Karma Catches Up to SEIU Officials as Philly Coffee Shop Workers Oust Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Good Karma Café coffee shop employees vote out SEIU officials also opposed by many Starbucks workers
SEIU officials’ aggressive campaign targeting coffee shop employees across the country for union control is fast unravelling, as workers nationwide are now exercising their right to vote unions out, often with Foundation aid.
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Workers United (WU), the same union that runs Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) unions across the country, has been the subject of considerable media attention for its top-down organizing campaign against Starbucks. Little do people know that WU’s puppet masters at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have expended millions of dollars in hiring union activists to agitate for union control at these shops — including “salts,” paid union agents that pose as normal employees but often quit soon after they’ve achieved their actual goal of installing the union.
However, aggressive and deceptive WU union tactics did not stop Marco Camponeschi and his coworkers at two locations of Good Karma Café in Philadelphia from voting out the union with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Camponeschi submitted a petition in August asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 4 in Philadelphia to hold a vote to remove the union. The petition contained signatures from enough of his colleagues to prompt the election, and this September, the Good Karma employees voted to send WU officials packing.
Signs of SEIU “Salt” Tactics in Philly
“After the Workers United union was installed, there was a lot of employee turnover, and we soon found ourselves very short-staffed,” Camponeschi commented before the vote. Employee turnover after a union’s installation often indicates “salts” may have been present.
Pennsylvania, because of its lack of Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, permits union officials to make deals with employers that require workers to pay union dues just to stay employed. So by nixing the union, Camponeschi and his coworkers ended both forced union representation and the threat of forced dues. In states with Right to Work laws, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary and the choice of each individual worker.
Coffee Workers Leading Nationwide Charge to Boot Out Unwanted Unions
Since the beginning of this year, Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY; Buffalo, NY; Pittsburgh, PA; Bloomington, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; Oklahoma City, OK; and Greenville, SC, have all sought free Foundation legal aid in pursuing decertification efforts against Workers United union bosses at the NLRB.
Outside of coffee shops, union decertification efforts are becoming much more common. Currently, the NLRB’s data shows a unionized private sector worker is far more likely to be involved in a decertification effort than their nonunion counterpart is to be involved in a unionization campaign. NLRB statistics also show that the number of worker-filed decertification petitions has increased each of the last three years.
“Workers United union officials seem to have a penchant for trying to expand their control over employees without regard for the employees’ interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “So it’s unsurprising that coffee employees nationwide are banding together to vote Workers United out.
“While we’re glad the Good Karma employees were able to successfully exercise their right to oust the unwanted union, it should be noted that NLRB officials across the country are blocking Starbucks employees from exercising that same right at the behest of Workers United union officials,” Messenger added. “Workers should be allowed to vote out unwanted unions, and the NLRB should not stifle that right based on union officials’ whims. That’s especially important as the Biden NLRB seeks to make several rule changes which will make it harder for workers to vote out union officials.”
Ohio Kroger Employee Slams UFCW and Kroger with Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Money from Paycheck
Union officials threatened that employee would be fired for not signing illegal dues deduction authorization form, Kroger still taking dues from employee’s paycheck
Fairfield, OH (March 20, 2024) – An employee of Kroger’s location in the Fairfield Center Mall Shopping Center has hit the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 75 union with federal charges, stating that union officials threatened him with termination for refusing to sign an illegal union membership form. Kroger is also the subject of a charge for illegally transferring dues money from the employee’s paycheck to the union.
The worker, James Carroll, submitted his charges at Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Cincinnati with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
Carroll’s charges explain that the form UFCW union bosses forced him to sign is an illegal “dual purpose” membership form, which seeks only one employee signature for authorization of both union membership and dues deductions. Federal labor law requires that any authorization for union dues deductions be voluntary and separate from a union membership application. Additionally, Supreme Court precedents like General Motors v. NLRB recognize the right of workers to refrain from union membership.
