8 Sep 2025

King Soopers Employees Hit Union Officials with New Federal Charges for Illegal Strike Fine Threats

Posted in News Releases

Charge: UFCW Local 7 once again violating federal law with fines against non-union employees who wouldn’t abide by a union boss-ordered strike

Denver, CO (September 8, 2025) – Two King Soopers grocery workers have filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 union in response to union officials illegally threatening to fine the workers, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike. These cases, filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), follow a series of similar charges against UFCW union officials for issuing retaliatory fines against King Soopers employees in 2022. Both employees are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

According to the charges, Local 7 union bosses illegally retaliated against Ryan Lamb and Lucas Martin by assessing presumptive fines and scheduling “trials” for each of them, despite the union having no authority to punish non-members. The charges note that attempts to discipline the workers for post-resignation conduct violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Union-Ordered Strikes Don’t Mean Workers Have to Stop Providing for Their Families

UFCW officials demanded that workers strike against King Soopers grocery stores for more than a week in February 2025, affecting more than 10,000 employees. In response to the high profile strike, the Foundation issued a legal notice informing the impacted workers of their rights that union officials often hide, including the right to continue working to support their families.

“Despite often-misleading language in union contracts, no employee is actually required to be a member of a union,” the notice reads. “And if an employee is not a member of a union, union officials have no power to fine or discipline him or her.”

In the cases of Lamb and Martin, both employees ensured they took the proper actions to avoid being legally subjected to internal “union discipline.” In other cases, union officials illegally attempted to issue ruinous fines against workers who declined to participate in union strike actions, with some fines reaching tens of thousands of dollars per employee.

“Union officials shouldn’t be telling me I can’t earn a living just so they can make a point,” commented Lamb. “We have the right to keep working and not abide by their rules, and it’s ridiculous that the union officials think they can punish us for exercising that right,” added Martin.

Repeat-Offender Union Has a History of Ignoring Workers’ Rights

This isn’t the first time UFCW Local 7 officials are alleged to have violated federal law. In 2022, after the UFCW ordered a strike, several employees filed charges against Local 7 officials for hitting them with fines despite being non-union members.

In two cases where the employees received free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, union enforcers backed down from their fines rather than face discipline from the NLRB.

“Once again UFCW bosses are demonstrating their willingness to steamroll the legal rights of rank-and-file workers, just because those workers won’t toe the union line,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Kings Soopers employees have beaten back these illegal fines in the past, and while it shouldn’t take a team of attorneys to ensure workers can exercise their legal rights, we are dedicated to ensuring all King Soopers workers can freely make the choice that is best for them.”

2 Sep 2025

Missouri Shangri-La Dispensary Workers Officially Free of Unwanted UFCW Union Boss “Representation”

Posted in News Releases

Labor Board certifies workers’ victory in case to remove UFCW after union officials disclaim representation and walk away

Columbia, MO (September 2, 2025) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued an order that officially removes United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 655 as the exclusive “representative” of a unit of Shangri-La dispensary workers. The order makes official the workers’ victory in their legal effort to remove UFCW union officials from their workplace.

The case started when Travis Hierholzer, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, filed his petition with the NLRB requesting a “decertification” election to remove UFCW union bosses at his workplace. Hierholzer’s petition was signed by nearly all of his fellow workers at the dispensary. The filing of the petition triggered an election process to determine whether the UFCW would remain the dispensary workers’ exclusive representative.

The NLRB is the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal labor law and with adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual workers. Workers are able to initiate an election administered by the NLRB if their petition gathers the signatures of 30% or more of their fellow employees.

The election was close to being scheduled in September among all full-time and regular part-time patient consultants, patient consultant supervisors, and inventory specialists employed at the Columbia, MO, dispensary. However, rather than proceed with the election, UFCW union bosses apparently decided to avoid the embarrassment of a nearly unanimous vote by workers against them, instead “disclaiming” their status and removing the union as the dispensary’s so-called representative.

Missouri is one of the 24 states without Right to Work protections that make union affiliation and dues payment fully voluntary, meaning Hierholzer and his coworkers could have been forced to pay dues or fees to UFCW union officials or else be fired. Now that the union has been officially decertified, union officials lack the authority to impose a forced-dues requirement on the employees.

