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.
Troy-Based Eaton Corporation Worker Challenges IAM Union Scheme Pushing Termination, Fines on Workers Who Oppose Union
Federal charge: IAM officials illegally demanded money, threatened termination of workers who resigned union membership after divisive strike
St. Louis, MO (January 9, 2025) – An employee of power management firm Eaton Corporation’s Troy, Illinois, facility has just filed federal charges against the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union for violating the rights of multiple employees at his workplace. The employee, Robert Jacobs, maintains that IAM officials are threatening to get him and other employees who resigned union membership fired unless they pay a so-called “reinstatement fee” concocted by the union. Jacobs filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Under federal labor law, which the NLRB is charged with enforcing, private sector employees have an absolute right to resign union membership. This right is codified in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and was affirmed by landmark Supreme Court decisions such as General Motors v. NLRB. Federal law further spells out that neither employers nor union officials can compel private sector workers to participate in union activities or refrain from such activities.
However, in states like Illinois that lack Right to Work protections for their private sector workers, union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that require every employee in a unionized workplace, including those who have abstained from formal union membership, to pay some portion of union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union financial support is fully voluntary and the choice of each individual employee.
“I and several of my colleagues don’t want to be part of the IAM union, but we are required by law to pay fees to union bosses just to keep our jobs,” commented Jacobs. “That’s already something that we don’t want to do. But IAM officials are going even further and hitting us with hundreds of dollars in made-up fees just because we exercised our right to not be union members.”
Post-Strike, IAM Lodge 660 Union Officials Impose $300+ Fine on Workers Who Quit Union Membership
Last October, IAM union officials ordered Eaton Corporation employees – which comprise a work unit of over 400 people – to strike. After the strike concluded, worker opposition to IAM union bosses’ priorities increased and many decided to end their union memberships, including Jacobs.
According to Jacobs’ federal charge, which was filed on the last day of 2024, “the Union is presently threatening Charging Party and [other employees who resigned from the union] with termination if they fail to pay a $306 ‘reinstatement fee’ by January 2025.” The charge argues that the IAM union is violating Eaton employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which safeguards employees’ “right to refrain from any or all of” union activities.
Foundation attorneys have recently assisted other employees nationwide in challenging IAM union bosses’ influence, including last August in Dover, Ohio, and Petaluma, California, where employees at two different Ford dealerships successfully forced out IAM Local 1363 and IAM Local 1596 union officials, respectively. In 2022, Foundation attorneys also successfully attacked an illegal dues scheme imposed by IAM union officials on Boeing engineer Don Zueger, which incorrectly calculated the amount of money he could be required to pay to the union as a nonmember.
“Instead of seeking to win Eaton employees’ voluntary support, IAM union officials have decided to effectively extort the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Threatening to terminate workers if they don’t pay a fee that is apparently intended to punish those who don’t want union bosses speaking for them tarnishes employee rights and freedom.
“Mr. Jacobs’ case shows the tactics union officials will use to force fealty out of independent-minded workers, which is why it’s important that workers in Illinois and across the nation have the Right to Work freedom to cut off all financial support to union bosses they oppose,” Mix added.
Fairmont, MN, Mayo Clinic Nurses Vote to Remove MNA Union From Facility
Latest in string of union ejections by Mayo Clinic healthcare professionals across state
Fairmont, MN (January 8, 2025) – Nurses at Mayo Clinic’s Fairmont Medical Center have just voted 26-15 to eject Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union officials from their facility. The push to remove the union was spearheaded by Mayo Fairmont employee Jamie Campbell, who submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in December 2024 a petition seeking a union decertification vote among her colleagues.
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. Campbell’s union decertification petition contained well over the number of employee signatures needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. According to Campbell’s petition, the work unit covered by the vote included all “registered general duty nurses and charge nurses.”
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, MNA union officials had the legal power to require all the Fairmont Mayo nurses to pay at least a portion of union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work jurisdictions, union membership and all union financial support are voluntary and the choice of each individual worker. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials are able to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on all employees in a work unit, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union.
Pending a certification of the vote result by NLRB officials, Fairmont Mayo nurses will be free from both the forced-dues and monopoly bargaining power of the MNA union.
“The MNA was a very divisive force in our workplace, and I think we’ll be able to better serve our patients and the community without the union,” commented Campbell on the vote. “We hope the NLRB quickly certifies the vote and that union officials respect our decision.”
