T-Mobile Arena Worker Files Federal Charges Against Culinary Union for Stonewalling Requests to Stop Dues Deductions
Arena foodservice employee is latest to charge Culinary Union officials with undermining workers’ rights under federal law
Las Vegas, NV (March 20, 2025) – Renee Guerrero, an employee of Levy Restaurants, a foodservice provider at Las Vegas’ T-Mobile Arena, has hit Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (a Unite Here affiliate) and her employer with federal charges for illegally deducting full union dues from her paycheck despite her objections to both union membership and dues payments.
Guerrero filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a duty which includes investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice cases.
Under federal labor law and Supreme Court precedents like NLRB v. General Motors, all private sector workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership, though union officials oftentimes try to coerce union membership. Federal law also requires union officials to obtain written authorization from a worker before deducting union dues payments directly from their paycheck.
Further, because Nevada has Right to Work protections for its workers, Culinary Union officials can’t legally force Guerrero or her coworkers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In states that lack such protections union officials can require workers to pay at least some union dues just to keep their jobs. In all states, union officials must get the written authorization of workers before directly deducting forced dues and fees from a worker’s paycheck.
“I have a right under Nevada’s Right to Work law to stop all payments to Local 226, and yet rather than respect my rights they’re ignoring my requests and forcing me to pay. I don’t think Culinary Union bosses deserve my support, and their actions since I attempted to exercise my right to stop dues payments only confirms my decision,” stated Guerrero.
Challenge to Illegal Dues Seizures Follows Other Employee Cases Against Culinary Union
According to Guerrero’s charges against the union, she “submitted two written letters to the Union in which she resigned her union membership and revoked any dues check-off authorization she may have signed.” However, the charges state, union officials did not honor her membership resignation (if she had ever become a union member in the first place), and also refused to provide any documentation she may have signed in the past authorizing dues deductions.
In addition to her charge against the union, Guerrero has filed a separate charge against Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership for its role in facilitating the continued deductions.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have a long history of helping workers at Las Vegas casinos and other venues oppose coercive Culinary Union legal maneuvers, including earlier this month in a case for Las Vegas Convention Center worker Rebecca Swank. Swank, an employee of Sodexo, filed similar federal charges against the union and her employer on the grounds they illegally seized full union dues from her paycheck despite her explicit resignation from membership and revocation of dues authorization.
“Between federal law, and Nevada’s popular Right to Work law workers like Renee Guerrero have a clear right to opt out of all union financial support and stop any union dues deductions,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, Culinary Union officials have a troubling track record of violating the legal rights of the very workers they claim to represent.
“We are proud to assist Renee in ensuring her legal rights are enforced, and are available to provide free legal assistance to any Nevada workers who want to exercise their right to stop union dues payments,” added Mix.
Las Vegas Convention Center Worker Slams Culinary Union and Sodexo with Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Dues From Wages
Employee maintains that both union and employer ignored requests to refrain from union membership and dues payments
Las Vegas, NV (March 12, 2025) – Rebecca Swank, an employee of foodservice provider Sodexo who works primarily at the Las Vegas Convention Center, has hit Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (a Unite Here affiliate) and her employer with federal charges for seizing full union dues from her paycheck despite her objections to both union membership and dues payments.
Swank filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. Swank’s charges also state that Sodexo officials forced her to get a job referral from the Culinary Union’s hiring hall in person immediately upon being hired.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a duty which includes investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice cases. Under federal labor law and Supreme Court precedents like NLRB v. General Motors, all private sector workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership, though union officials sometimes try to coerce union membership anyway, including by subjecting employees to intimidation during hiring hall encounters. Federal law also requires union officials to receive written authorization from a worker before deducting union dues payments directly from their paycheck.
Further, because Nevada has Right to Work protections for its workers, Culinary Union officials can’t legally force Swank or her coworkers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In states that lack such protections, in contrast, union officials can require workers to pay at least some union dues just to keep their jobs, though must still seek the written authorization of workers before collecting those forced fees by direct deduction.
“Culinary Union officials have been very abrasive in our workplace and have been ineffective in standing up for our interests,” commented Swank. “But now they’re doing something full-on illegal by stopping me from exercising my right under Nevada’s Right to Work law to stop financially supporting them. That’s wrong, and I hope the NLRB gets to the bottom of this.”
