Settlement eliminates MEA officials’ unlawful demands for $3,000+ in dues, becoming latest teacher from school freed from union collection threats

Ann Arbor, MI (July 17, 2020) – Michigan teacher Deborah Wolter has just won a settlement in a case brought by Michigan Education Association (MEA) union lawyers against her. Union officials sued her earlier this year for allegedly not paying thousands of dollars in back dues, even though they had demanded these dues from her after she had resigned her union membership. Michigan’s Right to Work law ensures that any employee who refrains from formal union membership cannot be required to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation provided free legal aid to Wolter as she defended herself from the union boss suit. As a result of the settlement, MEA bosses are required to end their demands for dues payments, to update their records to reflect that Wolter is not a member of the union, and to not contact her further.

MEA bosses sued Wolter in January 2020, filing a complaint in a Michigan District Court claiming that Wolter owed more than $3,000 in dues that they had charged her since September 2014, and that she “did not resign membership with [MEA] prior to the accrual of the debt.” Wolter’s Foundation-provided attorneys countered that Wolter did not owe the MEA anything because she had a letter in her records which indicated she resigned her membership in August 2014. This made the union suit a blatant violation of Michigan’s Right to Work law.

With this settlement, Wolter is the latest teacher at her school to successfully stop illegal union demands for back dues with Foundation legal aid. Last year, Foundation staff attorneys won a victory for two other teachers at Wolter’s school who faced similar demands by officials of the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA), an MEA affiliate. In that case, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled AAEA violated the rights of teachers Jeffrey Finnan and Cory Merante under Michigan’s Right to Work Law by demanding that they continue to pay union fees even though they had resigned their union membership.

These victories were preceded by a successful 2019 Foundation-won settlement for two other Michigan educators, Linda Gervais and Tammy Williams. Gervais and Williams, both from Flint, MI, sued the MEA in federal court for trying to seize dues from them even after they had resigned their union memberships. Union officials claimed they had missed a narrow “escape period” which limited when they could exercise that right, even though a 2014 decision of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) in another case brought by Foundation staff attorneys declared the union officials’ “escape period” scheme illegal under Michigan’s Right to Work law. As a result of the settlement in Gervais and Williams’ case, well over a dozen Wolverine State teachers have been freed from illegal MEA dues demands.

“Once again, a Michigan educator has successfully thwarted an attempt by MEA union bosses to continue to collect dues in blatant violation of Michigan’s Right to Work law,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation staff attorneys have already brought more than 120 cases for Michigan workers since the state’s Right to Work law went into effect in 2013, and will file as many more as necessary to ensure that Wolverine State employees are fully protected from illegal union boss cash grabs.”

Settlement eliminates illegal restrictions, allows almost 30,000 Ohio government employees under AFSCME Council 11’s power to exercise Janus right to end dues deductions

Columbus, OH (July 14, 2020) – Ohio public employees have just won a settlement in their federal class-action lawsuit charging the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 11 union and the State of Ohio with enforcing illegal restrictions on their First Amendment right to cut off union dues deductions. The lawsuit was filed with free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The lawsuit, brought by four state employees, challenged a union-created “escape period” dues deduction scheme as being unconstitutional under the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court struck down mandatory union fees for public sector workers as an infringement of their First Amendment rights, and ruled that the government can only deduct union dues or fees with an individual’s affirmative and knowing consent.

The State of Ohio and AFSCME’s “maintenance of membership” policy blocked workers from exercising their right to end union dues deductions except for a brief escape period that opened roughly once every three years at the expiration of the union monopoly bargaining contract. The AFSCME boss-created scheme was imposed by the State of Ohio on an estimated 28,000 Buckeye State public servants.

Now, as a result of the settlement, AFSCME officials and the State of Ohio have rescinded their “maintenance of membership” restriction on when state workers can exercise their First Amendment right to cut off union dues deductions. They also are required to honor requests to stop dues deductions from any employees who signed the AFSCME dues authorization form at issue in the lawsuit. Finally, the settlement requires AFSCME bosses to pay back dues seized illegally under the scheme to the plaintiffs and more than 150 other employees who tried to cut off union dues deductions after Janus was decided.

