21 Oct 2026

Starbucks Employee Files Demand to Unblock Long-Delayed Vote to Remove Union

Posted in News Releases

Filing: “Three-year delay” in adjudicating NLRB charge used as basis for blocking employee vote, warrants election being finally scheduled

Oklahoma City, OK (October 21, 2026) – Starbucks employee Amy Smith has filed a second request asking National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 14 to reinstate her decertification petition to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from her Nichols Hills Starbucks store. She originally filed for decertification over three years ago. Smith is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

The request for reinstatement comes after Region 14 began treating Smith’s case as closed, even though the agency itself ruled the petition remained subject to reinstatement. Smith’s request says the Region did so “erroneously,” and further argues that the NLRB’s years-long failure to resolve the charges blocking her election is precisely the kind of “unusual and special situation” that requires the agency to let workers vote.

Three-Year NLRB Delay Instigated by SBWU Union Bosses Must End

Smith’s petition was backed by enough of her coworkers’ signatures at the Nichols Hills store to meet the necessary threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote. At union officials’ urging, the NLRB dismissed the petition “subject to reinstatement” pending resolution of an alleged unfair labor practice case against Starbucks.

After that case was resolved through a non-Board settlement, Smith asked the Region to reinstate her petition, only to have the Regional Director point to a different set of charges filed by the union against Starbucks to keep the vote on hold. Smith appealed to the full Board in Washington, D.C. In April 2026, the Board denied her request for review, relying on its controversial Biden-era 2022 Rieth-Riley decision, which granted Regional Directors wide discretion to dismiss decertification petitions subject to reinstatement, while the NLRB pursues complaints based on union allegations.

“In light of this return of… the over three years that have passed since she filed her petition, Petitioner yet again requests reinstatement of the petition,” the filing states. It argues that “[t]he Board’s inexcusable delay in litigating the unfair labor practice charges blocking this election” is itself grounds to hold the vote.

Board Member Signals Blocking Policy Deserves Scrutiny by New NLRB Majority

When the Board denied Smith’s appeal in April, NLRB Member Scott Mayer joined the decision for institutional reasons but wrote separately that Rieth-Riley may not strike the proper balance between “the statutory goal of promoting labor relations stability” and the Board’s duty to give effect to employees’ wishes about representation.

At the time, with Biden-holdover Member David Prouty holding one of three filled seats on the Board, the NLRB lacked the three votes traditionally needed to overturn past precedents. However, in August a fourth member joined the Board.

Mayer has continued to press the issue. In other recent Board orders denying review of blocked petitions, he emphasized that Regional Directors must, at a minimum, give more detail about why a petition is being blocked so the Board can properly evaluate those decisions, and that blocking determinations should be reassessed as cases drag on.

“For years, the one-two punch of Rieth-Riley and the Biden Board’s blocking charge rule has trampled the statutory rights of workers seeking to remove unions they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Amy Smith and her coworkers asked for a vote more than three years ago, and they’re still waiting – not because of anything they did, but because union officials and NLRB bureaucrats keep finding new reasons to disenfranchise them.

“Every American has the right to decide whether a union in their workplace is right for them. If President Trump’s new NLRB majority is serious about putting American workers first, reversing these union-label, Biden-era precedents would be an excellent place to start,” Mix added.

12 Sep 2025

NY Starbucks Barista Asks Federal Labor Board to Restore Employees’ Right to Vote Out SBWU Union Officials

Posted in News Releases

SBWU union bosses prevented worker-requested union removal vote by filing unverified charges, never demonstrated link to worker effort

Niskayuna, NY (September 12, 2025) – Starbucks barista Nadia Kuban is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to overturn federal policies that are preventing her colleagues from having a vote to remove unwanted Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace. Kuban is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Kuban’s effort to remove SBWU from the Niskayuna Starbucks began in February, when she submitted a petition backed by her colleagues asking the NLRB to hold a decertification vote at their store. Despite Kuban’s petition containing enough employee signatures to trigger a vote under NLRB rules, regional NLRB officials dismissed her petition and denied her colleagues their right to vote on the union’s continued control.

Kuban’s latest NLRB filing challenges the dismissal of her decertification petition. Regional NLRB officials issued the dismissal due to alleged unfair labor practice charges that SBWU bosses filed against the Starbucks Corporation at the national level. Her Request for Review argues that the NLRB violated employees’ due process rights by tossing her petition without a hearing into whether the allegations had anything to do with workers’ desire to oust the union at her location. It also contends that the NLRB’s Rieth-Riley precedent – which lets union bosses manipulate such allegations (also known as “blocking charges”) to derail worker-requested decertification votes entirely – is inconsistent with federal law.

