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.”
Foundation-Backed Workers Fighting for Freedom from Unwanted Union Bosses
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.
Victories come as Biden NLRB advances rule to block worker decertification votes
Seattle Mariners pro shop employees slammed UFCW union bosses out of T-Mobile Park by taking advantage of Foundation-backed rules that make union decertification votes easier. But the Biden NLRB is attacking those reforms.
WASHINGTON, DC – With National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys aiding workers across the country in exercising their right to vote out union officials they don’t want, President Biden’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is moving to undermine such efforts. The Biden NLRB is also fast-tracking policies that let union bosses sweep to power without even giving workers any chance to vote.
The Biden NLRB is pulling out all the stops to mandate the so-called “card check” process while eliminating workers’ ability to ask for a secret ballot vote. Card check lets union officials bypass the traditional union election process and pressure workers into signing union authorization cards that are later counted as “votes” for the union. Workers often report threats, intimidation, unwanted home visits, and union deception about the true meaning of the cards as part of a card check campaign.
The latest attack on workers’ election rights is the Biden NLRB’s pending rule to overturn Foundation backed-reforms to the election process adopted by the NLRB in 2020. The 2020 reforms, known as the Election Protection Rule, give workers a window of opportunity to petition for a secret ballot vote after a union imposes itself on workers without a secret ballot election. Foundation staff attorneys first established this protection in the 2007 Dana Corp case, and workers all over America used it until the Obama NLRB overturned Dana in 2010.
Seattle Mariners Employees Overwhelmingly Vote to Reverse UFCW Card Check
Since the 2020 Foundation-backed reforms reinstated the Dana process, workers have again used it to demand secret ballot elections to challenge union “representation” imposed through coercive card checks. In just the past few months, Foundation attorneys have assisted multiple groups of workers in exercising this freedom, and will continue to do so even in the face of Biden NLRB opposition.
This year, employees of the Seattle Mariners’ MLB pro shop obtained free Foundation legal aid to defend their effort to remove the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union, which had previously been installed through card check.
Regional NLRB officials granted the workers’ petition for a vote to remove the union based on the Election Protection Rule. But union lawyers argued on appeal that the Mariners employees’ election should be thrown out because of the so-called “voluntary recognition bar,” a pre-Election Protection Rule restriction that blocked workers from having a vote for up to a year or more after a card check.
The union’s appeal was dismissed based on the Election Protection Rule, and Mariners pro shop employees voted to send the UFCW packing by well over 80 percent.
California Paramedics Fight with Foundation Aid to Resuscitate Election Rights
Also on the West Coast, Michael Radan and his fellow paramedics and EMTs with the Manteca District Volunteer Ambulance Service in Groveland, CA; and Sonora, CA, petitioned for a secret ballot union decertification election shortly after Steelworkers union officials had swept themselves into the workplace via card check.
In August, Radan and his fellow paramedics and EMTs voted to remove the union. While Foundation attorneys are now defending Radan and his coworkers’ decision from election objections
levied by Steelworkers union bosses, the Election Protection Rule’s safeguards at least permitted the employees to vote.
As Decertifications Increase, Biden NLRB Makes Worker Free Choice Last Priority
Before the Rule, union officials could often use unproven or unrelated allegations of employer wrongdoing (also called “blocking charges”) to halt an election before ballots were even cast.
“That workers petition for secret ballot votes after union bosses make specious claims of majority support via card check shows that a card check isn’t truly reflective of workers’ will. The AFL-CIO’s own organizing manuals admit that workers often sign cards just to get union organizers ‘off their backs,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“All of this points to why the Election Protection Rule is so important — Big Labor should not have the power to subordinate workers’ free choice to union bosses’ thirst for power and dues revenue,” Mix added. “But as the Biden NLRB seeks to confer ever greater powers on union bosses, Foundation staff attorneys will continue to defend workers opposed to unionization, including by challenging the Biden NLRB in federal court.”
Seattle Mariners Employee Fights Biden Labor Board Cemex Decision Upending Right to Vote in Secret on Union ‘Representation’
In amicus brief at Ninth Circuit, employee shows how controversial Labor Board decision undermines rank-and-file workers’ freedom of choice
San Francisco, CA (February 12, 2024) – Tami Kecherson, a retail employee for the Seattle Mariners of Major League Baseball, has filed an amicus brief in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific LLC v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA.