Fairmont Nurses Join Other Healthcare Professionals Across MN in Ousting Unwanted Unions
Since 2022, several sizable units of healthcare workers in Minnesota have sought out Foundation legal aid to obtain removal votes against the MNA and other unions, and have often been successful in freeing themselves. Nurses and nurse support staff at Mayo Clinic’s Mankato branch voted MNA and American Federation of State County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1856 union officials out of their facility between 2022 and 2023, and nurses at Mayo’s St. James branch did the same with AFSCME Council 65 in August 2022. Employees from four Cuyuna Regional Medical Center locations across the Brainerd Lakes region of Minnesota also sought Foundation aid in their decertification effort against Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials in 2022.
“MNA union bosses’ influence and political connections did not shield them from suffering another defeat by rank-and-file nurses at the ballot box,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ironically, Minnesota’s lack of Right to Work protections – which are vociferously opposed by the MNA – likely removed an important accountability tool from the relationship between the MNA and the nurses they claim to ‘represent.’ It’s no surprise that union bosses who can force workers to pay union dues or fees on pain of termination wind up being far less effective and more out-of-touch than union officials who must earn the voluntary financial support of each worker.”
Jewish CUNY Professors’ Groundbreaking Bid at Supreme Court Challenging Forced Union Association Fully Briefed
Profs challenge NY law forcing them under ‘representation’ of anti-Semitic union officials; seek First Amendment ruling against union coercion of public employees
Washington, DC (December 23, 2024) – The final brief has been submitted urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear six City University of New York (CUNY) professors’ First Amendment case challenging the monopoly representation powers of Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union officials. The professors, five of whom are Jewish, want to dissociate completely from PSC based on public statements and other actions the professors find highly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, but New York state law forces the professors to accept the union’s so-called “representation.”
The professors, Avraham Goldstein, Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Fairness Center. The lawsuit challenges aspects of New York State’s “Taylor Law”, which grants union bosses monopoly bargaining power in the public sector. This gives union bosses the power to speak and contract for public workers, including those that want nothing to do with the union. In addition to opposing the union’s extreme ideology, the professors oppose being forced into a “bargaining unit” of instructional staff who share the union’s objectionable beliefs or have employment interests diverging from their own.
The professors’ original petition for writ of certiorari, filed in July, points out that the High Court has, for decades, recognized how public sector monopoly bargaining burdens workers’ First Amendment freedom of association rights. In 1944, the Supreme Court’s decision in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. recognized how rail union bosses were manipulating their powers over the workplace to discriminate against African-American railway workers. The Supreme Court restated its concerns most recently in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, calling monopoly bargaining “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.”
In the latest filing, Foundation attorneys continue attacking PSC lawyers’ theory that the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight – a case that dealt with the unrelated topic of whether public employees who had abstained from union membership had a right to attend union meetings – should dictate an unfavorable outcome for the professors in this case.
“This case squarely presents the question whether it violates the First Amendment for a state to prohibit individuals from dissociating from a union’s representation to protest that union’s expressive activities.… As the Professors stated in their complaint and briefs, by compelling them to remain under the yoke of PSC’s representation, PSC and CUNY quash the Professors’ ability to express their revulsion with PSC’s advocacy. They should be free to completely dissociate themselves from that advocacy group.”
Law Forces Jewish CUNY Professors to Associate with Anti-Israel PSC Union
The professors’ original complaint recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a host of discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents, including a June 2021 union resolution that the professors viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel.”
The complaint said Prof. Michael Goldstein “experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family.” Goldstein has needed a guard to accompany him on campus, the complaint noted.
Prof. Lax, the complaint explained, already received in a separate case a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “that CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” Prof. Lax “has felt marginalized and ostracized by PSC because the union has made it clear that Jews who support the Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, are not welcome,” said the complaint. As their petition of certiorari notes, these conflicts have significantly increased since October 7, 2023.
SCOTUS Asked to Overturn Laws Imposing Union Power on Public Workers
The petition asks the Supreme Court to take up the case and stop CUNY and the State of New York from letting PSC union bosses impose their “representation” on the professors. It also demands that the Court declare unconstitutional Section 204 of New York’s Taylor Law to the extent that it compels the professors under union power.
University faculty and students across the country are increasingly seeking out Foundation legal aid to counter union coercion within the academic sphere – especially coercion relating to anti-Semitic or anti-Israel agendas that union bosses are pushing. In August, five Jewish Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate students won favorable settlements after pro-BDS Graduate Student Union (GSU-UE) officials tried to force them to pay for the union’s activities despite their requests for religious accommodations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A mathematics Ph. D. student at Dartmouth is pursuing a similar religious discrimination case with Foundation aid.
