6 Jan 2026

Workers in North Carolina and California Ask Federal Labor Board to Nix Policy Letting Union Bosses Block Elections

Posted in News Releases

With new quorum, National Labor Relations Board can eliminate “blocking charge” policy used to stop union removal elections

Washington, DC (January 6, 2026) – Workers in North Carolina and California are pushing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to strike down its “blocking charge” policy, which is preventing them from removing unwanted union officials from their workplaces.

The workers, which include miners employed by The Quartz Corp. in Spruce Pine, NC, and Fresno, CA-based construction materials workers for CalPortland, both backed petitions in late 2025 asking the NLRB to administer votes to remove (or “decertify”) unions from their workplaces. Despite both petitions containing enough signatures to trigger union decertification elections, regional NLRB officials blocked both votes pursuant to the NLRB’s current blocking charge policy. This Biden-era policy permits union officials to stymie the union decertification process simply by filing unproven or unrelated “unfair labor practice” charges at the NLRB alleging employer misconduct.

Quartz Corp. employee Blake Davis and CalPortland worker Darrell Dunlap have both submitted Requests for Review to the NLRB in Washington, DC. These filings ask the Board to overturn the blocking charge policy and let their coworkers’ requested votes to remove the United Mine Workers and Teamsters unions (respectively) go forward. Davis and Dunlap are both receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. While vacancies on the NLRB have caused a backlog of cases, the U.S. Senate recently approved two new presidential appointees to the NLRB, meaning the Board now has a “quorum” and can hear these and other cases.

“Blocking Charge” Policy Inconsistent With Federal Labor Law

Dunlap’s Request for Review argues that the NLRB’s blocking charge policy directly conflicts with the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that the NLRB is responsible for enforcing. “Allowing a self-interested party to unilaterally block elections conflicts with [the NLRA], which requires the Board to hold an election” if employees submit a valid decertification petition, Dunlap’s brief says. “The blocking charge policy does not just contravene a clear Congressional command, but also offends the entire structure and purpose of the Act: employee free choice.”

Dunlap’s brief also maintains that the blocking charge rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary and fails to accomplish even its own stated goals. For example, the Request for Review says, NLRB bureaucrats impose the policy without considering key data showing the blocking charge policy has caused substantial delays in the union election process. Furthermore, the Board has argued that the rule is required to stop “coercive elections” from happening – even though its only mechanism for doing this is giving self-interested union bosses massive power to block elections or let them proceed.

Davis’ Request for Review makes many similar arguments, but adds that even if the Board were to uphold the blocking charge policy, regional NLRB officials egregiously misapplied it in his case. As his brief points out, even before he and his colleagues had submitted the union decertification petition, “the union filed a barrage of [unfair labor practice charges],” some of which were just speculation about employer activity aiding the union removal process. Even so, the regional NLRB appears to have blocked Davis and his coworkers’ requested election based on the mere quantity of the union’s charges, without explaining which allegation justified blocking. “By failing to distinguish between allegations that might warrant blocking and those that plainly would not, the Region reduced the rule to a numbers game,” the Request for Review says.

Trump NLRB Can Undo ‘Blocking Charge’ Policy and Empower Independent-Minded Workers

The National Right to Work Foundation has long advocated for the NLRB to return to the Election Protection Rule, which prevented many aspects of blocking charge-related gamesmanship before the Biden NLRB overturned it in 2022. Under the Election Protection Rule, allegations of misconduct related to a union decertification election could not block employees from exercising their right to vote, and in most cases permitted the immediate release of the vote tally as opposed to ordering ballots to be impounded during litigation over blocking charges.

“The NLRB’s ‘blocking charge’ policy serves only to let union officials stop the workers they claim to ‘represent’ from making a free choice about whether a union in their workplace is right for them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Davis speak for countless workers across the country who are trapped under union boss dictates and forced-dues payments because of this rule.

“If President Trump’s new NLRB appointees are serious about putting American workers back in control of their own livelihoods, reversing this union boss power giveaway is an excellent place to start,” Mix added.

21 Mar 2025

WV Homecare Worker Asks Federal Labor Board to Stop Gambit by SEIU and Employer to Destroy Ballots in Vote to Remove Union

Posted in News Releases

Employee attacks NLRB policy that union and employer used to “agree” to throw out ballots already cast and block future votes to remove union

Welch, WV (March 21, 2025) – An employee of senior homecare nonprofit McDowell County Commission on Aging has requested the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., overturn a regional NLRB official’s ruling that tossed his and his coworkers’ ballots in a union decertification vote because his employer and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials agreed in a settlement to stifle the worker-led union removal effort.

