St. Louis-Area Worker Battles Illegal Union Threats to Get Non-Members Fired
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
After divisive strike, IAM bosses demand non-members pay illegal ‘reinstatement fee’ to work
Robert Jacobs, an employee of power management company Eaton, filed federal charges showing IAM bosses clearly can’t manage their power: They are threatening union non-members with hundreds in illegal fees.
TROY, IL – “They’re threatening our jobs and livelihoods.”
This is how Robert Jacobs, an employee for power management company Eaton Corporation, described how International Association of Machinists (IAM) union bosses were treating him and his colleagues who dissented from the union’s agenda in an interview with the St. Louis Business Journal.
IAM officials ordered hundreds of Eaton employees at its St. Louis-area facility to strike in October 2024, which alienated many workers and made them question union bosses’ motives. Jacobs described seeing union agents take photos of his license plate during the strike and how he suspected union agents were following him home.
IAM Anti-Worker Activity Only Increased After Disruptive Strike Order
But for Jacobs and other workers, that was only the beginning of IAM’s coercive conduct. After the strike concluded, many Eaton employees chose to exercise their right to resign their union memberships. Even in states like Illinois that lack Right to Work protections, private sector workers are free to end their union memberships, even if union officials enforce a contract that requires non-members to pay some fees as a condition of employment.
Instead of respecting this right, IAM union officials began retaliating against those who wanted to cut ties with the union. With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Jacobs slammed the IAM with federal charges for threatening to get him and other employees who resigned union membership fired unless they pay hundreds in “reinstatement fees” concocted by the union. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is now reviewing his charges.
“I and several of my colleagues don’t want to be part of the IAM union, but we are required by law to pay fees to union bosses just to keep our jobs,” commented Jacobs.
“That’s already something that we don’t want to do. But IAM officials are going even further and hitting us with hundreds of dollars in made-up fees just because we exercised our right to not be union members.”
IL Worker: Mandatory ‘Reinstatement Fee’ Not Permitted by Federal Law
Under federal labor law, which the NLRB is charged with enforcing, private sector employees have an absolute right to resign union membership. This right is codified in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and was affirmed by landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as General Motors v. NLRB.
Federal law further spells out that neither employers nor union officials can compel private sector workers to participate in union activities or refrain from such activities.
According to Jacobs’ federal charge, which was filed on the last day of 2024, “the Union is presently threatening Charging Party and [other employees who resigned from the union] with termination if they fail to pay a $306 ‘reinstatement fee’ by January 2025.” The charge argues that the IAM union is violating Eaton employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which safeguards employees’ “right to refrain from any or all of ” union activities.
According to the Business Journal, IAM officials’ letter demanding this payment was what prompted him to contact Foundation attorneys. “[I]f you do not remit the total sum indicated in the enclosed letter within 30 days from receipt of this letter, the Union will be required to seek your termination from employment,” the letter read.
“Instead of seeking to win Eaton employees’ voluntary support, IAM union officials have decided to effectively extort the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Threatening to terminate workers if they don’t pay a fee which is apparently intended to punish those who don’t want union bosses speaking for them tarnishes employee rights and freedom.
“While we’re confident that Foundation attorneys will help Mr. Jacobs prevail in beating this illegal scheme, this case shows what self-interested union bosses will do to demand fealty from workers, and why all American workers deserve the Right to Work freedom to cut off financial support for such union hierarchies,” Messenger added
DOJ Attorney Battles Biden Admin Union Power Grab Over Justice Department
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation attorneys challenge last minute DOJ unionization in violation of FLRA case law
NTEU union bosses backed Kamala Harris for President, but when voters rejected her, NTEU union officials and the Biden-Harris Administration hastily moved to install the union at the DOJ in an apparent attempt to obstruct Trump’s priorities.
WASHINGTON, DC – In states across the country, union officials go to great lengths to gain more political influence, and will often violate established law to do so.
As veteran Department of Justice attorney Jeffrey Morrison is discovering, federal agencies are no exception. Morrison is challenging a last-minute attempt by National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) bosses to gain monopoly bargaining control over attorneys at both the DOJ Civil Rights Division (CRT, where Morrison is employed) and the DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD).
