Hundreds of OH Workers Exit Teamsters as Union Bosses’ Amazon ‘Strike’ Stunt Flounders
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.
Teamsters O’Brien tried to take away Christmas cheer, but couldn’t take away Ohio workers’ freedom
Daniel Caughhorn led a scrappy group of his coworkers in voting Teamsters bosses out of their workplace, a scrap metal processing facility in Toledo, OH. They also beat back union bosses’ attempts to overturn their vote.
WASHINGTON, DC – This past December, Teamsters President Sean O’Brien announced the “largest-ever strike against Amazon,” claiming that thousands of workers would heed his strike order, abandon their delivery vehicles and hit the picket lines. O’Brien threatened that Christmas gifts would be delayed unless his demands were met.
Those who took O’Brien’s rhetoric at face value would have thought he was a veritable Grinch stealing Christmas (even though he tried to explain it was Amazon’s fault that the strike had to occur). But even reporting from pro-Big Labor outlets soon revealed that the order was more story than substance: According to Labor Notes, only about 600 employees obeyed the strike order despite Teamsters honchos claiming to “represent” some 7,000 to 10,000 Amazon employees.
Even the small number who did cease work on O’Brien’s command are arguably not employees of Amazon, and likely aren’t under Teamsters control at all: They work primarily for independent contractors that carry out some delivery functions for Amazon. Even if O’Brien’s dubious theory claiming he had control over those delivery drivers was correct, it would have only affected 10 out of the roughly 110 Amazon centers nationwide. Still, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys put a special legal notice out to delivery drivers nationwide informing them of their rights if they were illegally coerced to strike.
Workers Defeat Cynical Attempt by Teamsters to Overturn Vote
The December 2024 Teamsters “strike” against Amazon may go down in history as a strained publicity stunt. But the more significant Teamsters news that month was that hundreds of Foundation-backed workers across Northern Ohio took real action by voting to free themselves from unwanted Teamsters officials’ so-called “representation.”
Dusty Hinkle, an employee for Frito-Lay’s plant in Wooster, OH, and Daniel Caughhorn, a worker at scrap metal firm Omnisource’s facility in Toledo, OH, paved the way to freedom for their coworkers by submitting petitions asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold votes among their coworkers to remove or “decertify” Teamsters unions at their facilities. They submitted these in October and August 2024, respectively, with free Foundation legal assistance.
Because Ohio lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Teamsters officials enforced contracts that required Hinkle, Caughhorn, and their colleagues to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
The NLRB, the federal agency that enforces federal labor law, administered decertification votes at Hinkle’s and Caughhorn’s workplaces after finding that both petitions contained enough employee signatures to trigger a vote under agency rules. Even though clear majorities of workers voted against Teamsters union control in both votes, Teamsters union officials filed objections alleging misconduct by Frito-Lay and Omnisource management in an attempt to overturn the election results.
However, in both cases regional NLRB officials tossed the union objections and certified the workers’ votes. The Omnisource and Frito-Lay employees — over 430 in total — thereby cut all ties with the Teamsters unions. Now both sets of employees are free both of union bosses’ forced-dues demands and their ability to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on the workplace.
In the final months of 2024, Foundation attorneys assisted a number of other workers from across industries with efforts to remove unwanted Teamsters officials. From just October to December 2024, truck drivers from Georgia, California, Virginia, and New Jersey successfully booted out Teamsters union officials or initiated removal efforts with Foundation aid. These cases came despite increasingly hostile rulemaking from the outgoing Biden Administration’s NLRB bureaucrats in 2024, which undid key Foundation-backed reforms that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections.
Teamsters Schemes to Steal Christmas and Workers’ Rights Both Failed
“Sean O’Brien’s Christmas publicity stunt might have made him seem like an attempted stealer of gifts and holiday cheer, but these two Foundation cases from Ohio demonstrate what Teamsters bosses really are: stealers of workers’ rights and freedom,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“That Teamsters officials in both these cases attempted to disenfranchise workers who opposed them shows why workers are turning against their power-hungry tactics, and why American workers deserve the Right to Work choice to withhold financial support from union officials who aren’t serving their interests.”
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.
Austin Worker Files 5th Foundation-Backed Lawsuit Arguing NLRB Violates US Constitution
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Case joins others for employees nationwide arguing Labor Board’s structure is illegal
Dallas Mudd helps connect people with the social services they need, and his and many other workers’ ability to do their important work shouldn’t be stymied because unaccountable NLRB bureaucrats are forcing union “representation” on them.
