Following Foundation Legal Arguments, Trump Fires Biden-Appointed NLRB Bureaucrats
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation constitutional lawsuit first to argue presidents can remove Board members
President Trump appears intent on ending union bosses’ reign at the NLRB. One of his first actions was to axe Jennifer Abruzzo and Gwynne Wilcox, both ex-union bosses who constantly sought to beef up their cronies’ powers over employees.
WASHINGTON, DC – Joe Biden, a career lackey of Big Labor union bosses, spared no moment of his administration ensuring that his cronies at the top of America’s largest unions gained power at the expense of independent-minded workers.
Only minutes after being inaugurated in 2021, he began setting the stage for a Big Labor takeover of the federal government: He immediately fired Peter Robb, the general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) during Donald Trump’s first term. With Robb gone, Biden’s acting general counsel quickly quashed multiple National Right to Work Foundation-backed cases that would have otherwise received full NLRB consideration. When Biden filled the general counsel position, he picked Jennifer Abruzzo — a radical ex-Communications Workers of America (CWA) lawyer who was confirmed only because then-Vice President Kamala Harris broke a party-line deadlock in the Senate.
And Biden wasn’t finished. He filled two vacancies on the Board itself with Gwynne Wilcox and David Prouty — who had both worked for the radical Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Biden’s crusade against worker freedom arguably culminated in the disastrous Cemex Construction Materials Pacific NLRB decision, which gave union officials the power to seize monopoly bargaining power in a workplace without winning a secret-ballot election among employees. The Biden Board also repealed key Foundation-backed reforms that (among other things) stopped union bosses from using so-called “blocking charges” alleging employer malfeasance to stop workers from voting in union removal elections they had requested.
Sudden End of Radical Biden Majority Creates Opportunities for Foundation Litigation
But, just a week after re-ascending to the White House, President Trump took immediate action to undo the damage to worker freedom caused by the historically-radical Biden NLRB. In late January, Trump took the crucial step of giving both Abruzzo and Wilcox the boot. That, combined with the fact that the Senate did not confirm Biden NLRB Chairman Lauren McFerran for another term, means Trump has the opportunity to appoint a pro-freedom majority to the Board before it considers any other cases.
“We hope that this signals the opening of a new chapter at the NLRB, where the agency will fulfill its statutory mandate to protect workers’ right to associate with unions if they choose, but will equally defend their right to refrain from all union activity,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
Trump Admin, Others Follow Foundation Lead in Arguing for Structural Board Change
By removing Wilcox, the Trump Administration is relying on arguments made in the Foundation’s groundbreaking cases challenging the structure of the NLRB. Foundation-backed Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam filed the first-ever federal suit arguing that, as per the Constitution’s separation of powers principles, the president should be able to remove them at-will.
Cortes and Karam’s suit is currently pending at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Big Labor backers argue that board members like Wilcox have statutory protections that make them removable only in certain circumstances. But Board member protections are constitutionally questionable.
“President Trump made an excellent and decisive move to protect the freedom of American workers. Abruzzo’s and Wilcox’s track records were devastating for independent-minded employees,” observed Mix.
“We’re also encouraged by the Trump Administration’s apparent reliance on National Right to Work Foundation-backed workers’ cases to affirm the idea that NLRB members — like Wilcox — should be removable by the president at will. “The Foundation still has considerable legal work to do to reverse the damage done by the Biden NLRB, and removing a union partisan like Wilcox from the Board is just the first step towards restoring the rights and freedoms of workers opposed to union affiliation,” added Mix.
Starbucks Employee’s Constitutional Challenge to Labor Board Structure Fully Briefed at DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Trump recently removed a Biden NLRB appointee relying on constitutional arguments first raised by NY Starbucks workers’ lawsuit against the NLRB
Washington D.C. (February 24, 2025) – New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have filed the final brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their landmark lawsuit asserting that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) violates the U.S. Constitution.
The case, which is being litigated by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, is especially notable after the Trump Administration asserted the very same legal arguments in its efforts to reform the NLRB. President Trump on January 28 fired NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, criticizing the same removal protections that Cortes and Karam’s first-in-the-nation lawsuit targeted for violating the Constitution.
The Foundation lawsuit, initially filed by Cortes, and later joined by Karam, states that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the president. The appeal challenges a District Court decision that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack legal standing. That decision did not address the underlying claim regarding whether the Labor Board’s structure complies with the requirements of the Constitution.
With the case now fully briefed, oral arguments are expected soon. A ruling in favor of Cortes and Karam could help cement making the Board more accountable to independent-minded employees and their rights.
