National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Blog Archives - National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

29 Jun 2025

Foundation-Backed Starbucks Baristas Support Trump’s Firing of Biden NLRB Member

Posted in Blog

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Starbucks employees’ challenge to agency power boosted by firing of Biden Board Member

It may not look like much, but this Starbucks store in downtown Buffalo, NY, is the place where barista Ariana Cortes started her trailblazing legal battle against both the SBWU union and a hostile NLRB bureaucracy.

WASHINGTON, DC – President Trump isn’t the only person seeking reform in the federal government. Several National Right to Work Foundation-backed workers have advanced lawsuits in federal courts challenging the constitutionality of a federal agency.

Two upstate New York Starbucks baristas (Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam), represented by Foundation staff attorneys, filed the first case in the nation challenging NLRB members’ removal protections. Their case advanced a revolutionary argument that the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) removal protections for NLRB members — which protect them from presidential removal during their entire terms except in very rare cases — let them exercise executive power in violation of separation of powers doctrines in Article II of the Constitution.

This power is plain to see — unelected NLRB members have the power to decide who can vote in union elections, adjudicate disputes between employers and unions, impose one-size-fits-all union “representation” on employees who don’t want it, and much more. Showdown Over Removal of Biden Appointee Headed for SCOTUS President Trump utilized the same arguments when he announced he was ousting Biden-appointed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox (a former SEIU union lawyer) for issuing radical decisions that “vastly exceeded the bounds” of federal law.

Wilcox’s lawyers sued Trump over the removal, arguing — wrongly — that NLRB members’ removal protections are valid and prevent the President from doing virtually anything to stop NLRB members who have gone rogue. The case between President Trump and Gwynne Wilcox has now joined Cortes and Karam’s suit in being considered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As this issue goes to print, the Supreme Court has ordered Wilcox off the NLRB while it decides whether Wilcox should remain off the NLRB while the case is ongoing. Foundation attorneys submitted a legal brief on behalf of Cortes and Karam backing the President’s contentions. Cortes and Karam’s brief focuses on how the Board’s powers to enforce federal labor law, lack of technical expertise, and the partisan nature of its membership are not characteristics of a federal agency where removal protections might be appropriate under Supreme Court caselaw.

The brief also argues that reinstating Wilcox would cause chaos because it would let her participate in deciding cases before the NLRB while her continued presence on the Board is still the subject of litigation.

“Cortes and Karam have a vital interest in the outcome of this case, and not only because it concerns the constitutionality of [NLRB member removal protections],” the brief says. “Cortes and Karam do not want an individual the President properly removed from the Board because of her unsound rulings — Gwynne Wilcox — to decide their pending NLRB cases.”

Because of the weighty constitutional matters at stake, many have already predicted that this question will likely receive final consideration from the U.S. Supreme Court. Cortes and Karam’s lawsuit is fully briefed at the D.C. Circuit Court, and a hearing is scheduled for May. Their case was spurred by NLRB bureaucrats’ decision to block the baristas and their coworkers from exercising their right to vote to decertify (or remove) Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials.

NLRB Region 3 rejected petitions in which a sufficient number of coworkers from both Cortes’ and Karam’s upstate New York Starbucks locations requested such elections. Regional NLRB officials cited unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation as the reason for barring the votes. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification requests.

Starbucks Baristas’ Battle Promotes Liberty for Workers Across Country

“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam spoke up on behalf of untold numbers of independent-minded workers nationwide when they filed their federal lawsuit challenging the NLRB’s constitutionality,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.

“The NLRB regularly stops workers from exercising their rights to push back against union influence for any reason union bosses dream up. Board members’ ability to do this without fearing any accountability to the elected President has effectively turned the agency into a fourth branch of government.

“We hope the Starbucks baristas’ lawsuit, boosted by the President’s efforts to reform the government, eventually results in lasting change to the Board that protects worker freedom,” Semmens added.

28 Jun 2025

NY Healthcare Worker Asks Labor Board to Unblock Vote to Oust SEIU

Posted in Blog

Sun River Health employees’ election abruptly canceled by NLRB officials

Laura Gallo is passionate about the healthcare work she does at Sun River Health to improve the wellbeing of people across Long Island. She’s now using that same passion to win her coworkers a chance to vote out divisive SEIU union bosses.

LONG ISLAND, NY – Laura Gallo, a senior patient representative at Sun River Health in Long Island, NY, thought she’d secured a rare chance for her and her coworkers to vote out the 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East union.

Her goal? Give hundreds of colleagues a chance to escape from unwanted union “representation.” Unfortunately, on February 13, 2025, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 29 Director abruptly derailed her campaign citing a dubious technicality.

Now, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Gallo is battling to reverse the ruling and expose a system that allows union legal trickery to block workers from voting on whether a union deserves to remain in their workplace.

Legal Hurdles Undermine Right to Remove Unwanted Unions

Despite the clear right of employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to petition for decertification elections to free themselves of unwanted union “representation,” numerous NLRB-invented rules and policies give union officials the ability to block or delay employee-requested decertification votes.

In Gallo’s case, not only did she need to collect signatures for the required 30% of the bargaining unit, but because she works in the healthcare industry, NLRB rules require her to file the petition within a short window before the union contract expires. If she missed the window, union officials could have blocked her vote for up to three years under the Board-invented “contract bar” policy.

