Flight Attendant Asks SCOTUS to Hear Case Challenging Union Boss Scheme to Discriminate Against Nonmembers
Petition: Ninth Circuit wrongly ruled that federal labor law lets union officials take away on-the-job benefits for refusal to pay union fees
Washington, DC (April 23, 2025) – Flight attendant Ali Bahreman has just filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case challenging a Transportation Workers Union (TWU) contract that deprived him of his ability to use his seniority to bid on flight assignments and secure other valuable job benefits. Bahreman, who refrained from formal union membership, is arguing that a union monopoly contract between Allegiant Airlines management and TWU union bosses violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by conditioning flight attendants’ “bidding privileges” on their payment of fees to the union.
The RLA governs employment arrangements like Bahreman’s in the rail and air industries. The RLA is a federal law that permits union officials and employers to enforce so-called “union security agreements” that require workers in a unionized workplace to pay union fees to keep their jobs.
Bahreman’s petition points out that although the RLA grants union officials the power to enter into contracts that require payment of union fees as a condition of employment, it has long been illegal for unions to enter into contracts that otherwise discriminate against certain classes of workers, like nonmembers. This goes all the way back to the 1944 Steele Supreme Court precedent that created what the court called the “Duty of Fair Representation” (DFR) in order to save the RLA from being declared unconstitutional after union officials used their power to impose a contract that discriminated against workers based on their race.
The petition argues that not only does the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the discriminatory scheme conflict with opinions from other federal courts of appeal, but if left in place, the decision calls into question the constitutionality of union exclusive bargaining powers under both the RLA and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA):
“Having unraveled the DFR, the Ninth Circuit’s decision allows unions to wield congressionally delegated exclusive representation power without the DFR’s limitations. That raises ‘serious constitutional questions’ regarding exclusive representation’s constitutionality…
“Ensuring that the Ninth Circuit’s decision does not dismantle employees’ RLA and NLRA speech and associational freedoms from forced unionism is of national importance. The Ninth Circuit’s decision jeopardizes employees’ ability to do their jobs free from union coercion, hostility, and discrimination in the workplace.”
Petition Exposes That Lower Court Decision in Favor of TWU Allows Union Bosses to Discriminate in Workplace
The petition comes after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals puzzlingly ruled that the RLA permits union officials to enforce contracts that require employers to eliminate on-the-job benefits from workers who refuse to pay union fees. Bahreman’s petition goes on to explain that the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning greenlights discrimination by union bosses in their treatment of union members and nonmembers, which flies in the face of the duty of fair representation that federal law imposes on all union officials.
Federal law permits union officials to extend their monopoly bargaining powers over all workers in a unit, including those who oppose the union, but requires that union officials not discriminate against nonmembers. Therefore, the petition says, monopoly bargaining itself should be reexamined if the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is upheld.
“Mr. Bahreman’s case shows how deep the rabbit-hole of union boss legal privileges goes,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision turns the U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘duty of fair representation’ on its head, and exposes the underlying constitutional tensions that the Court identified long ago in the 1944 Steele High Court decision.
“Originally created in Steele as a bulwark against union bosses wielding their monopoly representation and forced dues powers to discriminate, the Ninth Circuit’s reinterpretation of the DFR doctrine allows union officials to engage in discrimination to coerce fee payment from union dissidents,” added Mix. “The Supreme Court should take Mr. Bahreman’s case to settle the circuit split and make it clear that Big Labor officials cannot wield their extraordinary government-granted powers to undermine the working conditions of workers who oppose union affiliation.”
Energy Transfer Drivers Across Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana Demand Vote to Remove Steelworkers Union From Power
Hundreds of employees of oil and gas transportation company could be free from union’s grip if vote goes forward
Washington, DC (April 21, 2025) – Drivers for Energy Transfer, an oil and gas transportation company with nearly 30 facilities across Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, are petitioning a federal labor board for a vote to end United Steelworkers (USW) union officials’ bargaining control over their work unit.
Driver Jay Fifer, who is based at Energy Transfer’s workplace in Hearne, TX (near College Station, TX), submitted the petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) this week with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. If Fifer and his coworkers’ requested vote is successful, over 420 Energy Transfer drivers will be free of USW union officials’ control.
The NLRB is the agency charged with enforcing federal labor law in the private sector, which includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Fifer’s petition contains signatures from his coworkers well in excess of the percentage required by the NLRB to trigger a union decertification vote within his work unit. The NLRB will now review Fifer’s petition.