AUSTIN, TX – In November, Dallas Mudd, an employee for online social service coordination platform Findhelp, filed a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the grounds that the agency’s structure is unconstitutional. Mudd’s case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is the latest in a series of legal actions by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for employees challenging the NLRB’s authority.
Mudd’s case comes after he filed a decertification petition with the NLRB, seeking a vote to remove the Office & Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) from his workplace. However, NLRB officials blocked the vote, disenfranchising Mudd and his colleagues on the basis of unproven charges union bosses made against Findhelp. Mudd appealed the decision to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C., while also filing a federal lawsuit to challenge NLRB members’ removal protections.
Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Mudd’s Foundation attorney also asked the Northern District Court of Texas to issue a preliminary injunction stopping the NLRB from adjudicating his appeal until the issue of the NLRB’s constitutionality is resolved. Mudd argues that he is suffering ongoing and irreparable harm by being forced to navigate a statutory process before an agency that he claims is unconstitutionally structured.
Constitutional Challenge: A Broader Legal Campaign
Meanwhile, in its own case against the NLRB, Findhelp has successfully secured an injunction against the NLRB in a federal district court making arguments similar to those raised by Mudd.
Mudd’s lawsuit follows four other constitutional challenges backed by the National Right to Work Foundation, targeting the NLRB’s structure. This includes a case for New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, who filed the first constitutional challenge to NLRB Board Member protections.
Their case is currently being briefed at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but since their groundbreaking lawsuit, numerous major employers have utilized the arguments first made in federal court by Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the radically pro-union boss BidenHarris NLRB.
“Independent-minded workers should not be forced to depend on biased agencies staffed by bureaucrats who exercise power in violation of the Constitution,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“The Constitution does not permit a powerful federal agency to operate as the judge, jury, and executioner without proper oversight.
“Contrary to the wishes of Big Labor bosses, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the U.S. Constitution,” added Semmens.
AT&T Workers Nationwide Win Challenges to Unionization Imposed Through Card Check
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Victories by AT&T workers in five states preceded Biden-Harris NLRB rule change to block secret ballot votes
See You, CWA: Marquita Jones (left), Samantha Cain (middle), and Matthew Gonzalez rallied their fellow AT&T workers to escape unwanted CWA unions.
WASHINGTON, DC – While the Biden-Harris National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought to upend NLRB rules designed to protect workers’ ability to vote out unwanted unions, AT&T workers across the country won a series of victories highlighting the importance of allowing workers to challenge coercive union card check unionization with secret ballot votes. The decertification victories all relied on the National Right to Work Foundation-backed 2020 NLRB “Election Protection Rule” (EPR), which was formally eliminated by the Biden-Harris Labor Board in September.
In five separate cases covering well over 1,000 workers, AT&T Mobility employees have successfully overturned Communications Workers of America (CWA) unionization imposed through the notorious “card check” process.
Under card check, union organizers bypass the secret ballot election process and instead collect cards face-to-face from employees that are then counted as “votes” for the union. Without the privacy of a secret ballot vote, many workers report being pressured, bullied, or threatened into signing, which is among the reasons why card check has long been recognized as inherently unreliable and abuse-prone.
Foundation-Backed 2020 Rule Let Over 1,000 AT&T Workers Nix Union Card Checks
The 2020 Election Protection Rule reformed several rules that union officials manipulate to trap workers under monopoly “representation,” including by giving employees a way to challenge card check unionization with a secret ballot election. Foundation staff attorneys assisted AT&T employees in five states to do that in advance of the Biden-Harris Labor Board’s cynical repeal of the rule.
First, in Tennessee, AT&T employee Denis Hodzic filed a petition signed by two-thirds of his coworkers in the unit seeking a secret-ballot vote to remove the CWA union, after CWA agents installed themselves over 100 AT&T In-Home Experts by card check. Initially CWA union officials argued the election should be permanently blocked because the union had already merged the workers into a larger bargaining unit with thousands of other AT&T workers.
CWA Bosses Capitulated to AT&T Workers
However, citing the Election Protection Rule, which gives workers at least 45 days to challenge a card check with a decertification petition, Foundation staff attorneys were able to win a ruling with the NLRB allowing the vote to proceed. At that point CWA officials chose not to even contest the vote, instead filing paperwork with the NLRB freeing the employees from CWA ranks apparently to avoid an overwhelming final vote against the union.
“The Election Protection Rule was essential for us to rely on as we went through the process of seeking resolution to our tricky situation,” Hodzic said of his situation. “The 45-day petition window needs to remain regardless of which group holds the majority position in Washington.”
