DOJ Security Guard Union Forced to Pay Back Years of Illegal Union Dues to Avoid Labor Board Prosecution
Under settlement, other Paragon DOJ security guards denied required information can claim refunds for years of union dues payments
Washington, DC (September 14, 2026) – Kywane Johnson, a security guard formerly employed by Paragon Systems at the Department of Justice (DOJ), has prevailed in his three-year dispute with Special Deputy Marshals of America (SDM) union officials. Johnson, who filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), was vindicated when SDM union officials settled to head off a formal NLRB complaint for violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by not informing employees of their right to avoid paying for the union’s political activities.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the NLRA, a task that includes adjudicating disputes between unions and individual employees.
Johnson’s charges were filed in 2023, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, after SDM union bosses repeatedly harassed Johnson for refusing to sign a “dual purpose” union membership card/dues check-off authorization, with union officials escalating by threatening his termination.
The charges detail the harassment occurring despite Johnson having “consistently paid the equivalent of full dues by check to the union since the beginning of his employment.” Once the charges were filed with the NLRB, the agency’s investigation revealed additional violations of employees’ rights by the union, including not informing employees of their Beck right to not pay for union political activities.
Union officials moved to settle with Johnson before the NLRB issued a complaint against the union for its violations of employee rights. Had the complaint been issued, SDM union officials would have faced prosecution for violating the law at an NLRB hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
The settlement details are comprehensive, requiring the union to post, e-mail and text a 60-day notice, informing Paragon Systems workers that the SDM union will not threaten employees with termination for refusing union membership and/or dues deduction authorization.
Just as important, the settlement requires union officials to refund employees who assert their rights under the National Right to Work Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court CWA v. Beck decision to opt out of funding union politics, retroactively returning improperly seized dues or fees deducted since January 5, 2023.
The settlement also grants NLRB agents access (without notification) to DOJ facilities to confirm compliance.
“We are pleased to have aided Mr. Johnson in asserting his legal right against the bullying and badgering of union bosses,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Johnson not only defended his own rights, but obtained a remedy that allows his coworkers to assert their rights and claim refunds for illegally seized union payments going back to the beginning of 2023.
“Union bosses keeping workers they purport to ‘represent’ unaware of their legal rights is, unfortunately, a situation we see repeated all across the country, but it is especially prevalent in the 24 states that do not have Right to Work protections where union bosses can demand payments from employees as a condition of getting or keeping a job,” added Mix.
GWU Hospital Nurses Ask National Labor Relations Board to Overturn Policy Blocking Vote to Remove Union
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.
Hundreds of Nurses at GWU Hospital Demand Vote to Remove DCNA Union From Power
Federal labor board could hold vote to remove union as soon as next month among unit of nearly 700 healthcare professionals
Washington, DC (April 17, 2026) – Hundreds of registered nurses and healthcare professionals at The George Washington University Hospital are backing a petition to remove District of Columbia Nurses Association (DCNA) union officials from power at the facility. GWU Hospital nurse Elizabeth Abraha, who is leading the effort among her colleagues, submitted a union decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on April 15 with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Abraha’s petition was supported by hundreds of her coworkers’ signatures – well over the required threshold to prompt the NLRB to schedule a decertification vote. Abraha’s petition requests the vote take place among her work unit, which includes “[a]ll full-time, regular part-time, and PRN registered nurses” and specialists from several other departments.
The District of Columbia lacks Right to Work protections for its employees, meaning DCNA union officials can enter contracts that force Abraha and her coworkers to pay money to the union as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Virginia, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
The NLRB will now investigate Abraha’s petition. If a majority of those participating in the decertification election vote against the union, DCNA bosses will lose their exclusive bargaining power over a unit of nearly 700 nurses and other healthcare professionals at GWU Hospital. This power allows DCNA officials to dictate work conditions for every worker in the bargaining unit, regardless of whether they voted for or support the union.
“Two years ago, DCNA union officials made all kinds of promises to my coworkers and me. They have not only failed to deliver on them, but have driven a wedge between a lot of my coworkers,” commented Abraha. “We want to exercise our right to vote this union out, and both DCNA union officials and GWU Hospital management should respect our free choice.”