The unionization campaign was fast-tracked just days after Trump’s November election victory, in an apparent attempt to formally hand NTEU union officials power over the divisions prior to inauguration day. Morrison’s legal action asks the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to formally review the actions by the Biden DOJ and NTEU officials. The FLRA is the federal agency responsible for adjudicating disputes between federal employees, union officials, and agencies within the federal government.
Brief: DOJ Holdovers and NTEU Bosses Colluded to Flout Existing Law
Morrison, who is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, contends in filings before the FLRA that the NTEU’s scheme violates an existing FLRA decision in which the agency ruled that CRT attorneys did not comprise a work unit appropriate for unionization.
DOJ management raised this exact concern about the CRT unit with the FLRA after NTEU union bosses began their campaign, but the DOJ dropped its opposition just days after the November federal elections.
Morrison is asking the FLRA to review the decision of the Regional Director to allow the election to go forward in the CRT and ENRD divisions without properly considering if these divisions are an appropriate unit under the law.
Morrison’s filings (called “Applications for Review”) came after DOJ management and NTEU union officials agreed that the CRT and ENRD were work units appropriate for unionization. His Applications for Review point out that a prior FLRA decision, Antitrust Division, held that CRT lawyers “did not have a separate and distinct community of interest from other DOJ trial attorneys” and for that reason couldn’t stand as a distinct bargaining unit.
“[T]he Authority determined this very unit to not be an appropriate unit…The Regional Director’s failure to comply with current, binding Authority precedent is in error and must be reversed,” the Application for Review says regarding the CRT attorneys. This same argument is applied to the ENRD division because it is similarly situated to CRT in the DOJ hierarchy.
FLRA Failed to Conduct Investigation Into NTEU’s Union Scheme
Morrison’s applications also contend that the FLRA “fail[ed] to conduct an independent investigation into the appropriateness of the unit,” despite the law requiring that the FLRA make such a finding.
“An agency agreeing with a union that a unit is appropriate does not mean that unit is actually appropriate. Agencies, like DOJ here, cannot usurp the Authority’s role in deciding unit appropriateness…” say the Applications for Review.
“Right before power changed hands in Washington, DC, NTEU union bosses and DOJ bureaucrats appear to have colluded to flout longstanding precedent that says Justice Department attorneys cannot legally be unionized division by division,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“The FLRA has ignored established precedent to let this hasty unionization attempt go through, and our attorneys are proud to assist Mr. Morrison in opposing this maneuver.”
Hundreds of OH Workers Exit Teamsters as Union Bosses’ Amazon ‘Strike’ Stunt Flounders
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Teamsters O’Brien tried to take away Christmas cheer, but couldn’t take away Ohio workers’ freedom
Daniel Caughhorn led a scrappy group of his coworkers in voting Teamsters bosses out of their workplace, a scrap metal processing facility in Toledo, OH. They also beat back union bosses’ attempts to overturn their vote.
WASHINGTON, DC – This past December, Teamsters President Sean O’Brien announced the “largest-ever strike against Amazon,” claiming that thousands of workers would heed his strike order, abandon their delivery vehicles and hit the picket lines. O’Brien threatened that Christmas gifts would be delayed unless his demands were met.
Those who took O’Brien’s rhetoric at face value would have thought he was a veritable Grinch stealing Christmas (even though he tried to explain it was Amazon’s fault that the strike had to occur). But even reporting from pro-Big Labor outlets soon revealed that the order was more story than substance: According to Labor Notes, only about 600 employees obeyed the strike order despite Teamsters honchos claiming to “represent” some 7,000 to 10,000 Amazon employees.
Even the small number who did cease work on O’Brien’s command are arguably not employees of Amazon, and likely aren’t under Teamsters control at all: They work primarily for independent contractors that carry out some delivery functions for Amazon. Even if O’Brien’s dubious theory claiming he had control over those delivery drivers was correct, it would have only affected 10 out of the roughly 110 Amazon centers nationwide. Still, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys put a special legal notice out to delivery drivers nationwide informing them of their rights if they were illegally coerced to strike.
