WV Millville Quarry Workers File Petition to Oust International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local DNCL Union Bosses
Majority of Harpers Ferry quarry workers support petition seeking end of union monopoly “representation”
Harpers Ferry, WV (November 10, 2025) – With the support of a majority of his coworkers, Holcim Millville Quarry employee Curtis Mills has filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a “decertification” election to end International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (IBB) Local DNCL union officials’ monopoly “representation” powers. The petition was filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions.
Mills’ petition, which was signed by a majority of approximately 36 workers in the bargaining unit, is requesting that the NLRB hold a secret ballot election for all the drivers, loaders, maintenance, and laborers at the Millville Quarry Harpers Ferry, WV, facility to oust IBB Local DNCL union officials from their workplace.
“Many of us are not happy with the union and feel it is time for a change to reclaim our voices,” commented Mills. “Though the NLRB is currently closed, we hope they will open soon so we can exercise our right to vote out this unwanted union.”
West Virginia is one of the 26 states with a Right to Work law that guarantees workers cannot be fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. However, even under Right to Work, union bosses can still impose monopoly bargaining control over all employees in a workplace, even those who are opposed to the union’s representation. A successful decertification would end the union’s monopoly bargaining powers.
The decertification petition is just the latest example in a long history of the Foundation defending the rights of West Virginia workers. For example, Foundation staff attorneys filed 10 briefs in a long-running, but ultimately unsuccessful, union boss lawsuit seeking to overturn West Virginia’s popular Right to Work law.
In the West Virginia Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in the case upholding the Right to Work law, the justices relied heavily upon the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision, which established that all public employees in America enjoy Right to Work protections under the First Amendment.
“Mills and his coworkers have filed a majority-backed petition to free themselves from union officials’ so-called ‘representation,’ but ejecting an unwanted union is often far harder than it should be,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Overly complex rules, including NLRB-invented ‘bars’ to decertification, contribute to the fact that a recent study found that just one in 20 employees has ever voted for the union that purports to represent them.
“The Foundation is proud to assist a growing number of workers seeking to throw off the chains of unions they oppose,” added Mix. “Ultimately, though, full worker freedom will only be accomplished when no worker anywhere can be forced under a union monopoly against their will.”
CalPortland Fresno Ready Mix Drivers File Petition to End Teamsters Local 431 Union Boss “Representation”
Majority of workers back petition seeking to free themselves of Teamsters union officials
Fresno, CA (October 31, 2025) – Drivers of building materials company CalPortland’s Fresno Ready Mix Plant have filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requesting that the NLRB hold a “decertification” election to remove Teamsters Local 431 from their workplace. The drivers’ efforts are spearheaded by Darrell Dunlap Sr., who filed the petition with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
Dunlap Sr.’s petition is supported by the majority of his coworkers, who also seek a secret ballot election from the NLRB to vote out the Teamsters as the drivers’ monopoly bargaining “representative.”
“This workplace has been under Teamster union control for over 20 years, so we’ve seen union officials’ actions up close for many years,” commented Dunlap Sr. “As our majority-backed petition shows, based on our extensive experience with the Teamsters, we are confident we’ll be better off without a union.”
California is one of the 24 states that lack Right to Work protections, which allows Teamsters union bosses to impose union monopoly bargaining contracts that force employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. By contrast, in neighboring Right to Work states like Arizona and Nevada, union membership and union financial support are strictly voluntary.
Independent-minded workers across the United States have been leading efforts to decertify Teamsters union bosses. The Foundation has seen a marked rise in requests from workers seeking legal assistance in Teamsters decertification cases.
“The rank-and-file are the most familiar with the union officials in their workplaces, and this is just the latest of a growing number of employees who have decided to exercise their right to free themselves of unwanted so-called ‘representation,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Given Teamsters’ bosses’ intimidation tactics or worse, it is not surprising that the Teamsters are regularly the union that faces the most worker decertification drives.”
