1 Mar 2021

Union-Label Biden Labor Board Appointee Moves to Scuttle Foundation Cases

Posted in Newsletter Articles

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2021 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Unprecedented: Biden removes NLRB top prosecutor despite 11 months left on his term

WASHINGTON, DC – With National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys having won numerous National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases in recent years curtailing coercive union practices, union bosses pushed the Biden Administration to take unprecedented measures to protect Big Labor’s power over rank-and-file workers.

In January, top union bosses, including Service Employees International Union (SEIU) chief Mary Kay Henry, formally demanded that upon taking office President Biden make the unprecedented move of removing NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, despite nearly a year remaining on his term. Union officials were furious Robb had frequently sided with Foundation-backed employees in many cases during his tenure, including cases in which workers successfully challenged union boss demands that workers subsidize their spending to put Biden in the White House.

Just 23 minutes after taking office on January 20, in response to Big Labor’s demands, Biden took the legally dubious action of removing Robb. Robb’s Senate-confirmed term runs through November 2021.

In the 85-year history of the NLRB, no previous NLRB General Counsel had ever been fired before their four-year term — meant to protect the office from political pressure — expired. For example, Robb’s predecessor, Obama-era NLRB General Counsel Richard Griffin, served almost a full year into Trump’s presidency to complete his term.

Following Robb’s unprecedented removal, Biden designated union partisan Peter Ohr as “Acting General Counsel.” Within days of his installation, the ersatz General Counsel moved to undo actions taken by Robb in Foundation-backed cases, in each instance reversing course to the benefit of Big Labor officials.

On January 29, Ohr ordered Seattle NLRB officials to stop prosecuting the Embassy Suites Pioneer Square hotel and UNITE HERE Local 8 union officials for making a backroom agreement designed to unionize housekeepers through a coercive “Card Check.” The “Card Check” bypassed an NLRB-supervised secret-ballot election. The very next day after Ohr’s order, Boston NLRB officials also pulled their prosecution of Boston Yotel and UNITE HERE Local 26 officials in a similar case brought by four Foundation-represented housekeepers.

Biden’s “Acting” Appointee Targets Foundation Cases Scheduled for Trial

In each case, Foundation staff attorneys were prepared to argue at trial that the “top-down” agreements for “Card Check” were illegal and tainted the installation of the union. But by pulling complaints weeks prior to when trials were set to begin before Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), Ohr blocked the cases from even being heard.

Those orders were then followed by a flurry of other activity by Ohr that included instructing local NLRB officials not to move forward with cases related to enforcing workers’ Beck rights, which protect them from being required to fund union political activities.

“Biden’s intent in firing Robb was obvious: So his handpicked NLRB replacement could move unimpeded to protect the privileges of his union boss political allies at the expense of individual workers’ rights,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Robb often sided with Foundation-backed workers, which made him a threat to Big Labor that needed to be eliminated.”

Though Ohr, at Biden’s behest, is weaponizing the NLRB against independent-minded workers’ rights so the union elite can escape scrutiny, are already before the full Board and by law out of the General Counsel’s control.

Through August 27, 2021, the Trump-appointed Board majority will retain their seats and are immune to Biden’s whims. That means these cases for workers still could take down erroneous union boss-friendly precedents that have harmed workers for decades.

Groundbreaking Foundation Cases Still Advancing to Full Labor Board

Among the Foundation cases pending at the full NLRB in Washington are challenges by three separate groups of workers to the pernicious “contract bar” doctrine (see page 1), a separate case about “neutrality agreements” for Corpus Christi, TX-based nurse Marissa Zamora and Michigan AT&T employee Veronica Rolader’s challenge to restrictive “window period” policies which let union bosses collect forced dues even after a contract has expired.

Semmens added: “The Foundation is proud to stand with workers challenging all types of union coercion, and will continue to stand ready to defend workers against Big Labor and, when necessary, the Biden-Harris Administration.”

30 May 2020

NLRB Cases Challenge Coercive ‘Neutrality Agreements’ Used to Impose Forced Unionism

Posted in Newsletter Articles

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

Housekeepers demand NLRB block unionization resulting from back-room “Card Check” deals

From left, housekeepers Lady Laura Javier, Cindy J. Alarcon Vasquez, and Yesica Perez Barrios are charging hotel officials and union bosses with illegally corralling workers into union ranks with a corrupted “Card Check” recognition.