“Workers across the country, and especially in states where union bosses can force them to pay dues or else be fired, continue to exercise their legal right to free themselves of unwanted union representation,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The National Right to Work Foundation will continue to stand up for American workers wherever they may be, by providing free legal aid to help defend their rights and remove unwelcome union bosses from their workplace.”

23 Jul 2025

Louisiana Poultry Employee Challenges Federal Labor Policy Preventing Coworkers From Voting Out UFCW Union

Posted in News Releases

Worker submitted petition in which over half of his colleagues demanded vote to remove union, but so-called ‘contract bar’ kept union in power

Hammond, LA (July 23, 2025) – Coty Hally, an employee of Wayne Sanderson Farms’ poultry facility in Hammond, LA, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to grant him and his coworkers a chance to vote United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 455 union officials out of their workplace.

Hally is challenging a decision from an NLRB Regional Director that blocked the Wayne Sanderson workers from exercising their right to vote on the basis of the so-called “contract bar,” a non-statutory NLRB policy which immunizes union officials from removal (or “decertification”) efforts for the first three years of a union contract. Hally is receiving free legal aid in his case from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Hally’s Request for Review argues the NLRB, the federal agency responsible for adjudicating disputes under federal labor law, should eliminate the “contract bar” entirely. “The contract-bar is a Board created limitation on employee statutory rights to seek an election and determine their own representative,” Hally’s Request for Review says. “It is not found in the text of the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA]…and it conflicts with the Act’s core purpose.”

“UFCW union officials have been dragging their feet and have not been negotiating good contracts for me and my coworkers,” Hally commented. “This union doesn’t represent us, and it’s ridiculous that the UFCW is manipulating this one dated NLRB policy to keep us trapped in the union, even though most of us have expressed interest in voting the union out. My colleagues and I – not union officials – should be deciding whether the union stays or goes.”

‘Contract Bar’ Policy Absent From Labor Statutes, Burdens Employee Free Choice

Hally’s Request for Review notes that he submitted a petition earlier this month in which over 50% of his 550-person unit demanded a vote to oust the UFCW. Normally NLRB rules only require a 30% “showing of interest” in order to trigger a union decertification vote, but even with this stronger support, “Region 15 dismissed Hally’s petition consistent with the Board’s contract-bar doctrine,” the Request for Review says.

In addition to pointing out that the contract bar policy appears nowhere in the NLRA and was instead the invention of biased NLRB decisions, Hally’s Request for Review contends the policy stifles worker freedom. “This bar contradicts the Act’s well-established ‘bedrock principles of employee free choice and majority rule’…because it grants monopoly bargaining status…even in the face of objective evidence proving the union has lost majority support,” the Request for Review says.

On top of that, NLRB decisions interpreting the “contract bar” rule have only made the rule more burdensome on employees’ free choice rights. A particularly egregious example mentioned in Hally’s Request for Review is the fact that even informal and unpublicized documents exchanged between management and union bosses without workers’ knowledge can be sufficient to trigger the “contract bar” and block employees from exercising their right to decertify.

Hally and his coworkers are not the first group of employees to challenge the contract bar policy with Foundation legal assistance. In 2020 through 2021, Foundation attorneys represented Delaware-based Mountaire Farms poultry employee Oscar Cruz Sosa in defending a vote by his coworkers to remove UFCW union officials. UFCW bosses tried to get the ballots thrown out on a contract bar-related technicality. While the NLRB granted UFCW officials’ outrageous request, Cruz Sosa and his colleagues eventually voted 356-80 to remove the UFCW union once the union contract had expired in their workplace.

“If union bosses are truly doing right by the workers they claim to ‘represent,’ they should have no problem letting workers exercise their right to vote on the union’s control,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, union officials hungry for dues and power still enjoy many legal privileges that let them override workers’ will and rights, not the least of which is the pernicious ‘contract bar.’

“If the Trump Administration’s incoming NLRB members are serious about reversing the dysfunctional policies of the Biden Administration, restoring worker freedom, and defending the rights of workers, they will see the injustice in cases like Mr. Hally’s and Mr. Cruz Sosa’s and move to eliminate the ‘contract bar’ right away,” Mix added.