Workers Defeat Cynical Attempt by Teamsters to Overturn Vote
The December 2024 Teamsters “strike” against Amazon may go down in history as a strained publicity stunt. But the more significant Teamsters news that month was that hundreds of Foundation-backed workers across Northern Ohio took real action by voting to free themselves from unwanted Teamsters officials’ so-called “representation.”
Dusty Hinkle, an employee for Frito-Lay’s plant in Wooster, OH, and Daniel Caughhorn, a worker at scrap metal firm Omnisource’s facility in Toledo, OH, paved the way to freedom for their coworkers by submitting petitions asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold votes among their coworkers to remove or “decertify” Teamsters unions at their facilities. They submitted these in October and August 2024, respectively, with free Foundation legal assistance.
Because Ohio lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Teamsters officials enforced contracts that required Hinkle, Caughhorn, and their colleagues to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
The NLRB, the federal agency that enforces federal labor law, administered decertification votes at Hinkle’s and Caughhorn’s workplaces after finding that both petitions contained enough employee signatures to trigger a vote under agency rules. Even though clear majorities of workers voted against Teamsters union control in both votes, Teamsters union officials filed objections alleging misconduct by Frito-Lay and Omnisource management in an attempt to overturn the election results.
However, in both cases regional NLRB officials tossed the union objections and certified the workers’ votes. The Omnisource and Frito-Lay employees — over 430 in total — thereby cut all ties with the Teamsters unions. Now both sets of employees are free both of union bosses’ forced-dues demands and their ability to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on the workplace.
In the final months of 2024, Foundation attorneys assisted a number of other workers from across industries with efforts to remove unwanted Teamsters officials. From just October to December 2024, truck drivers from Georgia, California, Virginia, and New Jersey successfully booted out Teamsters union officials or initiated removal efforts with Foundation aid. These cases came despite increasingly hostile rulemaking from the outgoing Biden Administration’s NLRB bureaucrats in 2024, which undid key Foundation-backed reforms that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections.
Teamsters Schemes to Steal Christmas and Workers’ Rights Both Failed
“Sean O’Brien’s Christmas publicity stunt might have made him seem like an attempted stealer of gifts and holiday cheer, but these two Foundation cases from Ohio demonstrate what Teamsters bosses really are: stealers of workers’ rights and freedom,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“That Teamsters officials in both these cases attempted to disenfranchise workers who opposed them shows why workers are turning against their power-hungry tactics, and why American workers deserve the Right to Work choice to withhold financial support from union officials who aren’t serving their interests.”
Following Foundation Legal Arguments, Trump Fires Biden-Appointed NLRB Bureaucrats
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation constitutional lawsuit first to argue presidents can remove Board members
President Trump appears intent on ending union bosses’ reign at the NLRB. One of his first actions was to axe Jennifer Abruzzo and Gwynne Wilcox, both ex-union bosses who constantly sought to beef up their cronies’ powers over employees.
WASHINGTON, DC – Joe Biden, a career lackey of Big Labor union bosses, spared no moment of his administration ensuring that his cronies at the top of America’s largest unions gained power at the expense of independent-minded workers.
Only minutes after being inaugurated in 2021, he began setting the stage for a Big Labor takeover of the federal government: He immediately fired Peter Robb, the general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) during Donald Trump’s first term. With Robb gone, Biden’s acting general counsel quickly quashed multiple National Right to Work Foundation-backed cases that would have otherwise received full NLRB consideration. When Biden filled the general counsel position, he picked Jennifer Abruzzo — a radical ex-Communications Workers of America (CWA) lawyer who was confirmed only because then-Vice President Kamala Harris broke a party-line deadlock in the Senate.
And Biden wasn’t finished. He filled two vacancies on the Board itself with Gwynne Wilcox and David Prouty — who had both worked for the radical Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Biden’s crusade against worker freedom arguably culminated in the disastrous Cemex Construction Materials Pacific NLRB decision, which gave union officials the power to seize monopoly bargaining power in a workplace without winning a secret-ballot election among employees. The Biden Board also repealed key Foundation-backed reforms that (among other things) stopped union bosses from using so-called “blocking charges” alleging employer malfeasance to stop workers from voting in union removal elections they had requested.