Case Filed After NLRB Denied Starbucks Employees Right to Vote Out Unwanted Union
On April 28, 2023, Cortes submitted a petition, supported by a majority of her colleagues, asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election at her Buffalo-area “Del-Chip” Starbucks store to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials’ bargaining powers over workers. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification request.
Similarly, Karam filed a decertification petition seeking a vote to remove the union at his Buffalo-area Starbucks store. Like Cortes’ petition, NLRB officials refuse to allow the vote to take place, citing claims made by SBWU officials. As a result the workers remain trapped under union “representation” they oppose.
“This case demonstrates the direct harm caused to workers rights by unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats that have stifled attempts to remove unwanted union representation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “NLRB officials may not like it, but federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law in the land, the Constitution.”
“We are proud that the very legal arguments first made by Foundation attorneys in this case have now been utilized by President Trump to rein in the biased Biden NLRB,” added Mix. “The NLRB’s refusal to process these workers’ decertification petitions, paired with its unchecked authority, exemplifies why reform is overdue.”
Bus Driver Asks National Labor Relations Board to Overturn “Merger Doctrine” Used by Union Bosses to Block Worker-Requested Votes
By “merging” smaller individual bargaining units into mega-units, union officials block workers’ right to escape unwanted “representation” and forced dues
Battle Ground, Washington (February 14, 2025) – Theresa Hause, a school bus driver for First Student Inc. in Battle Ground, Washington, has just filed an appeal asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to overturn the so-called “merger doctrine” that is being used to block Hause and her colleagues from holding a vote to end forced union dues at their workplace. Hause’s Request for Review was filed with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB’s non-statutory “merger doctrine” allows union officials to “merge” employees in a smaller bargaining unit into much larger one. This legal tactic prevents rank-and-file employees exercising their rights under federal law to hold votes to remove unions (known as “decertification elections”) or to end forced-union dues requirements (known as “deauthorization elections”).
Because employees are suddenly part of a much larger and frequently geographically-dispersed “bargaining unit” with workers they have never met and likely don’t even know the names of, once “merged” it becomes effectively impossible for employees to ever reach the 30% threshold of signatures needed to trigger decertificiation or deauthorization elections.
Teamsters and other union officials frequently use non-statutory “merger doctrine” to trap workers in union ranks, forced-dues payments
In previous First Student cases, the “merger doctrine” was wielded by Teamsters officials to block votes at multiple locations on the grounds the workers there were actually part of one massive bargaining unit with over 22,000 drivers in over 100 locations in 33 different states. In another example, a group of less than 10 Wisconsin workers filed a majority-backed petition to remove (i.e. “decertify”) the Teamsters as soon as allowed by federal law, only to be stymied by the “merger doctrine” because they had been secretly “merged” into a multi-company unit of around 24,000 workers.
Hause’s request to end the non-statutory “merger doctrine” follows a decision by a NLRB Regional Director applying the doctrine to her request for a deauthorization election to end Teamsters Local 58 union officials power to require all drivers to pay fees or else be fired. Such a vote is necessary because Hause and her colleagues work in Washington State, which lacks Right to Work protections that make union financial support strictly voluntary.
Hause collected signatures from over 30% of First Student drivers at the facilities in Battle Ground and Hockinson, which is the unit originally organized by Teamsters Local 58 before First Student was even the employer. Rather than let the vote take place, Teamsters lawyers invoked the merger doctrine to disenfranchise the drivers. The Teamsters lawyers argued Hause and her coworkers are only a tiny fraction of First Student drivers under a “National Master First Student Agreement” involving Teamster affiliates across the country.
After the Regional Director sided with the Teamsters to block the workers from voting, an appeal was filed to the five-seat National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC. Currently the NLRB lacks a quorum to act because there are only two Board members. However, President Trump could appoint three new Members who could then rule on Hause’s request for review once they are confirmed by the United States Senate.
“This case shows how Teamsters bosses, aided by biased NLRB-concocted rules, disenfranchise workers and trap them in union ranks and forced dues payments, effectively in perpetuity,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s time for the NLRB to overhaul the arbitrary rules, including the so-called ‘merger doctrine,’ that are being used to eviscerate workers’ statutory rights under the National Labor Relations Act to hold a vote to remove a union opposed by a majority of employees or vote to end forced-dues requirements.”
“Quickly ending the ‘merger doctrine’ would be an excellent way for the incoming Trump NLRB majority to signal that, instead of prioritizing coercive union boss power as the Biden NLRB did, the Trump Labor Board will be putting employee rights and freedoms front and center,” added Mix.
Portland–Area Fred Meyer Employees Slam UFCW Union with Federal Charges for Illegal Threats Linked to Strike
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.”