Seven other Ohio public employees won the first-in-the-nation victory against unconstitutional “escape periods” with Foundation aid in January 2019. These workers filed a class-action federal lawsuit challenging a similar policy created by AFSCME Council 8 bosses and won a settlement ending the restrictions for themselves and their coworkers. That win was followed by two other Ohio public workers, Connie Pennington and Donna Fizer, successfully ending “escape period” restrictions with Foundation assistance in 2019.

“Although this string of victories for Buckeye State public employees and their First Amendment rights is certainly encouraging, the widespread nature of these schemes shows there remains much work to do to force union bosses to end their unconstitutional restrictions on public employees’ First Amendment Janus rights,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Governor DeWine and Attorney General Yost need to move quickly to stop violations of the First Amendment rights of all Ohio public sector workers and should cease collecting union dues from any worker who has not affirmatively consented to pay them.”

Union officials “hid the ball” by failing to tell worker he had no obligation to pay union fees in absence of monopoly bargaining contract

Seattle, WA (July 7, 2020) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Swedish Medical Center employee Roger White is appealing his case against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 1199NW to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel in Washington, D.C.

White filed federal charges against the union in April, asserting that union officials had continued to seize dues from his paycheck illegally even after twice attempting to exercise his rights to end union membership and as a nonmember pay only the portion of dues directly related to bargaining. He also argued that his second request to end membership and pay reduced dues should have actually stopped dues deductions completely, because at the time there was a strike going on and no contract in effect between Swedish Medical Center and SEIU 1199NW.

The appeal is from a decision by the NLRB Regional Director in Seattle, who claimed that SEIU officials were not obliged to inform White that he was not required to pay union fees during a contract hiatus. Foundation attorneys argue that the SEIU owed White a “duty of truth and honesty,” and decry the fact that the SEIU was able to “‘hide the ball’ and continue collecting dues” during the contract hiatus despite White’s clear “notice that he want[ed] to disassociate” from the union as much as possible.

Because Washington State has not enacted Right to Work protections for its employees, White and his coworkers can be forced to pay a fee to the union as a condition of employment when a contract so requiring is in effect. However, the fee is limited by the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision to only the portion of union dues that is directly germane to the union’s bargaining functions. Union officials must also follow certain Beck procedures before collecting such fees, such as providing workers an independent audit of the union’s expenses.

White’s appeal also points out that the Regional Director’s decision completely ignores a memo on this topic from the NLRB General Counsel. The memo states that private sector employees who can be legally forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment “have rights to…object to paying for activities not germane to unions’ representational duties, to revoke dues checkoff authorizations at certain times; and to receive the information necessary to make these choices.”

The appeal notes that SEIU 1199NW is “a repeat [National Labor Relations Act] violator.” Daniel Dalison, another Swedish Medical Center employee, also has federal charges against the union. Dalison filed charges against SEIU 1199NW in January 2020 asserting that union officials had never given employees “adequate notice of their rights under Beck” and had refused to stop all dues deductions when he revoked his dues checkoff authorization during the strike. Dalison and White both also filed charges in April asserting that SEIU 1199NW officials were maintaining a requirement that any worker who wants to obtain a copy of his or her dues paperwork must present a photo ID.

Yet another employee of Swedish Medical Center, NancyEllen Elster, won a settlement with Foundation aid against SEIU 1199NW bosses in October 2019. NLRB Region 19 had found merit in Elster’s charges that SEIU bosses had never given a proper Beck rights notice to employees, and had denied her request to pay the reduced dues amount under Beck.

“It is outrageous that NLRB Region 19 is allowing SEIU union bosses to get away with playing deceptive games with the employees they claim to represent, just to keep their hard earned money rolling into the union’s coffers illegally,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB General Counsel should direct Region 19 to prosecute the SEIU for keeping Mr. White and his coworkers in the dark about their rights. These cases demonstrate the abuses that inevitably occur when union officials are granted the power to force employees to subsidize their activities or be terminated from employment.”

