Worker Advocate: NLRB Erred in Decision That Will Put 270 Nonunion Charleston Port Employees Out of Work
Amicus brief in Fourth Circuit case opposes ILA union bosses’ hostile bid to gain control over all jobs at Leatherman Terminal in South Carolina
Charleston, SC (April 11, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief opposing the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) union’s gambit to gain control over all jobs at Charleston’s Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal. The brief argues that if ILA union bosses’ power grab succeeds, it will “cause grievous harm to 270 State port workers and their families.”
The case involved is South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA) v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In the case, the SCPA is challenging the Biden NLRB’s recent ruling permitting ILA union bosses to file lawsuits against any cargo carrier that docks at Leatherman until the union gains control of crane lift equipment jobs at the facility. That work is currently performed by state employees free from the union’s control, and those state employees have performed this work for the SCPA for many decades.
The Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that provides free legal aid to workers facing compulsory unionism abuses, notes in the brief that it has “a strong interest in this case because the inevitable result of the National Labor Relations Board’s erroneous 2-1 decision will be devastating to Charleston, South Carolina port workers who have chosen to work as non-union employees for the State of South Carolina or its Port Authority.”
The Foundation “submits this brief to provide a voice for the otherwise voiceless non-union State employees, and to give the Court a unique perspective on the stakes involved for those workers and their families,” the brief says.
Union’s Aggressive Pursuit of Monopoly Power Will Lead to Hundreds Losing Their Jobs
The brief spells out the dire consequences of the ILA union’s maneuver for Leatherman’s 270 state employees, who are protected by state law from monopoly union control. It explains that South Carolina spent over $1 billion to develop the terminal, but because of the ILA’s aggressive attempts to enforce its alleged monopoly at the port, “the only way for South Carolina’s $1 billion Leatherman Terminal to be usable would be for the State to turn the facility over to a private employer with an ILA contract and discharge the 270 State employees.”
The devastating effects for current employees wouldn’t stop there if the ILA is victorious in the case, the brief argues. The brief points out that, even if fired state workers were to seek new employment at Leatherman with a private contractor under the union’s control, the ILA would prioritize those workers far below existing union members because of union seniority provisions and hiring hall referral rules.
ILA Union Has History of Malfeasance and Exploitation
The brief finishes by noting that South Carolina public employees likely want to avoid associating at all costs with the ILA because of the union’s “storied history of exploitation, resulting in a litany of federal prosecutions and civil litigation.” The New York Daily News reported in 2022 that ILA chiefs negotiated deals by which mob-linked longshoremen in the New York/New Jersey area could get paid for 27 hours of “work” per day. The ILA hierarchy organized such arrangements while trying to shut down ports like Leatherman which merely allow both unionized and union-free workers to work side-by-side.
“ILA union officials, aided and abetted by the Biden NLRB, are directly attacking the rights and livelihoods of hundreds of Charleston port employees simply because they work free of union monopoly control,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must reverse the Biden NLRB’s erroneous ruling letting this union gambit move forward, bearing in mind that the real victims here are the nonunion port workers that ILA officials are seeking to have terminated.”
Phoenix CenturyLink Employee Wins Federal Case Charging CWA Union with Illegal Dues Seizures
CWA officials illegally refused worker’s membership resignation and request to stop dues deductions
Phoenix, AZ (April 6, 2023) – CenturyLink Communications employee Adrianna Delatorre has forced Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 7019 union officials to back down in her federal case, in which she charged them with seizing dues money illegally from her wages. Delatorre, who filed charges against both the CWA union and her employer at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in May 2022, received free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Delatorre asserted in her charges that CWA union bosses violated her rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by rejecting her clear notice that she was resigning union membership and ending union dues deductions from her paycheck. The NLRA guarantees American private sector employees the right to “refrain from any or all” union activities, with some restrictions not applicable to Delatorre.