Sudden End of Radical Biden Majority Creates Opportunities for Foundation Litigation
But, just a week after re-ascending to the White House, President Trump took immediate action to undo the damage to worker freedom caused by the historically-radical Biden NLRB. In late January, Trump took the crucial step of giving both Abruzzo and Wilcox the boot. That, combined with the fact that the Senate did not confirm Biden NLRB Chairman Lauren McFerran for another term, means Trump has the opportunity to appoint a pro-freedom majority to the Board before it considers any other cases.
“We hope that this signals the opening of a new chapter at the NLRB, where the agency will fulfill its statutory mandate to protect workers’ right to associate with unions if they choose, but will equally defend their right to refrain from all union activity,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
Trump Admin, Others Follow Foundation Lead in Arguing for Structural Board Change
By removing Wilcox, the Trump Administration is relying on arguments made in the Foundation’s groundbreaking cases challenging the structure of the NLRB. Foundation-backed Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam filed the first-ever federal suit arguing that, as per the Constitution’s separation of powers principles, the president should be able to remove them at-will.
Cortes and Karam’s suit is currently pending at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Big Labor backers argue that board members like Wilcox have statutory protections that make them removable only in certain circumstances. But Board member protections are constitutionally questionable.
“President Trump made an excellent and decisive move to protect the freedom of American workers. Abruzzo’s and Wilcox’s track records were devastating for independent-minded employees,” observed Mix.
“We’re also encouraged by the Trump Administration’s apparent reliance on National Right to Work Foundation-backed workers’ cases to affirm the idea that NLRB members — like Wilcox — should be removable by the president at will. “The Foundation still has considerable legal work to do to reverse the damage done by the Biden NLRB, and removing a union partisan like Wilcox from the Board is just the first step towards restoring the rights and freedoms of workers opposed to union affiliation,” added Mix.
Austin Worker Files 5th Foundation-Backed Lawsuit Arguing NLRB Violates US Constitution
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Case joins others for employees nationwide arguing Labor Board’s structure is illegal
Dallas Mudd helps connect people with the social services they need, and his and many other workers’ ability to do their important work shouldn’t be stymied because unaccountable NLRB bureaucrats are forcing union “representation” on them.
AUSTIN, TX – In November, Dallas Mudd, an employee for online social service coordination platform Findhelp, filed a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the grounds that the agency’s structure is unconstitutional. Mudd’s case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is the latest in a series of legal actions by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for employees challenging the NLRB’s authority.
Mudd’s case comes after he filed a decertification petition with the NLRB, seeking a vote to remove the Office & Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) from his workplace. However, NLRB officials blocked the vote, disenfranchising Mudd and his colleagues on the basis of unproven charges union bosses made against Findhelp. Mudd appealed the decision to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C., while also filing a federal lawsuit to challenge NLRB members’ removal protections.
Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Mudd’s Foundation attorney also asked the Northern District Court of Texas to issue a preliminary injunction stopping the NLRB from adjudicating his appeal until the issue of the NLRB’s constitutionality is resolved. Mudd argues that he is suffering ongoing and irreparable harm by being forced to navigate a statutory process before an agency that he claims is unconstitutionally structured.
Constitutional Challenge: A Broader Legal Campaign
Meanwhile, in its own case against the NLRB, Findhelp has successfully secured an injunction against the NLRB in a federal district court making arguments similar to those raised by Mudd.
Mudd’s lawsuit follows four other constitutional challenges backed by the National Right to Work Foundation, targeting the NLRB’s structure. This includes a case for New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, who filed the first constitutional challenge to NLRB Board Member protections.
Their case is currently being briefed at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but since their groundbreaking lawsuit, numerous major employers have utilized the arguments first made in federal court by Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the radically pro-union boss BidenHarris NLRB.
“Independent-minded workers should not be forced to depend on biased agencies staffed by bureaucrats who exercise power in violation of the Constitution,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“The Constitution does not permit a powerful federal agency to operate as the judge, jury, and executioner without proper oversight.
“Contrary to the wishes of Big Labor bosses, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the U.S. Constitution,” added Semmens.