Since then, with legal aid, around 1,000 additional AT&T Mobility employees in California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have all also successfully removed the CWA union following installation through card check. In all four states, once the decertification vote became inevitable, CWA officials simply conceded defeat rather than wait for the results of a formal decertification vote.
NLRB Repeal of Election Protection Rule Traps Workers in Union Ranks
Despite these efforts from independent-minded employees, the Biden-Harris NLRB formally repealed the Election Protection Rule in September, dramatically expanding union bosses’ ability to block employee-requested decertification votes.
As a result, now, when workers in Hodzic’s situation attempt to challenge a card check with a secret ballot decertification, the NLRB will automatically block their vote for up to one year after a card check, which opens the door to countless other union delay tactics.
“If these AT&T employees had filed their five decertification petitions after September 30th, they would have been trapped in a union they oppose for years and likely forever,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“This is yet another example of the Biden-Harris NLRB steamrolling the rights of independent-minded employees, so union bosses can expand their forced dues ranks. “Despite this setback for employee freedom, Foundation staff attorneys remain committed to helping workers trapped in union ranks they oppose,” added Semmens. “That includes helping them navigate the increasingly rigged NLRB system.”
Massachusetts Trader Joe’s Employees Battle Divisive Union Organizing Campaign
Trader Joe’s workers demand vote to oust union, blast union bosses in Congress and media
Trader Joe’s employees Les Stratford (left) and Michael Alcorn want to restore the fun and independent work environment that existed in the store before union officials sowed discord.
HADLEY, MA – Union bosses and Big Labor-allied media cheered when the Hadley, MA, branch of supermarket chain Trader Joe’s became the first unionized location in the country in 2022. But what all their celebration concealed was the fact that union officials had swept to power at the location through a deeply deceptive campaign that demonized both the company and many employees. Now many of the Hadley-based Trader Joe’s employees are fighting to kick the union out.
“Officials of this union have sowed division and smeared both our workplace and anyone who dissents from the union’s agenda pretty much from the time the campaign began to unionize the store,” Trader Joe’s employee Les Stratford told Supermarket News about the situation.
Michael Alcorn, another Hadley Trader Joe’s worker who simply wanted to have a conversation with his coworkers about the ramifications of unionizing, said that union militants “weren’t going to have a meeting with us…immediately it was like ‘you either accept the union, or you don’t, and we’re not going to talk about it all together because if you don’t accept it, we don’t trust you.’”
Now, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Stratford, Alcorn, and many other Hadley Trader Joe’s employees are backing an effort to vote the union out of power at the store. Stratford in August submitted a union decertification petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold an election among his coworkers on whether to remove the union, which contained well over the support needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, the union has the legal privilege to enforce contracts that require Trader Joe’s employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs.
In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. A vote by the majority of Hadley Trader Joe’s employees against the union would free them from both the union’s forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers.
Trader Joe’s Employee Exposes Union Tactics on Capitol Hill
In May, Alcorn brought the concerns many of the Hadley Trader Joe’s employees had directly into the halls of Congress when he was called by the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce to testify about coercive tactics union bosses use to gain power and stay in power.
In addition to describing the union’s vilification of any skeptical employee, he noted that union organizers tried to foist union control of the workplace through “card check” — a process that bypasses the NLRB’s secret ballot election system and lets union officials aggressively solicit “cards” that are later counted as votes for the union.
Union organizers also “made inaccurate and incomplete press releases, creating false narratives about our workplace to promote their own agenda and personal vendettas,” Alcorn said.
Workers Need More Freedom to Oust Abrasive Union Bosses
The Hadley Trader Joe’s workers’ efforts come as the Biden-Harris NLRB announced a final rule which will make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose. The final rule, among other things, lets union officials prevent decertification votes from going forward by filing unverified “blocking charges” alleging employer interference.
While the Trader Joe’s employees’ petition will be unaffected by the rule change, the new policy will likely quash or substantially delay similar efforts in the future. “The situation at the Hadley, MA, Trader Joe’s store shows exactly why workers’ right to vote to remove a union they oppose must be protected,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Legal Director and Vice President William Messenger.
“During a union campaign, union officials often employ aggressive tactics and ‘us vs. them’ or hate-the-boss rhetoric that cause division and prioritize union bosses’ agenda over workers’ freedoms and individual choices.