Delatorre’s right to cut off financial support to the CWA union she opposes is fully protected by Arizona’s Right to Work law, which prohibits union bosses from mandating union membership or any dues payment as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in non-Right to Work states like Colorado or New Mexico, union officials have the power to force workers to pay union fees just to stay employed.
A Foundation-won settlement now requires CWA union officials to pay back to Delatorre all illegally-taken dues, and to refrain in the future from illegally rejecting employees’ requests to stop dues deductions.
CWA Union Blatantly Ignored Worker Request
Delatorre submitted letters to CWA union officials and CenturyLink management in March 2022, informing both that she was terminating her union membership and revoking any dues deduction authorization document. Both union and company officials denied this request and CenturyLink management continued to seize money from Delatorre’s pay at the union’s behest. Delatorre hit her employer and the union with federal unfair labor practice charges in May 2022.
Notably, the dues deduction authorization document (or “checkoff’) that Delatorre revoked did not specify any time limits on when employees could cut off dues, nor did it provide that dues deductions were handled separately from union membership. Delatorre’s Foundation-provided attorneys argued that, on those grounds, Delatorre’s demand to stop union financial support should have been effective as soon as she submitted her letter ending her membership.
CWA union officials have now backed down and settled the case. In addition to paying back to Delatorre all money unlawfully taken from her paycheck since the date she resigned her membership, CWA union officials must also post a notice in Delatorre’s CenturyLink Tower workplace stating that they will not “cause or attempt to cause an employer to deduct union dues from an employee’s paycheck without having a valid dues deduction authorization signed by the employee.” As part of the settlement, CenturyLink must also not “render unlawful assistance and support to the Union.”
Employee Defended Rights Under AZ Right to Work Law, but Union-Label DC Politicians Plan to Eliminate Right to Work Nationwide
“Foundation staff attorneys are proud to have helped Ms. Delatorre successfully defend her right under federal law and Arizona’s Right to Work law to refrain from sacrificing part of her hard-earned pay to CWA union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, it’s important to remember that there are forces within the NLRB – including General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, previously a top CWA lawyer – and at other levels of the current Administration pushing for full implementation of the so-called ‘PRO’ Act’s provisions. The ‘PRO-Act’ would ultimately eliminate workers’ Right to Work protections by federal fiat, giving union officials the power to extort millions of additional workers for dues money under threat of termination.”
“Right to Work laws let workers like Ms. Delatorre withhold money from union hierarchies, which often pursue agendas completely out of touch with the rank-and-file the union bosses claim to ‘represent.’ This gives individual employees a way to hold union officials accountable for how they wield government-granted monopoly power over workers,” Mix added.
Lucas County Employees Win Back Unconstitutionally Seized Money from AFSCME Union
Employees exercised constitutional right to stop funding union activities, but union-imposed restriction blocked exercise of right for over 90 percent of year
Toledo, OH (April 4, 2023) – Three Lucas County Job and Family Services (JFS) employees have emerged victorious in their federal civil rights lawsuit against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Ohio Council 8 union. The employees, Penny Wilson, Theresa Fannin, and Kozait Elkhatib, charged AFSCME union bosses in December 2022 with seizing money from their paychecks in violation of the First Amendment.
Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib received free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Buckeye Institute. They asserted their constitutional rights recognized in the landmark 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared it a First Amendment violation to force public sector workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. The Court also ruled that union officials can only deduct money from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Now, as part of a settlement, AFSCME Ohio Council 8 must return illegally seized money to each woman, and the union bosses are forbidden from having Lucas County deduct union dues from any of their paychecks going forward. The settlement fully vindicates the employees’ First Amendment Janus rights.
Lucas County Employees Weren’t Informed of First Amendment Right to Abstain from Union Dues
Officials from AFSCME Council 8 and Lucas County JFS enforced a policy against the women which permitted the taking of union dues directly from their wages. According to the policy, employees who wish to stop subsidizing the union have only a handful of days per year in which to do so – an “escape period” that effectively forbids the exercise of their First Amendment Janus rights for more than 90 percent of the year.
