Overwhelming Majority of Union Kitchen Workers File Petition Seeking to Remove UFCW Union
Request for end of union so-called ‘representation’ comes amid contentious boycott and picket ordered by union officials against rank-and-file workers
Washington, DC (July 14, 2023) – Employees of five Union Kitchen Grocery locations in the Washington, DC, metro area have filed a petition seeking to end United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400’s monopoly bargaining power over workers. The employees submitted their decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 5 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Union Kitchen employee Ashley Silva submitted a union decertification petition that was supported by the vast majority of her coworkers. Under NLRB rules, this should trigger an NLRB-administered decertification vote. Under federal labor law, it is illegal for employers to engage in monopoly bargaining that impacts the employment terms of all employees, even those opposed to unionization, with a minority union that lacks the support of a bare majority of workers.
With the petition now filed, the NLRB should now promptly schedule a secret ballot election so the workers can formally vote to end union officials’ power to impose a contract, including forced dues, on the workers.
Because the District of Columbia lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials have the power to enter into an agreement with Union Kitchen forcing Silva and her coworkers at the four DC locations to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work jurisdictions like those at Union Kitchen’s Northern Virginia location, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
Silva and her coworkers’ effort comes amid union boss-ordered pickets and boycotts against Union Kitchen Grocery locations, which have inflamed tensions among workers and raised questions about union officials’ motives. In some instances, reportedly union picketers have endangered workers by blocking exits, requiring the intervention of police.
“The vast majority of the workers at Union Kitchen are sick and tired of the UFCW’s picketing, harassment of employees, and constant disruptions of our day-to-day work life,” Silva said. “If the union cares at all about what we want, they will respect our wishes and immediately disclaim their interest in representing workers who have overwhelmingly rejected them.”
Union Kitchen Effort Latest in Wave of Union Decertification Efforts Nationwide
Foundation attorneys are currently assisting workers nationwide in a number of high-profile decertification efforts. Most notably, Starbucks employees at locations in Buffalo, New York City, Pittsburgh, and Bloomington, MN, are seeking to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union only one year after the union launched a highly-publicized campaign in an attempt to unionize the coffee chain.
In Miami, Foundation attorneys also recently aided XPO Logistics freight drivers in removing an unwanted Teamsters union from their facility. Teamsters bosses, including James Hoffa, considered the Miami XPO contract a breakthrough. Now those workers have rejected the Teamsters.
The NLRB’s data shows a unionized private sector worker is now far more likely to be involved in a decertification effort as their nonunion counterpart is to be involved in a unionization campaign. NLRB statistics also show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021. However, union officials still have many ways to manipulate federal labor law to prevent workers from voting them out, including by filing unrelated or unverified charges against management.
“Disrupting a work environment with continuous pickets and boycotts is not what Union Kitchen Grocery employees want or need. The employees’ overwhelming support for a union decertification vote should send a strong message to UFCW union officials that they need to leave,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation attorneys will defend these employees in the exercise of their rights, and will oppose any attempts by UFCW officials to disenfranchise the Union Kitchen workers of their legal right to remove a union they so clearly want nothing to do with.”
Pittsburgh Starbucks Workers Seek Vote to Remove Unwanted SBWU Union
Pittsburgh employees latest to join growing number of Starbucks employees seeking decertificiation votes to oust union
Pittsburgh, PA (July 13, 2023) – Employees at Pittsburgh’s Penn Center East Starbucks branch just submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asking the federal agency to hold a vote at their workplace on whether to oust the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union. The employee who submitted the petition, Elizabeth Gulliford, is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The union decertification petition contains signatures from enough workers at the Penn Center East coffee shop to trigger a vote under the NLRB’s rules. With the petition filed, the NLRB should now promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ power to impose a contract, including forced dues, on the workers.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SBWU union officials have the power to enter into agreement with Starbucks forcing Gulliford and her coworkers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
“SBWU union bosses have not looked out for the interests of me and my fellow employees,” commented Gulliford. “We simply want to exercise our right to vote out a union that we don’t believe has done a good job, and both SBWU and Starbucks should respect that right and our final decision.”