“No public worker should be forced to associate with union officials who denigrate their culture and identity. But unfortunately this is exactly what New York State’s Taylor Law and many similar laws around the country allow,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court has expressed concerns with monopoly bargaining for decades, and it’s high time that the justices finally acknowledge the First Amendment protects government employees from being forced to accept ‘representation’ they adamantly oppose.”
National Right to Work Foundation Offers Free Legal Aid to Amazon Workers Who Seek to Rebuff Teamsters Strike Order
Notice: Amazon Employees and Amazon Delivery Service Partner employees impacted by strike should resign their memberships before returning to work
Washington, DC (December 20, 2024) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a legal notice to Amazon employees and drivers for Amazon Delivery Service Partners (DSPs), informing them that they have options to continue working and providing for themselves and their families in the face of a strike order issued by Teamsters union officials.
News reports indicate that Teamsters bosses’ strike order claims to apply to thousands of employees (including employees of Amazon contractors) at Amazon facilities in New York, NY; Skokie, IL; Atlanta, GA; San Francisco, CA; and Southern California. Amazon management disputes whether Teamsters union officials have legal authority at all over those employees, in part because of legally suspect organizing tactics Teamsters officials have employed.
The legal notice informs any impacted employees of their rights, including their right to resign union membership and continue working as the strike is ongoing. The notice discusses why workers across the country frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in such situations.
“The Foundation wants you to learn about your legal rights from independent sources. You should not rely on what self-interested union officials tell you,” the notice reads. “Foundation staff attorneys have directly assisted Teamster-represented workers in numerous cases over the years, including multiple recent victories challenging illegal coercion from Teamsters officials.”
The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/Amazon.
Legal Notice: Amazon Workers Who Wish to Work Should Resign From Union Before Returning
The notice outlines the process that Amazon and DSP employees should follow if they want to exercise their right to return to work during the strike and ensure they avoid punishment by union bosses, complete with sample union membership resignation letters. The notice reminds workers that Teamsters union officials have no disciplinary power over workers who are not union members, and advises employees who wish to work during a strike to resign their memberships before returning to work.
“Union officials can (and often do) fine actual union members who work during a strike,” the notice says. “So, you should seriously consider resigning at least one day BEFORE you return to work during a strike, which is the best way to avoid these union fines and discipline.”
Foundation attorneys have a long history of defending employees in cases against the Teamsters. Currently the Foundation is assisting trucking and warehouse workers across the country with obtaining votes to remove Teamsters union officials, including most recently in Northern Ohio where hundreds of employees across multiple facilities just voted to eject the union.
“Teamsters union officials used a number of legally questionable tactics to claim control over several Amazon workplaces, including in Staten Island where the Teamsters effectively purchased a previously independent union’s suspect claim to power,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In that location, the union didn’t even know the identities of the Amazon employees they claimed to represent, and even sought to have the federal government push Amazon to provide a list to the union earlier this year.
“Many drivers and warehouse workers may be shocked to learn that Teamsters officials believe they have the power to discipline workers for simply continuing their work and not striking,” added Mix. “Regardless of how the legal disputes between Amazon and the Teamsters shake out, federal labor law has always been clear on these points: Workers have a right refuse union membership or resign at any time, and union officials cannot legally subject such nonmember employees to fines or other internal discipline for choosing to work instead of participating in a strike.”
Ruling in Favor of Vanderbilt Grad Students’ Privacy Protections Prompts UAW Affiliate to Abandon Unionization Effort
Separately, Dartmouth and MIT graduate students charge UE affiliates with demanding union dues from them in violation of SCOTUS precedent
Nashville, TN (December 19, 2024) – Following three Vanderbilt University graduate students’ privacy-related legal challenges to the union’s efforts to gain monopoly bargaining privileges on campus, United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials have withdrawn their campaign at the school. The three students, who are identified in legal documents as “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” and “Jane Doe 1,” received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in protecting their private information from UAW union officials.
The students invoked their rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which generally prohibits universities from disclosing students’ personal information to third parties without their consent. UAW union bosses sought this information from the three Foundation-represented students and thousands of others as part of the union campaign to place Vanderbilt graduate students under UAW union monopoly bargaining control. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued subpoenas for that info.
UAW Union Organizers Demanded Private Info Over Student Privacy Objections
In October, two students identified as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 moved to intervene in the NLRB case, arguing that FERPA’s language permits students to seek “protective action” if a university receives a subpoena seeking their personal information, as in this case. Several other graduate students also submitted less-formal objections urging the agency not to enforce a subpoena divulging their private information. Despite the students’ concerns, a regional NLRB official ruled on October 18 that Vanderbilt had to comply with the UAW-requested subpoenas.