Starbucks Employee Challenges NLRB Policy That Lets Union Bosses Block Votes

The NLRB’s Rieth-Riley decision in 2022 permits the agency to make so-called “merit-determination” dismissals of decertification petitions. Such dismissals let NLRB officials stop union decertification elections entirely – and invalidate already-cast ballots – based on union boss-filed “blocking charges” that haven’t even been litigated yet. Kuban’s brief explains that the ruling is at odds with federal labor law, which mandates that the NLRB conduct an election if employees submit a valid decertification petition.

“This is inconsistent with the plain language of [National Labor Relations Act] Section 9(c), which states what the NLRB ‘shall’ do, a nondiscretionary term,” the brief says. “The Board…should overturn Rieth-Riley’s merit-determination [ruling]….”

The Request for Review also explains that even under existing NLRB cases – including Rieth-Riley – the dismissal of Kuban’s decertification petition is not justified. NLRB case law doesn’t allow the dismissal of employees’ decertification petitions unless there is an outright refusal by an employer to negotiate with union officials, the brief says, which is not the case in Kuban’s situation. Furthermore, the NLRB’s Saint Gobain decision, won by Foundation staff attorneys, holds that “an evidentiary hearing is required when a union alleges that an employer’s unfair labor practice caused disaffection with the union.” Kuban never got such a hearing in her case, meaning she “has been significantly disadvantaged in defending her petition, to the point of being denied due process of law,” the brief says.

Trump NLRB Can Use Case to Defend Workers’ Freedom

Earlier this year, Rayalan Kent, a Foundation-backed asphalt worker in Michigan whose union decertification effort was stifled in the Rieth-Riley case, submitted a brief to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This brief defended his employer (Rieth-Riley Construction Company) in a case over its refusal to negotiate with International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) officials. IUOE bosses had dredged up years-old unfair labor practice charges to cancel the counting of Kent and his coworkers’ already-cast election ballots in 2022. Kent is now urging the Sixth Circuit to use the current case against his employer to undo the disastrous “merit-determination” doctrine, and order the NLRB to finally count his colleagues’ ballots.

“The NLRB’s so-called ‘merit-determination’ dismissal policy serves no purpose other than letting union officials block workers’ right to make a free decision on whether they want union monopoly ‘representation’ in their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Kuban speaks for countless independent-minded workers across the country in seeking to eliminate this unfair policy. Upon confirmation, President Trump’s new appointees to the NLRB should prioritize cases like hers, and defend workers’ freedoms from union bosses’ attempts to gain more control over their working lives and pocketbooks.”

28 Jul 2025

Michigan-Based Rieth-Riley Asphalt Worker Submits Legal Brief Urging 6th Circuit to Protect Workers’ Right to Vote Out Unpopular Union

Posted in News Releases

Appeals Court brief: Labor Board violated federal law and its own rules to stifle Rieth-Riley workers’ statutory right to vote to remove unwanted IUOE union

Cincinnati, OH (July 28, 2025) – Rayalan Kent, a Michigan-based employee of asphalt paving company Rieth-Riley, has just filed an amicus brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that could restore a substantial amount of power to workers in deciding whether they should be subject to union control. Kent has received free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys since 2020 when he began his efforts to vote the union out of his workplace.

In the Sixth Circuit case Rieth-Riley Construction Co. vs. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Kent’s employer is arguing against the NLRB’s dismissal of valid petitions backed by Kent and his coworkers, which asked the Board to administer a vote at his workplace to remove (or “decertify”) the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 324. That contention is part of Rieth-Riley’s larger defense of its decision not to continue negotiating with the IUOE union.

While Kent and his fellow employees were eventually able to exercise their right to vote on the IUOE, the NLRB in 2022 dismissed his petitions and halted the election, declining to count the already-cast ballots just hours before the vote tally, calling it a “merit-determination” dismissal. This dismissal was based on unfair labor practice allegations the IUOE filed against Rieth-Riley management in 2018. But the NLRB never held a hearing on whether those alleged practices had any connection to Kent and his coworkers’ desire to oust the union.

Kent’s brief urges the Sixth Circuit to use Rieth-Riley Construction Co. as an opportunity to invalidate the NLRB’s “merit-determination” dismissal policy. The brief also asks the Court to order the NLRB to take the long-overdue step of counting the ballots in Mr. Kent’s decertification election, so he and his coworkers can properly exercise their right to vote on the union.