“That the Biden-Harris Administration stripped workers of what few rights they had to challenge union officials that perpetrate these acts shows they are on the side of Big Labor, not individual workers,” Messenger added.
NY Starbucks Baristas File Amicus Brief Opposing Reinstatement of Biden-Appointed NLRB Member Removed by President Trump
Starbucks employees have pending federal lawsuit challenging NLRB structure as unconstitutional, argue they could be harmed if member’s removal is blocked
Washington, DC (March 11, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has just filed an amicus brief at the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals for two upstate New York Starbucks baristas in a federal case that could determine the constitutionality of the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The case, Wilcox v. Trump, concerns whether President Trump properly exercised his executive authority when he removed the Biden-appointed former chair of the NLRB, Gwynne Wilcox. Trump Administration lawyers argue, as baristas Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have in their own pending lawsuit at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, the federal law authorizing the NLRB) violates the Constitution because it prevents the president from removing board members.
Cortes and Karam now join the Administration’s legal team in asking the D.C. Circuit Court to stay a lower court’s ruling that Wilcox be reinstated. Their brief notes that they, and others, could be directly harmed if Wilcox participates in an NLRB decision without being properly accountable to the President.
Cortes and Karam work at two separate Starbucks locations in the Buffalo, NY area. They both submitted petitions on behalf of their coworkers in 2023 with sufficient support to prompt the NLRB to hold votes to “decertify,” or remove, the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from each of their stores. However, NLRB officials indefinitely delayed those union decertification elections on the basis of unproven charges leveled at the Starbucks Corporation by SBWU union officials. This led Cortes and Karam to file their own federal lawsuit – the first in the nation challenging the agency’s structure as unconstitutional as a whole.
The same issue regarding the NLRB’s constitutionality was fast-tracked in federal courts following President Trump’s firing of Biden-appointed NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, which she challenged as a violation of the NLRA’s board member removal protections. Trump Administration lawyers countered with arguments parallel to those in Cortes and Karam’s lawsuit, contending that NLRB members’ removal protections permit them to exercise substantial executive authority while being immune to presidential removal for the duration of their terms, something forbidden by U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Seila Law v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen.
NLRB’s Hyper-Partisan Nature and Unique Powers Make Removal Protections Inappropriate
Cortes and Karam’s brief focuses on how the Board’s powers to enforce federal labor law, lack of technical expertise, and the partisan nature of its membership place it outside the Supreme Court’s concept of a federal agency where removal protections might be appropriate. It also argues that reinstating Wilcox would cause chaos because it would let her participate in deciding cases before the NLRB while her continued presence on the Board is still the subject of litigation.
“Cortes and Karam have a vital interest in the outcome of this case, and not only because it concerns the constitutionality of [NLRB member removal protections],” the amicus brief says. “Cortes and Karam do not want an individual the President properly removed from the Board because of her unsound rulings—Gwynne Wilcox—to decide their pending NLRB cases.”
“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam’s amicus brief points out what many workers who have litigated cases before the NLRB have learned the hard way – that the NLRB is a hyper-partisan agency often beholden to the interests of union bosses, yet masquerades as an impartial arbiter of workers’ rights,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the issue of the NLRB’s constitutionality is likely to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court, Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam speak for many independent-minded workers around the country by urging the D.C. Circuit Court to bar Gwynne Wilcox from participating in Board decisions until this is fully sorted out.”
Dartmouth, MIT, Vanderbilt Graduate Students Challenge Forced Unionism
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-backed students defend rights as union bosses seek more power at universities
Ben Logsdon is a Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth College. But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that union officials’ refusals to accommodate his religious objections just don’t add up.
HANOVER, NH – Just weeks after National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys triumphed in anti-discrimination cases for Jewish Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate students who sought to stop forced dues payments to a radically anti-Israel union, union officials began creating other problems for university students.
In nearby New Hampshire, Dartmouth graduate student Benjamin Logsdon sought free Foundation legal aid against Graduate Organized Laborers of Dartmouth (GOLD-UE) union officials. The GOLD union — which is an affiliate of the same United Electrical (UE) union involved in the Foundation’s MIT cases — is forcing Logsdon to accept the union’s monopoly “representation” powers against his will, even after he voiced his religious objections to the union’s radical stances on the conflict against Israel.
Grad Students Exposed to Union Coercion & Privacy Violations
Meanwhile, several graduate students at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, are pushing back against an attempt by Vanderbilt Graduate Workers United (VGWU, an affiliate of United Auto Workers) union bosses to impose union control over them and their colleagues. Specifically, three students are seeking to intervene in a federal case in which VGWU union officials are illegally demanding the university hand over the students’ private information to aid in their unionization campaign. Foundation staff attorneys filed motions for intervention for these students in October 2024.
