Over 100 Windstream North Carolina Employees Vote to Free Themselves of Unwanted CWA Union
Workers across 12 North Carolina locations officially free from CWA officials’ ‘representation’
North Carolina (March 18, 2026) – Employees of telecommunications provider Windstream North Carolina LLC have successfully voted Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials out of power at their workplaces across North Carolina. Windstream worker Grant Diorio kicked off his coworkers’ effort to oust the union by filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in January, impacting his work unit of roughly 120 Windstream employees. Diorio filed the petition with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, a task that includes holding votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Diorio’s petition contained more than enough signatures from his coworkers to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. In February, the NLRB approved an agreement that set aside three days for in-person voting at several Windstream locations across the state.
The agreement noted that the vote would take place among “[a]ll employees employed by [Windstream] in its Plant, Commercial, or Traffic Department at its Matthews, Marshville, Wadesboro, Waxhaw, Rockwell, Denton, Mooresville, Tryon, Rural Hall, Monroe, and Aberdeen facilities.”
North Carolina is a Right to Work state, meaning state law forbids CWA bosses and other union officials from forcing workers to pay money to the union just to get or keep a job. Diorio and his coworkers enjoyed these protections, but even in Right to Work states, union officials have exclusive “representation” power, which permits them to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on every worker in a unionized workplace, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union.
“Even though my coworkers and I have a variety of jobs for Windstream across North Carolina, we agreed that CWA union bosses were not making our working lives any better,” commented Diorio. “I’m glad that, despite the challenges that come with petitioning for a decertification vote to take place at multiple places across the state, we were able to stand firm, secure our rights, and vote this CWA union out. We look forward to being independent!”
Workers Across Country Seeking Union Decertification, but Biden-Era Policies Stand in the Way
Foundation attorneys have noticed a marked increase in worker requests for help in decertifying unpopular unions. NLRB statistics indicate that in 2025 (the last year for which data is available), decertification petition filings are up almost 40% since 2020.
“Mr. Diorio and his colleagues’ situation is an excellent example of what happens when labor law actually works to protect American employees’ individual rights as opposed to frustrating those rights. We were proud to assist them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, one only needs to look within the state of North Carolina to find an example of union bosses using biased doctrines within federal labor law to shore up their own power, even when it’s clear that workers want a chance to vote the union out. At The Quartz Corp. in Spruce Pine, United Mine Workers union officials have been manipulating unsubstantiated misconduct charges for months to block workers from having a union removal vote they validly requested.
“Luckily, Foundation attorneys are assisting Quartz Corp. employees and many other groups of independent-minded workers across the country in challenging unfair legal barriers to worker freedom,” Mix added. “The Trump NLRB should break from dysfunctional Biden-era policies and end the biased rules that have undermined workers’ explicit right under federal law to vote out unwanted unions.”
Indiana US Brick Employees Target ‘Successor Bar’ for Demolition
Over 70 percent of workers want Teamsters gone, but non-statutory policy prevents vote
Though Kerry Atkins and roughly 70 percent of his coworkers want to kick Teamsters bosses from their facility, the “successor bar” and other non-statutory “bars” could block a vote for years.
INDIANAPOLIS, IN – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have made big strides in recent years for independent-minded workers who want to exercise their right to vote unpopular unions out of their workplaces.
The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) adoption in 2020 of Foundation-backed reforms to the decertification process have made it significantly less difficult for workers to exercise their rights. But, there’s much more work to be done to eliminate contrived, union boss-friendly NLRB policies that stifle worker rights just so unwanted unions can stay entrenched.
Enter Kerry Atkins and his coworkers at US Brick in Mooresville, Indiana. With free Foundation legal aid they are fighting an NLRB policy called the “successor bar” that arbitrarily blocks employees’ right to vote out an unwanted union when management changes hands in a workplace.
Atkins filed a petition signed by his colleagues in December 2021, asking the NLRB to hold a vote on whether to decertify Teamsters Local 135 union officials. NLRB Regional Director Patricia Nachand ruled on February 9 that US Brick’s recent acquisition of the plant triggered the so-called “successor bar” and rendered the employee petition invalid.
NLRB-Invented Policy Traps Workers in Union They Strongly Oppose
Nachand blocked the vote even though, according to her own order, plant management has in its possession a parallel petition expressing disaffection with the Teamsters, which bears the signatures of about 70 percent of the employees.
The “successor bar” is a non-statutory policy invented by NLRB appointees that immunizes union officials from being voted out by employees for up to a year after management changes as a result of a sale, merger, or acquisition.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is charged with enforcing, explicitly states that employees have a right to remove union monopoly “representation” they oppose. The “successor bar,” however, is found nowhere in the NLRA’s text.
The only “bar” to employees requesting a decertification election that is mentioned in the NLRA is a one-year restriction after employees certify a union in a secret-ballot vote. That the “successor bar” — which isn’t even in the NLRA — can stave off attempts to vote out a union for up to four years when combined with a “contract bar” makes it especially offensive to workers’ rights.
To make matters even worse, two different federal agencies — the NLRB and the Department of Justice — effectively worked together to impose the “successor bar” on Atkins and his coworkers. The Department of Justice in an antitrust complaint forced the former owner of the Mooresville brick facility to sell it to US Brick. The NLRB now says that event should be grounds for blocking the employees from ejecting a union they overwhelmingly oppose.
‘Successor Bar’ Disregards Desires and Experiences of Workers, Brief Says
Atkins’ Foundation attorneys have filed a Request for Review of Nachand’s order with the NLRB in Washington, D.C. It contends that the “successor bar” serves no purpose other than to block the will of rank-and-file employees, entrenching union bosses who ought to be accountable to the employees.
“The successor bar undermines the NLRA’s core purpose of employee free choice by disregarding employees’ actual desires and past experiences with their union representative,” the Request for Review argues.
Restriction Shows How NLRB-Invented Policies Stifle Individual Rights
“The NLRB-invented ‘successor bar’ is just one example of how the Board neglects its mandate to protect the rights of individual workers, including those opposed to forced union affiliation, just to protect union boss power,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The ‘successor bar’ not only overrides the statutory right of workers to vote out unions they oppose, but does so at the very moment when workers are most likely to reevaluate their union status: the turnover of the old management that perhaps was the reason for unionization in the first place.”