Johns Hopkins Ph.D. Student Slams UE Union With Federal Charges for Demanding She Divulge Private Info
Union demanded student be discharged even though nothing in union contract or federal law requires students to give up such info
Baltimore, MD (October 24, 2025) – Andrea Ori, a molecular biophysics Ph.D. candidate at Johns Hopkins, has filed federal charges against United Electrical (UE) union officials at the university. She maintains that UE union bosses demanded her ouster from the academic program because she refused to turn over confidential financial records protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Ori filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between union officials, employers, and employees that arise under the statute. Even though the NLRA doesn’t include graduate students in its definition of “employees,” Obama NLRB appointees ruled in the controversial 2016 Columbia University decision that the NLRA allows union officials to gain monopoly bargaining power over graduate students at private universities, like Johns Hopkins.
Furthermore, Maryland is a state that lacks Right to Work protections, meaning union officials have the government-granted power to force those under their bargaining control to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
At private universities in non-Right to Work states, union bosses can effectively end the graduate programs of students who refuse to pay union dues.
However, graduate students can opt out of dues payment for union political activities by invoking their rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America vs. Beck SCOTUS decision. Federal antidiscrimination law also requires that union officials and university administrators provide religious accommodations for students who oppose union financial support on religious grounds.
Charges: Threatening Student With Termination for Guarding Confidential Financial Info is Illegal “Industrial Capital Punishment” Under Federal Law
Ori, who had successfully obtained a religious accommodation to union dues payment in 2024, now maintains in her charge that UE union officials ordered her for months to turn over pay stubs and other documents that contain private information. Her charges argue that union officials made these demands arbitrarily and in bad faith.
“Nothing in the [union contract], the Charging Party’s religious accommodation, or the NLRA required Charging Party to disclose this private financial information, which was also protected by FERPA,” Ori’s charges say. FERPA generally requires student or parental consent before educational institutions can disclose identifying information to third parties, like unions. Union officials have no right to receive students’ private information.
Even though these demands have no basis, the charges say, UE union bosses are still trying to upend Ori’s academic career. “After months of threatening Charging Party and harassing her to produce these unnecessary and private financial documents containing personal information, the [UE] formally demanded that the University discharge Charging Party,” the charges say. Ori’s attorneys are arguing that the NLRB should consider the union’s wrongful discharge request a form of industrial capital punishment.
“Ms. Ori’s case is just the latest Foundation legal action to show why giving union bosses power over graduate students was never a good idea,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials, who are often radical political operatives, have threatened academic freedom from coast-to-coast with their federally-enforced clout over university administrations. But, as Ms. Ori’s case shows, they are also threatening graduate students’ careers by acting as if they have a right to send them packing for not divulging their private information.
“Foundation attorneys stand ready to defend graduate students anywhere from these and other rights violations by union officials,” Mix added. “The obvious conflict between these union boss power grabs over graduate students and students’ statutory privacy rights under FERPA is yet another reminder that Congress never intended for such students to be subjected to monopoly unionism under the National Labor Relations Act.”
Heavy Equipment Operators File Federal Charges Against Operating Engineers Union for Illegal Retaliation
IUOE union officials unlawfully threatened “internal discipline” fines against workers who continued employment with nonunion contractor
Lawrenceville, GA (October 21, 2025) – A group of construction industry employees of Dennis Taylor & Co. have filed federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 926 alleging IUOE union officials subjected them to illegal post-resignation discipline after the employees legally resigned their union memberships.
The workers’ charges were filed at the NLRB with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
The employees, Michael Mitchem, Billy Johnson, David Johnson, and Chris Oaks resigned their IUOE memberships months or years ago. Despite this, union officials are threatening the workers with fines, apparently for working at Dennis Taylor & Co., which once was part of a “hiring hall” arrangement with IUOE, but no longer is.
The resignations came after Dennis Taylor & Co. removed itself from an arrangement to hire employees through an IUOE union boss-controlled hiring hall. In theory, both union members and nonmembers can utilize union-run hiring halls to find employment with employers that have decided to utilize the hiring hall to fill openings. However there is a long history of union officials using hiring halls to discriminate against nonmembers and coerce workers into formal union membership in order to attain employment.
The charges filed by Michael Mitchem, Billy Johnson, and Chris Oaks each state that even before formally resigning from the union, the employees were never voluntary union members, as they had been misled into believing that union membership was mandatory. Though union officials frequently mislead workers into believing that formal union membership is required, the problem is especially prevalent when employment involves union hiring halls.
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 such voluntary union membership.