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have a track record of successfully helping nurses and other hospital employees remove union hierarchies they oppose. Since 2022, several groups of Foundation-backed hospital employees from Minnesota have escaped union control, including nurses and support staff at Mayo Clinic’s Mankato, MN branch, nurses at Mayo Clinic’s St. James, MN branch, and nurses at Mayo Clinic’s Fairmont, MN location. The Foundation has also issued legal notices to nurses subject to high-profile union strike demands, including a recent Teamsters strike threat covering thousands of Corewell nurses in Michigan and New York City-area nurses subjected to a New York State Nurses Association strike order.
This year, Foundation attorneys also helped a unit of over 300 employees at Windham Community Memorial Hospital in Connecticut vote to remove American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union officials.
“Healthcare professionals at GWU Hospital may feel, as do many healthcare workers who are subject to union control, that union officials haven’t stood up for their interests and have only served as a distraction from providing quality patient care,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation attorneys have assisted many healthcare employees in similar situations. They will fight to ensure that Ms. Abraha and hundreds of her colleagues who provide indispensable care to the DC community everyday have a free and fair opportunity to decide whether DCNA union officials deserve to remain in power at GWU Hospital.”
Two Groups of Sofitel DC Lafayette Square Hotel Employees Officially Win Efforts to Free Themselves of Unwanted Unions
Despite extended union-instigated delays, around 80 employees have formally removed Unite Here and IUOE union bosses from their workplace
Washington, DC (March 12, 2026) – Two separate groups of employees of Sofitel Washington DC Lafayette Square have prevailed in their battle to free themselves from the “representation” of Unite Here Local 25 and International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 99 union officials. Their victories were cemented after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officially certified the results of their votes to remove the unions.
Sofitel Lafayette employee Mwandu Chibwe spearheaded the Unite Here “decertification” effort for the more than 60 food service workers, front of house workers, room attendants, and other hospitality workers. The engineers’ and painters’ decertification of IUOE Local 99 was led by Yuri Lishchenko. Both workers received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
The NLRB, the federal agency responsible for administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions, certified Chibwe’s election on March 11, and Lishchenko’s election on March 10. Both groups are now free from the unwanted presence of union bosses in their workplace, despite Unite Here and IUOE union bosses’ attempts to disenfranchise the workers by filing charges against Sofitel Lafayette management with NLRB Region 5.
Union Bosses Abused NLRB System to Delay Employees’ Decertification Votes
Chibwe and her colleagues were trapped for years by Unite Here Local 25 after successfully voting in June 2024 to remove the union. Rather than respect the outcome of the election, Unite Here officials challenged the election by filing “blocking charges” against the hotel’s management and objections to the election result.
Blocking charges, in which union officials allege employer misbehavior, are a common tactic abused by union officials to delay or prevent workers from removing unwanted unions. Those charges were only withdrawn by Unite Here in January 2026 when it likely became clear its officials lacked the evidence necessary to support the charge.
Despite Unite Here’s charges lacking the evidence needed to overturn the workers’ vote, Chibwe’s election remained in limbo for two months until union officials dropped their objections to the election results this week, allowing the workers’ vote removing Unite Here to finally be certified by the NLRB.
Lishchenko and his coworkers petitioned the NLRB in June of 2025 for their election. However, due to the IUOE filing blocking charges against Sofitel, it took until March 2, 2026, for the workers to vote. The election took place after the NLRB investigated the IUOE’s charges and dismissed them, finding they were without merit.
“We are pleased to have been able to help Ms. Chibwe, Mr. Lishchenko, and their colleagues in freeing themselves from unwanted union bosses,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It is appalling, though not surprising, that union bosses frequently move to disenfranchise and trap workers in their rank-and-file rather than accept that they are no longer wanted by workers they purport to ‘represent.’
“This situation shows how the NLRB currently allows unproven union legal claims that lack any evidence to keep workers trapped in unions they oppose for months or years at a time,” Mix added. “We hope President Trump’s new appointees to the NLRB promptly take steps to defend workers against the rampant abuse of the current ‘blocking charge’ policy by union bosses seeking to disenfranchise employees opposed to unionization.”