Starbucks Workers Increasingly Seek to Vote Out SBWU Union Officials
The Pittsburgh Starbucks workers are just the latest group of Starbucks workers seeking to exercise their right to vote out unwanted union officials. Foundation attorneys are currently assisting Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY, and Buffalo, NY, in obtaining union decertification votes. As with the New York locations, the SBWU union only came to power at the Pittsburgh Starbucks about a year ago – meaning workers began attempts to vote out SBWU as soon as legally allowed. Federal labor law prevents workers from exercising their right to remove an unpopular union for at least one year after one is installed.
A contributing factor to the growing worker dissatisfaction with SBWU union officials may be the controversial practice of “salting,” which according to news reports is a tactic the SBWU union employed to install union power at New York Starbucks locations. “Salting” involves union officials surreptitiously paying union agents to obtain jobs at non-union workplaces to agitate for union control. “Salts” generally hide their union-allied status from both managers and their coworkers, and may quickly depart the workplace once a union has been installed. The New York Post reported that one SBWU union agent was paid nearly $50,000 to “salt” a Buffalo Starbucks location, and concealed her affiliation from both her coworkers and Congress.
Currently, the NLRB’s data shows a unionized private sector worker is far more likely to be involved in a decertification effort as their nonunion counterpart is to be involved in a unionization campaign. NLRB statistics also show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021. However, union officials still have many ways to manipulate federal labor law to prevent workers from voting them out, including by filing unrelated or unverified charges against management.
“As more Starbucks workers seek to kick SBWU from their stores, the agenda of these union officials is becoming clearer and clearer,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “SBWU union officials sought to extend their power over as many Starbucks workers as they could through controversial tactics, all in pursuit of greater dues revenue and scoring political points. Meanwhile, workers’ interests were ignored completely.”
“While we are happy that the Starbucks workers are able to take their first steps in exercising their rights oust an unwanted union, we call on SBWU union officials not to attempt to block or otherwise interfere with the rank-and-file workers’ right to hold this vote,” continued Mix. “Union bosses should not be allowed to keep their grip on power simply by disenfranchising those they claim to ‘represent.’”
Dallas-Based Danone North America Employee Slams Union with Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Money from Pay
Charge comes while employees seek vote to remove UFCW union from facility
Dallas, TX (July 11, 2023) – Alex Botello, a Dallas-based employee of food manufacturer Danone North America, has hit the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 540 union with federal charges after union officials illegally seized union dues from his paycheck. Botello filed his charges at Region 16 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Dallas with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Botello’s charge says that UFCW bosses rebuffed or ignored his two attempts to revoke a dues checkoff authorization. Botello maintains that the union’s actions violate his rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which is supposed to protect American private sector workers’ right to refrain from union activity.
Because Texas is a Right to Work state, UFCW union officials lack the legal authority to demand any money from Botello as a condition of employment. Right to Work laws provide more comprehensive protections than the NLRA by making union membership and all union dues payment strictly voluntary for private sector workers. In non-Right to Work states, in contrast, union officials can force workers to pay some union fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
Worker Followed Union Instructions to Stop Dues Deductions, But Union Continued to Take Money
Botello’s charge says that he first tried to stop dues deductions from his paycheck in October 2022. The UFCW rejected his request in a letter, which stated that his attempt was untimely and that he could only revoke his dues checkoff during a narrow union-created “window period” lasting from March 27, 2023, until April 11, 2023.
Botello resubmitted his revocation request on April 3, 2023, within the “window period” specified by the union. However, union dues did not stop coming out of his paycheck. “The Union’s failure to accept Charging Party’s timely revocation letter and immediately cease deducting dues violates the National Labor Relations Act,” reads Botello’s charge.
Workers Nationwide Battle Illegal UFCW Dues Schemes
Botello’s charge is just the latest Foundation-backed legal action that workers across the country have taken against UFCW union officials for illegal dues practices. Also in Texas, Houston Kroger employee Jessica Haefner is challenging UFCW Local 455 union officials’ collection of dues from her paycheck under the guise of a union card that was altered to show her consent to dues deductions she never agreed to. As in Botello’s case, Haefner followed union officials’ directions on how to end union dues deductions, but money continued to come out of her wages.
In Pennsylvania, Foundation attorneys represented Giant Eagle supermarket cashier Josiah Leonatti, who charged UFCW Local 1776KS union officials with refusing to accommodate his religious objections to union membership. His charges say union officials tried to subject him to an illegal “religion test” before they considered granting him an accommodation.