Right to Work laws in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana prohibit USW union officials from enforcing contracts that require Energy Transfer drivers to pay union dues or fees just to get or keep a job. In contrast, in non-Right to Work states, union officials can force workers to pay dues or fees on pain of termination. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work jurisdictions, USW union officials can still impose monopoly bargaining contracts over every employee in a work unit, whether or not they voted for or support the union. As Fifer’s case demonstrates, union-controlled work units can often span hundreds of workers in different cities or even across state lines.
“Support among us drivers for this Steelworkers union is very low where I work. My colleagues at other locations have said similar things as well. It’s not fair for Steelworkers officials to dictate major things about our work lives when very few drivers at all are union members,” commented Fifer. “I filed this petition because I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of my coworkers don’t think this union represents us, and we hope the NLRB lets us exercise that right without any delays.”
Workers Across Country Increasingly Seeking Exit from Union Control
Foundation staff attorneys have helped several groups of workers oust unwanted USW unions within the last few years, including healthcare workers in Minnesota, metal workers in Pennsylvania, chemical employees in Louisiana, building products employees in New Jersey, and 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.
“American workers should not have to accept the ‘representation’ of a union that lacks worker support in the workplace, and more and more workers are standing up to free themselves,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That’s why it’s important that they be able to freely exercise their right to vote to remove a union, a right that unfortunately was consistently under attack under the previous Administration’s National Labor Relations Board.
“As President Trump seeks new appointees for the NLRB, he should remember that workers all over the country like Mr. Fifer and his colleagues believe they are better off free from union influence, and those workers deserve to have their voices and will respected,” Mix added.
Ascension St. Agnes Nurse Slams NNOC Union With Federal Charges After Union Restricts Workplace Vote
Nurse contends that union is discriminating against nonmember nurses and violating duty of fair representation
Baltimore, MD (April 16, 2025) – A nurse at Ascension Health’s St. Agnes Hospital has hit the National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union with federal charges, maintaining that union officials are discriminating against nonmembers as a vote on workplace issues approaches. The nurse, Jen Delaney, filed the unfair labor practice charge at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law and adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. Delaney details in her charges that NNOC union officials are forbidding nurses who are not formal union members, like herself, from voting on a “partial deal” that is part of a wider contract negotiation. The union is restricting the voting pool despite the fact that the union monopoly contract will impose conditions on all nurses at the facility, members and nonmembers alike.
Delaney is arguing that NNOC union officials are violating the “duty of fair representation,” a legal mandate that requires union officials not to discriminate in its bargaining functions, including on the basis of union membership. The duty originates from a 1944 Supreme Court case, Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co., in which the Court recognized that rail union bosses were manipulating their powers over the workplace to discriminate against African-American railway workers.
Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, NNOC union officials can impose working conditions on the nurses that require them to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work jurisdictions like nearby Virginia and West Virginia, union membership and all union financial support are the choice of each individual worker.
“NNOC union officials have been extremely abrasive to any nurse who isn’t gung-ho for the union’s agenda,” commented Delaney. “It wasn’t long ago that my coworkers and I backed an effort to try to vote this union out, and this new development shows exactly why. NNOC union bosses are freezing out nurses from the voting process who are unwilling to sign a membership form that states it is ‘voluntary,’ yet they require signatures to vote, even though that vote is going to have very significant consequences for all of us at St. Agnes.”
Federal Charges Follow Nurses’ Attempt to Vote Union Out
Delaney led an effort to “decertify” (or remove) the NNOC union earlier this year. Delaney and her coworkers reported that union officials made taking care of patients more difficult and that the union generally served as a divisive force in the workplace.
“NNOC union officials are clearly not interested in ‘representing’ all nurses at St. Agnes, and have instead actively discriminated against nurses who are critical of the union’s priorities and who have exercised their legally-protected right to reject formal union membership,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While this is a violation of the duty of fair representation, it exposes a more fundamental problem with federal labor law: Union officials shouldn’t have the power to foist their ‘representation’ on workers who have disaffiliated with the union to begin with, and certainly shouldn’t have the ability to force those same dissenting workers to subsidize a union they don’t want and never asked for.”