AFSCME union officials never informed Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib of this restriction. Union officials also never told the women that they had a First Amendment right under Janus to abstain from dues deductions, or that union dues could only be taken from them if they waived that right.
The employees discovered their Janus rights independently. Each attempted to exercise those rights twice by sending letters to AFSCME union officials stating that they were ending their union memberships and terminating dues deductions. AFSCME union officials denied all three women’s requests, stating that union dues deductions would continue because the letters missed the narrow “escape period” the union imposed.
“Plaintiffs did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waive their First Amendment rights…The restrictions on stopping government dues deductions…are unenforceable as against public policy because the restriction significantly impinges on employees’ First Amendment rights,” read the federal complaint.
Employees Often Must Seek Return of Dues Seized Without Consent
Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib’s win is the latest in a chain of successful Foundation-backed lawsuits defending Ohio public servants’ Janus rights. In 2020, for example, Foundation attorneys challenged a so-called “maintenance of membership” requirement that AFSCME Ohio Council 11 used to lock public employees out of their Janus rights for three years at a time. Rather than face off against Foundation attorneys, Council 11’s union officials backed down and settled the case. As a result, Foundation attorneys freed almost 30,000 Ohio public employees from the onerous arrangement.
“Once again Foundation-backed Ohio public employees have successfully defended their Janus rights against the schemes of AFSCME union officials, who were more concerned with accumulating dues money than respecting the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “America’s public workers should not have to file federal lawsuits to defend their Janus rights. Instead, before taking dues, union officials should inform workers about their Janus rights and honor those rights.”
“It’s heartening that the union has agreed to resolve this dispute by honoring their former members’ wishes; it’s disappointing that a lawsuit was required to reach that common-sense result,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute.
Iowa-Based Donaldson Company Employees Win Refunds in Case Against UAW Union for Illegal Union Dues Seizures
UAW union must now pay back hundreds to workers who charged union officials with rejecting requests to leave union and cut off dues
Cresco, IA (March 29, 2023) – Four employees of air filter manufacturer Donaldson have prevailed in their federal case against United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 120 union officials, whom they charged with seizing union dues illegally from their paychecks. The workers, Troy Murphy, Esther Kuhn, Darren Walter, and Kory Huber, received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys in proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Each of the workers filed federal charges against the company and the union in September or October of 2022, maintaining that union and company officials had rejected their requests to end union membership and stop dues deductions. A Foundation-won settlement now requires union officials to return to the workers nearly $1,000 total in unlawfully taken money, and post a notice declaring that the union will no longer ignore or reject worker requests to opt out of membership or dues deductions.
The four workers charged UAW union officials and company officials with violating their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees the right of private sector workers to refrain “from any or all of” union activities. Iowa’s Right to Work law also forbids union bosses from forcing private sector employees to pay any union dues or fees to get or keep a job. In contrast, in non-Right to Work states, union bosses have the power to compel private sector workers to pay a significant portion of union dues as a condition of employment, even under the provisions of the NLRA.
UAW Union Officials Tried to Trap Workers in Dues Deductions Despite No Legal Authority
Kuhn and Murphy sent letters to their employer and the UAW union in April 2022 and June 2022, respectively, informing both parties that they were ending their union memberships and revoking any authorization they had given to take union dues out of their paychecks. Donaldson officials told both employees that neither could exit the union until the union contract was up in October. Charges are still pending against Donaldson.
Federal labor law provides that direct dues deductions can only occur with written authorization from an employee, and even then the deductions are governed only by the specific language on the authorization form – not by the union contract. Neither Donaldson representatives nor the union produced any documents that Kuhn or Murphy had signed agreeing to union dues deductions.
