10 Aug 2026

New NLRB Majority Asked to End ‘Successor Bar’ Policy Used to Block Employees Seeking Votes to Oust Unwanted Unions

Posted in News Releases

Majority of Senior Living center employees want to remove union, but non-statutory ‘successor bar’ traps them under the SEIU

Washington, DC (August 10, 2026) – Edvard Guay, an employee at Sona Senior Living in Deerfield, Illinois, filed an appeal asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to overturn the so-called “successor bar,” which is being used to block him and his colleagues from holding a “decertification” election to remove Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 73 union bosses from their workplace. The employees’ Request for Review was filed with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The NLRB’s non-statutory successor bar forces a 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 rank-and-file workers. This legal tactic prevents employees from exercising their statutory rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to hold elections to remove unwanted unions.

Guay’s request for the NLRB to scrap the successor bar follows the decision of the NLRB Region 13 Director to apply the bar to the Sona Senior Living workers’ case, dismissing their decertification petition to remove SEIU Local 73. A majority of Sona Senior Living employees signed the petition opposing the SEIU’s presence at their workplace.

The Request for Review states that the NLRB should overturn the successor bar because it conflicts with Sections 7 and 9 of the NLRA. Section 7 of the NLRA enshrines workers’ right to refrain from joining a union, and Section 9(c) directs that, when a “question of representation” exists, the Board “shall” conduct an election.

Foundation staff attorneys filed a formal rulemaking petition with the NLRB in June, asking the agency’s Board to overturn its non-statutory “bars,” as the NLRB’s pro-Big Labor policies have no grounds in federal labor law and are designed to disenfranchise workers. Notably, the Board will now have a new Trump-appointed Member, after the Senate confirmed the nomination of James Macy last week.

Last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held—echoing the Foundation’s petition—that the NLRB does not possess the authority under the NLRA to stymie a decertification by invoking the successor bar, with the Court further suggesting that the NLRB’s other non-statutory bars are in violation of the NLRA. The Circuit’s decision was informed by the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court Loper Bright decision, which ended judicial deference to agencies’ interpretations of their statutory authority.

“We look to the new Trump NLRB members to finally bring the agency in line with the text of the law Congress charged them with enforcing, starting by ending the Obama-era ‘successor bar’ ruling that was recently rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This case gives the new Board majority a way to quickly demonstrate that it will prioritize defending workers’ statutory rights, not limiting those rights to protect the power of unwanted union officials.”

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.”

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.’”

17 Jun 2026

NC Miners Fight Biden-Era Policy Trapping Workers in Unions They Oppose

Posted in Newsletter Articles

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2026 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

New majority at federal labor board can eliminate ‘blocking charge’ policy

The Biden NLRB’s “blocking charge” policy serves only to trap workers under union “representation” that they’ve rightfully sought a vote to oust. But courageous miners in North Carolina are now taking a stand against this unfair policy.

SPRUCE PINE, NC – Known by the moniker “The Mineral City,” Spruce Pine is famous for being the origin of a large amount of the world’s high-purity quartz, a key component in manufacturing semiconductors. But now, it’s also the source of a legal challenge that could reshape the American labor law landscape in favor of worker freedom.

Blake Davis, a miner for The Quartz Corp., is challenging a Biden era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policy that is blocking him and his coworkers from voting in a worker-requested election to remove United Mine Workers (UMW) union officials from their workplace. This policy, called the “blocking charge” policy, hands union officials the power to stymie the union removal (or “decertification”) process simply by filing unproven, unsubstantiated, or unrelated “unfair labor practice” charges at the NLRB alleging employer misconduct.

Filing: ‘Blocking Charge’ Policy Clashes With Federal Law and Workers’ Rights

Davis collected and submitted a petition for a decertification vote in late 2025, which contained enough of his colleagues’ signatures to trigger a vote under NLRB rules. However, regional NLRB officials have blocked the vote due to the NLRB’s current blocking charge policy.

Davis, with the help of Right to Work attorneys, has now submitted a Request for Review to the NLRB in Washington, DC, which asks the Board to overturn the blocking charge policy and let him and his coworkers vote on whether to remove the UMW union. Since his brief was submitted, the U.S. Senate approved two new presidential appointees to the NLRB, meaning the Board now has a “quorum” and can decide this case and others.

Davis’ Request for Review argues that the NLRB’s blocking charge policy directly conflicts with the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that the NLRB is responsible for enforcing. Davis’ brief contends that the rule lets self-interested union officials unilaterally block an election, even though the NLRA explicitly orders the Board to conduct an election whenever employees submit a valid decertification petition.