20 Jun 2025

Holistic Industries Cannabis Packing and Delivery Workers Overwhelmingly Request Vote to Remove UFCW Union

Posted in News Releases

Effort comes as UFCW union officials try to rush contract to establish control over Western Mass facility

Springfield, MA (June 20, 2025) – A majority of production employees at cannabis company Holistic Industries’ Monson facility have requested a vote to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1459 union officials from their workplace. Packaging associate Scott Browne submitted the union decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of his colleagues with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) or remove (or “decertify”) unions. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) stipulates that a decertification petition must contain signatures from at least 30% of employees in a work unit to prompt a decertification election. Browne far exceeded this threshold, submitting a showing of interest that contained signatures from over 70% of his work unit.

Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can enforce contracts that require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary and the choice of each individual worker. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union monopoly bargaining contracts control the working conditions of all workers in a unionized workplace, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union.

“UFCW union officials are trying to strike a deal with our employer that will require us to pay fees out of our wages just to stay employed here. But with this petition, I and all of my coworkers have made our position clear: We don’t want or need a union,” commented Browne. “UFCW bosses haven’t convinced us that they’re going to deliver on the promises they made when they first came to our workplace, and the prospect of being forced to pay for that kind of ‘representation’ isn’t exactly appealing.”

UFCW Bosses Rush Contract Despite Worker Opposition

UFCW Local 1459 recently called a vote on a contract drafted by union officials. Union officials will often rush to finalize a contract in order to trigger the “contract bar,” a non-statutory NLRB policy that bars workers from requesting a union decertification vote while a union contract is active, up to three years.

Because there is no legal requirement to abide by the results of a worker contract vote, situations sometimes arise in which union officials ratify a contract that workers rejected to keep them trapped in the union under the NLRB’s non-statutory “contract bar” policy. However, because Browne submitted his decertification petition before any contract ratification occurred, Holistic Industries employees have likely avoided this situation.

Union-Label Legislators Seek to Strip Cannabis Workers Nationwide of Freedom to Resist Unionization

Foundation staff attorneys recently assisted employees of Green Thumb Industries – a New Jersey-based cannabis company – in filing a petition to remove UFCW union officials from power at their facility. Foundation attorneys have also opposed state legislative schemes that would require cannabis companies to grant union bosses special access to their workers just as a condition of operating. Such arrangements – misleadingly called “labor peace agreements” – infringe workers’ right to freely decide for or against union control, yet have become law in California, New York, and other states. Massachusetts legislators filed a bill last legislative session to establish such a framework.

“Holistic Industries workers have joined the groundswell of workers nationwide who are exercising their right to declare independence from union bosses who don’t represent their interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re confident that they will succeed in their effort to oust UFCW officials, union-label legislators are trying to stifle cannabis industry employees’ rights across the country as a sop to their union boss political allies.

“State lawmakers have no shortage of factors to wrestle with when deciding whether to greenlight the cannabis industry, but one thing should be non-negotiable: Letting the industry take root shouldn’t mean that workers’ individual rights go up in smoke,” Mix added.

4 Mar 2025

Cincinnati-Area Kroger Employee Wins Federal Case Against UFCW, Grocer for Illegal Union Dues Deductions

Posted in News Releases

Kroger and union must reimburse unlawfully seized dues as worker transfers to store in Right to Work Kentucky to block any future forced dues

Fairfield, OH (March 4, 2025 ) – Kroger Grocery employee James Carroll has prevailed in his federal case against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 75 union and corporate grocery conglomerate Kroger. The resolution comes after charges were filed against UFCW for threatening Carroll with termination for refusing to sign an illegal union dues deduction form and against Kroger for unlawfully deducting union dues from his paycheck.

To avoid prosecution, Kroger and UFCW agreed to a settlement that requires them to reimburse Carroll for unlawfully seized dues and post a public notice informing employees of their rights. Carroll received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Carroll’s charges at Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Cincinnati explain that the form UFCW union bosses forced him to sign is an illegal “dual purpose” membership form, which seeks only one employee signature for authorization of both union membership and dues deductions. Federal labor law requires that any authorization for union dues deductions be voluntary and separate from a union membership application. Additionally, Supreme Court precedents like General Motors v. NLRB recognize the right of workers to refrain from formal union membership.

