Pittsburgh-Area ABARTA Coca-Cola Driver Triumphs in Federal Case Challenging Forced Teamsters Union Membership Demands
Federal labor board orders employer to post notice properly informing employees of their rights and will soon prosecute Teamsters Local 585 union
Pittsburgh, PA (January 12, 2026) – Josh Hammaker, a driver for ABARTA Coca-Cola’s Houston, PA, distribution center, has notched a victory in his National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case against Teamsters Local 585 union officials and his employer.
After filing federal charges stating that union officials and his employer threatened to fire him for refusing to join the union, ABARTA management backed down and settled its part of the case. Regional NLRB officials have also indicated that they will prosecute Teamsters officials for making forced-membership demands, pending the resolution of other elements of Hammaker’s case.
Hammaker pursued his case at the NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Under the National Labor Relations Act and Supreme Court cases like General Motors v. NLRB, neither union officials nor employers can require workers to maintain formal union membership as a condition of getting or keeping a job. According to Hammaker’s charges, Teamsters union officials and ABARTA management violated federal labor law by effectively telling him they would get him fired if he did not join.
As part of the settlement, ABARTA officials must post notices at Hammaker’s workplace stating that they “will not tell employees that we will discharge them if they do not sign and submit applications to join the Union…”
Coca-Cola Driver Continues Battle Against Political Dues Skimming
However, one charge that Hammaker made against Teamsters Local 585 is still pending at the NLRB. This charge concerns Teamsters bosses unlawfully seizing dues for politics out of workers’ paychecks. Hammaker argues that Teamsters policies breached federal labor law by requiring workers to “affirmatively opt out of paying [dues] for non-chargeable expenditures” as opposed to seeking worker consent beforehand.
Federal law lets union bosses enforce contracts that force workers to pay union fees or be fired in states that lack Right to Work protections, like Pennsylvania. However, the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision limits this compulsory fee amount to only what union officials claim goes toward bargaining – which excludes “non-chargeable” expenses like political or ideological activities. In Right to Work states, by contrast, all union financial support is voluntary.
In an appeal currently pending before the new NLRB General Counsel, Foundation attorneys argue that workers should not be forced to affirmatively assert their Beck rights just to stop their money from flowing to union political and ideological activities. After being confirmed by the U.S. Senate last month, new NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey was officially sworn in last Wednesday.
“We are proud to have supported Mr. Hammaker’s victory over these blatantly illegal attempts to coerce formal union membership,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But his fight is far from over. The sad fact is that union bosses across the country skim dues for their often-radical political activities straight from worker paychecks without any positive consent at all. To make matters worse, union officials often don’t inform workers about their Beck rights, which is workers’ only escape from such deductions in non-Right to Work states.
“Right to Work protections should exist nationwide because they put American workers – not union bosses or bureaucrats – back in control of deciding whether a union has earned employees’ financial support,” Mix added. “But in the meantime, the NLRB should at least require union officials to earn political support from those workers they claim to ‘represent’ and end schemes that require workers to opt-out of funding union political activities.”
Pittsburgh-Area Coca-Cola Driver Slams Teamsters With Federal Charges for Threatening Firing Over Refusal to Fund Union Politics
Worker’s case seeks to change federal standards so that union bosses must convince workers to ‘opt-in’ to supporting union politics
Pittsburgh, PA (July 3, 2025) – Josh Hammaker, a driver for ABARTA Coca-Cola’s Houston, PA, distribution center, has filed federal charges against Teamsters Local 585 union officials at his workplace. Hammaker is charging Teamsters union officials with violating federal law by threatening to get him fired if he did not formally join the union, and with forcing him to pay for union expenditures – including union political activities. Hammaker filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Hammaker’s charges state that Teamsters union officials breached federal labor law by “telling [him] that he is not permitted to become a Beck objector and that formal union membership is a condition of employment,” – i.e. they would demand his firing if he refused to join. Under the Foundation-won Communication Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, union bosses cannot force workers who have opted out of union membership to pay fees for union political or ideological expenditures.
While the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects workers’ right to abstain from formal union membership, states like Pennsylvania that lack Right to Work laws permit union officials to enforce contracts that mandate workers pay dues or fees to keep their jobs. However, this forced-dues power is limited by Beck. In contrast, in Right to Work states, all union financial support is strictly voluntary, so workers can freely withhold dues payments if they find union officials’ monopoly “representation” is harming them.
Coca-Cola Driver’s Case Challenges NLRB Precedent Regarding Dues for Politics
Hammaker’s charges go on to challenge the fact that Teamsters union officials’ policies force workers to “affirmatively opt out of paying for non-chargeable expenditures” (if such requests are accepted at all), as opposed to letting workers voluntarily opt in to such support. Moreover, “the Union has violated the Act by failing to inform [Hammaker] and similarly situated employees of the true amount of dues they are required to pay” under Beck to stay employed, the charges conclude.
Union officials often neglect to inform workers of their Beck rights, and sometimes don’t even seek worker consent before deducting full dues (including dues for political expenses) from their paychecks. If Hammaker’s case is successful, the NLRB could create a new federal standard mandating union officials to seek clear consent from workers before extracting full union dues payments from their paychecks.
“I don’t support Teamsters politicking. My job definitely shouldn’t hinge on whether or not my hard-earned money is funding it,” commented Hammaker. “It’s bad enough I have to pay any money to Teamsters officials just to keep my job, but the NLRB should at least prevent union officials from automatically taking political funds from an employee’s wages by default and instead place the responsibility on the union to obtain the employee’s consent.”
“Like the rest of top Big Labor bosses, Teamsters kingpins oppose popular Right to Work laws so they can extort dues from unwilling workers and use that money to fund a radical political agenda that is completely out of touch with the priorities of most rank-and-file employees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The solution to this problem is ensuring all union payments are completely voluntary, so union officials cannot have workers fired solely for refusing to pay dues or fees.
“While we wait for the day when Congress takes action to strip union officials of their government-granted forced-dues powers, the NLRB should help protect workers from the worst forced-dues-for-politics abuses,” added Mix. “It’s long past time that the NLRB require union officials to earn political support from those workers they claim to ‘represent’ and end schemes that require workers to opt-out of funding union political activities.”