However, because Ohio lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials have the power to impose contracts that force Carroll and his coworkers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping a job, even if they are nonmembers. However, union officials must always seek employees’ explicit consent before instructing an employer to deduct union dues directly from a worker’s paycheck, and forced-dues amounts can never include money that goes toward a union’s political activity, as per the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. In Right to Work states, union dues payment is strictly voluntary.
At UFCW officials’ behest, Kroger has continued to seize full union dues from Carroll’s paycheck despite his lack of consent. Because Kroger management is complicit in assisting union agents in enforcing their illegal scheme, Carroll has also filed federal charges against Kroger.
On Illegal Dues Practices, Kroger and UFCW Are Repeat Offenders
This isn’t the first time Foundation attorneys have aided Kroger employees facing illegal dual-purpose membership forms pushed by UFCW union bosses. In February 2023, Houston, TX-area Kroger worker Jessica Haefner filed federal charges against the UFCW for presenting her with such a dual-purpose form, and for altering her writing on the form to show she consented to union dues deductions when she was actually trying to exercise her right under Texas’ Right to Work law to abstain from dues payment.
In 2023, Foundation attorneys also assisted a Pittsburgh-area teen file federal discrimination charges against a UFCW local after union officials illegally refused to consider his religious objections to paying union dues.
“Federal law protects the right of workers to make free choices about formal union membership, and gives workers in non-Right to Work states like Ohio some ability to avoid paying for union politics and other union expenditures. But union bosses bent on obtaining greater control over workers and their pocketbooks pose real-life obstacles to exercising these rights, as do complicit employers like Kroger,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re proud to help Mr. Carroll defend his rights, but ultimately Ohio workers need the protection of a Right to Work law.”
Medieval Times Performers Banish Union Officials from Buena Park, CA, and Lyndhurst, NJ, Castles
Union officials pushed unpopular strikes, now disclaim interest instead of remaining in work units where majority of workers requested ouster elections
Washington, DC (March 14, 2023) – Performers at dinner theater concept Medieval Times’ locations in Buena Park, CA, and Lyndhurst, NJ, have claimed victory as American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA) union officials submitted paperwork declaring they will abandon both workplaces. The AGVA union’s “disclaimers of interest” come after majorities of actors from both locations backed petitions asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold elections on whether to remove the AGVA union. Artemisia Morley and Michelle Dean submitted the union “decertification petitions” on behalf of performers at the New Jersey and California locations, respectively.
Both Morley and Dean received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation in navigating the NLRB’s union decertification process. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Both Morley’s and Dean’s petitions contained signatures from a majority of employees at their respective locations.
AGVA union officials attempted to block the New Jersey decertification vote by filing “blocking charges,” which are often-unrelated allegations against management meant to derail a vote. However, AGVA union officials in both New Jersey and California eventually chose to withdraw from the workplaces as opposed to fighting Foundation attorneys at the NLRB. In New Jersey, AGVA union officials departed before the decertification vote could take place, likely to avoid an embarrassing outcome.
Because California and New Jersey lack Right to Work protections for their private sector workers, AGVA union bosses had the power to enter into contracts with Medieval Times management that would have required employees to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, in both non-Right to Work states and Right to Work states, union bosses have power over the working conditions of every employee in a unionized workplace, including those who don’t support the union. A successful decertification effort strips union officials of that monopoly bargaining power.
AGVA Union Officials Tried to Use Strikes to Gain Power, but Only Angered Workers
AGVA union officials advocated for, or ordered, unpopular strikes at both the California and New Jersey Medieval Times locations around when each decertification petition was submitted. Filings in Morley’s NLRB case indicated that AGVA union officials were “secretive, self-interested, and divisive,” and continuously advocated a strike despite disapproval from workers at the Lyndhurst, NJ, castle.
Similarly, AGVA union officials called off a roughly nine-month-long strike at the Buena Park, CA, Medieval Times just before Dean filed her decertification petition.