The worker, John Reeves, submitted his Request for Review with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. In addition to asking the NLRB to order regional labor board officials to process Reeves’ petition for a union removal vote at his workplace, the Request for Review attacks regional NLRB officials’ application of the so-called “settlement bar” to his petition. The “settlement bar” is a non-statutory NLRB policy that lets union bosses and employers unilaterally block an employee-requested union decertification vote after finalizing a settlement.

Specifically, the Request for Review points out that the issues being settled by the union and employer – union-alleged accusations of employer wrongdoing that were never proven by the Board or admitted to by the employer in the settlement – provide absolutely no support for the idea that Reeves and his coworkers’ vote should be invalidated. The Request for Review states:

“[T]he Board has held that employer unfair labor practices can justify the dismissal of a decertification petition only if: (1) the Board holds the employer actually committed the unfair labor practices or (2) the employer admits in a settlement that it committed the unfair labor practices…Neither scenario exists here.”

Employer and SEIU Union Bosses Colluded to Eliminate Workers’ Shot at Voting Out Union

Reeves’ effort to remove the SEIU union began in June 2024, when he filed a petition asking the NLRB to administer a union decertification election at the McDowell County Commission on Aging. The petition had enough employee signatures under NLRB rules to trigger such a vote.

Commission management and union officials agreed to terms of a union decertification election and Reeves and his coworkers voted on July 9, 2024. However, regional NLRB officials announced the morning that the election took place that Reeves and his coworkers’ ballots would be impounded because of pending unfair labor practice allegations SEIU union officials had against Commission management

After continued delays from NLRB officials that prevented the ballots from being counted, Reeves sought to intervene in the union’s unfair labor practice case. Reeves wanted to demonstrate that there was no connection between the union’s accusations of employer wrongdoing and his and his colleagues’ desire to vote the union out, and thus no reason existed for regional NLRB officials to continue blocking a vote count. But the regional NLRB denied him this request.

In January 2025 – six months after Reeves and his colleagues had voted – Commission officials and SEIU union bosses entered into an agreement to settle the union’s unfair labor practice charges. Even though the regional NLRB never proved that the employer’s alleged malfeasance had any effect on the decertification effort and the Commission never admitted to such malfeasance in the settlement, the regional NLRB approved a unilateral decision by the employer and union to dismiss the decertification petition and “not entertain a new decertification for a…period of four months.”

“[The regional NLRB] dismissed Reeves’ decertification petition because the Employer settled an unfair labor practice case, even though the settlement contained no ‘admissions clause,’ and therefore the Union’s allegations were unproven and speculative,” Reeves’ Request for Review reads.

“Mr. Reeves and his coworkers, who voted months ago on whether to remove SEIU union officials from their workplace, deserve to have their voices heard and their votes counted,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB’s ‘settlement bar’ policy is simply another way for self-interested union bosses to game the system and maintain control over dissenting workers, and it’s especially egregious when complicit employers and NLRB officials use it to turn speculative and unproven allegations of wrongdoing into a barrier between workers and their individual rights.”

“Workers have a statutory right under federal law to hold decertification votes, and employers and union officials should not be permitted to collusively ‘settle’ disputes by stripping workers of their right to vote to remove a union that most of them oppose,” added Mix.

12 Jun 2023

Starbucks Worker Asks Labor Board to Review Order Denying Vote to Remove Unwanted Union

Posted in News Releases

Request for Review to full National Labor Relations Board says Regional Director erred in dismissing workers’ petition

Buffalo, NY (June 12, 2023) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C. This requests asks the Board to reverse a Regional Director’s order dismissing a workers’ petition for a decertification election on whether to remove the so-called Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union, an affiliate of Service Employee International Union (SEIU). The request is part of a case that began when Ariana Cortes, a Buffalo Starbucks worker, filed a petition with the NLRB requesting the decertification election be held at the “Del Chip” Starbucks location where she works.

Cortes’ decertification petition, which was filed on April 28, has support from a majority of her coworkers who also want to remove the union from their workplace. After her initial filing, Cortes began receiving free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

“They have treated us like pawns, promising us that we could remove them after a year if we no longer wanted their representation, and are now trying to stop us from exercising our right to vote,” Cortes said in a statement about why so many of her coworkers support removing the union. “It’s obvious they care more about power and control than respecting our individual rights.”

Under federal law, workers can trigger an NLRB-supervised decertification election with the signatures of 30% or more of the employees in a workplace. After receiving the petition, NLRB officials should then promptly move to schedule an election. However, on May 25, the NLRB Region 3 Regional Director issued an order dismissing the decertification petition.

