Starbucks Employee Files Demand to Unblock Long-Delayed Vote to Remove Union
Filing: “Three-year delay” in adjudicating NLRB charge used as basis for blocking employee vote, warrants election being finally scheduled
Oklahoma City, OK (October 21, 2026) – Starbucks employee Amy Smith has filed a second request asking National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 14 to reinstate her decertification petition to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from her Nichols Hills Starbucks store. She originally filed for decertification over three years ago. Smith is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The request for reinstatement comes after Region 14 began treating Smith’s case as closed, even though the agency itself ruled the petition remained subject to reinstatement. Smith’s request says the Region did so “erroneously,” and further argues that the NLRB’s years-long failure to resolve the charges blocking her election is precisely the kind of “unusual and special situation” that requires the agency to let workers vote.
Three-Year NLRB Delay Instigated by SBWU Union Bosses Must End
Smith’s petition was backed by enough of her coworkers’ signatures at the Nichols Hills store to meet the necessary threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote. At union officials’ urging, the NLRB dismissed the petition “subject to reinstatement” pending resolution of an alleged unfair labor practice case against Starbucks.
After that case was resolved through a non-Board settlement, Smith asked the Region to reinstate her petition, only to have the Regional Director point to a different set of charges filed by the union against Starbucks to keep the vote on hold. Smith appealed to the full Board in Washington, D.C. In April 2026, the Board denied her request for review, relying on its controversial Biden-era 2022 Rieth-Riley decision, which granted Regional Directors wide discretion to dismiss decertification petitions subject to reinstatement, while the NLRB pursues complaints based on union allegations.
“In light of this return of… the over three years that have passed since she filed her petition, Petitioner yet again requests reinstatement of the petition,” the filing states. It argues that “[t]he Board’s inexcusable delay in litigating the unfair labor practice charges blocking this election” is itself grounds to hold the vote.
Board Member Signals Blocking Policy Deserves Scrutiny by New NLRB Majority
When the Board denied Smith’s appeal in April, NLRB Member Scott Mayer joined the decision for institutional reasons but wrote separately that Rieth-Riley may not strike the proper balance between “the statutory goal of promoting labor relations stability” and the Board’s duty to give effect to employees’ wishes about representation.
At the time, with Biden-holdover Member David Prouty holding one of three filled seats on the Board, the NLRB lacked the three votes traditionally needed to overturn past precedents. However, in August a fourth member joined the Board.
Mayer has continued to press the issue. In other recent Board orders denying review of blocked petitions, he emphasized that Regional Directors must, at a minimum, give more detail about why a petition is being blocked so the Board can properly evaluate those decisions, and that blocking determinations should be reassessed as cases drag on.
“For years, the one-two punch of Rieth-Riley and the Biden Board’s blocking charge rule has trampled the statutory rights of workers seeking to remove unions they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Amy Smith and her coworkers asked for a vote more than three years ago, and they’re still waiting – not because of anything they did, but because union officials and NLRB bureaucrats keep finding new reasons to disenfranchise them.
“Every American has the right to decide whether a union in their workplace is right for them. If President Trump’s new NLRB majority is serious about putting American workers first, reversing these union-label, Biden-era precedents would be an excellent place to start,” Mix added.
Minneapolis Worker Files Federal Charges Against Union for Unlawful Dues Demands, ‘Pay Up or Be Fired’ Threats
OPEIU union bosses failed to follow federal law and Beck Supreme Court precedent, ignored and obstructed employee for exercising his rights
Minneapolis, MN (October 14, 2026) – William Kocke, an employee of CenterPoint Energy, has filed unfair labor practice charges against Office and Professional Employees International (OPEIU) Local 12. The charges state that OPEIU union officials ignored and obstructed Kocke when he attempted to exercise his right to refrain from union membership and his right to pay less than full union dues under the National Right to Work Foundation-won Communication Workers v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Kocke filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
In April 2026, Kocke reached out to union officials inquiring about how to opt out of union membership. After having received no response for almost a month, he sent a registered letter to union President Devin Hogan informing him of his intentions to be a Beck objector. Instead of honoring his request and sending him the required financial disclosures, Hogan insisted that Kocke sign a membership form without Beck language. When Kocke refused, Hogan told him he would need to fill out a so-called “Beck objector form,” but claimed that form was not yet ready.