The tide substantially turned against AGVA union officials in New Jersey after Morley’s Foundation attorneys successfully challenged a decision from an NLRB Regional Director that halted the Lyndhurst decertification vote based on union officials’ “blocking charges.” The NLRB in Washington, DC, ordered that a hearing be held to determine whether union bosses’ “blocking charges” had anything to do with employee discontent with the union, but AGVA disclaimed interest before the hearing could occur.
Employees Across U.S. Seeking Freedom from Union Control
Across the country, workers are increasingly attempting to exercise their right to vote out union officials they disapprove of. According to NLRB data, since 2020 decertification petition filings have gone up by over 40%. Despite this trend, the Biden NLRB is attempting to make it substantially more difficult for workers to decertify unions, and could soon issue a final rule invalidating the Election Protection Rule, a policy which contains multiple important safeguards regarding employees’ right to decertify unions they oppose.
“AGVA union officials treated each Medieval Times castle as their own personal fiefdom, but their actions led to an uprising of the rank-and-file they purported to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the wishes of the Medieval Times performers have been obtained, it should be remembered that workers all over the country are subjected to union control they oppose.”
Palo Alto Medical Foundation Nurses Vote Union Out at Sunnyvale and Mountain View Facilities
Victory continues string of successful union decertification attempts by healthcare workers across the country
Palo Alto, CA (March 13, 2024) – Nurses from Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s locations in Sunnyvale and Mountain View, CA, have exercised their right to remove unwanted International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) union officials from power at their workplaces. The ouster is the result of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) March 8 certification of an election in which nearly 60% of participating nurses from Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s infusion facilities voted to end the union’s presence in the workplace.
Nurse Malgorzata Nepali spearheaded the effort to remove the union by submitting union decertification petitions to the NLRB in December 2023 and February 2024 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Her petitions contained sufficient signatures from her fellow nurses to trigger a union decertification vote under NLRB rules. The NLRB held the election in person over February 28 and 29.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, union officials can impose contracts that force workers to pay union dues or fees just to get or keep a job. Union officials also enjoy monopoly bargaining power that permits them to impose a union contract on all employees in a work unit, including those who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of both forced-dues power and monopoly bargaining privileges.
IFPTE Union Officials Tried to Trap Nurses in Union, But Ultimately Failed
Nepali and her coworkers’ effort to oust the union hit a snag when IFPTE bosses argued that her December 2023 petition should be tossed out pursuant to a so-called “contract bar.” The contract bar is a non-statutory NLRB policy that blocks employees from exercising their right to vote out unwanted union officials for up to three years after union officials and management finalize a contract.
Nepali’s Foundation-provided attorneys argued in a brief that the contracts offered by the union as evidence the contract bar should apply lacked fundamental elements. Additionally, Nepali submitted a new petition in February 2024 outside the time window of the union’s claimed contract bar. NLRB Region 32 eventually ordered that the election should proceed on the basis of Nepali’s second petition.
Healthcare Employees Across U.S. Seeking Freedom from Union Control
Across the country, workers are increasingly attempting to exercise their right to vote out union officials they disapprove of. According to NLRB data, since 2020 decertification petition filings have gone up by over 40%. To resist this trend, the Biden NLRB is attempting to make it substantially more difficult for workers to decertify unions, and could soon issue a final rule invalidating the Election Protection Rule. The Election Protection Rule is a policy which contains multiple important safeguards regarding employees’ right to decertify unions they oppose.
Healthcare employees across America have led a string of recent successful union decertification efforts with Foundation legal aid. In December 2023, support staff from St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children voted American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials out of a work unit comprising 270+ employees. Also in December, support staff at Mayo Clinic’s location in Austin, MN, forced Steelworkers union officials out of their facility, which followed other Foundation-backed union ousters in Mankato, MN, and St. James, MN.
“We at the Foundation are proud to help Ms. Nepali and healthcare workers all across the country exercise their right to vote out union officials that don’t represent their interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While this victory is encouraging, IFPTE union officials tried to manipulate the ‘contract bar’ to foist their control on the nurses despite their clear intentions to oust the union. This shows that there are anti-worker restrictions heavily ingrained in NLRB case law that should be nixed.
