Dissident Philly Port Worker Successfully Defeats ILA Union Attempt to Exclude Him from Federal Case Defending Win at NLRB
Labor Board found Longshoremen Local 1694 illegally blacklisted worker for raising concerns to national union official over operation of the union and its hiring hall
Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, PA (July 27, 2026) – The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a motion to intervene by Stanford Fowler, a longshore worker at the Ports of Philadelphia and Wilmington, in a suit between the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) Local 1694. The successful motion, filed with assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, comes over the objection of union lawyers, who attempted to keep Fowler out of a federal case that arose from his legal victory against that union at the NLRB.
Fowler filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against ILA Local 1694, located in Wilmington, DE, in August of 2021, arguing that he had been discriminated against for voicing dissent against the union, including going to the national ILA Secretary-Treasurer when local officials ignored his complaints regarding operation of the hiring hall. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, a task which includes adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
An NLRB Administrative Law Judge found largely in Fowler’s favor. A unanimous decision from a bipartisan panel of NLRB Members affirmed and ordered the union to pay Fowler five years of back pay to remedy the loss of work due to its discrimination. ILA Local 1694 lawyers appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. Fowler then moved to intervene in that appeal to preserve the legal and financial victory that he had won before the NLRB.
Union Bosses Deprived Longshoreman of Work and Seniority for Expressing Concerns
Fowler was the victim of a series of union moves that hindered his ability to get better benefits. He consistently accrued hours through the hiring hall, but also sent an inquiry to the Secretary-Treasurer of the ILA, complaining about issues with a recent union merger. When Local 1694 union bosses found out about the inquiry, they aggressively confronted him and refused to let him participate in their hiring hall. Union bosses continually interfered with Fowler’s ability to gain work, including by attempting to ban him from the Port of Wilmington without sufficiently explaining their actions, to the point that he had to begin seeking work at the Port of Philadelphia instead.
“We are proud to assist Mr. Fowler as he fights for his right to work, free of interference from the malicious actions of union bosses,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Fowler raised common sense concerns regarding his treatment both before and after his original ILA Local was merged into another, yet rather than take his concerns seriously and treat him fairly, union bosses began a campaign of retaliation designed to prevent him from working to put food on the table.
“We are proud to help him defend his NLRB victory at the court of appeals, and have already overcome the union’s underhanded attempt to block him from participating in the continuation of his own legal case,” added Mix.
Cases Seeking Millions in Refunds of Forced Fees under Janus Move Forward
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Split Appeals Court decision bolsters petition for Supreme Court to take up issue
Veteran Foundation staff attorney William Messenger made history when he argued and won the Janus case before the High Court in 2018. He still represents Janus and others demanding forced-fee refunds.
PHILADELPHIA, PA – A National Right to Work Foundation-backed class-action lawsuit for Pennsylvania state employees seeking refunds of unconstitutionally seized union fees resulted in a split decision from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in August. This ruling cast serious doubt on a favorite union boss argument used to avoid refunding dues seized in violation of workers’ First Amendment rights.
The employees were defending their rights under the landmark 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court ruling. In Janus, the Court sided with former Illinois child support specialist Mark Janus and agreed with Foundation staff attorneys that requiring any public sector worker to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment is a First Amendment violation. The Court also ruled that union dues can only be taken from public servants with their affirmative and knowing consent.
The plaintiffs in Wenzig v. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 668 are seeking a ruling that SEIU officials must refund dues taken from employee paychecks in contravention of this standard before the Janus ruling came down. Union bosses used, as they have done in almost all similar cases, a dubious “good faith” argument to justify not refunding the dues to the victimized workers. In the split decision, two of the three judges rejected the so-called “good faith” theory.
Supreme Court Asked to End Lower Court Confusion on Janus Refunds
Foundation staff attorneys cited the growing confusion among federal judges on forced-union-fee refunds as a vital reason the Supreme Court should hear the continuation of Janus v. AFSCME. In a supplemental brief, Foundation attorneys wrote that Wenzig “supports granting review here because a majority of the Third Circuit panel rejected the good faith defense recognized by the Seventh Circuit here and by the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits.”
“The Court should finally resolve this important issue and hold there is no good faith defense to Section 1983,” the brief adds. Section 1983 is the federal law requiring that those who deprive people of their constitutional rights “under color of any statute . . . shall be liable to the party injured.”
This September, Foundation staff attorneys also filed the final reply brief supporting the Supreme Court petition in Casanova v. International Association of Machinists (IAM), Local 701, another case seeking review from the High Court. It also cites the Third Circuit’s split decision. Plaintiff Benito Casanova, a Chicago Transit Authority employee, seeks to get back money that IAM bosses took from his paycheck and the paychecks of his colleagues in violation of their First Amendment rights prior to the Janus decision.
Foundation Leading Worker Efforts to Reclaim Fees Seized Against Janus
The workers in these cases and many others are collectively fighting for millions of dollars in pilfered money to be returned to them. Foundation attorneys currently represent these public servants in nearly 20 similar cases, together pursuing about $130 million in refunds to workers.
“Given the clarity of the Janus First Amendment standard, it’s bewildering that federal judges have not yet widely discredited union boss arguments that serve only to deny public sector workers refunds of money that the High Court itself ruled should have never been taken from them in the first place,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The High Court must swiftly disabuse lower courts of their misunderstandings and provide justice to workers who have been waiting years for their hard-earned money to be returned.”