Under the Foundation-won Beck decision, union officials are prohibited from requiring workers who opt out of union membership to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s monopoly bargaining functions. Such expenses include members-only activities and union officials’ spending on politics and lobbying.
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can enforce contracts that require workers to pay money to the union or be fired. However, this “pay-up-or-be-fired” power is limited by Beck.
After nearly a month of no response, Hogan sent Kocke an incorrect link to a union membership form instead of the “Beck objector form,” and subsequently sent him an undetailed, inadequate financial report claiming that nearly 90 percent of his union dues were required to keep his job.
On August 13th, Kocke again attempted to assert his Beck rights, requesting only to pay for monopoly bargaining activities, and again asked for a complete financial report along with a copy of his union membership and dues check-off authorization. Although union officials received his request, they refused to respond and deducted the full dues amount out of his paycheck.
“Time after time, union officials ignore their legal obligations and abuse the rights of hardworking people just to fill their coffers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Kocke’s experience is not an isolated case, but is one Foundation staff attorneys see repeated across the country.
“Cases like this show why all workers need Right to Work protections, so all union financial support is fully voluntary and every employee gets to decide for themselves whether union officials deserve a portion of their hard-earned paycheck,” added Mix.
NY Home Care Provider Files Unfair Labor Practice Charges & Motion to Intervene Challenging SEIU’s Push to Unionize 190,000 Providers
Motion: NY provider must be allowed to challenge claim that in-home personal care providers selected by Medicaid recipients can be unionized by SEIU
Buffalo, NY (October 14, 2026) – Elena Rizzo, a home care provider who cares for her fiancé under New York’s Medicaid-funded Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP), has just filed unfair labor practice charges and a motion to intervene with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Both actions are related to a case filed by 1199 Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers East (SEIU), seeking to unionize an estimated 190,000 personal assistants who care for people with disabilities, often family members, through CDPAP.
Rizzo, who would be subjected to unwanted unionization under an SEIU petition filed with NLRB Region 3 in Buffalo on September 22, filed the charges and motion to intervene with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The federal unfair labor practice charges were filed against SEIU and Public Partnerships, LLC (PPL), which SEIU erroneously claims in its petition is the employer of Rizzo and nearly 200,000 other providers in the program. The charges allege that PPL gave unlawful assistance to SEIU with soliciting and obtaining support for its unionization petition and that SEIU requested and accepted that assistance. According to news reports, SEIU has “been working closely with the PPL for years” and “worked to ensure the success of the company’s takeover of the home care program.”
Rizzo’s Foundation staff attorneys also filed a Motion to Intervene in the SEIU’s unionization petition, asking NLRB Region 3 to allow her to participate in the case in order to raise multiple issues regarding the legality of SEIU officials’ effort to impose unionization on her and every other personal assistant providing care through the Medicaid-funded CDPAP.
Among other issues, the motion argues she must be allowed to challenge SEIU’s claims that PPL is the employer of providers like Rizzo. The motion notes that home care providers are actually employed by the hundreds of thousands of individual CDPAP participants who hire them to work in their homes, and that PPL merely assists these participants with payroll processing, record keeping, and regulatory compliance issues.
The motion notes intervention is especially necessary because SEIU and PPL are actually working together, pursuant to an organizing agreement under which PPL assists SEIU in obtaining monopoly union “representation” over all personal assistants, after SEIU helped make PPL the sole fiscal intermediary of all CDPAP participants. With SEIU and PPL acting in tandem against the interests of care providers, it is vital that the NLRB allow the purported “employees” in the case to fully participate and defend their legal rights.
Controversial NY Medicaid Home Care Contract Tied to Secret SEIU Deal, Federal Fraud Lawsuit
Rizzo’s unfair labor practice charges and motion to intervene follow a motion filed last month by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asking the NLRB to pause the case to allow for amicus briefs and to consult with the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services.
That motion similarly pointed out that the Region won’t get complete briefing from the current parties on the important issues the case implicates, because “SEIU and PPL are not adverse to one another” due to their organizing agreement. The motion also noted consultation with federal agencies is needed because the U.S. Department of Justice has a pending lawsuit alleging PPL committed fraud to win its contract as the program’s sole fiscal intermediary in New York, and because certifying a union over every provider in a state Medicaid program could conflict with federal Medicaid law.