“That situation isn’t helped by the fact that the Biden NLRB is seeking to place even greater restrictions on workers’ right to decertify unions, but Foundation attorneys will keep fighting at the NLRB for workers’ free choice,” Mix added.
Philly-Area Dometic Employees Slam UAW Union with Federal Charges for Illegal Threats Linked to Strike
Union steward threatened to fine and terminate any employee who chose to work during strike, seized money illegally from workers
Philadelphia, PA (March 11, 2024) – Seven employees of auto accessory manufacturer Dometic’s Philadelphia-area factory have filed federal charges against the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 644 union, maintaining that union officials ignored their requests to resign union membership during a strike, and are now unlawfully imposing internal union discipline on them. The workers, Nancy Powelson, Eric Angell, Joseph Buchak, Mario Coccie, Md Rasidul Islam, James Nold, and Robert Haldeman, filed their charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 4 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), the federal law that governs private sector labor relations in the United States. Under the NLRA, American private sector workers have a right to refrain from union activity, and the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in General Motors v. NLRB the right of employees to resign union membership during a strike.
All seven workers report in their unfair labor practice charges that a union steward told each of them during a September 8, 2023, meeting that a strike would begin the following week and any employee who crossed the picket line during the strike would be subject to internal union charges, fined, and ultimately terminated.
In October, each of the seven employees exercised their right to resign union membership, and returned to work shortly after doing so. However, on December 10, 2023, UAW union officials notified each worker that the union had started proceedings against them and their presence would soon be required at an internal union trial.
“The Union’s act of summoning Charging Party to attend an internal Union trial for post-resignation conduct interferes, restrains and coerces Charging Party in the exercise of…[NLRA] Section 7 rights, in violation of Teamsters Local 492 (United Parcel Service)…and Section 8(b)(1),” the employees’ charges explain.
After Threatening Illegal Discipline, Union Bosses Seized Money Illegally from Workers
According to the employees’ charges, UAW union bosses’ illegal behavior continued into the new year. Between October 2023 and January 2024, each worker invoked their right under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, asking the UAW to reduce their dues payments to only the amount that the union claims goes toward bargaining.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, union officials can impose contracts that force workers who have refrained from formal union membership to pay fees to the union as a condition of employment. However, as per Beck, this fee must exclude any money that funds a union’s political or lobbying activities, and can only include bargaining-related expenses. Beck also requires union officials to provide financial disclosures to workers who send a Beck notice.
Each charge states that “the [u]nion failed to respond or provide the required [Beck] financial disclosures for itself and its affiliated unions,” which is a violation of the NLRA.
UAW Union Officials Seek to Expand Power Despite Controversies
“The UAW is a repeat offender when it comes to union officials prioritizing their own power over the freedoms and well-being of workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re happy to help these Pennsylvania employees of Dometic, it’s likely the case that many more workers under UAW control across the country face similar illegal threats and rights violations.
“The UAW, which was also entangled in a years-long federal probe for embezzling workers’ money as recently as 2022, is currently spending millions to attempt to expand their monopoly bargaining power over additional workers,” Mix added. “Workers targeted by UAW officials for unionization have plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the union hierarchy’s motives and should seek Foundation aid in learning about and defending their rights.”
Tennessee AT&T Workers Force Unwanted CWA Union Bosses Out of Workplace Following Union ‘Card Check’
After union lawyers’ attempt to get the NLRB to block the vote failed, union bosses backed down and departed workplace rather than face workers’ vote
Tennessee (March 5, 2024) – Denis Hodzic, an In Home Sales Expert of AT&T Mobility Tennessee, and his coworkers have successfully pushed unwanted Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials out of power.
The union ouster follows Hodzic’s submission of a “decertification petition” backed by his fellow employees, which asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove (or decertify) the union for AT&T Mobility In Home Sales Experts throughout Tennessee. Hodzic received 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, which includes administering votes to certify and decertify unions. Hodzic, who collected signatures from a majority of his coworkers (more than enough to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules), filed his decertification petition in December 2023 to challenge a so-called “card check” unionization scheme by CWA union bosses.