Challenge to Illegal Dues Seizures Follows Other Employee Cases Against Culinary Union
According to Swank’s charges against the union, she “submitted two written letters to the Union in which she resigned her union membership and revoked any dues check-off authorization she may have signed.” However, the charges state, union officials did not honor her membership resignation (if she had ever become a union member in the first place), and also refused to provide any documentation she may have signed in the past authorizing dues deductions.
“Finally, the Union has accepted dues deducted from [Swank’s] paycheck without her written authorization and despite her written demand that it cease to do so and to refund her,” Swank’s charges against the union conclude. Swank also filed a charge against Sodexo management for its role in keeping dues flowing from her paycheck to the union.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have a long history of helping workers at Las Vegas casinos and other venues oppose coercive Culinary Union legal maneuvers, including in 2021 when Foundation attorneys defended Red Rock Casino workers’ majority vote against Culinary Union control from a district court judge’s order imposing the union on the workers anyway. Foundation attorneys also defended Red Rock Casino slot machine technician Jereme Barrios and his coworkers from a similar situation 2022, when a regional NLRB official blocked him and his fellow technicians from exercising their right to vote themselves out of a Culinary Union work unit. The regional NLRB official cited specious reasons for why the vote couldn’t occur, including allegations of employer malfeasance that didn’t even relate to Barrios and his colleagues.
“Culinary Union bosses have a track record of ignoring and trampling basic employee rights, simply to gain more power over the workers that they claim to ‘represent.’ Unfortunately, it’s unsurprising that independent-minded workers seek to exercise their Right to Work freedom to stop all financial support for this union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Culinary Union officials’ refusal to respect the exercise of basic rights is clearly at odds with both state and federal law, and our attorneys will defend Ms. Swank’s freedom of choice.”
NY Starbucks Baristas File Amicus Brief Opposing Reinstatement of Biden-Appointed NLRB Member Removed by President Trump
Starbucks employees have pending federal lawsuit challenging NLRB structure as unconstitutional, argue they could be harmed if member’s removal is blocked
Washington, DC (March 11, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has just filed an amicus brief at the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals for two upstate New York Starbucks baristas in a federal case that could determine the constitutionality of the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The case, Wilcox v. Trump, concerns whether President Trump properly exercised his executive authority when he removed the Biden-appointed former chair of the NLRB, Gwynne Wilcox. Trump Administration lawyers argue, as baristas Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have in their own pending lawsuit at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, the federal law authorizing the NLRB) violates the Constitution because it prevents the president from removing board members.
Cortes and Karam now join the Administration’s legal team in asking the D.C. Circuit Court to stay a lower court’s ruling that Wilcox be reinstated. Their brief notes that they, and others, could be directly harmed if Wilcox participates in an NLRB decision without being properly accountable to the President.
Cortes and Karam work at two separate Starbucks locations in the Buffalo, NY area. They both submitted petitions on behalf of their coworkers in 2023 with sufficient support to prompt the NLRB to hold votes to “decertify,” or remove, the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from each of their stores. However, NLRB officials indefinitely delayed those union decertification elections on the basis of unproven charges leveled at the Starbucks Corporation by SBWU union officials. This led Cortes and Karam to file their own federal lawsuit – the first in the nation challenging the agency’s structure as unconstitutional as a whole.
The same issue regarding the NLRB’s constitutionality was fast-tracked in federal courts following President Trump’s firing of Biden-appointed NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, which she challenged as a violation of the NLRA’s board member removal protections. Trump Administration lawyers countered with arguments parallel to those in Cortes and Karam’s lawsuit, contending that NLRB members’ removal protections permit them to exercise substantial executive authority while being immune to presidential removal for the duration of their terms, something forbidden by U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Seila Law v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen.
NLRB’s Hyper-Partisan Nature and Unique Powers Make Removal Protections Inappropriate
Cortes and Karam’s brief focuses on how the Board’s powers to enforce federal labor law, lack of technical expertise, and the partisan nature of its membership place it outside the Supreme Court’s concept of a federal agency where removal protections might be appropriate. It also argues that reinstating Wilcox would cause chaos because it would let her participate in deciding cases before the NLRB while her continued presence on the Board is still the subject of litigation.
