Filing highlights underhanded tactics union officials use under Biden-era NLRB rules
San Diego, CA (October 28, 2026) – Encinitas Starbucks employee Joe Emmenegger has filed a second request to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., asking the Board to stop blocking the decertification election he and his coworkers requested to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from their workplace. Emmenegger, who is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, filed the initial petition requesting the vote in February.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Emmenegger’s February petition contained the signatures of more than 60% of the baristas at his Encinitas Starbucks location simply asking for a vote to determine whether the union stays or goes.
Despite this, Region 21 NLRB officials blocked the vote at the request of SBWU union officials citing unproven union “blocking charges.” This prompted Emmenegger’s initial Request for Review with the Board in March, which argued the Board’s current blocking charge policy is inconsistent with federal law and wrongly ignores the statutory rights of employees to vote to end unwanted union “representation.”
Emmenegger’s second request to the full Board comes after SBWU withdrew their alleged complaints being used as grounds for blocking the vote, likely anticipating the NLRB was going to dismiss the union’s claims for lack of merit. But SBWU then filed a new charge and once again requested to block the election, which Region 21 granted on September 24.
Emmenegger’s new filing argues that the Board should at the very least adopt NLRB Member Scott Mayer’s concurrence in Everon, LLC, urging the Board “at a minimum” to “require that blocking letters identify the specific allegations on which the blocking determination is based.” The request states, “Fairness and due process require the Region to show its work and explain why the election should be blocked.”
Additionally, the request points to the position of former Chairman Marvin Kaplan, who argued that “excessive delay” in administering elections fails to give proper consideration for the Board’s mandate to defend employee freedom of choice. The new request asks the Board to find that the situation constitutes such an “excessive delay” that warrants moving ahead with the vote.
Starbucks Baristas Nationwide Seek Freedom From SBWU Officials, Challenge Biased NLRB Policy
The Encinitas Starbucks employees are hardly alone in wanting SBWU out of their store. Foundation staff attorneys have represented Starbucks baristas in over a dozen stores seeking votes to remove the union. Emmenegger even took to the pages of USA Today to describe the frustration he had with the union and its tactics to prevent him and his coworkers from holding the decertification vote:
“I know my experience is not unique. Countless workers across the country end up stuck in unions they want no part of. My store, like many others, serves as proof that getting rid of a union is not easy, regardless of how detrimental it may be. Before my experience with Workers United, I thought of unions as a net positive. I still believe they could be, in some other industries or environments. However, when it comes to my workplace and my profession, I know without a doubt this union did not have my best interests at heart.”
Emmenegger’s Request for Review comes days after Foundation staff attorneys requested NLRB officials stop blocking a vote requested over three years ago by Oklahoma City-area Starbucks employees. Foundation staff attorneys have also requested formal NLRB rulemaking to repeal the current blocking charge rule and other non-statutory policies that prevent employees from exercising their right under the NLRA to vote out unwanted unions.
“SBWU union bosses have been allowed to use and abuse the blocking charge system for too long, as they have thwarted dozens of attempts by Starbucks workers to vote on removing the union from individual stores,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The new Trump Board is now in a position to reestablish worker free choice as the agency’s goal and undo decades of bureaucratic harm enabled by their predecessors.
“Ultimately, formal rulemaking will be needed, but until then the new Board majority could start by recognizing that protracted delays, often caused by union legal tactics, become a ‘special situation’ that requires the Board to order decertification votes to move forward,” added Mix.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