Last month, an NLRB Regional Director rejected union officials’ objections to the petition and ruled that a decertification election should go forward. However, before the vote could occur, CWA union officials filed paperwork disclaiming interest in continuing their control over the workers – likely to avoid an embarrassing rejection by employees at the ballot box.
Had Hodzic and his coworkers’ effort not succeeded, NLRB documents indicate that they would have been integrated into a nationwide bargaining unit comprised of thousands of employees, which would have made decertifying the union virtually impossible.
Because Tennessee is a Right to Work state, CWA union officials never had the power to force Hodzic and his colleagues to pay union dues or join the union as a condition of employment. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can still force their one-size-fits-all contracts on all employees in a work unit, even those who oppose the union. A successful decertification election ends this monopoly bargaining power.
Biden NLRB Cracking Down on Employees’ Right to Vote in Secret on Union ‘Representation’
Under a card check, union officials can bypass the secret-ballot election process, which is the most secure and reliable way to determine if employees want to unionize. During a card check drive, union officials can engage in face-to-face interactions with employees and demand they sign union authorization cards, making the process a breeding ground for coercive and intimidating tactics. Even AFL-CIO organizing guidelines admit that employees often sign cards during a card check to “get the union off my back.”
Though union officials successfully gained control via card check, Hodzic was able to petition for a decertification vote to overturn the result thanks to the Right to Work Foundation-backed 2020 reforms to NLRB rules.
Collectively referred to as the “Election Protection Rule,” the reforms permit employees to submit decertification petitions within a 45-day window after the finalization of a card check. The Election Protection Rule also prevents union officials from manipulating charges they file alleging employer misconduct to block workers from casting ballots in a decertification election, among other things.
Unfortunately, the NLRB in Washington, DC, has begun rulemaking to undo the Election Protection Rule, which will make it much harder for employees to challenge card check drives. This is just one of several aggressive moves by the Biden NLRB to give union officials greater power to corral workers into unions, while limiting workers’ rights to get rid of unpopular unions.
Recently, the NLRB issued the Cemex decision, which gives union officials greatly expanded power to overturn elections that don’t go in their favor if an employer requests such an election to challenge a card check.
“Despite claiming to speak for workers, union bosses and their allies in the Biden NLRB seem to be intent on further constricting workers’ ability to have secure, private votes on whether union bosses deserve to have control over their working lives,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Hodzic and his coworkers’ victory should serve as a reminder that ‘card check’ is not a reliable indicator of employee support for a union, and that giving this process priority over secret ballot elections will trap more workers under union boss control against their will.”
Albany Starbucks Employees Seek Vote to Kick Out SBWU Union
“This isn’t what we signed up for” says NY worker who joins Starbucks partners across the country in demanding union ousters
Albany, NY (March 1, 2024) – A partner of the Stuyvesant Plaza Starbucks in Albany has filed a petition with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 3, asking the federal agency to hold a vote at her workplace to remove (or “decertify”) the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union. The employee, Rayghan Dowey, received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in submitting her petition.
“This isn’t what we signed up for, a new team has started to come in [to the Stuyvesant Plaza Starbucks] and we want to make sure that the voice that was once heard is still being heard two years later,” commented Dowey regarding the union. “We want to bring the inclusivity, community, and culture back. The culture we once had, that we were promised to get back, we never got to see.”
Dowey’s petition contains signatures from enough coworkers at her store to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. Because New York lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SBWU union bosses can enter into contracts that compel Dowey and her coworkers to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials in a unionized workplace are empowered by federal law to impose a union contract on all employees in a work unit, including those who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of that power.