“Contrary to the apparent wishes of IUOE Local 926 union bosses, formal union membership cannot be required as a condition of employment, a precedent in place since the early 1960s,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It is outrageous that IUOE union officials are attempting to barge back into the lives of these workers years after they’ve legally exercised their rights, and are now illegally threatening them with fines simply for working to provide for themselves and their families.”
Starbucks Baristas File Brief Urging Supreme Court to Allow President to Remove Rogue Agency Officers
National Right to Work Foundation-backed federal case for Starbucks employees was first federal case to argue that NLRB officials can’t be shielded from the President’s oversight
Washington, DC (October 20, 2025) – Two Starbucks employees represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed an amicus brief at the United States Supreme Court in the case Trump v. Slaughter. The brief argues that restrictions on the President’s authority to fire members of executive bodies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), are unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers.
The amicus brief was filed on behalf of Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two New York Starbucks employees who challenged the constitutionality of the structure of the NLRB in a separate federal court case with the assistance of Foundation staff attorneys.
Since 2023, Foundation staff attorneys have pioneered the legal argument that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional because it places restrictions on the President’s authority to fire the NLRB’s members, despite it being part of the executive branch of government. This disconnect exemplifies the problem of federal bureaucrats operating as an unaccountable, “headless fourth branch,” something clearly at odds with the government’s constitutional structure.
Now, the Trump Administration is using this same argument as a justification to fire members of the FTC. Rebecca Slaughter, a Biden appointee to the FTC, has sued to be reinstated, and the case is now before the Supreme Court. The Foundation-backed amicus brief argues that as the Court considers the FTC, it must keep in mind that other so-called “independent agencies” that wield executive power, such as the NLRB, must be subject to Presidential control and removal.
Supreme Court May Reverse Humphrey’s, Must Recognize Its Limitations
Trump v. Slaughter provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to reverse its decision in the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Court crafted an exception to the general rule that the President can remove principal officers at will under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In theory, Humphrey’s exempted agencies that exercised “quasi-judicial” or “quasi-legislative” power, but not those that exercise executive power.
But regardless of the Court’s reevaluation of the case, “the NLRB fails the Humphrey’s Executor test,” the brief argues.
“The NLRB is a policymaking body that enforces the [National Labor Relations Act] based on its legal conclusions, not scientific or technical judgments,” write Foundation staff attorneys. “[T]he Board does not exercise quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial authority. It exercises executive power in everything it does.”
The brief concludes with the Foundation’s legal argument that Humphrey’s “cannot neuter the President’s ability to supervise those who exercise substantial parts of [executive] power.” Therefore, the Supreme Court “should make clear that the President’s removal power applies to every agency that exercises executive power, including the NLRB.”
Clear Separation of Powers Would Support Workers’ Individual Rights
A proper understanding of the limitations of Humphrey’s when it comes to executive bodies like the NLRB would support workers like Cortes and Karam as they exercise their individual rights. Cortes and Karam are trying to exercise their right to remove local union bosses from their respective workplaces. But non-statutory policies enforced by the pro-Big Labor Biden NLRB have stymied their efforts. Success in this case could help ensure that Cortes and Karam receive a fair judgment from the NLRB in their cases.
“Unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats have caused direct harm to independent-minded workers and their individual rights, and the Supreme Court should rightfully restore the proper separation of powers, including at the NLRB,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We are proud that the very legal arguments made by Foundation attorneys are now being utilized by this administration to dismantle the unaccountable fourth branch of government and restore proper constitutional structure.”
AT&T-BellSouth Workers Challenge Union-Concocted ‘Window Period’ Restrictions on Ending Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
CWA officials trap dissenting workers, but case asks NLRB to declare ‘window period’ restrictions illegal
Jennifer Abruzzo went straight from being a top CWA union lawyer to being General Counsel of the Biden NLRB. Though President Trump fired her, that doesn’t mean that workers don’t still have to battle the anti-freedom policies she advanced.
MIAMI, FL – In August 2024, Communications Workers of America (CWA) union bosses ordered thousands of AT&T employees across the Southeast to abandon their jobs and go on strike. Unsurprisingly, despite union officials’ propaganda surrounding the strike, many workers disagreed with the decision.
“CWA union officials ordered us to abandon our jobs when many of us just wanted to keep working and supporting ourselves and our families,” commented Amanda Marc, a Miami-based worker for AT&T-BellSouth. “That’s bad enough, but now they’re putting up all these roadblocks to try to prevent those of us who don’t like the union’s agenda from stopping our money from flowing to them.”