Workers Nationwide Urge Trump NLRB to End Policies Trapping Them Under Union Power
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
NLRB-invented policies currently allow union bosses to block worker-requested votes
Theresa Hause, an Oregon-based school bus driver, wants the Trump NLRB to end the so-called “merger doctrine” that grants union officials the power to combine workplaces into giant, inescapable mega-units.
WASHINGTON, DC – During the Biden Administration, biased, pro-Big Labor National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bureaucrats went out of their way to undermine the idea that workers and workers alone should choose whether or not they want a union. Rolling back multiple National Right to Work Foundation-backed reforms that made it easier for workers to vote out unions they didn’t want was a prime example of this.
But the Biden NLRB’s extremism is only the latest example of how federal labor law is biased against workers opposed to union affiliation. The truth is that biased bureaucrats on the NLRB have, for decades, burdened independent-minded workers with arbitrary barriers to freeing themselves from union influence. Many of these policies — which are the inventions of NLRB decisions and appear nowhere in the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) text — let union bosses block workers from exercising their statutory right to vote to remove a union.
Bus Drivers Fight Forced Dues in Huge, Inescapable Teamsters Unit
The Trump Administration taking control of the NLRB in Washington, D.C., has presented workers around the country who want to escape union influence with a new opportunity to attack these restrictions. Foundation attorneys are already helping workers lead the charge for reform to create precedents that will allow others to remove unions opposed by most workers.
Last December, Theresa Hause, a Washington State-based school bus driver, submitted to the NLRB a deauthorization petition which contained employee support well over the necessary threshold needed to trigger a vote to strip Teamsters Local 58 bosses of their forced-dues power in Hause’s workplace. Hause and her fellow drivers are employed by First Student, Inc.
She was surprised to learn during NLRB proceedings that First Student management and Teamsters union officials had covertly signed an agreement “merging” Hause’s small unit of workers into a much larger national unit, composed of thousands of Teamsters-controlled bus drivers across the country.
Because of the NLRB’s so-called “merger doctrine” policy, Hause and her colleagues are now in this “mega-unit,” and any petition to end the union’s forced-dues power (or remove the union completely) needs to contain signatures from at least 30% of the “mega-unit” — thousands of people Hause has never met — to be considered valid. The NLRB official that dismissed Hause’s petition even ruled that the fact employees were kept in the dark about this merger was irrelevant, outrageously saying “there is nothing in the merger doctrine that requires acquiescence or even notification of employees of a change in a bargaining unit.”
Hause’s Foundation-provided attorneys are challenging the merger doctrine in an appeal of Hause’s case to the NLRB in D.C., arguing among other things that the policy violates employee free choice and that it serves as a protection racket for established unions.
While Hause and her colleagues are fighting for a vote to free themselves from forced dues, attacking the merger doctrine also has significant ramifications for workers seeking to decertify a union. Foundation attorneys have represented many workers who have been shanghaied into huge, inescapable work units against their will. That includes a group of less than 10 Wisconsin First Student workers who filed a majority-backed petition to remove Teamsters officials as soon as allowed by federal law, only to be stymied by the merger doctrine because they had been secretly “merged” into a multi-company unit of around 24,000 workers in multiple states.
WV Homecare Workers Not ‘Settling’ for ‘Settlement Bar’
Meanwhile, in West Virginia, a Foundation-assisted employee of senior homecare nonprofit McDowell County Commission on Aging is attacking the NLRB’s use of another union boss-friendly policy to block his and his coworkers’ effort to kick out Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses: the so-called “settlement bar,” which lets unions and employers unilaterally agree in settlements to end employee-led union decertification efforts.
The employee, John Reeves, and his coworkers cast ballots in a July 2024 vote to remove SEIU union officials, but are now battling claims that a settlement SEIU bosses and Commission management signed should relegate those ballots to the trash bin. The SEIU and Commission entered into the settlement to end the decertification and resolve unfair labor practice allegations union agents had filed against the employer. That supposed employer wrongdoing was cited as the impetus for Reeves and his coworkers’ desire to remove the union — even though it was never admitted to by the employer nor proven by union lawyers.