Minnesota Electric Utility Employee Challenges IBEW Nationwide Policy Coercing Worker Contributions to Union’s Political Activity
Worker charges union with blocking her right under CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision to end payments for union politics
Benson, MN (April 8, 2025) – An employee of Agralite Electric Cooperative, an electric utility company in Western Minnesota, has just filed federal charges against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union, challenging nationwide restrictions union officials impose on workers who wish to cut off financial support for union political activities. The worker, Theresa Klassen, filed charges against both the IBEW international union and IBEW Local 160 at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 18 in Minneapolis. Klassen is represented for free by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law and adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. In her charges, Klassen is defending her rights under the landmark Foundation-won Communications Workers of America (CWA) v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which forbids union officials from forcing workers who have refrained from formal union membership to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s monopoly bargaining functions. Union political expenditures are one expense employees can opt out of paying by invoking their Beck rights.
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, IBEW union officials can impose contracts that force Klassen and her coworkers to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, nonmember workers like Klassen can object to paying full dues and instead pay a reduced amount under Beck. In contrast, in Right to Work states like all of Minnesota’s neighbors, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
“It’s disappointing that IBEW union officials can legally force me to fork over even a little bit of my paycheck to them after I resigned my membership, but refusing to pay for union politics is my right and the IBEW isn’t respecting it,” commented Klassen. “They’ve put a bunch of time limitations on when I can exercise this right, and are also requiring me to contact union bosses in Washington, D.C. who I have never met just to prevent my money from going toward union politicking I oppose. This is wrong.”
Filings: IBEW Officials Illegally Rebuffed Worker Twice After Receiving Requests to Stop Funneling Money to Union Politics
Klassen’s charges state that she first contacted her local union to resign her union membership in October 2024. While Local 160 union officials acknowledged her resignation letter, they claimed that the IBEW’s national policy is to “not allow nonmembers automatic Beck objector status,” and for that reason she would need to send a letter to the union’s international headquarters to opt out of paying for union politics. Local 160’s reply also stated that Beck objections would only be accepted during “window periods” of time comprising only 8-16% of the year, according to her charges.
Klassen’s charges also state that she sent a Beck objection letter to the IBEW international headquarters again in February 2025. IBEW union agents rejected this request as well, alleging that Klassen’s request fell outside the arbitrary time restrictions set by the union. Klassen is charging both IBEW Local 160 and the IBEW international union with enforcing these illicit limits on her Beck rights.
Window period restrictions on when employees can exercise their Beck rights allow union officials to extract money from workers who have already objected to financially supporting union activities. The creation of window periods is not authorized or otherwise mentioned in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal labor law governing the private sector. Foundation attorneys are assisting multiple AT&T workers in Florida battle a similar scheme concocted by CWA officials.
“That IBEW union bosses are enforcing a nationwide policy making it needlessly difficult to stop supporting the union’s political activities should tell workers exactly what the union’s priorities are,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While Beck rights are an important protection for workers in non-Right to Work states, no American worker should be forced to subsidize any union activities that they disagree with, whether political or not.”
Third AT&T-BellSouth Worker Hits CWA Union With Federal Charges, Challenges Thousands in Illegal Strike Fines
Newest charge challenges union boss $5,300 strike fine demand, while other workers challenge CWA union officials’ restrictive dues collection tactics
Miami, FL (March 28, 2025) – Henry Gonzalez, an employee of AT&T-BellSouth in Miami, has just hit the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union in his workplace with federal charges – the third worker to do so in just a month. Gonzalez’s charges, which were filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, describe how CWA union officials are wrongfully targeting him with thousands of dollars in disciplinary fines for not participating in a strike.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law and investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practices. Under federal labor law, union officials can mete out internal strike discipline only on employees who are formal members of the union. A worker who ends his union membership before exercising his right to continue working during a strike action cannot be punished by the union hierarchy. Gonzalez maintains that he resigned his union membership, yet union bosses still slammed him afterward with illegal fines in excess of $5,000.
In addition to preventing union bosses from imposing discipline on workers who have abstained from union membership, federal labor law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like NLRB v. General Motors protect workers’ right to freely maintain or end union membership.
Freedom to resign union membership is also protected at the state level in Florida by the state’s Right to Work protections, which forbid union officials from forcing private sector workers to join or pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. This is in contrast to forced-unionism states, in which union bosses can require all employees in a workplace, even those who are not union members or who are otherwise opposed to the union, to financially support some union activities.
Within the past month, Miami-based AT&T-BellSouth employees Sofia Hernaiz and Amanda Marc have also filed unfair labor practice charges against the CWA union. Hernaiz and Marc, who have also opted out of union membership, both maintain that union officials are enforcing confusing “window periods” that restrict to just a few days per year when workers can revoke their consent to union dues deductions. Marc’s charge maintains that window periods violate federal labor law because they force unwilling workers to subsidize unwanted unions. Hernaiz’s charge also reports unlawful post-strike discipline similar to Gonzales’.