Foundation attorneys submitted an emergency appeal for John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 to the NLRB in Washington, DC, emphasizing that the students needed an opportunity to “address[] the serious privacy issues raised by the Region’s subpoena.” Foundation attorneys additionally filed an updated motion to intervene that included Jane Doe 1 as another student seeking to intervene in the case.
Following a rising tide of student opposition, the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee issued a ruling on November 22 temporarily releasing Vanderbilt from its obligation to comply with the NLRB subpoenas. On December 12, UAW union officials announced they were withdrawing their petition to unionize Vanderbilt graduate students, meaning the union campaign has ended and the subpoenas seeking student information are effectively moot.
“Many of my colleagues and I simply want to pursue our academic studies, and oppose not only UAW organizers having our private contact information, but also being forced to associate with a union at all in order to earn our graduate degrees,” commented one of the Foundation-assisted Vanderbilt graduate students, identified as Jane Doe 1 in the legal filings. “The withdrawal of UAW organizers’ petition seeking a vote to unionize us against our will is a welcome victory for us in our defense of our rights and the rights of our fellow graduate students.”
Dartmouth, MIT Grad Students File New Cases Challenging UE Union’s Dues Seizures
Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys are assisting graduate students at Dartmouth and MIT with fighting attempts by United Electrical (UE)-affiliated unions to demand dues payments from students against their will and in violation of their rights. Kara Rzasa, a Dartmouth graduate student, and Michael Fernandez, an MIT graduate student, have each hit UE local and national affiliates with charges for illegal polices UE officials are utilizing nationwide when demanding forced dues payments.
Fernandez’s charge slams the UE for violating federal law, including the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court precedent, in how the union calculates the amount of fees it can require the students to pay. The charge notes UE union officials are using out of date, incomplete, and unaudited financial statements to attempt to extract more mandatory fees than can be legally justified.
Rzasa’s charge challenges the UE’s nationwide “window period” policy that blocks graduate students from opting out of full dues, including the portions that go to union activities UE officials admit are explicitly political. The charge notes this violates the National Labor Relations Act, the Beck decision, and other federal limits on union officials’ monopoly representation powers.
Separately, Foundation attorneys are assisting Dartmouth Ph.D. student Ben Logsdon in his effort to seek a religious accommodation that would exempt him from being “represented” by UE union officials. Logsdon objects on religious grounds to the ideological stances of the UE union and wants nothing to do with that union.
“While we’re happy that the private information of Vanderbilt grad students is now secure from prying union eyes, it’s clear from both that case and many other cases that Foundation attorneys are litigating for grad students around the country that union monopoly bargaining power has no place in the academic sphere,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses were able to get a foothold at colleges and universities as the result of biased rulings from the NLRB under Obama and Biden, which has jeopardized not only academic freedom, but also religious freedom, and federal protections that students rely on for privacy and security.
“While no one in America should be forced to accept the control of a union boss hierarchy they oppose, courts and federal agencies in the new year should look to these cases as prime examples of why the union monopoly bargaining model should never have been extended to graduate students at all,” Mix added.
Hundreds of Northern Ohio Workers Vote Against Teamsters Union Boss Control
Toledo-area scrap metal employees and Wooster Frito-Lay warehouse workers get union ‘decertification votes’ certified over union bosses’ objections
Ohio (December 12, 2024) – Hundreds of employees from across Northern Ohio have voted in favor of removing Teamsters union control at their workplaces. The elections, both certified this month by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), occurred at Wooster, OH, Frito-Lay warehouses and scrap metal firm Omnisource’s Toledo, OH, facility, which are under the control of Teamsters Local 52 and Teamsters Local 20, respectively.
Frito-Lay employee Dusty Hinkle and Omnisource employee Daniel Caughhorn submitted petitions in October 2023 and August 2024 respectively, asking the NLRB to hold union decertification elections among their coworkers at their facilities. Hinkle and Caughhorn both received free legal aid in filing their petitions from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
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. Both Hinkle’s and Caughhorn’s petitions contained a sufficient number of signatures to trigger a vote under NLRB rules. Despite workers voting in both elections against Teamsters union control, Teamsters union officials filed objections against 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. Barring an attempt by Teamsters Local 20 officials to file a Request for Review to the NLRB in Washington, DC, within the next few days, both the Omnisource and Frito-Lay employees – over 430 in total – will have cut all ties with the Teamsters unions.