UFCW Officials Attempting to Remain in Power Despite Danone Employees’ Request for Union Decertification Vote
Separately, Botello and his coworkers submitted two petitions to the NLRB, asking the agency for a vote to remove, or “decertify,” the UFCW union. Botello submitted the first petition on August 29, 2022, but regional NLRB officials rejected the petition at UFCW bosses’ behest. NLRB officials claimed that a contract ratified by union bosses and management in 2019 would remain in effect until November 15, 2022. As per the NLRB’s non-statutory “contract bar” policy, union officials can block workers from exercising their right to vote them out of a workplace for up to three years after a contract is finalized.
Botello submitted the second petition after the 2019 union contract expired, based on the NLRB Region’s decision on the first petition finding that the 2019 contract was operative on August 29, the day that Botello submitted the first petition. However, regional NLRB officials blocked the second petition on the grounds that a more recent contract had actually been in effect since August 25. This is a contradiction to the regional NLRB decision blocking the first petition, as that decision rested on the conclusion that the 2019 contract was in effect on August 29, not the union’s August 25 contract.
Botello filed requests for review challenging the Region’s dismissals of both petitions. The NLRB granted Botello’s requests and directed Region 16 to take another look at these cases.
“The situation at the Dallas Danone plant illustrates how far UFCW union bosses, and in many instances NLRB officials, are willing to go to trap workers under union monopoly control and forced dues, even when there’s clear evidence that workers do not support them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Any worker under UFCW control who experiences similar infringements of their rights should not hesitate to reach out to the Foundation for free legal aid.”
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Legal Notice to UPS Employees as Nationwide Strike Looms
Notice provides important information to those who want to work during the strike
Washington, DC (July 10, 2023) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice to employees of UPS in light of news reports indicating that Teamsters union officials are on the brink of issuing a nationwide strike order against the shipping giant. The legal notice is available at the Foundation’s website here: www.nrtw.org/UPS.
The Foundation is the nation’s premier organization dedicated to defending workers’ legal rights from forced unionism abuses. Rank-and-file workers who are interested in continuing to work and providing for their families during a strike often contact the Foundation for free legal aid to avoid strike discipline, or to resist intimidation often perpetrated by union officials.
“The Foundation wants you to learn about your legal rights from independent sources,” the notice reminds UPS workers. “You should not rely on what self-interested union officials tell you.”
Employees Have Right to Rebuff Union Strike Orders
The legal notice informs UPS workers who want to work during a strike that they should submit resignations prior to returning to work, because doing so is the best way to avoid union fines and vindictive union discipline. “Your resignation letter must be postmarked THE DAY BEFORE you return to work, or hand delivered BEFORE you actually return to work,” the notice reads. Sample union membership resignation letters are available on the Foundation’s website.
The notice also informs employees of other actions they can take to disaffiliate from the Teamsters union, including how to stop funding unwanted union activities.
“If you work in a state with Right to Work protections, you have a right to cut off all payments of dues and fees to the union if you don’t support its activities,” the notice reads. “If you do not work in a state with Right to Work protections, you at least have a right to opt-out of dues payments for union politics, and may be able to avoid other union financial support.”
Foundation Attorneys Have Won Many Cases for Workers Challenging Teamsters Coercion
The Foundation frequently provides free legal assistance to workers who are victims of coercion and even violence from Teamsters militants. Foundation staff attorneys made headlines across the country in 2001, when they won a monetary settlement for UPS employee and former Dallas Cowboys linebacker Rod Carter, a victim of union violence during the 1997 Teamsters union officials’ nationwide strike against UPS.
More recently, Foundation attorneys have aided several groups of workers in voting Teamsters officials out of power at their workplaces. Since 2021, Foundation attorneys have assisted at least five groups of XPO Logistics employees in decertifying unwanted Teamsters unions, including in Miami, FL, where truck drivers voted out the union despite Teamsters officials’ claims that the union’s contract at the Miami facility was a breakthrough.
Also in recent years, Foundation staff attorneys have won a series of victories for UPS workers challenging Teamsters union officials’ attempts to coerce workers into union membership or full dues payments. In one case brought by Foundation attorneys, the National Labor Relations Board ruled Teamsters officials “repeatedly and deliberately” engaged in illegal coercion against UPS workers, and ordered notification of thousands of workers affected by the Teamsters officials’ violations of federal law.
