Nurse Files Federal Charges Challenging Union Policy that Conditions Contract Vote Participation on Signing Union Card
Nurse contends that union rule disenfranchising nonmembers is unlawful restraint on Section 7 right to refuse union membership protected by federal law
Baltimore, MD (September 22, 2026) – Jennifer Delaney, a nurse at Ascension Health’s St. Agnes Hospital in Baltimore, has filed federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenging a common union boss tactic designed to coerce employees into signing union membership and dues cards. The charges were filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Delaney’s charges argue that when union officials block nonmembers from voting on contracts that will apply to them, the union violates the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA’s) prohibition on unions restraining or coercing employees’ Section 7 right to refrain from union membership. Though the NLRB has long looked the other way when union officials engage in such discrimination during contract ratification votes, the charges argue that the Board can no longer brush aside this clear violation of the text of the NLRA in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
The charges were filed after National Nurses Organizing Committee-National Nurses United (NNOC/NNU) officials prevented Delaney and other nonmember nurses from participating in a vote on September 17 over whether to ratify a monopoly union contract that would apply to both member and nonmember nurses alike. Delaney, with the assistance of her National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, filed similar charges in April 2025 when union officials disenfranchised nonmembers from voting on a “partial deal” regarding a contract proposal. Those charges remain pending.
Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, NNOC/NNU officials are empowered to enforce union contracts on all of the approximately 600 nurses at St. Agnes that could require every nurse to make payments to the union or else be fired. Although this particular contract does not include a forced dues provision, union officials were nevertheless blocking nonmembers from voting on the monopoly bargaining contract unless they joined the union and authorized automatic dues deductions.
Nurse’s Challenge Follows Previous Discrimination Charge, Attempt to Vote Union Out
Ever since NNOC/NNU union officials gained power at the hospital, they have been a divisive force, with many nurses opposing the union. In January 2025, around 200 nurses voted to remove the union in a decertification election, but the union was narrowly able to maintain power despite less than half of eligible voters (244 out of 573) backing the union.
Delaney explains why so many nurses wanted nothing to do with NNOC/NNU: “This union proved itself to be a divisive force as soon as it began campaigning at our hospital. Many of the nurses opposed its agenda from the very beginning, and it is still making things difficult for both us and our patients. Little has changed since the union got in and now we are being denied a say over our own contract terms.”
Both the latest charge and the pending charge filed in April 2025 are being investigated by NLRB Region 5 officials based in Baltimore.
“The whole point of Section 7 is that workers get to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union, free of pressure from union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “For too long, union bosses have weaponized their monopoly bargaining power over all employees in a workplace, effectively imposing a poll tax on workers by conditioning voting eligibility on union membership and dues payment.
“If NNOC/NNU bosses are unwilling to let nonmember nurses vote, then they are free to renounce their power to impose their one-size-fits-all contract on nonmembers,” added Mix. “Until that happens, it is vital the NLRB enforce the clear letter of federal law and protect these nurses from union policies designed to coerce them into signing away their legal rights.”
Ex-Teamsters President Wins Case Against Teamsters’ Retaliation, Union Threats for Filing Federal Charges
Charge: Teamsters threatened UPS employee, claimed it was a “federal crime” to inform others of protected legal right to resign from union membership
Pocatello, ID (September 21, 2026) – Andrew Davis, an employee of United Parcel Service (UPS), has prevailed in his dispute with Teamsters Local 983, after union bosses settled Davis’ National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case against them. An NLRB investigation, initiated by an Unfair Labor Practice charge filed by Davis, found that union officials engaged in illegal threats and retaliation against him after he resigned his union membership and informed coworkers of their legal right to do the same.
Davis, who was president of Teamsters Local 983 from 2014 until 2024, filed his charges at the NLRB with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency tasked with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and with adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual workers.
After the Regional Director for NLRB Region 27 issued a formal complaint against the union in July, determining that the charges against the Teamsters for violating Davis’ rights had merit, an NLRB trial had been scheduled for September 29. Teamsters union bosses settled the case to avoid facing federal prosecution for harassing Davis for exercising his rights under the NLRA. Now that Teamsters officials have backed down in the face of overwhelming evidence against them, the trial has been postponed indefinitely.
