28 Sep 2026

86-Year-Old Veteran Files Federal Charges Against UFCW Union for Causing his Illegal Firing from Part-Time Grocery Job

Posted in News Releases

Charge: UFCW bosses ignored Village Market employee for four years, then suddenly had him fired claiming he owed over $3,500 in back dues and fees

Oakland, CA (September 28, 2026) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, an 86-year-old veteran who worked part-time at Village Market in Oakland has filed federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5 (UFCW) union. The charge says UFCW 5 union officials illegally had Phil Holland fired in early September claiming he owed thousands of dollars in back dues and fees.

Holland, a Navy veteran with 30 years’ of experience in law enforcement, who also works part-time as a YMCA fitness instructor, was hired by the Village Market grocery store that he shopped at for 30 years in February of 2022 after he noticed a “help wanted” sign in the window. During his first four years of employment, UFCW Local 5 union officials never contacted him, never asked him to pay union dues or fees, and never notified him of his legal rights under the 1988 Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which protects employees from being required to pay full union dues for activities unrelated to union bargaining like union-boss political activism.

This suddenly changed in May 2026 when UFCW Local 5 union officials began sending threatening messages “welcoming” him to the union and later demanding that he become a member or lose his job.

Shortly after in July, UFCW Local 5 union bosses sent the part-time employee who worked 12 hours a week a letter demanding that he pay over $3,500 in retroactive dues and fees under the threat of termination. The union communication lacked the required information to inform him of his legal rights under the Beck decision.

Union Officials Rejected Proposed Partial Payment, Had Retired Veteran Terminated

With Holland not willing to pay the sudden and unlawful $3,500 dues demand, he proposed paying the Beck fee going forward and a partial payment of the back amount. UFCW officials not only rejected his request but also demanded that Village Market terminate his employment, which the company effectively did.

Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials can require workers to pay money to the union or lose their jobs. However, the Supreme Court’s NLRB v. General Motors decision forbids mandatory formal union membership.

The charge asks the NLRB to prosecute UFCW 5 for Holland’s illegal termination and also hold that the union committed an unfair labor practice when union officials knowingly ignored his employment for years without attempting to collect dues, then suddenly sprung a multi-year dues demand on the part-time employee. Mr. Holland’s charges will now be investigated by NLRB Region 32 officials.

“UFCW 5 union officials ignored Mr. Holland for more than four years while he worked part-time at his local grocery store, then out of nowhere ambushed the 86-year-old veteran with a bill for thousands of dollars and illegally had him fired when he didn’t give into their unlawful demands,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The abusive tactics on display in this case show the need for additional protections for employees against union boss attempts to collect years of back dues after the union itself failed to legally request the money at the time.

“Ultimately though, cases like this demonstrate why every worker in America deserves Right to Work protections to ensure that all union payments are strictly voluntary,” added Mix.

15 Sep 2026

Workers Challenge NLRB Policy Permitting Employers and Union Bosses to Coerce Dues Payments Even in Absence of Union Contract

Posted in News Releases

Washington State and Louisiana employees seek to overturn anti-worker Labor Board decision limiting employees’ right to end union dues deductions

Tukwila, WA, Hammond, LA (September 15, 2026) – Employees in Tukwila, Washington, and Hammond, Louisiana, are challenging a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) precedent that allows union officials to block workers from cutting off union dues even when there is no union monopoly bargaining contract in place. The employees filed federal Unfair Labor Practice charges with the NLRB against the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) at their workplaces with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The NLRB precedent at issue – Frito-Lay, Inc., 243 NLRB 137 (1979) – gives union officials the power to significantly restrict employee’s right to revoke a dues-checkoff authorization to a narrow, union-created “window period” rather than letting the employee revoke it whenever the underlying union contract isn’t in effect. The result is that employees can be forced to pay union dues to keep their jobs absent a current union contract.

In Washington State, Brittani Butler and four other employees at Holaday-Parks, Inc. resigned from their membership in SMART Local 55 and revoked their check-off authorization after the previous union contract had expired. Despite the requests, Local 55 continued collecting dues from their paychecks and failed to respond to any requests from her or her coworkers. Butler intends to challenge the validity of Frito-Lay’s limitations on employees’ right to cut off dues payments when no union contract exists.

In a similar case, Cypress Meadowlark, an employee at Wayne Sanderson Farms in Hammond, Louisiana, revoked within her window period but was ignored. Like Ms. Butler, Ms. Meadowlark also intends to challenge the validity of the Frito-Lay precedent.

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have long argued on behalf of employees that Frito-Lay is inconsistent with the text of federal law, as the Labor Management Relations Act clearly declares that workers may revoke their dues checkoffs any time “beyond the termination date” of a union contract. In 2019, then NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb issued a memo notifying NLRB Regional Officers to bring cases seeking to overturn the controversial precedent.

“It’s outrageous that for nearly 50 years the NLRB’s outrageous Frito-Lay decision has continued to grant union bosses the privilege to keep siphoning dues out of the pockets of dissenting workers, even when the underlying ‘justification’ for the dues payments no longer exists,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The new NLRB majority should finish the job started during the last Trump administration and overturn Frito-Lay to ensure that no worker can be trapped into funding a union against their will when there is not even a valid contract in effect between a union and employer.”