As for Huber and Walter, both sent notices to union and company officials in July 2022 ending union membership and revoking their dues authorizations. Huber’s and Walter’s federal charges point out that neither man’s “checkoff” authorizing dues deductions “contain[ed] language stating [they] agreed to pay dues or fees irrespective of union membership,” meaning that dues deductions should have ceased immediately after Huber and Walter resigned membership. Nevertheless, the union continued to collect dues from their paychecks after they sent in their resignations.
Settlement Orders UAW Bosses to Return Hundreds in Illegally Seized Dues to Workers
After the four employees hit the union with federal charges, UAW officials backed down and settled the case. Now, the union must pay back each employee all dues money seized in violation of their rights dating back to when each of them resigned union membership. In addition, UAW bosses must post a notice at the Donaldson Cresco facility and at the UAW Local 120 union hall stating they “will not fail or refuse to honor your requests to resign your union membership,” “will not fail or refuse to honor your timely requests to revoke your dues checkoff authorizations,” and “will not collect dues without a signed dues checkoff authorization.”
“All across the country, union bosses believe that they are entitled to the money of the workers they thrust under the so-called ‘representation’ of the union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This is likely the mentality that UAW union bosses had when they continued to siphon dues from Mr. Murphy, Ms. Kuhn, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Huber, even though each employee clearly exercised their rights under federal law, and Iowa’s Right to Work law, to disaffiliate from this union of which they do not approve.”
“UAW chiefs in particular are notorious for playing fast and loose with workers’ money, something apparent after a federal probe has hit at least 11 former UAW executives with jail sentences for corruption and embezzlement,” Mix added. “While Iowa’s legislators have preserved the basic right of their private sector employees to cut off funding for union hierarchies that are corrupt or aren’t serving worker interests, it’s sadly ironic that Michigan – the home of the UAW – has just repealed Right to Work protections for its employees.”
National Right to Work Foundation Opposes NLRB Push to Mandate Abusive ‘Card Check’ Unionization Process
Amicus brief in Starbucks case says NLRB General Counsel’s plan will expose workers to coercive union tactics and contradicts SCOTUS precedent
Washington, DC (March 16, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has just submitted an amicus brief at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a case involving SEIU union organizers’ attempt to impose unionization on workers at Starbucks without a secret ballot vote. The Foundation’s brief, attached to the motion, defends workers at Starbucks and workplaces nationwide from Biden-appointed NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s attempt to effectively mandate coercive “card check” organizing campaigns.
In card check campaigns, professional union organizers can pressure workers into signing cards that are then used at “votes” for unionization in lieu of an NLRB-supervised secret ballot vote.
In the ongoing Starbucks case, former union lawyer Abruzzo is attempting to resurrect the long-discredited Joy Silk NLRB theory, which would force union monopoly control on workers who have not had an opportunity to vote in secret on whether they want a union in the workplace. SEIU officials attempted to impose union control on Starbucks baristas using the so-called “card check” process, in which union agents can bypass the traditional secret ballot method of gaining power in a workplace and can obtain union “authorization cards” directly from workers – often using coercive or misleading tactics.
Card check schemes are recognized by court and NLRB precedents and even AFL-CIO organizing handbooks as inaccurate gauges of true employee support for union control. Despite this, the Joy Silk theory that NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo seeks to revive forbids employers from challenging the results of a card check unionization.
Employers can contest the results of a card check by asking the NLRB to conduct a secret ballot union vote among the employees. Conversely, under Joy Silk, the NLRB has the power to force both workers and employers under union control if an employer objects to the results of a card check.
“Now, the General Counsel seeks to upend five decades of settled law to resurrect Joy Silk,” says the amicus brief. “She seeks a regime of instant unionization through compulsory bargaining orders issued to any employer that refuses to recognize a union based on authorization cards, even though such cards were most assuredly not collected through ‘laboratory conditions.’”
