23 Jul 2026

Letter to NLRB: Federal Appeals Court Ruling Bolsters Foundation’s Petition to Scrap Invented ‘Bars’ to Removing Incumbent Unions

Posted in News Releases

D.C. Circuit holds NLRB lacked legal authority to impose “successor bar,” suggests other non-statutory “bars” to decertification votes violate National Labor Relations Act

Washington, DC (July 23, 2026) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has submitted a letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), notifying the agency of a new federal appeals court decision that strongly supports the Foundation’s pending petition, submitted last month, asking the Board to scrap a series of non-statutory barriers that trap employees in unwanted union representation.

In a letter to NLRB Executive Secretary Roxanne L. Rothschild, Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger informed the Board of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s July 21, 2026, decision in Hospital Menonita de Guayama, Inc. v. NLRB. The court held that the Board’s so-called “successor bar”—a policy that forces the new owner of a business to recognize and bargain with incumbent union officials for up to a year, regardless of whether that union actually has the support of a majority of workers—exceeds the Board’s authority under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Applying the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision, which ended judicial deference to agencies’ interpretations of their own statutory authority, the D.C. Circuit independently reviewed the successor bar and found it cannot be squared with the law. The court concluded that the rule suspends both employees’ statutory right to freely choose whether to unionize and the requirement that a union actually hold majority support before it can act as workers’ exclusive bargaining agent.

The court further rejected the Board’s argument that broad “industrial peace and stability” policy goals could justify the rule, explaining that such rationales cannot substitute for actual statutory authority: “General concerns for industrial stability cannot save the lawfulness of the successor bar, which is really a rule of union stability that comes at the expense of employee freedom of association and self-organization.”

Ruling Reinforces Foundation’s June 2026 Petition to Eliminate Non-Statutory Election Bars

On June 10, 2026, the Foundation filed a formal rulemaking petition, asking the NLRB to initiate a rulemaking that would finally eliminate the successor bar, along with other NLRB-invented barriers—including the contract bar, recognition bar, settlement bar, and blocking charge policy—that prevent employees from voting to decertify a union that lacks majority support. The Foundation petition also calls for the Board both to abolish its “merger doctrine,” which allows union officials to combine bargaining units in ways that make decertification efforts virtually impossible, and to require incumbent unions to periodically prove majority support, rather than relying indefinitely on the results of a single, often decades-old, vote.

In this week’s letter, the Foundation argued that the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning extends well beyond the successor bar itself, supporting the broader position that none of the Board’s non-statutory election bars can survive scrutiny under the actual text of the NLRA. The Foundation asked the Board to move forward with rulemaking both for the reasons stated in its original June 2026 petition and, now, in light of the D.C. Circuit’s decision.

“This ruling confirms what rank-and-file workers have argued for years: NLRB officials cannot invent rules out of thin air that strip away employees’ fundamental right to decide for themselves whether they want a union,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The court’s decision makes clear that vague appeals to so-called ‘industrial stability’ cannot override the plain text of the law Congress actually passed, which guarantees employees a say over their own representation.

“The Board should take this opportunity to immediately act on our rulemaking petition and rid its rulebook of the successor bar, along with the contract bar, recognition bar, settlement bar, blocking charge policy, and merger doctrine—all of which share the same fatal flaw of trampling worker rights,” Mix added. “Every day these non-statutory barriers remain in place is another day workers are denied their legal right to vote out a union that doesn’t have their support.”

12 Jun 2026

National Right to Work Foundation Submits NLRB Rulemaking Petition: Overturn Biden-Era Rule and Expand Worker Free Choice

Posted in News Releases

Foundation petitions Labor Board to end non-statutory barriers to employees’ decertification rights, require incumbent unions prove majority status

Washington, DC (June 12, 2026) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed a formal rulemaking petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the new Board to initiate rulemaking to expand worker free choice and end various non-statutory policies that disenfranchise employees. In doing so, the NLRB would overturn changes made in a 2024 Biden-era rule that expanded the barriers workers face to exercising their legal right to vote out a union that lacks majority support.

The petition requests the agency overturn various NLRB-invented “bars” that deprive workers of their right to decertify incumbent unions that lack majority support. It also calls for the elimination of non-statutory policies used to delay or block worker-requested decertification elections and calls for the NLRB to require union officials to regularly prove worker support or else lose their extraordinary government-granted monopoly bargaining powers.

The series of reforms would bring NLRB rules in line with the actual text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law the NLRB is charged with neutrally enforcing. This rulemaking is especially necessary following the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision, which curtailed judicial deference to an administrative agency’s ability to expansively interpret its statutory power.

NLRB-Invented “Election Bars,” “Blocking Charge” Policy, and “Merger Doctrine” Improperly Stifle Employees’ Right to Hold Decertification Votes

As the rulemaking petition points out, Section 9(c) of the NLRA commands that the Board “shall” conduct an election when a question of representation exists outside a one year period following a previous election. This means that the existing non-statutory “election bars,” along with the “blocking charge” policy, improperly nullify employees’ 9(a) right to an election.