In contrast to neighboring Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, Ohio lacks a state Right to Work law. This means UFCW union officials to have the power to force Carroll and his coworkers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping a job, even if they are nonmembers. However, even without Right to Work, union officials must obtain employees’ consent before instructing an employer to deduct union dues directly from a worker’s paycheck, and forced-fee amounts cannot include money that goes toward a union’s political activity, as established in the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.

In addition to securing a victory in his case, Carroll took the additional step of transferring to a Kroger store in Right to Work Kentucky to avoid any future union threats demanding payment. Under Right to Work, all payments to the union are strictly voluntary, meaning Carroll cannot be forced to fund the very UFCW officials who violated his rights.

On Illegal Dues Practices, Kroger and UFCW Are Repeat Offenders

This isn’t the first time Foundation attorneys have aided Kroger employees facing illegal dual-purpose membership forms pushed by UFCW union bosses. In February 2023, Houston, TX-area Kroger worker Jessica Haefner filed federal charges against the UFCW for presenting her with such a dual-purpose form, and for altering her writing on the form to show she consented to union dues deductions when she was actually trying to exercise her right under Texas’ Right to Work law to abstain from dues payment.

In 2024, Foundation attorneys also assisted a Portland-area grocery store employee Reegin Schaffer, who filed and won federal unfair labor practice charges against a UFCW union there. In that case, union officials ignored her requests to resign union membership during a union strike and then unlawfully retaliated against her by seeking to fine her for exercising her right to rebuff union boss strike orders and go to work.

“We are pleased with this legal victory for Mr. Carroll, and that he is now completely free of union bosses’ forced-dues demands because he works in Right to Work Kentucky,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Of course most workers subjected to union bosses’ ‘pay-up-or-be-fired’ threats don’t have the option of commuting to a location in a Right to Work state.

“That’s why, despite the good resolution, though this case shows why workers everywhere need Right to Work protections,” added Mix.

6 Feb 2025

Fourth Fred Meyer Grocery Employee Hits UFCW Union with Federal Charges

Posted in News Releases

Unfair Labor Practice Charge: Union Bosses illegally threatening strike fine against nonmember worker

 

PORTLAND, OR (February 6, 2025) – Portland-area Fred Meyer grocery store employee Robert Wendelschafer has filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Local 555. The charges state that union officials broke federal law by ignoring his request to resign union membership during a union strike and are unlawfully retaliating against the employee by demanding nearly $1000 from him because he exercised his right to rebuff union boss strike orders and go to work.

Robert Wendelschafer has joined co-workers Sandra Harbison, Coyesca Vasquez, and Reegin Schaffer in filing charges against the UFCW with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. All four took legal action to challenge unlawful retaliation by union officials after the workers rebuffed union strike orders last year.

As detailed in his charge, on August 30, 2024 Wendelschafer exercised his right to resign union membership and return to work. Despite this, on December 18 union officials sent him a letter stating they had found him guilty of violating internal UFCW rules by crossing the picket line and as a result ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of $992.

If an employee is not a voluntary union member, he or she cannot be legally subjected to internal union discipline, like the fine UFCW union officials are attempting to impose on Wendelschafer, Harbison and Vasquez. UFCW union officials backed off their illegal discipline tactics in Shaffer’s case nearly immediately after her charges were filed in November, but the other charges are still pending with the agency.

UFCW Officials Were Previously Caught Illegally Imposing Massive Strike Fines Against Workers

During past UFCW–instigated strikes, workers faced similar unlawful fines, which union officials claim can only be disputed at internal union courts. In 2022, union officials illegally levied fines against King Soopers grocery chain workers in Denver, Colorado, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike.

The unlawful fines issued by union bosses against the workers were more per day than the workers earned in a day of work, in one case totaling nearly $4,000 throughout the 10 day strike. In that instance Foundation staff attorneys won multiple cases against the UFCW, ultimately resulting in union bosses rescinding the unlawful fines.