Joy Silk Prioritizes Union Power Over Employees’ Will and Conflicts with Court Precedent
The Foundation’s brief argues that card check unionization drives are “notoriously unreliable” for determining whether a majority of employees in a workplace want a union. Because card check schemes lack NLRB oversight and do not permit employees to vote in private, the brief argues, the door is open for union agents to deploy many kinds of pressure tactics, including soliciting ballots, electioneering, keeping lists of employees who have or have not signed cards, and more.
As opposed to employees in a secret ballot election who vote quickly and privately, “[t]his is not true for an employee caught in the maw of a year-long card check campaign, who may be solicited repeatedly and, perhaps coercively, month after month until he or she signs,” the brief says. If General Counsel Abruzzo brings back Joy Silk, that would allow union bosses to “bypass secret ballot elections at will and secure a compulsory bargaining order virtually anytime they are able to collect a bare majority of authorization cards.”
The amicus brief also maintains that the Joy Silk standard is at odds with a large number of court precedents, including from the D.C. Circuit Court (where many NLRB decisions are appealed), other circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court twice. All of these courts have declared at one time or another that “authorization cards are inferior to secret ballot elections,” the brief says.
General Counsel Abruzzo Seeks to Compel Workers into Union Ranks Despite More Than 90% of American Workers Rejecting Unionization
“NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo – a former CWA union official – continues to show her extremist views when it comes to overturning precedent in the pursuit of greater coercive powers for her former colleagues in Big Labor’s upper echelon,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Inevitably, this comes at the expense of the rights of independent-minded American workers, who want the right to choose whether or not they wish to associate with a union, free from the well-documented coercive tactics union organizers deploy during card check drives.”
“Big Labor advocates previously at least understood that a sweeping change to federal labor law, like eliminating secret ballot elections to mandate ‘card check,’ would at least require an act of Congress,” Mix added. “But with the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill dying in 2010 due to bipartisan opposition, and the so-called ‘PRO-Act’ blocked in the last and current Congress, the Biden Administration is apparently moving forward to radically rewrite federal labor law by bureaucratic fiat.”
San Diego Gompers Preparatory Academy Educators Begin New Effort to Oust SDEA Union Bosses from School
Union bosses stymied last attempt with unproven allegations and pressure from elected officials, majority of teachers now back new effort
San Diego, CA (March 13, 2023) – Teachers at Gompers Preparatory Academy, a public charter school in the Chollas View neighborhood of San Diego, have banded together again to exercise their right to vote San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union bosses out of power at the school.
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Gompers computer teacher Sean Bentz just submitted a petition to the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), requesting the agency hold a vote among his colleagues on whether to oust the union. The petition contains signatures of a majority of the teachers under the SDEA union’s control.
Bentz’s petition marks the second time in just over three years that Gompers educators have attempted to boot the SDEA union from the school. Gompers chemistry teacher Dr. Kristie Chiscano submitted a decertification petition with Foundation legal aid in October 2019. Despite this petition also having the backing of the requisite number of teachers to spur a decertification vote, 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 Chiscano and her colleagues in October 2020.
State Labor Agency’s Rule Aided Union in Blocking Vote
Chiscano’s 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.
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 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.
“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,” Chiscano 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 attacked the National Right to Work Foundation simply for 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
Sean Bentz filed the new decertification petition renewing the fight to oust the union 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. But the new decertification attempt will likely face the same roadblocks of “blocking charges” as the old one.
“The new decertification effort at Gompers Preparatory Academy pits concerned educators against California’s most entrenched special interest – public sector union bosses,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In their last endeavor, Gompers teachers, who simply wanted to exercise their right to vote on whether SDEA union bosses deserved to remain in power, faced specious allegations meant to block the vote, union attacks on social media, and even pressure from union-label politicians.”
“Foundation attorneys will proudly fight alongside Gompers teachers to vindicate their rights, but ultimately this effort should expose how California’s labor laws prioritize union bosses’ desire for control over schools and other public services far above the rights of the employees who provide these services,” Mix added.