Michigan Security Guards Overwhelmingly Vote to End Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
After Big Labor-backed Right to Work repeal, Michigan workers including security guards continue fighting forced dues
James Reamsma and his fellow security guards finally secured their right to stop their hard-earned money from going to UGSOA union bosses after a months-long legal battle. Such anti-forced-dues cases continue to increase in Michigan.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Ever since Michigan legislators repealed the state’s popular Right to Work law, Michigan employees have been turning to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to help them fight to protect themselves from union bosses’ forced-dues demands. In a long-running case, security guard James Reamsma and his colleagues at Triple Canopy Inc. not only ended union officials’ power to require union dues payments as a condition of employment, but also freed themselves of unwanted union ‘representation.’
With Foundation legal aid, the security guards organized a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) “deauthorization election” to strip United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) Local 288 union officials of their power to compel union financial support.
Overwhelming Vote Against Forced Dues Triggers End of Unwanted ‘Representation’
Despite an overwhelming vote by participating workers against forced union dues, union lawyers’ delay tactics stalled final certification of the results until October. At that point, the dissenting security guards were officially free to cut off all union dues payments, as had been the case when Michigan’s Right to Work law was in place and all union financial support was strictly voluntary.
At that point, faced with the prospect that the vast majority of the guards would likely stop dues payments, UGSOA bosses announced they were ending their so-called “representation” at Triple Canopy. This means the security guards are now not only free of forced dues, but also of monopoly union representation they oppose.
“UGSOA union officials have threatened to have everyone who does not join the union fired,” Reamsma said soon after his case was filed. “Many of us are retired police officers, or military, working part time, supplementing our income by providing security for government buildings across Michigan. When Right to Work was in place, guards were never forced to join the union.”
In addition to the deauthorization petition, Reamsma filed unfair labor practice charges against UGSOA, citing illegal union dues demands. The charges note that union officials were violating his rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision by denying Reamsma a required breakdown of how the forced-dues amount was calculated, and also by attempting to require that he let the union automatically deduct dues out of his paycheck. Those charges remain pending with the NLRB.
Despite a vast majority of Michiganders — including those in union households — expressing support for Right to Work, union boss partisans re-granted forced-dues powers to Michigan union officials in 2023.
Foundation attorneys filed more than twice the number of cases for Michigan workers in 2024 (the year the repeal went into effect) than through all of 2023. That increase includes a number of deauthorization cases. In states that lack Right to Work protections, like Michigan does currently, the only way that workers can end union bosses’ pay-up-or-be-fired dues demands is by voting as a majority against forced dues in a “deauthorization election” or by voting to remove the union completely.
Often workers may prefer to end union “representation” entirely, but union-backed NLRB rules severely limit when decertification votes can be held, including for up to three years when a forced-dues union contract is in place. As a result, workers often turn to deauthorization to cut off union dues payments in order to incentivize union bosses to leave completely, as happened with James Reamsma and his coworkers.
Fight Against Forced Dues in Michigan Continues
“Mr. Reamsma’s situation shows the kind of greedy gamesmanship union officials can engage in without Right to Work,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“As soon as Reamsma and his coworkers had gone through the complex process of voting to strip them of their forced-dues power, union officials immediately fled the workplace — almost as if they were only there to collect dues from workers who had no choice but to pay up to avoid termination.
“While we are proud to assist Michigan workers in navigating these challenges, cases like these show why it was such a mistake to repeal Michigan’s popular Right to Work law to begin with,” added Mix.
New York Farmworkers Seek to Challenge ‘Card Check’ & Uproot UFW Union Bosses
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Farmworkers fight union argument that New York labor law lets union bosses trap workers forever
Porpiglia Farms workers, who were targeted by an aggressive UFW ‘card check’ campaign against the farmworkers, are banding together to vote the union out and ensure that union officials reap what they have sown.
MARLBORO, NY – In 2020, the New York State Assembly passed a Big Labor-backed law that granted union officials sweeping new powers to impose their monopoly bargaining control over the state’s farmworkers. Since New York is one of 24 states that lacks a Right to Work law, the law authorizes union bosses to force farmworkers to pay union dues or else be fired.
But that’s not all: New York labor law went even further by mandating “card check” organizing, in which union officials deny workers a secret ballot union vote and instead claim majority support by submitting cards ostensibly showing worker support. These cards are often collected through pressure tactics, intimidation, or even threats.
But even that dramatic increase in power over the agricultural sector and agricultural workers is not enough for United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials.