Comments urge state agency to go further, ensure that employees know they have First Amendment right under Supreme Court decision to stop payments to union

Lansing, MI (July 6, 2020) – The National Right to Work Foundation submitted comments to the Michigan Civil Service Commission, supporting the Commission’s proposed move to nix the state’s current policy of using old dues authorizations to continue deducting union dues from public employee paychecks. The Commission proposes a system requiring the state to obtain consent from workers before taking dues from them every year.

The Commission’s slated rule was issued in response to the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, in which the Court ruled that all public employees have a First Amendment right to abstain from subsidizing union activities. In light of that ruling, the Foundation’s comments urge the Commission to go further to protect Michigan public servants’ Janus rights, and annually notify workers that they have a First Amendment right to stop dues deductions from their paychecks at any time.

In Janus, the High Court struck down mandatory union payments as violating the First Amendment rights of government employees. The Court ruled that any compelled payments to a union taken without a government worker’s affirmative consent violate the First Amendment. The Court further made it clear that this consent requires a clear and knowing waiver of First Amendment rights. Justice Samuel Alito also wrote for the majority that such a rights waiver “cannot be presumed” by state and union officials.

The Commission’s memo announcing its proposed rule change maintains that, in light of the Supreme Court’s mandate that employees must affirmatively opt-in to union dues payments, “ongoing deduction of fees based on old authorizations is problematic.” In contrast, requiring that the state receive positive approval from employees every year before deducting dues “ensure[s] both that employees know their rights and the validity of these authorizations.”

The Foundation’s comments agree with that reasoning, observing that the proposed rule will help ensure that “the Commission acts within the scope of its state constitutional authority by only authorizing union dues deductions from the wages of those employees who, knowing they do not have to pay, intelligently and voluntarily express their wish to pay those dues.”

However, the comments also point out that the Commission’s proposed language “does not fully notify employees of their constitutional right” to refrain from union dues payments “or the consequences of abandoning that right.” Consequently, they urge the Commission to modify the rule “to require that the notice expressly inform employees of their constitutional right…not to pay any union dues or fees and that authorizing such deductions waives that right.”

The Commission is accepting comments on the policy through July 6. The agency’s next meeting is scheduled for July 15, at which point it could take action to put the plan into effect.

Other states that are considering adopting similar policies include Texas and Indiana. The attorneys general of both states have issued opinions advocating reforms similar to those mentioned in the Foundation’s comments. In addition, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy signed an executive order instituting similar Janus protections for state employees last September.

Since the Janus decision, Foundation staff attorneys have litigated more than 30 cases for workers seeking to enforce and expand the Janus victory. Since Michigan’s Right to Work law was passed, Foundation staff attorneys have also filed at least 120 cases for Michigan workers seeking to defend their rights under the law.

“The Commission is taking an important step to proactively protect the First Amendment right of government workers in Michigan, many of whom may have only authorized dues deductions before the Supreme Court recognized those rights in the 2018 Janus decision, with many likely signing such cards before the Wolverine State adopted Right to Work, when such payments were mandatory,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It is long past time that public workers nationwide should have had their Janus rights respected, and we urge all states to join the growing list of those who are taking the First Amendment rights of their public servants seriously and affirmatively protecting those rights.”

Complaint comes after top NLRB prosecutor found Embassy Suites’ ‘neutrality agreement’ with union illegally assisted union boss organizing drive

Seattle, WA (July 2, 2020) – National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19 in Seattle will prosecute Embassy Suites and the UNITE HERE Local 8 union in housekeeper Gladys Bryant’s case, which charges union and hotel officials with using an illegal “neutrality agreement” to impose a union on the hotel’s workers.

The case challenges a legal standard that allowed union officials to run a hasty “card check” drive to foist union representation on the workers with unlawful assistance from her employer. Bryant is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Bryant filed unfair labor practice charges after the UNITE HERE Local 8 union was installed at the Embassy Suites hotel in May 2018 through an oft-abused card check drive which bypassed the NLRB’s regular secret-ballot election process. As part of the so-called “neutrality agreement,” Embassy Suites gave union organizers space in the hotel to meet and solicit employees. It also provided union officials with a list of all employees’ names, jobs, and contact information to assist the union in collecting authorization cards from employees.