New York is one of 24 states that lack a Right to Work law to ensure union affiliation and financial support are strictly voluntary. As a result, if SEIU officials’ NLRB petition is successful, all CDPAP home care providers in New York State would be expelled from the program unless they hand over a portion of the money they receive from Medicaid to SEIU officials.
“We fully support Ms. Rizzo and other personal care providers as they move to challenge the SEIU’s outrageous power grab designed to siphon union dues from Medicaid funds that are supposed to be used to provide care for those in need,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Whether it’s the allegations of fraud in how PPL obtained its state-granted monopoly, unlawful assistance by PPL to support SEIU’s organizing campaign, or ludicrous claims that a payroll processor ‘employs’ hundreds of thousands of individuals required to use it to obtain payments from Medicaid — every aspect of this scheme is rotten.
“When the union and the company it claims is the ‘employer’ are working hand in glove, the NLRB must allow caregivers like Elena Rizzo to participate in the case to defend their own rights,” added Mix. “Many of these providers are caring for their own parents, children, or spouses, and they should never be forced to pay union officials for the privilege of doing so.”
Workers File Brief in Appeals Court Challenge to Biden-Era Labor Board Decision Preventing Halt of Union Dues Deductions
National Right to Work Foundation-backed employees are also challenging similar restriction on workers’ right to stop dues in ongoing NLRB cases
Washington, DC (October 13, 2026) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, two employees have filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case (Kroger Texas L.P. v. NLRB) challenging a Biden-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling blocking employers from ceasing union dues deductions after a contract expires.
The two workers, Brittani Butler and Cypress Meadowlark, are already challenging a separate but related NLRB precedent that restricts employees from stopping dues deductions when no union contract is in effect. Both had attempted to stop union dues deductions only to have those requests ignored by union officials, despite neither being subject to a union monopoly bargaining agreement.
Their brief urges the Court of Appeals overturn a 2022 NLRB decision in a case known as Valley Hospital II. The underlying May NLRB decision at issue in Kroger Texas L.P. v. NLRB, the Board applied Valley Hospital II to find that Kroger unlawfully stopped deducting union dues after contracts with the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 455 had expired.
Prior to Valley Hospital II, under a standard first decided in a 1962 Board Decision, employers could lawfully stop dues deductions after the expiration of a union contract. That decision said that dues collections, like union no-strike clauses, arbitration clauses, and compulsory unionism clauses, are exceptions to the general rule that the status quo must be continued after the expiration of a union contract.
In 2012, an Obama NLRB with two unconstitutionally appointed Board members overturned 50 years of precedent to require employers to deduct union dues even during a contract hiatus. Another lawfully appointed Obama NLRB reinstated the same rule in 2015. During the first Trump administration, the NLRB went back to the longstanding rule in Valley Hospital I, only to have the radical Biden Board reverse it again in Valley Hospital II.
Brief: The NLRB Disregards Federal Statue; Reverses Positions Regarding Dues Deductions
The brief filed by Foundation staff attorneys argues that Valley Hospital II and the subsequent Kroger decision wrongly disregarded the clear meaning of a statue that addresses payroll deduction of union dues, Section 302(c)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).
First, the brief notes that under Section 302(c)(4) of the LMRA, Congress stated that union dues deduction assignments must be revocable “beyond the termination date of the applicable collective agreement.” This demonstrates that Congress thought dues deduction assignments are “rooted in contract,” and therefore do not persist beyond the expiration of a monopoly bargaining contract.
The brief further argues that Section 302(c)(4) shows Congress separated dues deductions from other employment terms by establishing an employee’s right to stop dues deductions “at will” when there is no monopoly bargaining contract in place. Finally, the brief contends that if an employer must continue dues deductions when a contract has expired, that would impermissibly make the dues assignment “irrevocable” for employers, which violates the plain language of LMRA Section 302(c)(4).
“No worker should have to wage a legal battle just to exercise their right to stop union dues from being taken out of their paycheck, especially when there isn’t even a union contract in effect,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Brittani Butler and Cypress Meadowlark know firsthand how union officials exploit Valley Hospital II and similar NLRB precedents to keep dues flowing over workers’ objections.
