5 Aug 2026

Florida Imperial Dade Drivers Oust Teamsters Despite Attempt by Union Bosses to Overturn Workers’ Election Result

Posted in News Releases

Labor Board dismissed union block, formally certifies vote to revoke Teamsters’ monopoly bargaining powers over Imperial Dade employees

Orlando, FL (August 5, 2026) – Drivers at Imperial Dade have freed themselves from the unwanted “representation” of Teamsters Local 385 union bosses. The workers’ effort was spearheaded by Lionel Powell, who filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), seeking a “decertification” election to end the Teamsters’ monopoly bargaining control over the workers. Powell’s petition was filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Powell’s petition last year was signed by enough of his coworkers to trigger an NLRB-administrated secret-ballot election among all full-time and regular part-time drivers and shuttle drivers employed by Imperial Dade at its 4522 E. Wetherbee Road facility in Orlando.

The drivers’ election took place on August 7, 2025, in which a majority of the employees voted against the continued presence of Teamsters Local 385 at their workplace. However, before the workers’ election result could be certified, Teamsters union bosses filed baseless charges against the employer and objections to the election with the NLRB in an attempt to disenfranchise the drivers and overturn their vote.

Foundation Thwarts Teamsters Election Hijacking

The Teamsters’ tactics, seeking to cancel the drivers’ ballot count, kept Powell and his colleagues trapped for nearly an entire year under the union they opposed, until it became clear the union’s claims could not withstand scrutiny. Eventually, one of the Teamsters’ charges accusing Imperial Dade of misconduct was dismissed by the NLRB for lack of merit, while the second was withdrawn by the union officials earlier this month, likely in an effort to avoid the embarrassment of another NLRB dismissal.

With the Teamsters’ baseless charges no longer pending, the NLRB certified the workers’ 24-21 vote to remove Teamsters Local 385 on August 5.

“Teamsters officials could have just accepted our vote and let us be free, but instead they attempted to play legal games to overturn our election and trap us in a union we opposed for nearly a year,” stated Powell. “That disrespect of our choice shows exactly why we chose to remove the union in the first place, and why I’m confident we’ll be better off free of the Teamsters.”

Florida is one of 26 states with Right to Work protections, which safeguard workers by making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, union bosses can impose exclusive bargaining control upon all workers in a workplace, meaning they can dictate working conditions even for employees who are not formal union members and who oppose the union.

“We congratulate Mr. Powell and his colleagues on successfully reclaiming their workplace from Teamsters bosses, who, considering their legal campaign to disenfranchise these employees, showed exactly why the workers have good reason to want the union out,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Imperial Dade drivers join the growing number of American workers moving to terminate their affiliation with the Teamsters, and their fight serves as another example of how Teamsters officials continue to abuse their government-granted privileges in order to hold onto power, even when that power is opposed by rank-and-file employees.”

28 Jul 2026

Idaho Teamsters Face Federal Prosecution for Illegal Threats, Fines Targeting UPS Employee Post-Membership Resignation

Posted in News Releases

Teamsters Local 983 falsely told worker that informing coworkers how to resign was a “federal crime,” then fined him for exercising his federally protected rights

Pocatello, ID (July 28, 2026) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued a complaint against a Teamsters Local union for illegally threatening a United Parcel Service (UPS) worker and fining him after he resigned his union membership and filed federal charges against the union.

The UPS employee, Andrew Davis, filed his charges against the Teamsters with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

According to the July 22 complaint issued by NLRB Region 27, four Teamsters Local 983 officials told Davis in front of other workers that informing employees how to exercise their right to resign their union membership was “illegal” and a “federal crime.” This is blatantly false. Federal law protects the right of employees to resign formal union membership at any time and to inform coworkers of that right.

The complaint further states that after Davis submitted his membership resignation in writing, Local 983 officials violated his rights by refusing to promptly honor it. Davis then filed federal charges against the union for the threats.

In response, according to the complaint, Local 983 officials brought internal union “charges” against Davis for filing his NLRB charge, a violation of federal law. Additionally, this past April, the union issued a fine against Davis, even though he was no longer a union member and had the right, under federal law, to go to the NLRB.

The NLRB complaint states that Local 983 has maintained unlawful rules barring members from seeking recourse from any outside court or agency, including the NLRB, without first exhausting internal union appeals. Union officials invoked that rule to retaliate against Davis for exercising his rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

The Regional Director for NLRB Region 27 has determined the charges have merit and issued a formal complaint. A hearing before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge is scheduled for September 15, 2026, unless the Teamsters back down and settle beforehand.