After NLRB Region 19 officials declined to prosecute the union or employer for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA), Bryant appealed the case to the NLRB General Counsel in January 2019. In response to the appeal, the General Counsel found that the union’s card check recognition was tainted because Embassy Suites through the “neutrality agreement” provided significant aid to the union officials’ organizing efforts in violation of the NLRA.

The NLRB General Counsel agreed with Bryant’s Foundation attorneys that Embassy Suites provided UNITE HERE’s organizing campaign with more than so-called “ministerial aid.” The NLRB has long held that an employer taints employees’ efforts to remove a union if it gives the employees support such as providing a list of bargaining unit employees or use of company resources. Bryant’s appeal successfully argued that the “ministerial aid” standard must also apply when an employer aids union officials’ efforts to gain monopoly bargaining power over workers. Thus, the General Counsel’s ruling applies the “ministerial aid” standard consistently, no matter whether the employer’s assistance would be in favor of or opposed to unionization.

The NLRB General Counsel remanded the case to Region 19 so the union and employer could be prosecuted. The complaint issued by NLRB Region 19 states that “Respondent Union obtained recognition from Respondent Employer” as the monopoly bargaining agent in the workplace despite the fact that UNITE HERE officials “did not represent an uncoerced majority of the unit.” The case will now be tried before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge.

“There is nothing neutral about so-called ‘neutrality agreements,’ which are nothing more than pressure-cooked, backroom deals between union bosses and company officials to impose forced unionization on workers from the top down,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It is long past time that the NLRB eliminate the unjustifiable double standard in the law which has been used for years to assist union organizers in unionizing through coercive card check drives, while at the same time making it harder for workers to remove a union they oppose.”

Wisconsin’s Right to Work law makes union dues payments voluntary, but union officials continued taking fees

Milwaukee, WI (September 14, 2017) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a Milwaukee employee has successfully won a settlement from Teamsters Local 200 union officials. The settlement requires that Teamsters Local 200 union officials pay the employee all union fees that were improperly seized and the subject of federal unfair labor practice charges.

Christopher Sarenac works as a driver for Roundy’s Supermarket, Inc. in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, just outside of Milwaukee. Roundy’s Supermarkets had a monopoly bargaining contract with Teamsters Local 200 until it expired on September 26, 2016. In early February 2017, Sarenac sent a letter to union officials and Roundy’s Supermarket, Inc. resigning union membership and revoking his dues check-off authorization. At this point, a new monopoly bargaining agreement between his employer and Teamsters union officials had not been reached.

Five days after resigning, Sarenac received a letter signed by Teamsters officials acknowledging his withdrawal of union membership. Roundy’s Supermarket, Inc. subsequently ceased deductions of union fees from Sarenac’s paycheck for a time but later resumed deducting fees, likely at the request of union officials.

On March 31 2017, Sarenac sent Teamster officials a letter reminding them of his nonmember status, his freedom to refrain from union payments under Wisconsin’s Right to Work law, and his check-off revocation. His letter requested clarification of the status of his revocation. Sarenac did not receive a response from union officials until after National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed an unfair labor practice charge for him with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in June.

In July, union officials finally responded to Sarenac’s request. However in their response, Teamsters officials claimed that he had not successfully revoked his check-off because he was outside of a five day “window period” created by union officials to block revocations. This led to the filing of a new unfair labor practice charge in August challenging the continued deduction of fees from Sarenac’s paycheck as a violation of federal labor law.

Faced with a potential NLRB prosecution, Teamsters union officials settled the cases by paying Sarenac back the amount unlawfully taken by the union from Sarenac’s wages, and union officials agreed to cease all future deductions from his paycheck.