“The Fifth Circuit should strike down this Biden-era scheme, and the current NLRB should finish the job by scrapping every Board precedent that traps workers in dues deductions they’ve attempted to revoke,” added Mix. “Doing so would not impede the payment of voluntary union dues at all, since union bosses are always free to collect dues directly from workers who want to pay them.”
Hundreds of Nurses at Henry Ford Genesys Hospital File Petition Demanding Election to Oust Teamsters
Nearly 70% of currently working nurses sign petition asking for decertification vote
Grand Blanc, MI (October 6, 2026) – Hundreds of registered nurses at Henry Ford Genesys Hospital backed a petition filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a vote to remove Teamsters Local 332 officials from their hospital. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions.
Genesys Hospital nurse Kristen Cox, who is spearheading the nurses’ effort, submitted a “decertification” petition with the NLRB, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, backed by the signatures of 264 nurses, which amounts to nearly 70% of the 385 nurses currently working at the hospital.
Teamsters Local 332 officials launched a strike at Genesys Hospital on Labor Day 2025, and more than a year later, the strike remains unresolved. What is certain, however, is that the overwhelming number of nurses working at the hospital no longer want to be represented by Teamsters Local 332.
Disregarding the voices of nurses who simply seek the ability to choose their representative, the Teamsters are blocking any decertification election at the hospital. This tactic, known as a “blocking charge,” allows union officials to halt workers’ decertification efforts by filing unproven charges against their employer. In June, Foundation staff attorneys filed a formal rulemaking petition asking the NLRB to scrap the non-statutory policies it uses to block workers’ decertification votes.
Foundation staff attorneys also represent Genesys nurses who have filed unfair labor practice charges against Teamsters Local 332 for retaliating against nurses who resigned their union membership and returned to work. In those cases, Teamsters officials stopped payment on checks they issued to employees who exercised their legal right to resign from the union and return to work in defiance of the union strike.
Michigan politicians repealed the state’s Right to Work law in 2023, meaning private sector workers in the state can once again be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs.
“Genesys nurses have made clear that they want the chance to vote Teamsters bosses out of their hospital. The NLRB should not rubber-stamp union lawyers’ attempts to disenfranchise them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “If Teamsters bosses are so confident they ‘represent’ what Genesys nurses want, they should stop hiding behind legal maneuvers and respect the wishes of the hundreds of nurses asking for this vote.”
Port Worker Files Brief at U.S. Court of Appeals Defending Labor Board Victory Over Years-Long Union Boss Discrimination
Brief: Labor Board correctly found that ILA union bosses violated dissenter’s rights and should be held to a “heightened” standard for abuse of power
Wilmington, DE, Philadelphia, PA (October 5, 2026) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a brief in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Stanford Fowler, a port worker who was the victim of union officials’ years-long campaign of abuse that included threats and loss of referrals from the union-controlled hiring hall.
The case started when Fowler, who worked at the Port of Wilmington in Delaware, filed an unfair labor practice charge at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in August, 2021. Fowler argued that he had been illegally blacklisted by International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA) Local 1694 union officials after voicing concerns to the ILA International about work assignment practices after a merger of several ILA locals.
Following the issuance of a complaint by the NLRB General Counsel, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled largely in Fowler’s favor, and a subsequent unanimous decision from a bipartisan panel of NLRB Members affirmed the ALJ’s findings and even extended them farther, ruling that the union officials’ actions had violated federal law in several respects. In its decision, the NLRB ordered the union to provide Fowler with back pay covering the past five years to remedy his loss of work due to the union bosses’ discrimination.
Rather than accept responsibility for their unlawful actions, ILA Local 1694 bosses instructed their lawyers to appeal the Board’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. They even attempted to block Fowler from participating in the defense of his Labor Board victory, but those arguments were overruled and the Court specifically allowed Fowler to participate as an Intervenor to ensure the Board’s decision stands.
Foundation Calls for Court to Reject Local 1694’s Misleading Brief, Fully Enforce NLRB’s Decision
The Foundation staff attorneys’ brief argues that the ALJ and NLRB were “correct in determining that Local 1694 violated the [National Labor Relations Act] and the duty of fair representation” by threatening and coercing Fowler for dissenting, interfering with his ability to gain employment, banning him from the port, and telling him that gaining further work through its hiring hall would be futile. The brief urges the Court to ignore the union’s smokescreen of arguments that attempt to distract from the real issues.