Amid Growing Requests to Remove SBWU, Starbucks Workers Also Challenge NLRB Authority
Dowey and her colleagues join Starbucks partners and other coffee company employees across the country in banding together to vote out SBWU union officials. In the past year, Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY; two Buffalo, NY locations; Pittsburgh, PA; Bloomington, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; Greenville, SC; Oklahoma City, OK; San Antonio, TX; and Philadelphia, PA, have all sought free Foundation legal aid in filing or defending decertification petitions at the NLRB. Foundation attorneys have helped employees at independent Philadelphia coffee shops Good Karma Café and Ultimo Coffee successfully oust Workers United union officials, who are affiliated with SBWU.
Many employees of Starbucks or other coffee establishments are requesting decertification votes from the NLRB roughly one year after union bosses attained power in their workplaces, which is the earliest opportunity afforded by federal law to do so. Starbucks employees in particular were the targets of a multi-year, aggressive unionization campaign by SBWU, in which the union spent millions on paid union agents – including “salts” who obtained jobs at Starbucks locations with the covert mission of installing union power.
However, rather than respect the choice of workers opposed to the union, SBWU union officials are attempting to prevent Starbucks workers nationwide from exercising their right to decertify the union with charges against Starbucks management that are currently holding up the elections. Currently, Foundation staff attorneys are representing workers in about a dozen Starbucks stores seeking decertification votes.
NLRB Request for Review: Region Violating Starbucks Workers’ Rights by Blocking Vote
In fact, Foundation attorneys just filed a request for review with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC, for Indya Fiessinger, a Starbucks employee at a Salt Lake City-area location who filed a petition for a decertification vote. The brief argues an NLRB Regional Director incorrectly applied federal law to block the decertification election requested by the workers at the store, and refused to even hold a hearing on the matter.
Foundation attorneys are also representing Buffalo, NY, and San Antonio, TX, Starbucks workers in challenging the NLRB as an unconstitutionally-structured federal agency. In two federal lawsuits now at the district court level, Starbucks employees argue that NLRB bureaucrats’ removal protections shield them from accountability in violation of separation of powers doctrines in the Constitution.
“Despite the wave of Starbucks workers who want to exercise their right to free themselves from unwanted union representation, SBWU union officials are twisting the law to trap workers under the union’s influence against their will,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Federal labor law should protect workers who want to exercise their free choice rights, not power-hungry union bosses, and Foundation attorneys are proud to represent Ms. Dowey and other Starbucks workers who oppose SBWU officials’ coercive reign.”
Starbucks Worker Asks Labor Board to Review Order Denying Vote to Remove Unwanted Union
Request for Review to full National Labor Relations Board says Regional Director erred in dismissing workers’ petition
Buffalo, NY (June 12, 2023) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C. This requests asks the Board to reverse a Regional Director’s order dismissing a workers’ petition for a decertification election on whether to remove the so-called Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union, an affiliate of Service Employee International Union (SEIU). The request is part of a case that began when Ariana Cortes, a Buffalo Starbucks worker, filed a petition with the NLRB requesting the decertification election be held at the “Del Chip” Starbucks location where she works.
Cortes’ decertification petition, which was filed on April 28, has support from a majority of her coworkers who also want to remove the union from their workplace. After her initial filing, Cortes began receiving free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
“They have treated us like pawns, promising us that we could remove them after a year if we no longer wanted their representation, and are now trying to stop us from exercising our right to vote,” Cortes said in a statement about why so many of her coworkers support removing the union. “It’s obvious they care more about power and control than respecting our individual rights.”
Under federal law, workers can trigger an NLRB-supervised decertification election with the signatures of 30% or more of the employees in a workplace. After receiving the petition, NLRB officials should then promptly move to schedule an election. However, on May 25, the NLRB Region 3 Regional Director issued an order dismissing the decertification petition.
In response to this order, Cortes’s Foundation staff attorneys filed the request for review with the four member NLRB in Washington, DC. The filing emphasizes the wishes of the employees to continue with the decertification process to remove the monopoly union representation that lacks the support of a majority of the workers, which is a fundamental principle of the National Labor Relations Act that the NLRB is charged with enforcing.