“This case, once again, shows the lengths to which union officials will go to collect every last cent of forced fees they can, even in clear violation of the law,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Christopher Sarenac exercised his rights under Wisconsin’s Right to Work law, only to have the very union officials that claim to ‘represent’ him violate his rights. This case shows why every worker in America should have Right to Work protections that ensure that union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary, and why it is important that those laws be vigilantly enforced.”

Detroit, MI (September 18, 2017) With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a Lapeer county employee has won a ruling at the Michigan State Court of Appeals in a lawsuit challenging Teamsters Local 214 union officials’ illegal refusal to honor her attempt to stop payment of union dues as is her right under Michigan’s Right to Work law.

In 2013, Tina House filed an unfair labor practice charge against union officials for violating her rights under Michigan’s Right to Work protections for public employees. The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) dismissed her charge, claiming union officials did not impede upon her rights. Yet, last week Michigan’s Court of Appeals overturned that decision, ruling that under section 9 of the state’s Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) Teamsters officials unlawfully refused to recognize her check-off authorization revocation.

House had been a member of Teamsters Local 214 since August 17, 2000, and had signed a dues check-off authorization permitting the union to take union dues and fees from her wages. At the time Michigan did not have a Right to Work law, meaning Michigan workers could be required to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment.

But in March 2013, Michigan’s recently passed Right to Work law went into effect, making union membership and financial support strictly voluntary. This gave House the right to stop payment of union dues and fees.

House attempted to exercise this right by sending Teamsters Local 214 union officials a membership resignation letter along with a check-off authorization revocation. She also sent a similar letter to Lapeer County, which immediately stopped deducting dues and fees from House’s paycheck.

However, Teamsters Local 214 officials responded that they were refusing to recognize her check-off withdrawal. According to the union, she could only revoke her dues check-off authorization during a narrow 15 day window period from June 1 – June 16.

In response, House filed charges against the union with MERC, which dismissed the case. Foundation staff attorneys then appealed the decision for House to the Michigan Court of Appeals which has now sided with House. In a three judge decision, the Court of Appeals overruled MERC and ruled that Teamsters officials violated the law by rejecting her revocation request. The decision requires Teamsters officials to recognize her revocation status, after a long three year legal battle.

“Rather than work to attract workers’ voluntary support, Michigan union bosses have responded to Michigan’s Right to Work law with a campaign to ignore the law and stifle any attempt by workers seeking to stop payment of union dues or fees,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Foundation staff attorneys have filed dozens of cases for Michigan workers seeking to exercise the rights guaranteed to them under Michigan’s Right to Work law and we stand ready to aid other Michiganders who want to do the same.”

Union officials frequently thwart workers attempts to hold decertification votes by filing spurious NLRB “blocking charges”

Washington, DC (October 18, 2017) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, an Arizona worker has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to review a case in which he and his co-workers were denied the right to vote to remove a union claiming to represent them, despite the fact that a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit signed a petition for such an election.

Tim Maguire, an employee of Calportland Company in Arizona, wants a vote to decertify Teamsters Local 104 union as his monopoly bargaining agent. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), if a decertification petition garners signatures from at least 30% of the employees in a bargaining unit, the NLRB is supposed to conduct a secret-ballot election to determine whether a majority of the employees wish to decertify the union. Maguire’s petition was signed by the majority of workers in the bargaining unit, far more than necessary.

However, Teamsters officials had previously filed two “blocking charges” which halted these workers from properly exercising their right to choose workplace representation. The NLRB Regional Director postponed the decertification election. Despite holding no formal hearing to determine whether the union officials’ claims had any merit, the Regional Director overstepped his authority by granting these “blocking charges.” This forced Maguire and his coworkers to remain under union monopoly “representation” that a majority of them oppose.

Understanding that his legal rights were being frustrated, Maguire turned to National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for help. Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition requesting the NLRB to reconsider these blocking charges and the unfair “blocking charge” policy as a whole.

Union brass routinely contrive spurious charges when a decertification process arises, which then garners an order blocking the election from the Regional Director. Because the NLRB’s policy for dealing with such charges are opaque at best, workers are regularly trapped into paying forced union dues to a union they do not want to be a part of because their avenue to ridding that union is blocked by Big Labor sympathizers.