“UPS employees across the country will undoubtedly have very reasonable concerns about whether Teamsters officials’ sweeping strike order is really in workers’ best interests,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix.
“The fact is Teamsters bosses have a long history of pursuing their own agenda and what advances their interests with respect to internal union politics at all costs, even if it means tossing aside the well-being of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” Mix continued. “Fortunately, UPS workers seeking to exercise their right to work despite Teamsters bosses’ strike order can turn to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for free legal assistance.”
“National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have a well-established track record of winning cases on behalf of workers, especially UPS workers, against Teamsters union bosses’ illegal tactics,” added Mix.
Majority of Miami XPO Logistics Employees Vote to Oust Teamsters Union
Miami employees’ union decertification vote follows several other recent votes by XPO Logistics employees across country to remove Teamsters union officials
Miami, FL (June 27, 2023) – Martin Garcia and his coworkers at XPO Logistics’ Hialeah, FL, location have voted to remove Teamsters Local 769 union officials from their workplace. Garcia and his colleagues received free legal assistance in their effort from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Garcia filed a union decertification petition at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 12 on May 19, which contained the signatures of enough of his colleagues to prompt the NLRB to hold a union decertification vote. The NLRB held the vote among Garcia and his colleagues on June 21, in which a majority voted to end Teamsters officials’ monopoly bargaining control over the facility.
Workers often turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in exercising their right to vote out an unpopular union because the NLRB’s process for doing so is convoluted and prone to union boss gamesmanship. Because Garcia and his colleagues work in the Right to Work state of Florida, they had the freedom to refuse to pay dues or fees to the Teamsters union while it was imposing its one-size-fits-all “representation” over all workers. In non-Right to Work states, in contrast, workers can be forced to pay dues or fees to a union they oppose as a condition of getting or keeping a job, and a decertification vote is the only way to end both forced dues and union monopoly representation.
“Teamsters officials didn’t listen to us and didn’t represent our interests in the workplace,” Garcia said. “My coworkers and I decided that the best way forward was to vote them out, and we’re glad we could get legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation in exercising our rights.”
XPO Logistics Workers Increasingly Seek to Escape Union Ranks with Foundation Aid
Garcia’s effort is just the most recent in a string of successful Foundation-backed union decertification efforts by XPO Logistics employees against Teamsters union officials. Recent victories include Teamsters decertifications in Cinnaminson, NJ, Los Angeles, CA, Albany, NY, and other XPO Logistics locations.
Most recently, Albany-based XPO Logistics truck driver William Chard submitted a union decertification petition backed by his coworkers in December 2022, seeking a vote to remove Teamsters Local 294 union officials. As opposed to sticking around and witnessing what would have likely been an embarrassing election loss, Local 294 officials filed paperwork ending their control over Chard and his coworkers just days after the petition’s filing.
Similarly, in October 2021, Teamsters Local 87 union officials avoided facing rejection from Juan Rivera and his coworkers at a Bakersfield, CA, XPO Logistics facility by disclaiming interest in the work unit shortly after Rivera filed a decertification petition. Because both Chard and Rivera hail from the non-Right to Work states of New York and California, decertification was the only way workers could remove both unwanted union “representation” and end union officials’ forced-dues demands.
“Teamsters officials have a well-earned reputation for seeking power, money, and political clout over looking out for employee interests, so it’s unsurprising to see so many workers seeking to exercise their rights to vote them out,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But this trend goes even beyond the Teamsters, as employee attempts to decertify unions are spiking across the country.”
“Unfortunately, even as employees increasingly realize that their interests diverge from union boss agendas, Big Labor allies in the Biden Administration are seeking to make it harder than ever for workers to exercise their right to oust an unpopular union,” Mix added. “Foundation attorneys will continue to aid American workers in defending their individual rights, and will oppose attempts by Big Labor to rig the legal landscape against workers.”
Majority of Mankato Mayo Clinic Support Employees Vote to Remove AFSCME Union Officials
Nursing support staff and others in 186-person unit vote to remove AFSCME union following nurses’ vote to remove MNA union last summer
Mankato, MN (June 19, 2023) – A majority of nursing support staff, clerical staff, and environmental staff at Mankato Mayo Clinic have voted to remove American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1856 union officials from power at the hospital. The effort was spearheaded by Mankato Mayo employee Melody Morris, who submitted a petition on May 9 asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a union “decertification vote” at the facility. This petition was also supported by the majority of her coworkers.