Foundation attorneys are arguing that union officials severely violate students’ rights in both of these cases. However, the reason that union officials are in power on college campuses at all traces back to flawed rulings from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under both the Obama Administration and Biden Administration. These rulings subject graduate students to pro-Big Labor provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which create issues for students’ freedom both inside and outside the classroom.
Logsdon, a Christian Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth, slammed the GOLD union with federal anti-discrimination charges in September 2024 at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to those charges, shortly after the GOLD union finalized its first monopoly bargaining contract with the Dartmouth administration, he sent a letter to United Electrical General Secretary-Treasurer Andrew Dinkelaker explaining that he objected to being affiliated with GOLD on religious grounds and needed an accommodation.
“I sought to be removed from the UE and GOLD-UE bargaining unit as a reasonable accommodation,” Logsdon’s Foundation-backed charges say.
Dinkelaker refused to offer Logsdon an accommodation that “satisf[ied] [his] religious conscience or beliefs,” according to the charges, which violated his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Courts have recognized a variety of Title VII religious accommodations over the years for men and women who have religious objections to union affiliation, including paying an amount equivalent to union dues to a charity instead of union bosses. However, Logsdon seeks a different accommodation: to remove himself from union bosses’ control entirely.
At Vanderbilt, three students who identify themselves in legal documents as “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” and “Jane Doe 1” are contending in their Foundation-backed motions for intervention that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) forbids the Vanderbilt administration from disclosing their personal information to any third parties without their permission, including the VGWU union.
At the union’s behest, NLRB Region 10 has already hit the Vanderbilt administration with a pair of subpoenas demanding personal student info, while ignoring objections from several students expressing concern at the disclosure.
So far Vanderbilt has resisted the NLRB’s subpoenas, and fortunately a federal court has temporarily allowed the university to refuse to comply with them.
The Foundation-backed students’ motions to intervene argue that the subpoenas “are an attempt to violate FERPA’s protections, privileging union interests over the graduate students[’] privacy rights.” It also points out that FERPA allows students to seek “protective action” if a university receives a subpoena seeking their personal information, as in this case.
The Vanderbilt students and their Foundation attorneys are demanding an opportunity to properly defend their privacy interests under FERPA. Foundation attorneys have already filed Requests for Review asking the NLRB in Washington, DC, to weigh in on the matter.
Union Monopoly Power Has No Place at Universities
“Graduate students around the country are discovering that union bosses don’t respect their individual rights and would rather use students as pawns to force their demands on a university administration, or advance an extreme political agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.
“Union monopoly bargaining is a system particularly ill-suited to an academic environment. Indeed, it is wrong for anyone to have a union monopoly imposed on them against their will and then be forced to pay union dues under threat of termination.”
Genesys Nurse Hits Hospital, Teamsters Union with Additional Federal Charges for Illegal Dues Deductions
New charges latest example of how union bosses are violating workers’ rights following repeal of Michigan Right to Work law
Flint, MI (August 20, 2024) – Madrina Wells, a nurse at Ascension Genesys Hospital in Grand Blanc Township, MI, has filed additional federal unfair labor practice charges against the Teamsters Local 332 union and her employer for illegally deducting union dues out of her paycheck in violation of federal law. Madrina filed the two new unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Last month, Wells and her coworker filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Teamsters Local 332 union, where they maintained that union bosses threatened to fire them and other nurses if they didn’t sign forms authorizing union officials to deduct dues straight out of their paychecks. The charges for Wells and her coworker Lynette Doyle, were also filed at the NLRB with National Right to Work Foundation legal aid. NLRB agents will now investigate Wells’ multiple charges in addition to the charge filed by Doyle.
The new charges from Wells are the most recent in a flurry of Foundation-backed cases for Michigan workers who are seeking to challenge or escape union bosses’ coercive power in the wake of Michigan’s repeal of its Right to Work law. Since the repeal became effective this February, union bosses have had the legal power to require workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. In states with Right to Work protections, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, even in states like Michigan that lack Right to Work protections and allow for forced-fee requirements, longstanding federal law prohibits union bosses from requiring workers to authorize the direct deduction of union dues from their paychecks. The Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision additionally forbids union bosses in non-Right to Work states from forcing workers to pay money for any activities beyond the union’s bargaining functions, such as political expenditures.