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. Now that the Frito-Lay and Omnisource employees have voted out the Teamsters, they are free both of union bosses’ forced-dues demands and their ability to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on the workplace.
Workers Across Country Reject Teamsters ‘Representation’ and Coercive Political Positions
Foundation attorneys have recently assisted a number of workers from across industries in obtaining votes to eject Teamsters union officials. Within the last two months, truck drivers from Georgia, California, Virginia, and New Jersey have successfully booted out Teamsters union officials or initiated removal efforts with Foundation aid.
Beyond Teamsters-controlled workplaces, NLRB data indicates an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years. Despite that, 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, union officials have substantially more power to stop workers from even obtaining an election to remove a union, and can also stop workers from requesting decertification elections to challenge a union’s ascent to power via “card check,” an unsecure process that bypasses the traditional secret-ballot vote process.
“Teamsters union officials continue to lose support from the very workers they claim to ‘represent’, and these cases demonstrate yet again why every worker, in Ohio and nationwide, deserves the protection of a Right to Work law so they can decide for themselves whether or not to financially support union officials’ activities,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re glad these workers have succeeded in freeing themselves from unwanted unionization, it should not require months of litigation and overcoming attempts by union lawyers to overturn the workers’ votes.
“This case shows yet again that despite what local and national Teamsters union bosses claim, they don’t actually speak for the rank-and-file they claim to ‘represent’ and in fact have no qualms about attempting to disenfranchise those workers to trap them in union ranks they oppose,” added Mix.
California and Georgia Truck Drivers Petition for Votes to Remove Teamsters Union Bosses
Efforts come in the face of Teamsters-backed Biden-Harris Labor Board rule designed to disenfranchise workers
California and Georgia (December 9, 2024) – Two sets of trucking employees have filed petitions seeking elections to remove International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters) union officials from power in their workplaces. Stockton, CA-based PepsiCo driver Edward Kilgore and Georgia-based BFI Waste Services driver James Shiflett submitted decertification petitions to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Edward Kilgore, a truck driver for PepsiCo Beverages North America in Stockton, CA, submitted a petition in December, in which the majority of his coworkers asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove Teamsters Local 439 union bosses. Soon after, a group of Georgia-area BFI Waste Services, LLC truckers led by James Shiflett also filed a petition demanding the same kind of NLRB election to oust Teamsters Local 728. 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.
Both Kilgore’s and Shiflett’s decertification petitions contain employee signatures well in excess of the threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). If a majority of Kilgore’s and Shiflett’s coworkers vote against retaining the Teamsters union officials, they will lose their monopoly bargaining powers in the workplace.
For the California workers, their continued effort is especially critical because they are based in a state that lacks Right to Work protections. In such states, union officials can impose union contracts that require workers to pay dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states like Georgia, union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work jurisdictions, union bosses can use their monopoly bargaining privileges to subject all workers in a unionized facility to one-size fits-all contracts – even those workers who voted against the union or otherwise oppose it. A successful decertification election ends union officials’ forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers in a workplace.
“My coworkers and I are not just opposed to Teamsters officials so-called ‘representation’ but especially offended that currently the union has the power to enter into a contract that forces us to fund the very union we oppose,” said Edward Kilgore, who filed the petition against Teamsters Local 439. “This is about giving workers the power to make their own decisions.”
Pro-Union Boss Shifts in NLRB Policy Disenfranchise Workers
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. Under the Teamsters-backed change, union officials can manipulate often-unproven allegations against management (also known as “blocking charges”) to stop workers from exercising their right to vote out a union, and can also stop workers from requesting decertification elections to challenge a union’s ascent to power via “card check,” an unsecure process that bypasses the traditional secret-ballot vote process.
“Workers across the country are rejecting union officials top-down agendas both inside and outside the workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While Teamsters bosses like Sean O’Brien are advocating for more power over rank-and-file workers, including by advocating for the elimination of Right to Work protections nationwide, America’s working men and women are increasingly seeking to vote out union officials that don’t serve their interests.”
Full Foundation Action September/October 2024 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the September/October 2024 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- Professors Launch Landmark SCOTUS Bid to End Forced Union Association
- Chicago 911 Operator Successfully Defends Janus Rights Against IBEW
- Post-Right to Work Repeal, MI Workers Vote to Cancel Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
- Mark Mix in The Center Square: Escaping the UAW “Roach Motel”
- Foundation Exposes Union Boss Coercion & Discrimination Before Congress
- Flight Attendant Defends Win Against Union, Southwest, for Illegal Firing