“Union bosses lied to Mr. Davis and his coworkers about basic legal rights, then punished him for daring to go to federal authorities,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Even after being caught red handed lying to workers and violating Mr. Davis’ rights, Teamsters union bosses continued to double down on their unlawful coercion by attempting to fine him for defending his rights at the NLRB.

“Once again Teamsters bosses show their true colors, prioritizing their own power, even when it means violating the rights of the very rank-and-file workers they claim to ‘represent,’” added Mix.

24 Jul 2026

Labor Board to Prosecute UFCW Union for Illegal Strike Fine Against Oregon Fred Meyer Grocery Worker Who Resigned

Posted in News Releases

On appeal, NLRB General Counsel finds UFCW union bosses violated the law by fining worker nearly $1,000 for supposedly working one hour during strike

Portland, OR (July 24, 2026) – Portland-area Fred Meyer grocery store employee Coyesca Vasquez has been vindicated in her nearly two-year dispute with United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 555 union bosses, as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel has just moved to prosecute the union for violating Vasquez’s rights.

Vasquez filed federal charges against UFCW Local 555 after union bosses targeted her with a strike fine for exercising her right to continue working during a union boss-ordered strike action in 2024. The charges were originally filed with NLRB Region 19, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a task that includes adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.

Vasquez exercised her legal right to resign UFCW union membership, in order to continue working, on August 28, 2024. However, UFCW officials claimed the resignation letter was not received until after she had returned to work for one hour.

UFCW bosses then apparently attempted to use this supposed one-hour delay as a technicality to justify a fine for $992, announced in a December 2024 letter, after finding her “guilty” of violating internal UFCW rules. Longstanding law says union bosses cannot impose “union discipline” against workers who are not voluntary union members. Such discipline frequently takes the form of four- or five-figure monetary fines payable to union boss-controlled funds.

Vasquez’s charge was initially dismissed by the NLRB Regional Director on May 11, 2026, following an “investigation” that only took into account the union’s timeline of events. Foundation staff attorneys appealed the decision to the NLRB General Counsel on May 26, detailing how Vasquez had validly resigned her union membership before returning to work and had significant evidence of her efforts to deliver her resignation to the union.

After examining the facts of the case, the General Counsel sustained Vasquez’s appeal, finding that UFCW union officials violated the NLRA by refusing to recognize her resignation. The case has now been remanded to the Regional Director where UFCW union bosses will be prosecuted for violating Vasquez’s rights under the NLRA unless they agree to settle the case, which would include rescinding the fine attempt and notifying other Fred Meyer employees of their legal rights in such situations.

Earlier this year, and with assistance from Foundation staff attorneys, fellow Oregon Fred Meyer grocery store employee Robert Wendelschafer—who was subjected to the same UFCW Local 555 illegal fining after he exercised his right to work during the 2024 strike by resigning his union membership—had his fine rescinded by the union.

“We welcome the General Counsel’s decision to move forward in Ms. Vasquez’s case against UFCW union bosses for ignoring her resignation and then attempting to claim a one hour delay justified a nearly $1,000 fine,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials have a long history of attempting to obstruct workers’ union resignation requests, then using those obstruction tactics to attempt to justify punitive fines, and it is critical that the NLRB not look the other way when Big Labor deploys these anti-worker tactics.”

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.”

16 Jul 2026

National Right to Work Foundation Files Brief in Support of Grad Students’ Legal Challenge to Being Forced to Fund Radical Campus Union

Posted in News Releases

Amicus brief at Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals argues NLRB coercion over bargaining means mandatory union dues requirement violates First Amendment

Chicago, IL (July 16, 2026) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in support of University of Chicago graduate students who are challenging the requirement that they pay fees to a union they oppose. Currently, these students must pay the union in order to keep their research and teaching jobs, which are a requirement of completing their graduate program.

The lawsuit, Graduate Students for Academic Freedom, Inc. v. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, was brought by a group that includes Israeli and Jewish graduate students who oppose being forced to fund the union, especially due to UE union officials’ “virulent anti-Israel advocacy.”

The Foundation’s brief, filed on Wednesday, July 15, supports the graduate students by arguing that the compulsory fee requirement they are subjected to violates the First Amendment, because it is the direct result of extensive and coercive bargaining requirements mandated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB):

“[T]he First Amendment prohibits the government from coercing one private party to infringe on the speech rights of another private party. This is what the NLRB does when it requires employers to bargain over forced fee requirements—the NLRB coerces one private party (an employer) to agree to compel other private parties (employees) to subsidize union speech.