In response to this order, Cortes’s Foundation staff attorneys filed the request for review with the four member NLRB in Washington, DC. The filing emphasizes the wishes of the employees to continue with the decertification process to remove the monopoly union representation that lacks the support of a majority of the workers, which is a fundamental principle of the National Labor Relations Act that the NLRB is charged with enforcing.

The brief also observes that the grounds for blocking the vote is contradicted by the NLRB allowing union-backed certification elections to proceed. The result is that the SEIU is like a roach motel, easy to enter but impossible to leave.

“The Region dismissed her petition and disenfranchised her and her fellow employees of the right to choose their representative—the same right that has been granted over 350 times to employees seeking certification,” the brief states.

So far, workers at three different Starbucks locations in New York State have filed decertification petitions. In addition to the Del Chip store, Foundation staff attorneys also represent the petitioner in the Starbucks Roastery case, where a majority of workers also support the decertification effort.

The Foundation has also issued a legal notice to all Starbucks employees, offering free legal aid to any worker who may be interested in removing SBWU’s so-called “representation” from their workplace: www.nrtw.org/starbucks

“Workers have a statutory right to decertify a union they oppose, and it is outrageous that the Regional Director has so callously moved to disenfranchise these workers of that right,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB must reverse course and cease acting like its mission is simply to protect incumbent union officials against workers who are opposed to unions’ so-called representation.”

9 May 2022

Red Rock Casino Slot Technicians Blast Regional Labor Board Ruling Trapping Them Under Unpopular Union, Appeal Decision

Posted in News Releases

Employee vote to decertify union blocked based on allegations that have nothing to do with slot techs’ bargaining unit

Las Vegas, NV (May 9, 2022) – Red Rock Casino slot machine technician Jereme Barrios has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to reverse an NLRB Region’s decision which blocks his and his coworkers’ right to vote out a union that a majority of them have already expressed interest in removing. Barrios is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Barrios submitted a petition to the NLRB Region 28 in March asking the agency to conduct a union “decertification vote” amongst his fellow slot technicians whether to kick out International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 501 officials. The petition contained signatures of a large majority of his colleagues.

However, the Region did not schedule the vote as Barrios and his coworkers had asked. NLRB Region 28 Director Cornele Overstreet instead ruled in April that largely unverified and unrelated allegations (also called “blocking charges”) union officials had made against management of Station Casinos, Red Rock’s parent company, blocked the technicians from exercising their right to vote whether to remove the union.

Barrios’ Request for Review argues that the Region’s decision is unfounded, and requests that the NLRB in Washington, DC, reverse it and allow them to have an immediate decertification vote.

Slot Tech’s Request for Review Criticizes Regional Labor Board Decision as “a Scattershot Mess”

Barrios’ Request for Review begins by explaining that, even if any of the union’s “blocking charges” have merit, the NLRB Regional Director was not adhering to Foundation-backed reforms in the rules regarding “blocking charges” that the NLRB formally adopted in 2020. Under the reforms, “blocking charges” generally do not stop employees from exercising their right to vote in a decertification election. Instead, the NLRB takes up any “blocking charges” surrounding an election after a vote tally has been released.

“The Regional Director ignored the current Election Rules and even refused to cite them,” Barrios’ Request for Review says.

Moreover, Barrios’ Foundation attorneys go even deeper and demonstrate that, even under the old election rules which would have allowed “blocking charges” to stall a decertification election, the union’s allegations against the employer are completely insufficient to block an employee vote.

Barrios’ attorneys show that the majority of the union’s accusations describe alleged employer malfeasance concerning bargaining units other than Barrios’. The Request for Review points out that, by the Region’s logic, “any employer’s unfair labor practice could block any decertification in any of its other units, no matter how remote.”

The remaining “blocking charges,” including an allegation that Red Rock management did not bargain with the union over COVID-19 protections, Barrios’ Request for Review explains, either do not reveal actual violations of federal labor law by Red Rock management or have no causal connection to Barrios and his colleagues’ desire to remove the union. Barrios’ brief notes that Red Rock officials already complied with a consent order regarding the dispute over COVID-19 protections and “likely remedied any violation that could conceivably block an election.”

Foundation Attorneys Aid Other Station Casinos Employees

The slot techs’ effort comes as Red Rock hospitality and foodservice staff, led by Foundation-backed employee Raynell Teske, are battling an order from a federal district court judge that forces them under the “representation” of Culinary Union bosses. The order was issued despite the fact that a majority of the hospitality and foodservice employees voted in a secret ballot election to reject union officials’ effort to install themselves at the casino.