IBEW Union Back Down After Chicago 911 Operator Filed Charges Challenging Dues Seizures
IBEW union officials falsely told employee that union had no power to stop dues deductions
Chicago, IL (October 24, 2024) – Patricia Whittaker, a 911 operator for the City of Chicago, has triumphed in her legal fight to halt union dues payments to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 21 after union officials misled her about her rights and obstructed her attempts to stop the deductions. With help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Whittaker filed charges with the Illinois Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to assert her rights.
Whittaker sent multiple requests to IBEW union officials to end union deductions, as is her First Amendment right under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Supreme Court declared that union officials could not force public sector employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and that union officials must obtain affirmative employee consent before deducting union dues from any public worker’s paycheck.
Union officials instead engaged in a deceptive cycle in which Whittaker was told to resolve the matter with her employer, while the employer directed her back to the union, resulting in continued dues deductions without her consent that lasted over 10 months. In doing so, the charges maintained, union officials misstated the law by making it appear as if the employer, not the union, was the one responsible for ordering a stop to dues deductions.
Union Deception Violates Workers’ Rights
As part of this scheme, IBEW Local 21 union officials at one point tried to portray themselves as the “good guys” by continuing to take dues money from Whittaker’s paycheck, but then “reimbursing” those dues deductions by check, according to Whittaker’s charges. They did this to appear as if they were pacifying Whittaker while they worked out a way to “win her back,” despite the fact that Whittaker made clear to them she just wanted to cut ties with the union.
In Other Recent Case, IBEW Local 21 Stopped Janus Violations After Foundation Involvement
This isn’t the first time IBEW 21 union officials have been caught imposing illegal dues practices on Chicago 911 employees. In June, Rhonda Younkins, also triumphed in her months-long legal battle to exercise her First Amendment right to stop all union dues payments to IBEW Local 21. As with Whittaker’s case, IBEW Local 21 union officials stopped their violation of Younkins’ Janus rights only after Foundation attorneys filed charges at PERB on Younkins’ behalf.
Continued Impact of Janus Decision
The Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court ruling, issued in June 2018, affirmed that public employees cannot be forced to pay union dues or fees without their affirmative consent. This decision has empowered employees like Whittaker to challenge union overreach and unlawful dues deductions. Since the ruling, hundreds of thousands public employees across the country have exercised their Janus rights to opt out of union payments.
The Janus ruling has already led to major changes across the country. Before the decision, millions of public sector workers, including many in Illinois, were required to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Immediately following the ruling, around 450,000 public employees stopped paying union dues, with many others following in subsequent years as litigation backed by Foundation attorneys continues to defend their rights.
“The behavior of IBEW Local 21 union officials highlight just how crucial it is for public employees to be aware of and assert their Janus rights,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we are pleased to see IBEW officials back down once again, it is unacceptable that it takes aggressive legal action just to force union officials to respect workers’ constitutional rights.”
Kaiser Permanente Hospital Employee Slams SEIU with Federal Charge for Illegal Dues Demands and Termination Threats
Charge: SEIU officials illegally threatened to have worker fired if she didn’t sign union membership card and authorize dues deductions
Los Angeles, CA (October 21, 2024) – Nadine Reyes, a Los Angeles-based Kaiser Permanente Hospital worker, has filed federal charges against the Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers (SEIU-UHW) after union officials falsely claimed full, formal union membership was a condition of her employment, additionally, union officials threatened to have her fired if she didn’t sign membership and dues deduction cards. Reyes is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Under longstanding law it is illegal to require full union membership (known as a “closed shop” arrangement) as a condition of employment. Further, employees can be required to sign a union dues deduction cards that authorize union officials to collect dues directly from their paycheck.
“SEIU bosses attempted to take advantage of me and threatened me, assuming I didn’t know my rights or wouldn’t stand up for myself,” commented Reyes about her case. “But I knew what they were doing was wrong, and I’m standing up for myself against their bullying.”
In states without Right to Work laws like California, union officials must follow certain requirements to justify the amount of forced union fees someone must pay to get or keep a job. Under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, union officials cannot force employees who have abstained from union membership to pay dues or fees for anything beyond union boss expenditures unrelated to union monopoly bargaining activities.
Union political and lobbying expenditures, which regularly are included in full membership dues, are among those expenses that Beck prevents union officials from forcing nonmember workers into funding under threat of termination. Nonmember employees who exercise their Beck rights are also entitled to an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials calculated the mandatory fee amount.
“Nadine Reyes is just the latest victim of SEIU threats, and another example of union officials prioritizing their own greed and power over the rights of those they claim to ‘represent,’” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Cases like this show why California workers need Right to Work protections, so Big Labor bosses are required to earn the voluntary support of rank-and-file employees, not be allowed to extort dissenting workers by threatening to have them fired.”