“Cortes and Karam have a vital interest in the outcome of this case, and not only because it concerns the constitutionality of [NLRB member removal protections],” the amicus brief says. “Cortes and Karam do not want an individual the President properly removed from the Board because of her unsound rulings—Gwynne Wilcox—to decide their pending NLRB cases.”
“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam’s amicus brief points out what many workers who have litigated cases before the NLRB have learned the hard way – that the NLRB is a hyper-partisan agency often beholden to the interests of union bosses, yet masquerades as an impartial arbiter of workers’ rights,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the issue of the NLRB’s constitutionality is likely to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court, Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam speak for many independent-minded workers around the country by urging the D.C. Circuit Court to bar Gwynne Wilcox from participating in Board decisions until this is fully sorted out.”
AT&T BellSouth Worker Slams CWA Local 3122 With Federal Charges for Imposing Illegal Discipline, Dues Demands
Post-strike, union tried to subject worker to internal union punishment despite her ending her formal union membership before the union-ordered strike
Miami, FL (February 27, 2025) – An employee of AT&T BellSouth Telecommunications has hit the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union and its affiliates with federal charges maintaining that union officials are targeting her with internal union discipline for not participating in a strike – despite the fact that she resigned her union membership beforehand.
The worker, Sofia Hernaiz, filed the unfair labor practice charge 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 private sector labor law and investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practices.
Hernaiz’s charge follows a strike ordered by CWA union bosses against AT&T BellSouth, which occurred August 2024. Under federal labor law, union officials can mete out internal strike discipline only on employees who are formal members of the union. A worker, like Hernaiz, who ends her union membership before exercising her right to continue working during a strike action cannot be punished by the union hierarchy.
Hernaiz also states in her charge that, in the process of revoking her membership, she additionally sent communications revoking her union dues “checkoff” authorization, which is a form that permits union bosses to deduct union dues directly from an employee’s paycheck. Despite NLRB precedent requiring the union to do so, Hernaiz’s charges say that CWA union bosses did not provide Hernaiz her dues checkoff, and also did not tell her the time intervals in which she could submit her revocation in order to make it effective. Such a scheme, often known as a “window period” or “escape period” scheme, is frequently used by union bosses to continue taking dues money from the wages of workers who have already expressed their opposition to the union.
Because of Florida’s popular Right to Work law, no worker subject to the NLRB can be forced to pay union dues or fees just to keep his or her job. This is in contrast to forced-unionism states, in which union bosses can require all employees in a workplace, even those opposed to the union, to financially support union activities or else be fired.
However, in both Right to Work and forced-unionism states, union bosses still have the power to impose their one-size-fits-all “representation” over every employee in a workplace, even over employees that voted against or otherwise oppose the union. Even in Right to Work states where legally dues payment must be voluntary, union officials frequently use dues authorization cards to attempt to trap workers in union payments.
Foundation Attorneys Helped Hundreds of AT&T Mobility Workers Escape CWA Control Last Year
Last year, Foundation attorneys helped hundreds of AT&T Mobility workers in California, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas remove CWA union officials who had subjected them to aggressive “card check” unionization campaigns. Under card check, union officials deny workers their right to vote in secret on the union and can instead pressure workers face-to-face into signing union authorization cards which are later counted as “votes.” After AT&T Mobility workers in those states had submitted valid petitions requesting union removal votes, CWA union officials abandoned each work unit before the votes could take place – likely anticipating defeats.
“CWA union officials continue to impose unpopular agendas on the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Hernaiz just wants to exercise her rights under Florida’s Right to Work law to end her union membership and stop financial support to the union because she opposes the union’s agenda. But CWA union officials are trying to concoct ways to punish her for not going along with the union’s strike order and keep her money flowing into union coffers against her will.
“Instead of relying on voluntary worker support to carry out their aims, CWA union officials went for illegal coercion, and our attorneys will defend Ms. Hernaiz’s rights,” Mix added.
Starbucks Employee’s Constitutional Challenge to Labor Board Structure Fully Briefed at DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Trump recently removed a Biden NLRB appointee relying on constitutional arguments first raised by NY Starbucks workers’ lawsuit against the NLRB
Washington D.C. (February 24, 2025) – New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have filed the final brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their landmark lawsuit asserting that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) violates the U.S. Constitution.