The brief points out that Local 1694’s defense “omits much more than it presents.” Among these omissions were the failure of Local 1694 President and Vice President to show up at the hearing as witnesses, even though both were explicitly mentioned in the complaint. Furthermore, the Foundation attorneys’ brief calls out the union’s lawyers for relying on previous NLRB decisions that were reversed and denied enforcement by two appellate courts.
The brief argues, under Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l, that when a union chooses to operate a hiring hall it is assuming an “employer’s role” and “its responsibility to exercise that power fairly increases rather than decreases.” Fowler urges the Court to apply a strict and “heightened” standard of fairness found in two earlier Foundation-won cases, Jacoby v. NLRB and Lucas v. NLRB, which both applied the heightened standard of fairness.
The brief observes that applying this heightened standard would “both clarify the state of the law in this circuit and prevent Local 1694 and other hiring halls from attempting to avoid liability by asserting ‘mere negligence’ as an affirmative defense to their patently discriminatory conduct.”
“We are proud to help Mr. Fowler as he defends his NLRB victory at the court of appeals. We are also gratified that we overcame the union’s underhanded attempt to block him from even participating in the appeal of his own legal case,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses must be held accountable when they use their control over hiring halls to retaliate against those who exercise their rights under federal law.
“This case, like our prior Foundation victories in Lucas and Jacoby, show why hiring halls are easily abused by unscrupulous unions, and they should be banned or at least strictly monitored,” added Mix. “Mr. Fowler’s livelihood was threatened by ILA officials’ actions, and we are proud to help him defend his NLRB victory against their illegal actions.”
Foundation Notice Offers Free Legal Aid to New York In-Home Medicaid Caregivers Targeted for Forced Unionization by SEIU
Notice: If SEIU gains monopoly control, CDPAP caregivers would be required to pay union dues and comply with other union mandates, just to care for family members
Albany, NY (September 30, 2026) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a special legal notice to roughly 190,000 personal assistants who care for people with disabilities through New York’s Medicaid-funded Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP).
The Foundation’s legal notice informs CDPAP personal assistants of their legal rights, which include the right to challenge an effort by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials to impose unionization on every assistant currently providing care, often to family members, through the program. The notice encourages caregivers to reach out to the Foundation for additional information about their legal rights and for free legal assistance.
“If certified, SEIU would become the exclusive representative of all personal assistants, irrespective of whether they support the union,” the notice reads. “SEIU would also gain the authority to enter into an agreement requiring that everyone must pay dues or fees to SEIU to act as a personal assistant. If this comes to pass, many personal assistants will have no choice but to give part of their wages to SEIU to continue to provide home-based care, often to their own loved ones.”
The full notice is available here: https://www.nrtw.org/NYCare/
Controversial NY Medicaid Home Care Contract Tied to Secret SEIU Deal, Federal Fraud Lawsuit
On September 22, SEIU officials filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking to gain monopoly control over all caregivers, many of whom provide in-home care for family members. SEIU’s scheme is premised on a secret agreement between SEIU and Public Partnerships, LLC (PPL), under which PPL assists SEIU to obtain a monopoly union “representation” over all personal assistants, after SEIU helped make PPL the sole fiscal intermediary of all CDPAP participants.
The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights that the caregivers, who are often family members or friends of the people they serve, are actually employed by the hundreds of thousands of individual CDPAP participants with disabilities who hire them to work in their homes.
Because of this and the myriad of other legal issues raised by SEIU’s unionization push, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have already filed a motion with the NLRB requesting that it pause the proceedings to allow for amicus briefs, and also so the NLRB can consult with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice (DOJ).
In June, DOJ filed a federal lawsuit against PPL, the New York State Department of Health, and the state’s Medicaid director, alleging fraud. In announcing the lawsuit, Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald said, “New York’s backroom deal with PPL has cost taxpayers millions of dollars and cast countless Medicaid patients to the curb.” The announcement also alleged PPL won the contract through “a sham bid process… resulting in a fraud scheme that remains unchecked.”
The Foundation has a long history of defending home care providers from forced unionism. In the Foundation-won 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case Harris v. Quinn, Illinois home care personal assistants, including Pamela Harris, successfully challenged a scheme that forced providers caring for family members with disabilities through Medicaid to pay fees to SEIU officials.