“UFCW union officials are again displaying their penchant for using strikes to consolidate power, by threatening rank-and-file workers who exercise their legally-protected right to work despite a union boss-ordered strike,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Workers have a clear legal right to resign from union membership and return to work without facing illegal fines or disciplinary actions, and  Foundation attorneys stand ready to assist other Fred Meyer employees that have been subjected to illegal UFCW fines and threats.”

 

25 Nov 2024

Portland–Area Fred Meyer Employee Wins Dispute with UFCW Union Local 555 Over Illegal Union Threats

Posted in News Releases

UFCW union bosses backed down after facing federal charges for threatening workers who wouldn’t join union strike

PORTLAND, OR (November 25, 2024) – Reegin Schaffer, a Portland-area Fred Meyer employee, has prevailed in her dispute with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Local 555. Schaffer filed charges against the union alleging that union officials broke federal law by ignoring her requests to resign union membership during a union strike and by unlawfully retaliating against her by seeking to fine her for exercising her right to disagree with union boss strike orders and go to work. Schaffer is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Foundation attorneys’ actions forced UFCW Local 555 to quickly drop its internal disciplinary proceedings against her. These proceedings, which could have resulted in punitive fines, were initiated after Schaffer resigned her union membership and returned to work.

Charges: UFCW Union Bosses Made Illegal Fine Threats

Schaffer and co-worker Coyesca Vasquez filed charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that governs private sector labor relations in the United States.

As detailed in the charges, on August 30, 2024 the employees exercised their right to resign union membership and return to work. However, on September 24, 2024, and October 14 2024, respectively, UFCW union officials notified Vasquez and Schaffer that the union had started internal proceedings against them and that their presence would soon be required at a union “trial,” which is the first step towards imposing fines.

If an employee is not a voluntary union member, he or she cannot be legally subjected to internal union discipline like the kind UFCW union officials attempted to impose. In such internal discipline tribunals, union bosses frequently levy punitive fines against workers amounting to thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.

Once UFCW union officials dropped their attempt to fine Schaffer, Foundation staff attorneys asked the NLRB to end the case. Meanwhile, Coyesca Vasquez’s charge remains pending with the agency, which is investigating UFCW officials’ actions against Vasquez.

UFCW Officials Were Previously Caught Illegally Imposing Massive Strike Fines Against Workers

Workers have faced similar unlawful fines, during past UFCW–instigated strikes. In 2022, union officials illegally levied fines against King Sooper’s grocery chain workers in Denver, Colorado who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike.

The unlawful fines issued by union bosses against the workers were more per day than the workers earned in a day of work, in one case totaling nearly $4,000 throughout the 10 day strike. In that instance, Foundation staff attorneys filed multiple cases against the UFCW, ultimately resulting in union bosses rescinding the unlawful fines.

“That Reegin Schaffer ultimately prevailed and forced UFCW bosses to drop their illegal threats does not erase the troubling pattern of behavior by UFCW union officials, who have repeatedly sought to undermine workers’ protected legal rights through retaliatory fines,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Employees should not have to file federal charges just to have their rights respected, and we look forward to continuing to assist Coyesca Vasquez in her case against UFCW union bosses’ ugly retaliation tactics.”

8 Jan 2024

DC-Area Union Kitchen Employees Overwhelmingly Vote to Remove UFCW Union

Posted in News Releases

Workers requested decertification vote amid contentious boycott and picket ordered by union officials against rank-and-file workers

Washington, DC (January 8, 2024) – Employees of five Union Kitchen locations in the Washington, DC, metro area have voted to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 union officials from power at the chain. The final vote tally was 24-1 in favor of ending UFCW Local 400’s monopoly bargaining power over the workers. Pending certification of the vote result by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 5 in Baltimore, the employees will be free of the union.

The effort to oust the UFCW union began in July 2023 when Union Kitchen employee Ashley Silva submitted a petition asking the NLRB to hold a union decertification vote among her coworkers, the vast majority of whom backed the petition. She received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Because the District of Columbia lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials had the power to force Silva and her coworkers at the four DC Union Kitchen locations to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work jurisdictions like Virginia (home to one of the affected Union Kitchen locations), union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work jurisdictions, union officials can use their monopoly bargaining power to dictate the work conditions of all employees in a work unit, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union. A union decertification vote ends that union monopoly power.