The case is a challenge to the Biden NLRB’s radical overhaul of federal labor law that grants union bosses the power to bypass a traditional secret ballot election when trying to gain monopoly bargaining power over a workplace. Kecherson is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Controversial NLRB Decision Lets Union Bosses Quash Secret Ballot Elections
The NLRB issued a decision in Cemex in August 2023 which requires employers to either grant a union’s demand for recognition based on “card check,” or immediately petition for a secret ballot election. Card check is a process that uses “authorization cards” collected by union organizers as a substitute for votes in a secret ballot election. The card check process lacks the security of a secret ballot union vote, and exposes workers to coercion and intimidation as union officials seek to collect authorization cards. Even AFL-CIO organizing guides admit card check drives aren’t representative of how workers would vote in elections, and that many workers sign cards just to “get the union off my back.”
Under Cemex, an employer who declines to recognize a union is required to quickly ask the NLRB to hold a secret ballot election. But the NLRB doesn’t have to grant that request. A union can easily prompt the NLRB to cancel an employee vote (or even overturn an election that doesn’t go in the union’s favor) by filing charges against the company and showing the employer committed an unfair labor practice during the “critical period” leading up to the election.
Seattle Mariners Employee Defends Workers’ Right to Secret Ballot Elections
Kecherson and her coworkers from the Seattle Mariners’ retail shops were the targets of a card check organizing drive by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials in October 2022. Kecherson filed a petition at the NLRB challenging the card check-based imposition of the union and demanding a secret ballot election to test if the union had the support it claimed.
In May 2023, the NLRB Regional Director in Seattle ordered an election over the objections of UFCW union bosses, noting UFCW union officials had not properly informed employees of their right to file for such an election. Kecherson and her colleagues eventually voted by a margin of 50 to 9 to remove the UFCW union.
Kecherson and her colleagues were able to request such a vote under the auspices of the Election Protection Rule (EPR), a set of Foundation-supported reforms that the NLRB adopted in 2020. The EPR gives workers a 45-day opportunity to request a secret ballot vote to challenge a union’s card check-based claims of majority support after the completion of such a campaign. The process by which workers can challenge card check drives was established by Foundation attorneys in the Dana Corp. NLRB case. Though this 2007 decision was overturned in 2010 by the Obama NLRB, “Dana elections” were codified in the EPR – but may soon be nixed due to Biden NLRB rulemaking.
As Kecherson’s amicus brief states, the situation in her workplace (where 85% of workers voted to reject the union despite the union’s claims of majority support via cards) demonstrates how the Cemex decision wrongly promotes union-solicited authorization cards as a reliable alternative to secret ballot votes. “In short, Local 3000’s ostensible claim to majority employee support, which was based on authorization cards the union collected from the employees, was totally refuted when tested in the crucible of a secret ballot election,” Kecherson’s brief says. “Yet under Cemex, the NLRB will routinely impose compulsory union representation on employees based on card checks and without a secret-ballot election.”
“In Cemex, the Biden NLRB is promoting union boss power to the detriment of employee free choice, a right that is supposed be at the center of the National Labor Relations Act,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Kecherson’s story, where she and her colleagues overwhelmingly voted against the union despite union boss claims of majority support, is just the latest demonstration of what countless NLRB decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court, and even unions have admitted: Card check is unreliable and inferior to secret ballot elections where union organizers cannot see how each individual voted.”
“To defend the rights of rank-and-file workers like Tami Kecherson, the court must reject the NLRB’s biased and cynical Cemex framework that undermines the NLRA’s clear statutory preference for secret ballot votes,” added Mix.
Full Foundation Action September/October 2023 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the September/October issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- After Janus, Foundation Continues Fight to Expand Freedom for Public Employees
- Starbucks Workers Nationwide Rising Up Against Union Representation
- Victory: San Diego Charter School Educators Vote Out Teacher Union Bosses
- Mark Mix Labor Day Op-Ed: Biden’s Labor Board Wants to Trap Workers in Unions
- Philly Public Defender Beats Illegal UAW Dues Deduction Scheme
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
National Right to Work Foundation Highlights Michigan Workers’ Legal Options as Right to Work Repeal Looms
Legal notices: Though forced dues will again be legal in the private sector, Michigan workers can still reject union boss demands to join union and fund union political activities
Lansing, MI (February 9, 2024) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has issued special legal notices to public and private sector workers in Michigan, which explains what rights workers still have to resist union boss demands as the repeal of the state’s Right to Work law takes effect.
In March 2023, the Michigan Legislature voted against the will of over 70% of Michiganders and repealed the state’s protections against being forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. The repeal formally takes effect on February 12, 2024.
The legal notices are available at the Foundation’s website: https://www.nrtw.org/michigan-private-sector-notice/ (for private sector workers) https://www.nrtw.org/michigan-public-sector-notice/ (for public sector workers).
MI Public Sector Workers Can Still Refrain from Union Membership and Dues Payment
By repealing Michigan’s Right to Work law, Michigan politicians granted union officials the power to compel private sector workers to pay money to a union to keep their jobs. The legal notice explains that, despite this massive expansion of government-granted power for Michigan union bosses, private sector workers still have rights under federal law to refrain from formal union membership and to refuse to pay for union political or ideological expenditures, among other rights.