SEATTLE, WA – Housekeeper Gladys Bryant was granted an appeal by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel in her case challenging the use of a so-called “neutrality agreement” between UNITE HERE union officials and her employer to impose a union on the hotel’s workers.

Meanwhile, four Boston housekeepers have filed similar NLRB charges against their employer Yotel Boston and UNITE HERE Local 26, alleging that union officials violated federal law by imposing union representation on workers through a coercive “Card Check” drive with their employer’s assistance.

General Counsel Finds That UNITE HERE “Card Check” Unionization Was Tainted

Bryant filed the unfair labor practice charges after the UNITE HERE Local 8 union was installed at the Embassy Suites hotel in May 2018 through an oft-abused “Card Check” drive which bypassed the NLRB’s secret ballot election process.

As part of its so-called “neutrality agreement,”  Embassy Suites agreed to give union organizers access to the hotel to meet and solicit employees. The agreement also provided union officials with a list of all employees’ names, jobs, and contact information to assist the union in collecting authorization cards from employees.

After NLRB Region 19 officials declined to prosecute the union or employer for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), Bryant appealed the case to the NLRB General Counsel in January 2019. The NLRB General Counsel agreed with Bryant’s Foundation attorneys that Embassy Suites provided UNITE HERE’s organizing campaign with more than “ministerial aid” and thus violated the NLRA.

The NLRB has long held that an employer taints employees’ efforts to remove a union if it gives the employees support such as providing a list of bargaining unit employees or use of company resources. Bryant’s appeal successfully argued that the “ministerial aid” standard must also apply when an employer aids union officials’ efforts to gain monopoly bargaining power over workers.

Boston Housekeepers Argue Union “Card Check” Must Be Overturned

Faced with a similar situation, Boston-area housekeepers Cindy J. Alarcon Vasquez, Lady Laura Javier, Yesica Perez Barrios, and Danela Guzman filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB. With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, the housekeepers argue that UNITE HERE union officials violated federal law by imposing union representation on workers through a coercive “Card Check” drive with the assistance of their employer, Yotel Boston.

As in the Seattle case, they charge that Yotel Boston company officials provided UNITE HERE’s organizing campaign with more than “ministerial aid” and therefore illegally tainted the union’s installation as the employees’ exclusive representative in the workplace. The housekeepers charge union officials with violating the NLRA by requesting and accepting the illegal assistance, and the hotel for providing it.

“It is long past time that the NLRB put an end to this biased double standard that allows union bosses to abuse workers’ rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse. “The General Counsel is correct to finally recognize that what qualifies as more than ‘ministerial assistance and support,’ and thus violates the National Labor Relations Act, cannot depend on whether the employer is helping outside union organizers impose unionization on workers or assisting workers in exercising their right to remove an unwanted union.”

“These cases represent another breakthrough in the Foundation’s challenges to the pro-forced unionism skew at the NLRB,” added LaJeunesse.

12 Dec 2019

Yotel Boston Housekeepers File Charges Challenging Illegal Employer Assistance in UNITE HERE Unionization Push

Posted in News Releases

Workers file federal charges against union and hotel for pact to assist union organizers during coercive “card check” union organizing drive

Boston, MA (December 12, 2019) – Four Boston housekeepers have filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against their employer Yotel Boston and the UNITE HERE Local 26 union with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The employees’ NLRB charges allege UNITE HERE union officials violated federal law by imposing union representation on workers through a coercive “card check” drive with their employer’s assistance.

Housekeepers Cindy J. Alarcon Vasquez, Lady Laura Javier, Yestca Perez Barrios, and Danela Guzman charge that Yotel Boston provided UNITE HERE’s organizing campaign with more than “ministerial aid” and recognized the union as the employees’ exclusive representative in the workplace even though union officials had not demonstrated that an untainted majority of workers support the union. The workers contend that by doing so Yotel Boston and UNITE HERE officials violated their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The NLRB has long held that an employer taints employees’ efforts to remove a union if it gives those employees support such as a list of bargaining unit employees or use of company resources. The workers here argue that Yotel Boston similarly tainted the union’s organizing campaign by providing to UNITE HERE union organizers assistance amounting to more than “ministerial aid.”