“Principled, independent-minded workers at AT&T-BellSouth are increasingly deciding that they will not take CWA union officials’ arbitrary restrictions and coercive ‘discipline’ sitting down,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Big Labor union bosses and their cronies on the NLRB have for decades been trying to contort federal labor law to favor their own power and influence over workers’ freedom, especially during the Biden Administration. Foundation-backed workers in Florida and across the nation are fighting to reverse this trend.”
T-Mobile Arena Worker Files Federal Charges Against Culinary Union for Stonewalling Requests to Stop Dues Deductions
Arena foodservice employee is latest to charge Culinary Union officials with undermining workers’ rights under federal law
Las Vegas, NV (March 20, 2025) – Renee Guerrero, an employee of Levy Restaurants, a foodservice provider at Las Vegas’ T-Mobile Arena, has hit Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (a Unite Here affiliate) and her employer with federal charges for illegally deducting full union dues from her paycheck despite her objections to both union membership and dues payments.
Guerrero filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a duty which includes investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice cases.
Under federal labor law and Supreme Court precedents like NLRB v. General Motors, all private sector workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership, though union officials oftentimes try to coerce union membership. Federal law also requires union officials to obtain written authorization from a worker before deducting union dues payments directly from their paycheck.
Further, because Nevada has Right to Work protections for its workers, Culinary Union officials can’t legally force Guerrero or her coworkers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In states that lack such protections union officials can require workers to pay at least some union dues just to keep their jobs. In all states, union officials must get the written authorization of workers before directly deducting forced dues and fees from a worker’s paycheck.
“I have a right under Nevada’s Right to Work law to stop all payments to Local 226, and yet rather than respect my rights they’re ignoring my requests and forcing me to pay. I don’t think Culinary Union bosses deserve my support, and their actions since I attempted to exercise my right to stop dues payments only confirms my decision,” stated Guerrero.
Challenge to Illegal Dues Seizures Follows Other Employee Cases Against Culinary Union
According to Guerrero’s charges against the union, she “submitted two written letters to the Union in which she resigned her union membership and revoked any dues check-off authorization she may have signed.” However, the charges state, union officials did not honor her membership resignation (if she had ever become a union member in the first place), and also refused to provide any documentation she may have signed in the past authorizing dues deductions.
In addition to her charge against the union, Guerrero has filed a separate charge against Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership for its role in facilitating the continued deductions.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have a long history of helping workers at Las Vegas casinos and other venues oppose coercive Culinary Union legal maneuvers, including earlier this month in a case for Las Vegas Convention Center worker Rebecca Swank. Swank, an employee of Sodexo, filed similar federal charges against the union and her employer on the grounds they illegally seized full union dues from her paycheck despite her explicit resignation from membership and revocation of dues authorization.
“Between federal law, and Nevada’s popular Right to Work law workers like Renee Guerrero have a clear right to opt out of all union financial support and stop any union dues deductions,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, Culinary Union officials have a troubling track record of violating the legal rights of the very workers they claim to represent.
“We are proud to assist Renee in ensuring her legal rights are enforced, and are available to provide free legal assistance to any Nevada workers who want to exercise their right to stop union dues payments,” added Mix.
Second AT&T BellSouth Worker Hits CWA Union With Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Worker Money
Employee challenges coercive union tactic of restricting when workers can cut off union financial support
Miami, FL (March 17, 2025) – Amanda Marc, an employee of AT&T BellSouth Communications, has filed federal charges against the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union and its local affiliates, maintaining that CWA union officials are imposing illegal restrictions on her and her coworkers’ right to opt out of union dues payments. Marc filed her charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practices and administering votes to install or remove unions in workplaces. Marc’s charges challenge the CWA union’s use of “window period” restrictions to limit to just ten days per year the time in which workers can demand that dues deductions cease from their paychecks. Window periods are widely used by union officials as a way to keep money flowing from dissenting workers towards the union’s agenda, and Marc’s charges seek a ruling that this practice is unlawful under federal labor law.
Marc’s charges contend that while federal labor law permits dues deduction authorization documents to be irrevocable for one year after employees initially sign them, any further window periods or other restrictions on workers’ legally-protected right to cut off dues after that period has elapsed violate the National Labor Relations Act:
“It is unlawful to have any window period for revocations after the first year of the payroll deduction authorization form. [Federal labor law] does not contain any reference to ‘window periods’…The unions have no statutory license to create tricky and arbitrary ‘window periods’ to force unwilling employees to keep paying dues.”