The brief also observes that the grounds for blocking the vote is contradicted by the NLRB allowing union-backed certification elections to proceed. The result is that the SEIU is like a roach motel, easy to enter but impossible to leave.
“The Region dismissed her petition and disenfranchised her and her fellow employees of the right to choose their representative—the same right that has been granted over 350 times to employees seeking certification,” the brief states.
So far, workers at three different Starbucks locations in New York State have filed decertification petitions. In addition to the Del Chip store, Foundation staff attorneys also represent the petitioner in the Starbucks Roastery case, where a majority of workers also support the decertification effort.
The Foundation has also issued a legal notice to all Starbucks employees, offering free legal aid to any worker who may be interested in removing SBWU’s so-called “representation” from their workplace: www.nrtw.org/starbucks
“Workers have a statutory right to decertify a union they oppose, and it is outrageous that the Regional Director has so callously moved to disenfranchise these workers of that right,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB must reverse course and cease acting like its mission is simply to protect incumbent union officials against workers who are opposed to unions’ so-called representation.”
Foundation Asks Supreme Court to Take on Widespread Janus Violations
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief: Pending case should be used to underscore need to obtain workers’ consent to dues
In 2019, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy took proactive steps to protect Janus, but dues-hungry ASEA union bosses fought his actions all the way up to the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Right to Work Foundation’s victory in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case set a monumental First Amendment precedent. In Janus, the Justices recognized that no public sector worker can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and that unions cannot deduct union dues from a public sector worker’s wages unless that worker waives his or her Janus rights.
Now the Foundation is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to, five years after Janus was issued, take another case to clarify and fortify the Janus precedent against numerous misinterpretations by greedy union officials, union-backed state politicians, and, most worryingly, some lower court judges.
Alaska Takes Lead on Janus Rights Only to Face Union Boss Resistance
The Foundation’s brief asks the Supreme Court to weigh in on an Alaska lawsuit that started when union officials sought to nullify Alaska state officials’ attempt to fully protect the First Amendment rights of public employees. Union officials challenged the state’s arrangement which ensured that the state didn’t deduct dues from any public employee who had not knowingly waived their rights under Janus.
After the Janus decision, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued an executive order requiring the state to obtain proof of consent from workers each year to deduct union dues from their paychecks. The requirement was designed to prevent union bosses from deducting dues money from the wages of a worker who didn’t fully understand their legal rights under Janus. Many workers, for example, may have authorized dues deductions years before the Supreme Court recognized that mandatory payments to unions as a condition of government employment violate the Constitution.
Unwilling to comply with even this modest check on their power to deduct union dues directly from government employees’ paychecks, Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA) officials battled the State of Alaska in state court. Eventually, ASEA union lawyers were able to get the state’s highest court to block the arrangement. But the Supreme Court has the ability to fix the Alaska State Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of Janus.
Following the State of Alaska’s petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments in the case, Foundation attorneys filed a legal brief of their own, urging the Justices to uphold Alaska’s safeguards on Janus and correct the misinterpretations of Janus made by an increasing number of courts and state governments around the country.
Brief: States and Courts Are Ignoring Janus, Need to Be Reined In
The Foundation’s argument notes that, after the Janus decision, at least seventeen states either changed their laws to require government employers to enforce union boss-invented restrictions on when employees can stop union dues deductions, or enforced dues deduction restrictions already on the books. Both lead to unacceptable restraints on public sector workers’ Janus rights, the amicus brief argues.
The amicus brief further contends that lower courts, especially the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over Alaska, have misinterpreted Janus by not mandating government employers notify public workers of their Janus rights before taking union dues from their paychecks. For a waiver of one’s rights to be effective, a person must know what those rights are — just as police officers “Mirandize” suspects they arrest by informing them of their “right to remain silent.”
Union Bosses Value Dues-Funded Politicking Over Public Servants’ Rights
The amicus brief also points out that the Ninth Circuit has issued decisions that free public employers from any obligation to prove that union bosses obtained authentic consent from workers before dues are taken from their wages — opening the door for forged or fake dues deduction cards.