The case, which is being litigated by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, is especially notable after the Trump Administration asserted the very same legal arguments in its efforts to reform the NLRB. President Trump on January 28 fired NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, criticizing the same removal protections that Cortes and Karam’s first-in-the-nation lawsuit targeted for violating the Constitution.
The Foundation lawsuit, initially filed by Cortes, and later joined by Karam, states that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the president. The appeal challenges a District Court decision that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack legal standing. That decision did not address the underlying claim regarding whether the Labor Board’s structure complies with the requirements of the Constitution.
With the case now fully briefed, oral arguments are expected soon. A ruling in favor of Cortes and Karam could help cement making the Board more accountable to independent-minded employees and their rights.
Case Filed After NLRB Denied Starbucks Employees Right to Vote Out Unwanted Union
On April 28, 2023, Cortes submitted a petition, supported by a majority of her colleagues, asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election at her Buffalo-area “Del-Chip” Starbucks store to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials’ bargaining powers over workers. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification request.
Similarly, Karam filed a decertification petition seeking a vote to remove the union at his Buffalo-area Starbucks store. Like Cortes’ petition, NLRB officials refuse to allow the vote to take place, citing claims made by SBWU officials. As a result the workers remain trapped under union “representation” they oppose.
“This case demonstrates the direct harm caused to workers rights by unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats that have stifled attempts to remove unwanted union representation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “NLRB officials may not like it, but federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law in the land, the Constitution.”
“We are proud that the very legal arguments first made by Foundation attorneys in this case have now been utilized by President Trump to rein in the biased Biden NLRB,” added Mix. “The NLRB’s refusal to process these workers’ decertification petitions, paired with its unchecked authority, exemplifies why reform is overdue.”
Eaton Employee Forces IAM Union Bosses to Abandon Illegal Termination & Fine Threats
Worker’s legal team still pressing labor board to prosecute union officials for threatening workers who opposed union membership
St. Louis, MO (February 21, 2025) – Robert Jacobs, an employee of power management firm Eaton Corporation at its Troy, Illinois, facility, has forced International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials to back off their threats to fire him unless he paid hundreds in illegal fees they imposed on him after he exercised his right to end his union membership.
Jacobs filed federal charges in January challenging the union’s so-called “reinstatement fee” threats at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). He received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
In states like Illinois and Missouri that lack Right to Work protections for their private sector workers, union officials have the privilege to enforce contracts that require every employee in a unionized workplace to pay at least a portion of full union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, as per the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), private sector workers have an absolute right to abstain from formal union membership, a right that was affirmed by landmark 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, which includes imposing retaliatory fees or fines tied to membership. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are fully voluntary and the choice of each individual employee.
Jacobs and many other Eaton employees resigned their IAM union memberships after a strike order in October 2024 which many workers disagreed with. His federal charge reported that, after the strike, IAM union officials hit him and others who had ended membership with threats of termination if they “fail[ed] to pay a $306 ‘reinstatement fee’ by January 2025.”
Faced with federal charges and an NLRB investigation, IAM union officials quickly sent him a letter taking back the threat, claiming that the whole situation was actually due to an error made by Eaton’s Human Resources department in monthly union fee collections.
Federal Labor Board Urged to Investigate Union’s Post-Strike Threats
Despite the quick reversal, Jacobs’ Foundation-provided attorneys have asked the NLRB to continue the investigation against IAM officials, as demanding membership “reinstatement fees” from workers on pain of termination is an illegal practice that goes beyond simply sending workers an invoice for what union officials believe they owe in monthly fees. By formally prosecuting the IAM for these clear-cut violations of federal labor law, the NLRB could also require IAM officials to notify all workers of their legal rights, including the fact that they have the right to resign their formal union membership and that nonmembers cannot be required to pay any reinstatement fees.
“IAM bosses knew this wasn’t right, and that’s why they’re now scrambling to explain themselves,” commented Jacobs. “While my coworkers and I are unfortunately required by Illinois law to pay some union fees, there’s nothing in the law that lets union bosses threaten us like this over membership, and I think the NLRB should hold union bosses accountable for the sake of our whole workplace.”