California Trucking Company Workers Win Freedom from Unwanted Teamsters Local 665 Union Officials
Rather than face vote to strip union officials of their forced representation powers, Teamsters officials concede defeat
Santa Rosa, CA (March 9, 2023) – Valdivia Trucking Co. workers in California are finally free of unwanted Teamsters Local 665 union officials after three months of delays created by the union officials. The workers’ bid to remove the union recently became official when, rather than face a decertification vote of Valdivia workers whether to strip the union of its power, the union preemptively “disclaimed” interest in representation and walked away from the workers.
Valdivia Trucking worker John Murdick received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation while filing for a decertification vote. His decertification petition filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) included the signatures of a significant majority of the workers at the facility.
The workers’ petition was filed on December 16, 2022, and quickly resulted in a stipulated election agreement for a decertification vote on January 6. However, the vote was delayed by preexisting “blocking charges” the union filed with the NLRB. This is a union tactic often used to delay workers’ decertification elections, because union officials fear if the vote goes forward the union may lose.
As a result of these blocking charges against the employer the vote was delayed three months, until March, when the blocking charges were finally closed. This permitted the vote to proceed. It was at that point the union officials notified the company’s lawyers and the NLRB that it disclaimed interest in “representing” the Valdivia Trucking employees. That gave the workers the outcome they sought, albeit delayed by nearly three months.
The NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to union boss-created roadblocks. Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials. However, the Biden NLRB is attempting to roll back these protections and make it much harder to decertify a union.
For example, the 2020 reforms blocked union officials from resubmitting overlapping charges, which often contain unverified and unrelated allegations of employer actions, designed to delay the process further. Had these reforms not been in place, the three-month delay for these workers could have been extended indefinitely.
Worker interest in removing unwanted unions is growing nationwide, with National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys fielding numerous requests for free legal assistance in decertification cases, like the one brought by Murdick and his coworkers.
The process to decertify a union should be simple. Federal law provides that workers can hold decertification votes in most instances as long as they have a petition with the signatures of at least 30% of workers in a bargaining unit. However, rules created by NLRB bureaucrats combined with legal tactics deployed by union lawyers often mean workers face legal hurdles in just getting the opportunity to hold a vote whether to remove an unwanted union.
The NLRB’s own data show that, currently, a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.
“The Valdivia Trucking decertification situation shows how union officials often use underhanded tactics to remain in power and collect dues from hard-working people as long as possible, even though they know a majority of workers oppose their so-called representation,” observed Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.
“Although we are extremely satisfied that the Valdivia workers have exercised their legal right to be union-free, we cannot neglect the importance the 2020 Foundation-backed reforms played in this case,” Mix continues. “If the Biden-appointed NLRB is able to roll back these reforms, as they are attempting to do, workers like those at Valdivia may be trapped in union ranks they oppose for many months and even years.”
Fort Bliss-Based Grounds Management Inc. Workers Unanimously Vote to Oust IUOE Local 351 Union
Workers officially free of unwanted union boss “representation” after every worker votes against union in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Decertification Election
Fort Bliss, TX (March 6, 2023) – Following a unanimous employee decertification vote, Grounds Management Incorporated (also known as GMI National) employees are now officially free of unwanted monopoly bargaining “representation” by Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 351 union bosses. Grounds Management worker Antonio Eduardo Reza, who united every one of his fellow coworkers in opposing the union, received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in exercising the employees’ right to hold the decertification vote.
The union decertification election was administered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on February 15. Because a full week has now passed since the 17-0 unanimous vote without any objections made by union officials, the result is final and the workers are officially union-free.
Although the NLRB’s union decertification process is still prone to union boss-created roadblocks, Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 have made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials.
Before the reforms, for example, union officials could stop workers who requested a decertification vote from casting ballots by filing so-called “blocking charges,” which often contain unverified and unrelated allegations of employer actions. The 2020 rule changes improved the process so employees can at least have a chance to vote before any allegations surrounding the election are resolved.