According to the complaint, four Teamsters Local 983 officials, contrary to federal law, told Davis in front of other workers that informing employees how to exercise their right to resign their union membership was “illegal” and a “federal crime.” These coercive statements led to Davis filing federal charges against Teamsters Local 983. The charges were later amended to include additional allegations against the union that included threats and fines.
In response to the charges being filed, the complaint noted, Teamsters union bosses retaliated against Davis by filing internal union “charges” and imposing a fine upon him.
Under longstanding law, only fully voluntary union members can be subjected to internal union discipline, which often involves fines levied against workers at odds with union boss demands. Workers cannot face discipline for actions that occur after a worker has resigned from union membership.
The NLRB complaint also stated that Teamsters Local 983 maintained unlawful rules barring members from seeking recourse from any outside court or agency, including the NLRB, without first exhausting internal union appeals.
The settlement requires Teamsters Local 983 to post and e-mail a notice informing UPS employees that Teamsters officials “will not” tell them it is “illegal or a federal crime to inform members on how to resign their union membership.” The settlement further requires the Teamsters Local to declare that they “will not” require members to “exhaust internal union remedies” before filing Unfair Labor Practice charges with the NLRB.
In addition to having all Teamsters’ records mentioning the unions charges and fines filed against Davis removed, the settlement also grants NLRB agents access (without notification) to Teamsters offices to confirm compliance.
“We are pleased to have aided Mr. Davis in defending his and other UPS workers’ rights from Teamsters union thugs’ threats and lies,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, there is a long history of Teamsters bosses engaging in underhanded, often blatantly illegal, tactics targeting the very rank-and-file workers they purport to ‘represent.’
“Cases like this demonstrate why workers, even former union presidents, need more protections under federal law from union bosses’ abuses who all too frequently target workers who simply voice any dissent,” added Mix.
KATU Photojournalist Hits IATSE Union, Station with Federal Labor Board Charges after Being Illegally Fired
Union officials and complicit management illegally demand photographer join union and authorize dues deductions, then had him fired when he refused
Portland, OR (September 17, 2026) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a former employee for KATU-TV has filed federal charges against the television station and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) union for violating his rights, culminating in his illegal termination.
Devon Carroll was employed as a photojournalist for ABC local affiliate KATU television station in Portland, Oregon. His federal charges detail how both IATSE Local 600 officials and KATU-TV demanded that he sign the union’s membership and dues check-off authorization, then violated federal law by terminating his employment when he declined to give in to their clearly illegal demands.
Because Oregon lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can require workers to pay money to the union or lose their jobs. However, IATSE union officials’ demands – which were later enforced by a complicit KATU human resources official – went far beyond what is legally permissible, even in a state without Right to Work protections for employees.
Union Bosses and Employer Ignore Supreme Court Precedent, Clear Federal Law
The Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. General Motors, decided in 1963, forbids mandatory, formal union membership as a condition of employment. Further, longstanding law says employees can never be required to sign a union dues deduction card. Federal law also says union officials cannot require payment of dues or fees without a union contract that includes a valid forced dues clause, and that, even when such a contract is in effect, no forced dues can be required of new hires until after 30 days of employment.
IATSE also ignored the NLRB’s 1962 Philadelphia Sheraton Corp. precedent, which includes mandatory procedural safeguards a union must follow when union officials are seeking to have an employee terminated for non-payment of union dues or fees. Furthermore, IATSE union bosses failed to inform Carroll of his Beck rights, a Supreme Court victory the Right to Work Foundation won in 1988.
According to his charges, an IATSE Senior Business agent told Carroll that he must join the union. When Mr. Carroll requested more information about the forced-dues requirement, the IATSE official responded by demanding he sign a union membership and dues check-off authorization.
At no point did the union officials provide information required under Beck or Philadelphia Sheraton. In addition, union officials’ initial demand for payment was based on an expired union contract, something the KATU HR official knew. Despite this, KATU ignored the union’s known misrepresentations and complied with union officials’ illegal demand that Carroll be fired.
Mr. Carroll’s federal charges will now be investigated by National Labor Relations Board Region 19 officials. A win in his case would result in Carroll being offered reinstatement, and issued back pay and reimbursement of other expenses associated with the unlawful termination. The union and station would also likely be required to post a notice to inform other employees of their legal rights.