Davis’ brief also maintains that the blocking charge rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary and fails to accomplish even its own stated goals. For example, the Board argues the rule is necessary to stop “coercive elections” from happening, even though the massive advantages it gives to union bosses in the election process can hardly be considered fair.

The National Right to Work Foundation has long advocated for the NLRB to return to the Election Protection Rule, which prevented many blocking charge delay tactics before the Biden NLRB overturned it in 2024. Under the Election Protection Rule, allegations of misconduct related to a union decertification election could not block employees from exercising their right to vote, and in most cases the rule permitted the vote tally to be released before litigation over the election could occur.

Trump NLRB Can Empower Independent-Minded Workers

“The NLRB’s ‘blocking charge’ policy serves only to let union officials stop the workers they claim to ‘represent’ from making a free choice about whether they want that union to represent them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Bill Messenger. “Mr. Davis and his coworkers are just the latest victims of these bureaucratic policies that trap workers in forced union ranks.

“If President Trump’s new NLRB appointees are serious about putting American workers back in control of their own livelihoods, reversing this union boss power giveaway is an excellent place to start,” Messenger added.

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.

4 May 2026

Georgia Republic Services Driver Challenges Federal Labor Board Policy Blocking Vote to Remove Teamsters Union

Posted in News Releases

Majority of Calhoun-based drivers demanded vote to oust Teamsters union, but federal labor board denied election due to so-called ‘contract bar’

Calhoun, GA (May 4, 2026) – Brian Wilson, a truck driver for waste hauling company Republic Services, is asking a federal labor board to overturn a policy that is blocking him and his coworkers from exercising their right to vote out Teamsters Local 728 union officials they oppose. Wilson is defending a petition that he submitted on behalf of his coworkers last month, which demanded the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administer an election to remove Teamsters union bosses from power at their workplace. Wilson is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in his legal effort.

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. Wilson’s petition, which he submitted on April 2, showed that the majority of his colleagues wanted to have a vote to remove the Teamsters.

However, Teamsters union officials immediately blocked the vote by arguing that the so-called “contract bar” – an NLRB-invented policy that appears nowhere in the text of federal labor law – prevented Wilson and his colleagues from voting. The contract bar prevents workers from exercising their right to vote out an unwanted union for up to three years after union bosses and management finalize a union contract.

Wilson’s Request for Review contends, first, that the contract bar shouldn’t even apply in his workplace, as the Teamsters union contract lacks an effective date, which the law requires in order to enforce a contract bar. Wilson’s Request for Review also attacks the contract bar head-on, pointing out that it is antithetical to federal labor law’s purported goal to give workers free choice in deciding whether they want a union in their workplace or not. If the NLRB allows the contract bar to stand, Wilson and his coworkers’ requested vote will be delayed until at least 2028.

‘Contract Bar’ Curtails Workers’ Free Choice Rights, Can Lead to the Destruction of Ballots

“The contract bar…should be dispensed with because it entrenches unions that lack majority employee support, thereby undermining the cornerstone of the [National Labor Relations] Act— employees’ Sections 7 and 9 right to choose or reject union representation,” the legal filing states.

Georgia is a Right to Work state, meaning state law prohibits union officials from enforcing contracts that require workers to pay money to the union as a condition of employment. In non-Right to Work states, in contrast, union officials can get workers fired for refusal to pay dues or fees to the union hierarchy. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials can use their government-granted exclusive “representation” powers to dictate terms of employment for every employee in a workplace, even those who oppose the union.

Foundation staff attorneys have assisted many groups of workers across the country in efforts to overturn the contract bar – including in cases where enforcement of the bar required the destruction of hundreds of worker ballots. In a case similar to Wilson’s that began in 2020, Foundation attorneys defended Delaware-based Mountaire Farms poultry workers’ right to vote United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union bosses out of their workplace. While the workers – hundreds of whom had requested a union decertification vote – finally voted the union out in 2022, the NLRB invoked the contract bar and greatly delayed that election at UFCW officials’ behest. The contract bar was even used to invalidate an earlier election that the Mountaire workers had participated in, effectively destroying hundreds of already-cast ballots.

“As Mr. Wilson’s case and the cases of many other workers have shown, the ‘contract bar’ simply gives union officials an arbitrary way to stay in power over a workplace where they face obvious employee opposition,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented. “Federal labor law is supposed to protect worker free choice over entrenching union boss control, and Mr. Wilson’s case exposes the contract bar as nothing but a government-granted privilege for union officials.