Federal Labor Board’s Actions Violated Statutory Authority and Agency’s Own Regulations

Kent’s amicus brief argues that the NLRB’s use of “merit-determination” dismissals – a “blocking charge” policy – violates the agency’s statutory authority and the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is responsible for enforcing. The NLRA requires that the Board hold a hearing and an election when employees submit a valid petition requesting a union decertification vote. However, “by dismissing Mr. Kent’s decertification petitions based on the mere allegations in the Union’s blocking charge, the Region and the Board failed to comply with Congress’ directive that the Board ‘shall’ conduct a hearing and ‘shall’ conduct an election when a question of representation exists,” says the amicus brief.

The brief also points out that the NLRB’s “merit-determination” dismissal policy violates rules the agency itself promulgated. In 2020, the NLRB finalized its Election Protection Rule (EPR), which, among other things, mandated that “blocking charges” could no longer stop workers from exercising their right to vote in a union decertification election. The EPR instead required the NLRB to hold elections and tally votes before dealing with any allegations surrounding the employer conduct. “Here, the Board is refusing to follow its own rules by dismissing Mr. Kent’s decertification petitions because of speculation, unproven allegations, and a confidential ‘investigation’ to which he is not privy,” the brief reads.

“In this brief, Rayalan Kent and his coworkers speak for all independent-minded American workers, whose clear right under federal law to vote to remove union officials they disapprove of is gravely threatened by the existence of the NLRB’s various invented non-statutory policies,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses should not be able to unilaterally override this right, and the Sixth Circuit needs to restore to workers their fundamental rights of free choice under the National Labor Relations Act.”

21 Jun 2022

National Right to Work Foundation Slams Decision Trapping Michigan Construction Workers in Unpopular Union

Posted in News Releases

NLRB rules that ballots employees already cast in vote to oust union cannot be counted, highlighting Labor Board’s pro-union boss bias

Washington, DC (June 21, 2022) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, has permitted the destruction of hundreds of ballots already cast by Michigan Rieth-Riley Construction Company workers in an election whether to oust International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) union officials. The decision shuts down a years-long effort by Rieth-Riley employees to remove IUOE Local 324 officials, allowing the union to stifle the workers’ vote with questionable “blocking charges” against Rieth-Riley management.

Rieth-Riley employee Rayalan Kent led the effort to vote out IUOE union officials. With the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, he submitted two petitions in 2020 with enough worker support to trigger the NLRB’s administration of a “decertification vote.” A vote finally occurred in October 2020, but Regional NLRB officials in Detroit ruled, just hours before the ballots were to be counted, that union boss-concocted “blocking charges” invalidated the employees’ petition. The NLRB in Washington has now affirmed that decision.

Both rulings fly in the face of Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 regarding “blocking charges,” which provided that ballots in union decertification elections should be counted first before any unfair labor practice charges surrounding the election are dealt with. Moreover, even prior NLRB precedent required that an evidentiary hearing be held to determine whether there is any “causal nexus” between union allegations of employer misconduct and employee dissatisfaction engendering a union decertification effort. But the NLRB never held any such hearing in this case.

Settlements Foundation attorneys won in 2021 for Rieth-Riley employees Rob Nevins and Jesse London indicate that malfeasance by IUOE officials, not Rieth-Riley misdeeds, likely caused the company’s workers to push for the union’s ouster. London and Nevins decided to end their union memberships and keep working to support their families despite a union boss-ordered strike in 2019.

Nevins charged union officials with threatening to “blackball” him if he didn’t strike, and London reported that IUOE officials refused to hand over health insurance premium money they owed him for time he participated in the strike. The settlements mandated that IUOE union bosses not discriminate against London and Nevins for exercising their right to refrain from union membership, and also ordered them to pay London the health insurance premium money he was owed.

“The current decision demonstrates how the NLRB and its bureaucrats have twisted a law that is allegedly designed to protect the free choice rights of rank-and-file workers. Instead of supporting workers’ rights, this Board and past Boards have weaponized the National Labor Relations Act against workers solely to entrench union boss power,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Rather than apply the letter and spirit of the 2020 Election Protection rule, Joe Biden’s NLRB has undermined and rendered useless even those modest reforms. Given this awful ruling, it is now likely that Rieth-Riley workers’ votes to remove the union will simply be dropped in a trash can.”

Mix added: “Workers have a statutory right to vote out a union they oppose and NLRB bureaucrats should not be able to nullify that right on the basis of unproven and often unrelated allegations of employer misconduct.”