Morris received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in submitting the petition. The successful union ouster comes less than a year after nurses at Mankato Mayo clinic voted to send Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union officials packing from the hospital.
Workers often seek free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation in exercising their right to vote out an unpopular union because the NLRB’s process for doing so is convoluted and prone to union boss gamesmanship. The right to decertify is especially important for Mankato Mayo Clinic employees and other workers across Minnesota because, due to the state’s lack of Right to Work protections, union officials can force workers under their control to pay dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
“My colleagues and I want to provide the best support we can to the medical staff at Mankato Mayo Clinic Hospital, and we determined that having AFSCME in the workplace wasn’t helping us do so, nor was the union looking out for our interests,” commented Morris. “I’m grateful that we came together to free ourselves from the union, and we’re also grateful for the help of the National Right to Work Foundation in helping us accomplish this.”
Mankato Mayo Clinic Support Staff Remove AFSCME Amid Wave of Decertifications Across MN and Country
Morris and her colleagues’ successful union decertification vote comes as a growing number of Minnesota healthcare employees attempt to exercise their right to vote out unwanted union officials. In addition to Mankato Mayo Clinic nurses, nurses from Mayo’s St. James, MN, branch removed the AFSCME Council 65 union from their hospital last August with Foundation aid. 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 last year. Even amid these efforts, Minnesota union officials seem unwilling to examine why growing numbers of workers want them ousted. A Minnesota Reformer profile on MNA President Mary Turner reported that Turner believes “it’s the nurses in Mankato, not the union, who need to change their approach.”
Interest in decertifying unions is also increasing among Starbucks workers. Just a year after union bosses and union-allied politicians heavily lauded successful unionization campaigns at the coffee chain, Starbucks workers are already attempting to kick out Service Employees International Union (SEIU)-aligned union officials. This includes Foundation-backed efforts at Starbucks locations in Buffalo, NY, and Manhattan, NY, both of which were the targets of high-profile unionization pushes in 2022.
“It’s easy to see why workers across the country are increasingly trying to free themselves from monopoly union ‘representation.’ Workers who prefer to speak for themselves or have interests that deviate from the union’s are all forced to accept the monolithic voice of union officials, who often chase politics or other superficial goals instead of doing what’s best for workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Minnesota healthcare workers may additionally be concerned that union boss-ordered strikes might force them to choose between staying with their patients or following the union agenda.”
“Any worker, public or private, who is interested in exercising their right to be free of union control should contact Foundation staff attorneys for free help in exercising their rights,” Mix added.
Foundation-Backed NLRB Rules Make It Easier for Workers to Vote Out Unwanted Unions
The Foundation-backed 2020 NLRB “Election Protection Rule” curtailed the non-statutory “blocking charge” policy that union bosses used to prevent rank-and-file employees from exercising their right to vote out a union. Prior to the rule, union officials could easily manipulate such “blocking charges” to stop workers’ requested votes from taking place for months or even years by making one or multiple unproven allegations against the employer.
The “Election Protection Rule” stopped the most common blocking charge tactics used by union lawyers to stall worker-requested votes, and in most cases permitted the immediate release of the vote tally. Despite numbers showing increased worker interest in voting out unwanted union officials across the country, Biden-appointed NLRB officials in Washington have initiated rulemaking to roll back the Foundation-backed reforms, including those targeting “blocking charges.”
Anaheim Assa Abloy Worker Seeks Federal Court Order Against IBEW Union for Instigating Illegal Termination
Federal law prohibits conditioning employment on union membership, yet IBEW bosses demanded firing after worker refrained from joining union
Los Angeles, CA (June 16, 2023) – An Anaheim-based employee of automated door manufacturer Assa Abloy is hitting the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 441 union and his employer with federal charges, maintaining that union officials unlawfully instigated his firing because he abstained from union membership. The worker, Jaime Zambrano, filed his charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 21 in Los Angeles with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
California’s lack of Right to Work protections grants union officials the power to get workers fired for refusing to pay dues or fees to the union. However, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) forbids union officials from conditioning employment on formal union membership, even in non-Right to Work states. Zambrano maintains that, despite his paying the required amount of union dues to stay employed, Assa Abloy management terminated him at union officials’ behest after he didn’t fill out a union membership form.