“If the Trump NLRB is serious about standing up for workers and putting workers back in control of their own livelihoods, ending the unreasonable restrictions of the contract bar is a great place to start,” Mix added.

16 Mar 2026

Florida Wells Fargo Bank Branch Employees to Vote In Election Over Whether to Remove CWA Union Bosses from Workplace

Posted in News Releases

In response to workers’ petition, the National Labor Relations Board has scheduled a “decertification” vote to end union affiliation

Spring Hill, FL (March 16, 2026) – Employees at Wells Fargo’s Spring Hill branch have filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a “decertification” election to remove the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union bosses from their workplace. The workers’ efforts are spearheaded by Virginia Fenton, who filed the petition 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 administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Fenton’s petition received more than the required threshold of her coworkers’ signatures to trigger the process for the NLRB to schedule a secret-ballot election for the workers on Monday, March 30.

The workers’ election to remove the so-called “Wells Fargo Workers United” union (an affiliate of the CWA union) will include all full-time and regular part-time tellers, personal bankers, relationship bankers, and premier bankers employed by Wells Fargo at its Spring Hill branch.

“Since the union came into our branch back in 2024, we’ve come to see how much they overpromised and never delivered,” stated Fenton. “We are sure that we will manage better without them.”

Florida is one of the 26 states with a Right to Work law that guarantees workers cannot be fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. However, even under Right to Work, union bosses can still impose monopoly bargaining control over all employees in a workplace, even those who are opposed to the union’s representation. A successful decertification would end the union’s monopoly bargaining powers.

“The Foundation is pleased to be able to assist Ms. Fenton and her coworkers as they move to exercise their rights under the NLRA,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No American worker should be forced to affiliate with a union they oppose.”

23 Feb 2026

Four Colorado Safeway Workers Slam UFCW Union Officials With More Federal Charges for Illegal Strike Fines

Posted in News Releases

Charge: UFCW Local 7 unlawfully subjected nonmember employees to ‘internal disciplinary’ fines for not abiding by a union boss-ordered strike

Denver, CO (February 23, 2026) – Four employees at three separate Safeway grocery stores located near Denver have filed federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 union.

The workers’ charges were filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in response to union bosses illegally threatening the workers and their colleagues with fines for choosing to exercise their right to work despite a union boss-ordered strike action. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.

Claire Jordan, who works at Safeway in Greeley, Rebecca White, who works at Safeway in Longmont, and Dustin Mattos and Rebecca Lawless-Mattos, who both work at a Lakewood Safeway location, are demanding that NLRB Region 27 investigate and prosecute UFCW Local 7 union bosses for violating their rights under the NLRA.

According to the charges, after the workers validly resigned their union membership in June 2025, union officials informed the workers around January 9, 2026 that they would be subject to “internal union charges…for, among other things, crossing the picket line while being a union member.”

The workers resigned their memberships in order to continue working after UFCW Local 7 union bosses ordered grocery workers at more than 40 Safeway stores and a distribution center in Colorado to strike in June 2025. Longstanding law says union bosses cannot impose “union discipline,” which frequently means four- or five-figure monetary fines, against workers who are not voluntary union members.

In addition to retaliating against nonmember workers, the charges say that UFCW Local 7 union officials have failed to comply with federal law by not providing the workers with the required financial disclosures under the Foundation-won Beck decision, which allows nonmember workers to withhold the portions of their forced dues that go to the UFCW’s political activities.

Colorado is one of the 24 states that lack Right to Work protections for workers, which allows UFCW union bosses to impose monopoly bargaining contracts that force employees to pay union fees as a condition of employment. By contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Arizona, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, union membership and union financial support are strictly voluntary.

The Safeway strike order came months after UFCW Local 7 had similarly ordered a strike at 79 King Soopers grocery stores in February 2025. As happened following the Safeway strike, King Soopers employees also turned to the National Right to Work Foundation for assistance in filing charges against the UFCW, in response to union officials issuing illegal fine threats against nonmembers for exercising their right to work during a strike.

The Foundation has seen a growing number of workers seeking aid in cases involving illegal retaliation from UFCW union bosses. Foundation attorneys assisted nonmember King Soopers employees targeted following a 2022 strike, and have secured numerous victories against UFCW, including for illegal strike fine threats during a union-ordered strike against Stop & Shop stores in New England.

“Once again, UFCW Local 7 union bosses are turning to threats and intimidation tactics against workers who chose to rebuff union strike orders and work to support themselves and their families,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation will continue to assist grocery workers defending themselves against these recidivist UFCW union bosses.”