“I already had issues with Teamsters bosses’ illegally demanding money from me when Right to Work was in force,” commented Madrina Wells. “Back then, I at least knew that I was defending my right to pay nothing at all to Teamsters bosses I disapprove of. It’s ridiculous that rather than comply with my rights, Teamsters Local 332, now with the assistance of my employer, have violated Federal law once again by deducting dues from my paycheck without my consent.”
Without Right to Work, Michigan Workers Increasingly Having to Take Legal Action Against Union Boss Forced Dues Abuses
In a party-line 2023 vote, Michigan legislators repealed Right to Work at the behest of union special interests, ending workers’ ability to decide for themselves whether or not union officials deserve their dues money. The imposition of union bosses’ power to force employees to “pay up or be fired” came despite polling showing Michiganders, including those in union households, overwhelmingly opposed the elimination of workers’ Right to Work protections.
After the repeal became effective this February, workers from across the Great Lakes State sought help from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in escaping union bosses’ forced-dues demands. The total cases that our attorneys have filed for Michigan workers in 2024 is already more than double the 2023 number.
“Emboldened by the partisan repeal of Right to Work, Michigan union bosses are showing once again that their greed for forced dues is more important than the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent,’” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Michigan workers are standing up to defend what rights they still have against union coercion, and the Foundation is proud to assist them.”
“Ultimately though, this flood of legal aid requests from Michigan workers challenging forced dues abuses shows why Michigan workers need the protection of Right to Work, so that union financial support is fully voluntary once again,” added Mix.
DC-Area Transdev Driver Takes Case Regarding Union-Instigated Assault to Federal Appeals Court
Biden Labor Board claims ATU union did not violate law even after worker experienced slap and termination attempt from union officials
Washington, DC (July 1, 2024) – Thomas McLamb, a Hyattsville, Maryland-based driver for transportation company Transdev, is appealing his National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case charging Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) officials with assaulting him to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. McLamb, whose case concerns retaliatory actions taken against him for being a union dissident, is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
McLamb filed charges with the NLRB in November 2021 and January 2022 against ATU for the retaliatory behavior, which in addition to being slapped by an ATU union steward also included a union-instigated termination attempt. McLamb argues that engaging in legally-protected action opposing the union hierarchy – including petitioning for an NLRB-supervised vote to remove the union – made him a target of union officials and adherents.
NLRB Region 5 in Baltimore issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing on May 11, 2021, stating that the slap and an attempt by an ATU shop steward to get McLamb fired both constituted violations of federal labor law. An NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision declaring that the firing attempt was illegal, but the Biden NLRB reversed, claiming that the union did not violate the law at all.
McLamb is now asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review and overturn the decision of the Biden NLRB.
ATU Union President Ordered Adherents to “Slap” Dissenters
In a statement filed in November 2021, McLamb said that the ATU Local 689 president, Raymond Jackson, told other union officers to “slap” employees who were opposing his agenda. McLamb later reported in a federal charge that he had been physically assaulted by ATU shop steward Tiyaka Boone. Both incidents occurred while McLamb was campaigning against the incumbent officers to serve on Local 689’s board.
McLamb reported in another federal charge that, shortly after this incident, ATU official Alma Williams requested that Transdev management fire him over his criticisms of the union steward that assaulted him.
Biden NLRB Decision Claims Physical Assault Was Personal
The Biden NLRB’s decision reversing the ALJ decision against the union claims that Boone’s assault on McLamb was motivated by “personal reasons” and not McLamb’s legally-protected opposition to the union’s chiefs. However, both McLamb’s Foundation attorneys and even the NLRB General Counsel showed the ALJ during trial a video of Jackson, the ATU president at the time, telling employees to slap other workers who spoke out against him.
The NLRB decision also defends Alma Williams’ asking the employer to fire McLamb, claiming that she was merely asking for Boone and McLamb to be disciplined “equally” for their conduct during and leading up to the assault.
“Workers should not have to face violence or retribution in exchange for criticizing or challenging union leadership, and the fact that Mr. McLamb has had to fight for years to defend his right to be free of such retaliation is outrageous,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We believe that this decision by the Biden NLRB is wrong, and is yet another example of how the current administration defends scofflaw union bosses that steamroll employee rights in pursuit of greater power.
“Even worse is the fact that McLamb works in the non-Right to Work state of Maryland, where union officials are legally empowered to require dues payments as a condition of keeping one’s job,” Mix added. “No worker should be forced to fund a union hierarchy they disapprove of, let alone one that is actively fighting the worker in court.”