“Personal assistants who care for New Yorkers with disabilities, often their own family members, should not have to hand over part of their wages to SEIU union bosses just to keep providing that care,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “This backroom arrangement between SEIU and Public Partnerships is a naked grab for power and dues money at the expense of some of the state’s most vulnerable residents and those who care for them.
“Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to provide free legal aid to any personal assistant who wants to oppose SEIU’s petition and protect their right to refuse union affiliation,” added Mix.
National Right to Work Foundation Asks NLRB to Halt SEIU Scheme to Impose Union on 190,000 New York In-Home Medicaid Caregivers
Motion: Briefing needed as SEIU and PPL work together to impose unionization; PPL facing DOJ fraud lawsuit and isn’t actually caregivers’ ‘employer’
Washington, DC (September 28, 2026) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed a motion at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the agency to stay a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) petition seeking to unionize roughly 190,000 personal assistants who care for people with disabilities through New York’s Medicaid-funded Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program.
The Foundation’s motion, filed in Public Partnerships, LLC (NLRB Case No. 03-RC-395461), asks NLRB Region 3 to invite amicus briefs from the Foundation and other interested parties, to consult with the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, and to halt the proceedings until after that briefing and consultation are complete.
The motion argues that Public Partnerships, LLC (PPL), which 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East names as the employer in its petition filed on September 22, is “little more than a payroll processor” for the program. The caregivers, who are often family members or friends of the people they serve, are actually employed by the hundreds of thousands of individual participants with disabilities who hire them to work in their homes. Because of this, the filing notes, the single statewide unit proposed by SEIU is legally inappropriate and “unworkable.”
Motion: NLRB Must Not Rubber-Stamp Collusive Unionization Scheme
The motion observes that the Region won’t get complete briefing on these important issues from the parties because “SEIU and PPL are not adverse to one another, but are working together pursuant to an organizing agreement.” Consultation with federal agencies is also needed, the motion argues, because the U.S. Department of Justice has a pending lawsuit alleging PPL committed fraud to win its contract as the program’s sole fiscal intermediary in New York, and because certifying a union over every provider in a state Medicaid program could conflict with federal Medicaid law.
The motion notes that, especially in light of SEIU officials and the ostensible “employer” PPL working hand in hand to unionize providers, the NLRB must not act as a rubber stamp for the scheme:
“The Region cannot simply accept the parties’ proposals, but must fulfill its statutory duty to make an independent determination as to whether PPL is actually an employer of these personal assistants (it is not) and whether the petitioned-for unit is appropriate (it is not). SEIU and PPL ask the Region to expend considerable resources conducting a mail ballot election of 190,000 individuals.”
Foundation staff attorneys have long defended homecare providers against forced unionism, including winning a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn, which held that states cannot force homecare providers to pay union fees.
“Ever since losing Harris v. Quinn at the Supreme Court, SEIU bosses have tried one scheme after another to force Medicaid providers to pay union dues just to care for their own family members in their homes,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “SEIU’s NLRB filing is the latest attempt to siphon mandatory dues out of taxpayer-funded Medicaid programs, and, according to DOJ’s lawsuit, this dubious arrangement is the result of PPL acquiring the contract through a sham bid process rigged by New York State officials.
“The NLRB has a duty to take its time and closely examine the legal implications of this unprecedented scheme to herd 190,000 caregivers into paying forced dues to politically connected SEIU union bosses,” added Mix.
86-Year-Old Veteran Files Federal Charges Against UFCW Union for Causing his Illegal Firing from Part-Time Grocery Job
Charge: UFCW bosses ignored Village Market employee for four years, then suddenly had him fired claiming he owed over $3,500 in back dues and fees
Oakland, CA (September 28, 2026) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, an 86-year-old veteran who worked part-time at Village Market in Oakland has filed federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5 (UFCW) union. The charge says UFCW 5 union officials illegally had Phil Holland fired in early September claiming he owed thousands of dollars in back dues and fees.