Instead of letting Reeves show why the union’s accusations didn’t cause his employees’ disenchantment with the union, regional NLRB officials instead invoked the settlement bar and dismissed the decertification effort, based on the phony “resolution” of speculative charges by the union. Reeves is asking the NLRB in Washington, D.C., to review his case.
Reform Needed to Undo Coercive Policy
“Ms. Hause’s and Mr. Reeves’ cases provide just a sampling of the grand buffet of privileges the NLRB has granted union bosses over the years,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Union bosses and complicit employers should not be able to cut workers off from exercising their basic right to remove unpopular union bosses, yet that’s exactly what both the ‘merger doctrine’ and ‘settlement bar’ allow.
“If members of the Trump NLRB are dedicated to defending the rights of all American workers, they will focus not only on countering the extensive damage done to individual worker rights by the Biden Labor Board, but also on digging deeper to undo the web of non-statutory coercive union boss powers that has been created over decades,” Semmens added.
Walking Dead Production Driver Defends Victory over Teamsters for Unlawful Discrimination in Rigged “Hiring Hall”
Virginia-based driver asks National Labor Relations Board to order notification and compensation of other victims of Teamsters’ discriminatory scheme
Washington, DC (August 27, 2025) – Terringus Walker, a transportation employee for Virginia-based movie and television productions like Walking Dead, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to uphold the central findings of an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) favorable ruling in his case against the Teamsters union.
Walker charged Teamsters Local 592 union officials with retaliating against employees who previously filed Unfair Labor Charges against the union. Walker is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The ALJ’s ruling validated Walker’s charge that a “hiring hall” arrangement, run by Teamsters Local 592 union bosses, constituted illegal discrimination under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Union bosses failed to use objective criteria for referring production drivers, instead privileging senior union members over junior members and nonmembers.
Union officials, who negotiated exclusive hiring contracts for certain productions, have denied Walker work since 2020. The ALJ decision now under review by the NLRB agreed with Walker that union officials violated the NLRA by operating a hiring hall in an arbitrary manner without objective criteria, ignoring their duty of fair representation to all unit members.
In a separate filing, Walker asked the NLRB to extend the ALJ’s compensation order to all workers the Teamsters discriminated against, and ensure all affected workers are properly notified of the ruling. Despite acknowledging that the hiring arrangement maintained separate, discriminatory lists that affect hundreds of workers, the ALJ ruling puzzlingly ordered compensation only for Walker himself, ignoring NLRB precedent.
Union Officials Use Suspect Legal Arguments to Attempt to Justify Discrimination
Teamsters Local 592 lawyers have filed their own documents asking for the NLRB to overturn the ALJ decision largely on the grounds that union officials were, somehow, not responsible for the discrimination and retaliation, even though it occurred within the union’s exclusive hiring hall.
Walker’s newest filing refutes the union’s claim. The Teamsters union officials argue that they did not discriminate against Walker, but evidence presented during the trial shows that they and hiring managers used various excuses and false pretenses to string Walker along without ever bringing him back to work, even while other employees quickly gained work.
Union officials are also attempting to pass all responsibility to the production companies. But union officials built the hiring and referral process. It was their duty to include objective criteria in the referral process, which they failed to do.
Foundation staff attorneys have recently aided several groups of workers in efforts to challenge malfeasance by Teamsters union officials or vote the union out completely. These include movie transportation workers in Texas, truck drivers in California and Georgia, Frito-Lay warehouse workers in Ohio, metalworkers in San Diego, nurses in Michigan, and many more. Across the country, workers’ desire to exercise their right to vote out unpopular union bosses is increasing: Worker-filed petitions seeking union decertification votes are up more than 50% from 2020, according to NLRB data.
“Teamsters officials have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to discriminate against workers who don’t subject themselves to union officials’ rules, as well as those who expose their unfair practices,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Production drivers like Mr. Walker who are ready, willing, and able to help bring stories to the silver screen shouldn’t be ignored for exercising their right to free association, or for holding unions accountable to their duty of fair representation.
“We’re humbled by Mr. Walker’s courage to stand up for his rights and encouraged by his victory before the administrative law judge. Further, we are eager to defend that victory and fight for his fellow workers who don’t play by the Teamsters’ illegal and unfair rules,” added Mix.