The Foundation’s petition calls for the repeal of all of the NLRB’s informal “bars”—none of which are found in the text of the NLRA—that keep employees trapped in union ranks even when a majority want to vote to remove the union. This includes eliminating: (1) the “contract bar,” which disenfranchises workers for up to three years when a union contract is in place; (2) the “recognition bar,” which blocks decertification after union officials gain power without a secret-ballot election through an abuse-prone “card check” process; (3) the “successor bar,” which blocks workers’ right to decertify a union following a change in employer ownership; and (4) the “settlement bar,” which prevents worker-requested elections after the union and employer settle charges without an admission of wrongdoing.

The rulemaking request also asks the Board to overturn the other non-statutory policies that the NLRB currently applies to the detriment of employees’ 9(a) rights. For example, if employees can file their petition at a time when one of the various invented “bars” doesn’t apply, union officials frequently use the NLRB’s blocking charge policy to delay decertification elections from being held. This punishes employees seeking to exercise their legal rights on the basis of unproven allegations made by the union against an employer.

The petition also calls for the elimination of the NLRB’s “merger doctrine,” which lets union bosses merge smaller bargaining units into a massive multi-state and/or multi-employer unit, often comprised of thousands or tens of thousands of workers. This allows union officials to manipulate bargaining units in a way that makes it effectively impossible for workers to even gather the signatures needed to exercise their right to hold a decertification election.

NLRB Should End Presumption that a One-Time Union Organizing Win Warrants Perpetual Power Over Employees

Finally, the petition requests the NLRB update its standard for when union officials are entitled to presumption of majority status by requiring union officials periodically prove a majority of employees support their representation. As the petition notes, “over 90% of private-sector employees who are subject to union representation have never voted on that union representation,” a problem created by the fact that one vote or card check years or decades ago currently authorizes union officials to wield bargaining powers over workers without any further evidence of actual employee support.

To remedy this, the petition proposes that unions must prove majority employee support after certain time periods elapse after an election or recognition. The petition notes “[t]he Board’s ‘one-vote, one-time’ presumption is not required by the Act and so defies democratic norms as to be arbitrary and capricious,” meaning it is fully within the NLRB’s authority to implement such a commonsense change.

“For years, employees have sought to exercise their clear legal right in federal law to vote out incumbent unions they oppose, only for NLRB-invented policies to crush their efforts,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Just as politicians must stand for regular election, union officials should have to regularly prove that they have the support of at least a bare majority of the workers they claim to ‘represent.’

“Especially after the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, the NLRB has a duty to enforce the text of the law, not abrogate employees’ clear rights under the NLRA by perpetuating these non-statutory rules that leave employees trapped in unions that lack majority support,” added Mix. “Acting on this rulemaking petition would not only bring NLRB rules on elections better in line with the text of the law but would also send a powerful message that the new Board majority is prioritizing pro-worker policies by expanding employees’ legal rights to remove incumbent unions that don’t serve workers’ interests.”

27 Mar 2023

Workers Nationwide Continue Efforts to Oust Steelworkers Officials

Posted in Newsletter Articles

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Successful ousters in Louisiana and New Jersey emphasize importance of protecting worker votes

Michael Cobourn and his coworkers were forced to pay union dues while USW union bosses seemed to be loafing it at their workplace. With Foundation aid, they ousted the union.

Michael Cobourn and his coworkers were forced to pay union dues while USW union bosses seemed to be loafing it at their workplace. With Foundation aid, they ousted the union.

WASHINGTON, DC – In the space of just a month, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys successfully aided groups of workers in New Jersey and Louisiana in voting out United Steelworkers (USW) union officials they opposed. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified both votes.

In Louisiana, Ryne Fox led his coworkers at GEO Specialty Chemicals to a decisive victory over USW officials, while Michael Cobourn did the same with his fellow workers at Gold Bond Building Products in New Jersey.

Both cases demonstrated the struggles workers face when seeking to “decertify” union officials whom they no longer want in power. In Louisiana, Fox had to time the filing of his coworkers’ petition seeking a decertification vote to fall within a tiny window of days imposed by the “contract bar,” a union boss-friendly NLRB policy that protects union officials from being voted out of a workplace for up to three years after union bosses and management finalize a contract.

Cobourn and his colleagues, in addition to having to deal with the “contract bar,” work in the non-Right to Work state of New Jersey — meaning they were forced to pay money to the union just to keep their jobs during the entire time they were forbidden by the “contract bar” from ejecting the union. In contrast, Right to Work states protect private sector workers from being fired merely for refusal to pay dues or fees to union officials of whom they disapprove. “My coworkers and I were paying money to the Steelworkers union constantly, yet the union didn’t seem to be doing anything for us,” commented Mr. Cobourn.

Although the efforts in Cobourn’s and Fox’s workplaces are evidence that Steelworkers union officials nationwide place their own interests above the workers they claim to “represent,” the most heinous example of such behavior is ongoing in Franklin, Pennsylvania.

There, Foundation-assisted metal workers at Latrobe Specialty Metals/Carpenter Technology are holding their own in defending their decertification petition against Steelworkers officials’ claims that the “contract bar” should invalidate the petition.