Marc is referring to a situation that South Florida AT&T-BellSouth workers have been increasingly dealing with in the aftermath of the strike, which came to an end in September 2024. With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Marc and her coworker Sofia Hernaiz filed unfair labor practice charges against CWA union officials, detailing that the union hierarchy has ignored their requests to cut off dues payments and has continued to siphon money from their paychecks illegally. Additional charges for other AT&T-BellSouth workers are also being filed.
Dues Kept Flowing to Union After Workers Requested Stop
Marc and Hernaiz’s charges point out that CWA officials are imposing a “window period” scheme on workers who want to end financial support, limiting to just ten days per year the time in which workers can demand that dues deductions cease from their paychecks.
“This kind of behavior makes me feel like they’re really just interested in having control over us and taking our money,” Marc added. Marc and Hernaiz filed their charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law.
Marc’s charge in particular challenges the practice of imposing “window periods” as violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): While the NLRA unfortunately allows union officials to prevent a worker from revoking his or her dues authorization card for the first year after it is initially signed, Marc’s charge notes that any further restrictions are unlawful.
“The unions have no statutory license to create tricky and arbitrary ‘window periods’ to force unwilling employees to keep paying dues,” Marc’s charges say.
Because Marc, Hernaiz, and their colleagues work in the Right to Work state of Florida, CWA union bosses are forbidden from forcing workers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs, though CWA union officials are trying to limit the exercise of this freedom with their window period scheme. In states that lack Right to Work protections, in contrast, union officials can force employees to pay fees to the union or be terminated, meaning even perfect “compliance” with a union boss’s arbitrary window period restriction would not get a worker out of forced union payments.
Marc and Hernaiz’s charges state that they, and many of their coworkers, resigned their union memberships in August 2024, which was around when CWA union officials ordered AT&T-BellSouth workers out on the strike. Despite the women’s requests to end union membership and stop financial support for the union, the charges read, CWA agents never responded to their requests to stop dues deductions, and never even informed them of the window period dates in which they would consider their requests valid.
Even worse, Hernaiz details in her charge that union officials tried to subject her to internal union discipline for not participating in the strike. Under federal law, union bosses cannot impose union proceedings on workers who are not union members. Foundation attorneys are in the process of aiding other AT&T-BellSouth workers targeted by such illegal discipline.
No Legal Justification for ‘Window Periods,’ New NLRB Should Toss Policy
“Federal labor law is supposed to protect the right of workers to decide freely whether they want to join or financially support a union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “So-called ‘window periods’ exist only to restrict this freedom just so union officials can continue to funnel dues money from workers’ pockets straight into union agendas.
“The NLRB under the new Administration should recognize that this practice contradicts both worker freedom and federal law, and end it accordingly,” Mix added.
Workers Nationwide Urge Trump NLRB to End Policies Trapping Them Under Union Power
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
NLRB-invented policies currently allow union bosses to block worker-requested votes
Theresa Hause, an Oregon-based school bus driver, wants the Trump NLRB to end the so-called “merger doctrine” that grants union officials the power to combine workplaces into giant, inescapable mega-units.
WASHINGTON, DC – During the Biden Administration, biased, pro-Big Labor National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bureaucrats went out of their way to undermine the idea that workers and workers alone should choose whether or not they want a union. Rolling back multiple National Right to Work Foundation-backed reforms that made it easier for workers to vote out unions they didn’t want was a prime example of this.
But the Biden NLRB’s extremism is only the latest example of how federal labor law is biased against workers opposed to union affiliation. The truth is that biased bureaucrats on the NLRB have, for decades, burdened independent-minded workers with arbitrary barriers to freeing themselves from union influence. Many of these policies — which are the inventions of NLRB decisions and appear nowhere in the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) text — let union bosses block workers from exercising their statutory right to vote to remove a union.
Bus Drivers Fight Forced Dues in Huge, Inescapable Teamsters Unit
The Trump Administration taking control of the NLRB in Washington, D.C., has presented workers around the country who want to escape union influence with a new opportunity to attack these restrictions. Foundation attorneys are already helping workers lead the charge for reform to create precedents that will allow others to remove unions opposed by most workers.