DOJ Attorney Challenges NTEU Union Bosses’ Attempt to Grab Control Over Justice Department Divisions Ahead of Admin Change
Filings: Federal Labor Relations Authority’s decision to approve unionization attempts in Civil Rights and Environmental divisions violates precedent
Washington, DC (January 17, 2025) – A veteran Department of Justice trial attorney has just submitted two filings challenging a last-minute attempt by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) to gain monopoly bargaining control over attorneys at the Civil Rights Division (CRT) and Environmental and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). The attorney, Jeffrey Morrison, filed these Applications for Review at the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Morrison’s filings come after a unionization campaign during which DOJ management and NTEU union officials unilaterally “agreed” that the CRT and ENRD were work units appropriate for unionization, even though they are not appropriate bargaining units under longstanding FLRA precedent. Morrison’s Applications for Review argue that this and other legal issues with the proposed work units invalidate an FLRA Regional Director’s earlier decision to push forward the unionization process.
“Here, the Regional Director failed to apply established FLRA precedent that precludes finding CRT professional[s] to be an appropriate unit,” Morrison’s Application for Review says. “The Regional Director’s direction of election in this matter was thus in error. The Authority should grant review, stay the certification of the election results, reverse the Regional Director’s decision, and dismiss the petition.”
The FLRA is the federal agency responsible for adjudicating disputes between federal employees, union officials, and agencies within the federal government. The labor law governing federal agencies permits union officials to gain monopoly bargaining power over federal workers, even those who didn’t vote for the union or otherwise oppose it.
Despite 1984 FLRA Decision Rejecting Attempt to Unionize Civil Rights Division Attorneys, DOJ Abruptly Dropped Opposition to NTEU Unionization Attempt Shortly After Election Day
Morrison’s Applications for Review advance several arguments as to why NTEU bosses shouldn’t be able to gain control over the departments at issue. Notably, one brief points out that the FLRA ruled earlier in its Antitrust Division case that CRT lawyers “did not have a separate and distinct community of interest from other DOJ trial attorneys” and for that reason couldn’t stand as a distinct bargaining unit.
“[I]n that case, the Authority determined this very unit to not be an appropriate unit…The Regional Director’s failure to comply with current, binding Authority precedent is in error and must be reversed,” the brief says.
In fact, the brief notes, DOJ management maintained that very same concern about the NTEU’s unionization attempt until roughly three days after federal elections, when DOJ management abruptly reversed course and adopted the NTEU’s position.
Morrison’s applications contend that the FLRA “fail[ed] to conduct an independent investigation into the appropriateness of the unit,” despite the fact that it is required by law to do this before any unionization attempt on federal employees goes forward. “An agency agreeing with a union that a unit is appropriate does not mean that unit is actually appropriate. Agencies, like DOJ here, cannot usurp the Authority’s role in deciding unit appropriateness…” say the briefs.
“In the midst of a change in administration, NTEU union bosses and Biden DOJ officials appear to have colluded to flout longstanding precedent that says Justice Department attorneys cannot legally be unionized division by division,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The FLRA has ignored both standard procedures and established precedent to let this hasty unionization attempt go through, and our attorneys are proud to assist Mr. Morrison in opposing this suspect legal maneuver.
“No worker should be subjected to unionization they oppose, and it is especially egregious that an outgoing Administration would violate the law in an attempt to entrench union bosses at the Justice Department, whose employees are charged with defending and enforcing federal law,” added Mix.
College Park MOM’s Organic Employees Demand Vote to Remove UFCW Local 400 Union Officials
Earlier this year DC-area Union Kitchen workers voted 24-1 to remove Local 400, but union lawyers continue fighting to block certification & overturn result
Washington, DC (November 7, 2024) – Employees from MOM’s Organic Market’s College Park, MD, location are petitioning a federal labor board for an election to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 union officials from power at the store. MOM’s employee Maria Sanya Dobbins, who is leading the effort, submitted the petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at the beginning of the month with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Dobbins’ decertification petition contains employee signatures well in excess of the threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
According to Dobbins’ petition, the workers’ requested vote should take place among “[a]ll full-time and regular part-time MOM’s team members” at the grocery store’s College Park branch.
Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials can legally enforce contracts that require Dobbins and her coworkers at MOM’s to pay union dues or fees as a condition of staying employed. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
A successful decertification vote strips union officials of both their forced-dues power and their ability to impose union monopoly bargaining contracts on every employee in a workplace, even those who voted against the union’s presence or otherwise oppose it.
“I have been working for MOM’s for 19 years,” commented Dobbins. “We have an understanding management team that has always been there for us and our families. We do not need a union to come and take money out of our paycheck when we have the best management team.”
DC-Area Union Kitchen Employees Also Seek to Boot UFCW Local 400 Union Officials
This isn’t the first time that DC-area grocery employees have banded together to remove UFCW Local 400 union officials. In January, workers from five locations of regional grocery concept Union Kitchen voted 24-1 to kick out UFCW Local 400, following employee Ashley Silva’s submission of a majority-backed decertification petition.
That effort began amid aggressive union boss-ordered pickets and boycotts against Union Kitchen Grocery locations, which sometimes escalated to the point that police intervention was needed. Despite that overwhelming ouster vote, UFCW union officials have so far successfully blocked the vote from being certified as they seek to cling to power by overturning the workers’ near unanimous vote to remove Local 400.
Biden-Harris NLRB Making It Harder for Workers to Oust Unwanted Unions
Dobbins and her coworkers may face similar stonewalling from UFCW bosses in their case, and unfortunately may face headwinds from the NLRB as well. Despite an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years, Biden-Harris NLRB bureaucrats recently repealed key reforms (known collectively as the “Election Protection Rule”) that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections.
Now, under rules that took effect in late September, union officials have a nearly unlimited ability to manipulate unproven allegations against an employer (also known as “blocking charges”) to stop workers from exercising their right to vote out a union. The new rules also end the ability of workers to hold decertification elections as a way to challenge a union’s ascent to power via “card check.” Card check is an unsecure, abuse-prone process that bypasses the protections of a traditional secret-ballot election.
“UFCW Local 400 officials have a track record of stifling the will of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’ and the Biden-Harris NLRB’s cynical policy shifts have unfortunately given them more ways to do that,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While such cases show why workers need more freedom to have secret ballot votes to eliminate union officials that they disapprove of, they also demonstrate the importance of Right to Work protections – workers who find themselves under the control of a union they oppose should never be forced to pay for that ‘representation.’”
Starbucks Employees File Brief with Appeals Court in Case Challenging Constitutionality of Labor Board Structure
NY Starbucks workers are challenging NLRB that refuses to hold votes to remove unwanted SBWU union
Washington D.C. (October 16 2024) – New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have filed the opening brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their groundbreaking lawsuit challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as unconstitutional. The lawsuit, initially filed by Cortes, and later joined by Karam, follows NLRB officials’ refusal to process their respective petitions requesting a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace.
The lawsuit states that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the president. The appeal challenges a District Court decision that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack legal standing. That decision did not address the underlying claim regarding whether the Labor Board’s structure complies with the requirements of the Constitution.
The brief, filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, thoroughly refutes the District Courts decision that Cortes and Karams lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Board, and also argues why the Court should side with the plaintiffs on the merits of their constitutional challenge against the NLRB.
Starbucks Employees Are Being Denied Their Right to Vote
On April 28, 2023, Cortes submitted a petition, supported by a majority of her colleagues, asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election at her Buffalo-area “Del-Chip” Starbucks store to remove SBWU union officials’ bargaining powers over workers. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification request.
Similarly, Karam filed a decertification petition seeking a vote to remove the union at his Buffalo-area Starbucks store. Like Cortes’ petition, NLRB officials refuse to allow the vote to take place, citing claims made by SBWU officials. As a result the workers remain trapped under union “representation” they oppose.
“The lower court’s decision was wrong in finding that Cortes’ and Karam’s case lacked standing, as both have business before the NLRB right now and also did at the time their lawsuit was filed,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re hopeful that the D.C. Court of Appeals will agree, and sides with these workers who are entitled to have their decertification case adjudicated by a Labor Board whose structure complies with the Constitution.”
“Despite the wishes of Big Labor and the NLRB who appear intent on squashing the rights of workers opposed to unionization and exercising unfettered power, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law of the land,” added Mix.