PA Workers Score Victory in Fight Against Election-Blocking Steelworkers Chiefs

While invoking the “contract bar” alone is anti-worker, Steelworkers officials in Pennsylvania claimed that a contract they unilaterally “ratified” this past summer after workers had voted against it twice should trigger the “contract bar.” Steelworkers officials had even told workers that the contract would only be “activated” if workers voted for it. But once they got wind of the workers’ decertification push, the officials “ratified” the unpopular contract secretly so they could, as one union official outrageously said during a hearing, “protect the integrity of the union.

Foundation staff attorneys representing the employee who submitted the petition, Kerry Hunsberger, have so far beaten back union officials’ attack on worker free choice. On November 18, 2021, an NLRB Regional Director rejected union bosses’ attempt to block the vote and ordered that an election proceed.

‘Contract Bar’ Encourages Union Officials to Impose Unpopular Contracts

“Workers across the country are increasingly exercising their right to vote out union officials they oppose, and we at the Foundation are happy to aid them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, we’re also acutely aware of the obstacles that stand in the way of this freedom, and one of those, which Steelworkers officials seem to have no reservations about exploiting, is the ‘contract bar.’”

“The unjustified ‘contract bar’ is always wrong because it prevents workers from voting out unions they oppose when they want. But even worse, this NLRB-invented doctrine actually incentivizes union officials to rush and impose unpopular, self-serving contracts for the very purpose of insulating the union’s forced representation powers from a vote of the workers union officials claim to ‘represent,’” Mix added.

23 Nov 2020

Push to Remove UFCW Union Could End Pro-Union Boss “Contract Bar” Policy

Posted in Newsletter Articles

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

Non-statutory NLRB policy hinders workers’ right to vote out an unwanted union

Employees at the Selbyville, DE, Mountaire Farms plant rally to vote out unpopular UFCW honchos from their workplace, as union lawyers scramble to block the workers’ votes from being counted.

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has announced that it will review the so-called “contract bar” doctrine, which prevents employees from exercising their right to vote an unpopular union out of their workplace for up to three years if union officials and their employer have finalized a monopoly bargaining contract.

This is the latest development in a case by a Selbyville, Delaware-based Mountaire Farms poultry employee, Oscar Cruz Sosa, against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27 union. Cruz Sosa submitted a petition in February for a vote on whether Local 27 should be removed as monopoly bargaining agent in his workplace. The petition was signed by hundreds of his coworkers, more than the percentage required to trigger such a vote.

Worker Obtains Foundation Help after Union Attempts to Block Vote

After he submitted the petition, UFCW bosses immediately claimed that the “contract bar” should block Cruz Sosa and his coworkers from even having an election, because the monopoly bargaining agreement between Mountaire and the union had been signed less than three years earlier.

Cruz Sosa then obtained free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in defending his and his coworkers’ right to vote. With Foundation aid, he also hit UFCW agents with federal unfair labor practice charges for imposing an illegal forced-dues clause on the workplace and threatening him after he submitted the petition.

When the NLRB Regional Director in Baltimore heard the election case, he ruled that the union contract contains an unlawful forced-dues clause that mandates workers immediately pay union dues upon hiring or be fired. Under NLRB precedent, an illegal forced-dues clause means the “contract bar” cannot apply, allowing the vote to proceed.

UFCW’s Desperate Attempt to Block Vote Triggers NLRB Review of “Contract Bar”

Despite the longstanding precedent supporting the Regional Director’s ruling, UFCW union lawyers filed a Request for Review, asking the full NLRB to reverse the Regional Director and halt the election.

In response, Cruz Sosa’s Foundation staff attorneys opposed the union’s efforts to block the vote. They also argued that, if the Board were to grant the union’s Request for Review, it should also reconsider the entire “contract bar” policy, which has no statutory basis in the NLRA. The Foundation’s legal brief noted that the “contract bar” runs counter to the rights of workers under the NLRA, which explicitly include the right to vote out a union a majority of workers oppose.

Just hours after the voting process in the decertification election had begun, the NLRB issued its order granting the union’s Request for Review, while also accepting the Foundation’s request to reconsider the entire “contract bar” doctrine. The order noted “that it is appropriate for the Board to undertake in this case a general review of its ‘contract bar’ doctrine.”

Given the precedential import of this case, the NLRB solicited amicus briefs on whether the “contract bar” should be allowed to stand. UFCW officials, still desperate to throw a wrench in Cruz Sosa and his coworkers’ effort to vote them out, demanded that the NLRB rescind its request for amicus briefs in the case, but that effort was quickly rebuffed.

“We urge the NLRB to swiftly overturn this outrageous non-statutory policy, which lets union bosses undermine for up to three years the free choice of workers that is supposed to be at the center of federal labor law,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “The very premise of the NLRB-created ‘contract bar,’ that union bosses should be insulated from worker decertification efforts, is completely backwards.”

LaJeunesse added: “Union officials across the country use all types of tactics to get workers into unions but rely on government power and legal tricks to prevent them from getting out.”