“Unless the Court grants review and breathes new life into Janus’ waiver requirement, unions and their government allies will continue to severely restrict the right of millions of employees to stop subsidizing union speech,” the amicus brief concludes.
“Public sector union bosses, who prize their own dues-funded political influence far above the individual rights of the employees they claim to ‘represent,’ have tried everything in their power to dodge the Janus ruling and keep siphoning money from workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The Supreme Court
has an opportunity in the State of Alaska’s case to set the record straight and ensure that workers’ free association rights can’t simply be molded according to their own schemes.”
Right to Work Foundation SCOTUS Brief: Workers Exercising Right to Oppose Unions Isn’t “Harm” to Be Eliminated
In case to be heard by Court, Foundation argues NLRB wrongly asserts that independent-minded opposition to unions can justify injunctions
Washington, DC (February 29, 2024) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief in Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney, a case set to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court later this term that has major implications for the rights of workers who oppose union power in their workplaces.
In the brief, Foundation staff attorneys argue that federal courts should reject National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requests for preliminary injunctions when the Labor Board claims employee discontent with a union is a “harm” that should be redressed. These injunctions, called 10(j) injunctions, are frequently used by the NLRB to force employers into certain union-demanded behavior, despite the NLRB not having fully adjudicated the underlying union allegations.
The brief points out that an employee’s decision not to support a union is not a harm that needs to be addressed, but rather a “legitimate choice employees have a right to make” under both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the First Amendment to the Constitution.
“Only if the NLRB can prove an employee was coerced by an employer to oppose a union against his or her will can that employee’s lack of support for the union be considered any sort of a harm to be redressed,” the brief says. “If the NLRB cannot muster such evidence, then the fact that employees are exercising their statutory and constitutional rights…provides no basis for [an] injunction.”
Foundation: Courts Shouldn’t Accept NLRB’s Assumption that Workers Want to Join Unions
In the Starbucks v. McKinney case, the NLRB sought an injunction at the behest of Starbucks Workers United (SBWU-SEIU) union officials against Starbucks for unfair labor practices the company allegedly committed at a location in Memphis, Tennessee. A major reason cited by the NLRB for the requested injunction was the fact that workers may choose to oppose the union if the injunction isn’t issued.
The case presents the question of what standard courts should use when evaluating whether to grant NLRB-requested injunctions under the NLRA. The Foundation brief opposes the lax standard that the NLRB and union officials are urging courts to use when deciding whether to issue injunctions.
That standard asks only whether alleged unfair labor practices could potentially coerce workers into not supporting a union. Foundation attorneys argue that “the Court must require the NLRB to prove employees were unlawfully coerced not to support a union because, absent such proof, employees have every right to make that choice” (emphasis added).
Foundation-Backed Starbucks Workers Disprove Specious NLRB Theory
Foundation staff attorneys are currently representing Starbucks employees at several locations across the country who seek to vote out (or “decertify”) the SBWU union. In the brief, Foundation attorneys point out that the NLRB in a similar case (Leslie v. Starbucks Corp.) cited a Foundation-backed union decertification case as a reason that an injunction should be issued against the company – despite the fact that the workers themselves say their opposition to the union had nothing to do with the conduct the union was challenging in that case.
“In taking this position, the NLRB has created a self-satisfying ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ dynamic for itself,” the brief reads. “Evidence that employees support a union is taken to mean they want to support the union. Evidence that employees oppose a union is taken to mean their employer must have wrongfully caused the employees not to support the union. All evidence conveniently leads to the conclusion desired by current NLRB leadership: employees should support unions.”
The case is set to be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 23, with a decision expected by the end of the High Court’s term in June.
“The Biden NLRB is working hand in glove with unions to advance a standard that treats worker dissent from unions as a harm to be eradicated, rather than a decision made by competent adults,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court in Starbucks v. McKinney must reject the idea that NLRB bureaucrats can simply twist evidence of legitimate worker discontent with unions into a tool to aid union bosses in gaining leverage over businesses and employees.”
