to remove the union completely.
Often workers may prefer to end union “representation” entirely, but union-backed NLRB rules severely limit when decertification votes can be held, including for up to three years when a forced-dues union contract is in place. As a result, workers often turn to deauthorization to cut off union dues payments in order to incentivize union bosses to leave completely, as happened with James Reamsma and his coworkers.
Fight Against Forced Dues in Michigan Continues
“Mr. Reamsma’s situation shows the kind of greedy gamesmanship union officials can engage in without Right to Work,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“As soon as Reamsma and his coworkers had gone through the complex process of voting to strip them of their forced-dues power, union officials immediately fled the workplace — almost as if they were only there to collect dues from workers who had no choice but to pay up to avoid termination.
“While we are proud to assist Michigan workers in navigating these challenges, cases like these show why it was such a mistake to repeal Michigan’s popular Right to Work law to begin with,” added Mix.
Statement on Charlene Carter Appeals Court Victory in Case Against Southwest and TWU Union
Earlier today a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in flight attendant Charlene Carter’s case against Southwest Airlines and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 556 for illegally firing her in retaliation for expressing her religious beliefs. The decision affirms that Southwest and TWU violated federal law for their respective roles in her termination.
Carter is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in the case, which was originally filed in 2017. More details can be found here.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement about the latest victory in Carter’s case:
“This decision is another victory for Charlene Carter. The Court of Appeals has affirmed that both TWU union bosses and Southwest Airlines violated Carter’s legal rights when the union instigated her termination by Southwest in response to voicing her opposition to union political activism, including union activities that violated her religious beliefs.”
“We are proud to help Charlene defend her legal rights. But her case exposes a bigger injustice in American labor law: that workers can be forced to accept union ‘representation’ they oppose and, adding insult to injury, can be forced to pay fees to that union. It is outrageous that, even though the court confirmed that the TWU union and Southwest violated Carter’s legal rights, Carter is still forced to subsidize TWU union bosses or else be fired by Southwest. We hope Carter’s victory today will prompt an overdue conversation about how coercive union boss power infringes on the rights of millions of hardworking Americans.”
Chicago-Area Chemical Plant Worker Asks National Labor Board to End Policy Letting Union Bosses Trap Workers in Unions
Employees submitted valid petition requesting vote to remove Teamsters union, but union bosses manipulated unproven charges against employer to block vote
Chicago, IL (May 8, 2025) – An employee of Rowell Chemical Corporation, a chemical plant based in Willow Springs, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to overturn a regional labor board’s decision blocking a vote to remove the Teamsters Local 710 union. The worker, Jeffrey Johnston, is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB, based in Washington, D.C., is the federal agency responsible for administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions, as well as adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. Johnston’s Request for Review argues that regional NLRB officials blocked his and his coworkers’ requested union removal vote based on dubious “blocking charges” Teamsters union officials filed against Rowell management.
Union officials often file blocking charges to delay or cancel union decertification votes, despite the fact that their charges are often unproven and have little, if any, connection to the reasons workers cite for wanting to get rid of a union. The NLRB in 2020 adopted Foundation-backed reforms that gave workers a chance to vote before the agency handled litigation related to the election, but the Biden NLRB adopted a new rule in 2024 that lets union officials manipulate blocking charges to stop election proceedings completely.
Request for Review: NLRB “Blocking Charge” Policy Violates Multiple Federal Laws
Johnston’s Request for Review contends that the NLRB should eliminate the Biden-era rule permitting blocking charges and schedule a union decertification election for him and his coworkers as soon as possible. Johnston argues that holding up an election pursuant to blocking charges violates the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the statute that the NLRB is supposed to enforce, which states that a decertification election should occur if there is a question concerning representation. Johnston also argues that the Biden-era rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) on multiple grounds.
At the very least, Johnston’s Request for Review maintains, the NLRB should hold a hearing into whether the employer misconduct alleged by Teamsters union officials actually has a connection to Johnston and his coworkers’ desire to kick the union out. The regional NLRB did not order such a hearing and simply blocked the vote.
“My coworkers and I requested a vote to remove this union almost two months ago and somehow the NLRB is letting Teamsters bosses throw around specious charges to stop us from doing so,” commented Johnston. “My coworkers and I have spent two years under Teamsters control, and I believe that the vast majority of us agree that the Teamsters don’t represent our interests. It’s not fair that union bosses and the NLRB can trump our free choice.”
“The NLRB, through its ‘blocking charge’ rule has let union officials stifle the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent’ in violation of the statute the NLRB is supposed to enforce,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Johnston speaks for workers across the country in challenging this NLRB-invented policy, which is completely antithetical to the idea expressed in federal labor law that employees should choose the union, not the other way around.”