The NLRB would violate the First Amendment by directly compelling employees to pay for union speech. Three times in the last 25 years the Supreme Court has struck down compelled subsidies for third-party speech… There is no constitutionally meaningful distinction between the compelled payments invalidated in those cases and the compulsory union fees at issue.”

The brief notes that in multiple decisions, including Janus v. AFSCME and Harris v. Quinn (both argued by Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys), the Supreme Court held that the government violates the First Amendment by compelling employees to subsidize union speech. More recently, in the 2024 NRA v. Vullo decision, the court reiterated the “principle that a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.”

The Foundation amicus brief argues that, under those Supreme Court precedents, the NLRB’s highly coercive requirements that force employers in non-Right to Work states to bargain with union officials over forced fee requirements mean that the resulting mandatory dues requirement is unconstitutional government-compelled speech. As the brief points out, employers face NLRB prosecution for refusing to consider such a requirement, and even seeking to defend the conscience rights or academic freedom of those subjected to forced dues does not allow an employer to escape this requirement.

“Union bosses’ forced dues powers are the direct result of government coercion, and it is past time that federal courts take a closer look at how this results in compelled funding of radical speech in violation of the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These students would have never been forced to fund union boss speech they find abhorrent if it weren’t for the NLRB’s actions, which first controversially subject graduate students to monopoly unionism and then require bargaining with union officials over a forced dues requirement.”

1 Jul 2026

Sioux City Hospital Nurses Win Vote to Eject UFCW Union Bosses

Posted in News Releases

Labor Board certifies election result; 191 registered nurses officially free of unwanted union at UnityPoint Health – St. Luke’s – Downtown location

Sioux City, IA (July 1, 2026) – Registered nurses at UnityPoint Health – St. Luke’s – Downtown hospital have successfully voted to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 222IN union officials from their workplace. The nurses’ “decertification” effort was spearheaded by nurse practitioner Timaree Henneman, who filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on May 26, seeking a decertification election to end the UFCW’s unwanted monopoly control over the hospital’s registered nurses. The nurses’ petition was filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Henneman’s petition was signed by enough of her coworkers to trigger the NLRB to administer a secret-ballot election among all 191 nurses, including full-time, regular part-time, and PRN registered nurses employed at the UnityPoint Health – St. Luke’s – Downtown facility.

The election, which took place on June 18, saw the nurses vote 80-71 to end the presence of UFCW Local 222IN at their hospital. The NLRB certified the election result on June 30, formally revoking the UFCW’s status as the nurses’ monopoly “representative.”

Iowa is one of 26 states with a Right to Work law, which safeguards workers by making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, federal law grants union officials the power to impose exclusive “representation” over every employee in a work unit—including those who never voted for, joined, or supported the union—dictating their terms and conditions of employment.

“We congratulate this group of nurses on exercising their legal right to remove unwanted UFCW union bosses from their hospital,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ultimately, this case is a reminder of the twin powers that have been granted to union officials to the detriment of the rights of individual workers: forced union dues and union boss monopoly bargaining powers.

“While Iowa’s popular Right to Work law protects these nurses and others from being forced to fund a union they oppose, under federal law employees—whether or not they enjoy Right to Work protections—can be forced under the so-called ‘representation’ of union officials they oppose,” added Mix. “We look forward to the day when every individual employee has the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to associate with a union.”

23 Jun 2026

Wisconsin Painter Files Federal Charges Against Painters and Trades Union for Unlawful Forced Membership, Dues Deductions

Posted in News Releases

IUPAT union bosses lied to worker, claiming union membership and dues payment authorization were mandatory for employment

Waukesha, WI (June 23, 2026) – Caryn Johnson, an employee of Olympic Companies, has filed charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) District Council 7. The charges state that IUPAT union officials unlawfully coerced her into formal union membership and dues payment by claiming, contrary to federal law, that both were mandatory conditions of her employment at Olympic.

The charges were filed at the NLRB 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, a task that includes adjudicating labor disputes between union officials, employers, and individual employees.

According to the charges, Johnson was coerced into “joining” the union after IUPAT District Council 7 union bosses told her that she had to be a dues-paying union member in order to be employed at Olympic Companies. Under longstanding federal law, full union membership cannot be required, nor can an employee be required to sign a card authorizing the deduction of union dues from her paycheck, which IUPAT officials also demanded Johnson sign to be employed.

Johnson resigned her union membership after she found out that IUPAT union officials misled her about her legal rights. Johnson’s charges state that despite validly resigning her union membership, IUPAT continued to extract dues from her wages, apparently relying on the “dues authorization” form she was coerced into signing. Union officials are claiming she cannot cut off dues for approximately eight months, and even then must provide additional written revocation during the union’s arbitrary revocation window.