Employees Voted to Remove Divisive Union Despite Union Attempts to Delay Vote Count

Silva and her coworkers’ effort began amid union boss-ordered pickets and boycotts against Union Kitchen Grocery locations, which inflamed tensions among workers. In some instances, union picketers endangered workers by blocking exits, requiring the intervention of police.

“The vast majority of the workers at Union Kitchen are sick and tired of the UFCW’s picketing, harassment of employees, and constant disruptions of our day-to-day work life,” Silva said at the time. “If the union cares at all about what we want, they will respect our wishes and immediately disclaim their interest in representing workers who have overwhelmingly rejected them.”

While Silva and her coworkers cast ballots in the union decertification election in October 2023, tension increased when UFCW union officials used “blocking charges” to stop the votes from being counted. “Blocking charges” are often unverified or unrelated charges of employer misconduct that union officials can manipulate to stall a ballot tally in a union decertification case.

However, as per NLRB rules, if the NLRB does not issue a complaint based on union officials’ allegations within 60 days of a decertification election, the ballots must be counted. NLRB Region 5 did not issue a complaint based on UFCW lawyers’ allegations within the 60-day window, thus allowing the ballot count to proceed.

However, despite the overwhelming 24-1 vote against the union, UFCW officials may still try to manipulate their charges to stop certification of the vote result. The union also challenged eight employee ballots (meaning that 32 workers total likely voted against further union presence), but the number of challenged ballots is not enough to alter the final result of the vote.

“We’re happy that Ms. Silva and her coworkers were finally able to exercise their right to vote out a union that actively worked against their interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “What’s concerning, however, is the fact that UFCW union officials could still prop up questionable allegations to stall the certification of an election that the very employees they claim to ‘represent’ asked for.”

“That, combined with the fact that UFCW officials’ combative tactics made life harder for Union Kitchen employees, again shows why all American employees deserve the freedom to abstain from funding a union they disapprove of,” Mix added.

“We call on union officials to withdraw their allegations and let the decision of the Union Kitchen workers stand,” Mix concluded.

7 Nov 2024

Portland–Area Fred Meyer Employees Slam UFCW Union with Federal Charges for Illegal Threats Linked to Strike

Posted in News Releases

UFCW union bosses begin dropping fines against workers, but union faces investigation on federal charges

PORTLAND, OR (November 7, 2024) – Two employees of a Portland-area Fred Meyer grocery store have filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Local 555. The charges state that union officials broke federal law by ignoring their requests to resign union membership during a union strike and are unlawfully retaliating against the workers by seeking to fine them for exercising their right to disagree with union boss strike orders and go to work.

The employees, Coyesca Vasquez and Reegin Schaffer, filed their charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19 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), the federal law that governs private sector labor relations in the United States.

As detailed in the charges, on August 30, 2024, each of the employees exercised their right to resign union membership, and return to work. However, on September 24, 2024, UFCW union officials notified Vasquez, and on October 14, 2024, UFCW union officials notified Reegin Schaffer, that the union had started internal proceedings against them and their presence would soon be required at a union “trial,” which is the first step towards imposing fines.

If an employee is not a voluntary union member, he or she cannot be legally subjected to internal union discipline, like the kind UFCW union officials are attempting to impose on Vasquez and Schaffer. In such internal discipline tribunals, union bosses frequently levy punitive fines against workers amounting to thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.

UFCW Officials Were Previously Caught Illegally Imposing Massive Strike Fines Against Workers

During past UFCW–instigated strikes, workers faced similar unlawful fines, which union officials claim can only be disputed at internal union courts. In 2022, union officials illegally levied fines against King Sooper’s grocery chain workers in Denver, Colorado, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike.

The unlawful fines issued by union bosses against the workers were more per day than the workers earned in a day of work, in one case totaling nearly $4,000 throughout the 10 day strike. In that instance Foundation staff attorneys won multiple cases against the UFCW, ultimately resulting in union bosses rescinding the unlawful fines.

“UFCW union officials are again displaying their penchant for using strikes to consolidate power, by threatening rank-and-file workers who exercise their Right to Work during a UFCW strike,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Workers have a clear legal right to resign from union membership and return to work without facing illegal fines or disciplinary actions.”