“It is bad enough that Oregon workers can be forced to pay fees to union bosses just to earn a living,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In this case – aided by complicit company officials – IATSE union bosses violated numerous longstanding legal requirements in their rush to extort forced dues from Mr. Carroll.
“This case is a clear example of why more fundamental reform is needed, and especially why all American workers deserve Right to Work protections, so they can freely choose for themselves whether or not to fund a union with their hard-earned money,” Mix added.
DOJ Security Guard Union Forced to Pay Back Years of Illegal Union Dues to Avoid Labor Board Prosecution
Under settlement, other Paragon DOJ security guards denied required information can claim refunds for years of union dues payments
Washington, DC (September 14, 2026) – Kywane Johnson, a security guard formerly employed by Paragon Systems at the Department of Justice (DOJ), has prevailed in his three-year dispute with Special Deputy Marshals of America (SDM) union officials. Johnson, who filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), was vindicated when SDM union officials settled to head off a formal NLRB complaint for violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by not informing employees of their right to avoid paying for the union’s political activities.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the NLRA, a task that includes adjudicating disputes between unions and individual employees.
Johnson’s charges were filed in 2023, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, after SDM union bosses repeatedly harassed Johnson for refusing to sign a “dual purpose” union membership card/dues check-off authorization, with union officials escalating by threatening his termination.
The charges detail the harassment occurring despite Johnson having “consistently paid the equivalent of full dues by check to the union since the beginning of his employment.” Once the charges were filed with the NLRB, the agency’s investigation revealed additional violations of employees’ rights by the union, including not informing employees of their Beck right to not pay for union political activities.
Union officials moved to settle with Johnson before the NLRB issued a complaint against the union for its violations of employee rights. Had the complaint been issued, SDM union officials would have faced prosecution for violating the law at an NLRB hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
The settlement details are comprehensive, requiring the union to post, e-mail and text a 60-day notice, informing Paragon Systems workers that the SDM union will not threaten employees with termination for refusing union membership and/or dues deduction authorization.
Just as important, the settlement requires union officials to refund employees who assert their rights under the National Right to Work Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court CWA v. Beck decision to opt out of funding union politics, retroactively returning improperly seized dues or fees deducted since January 5, 2023.
The settlement also grants NLRB agents access (without notification) to DOJ facilities to confirm compliance.
“We are pleased to have aided Mr. Johnson in asserting his legal right against the bullying and badgering of union bosses,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Johnson not only defended his own rights, but obtained a remedy that allows his coworkers to assert their rights and claim refunds for illegally seized union payments going back to the beginning of 2023.
“Union bosses keeping workers they purport to ‘represent’ unaware of their legal rights is, unfortunately, a situation we see repeated all across the country, but it is especially prevalent in the 24 states that do not have Right to Work protections where union bosses can demand payments from employees as a condition of getting or keeping a job,” added Mix.
National Right to Work Foundation Files Brief in Case to Overturn Anti-Worker Biden-Era Labor Board Decision
NLRB’s Cemex precedent conflicts with federal law, wrongly promotes abuse-prone ‘card check’ organizing to detriment of employee rights
Washington, DC (September 11, 2026) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a case to overturn a Biden-era NLRB decision. The brief argues Cemex must be reversed because it cannot be reconciled with the statutory text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The NLRB is the federal agency tasked with enforcing the NLRA and with adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual workers. Under Section 8(b)(7) of the NLRA, Congress said that when a union pickets for recognition, unions have 30 days to file for an election before union picketing becomes an unfair labor practice.
The Foundation’s brief, filed in Amazon.com Services LLC (NLRB Case No. 20-CA-353378), notes that Cemex’s invented 14-day deadline for employers, absent an employer request for an election, to recognize a union after the union demands recognition “cannot be reconciled” with Section 8(b)(7), especially in light of the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision.
The brief notes: “[Cemex] cannot be squared with Section 8(b)(7)…[which] is predicated on the fact that the Act does not obligate employers to recognize unions. And, contrary to Cemex’s requirement that employers petition for an election or recognize the union, Section 8(b)(7) places the burden on unions that picket for recognition to file an election petition to avoid committing an unfair labor practice (‘ULP’).”
The brief also highlights other flaws inherent in Cemex, including that it “incentivizes union recognition based on a mere union demand—regardless of actual majority support—while diminishing use of the best way to determine majority support, secret-ballot elections.”