Despite navigating the complicated process pro se (without formal legal representation), Gallo nailed the timing, submitting her petition with the supporting signatures of her coworkers in August 2024, following instructions from NLRB officials to trigger the vote.

At that point, the decertification was on track, with the company and union agreeing to how the election would be run. Only then did the NLRB Regional Director, possibly due to improper backchannel communications with union lawyers, suddenly cancel the scheduled vote without providing any meaningful explanation to Gallo or Sun River attorneys.

When the full Board in Washington, D.C., was asked to review the case, the Regional official suddenly “clarified” that additional signatures in support of the petition arrived just outside the contract bar window, meaning under a 1993 precedent the decertification election request could be rejected under the contract bar.

In February, having retained National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys to represent her, Gallo filed a Request for Review with the NLRB in Washington, asking that the Regional Director’s decision be overturned. The filing argues that her election should be allowed to go forward because she followed the Board agent’s instructions and, as a pro se petitioner, she should receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to estimating the total number of signatures needed to trigger a vote.

This decertification effort isn’t the only battle Ms. Gallo is fighting against the 1199SEIU union. Laura Gallo is passionate about the work she does at Sun River Health to improve the wellbeing of people across Long Island. She’s now using that same passion to win her coworkers a chance to vote out divisive SEIU union bosses.

Pending unfair labor practice charges Gallo filed against the union show why many workers have likely soured on the union: The charges maintain that SEIU union officials unlawfully interfered with access to the hospital, took pictures of Gallo without her consent as an intimidation tactic, and engaged in other disruptive and coercive behaviors that were so egregious local police were called to end the disruption.

Time to End NLRB’s Rigged Rules that Protect Incumbent Union Bosses

Gallo’s case is one of many where Foundation attorneys are asking the Board to overturn non-statutory barriers that workers face when trying to remove unions they oppose.

“Ms. Gallo’s case pulls back the curtain on how NLRB policies are rigged against individual workers to protect unpopular incumbent union bosses,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.

“She followed NLRB agents’ instructions, navigated the Board-created ‘window’ for filing her petition, and even got an election scheduled, yet the Regional Director blocked the vote and handed SEIU bosses a gift at the expense of Gallo and her coworkers’ rights.

“The NLRA, which the NLRB is supposed to neutrally enforce, only has one limitation on a workers’ right to vote out a union they oppose, which is a previous vote within the last year.” added Messenger. “All the other NLRB-invented policies and bars should be eliminated so workers can fully exercise their right to free themselves of unwanted unions.”

7 Aug 2025

Public Overwhelmingly Opposes Labor Department Proposal to Loosen Union Financial Disclosures

Posted in Blog

Over 97% percent of comments oppose proposal to let union bosses hide more political spending from workers

The National Right to Work Foundation recently filed detailed comments in opposition to a Department of Labor Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) proposed rule to significantly reduce financial disclosures union officials are required to file. With the comment period concluding last week, it is now clear that commenters overwhelmingly agree with the Foundation that the rule should be rejected.

Of 299 public comments submitted, over 97% strongly opposed the rule change.

The full comment submitted by the National Right to Work Foundation can be read here.

The Foundation’s comments note that the rule cannot be justified because workers’ rights will be undermined if union officials are permitted to more easily hide their spending of dues money, including money seized from workers forced to pay dues or else be fired:

“OLMS data for the past year…shows over 7,700 filings from unions with receipts under $450,000 that are located in states that lack Right to Work laws. These unions reported combined annual receipts of over $523 million, annual disbursements of over $514 million, and over 4 million members… The lack of more detailed reporting requirements for these unions therefore harms over 4 million workers by denying them meaningful details…”

These sentiments were echoed by hundreds of Americans, including rank-and-file workers, who are furious with the OLMS for proposing to deprive millions of workers of vital information on how union officials spend their dues payments, especially spending on union political and ideological activities. As over 225 of the comments point out, this change would allow over 850 unions, spending over $200 million annually, to hide their activities from detailed financial disclosure accessible to workers and the public.

Former union members used the public comments to share their personal experiences with union misconduct, and their desire for more accountability:

A former member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters shared retaliation he experienced for speaking out about errors in union financial reports.
A former professor recalled being forced to pay union dues and being coerced into supporting union candidates and policies.
A former member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers remembers union chiefs spending lavish amounts of money on politicians he would never vote for.
A former member of the Communications Workers of America felt betrayed by union bosses and urges the Department to make them account for every cent they misuse.

Other detailed comments opposing the rule came from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, Institute for the American Worker, Yankee Institute, and Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, as well as others.

Of the just seven comments that actually favored the change, a majority were filed by union officials who predictably want more leeway to hide their spending of dues money from the rank-and-file they claim to “represent.”

Among them was the National Education Association (NEA) which unsuccessfully attempted to hide its controversial 2025 handbook from the public just as comments were being solicited.

Meanwhile, union bosses at the AFL-CIO and AFSCME actually argued for even less disclosure to workers than the rule proposed, with AFL-CIO even suggesting that thresholds should be automatically raised every year.

The United States establishes a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. OLMS should reject these union bosses’ personally-motivated requests, and instead listen to the voice of the overwhelming majority calling for this change to be withdrawn.