“[U]nder the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) workers subject to these forced fee arrangements cannot lawfully be compelled to be actual union members or pay full union dues to keep their jobs,” the notice reads.
As for public sector workers, the legal notice informs Michiganders that even though Michigan’s politicians have undone the state’s statutory protection against being forced to pay union bosses as a condition of employment, the repeal “does not—and cannot—strip [public sector] workers of their constitutional right” to refrain from funding union activities. The Supreme Court recognized public employees’ First Amendment right to abstain from union financial support in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME ruling.
MI Union Bosses Still Can’t Force Private Sector Workers to Become Formal Members or Directly Support Union Politics
The notices inform Michigan private sector employees that, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Pattern Makers v. NLRB, independent-minded workers have a right to refrain from formal union membership. The Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court ruling further holds that the most that union bosses can force nonmember workers to pay is a fee equal to “what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.” This fee cannot include union expenses for political and ideological activities.
“Unions often fail to meet their legal obligation to inform workers of their right not to be a union member and to object to paying full union dues,” the notice reads. “In fact, unions oftentimes mislead workers to believe that they must join the union to keep their jobs.”
MI Private Sector Workers Have Right to Vote Out Unpopular Union Bosses
Private sector employees also have the right to petition for National Labor Relations Board-supervised “decertification elections,” which can strip union officials of their coercive powers of monopoly control over a work unit entirely.
Foundation attorneys assist hundreds of workers every year in exercising their legal right to obtain a vote to decertify unions of which they disapprove.
“Union boss allies in the Michigan Legislature foisted this repeal on workers for one reason: To enlarge the coffers of their favorite special interest,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Instead of letting Michigan workers continue to enjoy the right to freely choose whether or not union officials have earned a cut of their hard-earned pay, Michigan legislators have granted union bosses a power that strips away basic free speech and association rights.”
“The truth is, even with this great expansion of their powers, Michigan union bosses will still try to look for ways to expand their powers beyond the law and compel more workers to associate with them,” Mix added. “That’s why it’s important for Michiganders to know their rights in this new legal landscape; they should also know that Foundation attorneys stand ready to defend the rights of any Michigan worker opposing union coercion.”
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Notice to VW Chattanooga Employees: UAW Officials May Try to Grab Power Without Vote
Notice informs VW Team Members of their rights in light of threat posed by new NLRB rule for bypassing or overturning a secret ballot election
Chattanooga, TN (February 9, 2024) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a special legal notice to thousands of autoworkers at Volkswagen’s production plant in Chattanooga, TN. The notice comes as officials of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union are making their third attempt to unionize the facility, despite workers voting down the union in both 2014 and 2019. The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/vw/.
The Foundation’s legal notice informs autoworkers that, due to the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) recent decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, UAW officials can impose the union’s monopoly representation on employees through the so-called “card check” process and bypass the NLRB’s traditional secret ballot vote procedure. A card check drive lacks the security of a secret ballot vote and allows union officials to extract union authorization cards directly from workers, often through misleading or coercive tactics.
“Employees unionized under a card check are not allowed to vote on union representation in a secret-ballot election,” the notice reads. “However, prior to Cemex, employers could refuse to impose union representation on their workers based on a card check. That is why, in the past, Volkswagen employees were allowed to vote on (and reject) UAW representation.”
Union Could Skip Election Entirely or Nullify Unfavorable Election with “Authorization Cards”
The notice explains that Cemex upends the union election process. Now, if UAW union officials claim they have collected authorization cards from the majority of workers in the unit (news reports indicate UAW officials are already claiming this) the union can be granted bargaining power over every worker at the plant without a secret ballot election.
While VW management could request a secret ballot vote in such a circumstance, the NLRB doesn’t have to grant that request. Under the new Cemex standard, it is shockingly easy for the UAW to prompt the NLRB to cancel a vote, or alternatively, to overturn an employee election that doesn’t go in the union’s favor.
As the notice points out: “The UAW is already laying the groundwork for cancelling or nullifying a secret ballot election by filing unfair labor practice charges against Volkswagen.”
Foundation Notice: VW Workers Must Be Vigilant Against Underhanded UAW Tactics
“Volkswagen employees who do not want to be subject to UAW representation must be vigilant about their rights,” the notice reads. “If the UAW can collect authorization cards from a bare majority of Volkswagen workers, the UAW can impose itself on Volkswagen employees quickly and without them being able to vote on whether they actually want union representation.”
The notice reminds Volkswagen workers that they have the right not to sign a union authorization card, and a right to revoke authorization cards they’ve signed. It also advises workers of their right to campaign against the union and to circulate petitions against union representation.