Last December, Theresa Hause, a Washington State-based school bus driver, submitted to the NLRB a deauthorization petition which contained employee support well over the necessary threshold needed to trigger a vote to strip Teamsters Local 58 bosses of their forced-dues power in Hause’s workplace. Hause and her fellow drivers are employed by First Student, Inc.
She was surprised to learn during NLRB proceedings that First Student management and Teamsters union officials had covertly signed an agreement “merging” Hause’s small unit of workers into a much larger national unit, composed of thousands of Teamsters-controlled bus drivers across the country.
Because of the NLRB’s so-called “merger doctrine” policy, Hause and her colleagues are now in this “mega-unit,” and any petition to end the union’s forced-dues power (or remove the union completely) needs to contain signatures from at least 30% of the “mega-unit” — thousands of people Hause has never met — to be considered valid. The NLRB official that dismissed Hause’s petition even ruled that the fact employees were kept in the dark about this merger was irrelevant, outrageously saying “there is nothing in the merger doctrine that requires acquiescence or even notification of employees of a change in a bargaining unit.”
Hause’s Foundation-provided attorneys are challenging the merger doctrine in an appeal of Hause’s case to the NLRB in D.C., arguing among other things that the policy violates employee free choice and that it serves as a protection racket for established unions.
While Hause and her colleagues are fighting for a vote to free themselves from forced dues, attacking the merger doctrine also has significant ramifications for workers seeking to decertify a union. Foundation attorneys have represented many workers who have been shanghaied into huge, inescapable work units against their will. That includes a group of less than 10 Wisconsin First Student workers who filed a majority-backed petition to remove Teamsters officials as soon as allowed by federal law, only to be stymied by the merger doctrine because they had been secretly “merged” into a multi-company unit of around 24,000 workers in multiple states.
WV Homecare Workers Not ‘Settling’ for ‘Settlement Bar’
Meanwhile, in West Virginia, a Foundation-assisted employee of senior homecare nonprofit McDowell County Commission on Aging is attacking the NLRB’s use of another union boss-friendly policy to block his and his coworkers’ effort to kick out Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses: the so-called “settlement bar,” which lets unions and employers unilaterally agree in settlements to end employee-led union decertification efforts.
The employee, John Reeves, and his coworkers cast ballots in a July 2024 vote to remove SEIU union officials, but are now battling claims that a settlement SEIU bosses and Commission management signed should relegate those ballots to the trash bin. The SEIU and Commission entered into the settlement to end the decertification and resolve unfair labor practice allegations union agents had filed against the employer. That supposed employer wrongdoing was cited as the impetus for Reeves and his coworkers’ desire to remove the union — even though it was never admitted to by the employer nor proven by union lawyers.
Instead of letting Reeves show why the union’s accusations didn’t cause his employees’ disenchantment with the union, regional NLRB officials instead invoked the settlement bar and dismissed the decertification effort, based on the phony “resolution” of speculative charges by the union. Reeves is asking the NLRB in Washington, D.C., to review his case.
Reform Needed to Undo Coercive Policy
“Ms. Hause’s and Mr. Reeves’ cases provide just a sampling of the grand buffet of privileges the NLRB has granted union bosses over the years,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Union bosses and complicit employers should not be able to cut workers off from exercising their basic right to remove unpopular union bosses, yet that’s exactly what both the ‘merger doctrine’ and ‘settlement bar’ allow.
“If members of the Trump NLRB are dedicated to defending the rights of all American workers, they will focus not only on countering the extensive damage done to individual worker rights by the Biden Labor Board, but also on digging deeper to undo the web of non-statutory coercive union boss powers that has been created over decades,” Semmens added.
Builders FirstSource Workers Join Other KY Construction Industry Workers in Ending Teamsters Local 89 ‘Representation’
Majority of workers backed petitions calling for Teamsters removal as second workplace ejects Teamsters Local 89 bosses in recent weeks
Louisville, KY (October 2, 2025) – Kenneth Moore, an employee of Builders FirstSource, and his coworkers have been freed from the hold of Teamsters Local 89 union bosses after Builders FirstSource ended its recognition of the Teamsters as the workers’ “representative.” The employer took this decision following a petition signed by a majority of the workers demanding that Builders FirstSource end the recognition of the Teamsters.