12 Sep 2024

MI, OH Kroger Employees Challenge UFCW Forced-Dues-For-Politics Schemes

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Foundation-backed workers battle union seizures of PAC money, confusing dues forms

President Biden has worked hard to give UFCW bosses and other union officials across America drastically more coercive power over workers. So it’s no wonder UFCW officials are trying to illicitly funnel employee money into union PACs.

DETROIT, MI – Union bosses in states without Right to Work laws are granted the extraordinary legal power to demand that workers pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs. But this perk doesn’t stop many union chiefs in those states from going beyond what is legally permitted to funnel more worker cash into their political activities or other agenda items.

Two recent cases National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are litigating for Kroger Grocery employees Roger Cornett, who works just outside Detroit, Michigan, and James Carroll, who works at a store in Fairfield, Ohio, represent just the latest examples of union officials’ tactics designed to require employees to pay for union political activities without obtaining legally-required consent.

In both cases, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials demanded employees agree to formal union membership and to pay full union dues to keep their jobs, which decades-old Supreme Court cases forbid even in non-Right to Work states. In fact, Cornett states in his federal charges against Kroger and the union that UFCW union officials lack a legal basis to demand money from any worker at all.

Neither situation is helped by the fact that Kroger, a supermarket company with a long history of being complicit when union officials violate its employees’ rights, not only did nothing to defend the rights of its employees but actually threatened the employees for not going along with union schemes.

Union Socks Away Worker Cash for PAC, Despite No Legal Authority

Cornett’s charges recount that he asked Kroger officials in February if there was an updated version of the union contract that would require him and other nonmembers to pay dues as a condition of employment in light of the repeal of Michigan’s Right to Work law. Neither UFCW nor Kroger provided Cornett with such a contract in response to his request.

The lack of a contract eviscerates the UFCW’s ability to demand any money from workers. Under longstanding federal law, even in a state without Right to Work protections, union officials can only require employees to pay dues as a condition of employment if there exists a contract with a valid forced-dues clause.

Union officials also told Cornett and other workers that it was a condition of employment for employees to become union members, authorize direct deductions of union dues from their pay, and “sign all or part of the three-part Union membership application and checkoff form” — the latter of which included a page authorizing deductions for the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC).

The Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision forbids union officials from forcing nonmember workers to pay money for any expenses outside the union’s core bargaining functions, while federal law prevents union bosses from requiring workers to authorize payroll deductions of union dues (as opposed to less intrusive methods) or to pay money to a union PAC used to fund union boss-backed political candidates.

Cornett says in his charges that he decided to sign the three-part form in order to keep his job, but Foundation attorneys are fighting to ensure he will be vindicated for each and every violation by union officials and Kroger.

Ohio Worker Duels UFCW Over Illegal ‘Dual-Purpose’ Membership Form

In Ohio, Kroger employee James Carroll has charged UFCW union bosses with coercing him into signing an illegal “dual-purpose” membership form, which seeks only one employee signature for authorization of both union membership and dues deductions.

Federal labor law requires that any authorization for union dues deductions be voluntary and separate from a union membership application, as workers have the right to abstain from forced union membership even in non-Right to Work states where some fees can be required. In his case, Carroll is also battling Kroger’s continuing deduction of full union dues from his paycheck at UFCW chiefs’ behest, despite his lack of consent.

“Not only did UFCW bosses present me with a form that clearly violates federal labor law, but they also threatened that I would lose my job if I didn’t sign it,” commented Carroll. “This only serves to show me that UFCW bosses don’t care about my rights and are simply interested in getting union dues out of me, and it’s sad to see my employer going along with this as well.”

Right to Work Protects Worker Freedom Where Federal Law Doesn’t

“Even where Right to Work isn’t in effect, federal law protects the right of workers not to be forced into formal union membership that includes support for union politics. But union bosses regularly seek to exploit their power to demand payments that go beyond what the law allows,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “We’re proud to help Mr. Carroll and Mr. Cornett defend their rights, but ultimately Ohio and Michigan workers need the protection of Right to Work so union financial support is fully voluntary and employees have a clear right to say ‘no’ to any union demand for payment.”