Finally, the notice informs employees that they can contact National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for more information on their rights or for free legal aid in exercising them. The Foundation extends this help to workers especially if they are threatened or forced to accept unwanted union representation, or if they witness union agents misleading or coercing employees to sign union authorization cards.
In 2013, Foundation attorneys represented eight VW Chattanooga employees. The workers filed charges against the UAW for collecting cards using coercive and misleading tactics, and Foundation attorneys later defended the workers’ vote to reject the UAW after union officials sought to challenge the results of the 2014 vote.
“UAW union officials have returned to VW Chattanooga and appear to be laying the groundwork to bypass a secret ballot vote like the ones union officials lost during previous unionization attempts at the plant,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The new NLRB Cemex card check unionization scheme is untested in federal court, but it appears that UAW officials may seek to make VW Chattanooga workers a ‘guinea pig’ for testing if union officials and NLRB partisans can impose the union on workers without a secret ballot vote.”
“If the UAW is to be believed, UAW officials already secured a sufficient number of union authorization cards to formally ask the NLRB to hold a secret ballot election at VW Chattanooga,” Mix continued. “So VW team members need to understand that additional cards are not needed to request an election, but can be used to bypass a secret ballot vote like the ones held in 2014 and 2019.”
Ontario Trucking Employee Who Revealed Union Boss Salaries Hits Teamsters Union with Federal Charge After Job Threats
Worker on Teamsters officials’ threats: “We will not be deterred by their bullying tactics and baseless accusations against myself and others.”
Ontario, CA (February 6, 2024) – John Cwiek, an employee of Los Angeles-based transportation company Dependable Highway Express, has just hit the Teamsters Local 63 union with federal charges. Cwiek maintains that Teamsters union officials retaliated against him for revealing truthful but unfavorable information about the union to his coworkers. He is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Cwiek sent letters to his coworkers in January containing details about union boss salaries – information Cwiek pulled from Teamsters LM-2 filings. LM-2s are public documents filed by unions and maintained for public access by the U.S. Department of Labor. In retaliation for Cwiek sending the letters, a union official appeared at Cwiek’s workplace the next day, made accusations against him, and threatened that Cwiek wouldn’t be working at Dependable Highway Express by the next contract period.
The federal statute that governs private sector labor relations, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), protects both employee speech critical of unions and union officials and protects employees’ right to refrain from any or all union activities if they so choose.
“[Teamsters Local 63] violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when its agents appeared at the worksite, interrogated Charging Party regarding his protected activities, and threatened Charging Party’s employment and by making false and defamatory accusations against him in retaliation for engaging in protected activities,” reads Cwiek’s charge.
“I am deeply troubled by the blatant retaliatory actions taken by officials at Teamsters Local 63 in response to expressing the views of myself and several other hard-working drivers at Dependable Highway Express,” Cwiek commented. “We will not be deterred by their bullying tactics and the baseless accusations they levy against myself and others. I hope that the actions of the officials from Teamsters Local 63 serve as a clear example to my colleagues that the union cannot dispute the facts of their incompetence in representing us, so they must resort to intimidation and slanderous accusations. We will remain steadfast in our pursuit of a better future for ourselves and our families.”
Ontario Trucking Employee’s Charges Latest in String of Challenges to Teamster Power in SoCal
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have recently aided other trucking industry employees in Southern California oppose unwanted Teamsters union influence. In October 2021, XPO Logistics employee Ozvaldo Gutierrez and his coworkers forced Teamsters Local 63 officials out of a Fashion District-area XPO facility. Teamsters Local 848 union officials were similarly ousted by Angel Herrera and his colleagues at an Airgas facility in Ventura, CA, in September 2021. In both cases, union officials departed the workplaces before employees had an opportunity to vote them out through the NLRB’s “decertification election” process – likely to avoid embarrassing election results.
Long Beach-area Savage Services employee Nelson Medina also won a Foundation-backed settlement in February 2022 ordering Teamsters Local 848 union officials to pay back thousands of dollars in illegal dues they seized from about 60 of his coworkers who objected to union membership and to funding the union’s political activity.
“Trucking workers across Southern California continue to express displeasure with union officials’ combative and illegal behavior, which makes it all the more unfortunate that California private sector workers aren’t covered by a Right to Work law,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In non-Right to Work California, union bosses can enforce contracts that force workers to pay dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs, meaning workers like Mr. Cwiek can be forced to fund the same union hierarchy that violates their rights.”
“While Foundation staff attorneys will fight to defend Mr. Cwiek’s rights under federal labor law, all American workers should have the Right to Work freedom to decide for themselves whether union bosses have earned their financial support,” Mix added.