This development comes after Moore filed a petition last month at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a decertification election to remove the union from his workplace. Moore filed his petition at the NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Moore and his colleagues now join Chris Smith and other IMI – Irving Materials drivers who were successful in removing the Teamsters Local 89 in Scottsville, KY last month.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
Thanks to the 2019 Right to Work Foundation-won Johnson Controls NLRB decision, workers seeking to remove unwanted union bosses can also do so by submitting a majority-backed petition asking their employer to stop recognizing the union. If there is a dispute about the petition, the NLRB can administer a secret-ballot vote to assess the employees’ opposition to the union.
The workers’ petition to Builders FirstSource managers provided the company with proof that the majority of their employees do not support the Teamsters presence at their facility. In compliance with the Johnson Controls decision, the employer withdrew the Teamsters’ recognition.
Moore and his Builders FirstSource colleagues are amongst the most recent workers who have made strides to remove the Teamsters from their workplaces. According to the NLRB’s owns statistics, over the past 12 months over 20% of all decertification cases involved the Teamsters union.
Kentucky is one of the 26 states with a Right to Work law that protects workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can still impose monopoly bargaining control upon all workers within a workplace, even those who oppose the union.
“These two groups of Kentucky workers are the latest to come to the conclusion that the interests that Teamsters bosses are pursuing are at odds with the wishes of the rank and file,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation will continue to assist workers in their efforts to free themselves from the Teamsters or any other unwanted so-called ‘representation.’”
IBEW Local 16 Folds in Case Concerning Illegal $1.29 Million Retaliatory ‘Fine’ Threat Against Local Electrician
Union bosses imposed illegal limitations on resigning union membership, told electrician he would be fined for starting new business unless he signed with the union
Evansville, IN (September 30, 2025) – Brian Head, an Evansville-based electrician, has vindicated his federal labor rights against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 16 union. Head filed federal charges after IBEW union officials threatened him with a $1.29 million internal disciplinary fine even though he had validly resigned his union membership. He filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The settlement requires union officials to rescind all fines against Head, expunge all records of them, and refrain from interfering with workers who exercise their right to resign their union membership in the future. The union is also required to notify other workers of their legal right to resign their union membership without restriction, and be free of any attempt to impose internal union fines post-resignation.
Fine Threats Came After Electrician Refused to Hand Over Business to Union Power
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees. Head’s charges document that he had resigned his IBEW union membership on March 27, 2025, in a notarized letter that IBEW officials acknowledged receiving. However, the union’s reply letter claimed that “[i]t is a six-month process before the resignation is finally effective.”
The NLRA forbids restricting the right of workers to resign their union memberships. Section 7 of the NLRA enshrines workers’ right to refrain from union membership. Furthermore, union bosses cannot impose discipline or fines upon nonmember workers.
IBEW Local 16 union officials began retaliating against Head after he resigned his union membership and announced he was purchasing a non-union electrical firm. Head refused to sign an IBEW Letter of Assent, which would have likely forced his employees under union control without any kind of worker vote.
Following Head declining to hand over his business to a union he was no longer legally affiliated with, IBEW Local 16 officials sent Head correspondence on May 1 demanding he appear before a union tribunal. Head later received a letter from IBEW Local 16 bosses on June 9 finding him “guilty” of violating the union’s constitution and imposing a “$1.29 Million dollar fine” as a penalty.
Foundation-Won Settlement Forces IBEW to Inform Workers of Rights
An NLRB Regional Director reviewed Head’s charges against IBEW union officials’ overreach, and made a merit determination in his favor, finding that the IBEW Local 16 union officials violated Head’s rights under the NLRA. IBEW union officials quickly decided to back down and settle rather than go to trial against the NLRB and Head’s Foundation lawyers. In addition to expunging their million-dollar-plus retaliatory fine, the settlement details that IBEW bosses must stop informing workers that there are restrictions on the right to resign one’s union membership. Additionally, they must inform all their members of their rights under the NLRA, and post the settlement on the union’s website.
“The Foundation is pleased to have assisted Mr. Head as he challenged IBEW union bosses’ attempt to illegally extort him after he had followed all legal procedures necessary to break free from the union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “IBEW union bosses’ use of strong-arm tactics demonstrates that they value maintaining control over Indiana electricians far above respecting those electricians’ individual rights.
“Whenever union bosses violate the rights of any American worker, Foundation attorneys are ready to assist in their defense,” Mix added.