Holland, a Navy veteran with 30 years’ of experience in law enforcement, who also works part-time as a YMCA fitness instructor, was hired by the Village Market grocery store that he shopped at for 30 years in February of 2022 after he noticed a “help wanted” sign in the window. During his first four years of employment, UFCW Local 5 union officials never contacted him, never asked him to pay union dues or fees, and never notified him of his legal rights under the 1988 Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which protects employees from being required to pay full union dues for activities unrelated to union bargaining like union-boss political activism.
This suddenly changed in May 2026 when UFCW Local 5 union officials began sending threatening messages “welcoming” him to the union and later demanding that he become a member or lose his job.
Shortly after in July, UFCW Local 5 union bosses sent the part-time employee who worked 12 hours a week a letter demanding that he pay over $3,500 in retroactive dues and fees under the threat of termination. The union communication lacked the required information to inform him of his legal rights under the Beck decision.
Union Officials Rejected Proposed Partial Payment, Had Retired Veteran Terminated
With Holland not willing to pay the sudden and unlawful $3,500 dues demand, he proposed paying the Beck fee going forward and a partial payment of the back amount. UFCW officials not only rejected his request but also demanded that Village Market terminate his employment, which the company effectively did.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials can require workers to pay money to the union or lose their jobs. However, the Supreme Court’s NLRB v. General Motors decision forbids mandatory formal union membership.
The charge asks the NLRB to prosecute UFCW 5 for Holland’s illegal termination and also hold that the union committed an unfair labor practice when union officials knowingly ignored his employment for years without attempting to collect dues, then suddenly sprung a multi-year dues demand on the part-time employee. Mr. Holland’s charges will now be investigated by NLRB Region 32 officials.
“UFCW 5 union officials ignored Mr. Holland for more than four years while he worked part-time at his local grocery store, then out of nowhere ambushed the 86-year-old veteran with a bill for thousands of dollars and illegally had him fired when he didn’t give into their unlawful demands,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The abusive tactics on display in this case show the need for additional protections for employees against union boss attempts to collect years of back dues after the union itself failed to legally request the money at the time.
“Ultimately though, cases like this demonstrate why every worker in America deserves Right to Work protections to ensure that all union payments are strictly voluntary,” added Mix.
Richmond-Area Penske Workers Latest to Eject Teamsters Following Unanimous Vote to End Teamsters’ So-Called ‘Representation’
Virginia Penske employees join growing movement of rank-and-file workers cutting ties with the Teamsters
Sandston, VA (September 23, 2026) – Employees at Penske Truck Leasing are officially free from the unwanted “representation” of Teamsters Local 592 union officials, after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified a vote of Penske workers to “decertify” Teamsters union bosses. The decertification effort was spearheaded by Penske employee Jordan Cutrell, who received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys during the decertification process.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Cutrell’s petition was signed by an overwhelming majority of his coworkers, triggering the NLRB to administer a secret-ballot election, which took place on September 10 at Penske’s Trampton Road location in Sandston, Virginia, among all full-time and regular part-time technicians and customer service representatives.
Ultimately, the employees voted unanimously 9-0 to terminate Teamsters officials’ power as the workers’ monopoly bargaining “representative.”
Virginia is one of 26 states with a Right to Work law, which safeguards workers by making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, federal law grants union officials the power to impose their exclusive “representation” on every employee in a work unit, including those who never voted for, joined, or supported the union.
Cutrell and his colleagues are the latest in a growing number of workers who have approached the Foundation to exercise their legal right to remove Teamsters union officials from their workplaces. In just the past few years, Foundation-assisted Penske employees have successfully removed unwanted union bosses from their facilities at several locations across the country, including Dallas, TX, Bloomington, IN, Eagan and Roseville, MN, Nashville, TN, and Swedesboro, NJ.
Just this month, Foundation attorneys also secured a settlement for UPS worker and former Teamsters president Andrew Davis, in his dispute with the Teamsters over union bosses targeting him for informing his coworkers of their legal rights to not be union members and for filing charges against the union with the NLRB. Davis filed his charges after Teamsters officials falsely claimed, in front of his coworkers, that it was a “federal crime” to discuss how to resign their union membership.
“Every day Teamsters bosses give workers new reasons not to want to associate with the union, and we are pleased to have assisted Mr. Cutrell and his coworkers in reclaiming their workplace freedom,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation attorneys will continue to be a resource for all rank-and-file workers wanting to exercise their legal right to end their affiliation with the Teamsters.”