UFW tyrants are advancing the cynical argument that, under New York law, workers can be forced into union ranks but can never escape forced unionism. They argue this to counter a recent National Right to Work Foundation-backed union decertification case for employees of Porpiglia Farms, an apple farm in the Hudson Valley of New York.
NY Fruit Farmworkers Seek Union Ouster After ‘Card Check’
Porpiglia employee Ricardo Bell submitted a petition last year in which he and his coworkers asked the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to hold a vote at the orchard on whether to remove the UFW. (Despite its name, PERB is responsible for enforcing labor law in both New York’s public and agricultural sectors.)
In late 2024, Foundation attorneys filed a brief for Bell countering union officials’ absurd argument that one card check drive should lock employees in a union forever. Additionally, more Foundation-backed decertification cases are sprouting up in both New York and other Big Labor-dominated states for farmworkers who are rejecting UFW officials’ card check schemes.
Brief Challenges Theory That Workers Have No Right to Remove Incumbent Union
Bell filed his decertification petition with Foundation legal aid after UFW union officials seized power at his workplace through a hasty card check unionization drive. His newest filing attacks union bosses’ contention that once a union is certified as the monopoly union “representative” of a work unit, there can be no option to remove it.
“[New York labor law] does not indicate that employees have a single chance at self-organization,” the brief says. “If that were the case, the very action of choosing a representative under [New York labor law] would deprive employees of the ability to exercise [their rights] in perpetuity….”
Foundation-Backed Workers Battle UFW ‘Card Checks’ Across Country
Since Bell’s filing, Foundation attorneys have also assisted in a union decertification effort for workers at Cherry Lawn Fruit Farms near Rochester, NY, who were targeted by a similar UFW card check campaign. These two groups of New York farmworkers join Foundation-backed employees of Wonderful Nurseries in California in challenging the UFW’s tactics.
Wonderful Nurseries workers still have multiple unfair labor practice charges pending against UFW bosses for deceptive behavior during an early 2024 card check drive. The charges detail UFW agents lying about the true purpose of cards that they collected from workers, and harassing workers who now back an effort to vote the union out.
“The aggressive and often demeaning tactics that UFW union officials use to seize control over agricultural workers show clearly why ‘card check’ is a bad idea in the agricultural sector, the public sector, and in any sector,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “UFW officials are arguing that workers should have little or no chance at all to challenge a union’s ascent to power by this process.
“The idea that workers have no ability to eject a union once it is installed in power further demonstrates that this is not about workers’ choices at all, only about union bosses’ power over workers, even when workers overwhelmingly want nothing to do with union bosses’ so-called ‘representation,’” added Messenger.
Philly-Area Manufacturing Employees Triumph Over UAW Intimidation Campaign
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
UAW bosses now required to attend federal training after trying to fire non-striking workers
Despite an active federal corruption investigation, UAW President Shawn Fain and his underlings continue to push a radical political agenda using workers’ dues money while ignoring the rights of the rank-and-file employees union bosses claim to “represent.”
PHILADELPHIA, PA – It’s not particularly difficult to see why United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials are having trouble convincing workers that the union has their best interests in mind.
The union’s upper echelon is still reeling from a federal probe that hit about a dozen top union bosses with prison sentences for embezzling workers’ dues, and to this day it appears that UAW President Shawn Fain — a so-called “reformer” — is being scrutinized by federal monitors for manipulating his position to secure personal benefits.
But the corruption within the UAW goes far beyond the union’s top executives. Throughout 2024, National Right to Work Foundation-backed workers for auto accessory manufacturer Dometic fought illegal UAW demands that they strike or be fired.
UAW Union Used Mass Texts, Social Media to Bully Workers
In March 2024, seven Philadelphia-area Dometic employees filed unfair labor practice charges against the UAW Local 644 union, detailing that UAW bosses had ordered a strike and threatened to get fired anyone who decided to keep working.
Despite the employees’ resignation of their union memberships, UAW officials began internal proceedings against each of them soon after the strike began. Federal labor law forbids unions from imposing internal discipline on those who abstain from union membership.