Because Marc and her colleagues work in the Right to Work state of Florida, CWA union bosses are forbidden from forcing workers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs, though CWA union officials are ostensibly trying to cabin the exercise of this freedom with their window period scheme. In states that lack Right to Work protections, in contrast, union officials can force employees to pay fees to the union or be terminated, meaning even perfect compliance with a union boss’s arbitrary window period restriction would not completely free a worker from union payments.
AT&T Worker Joins Colleague in Revealing Blatantly Illegal CWA Dues Deduction Practices
Marc’s charges state that she and many of her coworkers resigned their union memberships in August 2024, which was around when CWA union officials ordered AT&T BellSouth workers out on a strike. Despite Marc’s requests to end union membership and stop financial support for the union, the charges read, CWA agents never responded to either demand, and never even informed Marc of the window period dates in which they would consider her requests valid.
In addition to challenging the use of window periods as a whole, Marc’s charges point out several other unlawful aspects of CWA bosses’ union dues collection scheme, including a requirement that dues revocation requests be made “by individual letters sent by certified mail only.” CWA union bosses also failed to inform employees that, by law, they have an opportunity to opt out of union dues deductions on the anniversary date of when they signed the dues checkoff and aren’t just restricted to the arbitrary window period imposed by the union.
Marc’s filing comes just days after Foundation attorneys submitted federal charges against CWA union bosses on behalf of another AT&T BellSouth worker, Sofia Hernaiz. Hernaiz declares in her charges that CWA union officials tried to subject her to internal discipline for not participating in the August 2024 strike, even though she had resigned her union membership beforehand and by law can’t be subject to such proceedings. Similar to Marc, Hernaiz also details that CWA union officials did not acknowledge her attempt to cut off dues deductions to the union, nor informed her of what the union’s window period restrictions were.
“Ms. Marc, in standing up for her and her coworkers’ freedom to stop subsidizing unwanted CWA union officials, is also mounting an unprecedented challenge to the ‘window period’ gambit. This scheme has been manipulated by union officials across the country to yank financial support out of unwilling workers for far too long,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Forthcoming NLRB Trump appointees should use cases like this to rule that such practices that serve only to enrich union boss hierarchies are unlawful.
“It is time to reorient the Board’s mission toward defending the individual right of every American worker to associate or dissociate with a union as he or she pleases,” added Mix. “For too long, NLRB officials have rigged federal law to enhance union boss power at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the very workers the Act purports to protect.”
Las Vegas Convention Center Worker Slams Culinary Union and Sodexo with Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Dues From Wages
Employee maintains that both union and employer ignored requests to refrain from union membership and dues payments
Las Vegas, NV (March 12, 2025) – Rebecca Swank, an employee of foodservice provider Sodexo who works primarily at the Las Vegas Convention Center, has hit Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (a Unite Here affiliate) and her employer with federal charges for seizing full union dues from her paycheck despite her objections to both union membership and dues payments.
Swank filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. Swank’s charges also state that Sodexo officials forced her to get a job referral from the Culinary Union’s hiring hall in person immediately upon being hired.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a duty which includes investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice cases. Under federal labor law and Supreme Court precedents like NLRB v. General Motors, all private sector workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership, though union officials sometimes try to coerce union membership anyway, including by subjecting employees to intimidation during hiring hall encounters. Federal law also requires union officials to receive written authorization from a worker before deducting union dues payments directly from their paycheck.
Further, because Nevada has Right to Work protections for its workers, Culinary Union officials can’t legally force Swank or her coworkers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In states that lack such protections, in contrast, union officials can require workers to pay at least some union dues just to keep their jobs, though must still seek the written authorization of workers before collecting those forced fees by direct deduction.
“Culinary Union officials have been very abrasive in our workplace and have been ineffective in standing up for our interests,” commented Swank. “But now they’re doing something full-on illegal by stopping me from exercising my right under Nevada’s Right to Work law to stop financially supporting them. That’s wrong, and I hope the NLRB gets to the bottom of this.”
Challenge to Illegal Dues Seizures Follows Other Employee Cases Against Culinary Union
According to Swank’s charges against the union, she “submitted two written letters to the Union in which she resigned her union membership and revoked any dues check-off authorization she may have signed.” However, the charges state, union officials did not honor her membership resignation (if she had ever become a union member in the first place), and also refused to provide any documentation she may have signed in the past authorizing dues deductions.