Worker interest in removing unwanted unions is up nationwide, with National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys fielding numerous requests for free legal assistance in decertification cases, like the one brought by Reza and his coworkers. The process should be simple, with federal law stating that workers can hold decertification votes in most instances as long as they have a petition with the signatures of at least 30% of workers in a bargaining unit. However, rules created by NLRB bureaucrats combined with legal tactics deployed by union lawyers often mean workers face legal hurdles in just getting the opportunity to hold a vote whether to remove an unwanted union.
The NLRB’s own data show that, currently, a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign, with one analysis finding decertification petitions up 42% last year.
“Although we’re glad Antonio Reza and his coworkers were able to free themselves of a union that they all opposed, this case only demonstrates just how outrageous it is that the Biden NLRB is moving to roll back reforms that make it easier for workers to exercise their right under federal law to vote out a union they oppose,” observed Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “If the Biden-appointed majority on the NLRB has its way, just one unfounded allegation by union bosses will be enough to block a vote like this for months or more, even though every single worker wanted nothing to do with the union’s so-called ‘representation.’”
Northern PA Metal Worker Prevails in Federal Case Charging CWA Union with Illegal Dues Deductions
CWA officials also refused worker’s membership resignation and sought to force him to remain union steward
Galeton, PA (March 3, 2023) – Curtis Coates, an employee of metal corporation Catalus, has successfully forced Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials to stop illegally seizing money from his paycheck for union politics and ideological causes. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys represented Coates for free before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Coates charged CWA union officials in May 2022 with unlawfully snubbing both his request to resign from his position as a union shop steward and his request to formally end his union membership. Full union dues deductions also continued to flow out of his paycheck even after his requests. Coates argued that CWA bosses violated his rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, unions can legally coerce workers into paying union fees just to keep their jobs even if they choose not to become union members. However, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CWA v. Beck, won by Foundation attorneys, this is limited to only the part of union dues that union officials claim goes toward a union’s core “representational” functions, and excludes deductions for union political or ideological activities. In contrast, in states with Right to Work protections, union membership and all union financial support are both strictly voluntary.
A Foundation-won settlement now requires CWA union officials to post a notice at Coates’ workplace declaring that they “will not fail and refuse to honor your request to resign your union membership,” and “will not fail and refuse to honor your request to resign your role as a union steward.” CWA union officials have also stopped siphoning money for union politics and ideological activities from Coates’ wages.
CWA Forced Dissenting Worker to Remain Shop Steward, Took Full Dues Illegally from Paycheck
According to his charge, Coates sent a message to CWA union officials on October 20, 2021, declaring that he was resigning from his position as shop steward and terminating his union membership. A union official rebuffed both of Coates’ requests the next day, insisting that he had to remain both a union member and a shop steward.
In December 2021, January 2022, and February 2022, Coates followed up with union officials several times via email and mail. He asked when union officials would cease taking dues money from his wages and what process he had to follow to revoke his dues deduction authorization.
Coates’ charge asserted that CWA union officials, by refusing his repeated requests to resign his union membership, violated his rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which recognizes workers’ right to “refrain from any or all” union activities.
Foundation President: No Place for Compulsory Union Support in Federal Law
“CWA officials summarily denied Mr. Coates’ valid exercise of his right to refrain from union membership, unlawfully seized money for union politics, and even forced him to remain a union shop steward,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The extreme aversion CWA union officials seem to have to any kind of dissociation with the union shows where their focus lies: maintaining forced worker subsidization of union activities and not on respecting workers’ individual rights.”
“Such union malfeasance is only buoyed by federal labor law, which permits states to deny Right to Work protections to private sector workers,” Mix added. “No American worker should be forced to fund any kind of unwanted union purpose as a condition of keeping his or her job, which is why securing Right to Work protections for all Americans is absolutely vital.”