Foundation attorneys also represent Palms Casino engineering worker Thomas Stallings and his coworkers in their decertification effort against IUOE and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) officials. As in Barrios’ case, Stallings’ attorneys argue that regional NLRB officials have left Stallings and his coworkers trapped under the monopoly control of an unpopular union despite the current NLRB rules regarding “blocking charges,” and despite the fact the accusations by union officials against their employer have little if anything to do with Stallings’ work unit.

“Las Vegas is now home to at least three instances where regional NLRB officials have reflexively indulged union boss requests to remain in power at workplaces where a clear majority of workers want the union gone,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Las Vegas is indeed ‘Sin City,’ if the sin is disrespecting workers’ fundamental right to choose freely whether or not union bosses should speak for them.”

“Foundation attorneys are proud to stand by these courageous workers, who are fighting not only union coercion but an NLRB Regional Director seemingly determined to undermine the rights of workers opposed to union affiliation,” Mix added.

23 Nov 2020

Push to Remove UFCW Union Could End Pro-Union Boss “Contract Bar” Policy

Posted in Newsletter Articles

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Non-statutory NLRB policy hinders workers’ right to vote out an unwanted union

Employees at the Selbyville, DE, Mountaire Farms plant rally to vote out unpopular UFCW honchos from their workplace, as union lawyers scramble to block the workers’ votes from being counted.

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has announced that it will review the so-called “contract bar” doctrine, which prevents employees from exercising their right to vote an unpopular union out of their workplace for up to three years if union officials and their employer have finalized a monopoly bargaining contract.

This is the latest development in a case by a Selbyville, Delaware-based Mountaire Farms poultry employee, Oscar Cruz Sosa, against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27 union. Cruz Sosa submitted a petition in February for a vote on whether Local 27 should be removed as monopoly bargaining agent in his workplace. The petition was signed by hundreds of his coworkers, more than the percentage required to trigger such a vote.

Worker Obtains Foundation Help after Union Attempts to Block Vote

After he submitted the petition, UFCW bosses immediately claimed that the “contract bar” should block Cruz Sosa and his coworkers from even having an election, because the monopoly bargaining agreement between Mountaire and the union had been signed less than three years earlier.

Cruz Sosa then obtained free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in defending his and his coworkers’ right to vote. With Foundation aid, he also hit UFCW agents with federal unfair labor practice charges for imposing an illegal forced-dues clause on the workplace and threatening him after he submitted the petition.

When the NLRB Regional Director in Baltimore heard the election case, he ruled that the union contract contains an unlawful forced-dues clause that mandates workers immediately pay union dues upon hiring or be fired. Under NLRB precedent, an illegal forced-dues clause means the “contract bar” cannot apply, allowing the vote to proceed.

UFCW’s Desperate Attempt to Block Vote Triggers NLRB Review of “Contract Bar”

Despite the longstanding precedent supporting the Regional Director’s ruling, UFCW union lawyers filed a Request for Review, asking the full NLRB to reverse the Regional Director and halt the election.

In response, Cruz Sosa’s Foundation staff attorneys opposed the union’s efforts to block the vote. They also argued that, if the Board were to grant the union’s Request for Review, it should also reconsider the entire “contract bar” policy, which has no statutory basis in the NLRA. The Foundation’s legal brief noted that the “contract bar” runs counter to the rights of workers under the NLRA, which explicitly include the right to vote out a union a majority of workers oppose.

Just hours after the voting process in the decertification election had begun, the NLRB issued its order granting the union’s Request for Review, while also accepting the Foundation’s request to reconsider the entire “contract bar” doctrine. The order noted “that it is appropriate for the Board to undertake in this case a general review of its ‘contract bar’ doctrine.”

Given the precedential import of this case, the NLRB solicited amicus briefs on whether the “contract bar” should be allowed to stand. UFCW officials, still desperate to throw a wrench in Cruz Sosa and his coworkers’ effort to vote them out, demanded that the NLRB rescind its request for amicus briefs in the case, but that effort was quickly rebuffed.

“We urge the NLRB to swiftly overturn this outrageous non-statutory policy, which lets union bosses undermine for up to three years the free choice of workers that is supposed to be at the center of federal labor law,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “The very premise of the NLRB-created ‘contract bar,’ that union bosses should be insulated from worker decertification efforts, is completely backwards.”

LaJeunesse added: “Union officials across the country use all types of tactics to get workers into unions but rely on government power and legal tricks to prevent them from getting out.”