Wisconsin is one of the 26 states with a Right to Work law, which protects workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. This means, not only could dues deductions not be required for employment, but, because of the Right to Work, no union payments of any form can be mandatory as a condition of employment.

“Time after time, union officials turn to lies, threats, and coercion to expand their power and fill their coffers, rather than attempt to convince workers to voluntarily support union activities,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Johnson’s experience is not an isolated case, but is one Foundation staff attorneys see repeated across the country by union officials who think their government-granted monopoly privileges sanction them to violate the rights of those they claim to ‘represent.’”

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.”

3 Jun 2026

GWU Hospital Nurses Ask National Labor Relations Board to Overturn Policy Blocking Vote to Remove Union

Posted in News Releases

Appeal: ‘Blocking Charge Rule’ violates text of federal law and was wrongly applied to block election requested by hundreds of nurses

Washington, DC (June 3, 2026) – Following a petition signed by hundreds of registered nurses and healthcare professionals at George Washington University Hospital, the nurse who filed the petition has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to stop using its non-statutory “blocking charge” policy to block the GWU Hospital employees from voting in an election to remove District of Columbia Nurses Association (DCNA) union officials from power at the facility.

In April the GWU hospital workers, led by nurse Elizabeth Abraha, filed a decertification petition with the NLRB to free themselves from DCNA representation. 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.

After Abraha’s petition was filed, DCNA union bosses moved to block the nurses’ election with unproven “unfair labor practice” charges against the Hospital. Abraha’s Request for Review argues that NLRB Regional officials accepted the DCNA’s charges without due process, stating that Abraha’s petition was suspended “based on ULP charge proceedings without holding a public hearing or even permitting Petitioner to review the charges.”

Abraha’s Request for Review contends the NLRB’s blocking charge policy is inconsistent with the text of the NLRA: “Allowing an interested, third party to unilaterally stop an election proceeding violates NLRA Section 9 [which] states that ‘whenever a petition shall have been filed’ ‘the Board shall investigate such petition’ and if the Board finds ‘a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot.’”

The Request for Review points out that the NLRA does not grant the NLRB the authority to invent rules to stymie worker-requested decertification elections. Moreover, it argues the NLRB Region denied the petitioner due process by refusing to hold a hearing or provide copies of the charges being used as pretext for blocking the decertification vote.

“The text of the NLRA unambiguously states that employees have the right to hold decertification elections to remove an unwanted union from their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB should be defending employee free choice, not inventing policies that protect incumbent union bosses from being voted out by rank-and-file workers.

“Ending the biased Biden-era blocking charge policy would be one of the most pro-worker changes the new Board majority could and should take,” added Mix.

27 May 2026

Alabama Sherwin-Williams Production Site Workers Win Vote to Eject Boilermakers Union Bosses

Posted in News Releases

National Labor Relations Board certifies election freeing 83 employees from unwanted union

Birmingham, AL (May 27, 2026) – Employees at a Sherwin-Williams Packaging Coatings Group production facility have freed themselves from the unwanted “representation” of International Brotherhood of Boilermakers union officials. The workers’ effort was spearheaded by Jacob Miller, who filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), seeking a “decertification” election to end the Boilermakers’ exclusive bargaining powers over the workers. Miller’s petition was filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. The workers filed a majority-backed petition with the NLRB to trigger a secret-ballot election among all 83 full-time and regular part-time production, maintenance, and quality employees employed by Sherwin-Williams at its 90 Carson Road, Birmingham, facility.

Miller’s petition was signed by enough of his coworkers to prompt the NLRB to schedule a union decertification vote. Following the workers election on May 6-7, in which a majority of workers voted against the union, NLRB Region 10 certified the election results to formally end Boilermakers union bosses’ exclusive representative status on May 15.

Alabama is one of 26 states with Right to Work protections, which safeguard workers by making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can impose exclusive bargaining control upon all workers in a workplace, meaning they can dictate working conditions even for employees who oppose the union.

“We congratulate Mr. Miller and his coworkers on exercising their legal right to terminate the presence of unwanted Boilermakers union bosses at their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the workers at Sherwin-Williams were able to have their election administered and certified in a prompt manner, many more American workers remain trapped in union rank-and-file by union bosses abusing NLRB policies that undermine employees’ legal right to vote out unwanted unions.

“We hope the Trump NLRB will take the needed measures to protect workers from the rampant abuses of Big Labor by overturning the agency’s biased policies that block or bar decertification elections,” added Mix.