Zambrano’s charge also seeks his immediate reinstatement via a 10(j) injunction against both his employer and the union. Under Section 10(j) of the NLRA, the NLRB General Counsel can seek a federal court order immediately stopping particularly egregious violations of federal law.
IBEW Union Officials Made Illegal Membership Demand, Gave Worker No Timeline
Zambrano began paying union dues to the IBEW union in September of 2022. In the spring of 2023, union officials sent him paperwork, including a union membership form. No indication was given of when union officials expected the paperwork to be completed and returned.
Zambrano discovered in late May that Assa Abloy officials were terminating him at IBEW bosses’ request because they had not received the membership form from him. While firing a worker for refraining from union membership is a clear infringement of federal labor law, Zambrano’s charge also says that union officials’ not providing him a timeline of when the paperwork should be completed is a “fail[ure] to comply with the requirements of Philadelphia Sheraton,” an NLRB case that requires union officials to inform workers of exactly what their obligations are.
“Because of these egregious and bad-faith acts, the Charging Party demands that the General Counsel seek 10(j) relief seeking his reinstatement,” reads Zambrano’s charge.
“IBEW union officials are playing outrageous games with Mr. Zambrano’s livelihood and potentially the livelihoods of many other workers who simply don’t want to affiliate with the IBEW,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Getting a worker thrown off a job merely for refusal to join a union is a violation of black letter federal labor law – union officials who can’t get workers to join voluntarily certainly shouldn’t be able to compel such membership by threatening to upend the careers of those who dissent from the union.”
“But even if IBEW officials were acting fully within the bounds of California and federal labor law, Mr. Zambrano would still be forced to pay dues to the union just to keep his job because of California’s lack of a Right to Work law,” Mix added. “This kind of forced association has no place in America, and all American workers deserve Right to Work protections that ensure that union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.”
San Diego Gompers Preparatory Academy Charter School Educators Vote Out SDEA Union
Gompers teachers sought to remove union as early as 2019, but union bosses stymied last attempt with unproven allegations and pressure from elected officials
San Diego, CA (June 8, 2023) – Teachers at Gompers Preparatory Academy, a public charter school in the Chollas View neighborhood of San Diego, have successfully voted to remove San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union bosses from the school. The educators received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
While Gompers teachers have been seeking to exercise their right to free themselves from the SDEA union’s control as early as 2019, the current effort began in March 2023 after a majority of Gompers educators signed a petition asking the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to hold an employee vote on whether to oust the union (known as a “union decertification vote”). After collecting ballots from Gompers educators from May 10 to June 6, PERB yesterday announced a majority of teachers voted to remove the union.
Union Tactics Delayed Earlier Efforts to Vote Out Unwanted Union
The initial union decertification effort took place not long after SDEA officials gained power at the school in January 2019 via “card check,” a process that bypasses the traditional secret-ballot vote system to install a union. Gompers made an impressive transition to being a union-free charter school in 2005 after years of being plagued by unresponsive union bureaucracies, violence, and poor academic achievement, so many teachers and parents viewed the reinstallation of union monopoly power at the school with suspicion. Some accused SDEA agents of actively sowing division at the school, including by supporting anti-charter school legislation and needlessly disparaging the school’s leadership.
Gompers teachers’ first effort to eliminate the SDEA union stemmed from an October 2019 petition that had the backing of the requisite number of teachers to prompt the PERB to hold a decertification vote. However, SDEA union bosses attempted to avert the election by filing so-called “blocking charges” containing allegations of employer misconduct.
Union officials often manipulate “blocking charges” at the PERB and other state and federal labor relations agencies to stifle worker attempts to eliminate unpopular union “representation.” Despite the PERB never holding a hearing into whether SDEA union bosses’ claims had any merit or whether they were related to the workers’ dissatisfaction with the union, PERB officials denied a decertification election to Gompers educators in October 2020.
Foundation attorneys’ case defending the first petition to remove SDEA union agents from the school also sought to overturn PERB Regulation 32752, which requires PERB agents and attorneys to accept union bosses’ “blocking charge” allegations as true – a stipulation almost guaranteeing union defeat of any worker attempt to vote a union out.