The Dometic workers didn’t back down. With free Foundation legal aid, all the workers won settlements in October 2024 that fully vindicated their rights. UAW officials must now make postings correctly informing workers of their right to abstain from union activities, and the settlement even requires union chiefs to undergo mandatory training on the limits of “a union’s right to impose internal discipline,” among other topics.
As the workers’ legal battle dragged on, the Dometic workers continued to expose ugly details of the UAW’s intimidation campaign surrounding the strike. In April 2024, Dometic employee Mario Coccie filed a second round of charges against UAW Local 644 for a mass text message that threatened all Dometic employees — not just those who had filed charges against the union — with termination if they didn’t strike.
“The information in this text reveals union officials’ real intentions, which is to hurt anyone willing to stand up for themselves,” said Coccie at the time. “What is happening in this case is completely unjust.”
UAW officials also refused to respect Coccie and his coworkers’ rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which prohibits union officials from requiring workers to pay for the union’s political expenditures just to keep their jobs. Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UAW bosses can force workers to pay union fees as a condition of employment, but must abide by Beck.
Legal Privileges Enable UAW Corruption
In addition to the notice postings and required training, the Foundation-won settlement orders union officials to delete social media posts threatening workers who refused to strike.
“We’re proud to have helped Mario Coccie and his coworkers vindicate their rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “But it has become all too clear that union corruption — which can take the form of anything from stealing millions in worker dues to intimidating workers to join a picket line — is only made easier when union bosses are granted more legal privileges.
“Policymakers need to protect workers’ freedom to cut off funding for union bosses who don’t serve their interests, and to fully abstain from union activities that individual employees do not see as in their own best interest,” Semmens added.
Chicago 911 Operators Notch Another Janus Victory Over IBEW
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation attorneys stopped deceptive cycle that kept illegal dues flowing for months
Patricia Whittaker heard ridiculous excuses from IBEW union officials about how they couldn’t honor her Janus rights. But after teaming up with Foundation attorneys, she’s cut off dues to IBEW bosses.
CHICAGO, IL – Another 911 operator employed by the City of Chicago has successfully defended her First Amendment rights under the National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. Late last year, Operator Patricia Whittaker sought free Foundation legal aid after facing months of stonewalling from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 21 union officials, who refused to stop taking dues from her paycheck against her will.
Whittaker fought these dues seizures by invoking her First Amendment rights under Janus. Foundation attorneys argued and won the Janus case before the Supreme Court in 2018. The Supreme Court agreed with Foundation attorneys and ruled that union officials could not force public sector employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and that union officials must obtain affirmative employee consent before deducting union dues from any public worker’s paycheck.
In October, following unfair labor practice filings by Foundation attorneys at the Illinois Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), IBEW union bosses abandoned their unconstitutional dues demands — and other outrageous behavior they had subjected Whittaker to.
IBEW Union Outrageously Claimed They Had No Power to Stop Dues Deductions
Whittaker faced much more than just illegal dues deductions during her ordeal. IBEW officials engaged in a deceptive cycle in which Whittaker was told to resolve the matter with her employer, while the employer directed her back to the union, resulting in continued dues deductions for over 10 months. In doing so, the charges maintained, union officials misrepresented the law by making it appear as if they were the “good guys” by remitting dues deducted by the City of Chicago through checks back to her and claimed that only the employer — not the union — had the power to end dues deductions.
This isn’t the first time IBEW 21 union officials have been caught imposing illegal dues practices on Chicago 911 employees. In June 2024, Rhonda Younkins also triumphed in her months-long legal battle to exercise her First Amendment right to stop all union dues payments to IBEW Local 21. IBEW Local 21 union officials stopped their violation of Younkins’ Janus rights only after Foundation attorneys filed charges at PERB on Younkins’ behalf.
Independent-Minded Workers Continue to Defend Freedom with Janus
The Janus decision’s impact continues to grow. Immediately following the ruling, nearly a half a million public employees stopped paying union dues, with many others following in subsequent years as litigation backed by Foundation attorneys continues to defend their rights.
“The behavior of IBEW Local 21 union officials highlight just how crucial it is for public employees to be aware of, and assert, their Janus rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“While we at the Foundation are proud to help more workers protect their hard-earned money from funding union bosses and union agendas they don’t support, it is unacceptable that it takes aggressive legal action just to force union officials to respect workers’ constitutional freedoms.”