“Finally, the Union has accepted dues deducted from [Swank’s] paycheck without her written authorization and despite her written demand that it cease to do so and to refund her,” Swank’s charges against the union conclude. Swank also filed a charge against Sodexo management for its role in keeping dues flowing from her paycheck to the union.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have a long history of helping workers at Las Vegas casinos and other venues oppose coercive Culinary Union legal maneuvers, including in 2021 when Foundation attorneys defended Red Rock Casino workers’ majority vote against Culinary Union control from a district court judge’s order imposing the union on the workers anyway. Foundation attorneys also defended Red Rock Casino slot machine technician Jereme Barrios and his coworkers from a similar situation 2022, when a regional NLRB official blocked him and his fellow technicians from exercising their right to vote themselves out of a Culinary Union work unit. The regional NLRB official cited specious reasons for why the vote couldn’t occur, including allegations of employer malfeasance that didn’t even relate to Barrios and his colleagues.
“Culinary Union bosses have a track record of ignoring and trampling basic employee rights, simply to gain more power over the workers that they claim to ‘represent.’ Unfortunately, it’s unsurprising that independent-minded workers seek to exercise their Right to Work freedom to stop all financial support for this union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Culinary Union officials’ refusal to respect the exercise of basic rights is clearly at odds with both state and federal law, and our attorneys will defend Ms. Swank’s freedom of choice.”
NY Starbucks Baristas File Amicus Brief Opposing Reinstatement of Biden-Appointed NLRB Member Removed by President Trump
Starbucks employees have pending federal lawsuit challenging NLRB structure as unconstitutional, argue they could be harmed if member’s removal is blocked
Washington, DC (March 11, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has just filed an amicus brief at the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals for two upstate New York Starbucks baristas in a federal case that could determine the constitutionality of the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The case, Wilcox v. Trump, concerns whether President Trump properly exercised his executive authority when he removed the Biden-appointed former chair of the NLRB, Gwynne Wilcox. Trump Administration lawyers argue, as baristas Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have in their own pending lawsuit at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, the federal law authorizing the NLRB) violates the Constitution because it prevents the president from removing board members.
Cortes and Karam now join the Administration’s legal team in asking the D.C. Circuit Court to stay a lower court’s ruling that Wilcox be reinstated. Their brief notes that they, and others, could be directly harmed if Wilcox participates in an NLRB decision without being properly accountable to the President.
Cortes and Karam work at two separate Starbucks locations in the Buffalo, NY area. They both submitted petitions on behalf of their coworkers in 2023 with sufficient support to prompt the NLRB to hold votes to “decertify,” or remove, the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from each of their stores. However, NLRB officials indefinitely delayed those union decertification elections on the basis of unproven charges leveled at the Starbucks Corporation by SBWU union officials. This led Cortes and Karam to file their own federal lawsuit – the first in the nation challenging the agency’s structure as unconstitutional as a whole.
The same issue regarding the NLRB’s constitutionality was fast-tracked in federal courts following President Trump’s firing of Biden-appointed NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, which she challenged as a violation of the NLRA’s board member removal protections. Trump Administration lawyers countered with arguments parallel to those in Cortes and Karam’s lawsuit, contending that NLRB members’ removal protections permit them to exercise substantial executive authority while being immune to presidential removal for the duration of their terms, something forbidden by U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Seila Law v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen.
NLRB’s Hyper-Partisan Nature and Unique Powers Make Removal Protections Inappropriate
Cortes and Karam’s brief focuses on how the Board’s powers to enforce federal labor law, lack of technical expertise, and the partisan nature of its membership place it outside the Supreme Court’s concept of a federal agency where removal protections might be appropriate. It also argues that reinstating Wilcox would cause chaos because it would let her participate in deciding cases before the NLRB while her continued presence on the Board is still the subject of litigation.
“Cortes and Karam have a vital interest in the outcome of this case, and not only because it concerns the constitutionality of [NLRB member removal protections],” the amicus brief says. “Cortes and Karam do not want an individual the President properly removed from the Board because of her unsound rulings—Gwynne Wilcox—to decide their pending NLRB cases.”
“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam’s amicus brief points out what many workers who have litigated cases before the NLRB have learned the hard way – that the NLRB is a hyper-partisan agency often beholden to the interests of union bosses, yet masquerades as an impartial arbiter of workers’ rights,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the issue of the NLRB’s constitutionality is likely to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court, Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam speak for many independent-minded workers around the country by urging the D.C. Circuit Court to bar Gwynne Wilcox from participating in Board decisions until this is fully sorted out.”