These charges were filed just weeks after NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, the Board’s top prosecutor, ordered NLRB Region 19 to prosecute Embassy Suites and the UNITE HERE Local 8 union for similarly assisting UNITE HERE in foisting the union on that hotel’s workers through a card check. Granting an appeal by Seattle housekeeper Gladys Bryant, the General Counsel found that the union’s “card check” recognition was tainted because Bryant’s employer, Embassy Suites, provided significant aid to the union officials’ organizing efforts through their “neutrality agreement” in violation of the NLRA.

Bryant’s appeal successfully argued that the “ministerial aid” standard must also apply when an employer aids union officials’ efforts to gain monopoly bargaining power over workers. Thus, the General Counsel’s ruling applied the “ministerial aid” standard consistently, no matter whether the employer’s assistance favors or opposes unionization.

“It is long past time that the National Labor Relations Board ended its double standard that helps union bosses abuse workers’ rights through coercive card check unionization drives,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The General Counsel correctly recognized recently that what qualifies as more than ‘ministerial assistance and support,’ and thus violates the National Labor Relations Act, cannot depend on whether the employer is helping outside union organizers impose unionization on workers or assisting workers in exercising their right to remove an unwanted union.”

“This case shows that union bosses are not only willing to manipulate and ignore the rights of the workers they claim they want to ‘represent,’ but that their coercion has gone unchecked for far too long because of double standards in how the NLRB has interpreted the law,” Mix added.

3 Dec 2019

Seattle Housekeeper Wins NLRB Appeal Challenging Double Standard Promoting Coercive ‘Card Check’ Unionization

Posted in News Releases

NLRB General Counsel finds Embassy Suites’ ‘neutrality agreement’ with UNITE HERE violated workers’ rights by illegally assisting union organizing drive

Washington, D.C. (December 3, 2019) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Seattle housekeeper Gladys Bryant has won an appeal to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel in her case challenging the use of a “neutrality agreement” between union officials and her employer to impose a union on the hotel’s workers. Her case challenges a legal double standard that allowed union officials to impose union representation in her workplace through a coercive “card check” drive while obtaining assistance from her employer.

Bryant filed the unfair labor practice charges after the UNITE HERE Local 8 union was installed at the Embassy Suites hotel in May 2018 through an oft-abused “card check” drive which bypassed the NLRB’s secret ballot election process. As part of the so-called “neutrality agreement,” Embassy Suites gave union organizers space in the hotel to meet and solicit employees. It also provided union officials with a list of all employees’ names, jobs, and contact information to assist the union in collecting authorization cards from employees.

After NLRB Region 19 officials declined to prosecute the union or employer for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA), Bryant appealed the case to the NLRB General Counsel in January 2019. In response to the appeal, the General Counsel found that the union’s “card check” recognition was tainted because Embassy Suites through the “neutrality agreement” provided significant aid to the union officials’ organizing efforts in violation of the NLRA.

The NLRB General Counsel agreed with Bryant’s Foundation attorneys that Embassy Suites provided UNITE HERE’s organizing campaign with more than “ministerial aid.” The NLRB has long held that an employer taints employees’ efforts to remove a union if it gives the employees support such as providing a list of bargaining unit employees or use of company resources. Bryant’s appeal successfully argued that the “ministerial aid” standard must also apply when an employer aids union officials’ efforts to gain monopoly bargaining power over workers. Thus, the General Counsel’s ruling applies “ministerial aid” standard consistently, no matter whether the employer’s assistance is in favor of or opposed to unionization.

After the tainted card check drive, Bryant and her coworkers collected enough signatures for a secret-ballot decertification vote to remove the union. However, they were denied that vote when the NLRB blocked their petition based on the “card check” recognition. The block was due to Lamons Gasket, a 2011 Obama NLRB ruling barring decertification for up to one year after unionization via card check. The Board is now accepting comments as to whether it should end or modify that “voluntary recognition bar.”

“It is long past time that the National Labor Relations Board put an end to this double standard that allows union bosses to abuse workers’ rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation Mark Mix. “The General Counsel is correct to finally recognize that what qualifies as more than ‘ministerial assistance and support,’ and thus violates the National Labor Relations Act, cannot depend on whether the employer is helping outside union organizers impose unionization on workers or assisting workers in exercising their right to remove an unwanted union.”

“As this case demonstrates, not only are union bosses willing to manipulate and ignore the rights of the workers they claim they want to ‘represent,’ their coercion has gone unchecked for far too long because of double standards in how the NLRB interprets the law,” Mix added.