As the brief points out, Cemex runs contrary to the interests of workers whose votes against unionization are discarded and who have union representation forced on them through the abuse-prone card check method. This disenfranchisement is triggered whenever the Board finds that the employer committed a ULP—even if that violation had no effect on the workers who opposed the union.
Foundation staff attorneys have, and continue to, provide legal assistance for workers in several cases targeted by the abuse-prone card check organizing, including victims of union pressure tactics, lies, and threats. This includes Foundation attorneys specifically challenging the original Cemex decision in a federal court case filed for a Seattle Mariners employee dating back to 2024.
“For roughly three years the Biden Board’s Cemex decision has—in violation of the clear text of federal law—let union bosses’ say-so substitute for what workers actually decide in a private, secret-ballot vote.” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The new NLRB majority should quickly overturn Cemex and other biased Biden and Obama-era precedents on the books that promote union boss power to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of workers.”
Labor Board Decision Rules Region Wrongly Tossed Out McDowell County Employees’ Union Decertification Votes
NLRB majority finds Regional Director wrongly rubber-stamped gambit by SEIU and employer to destroy ballots in vote to remove union
Welch, WV (September 3, 2026) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., has just reversed an NLRB Region 9 official’s decision to dismiss a petition filed by McDowell County Commission on Aging employee John Reeves seeking to remove Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 officials from his workplace. Reeves received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys throughout the proceedings.
In its decision, Board Chairman James Murphy and Member Scott Mayer ruled that the Region 9 Director erred by dismissing Reeves’ decertification petition and refusing to count the ballots from a decertification election held in July 2024. The Board majority found that the Regional Director had simply repeated unproven, settled unfair labor practice allegations against the Commission as the stated basis for dismissal, without making any independent finding, as required by precedent, that Reeves’ petition was actually tainted by direct employer involvement.
Region Greenlit Employer and SEIU Bosses’ Collusive Deal to Block Workers from Voting Out Union
Reeves filed his decertification petition in June 2024 after the Commission’s contract with the SEIU expired. All parties, including the SEIU, agreed to hold a decertification election, which took place on July 9, 2024. However, NLRB Region 9 officials impounded the ballots without counting them, citing blocking charges the SEIU had filed at the last minute against the Commission.
On the final day before NLRB rules at the time mandated that the votes be counted, the Region rushed out a complaint based on the union’s charges to block the count. Later, the Region approved a “settlement” between the company and the union of the unfair labor practice charges. Notably, the settlement contained no admission of wrongdoing by the employer, yet it included a provision that the employees’ decertification petition would be dismissed and further decertification petitions would be blocked.
Reeves was not a party to that settlement, even though his legal rights under the National Labor Relations Act were abrogated by the union-employer agreement. Reeves had previously attempted to intervene in the blocking charge case, only for the Region to deny his participation despite its likely impact on his decertification effort. The Region nonetheless cited the settled, unproven allegations as grounds to toss out his petition and the ballots the employees had cast.
Soon after, in March 2025, Foundation staff attorneys asked the Board in Washington to review and reverse that dismissal, arguing the Region had no lawful basis to scrap a decertification vote based on allegations the employer never admitted and the Board never proved. That Request for Review noted that the Region has ignored longstanding precedent in its rush to protect incumbent SEIU union officials from being removed by the votes of a majority of employees.
Board Majority: Region Ignored Longstanding Law to Disenfranchise Employees
Citing the NLRB’s decisions in TruServ Corp., the Board majority held that a settlement lacking an admission of liability cannot, standing alone, justify dismissing a decertification petition. The majority further found that the Regional Director’s dismissal letter did nothing more than recite the settled complaint’s allegations, without the kind of independent administrative finding of direct employer instigation or solicitation that Board precedent requires before a petition can be thrown out. The Board granted review, reversed the dismissal, and ordered the ballots opened and counted.
Ultimately the ruling arrives too late to affect Reeves personally, as he and his coworkers took separate action to free themselves from SEIU 1199 with a majority-backed petition in November 2025. However, the case is just the latest example of union lawyers abusing NLRB rules and exploiting sympathetic regional officials to keep workers trapped in union ranks over the objection of a majority of employees.