Foundation attorneys have recently assisted other employees nationwide in challenging IAM union bosses’ influence, including last August in Dover, Ohio, and Petaluma, California, where employees at two different Ford dealerships successfully voted out IAM Local 1363 and IAM Local 1596 union officials, respectively. Foundation attorneys also successfully attacked an illegal dues scheme imposed by IAM union officials on Boeing engineer Don Zueger, which incorrectly calculated the amount of money he could be required to pay to the union as a condition of employment.
“We’re encouraged that Mr. Jacobs’ legal action has caused IAM bosses to back off a clearly illegal threat they imposed on him. But IAM union officials thought it was appropriate to threaten workers who exercised their limited workplace rights with either huge fines or outright termination. That is a disturbing revelation, and taking such action is more than enough to trigger a formal NLRB complaint against the IAM,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As cases like this show, American workers need security for their freedom to affiliate or disaffiliate with unions as they choose, which is why workers deserve Right to Work protections to make all union affiliation and financial support completely voluntary.”
Bus Driver Asks National Labor Relations Board to Overturn “Merger Doctrine” Used by Union Bosses to Block Worker-Requested Votes
By “merging” smaller individual bargaining units into mega-units, union officials block workers’ right to escape unwanted “representation” and forced dues
Battle Ground, Washington (February 14, 2025) – Theresa Hause, a school bus driver for First Student Inc. in Battle Ground, Washington, has just filed an appeal asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to overturn the so-called “merger doctrine” that is being used to block Hause and her colleagues from holding a vote to end forced union dues at their workplace. Hause’s Request for Review was filed with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB’s non-statutory “merger doctrine” allows union officials to “merge” employees in a smaller bargaining unit into much larger one. This legal tactic prevents rank-and-file employees exercising their rights under federal law to hold votes to remove unions (known as “decertification elections”) or to end forced-union dues requirements (known as “deauthorization elections”).
Because employees are suddenly part of a much larger and frequently geographically-dispersed “bargaining unit” with workers they have never met and likely don’t even know the names of, once “merged” it becomes effectively impossible for employees to ever reach the 30% threshold of signatures needed to trigger decertificiation or deauthorization elections.
Teamsters and other union officials frequently use non-statutory “merger doctrine” to trap workers in union ranks, forced-dues payments
In previous First Student cases, the “merger doctrine” was wielded by Teamsters officials to block votes at multiple locations on the grounds the workers there were actually part of one massive bargaining unit with over 22,000 drivers in over 100 locations in 33 different states. In another example, a group of less than 10 Wisconsin workers filed a majority-backed petition to remove (i.e. “decertify”) the Teamsters 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.
Hause’s request to end the non-statutory “merger doctrine” follows a decision by a NLRB Regional Director applying the doctrine to her request for a deauthorization election to end Teamsters Local 58 union officials power to require all drivers to pay fees or else be fired. Such a vote is necessary because Hause and her colleagues work in Washington State, which lacks Right to Work protections that make union financial support strictly voluntary.
Hause collected signatures from over 30% of First Student drivers at the facilities in Battle Ground and Hockinson, which is the unit originally organized by Teamsters Local 58 before First Student was even the employer. Rather than let the vote take place, Teamsters lawyers invoked the merger doctrine to disenfranchise the drivers. The Teamsters lawyers argued Hause and her coworkers are only a tiny fraction of First Student drivers under a “National Master First Student Agreement” involving Teamster affiliates across the country.
After the Regional Director sided with the Teamsters to block the workers from voting, an appeal was filed to the five-seat National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC. Currently the NLRB lacks a quorum to act because there are only two Board members. However, President Trump could appoint three new Members who could then rule on Hause’s request for review once they are confirmed by the United States Senate.
“This case shows how Teamsters bosses, aided by biased NLRB-concocted rules, disenfranchise workers and trap them in union ranks and forced dues payments, effectively in perpetuity,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s time for the NLRB to overhaul the arbitrary rules, including the so-called ‘merger doctrine,’ that are being used to eviscerate workers’ statutory rights under the National Labor Relations Act to hold a vote to remove a union opposed by a majority of employees or vote to end forced-dues requirements.”
“Quickly ending the ‘merger doctrine’ would be an excellent way for the incoming Trump NLRB majority to signal that, instead of prioritizing coercive union boss power as the Biden NLRB did, the Trump Labor Board will be putting employee rights and freedoms front and center,” added Mix.
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.”