“I chose to work at a school that didn’t have a union and now they’ve come in and they’re running everything about my contract and my work,” Kristie Chiscano, then a Gompers chemistry teacher and proponent of the decertification effort, said at the time.
Union Agents Targeted Teachers Who Led Effort to Vote Out Union
Even worse, shortly after the PERB’s ruling halting the original decertification effort, Chiscano and another Gompers educator filed charges maintaining that SDEA agents targeted them on social media for opposing the union hierarchy. California law makes it illegal for union officials to intimidate or retaliate against employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership.
Union boss-aligned state legislators even chimed in to pressure Gompers management to give in to union demands. In a letter to Gompers management, then-Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (now an AFL-CIO president) attacked the National Right to Work Foundation for simply providing legal aid to Gompers educators as they sought to exercise their right to hold a decertification election. Gonzalez was best known during her tenure for authoring AB5, a California law that drastically reduced opportunities for freelance workers and independent contractors across the state.
Teachers’ Union Decertification Efforts Expose Massive Power of California Public Sector Unions
Gompers educators submitted the March 2023 petition at the earliest time permitted by California labor regulations, which immunize union officials from employee-led decertification efforts for all but a tiny window while union contracts are active. Now, nearly four years after their original effort began, Gompers educators have finally voted to free themselves from union control. Gompers teachers and Foundation attorneys are still prepared to fight any objections the union files in an attempt to throw out the result.
“Gompers educators witnessed that SDEA union officials were not acting in the best interests of the students or the school community at large, and fought courageously for years to bring back the independent environment that made Gompers a success,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we at the Foundation are proud to have helped them win the fight, the hardship these teachers faced just to vote out a union they disapproved of should raise serious questions about union officials’ privileges under California law.”
“Gompers teachers endured years of legal roadblocks just to exercise their rights, and that’s to say nothing of the retaliation they faced from union officials and even pressure from union-label policymakers,” Mix added. “No special interest group in California, or in America, should wield this kind of power over teachers and the public education system.”
National Right to Work Foundation Blasts FLRA Ruling Trapping Blue Ridge Parkway Employees in Union
FLRA merged two work units at union officials’ behest with no worker input, now cites merger to deny worker request for vote to remove union
Washington, DC (June 6, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation today blasted a Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) ruling barring a group of National Park Service (NPS) employees from exercising their right to vote American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union officials out of power at their workplace. The FLRA dubiously cited its top-down “merger” of two preexisting work units of NPS employees into one unit as a reason for why the vote shouldn’t proceed.
The affected employees are Blue Ridge Parkway employee Lauren Labrie and her coworkers, who in 2021 backed a petition with enough employee support to prompt the FLRA to hold an election on whether to oust AFGE union officials. Labrie and her colleagues are receiving free legal aid from the Foundation.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix criticized the FLRA’s ruling:
“The Biden FLRA has abandoned all pretense of defending employees’ right to freely choose who will speak for them in the workplace with this ruling. Instead of just allowing Blue Ridge Parkway workers to vote on whether they support AFGE, the FLRA has effectively announced to all federal employees that agency bureaucrats can shield union bosses from workers’ will by merging multiple units of employees.
“This is another attempt by Biden Administration officials to expand the influence and power of their political allies within federal and other government unions, all to the detriment of rank-and-file workers who want to exercise their individual rights. Every individual worker should get to decide for him or herself whether or not to affiliate with a union – not have federal bureaucrats thrust union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’ on them against their will, and without even the ability to hold a prompt vote to remove an unwanted union.”
FLRA “Consolidated” Units at Union Behest, Then Stopped Workers from Voting on Union
AFGE union officials petitioned to consolidate Labrie’s work unit and another unit of NPS employees in 2021. A regional FLRA official approved the move in September 2021, without giving employees an opportunity to vote on whether they actually wanted the merger.
Labrie and her coworkers submitted their petition to decertify the union in December 2021. A regional FLRA official dismissed the petition in March 2022, claiming it was blocked by a 12-month “certification bar” stemming from the top-down consolidation of the work units, and that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute permits such a restriction.