“Mr. Reeves and his coworkers ultimately succeeded in freeing themselves from SEIU control through their own efforts, but far too many other workers are stuck under so-called ‘representation’ they oppose because the decertification process is subject to exactly this kind of bureaucratic manipulation and delay,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This case is a textbook illustration of why the Foundation’s pending rulemaking petition is necessary to end the various non-statutory barriers employees face when it comes to holding decertification elections and having their votes promptly counted.”
Labor Day 2026: Celebrate Workers, Reject Big Labor Coercion
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2026:
Labor Day exists to honor the hardworking men and women who build and sustain the most prosperous and innovative country in the world. Yet every year as we celebrate them, union officials hijack this holiday to push a coercive agenda that most workers oppose.
Polling clearly shows that Americans at large, and union members in particular, reject Big Labor’s agenda of coercion and forced dues. Celebrating workers must include protecting their Right to Work: trusting each worker to decide for themselves whether to join and financially support a union.
That freedom is too often threatened by those in the halls of power in Washington, D.C. For four years, the Biden Labor Board used one-sided decisions and rule changes to make it harder for workers to vote out unwanted unions, and easier for union officials to organize workplaces without workers ever casting a ballot at all.
Only in recent weeks has the NLRB gained a Trump-appointed majority with the votes to reverse those precedents. Much work remains, including in dozens of cases brought by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, to undo the damage the Biden Board did to employee freedom.
The fight is also playing out in Congress as Big Labor funnels billions in forced dues to advance the so-called ‘PRO Act,’ which would wipe out all 26 state Right to Work laws and force millions more workers to pay up or be fired. The one-page National Right to Work Act, by contrast, would make union membership and dues strictly voluntary nationwide.
That’s what this Labor Day should be about: not forced dues and coerced representation, but the freedom to choose. On behalf of the 8 in 10 Americans who support the Right to Work, we’ll keep fighting until workers everywhere have that fundamental freedom secured.
Washington State Registered Nurse Files Federal Civil Rights Charge Against Nurse’s Union for Illegal Religious Discrimination
EEOC Charge: AFT union officials unlawfully refused Christian nurse’s request for religious accommodation to union dues payment
Seattle, WA (September 2, 2026) – A Washington nurse has filed a federal Charge of Discrimination against the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA), an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), stating that union officials have engaged in religious discrimination by illegally denying her request for religious accommodation. The nurse, Rheanne Garrett, submitted her charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with free legal representation by National Right to Work staff attorneys.
Since Washington State lacks Right to Work protections, union officials have the power to compel workers under their monopoly bargaining power to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. However, under decades old precedents established by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, if funding a union violates employees’ sincere religious beliefs, then they are entitled to a religious accommodation to union financial support.
Both the WSNA and the AFT have extensive histories of using their power and significant resources to promote pro-abortion and pro-LGBT causes that are antithetical to Garrett’s faith. Due to her sincere religious convictions, Garrett chose to exercise her religious freedom by refusing to affiliate with, or financially support, either of the unions and their activism that conflicts with her religious beliefs.
EEOC Charge: Union Unlawfully Discriminating with Repeated Blanket Denials, Harassment
In early May, Garrett sent an email to the WSNA describing her sincerely held religious convictions and requested an accommodation from the requirement to join or pay dues to the union. For the next two months, email exchanges between Garrett and union officials proved unfruitful, despite Garrett even having provided a letter from her pastor that attested to her sincerely held religious beliefs. Although Garrett repeatedly sent the union more than sufficient information to justify her request, the union offered only blanket denials, insisting without explanation that she did not qualify for a religious accommodation.
If the EEOC finds merit to Garrett’s charges, the agency will either take legal action against the WSNA itself, or will issue a “right to sue” letter to Garrett, which will entitle her to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the union in federal court.
“By denying my repeated requests for a religious accommodation and holding the threat of discharge over me for refusing to compromise my religious beliefs,” Garrett explains, “the Unions are violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and parallel state laws.
“The Unions are also engaging in quid-pro-quo harassment by threatening my job unless I compromise my religious convictions by joining or paying monies to the Unions,” Garrett said.
“The Foundation is proud to help working women like Ms. Garrett who courageously stand up to protect their religious beliefs from the schemes of radical union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the battle to preserve the right of religious employees opposed to funding union activities for religious reasons is important, more fundamental reform is needed to ensure that no one is forced to fund or associate with union bosses against their will, no matter whether their personal objection is political, religious, financial, or otherwise.”