Dartmouth, MIT, Vanderbilt Graduate Students Challenge Forced Unionism
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-backed students defend rights as union bosses seek more power at universities
Ben Logsdon is a Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth College. But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that union officials’ refusals to accommodate his religious objections just don’t add up.
HANOVER, NH – Just weeks after National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys triumphed in anti-discrimination cases for Jewish Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate students who sought to stop forced dues payments to a radically anti-Israel union, union officials began creating other problems for university students.
In nearby New Hampshire, Dartmouth graduate student Benjamin Logsdon sought free Foundation legal aid against Graduate Organized Laborers of Dartmouth (GOLD-UE) union officials. The GOLD union — which is an affiliate of the same United Electrical (UE) union involved in the Foundation’s MIT cases — is forcing Logsdon to accept the union’s monopoly “representation” powers against his will, even after he voiced his religious objections to the union’s radical stances on the conflict against Israel.
Grad Students Exposed to Union Coercion & Privacy Violations
Meanwhile, several graduate students at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, are pushing back against an attempt by Vanderbilt Graduate Workers United (VGWU, an affiliate of United Auto Workers) union bosses to impose union control over them and their colleagues. Specifically, three students are seeking to intervene in a federal case in which VGWU union officials are illegally demanding the university hand over the students’ private information to aid in their unionization campaign. Foundation staff attorneys filed motions for intervention for these students in October 2024.
Foundation attorneys are arguing that union officials severely violate students’ rights in both of these cases. However, the reason that union officials are in power on college campuses at all traces back to flawed rulings from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under both the Obama Administration and Biden Administration. These rulings subject graduate students to pro-Big Labor provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which create issues for students’ freedom both inside and outside the classroom.
Logsdon, a Christian Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth, slammed the GOLD union with federal anti-discrimination charges in September 2024 at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to those charges, shortly after the GOLD union finalized its first monopoly bargaining contract with the Dartmouth administration, he sent a letter to United Electrical General Secretary-Treasurer Andrew Dinkelaker explaining that he objected to being affiliated with GOLD on religious grounds and needed an accommodation.
“I sought to be removed from the UE and GOLD-UE bargaining unit as a reasonable accommodation,” Logsdon’s Foundation-backed charges say.
Dinkelaker refused to offer Logsdon an accommodation that “satisf[ied] [his] religious conscience or beliefs,” according to the charges, which violated his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Courts have recognized a variety of Title VII religious accommodations over the years for men and women who have religious objections to union affiliation, including paying an amount equivalent to union dues to a charity instead of union bosses. However, Logsdon seeks a different accommodation: to remove himself from union bosses’ control entirely.
At Vanderbilt, three students who identify themselves in legal documents as “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” and “Jane Doe 1” are contending in their Foundation-backed motions for intervention that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) forbids the Vanderbilt administration from disclosing their personal information to any third parties without their permission, including the VGWU union.
At the union’s behest, NLRB Region 10 has already hit the Vanderbilt administration with a pair of subpoenas demanding personal student info, while ignoring objections from several students expressing concern at the disclosure.
So far Vanderbilt has resisted the NLRB’s subpoenas, and fortunately a federal court has temporarily allowed the university to refuse to comply with them.
The Foundation-backed students’ motions to intervene argue that the subpoenas “are an attempt to violate FERPA’s protections, privileging union interests over the graduate students[’] privacy rights.” It also points out that FERPA allows students to seek “protective action” if a university receives a subpoena seeking their personal information, as in this case.
The Vanderbilt students and their Foundation attorneys are demanding an opportunity to properly defend their privacy interests under FERPA. Foundation attorneys have already filed Requests for Review asking the NLRB in Washington, DC, to weigh in on the matter.
Union Monopoly Power Has No Place at Universities
“Graduate students around the country are discovering that union bosses don’t respect their individual rights and would rather use students as pawns to force their demands on a university administration, or advance an extreme political agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.
“Union monopoly bargaining is a system particularly ill-suited to an academic environment. Indeed, it is wrong for anyone to have a union monopoly imposed on them against their will and then be forced to pay union dues under threat of termination.”