Park Employee’s Brief: Blocking Election Stifles Employees’ Free Choice Rights
After requesting review from the FLRA in Washington, Foundation attorneys argued in a brief that applying a bar to employee-requested elections after agency-imposed unit consolidations violates federal employees’ free choice rights, which the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute was meant to protect.
“In passing the Statute, Congress’ intent was to promote secret ballot elections and employees’ freedom to choose their representative under the Statute,” the brief said. “Not allowing employees to exercise their free choice because the Authority administratively combined two bargaining units undermines Congress’ goal of promoting the right of employees to select their own agent.”
Despite there being no precedent or statutory authorization for blocking employee-requested decertification elections after a top-down unit consolidation, the FLRA in Washington issued a May 2023 decision relying on its own “discretion to regulate representation proceedings” and ruled that a “certification bar” blocked Labrie and her coworkers’ requested vote.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are determining the next steps for Labrie and her coworkers. While, according to the FLRA, Labrie and her coworkers can currently be forced to accept the “representation” of AFGE officials, they and all public sector American employees have a First Amendment right under the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision to cut off financial support to a union they oppose.
CUNY Professors’ Lawsuit Challenging Forced Association with Antisemitism-Linked Union Continues at Second Circuit
City University professors challenge NY law that forces them to be represented by hostile union hierarchy
New York, NY (June 5, 2023) – Six City University of New York (CUNY) professors have taken their federal civil rights lawsuit against Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union officials to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The professors, Avraham Goldstein, Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, charge PSC union bosses with violating the First Amendment by forcing them to accept the union’s monopoly control and “representation” – “representation” the professors not only oppose, but find extremely offensive and in contradiction to their personal beliefs.
The professors, five of whom are Jewish, are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation and The Fairness Center. They seek to overturn New York State’s “Taylor Law,” which grants public sector union bosses the power to speak and contract for 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 beliefs or have employment interests diverging from their own.
The professors’ opening brief at the Second Circuit argues that a lower court’s reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight was misguided. Knight, the brief states, dealt primarily with public employees’ ability to participate in union meetings and not with the professors’ legal argument that being forced to accept the bargaining power and “representation” of union officials is a violation of First Amendment free association rights.
The brief also maintains that the Supreme Court in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision acknowledged that public sector monopoly bargaining is “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.” Other Supreme Court decisions as early as 1944 also recognized problems with monopoly bargaining, the brief notes, including the Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. decision, in which African-American railway workers challenged a rail union’s racially discriminatory hiring and promotion policies.
“If the First Amendment prohibits anything, it prohibits the government from dictating who speaks for citizens in their relations with the government,” reads the brief. “The State Appellees and CUNY thus necessarily infringe on the Professors’ speech and associational rights by forcing them to accept a hostile political group, which they view as anti-Semitic, as their exclusive agent for speaking and contracting with their government employer.”
Lawsuit: Professors Compelled to Associate with Union Even After Bullying and Threats
The professors’ original complaint recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a June 2021 union resolution that they viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel,” and a host of other discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents.
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.
Suit Seeks Overturn of New York State Law Forcing Union Power on Professors & Damages
The lawsuit seeks to stop the defendants from “certifying or recognizing PSC, or any other union, as Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative without their consent” and “enforcing any provisions…that require Plaintiffs to provide financial support to PSC.” It also demands that the court declare “Section 204 of the Taylor Law…unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent that it requires or authorizes PSC to be Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative…”
“No American worker should be forced to associate with union officials and union members that openly denigrate their identities and deeply-held beliefs,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Yet, New York State’s Taylor Law grants union officials the power to force dissenting workers under the ‘exclusive representation’ of a union hierarchy. As these CUNY professors have experienced, granting union officials the power to nullify public employees’ free association rights in this way breeds serious harm and discord among employees.”
“Not just in Janus v. AFSCME, but in decisions going back decades, the Supreme Court has questioned the constitutionality of union monopoly bargaining,” Mix added. “Federal courts must take action to ensure that government employees can freely exercise their right to dissociate from an unwanted union for religious, cultural, financial, or any other reasons.”
“Our clients want to vindicate their First Amendment rights and win their independence from a union they believe hates them,” commented Fairness Center President and General Counsel Nathan McGrath. “If successful, their lawsuit could transform the relationship between public-sector unions and employees in New York and, potentially, beyond.”