Due to the “blocking charge policy” and other election regulations, such as the “contract bar” and “successor bar,” workers are regularly blocked from being able to decertify an unwanted union for up to three years, and potentially indefinitely. Regional Directors routinely overstep their authority by “blocking” elections without holding hearings to discern whether charges brought forth by union officials are even true, and if true, affect employee free choice. Consequently, workers are denied true free choice in the workplace until the charges are ultimately resolved.

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have already called upon President Trump’s newly installed NLRB to review the corrupt policies such as the successor bar, to protect the rights of every worker from the injustices of forced unionism. Maguire’s petition for review asks the NLRB to reconsider the “blocking charge” policy as well.

“Union officials have taken advantage of unclear rules surrounding ‘blocking charges’ for too long to trap workers into paying forced dues to unions opposed by a majority of workers. The new Trump National Labor Relations Board should move quickly to end this arbitrary barrier to workers who seek a decertification vote,” said Mark Mix President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “For almost a decade, the Obama NLRB stacked the deck in favor of union bosses’ forced dues powers. The new NLRB majority should move quickly to roll back those one-sided rulings, starting by supporting the petition of Tim Maguire and a majority of his co-workers to hold a vote to decertify an unwanted Teamsters union.”

Unfair labor practice charge highlights systemic abuse of NLRB policy by union bosses seeking to block workers from holding decertification votes

Des Moines, IA (January 19, 2018) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a Bemis North America employee has filed a federal unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Teamsters Local 727S for interfering with his right to hold a vote to remove a union that is not supported by a majority of workers. In late 2017, Union officials filed several frivolous “blocking charges” with the clear intent of preventing Bemis employees from holding a decertification election, as is their right under the federal law.

Wayne Devore works at Bemis North America in Des Moines, Iowa. In late October 2017, he filed a petition for a decertification election with the NLRB, after collecting the necessary signatures from his coworkers opposed to the Teamsters so-called “representation.” Under NLRB rules employees can trigger a vote to strip union officials of their monopoly bargaining powers over workers when at least 30 percent of employees in the bargaining unit sign a decertification petition.

NLRB Region 18 officials verified the signatures and scheduled a hearing on November 9 on the decertification petition to set dates and time for the decertification election. Yet, just days before the hearing was to take place, Devore was informed by the NLRB that it was postponed because Teamsters officials had filed an unfair labor practice charge.

The charge union officials filed appeared to have been filed solely to delay or block the decertification. Later, Teamsters officials withdrew that original charge, only to contrive five more frivolous unfair labor practice charges. This occurred despite the fact that in the previous year Teamsters Local 727S officials had raised no charges against Bemis management.

Despite Teamsters officials’ abuse of the process, the decertification election has been postponed by the NLRB while the Teamsters’ unfair labor practice charges are pending. Initially, Board agents said the first charge would take two to four weeks to investigate. However nearly three months later, there still has been no indication that the decertification vote will actually be held.

Understanding that his legal rights were being violated, Devore turned to the National Right to Work Foundation for assistance. His unfair labor practice charge filed by his Foundation-provided staff attorney alleges that when Teamsters officials filed their charges, they were aimed solely at blocking or delaying the decertification vote and thus infringed on the workers’ protected legal rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

“As is the case here, far too often union bosses are more interested in holding on to their power rather than respecting the rights and wishes of the rank-and-file workers they claim to represent,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Mr. Devore and his coworkers have a legal right under federal labor law to hold a decertification vote to remove the Teamsters from their workplace, and Teamsters officials violated that right when they abused the NLRB’s blocking charge doctrine.

“This case highlights a systemic problem in the NLRB’s policy that permits union officials to file unsubstantiated charges against employers designed primarily to block employees from removing unwanted unions,” continued Mix. “Nothing is more contrary to the stated purpose of the National Labor Relation Act than trapping employees in union ‘representation’ opposed by a majority of workers, which is why the current NLRB blocking charge policy must be scrapped.”