IFPTE union bosses continued deducting dues from drivers in violation of Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME precedent

Camden, NJ (October 26, 2022) – Camden-area South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) driver Tyron Foxworth and six of his colleagues have prevailed in their federal lawsuit charging the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 196 (IFPTE) union with violating their First Amendment rights.

With free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Foxworth and his coworkers filed a complaint in May stating that IFPTE union officials had illegally seized dues money from their paychecks after their resignations from the union were supposed to take effect.

A settlement has now required IFPTE union officials to return to Foxworth and several other drivers all dues money taken from their paychecks unconstitutionally, plus interest. The settlement also bars the IFPTE union from demanding or seizing any dues from the drivers going forward.

The drivers argued that IFPTE officials violated their First Amendment rights recognized in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME 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. It 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.

The federal civil rights lawsuit explains the drivers signed cards that said employees could request a stop to dues deductions effective either the January or July following the request. The drivers reported that they all resigned and demanded dues cease a few months prior to January 2022, but, in contradiction to the cards, dues money kept flowing from their paychecks after January 1, 2022, passed.

IFPTE Officials Subjected Drivers to Restrictions They Never Knew About, Seized Their Money After Drivers Requested Stop

According to Foxworth and his colleagues, IFPTE union officials maintained a more restrictive dues deduction scheme. The union’s monopoly bargaining contract with SJTA recognizes dues opt-outs only in July, not in January and July as provided by the cards the workers signed. The drivers never consented to this greater restriction.

Foundation attorneys argued that IFPTE union officials, by taking union dues after January 1, 2022, without the workers’ consent, “violate[d] Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free speech and association.”

This is the latest of numerous Foundation-won settlements to vindicate American public workers’ First Amendment Janus rights. In the past few years, class-action lawsuits brought by Foundation staff attorneys have led to settlements freeing tens of thousands of Ohio public employees from American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union schemes illegally restricting the exercise of their Janus rights.

Foundation attorneys have also just filed a petition to the Supreme Court for several Southern California lifeguards. They seek to knock down a so-called “maintenance of membership” scheme that California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials are using to trap the lifeguards in full dues payments and membership years after they resigned, in clear violation of Janus.

“IFPTE union officials acted like the First Amendment Janus rights of Mr. Foxworth and his colleagues did not even exist. They ignored the drivers’ clear requests to cut off financial support of union activities, all under the guise of a dues policy to which union officials had never gotten workers’ consent,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re proud to have helped Mr. Foxworth and his fellow drivers defend their rights, but we’re also acutely aware that union officials across the country are still concocting ways to circumvent the rights protections of Janus.”

“Public employees who are dealing with union officials who ignore or limit the exercise of their Janus rights should not hesitate to contact the Foundation for free legal assistance,” Mix added.

Federal law protects workers’ legal right to rebuff union boss strike demand and continue working to support their families

Boston, MA (October 19, 2022) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for Sysco Foods employees potentially affected by strikes being threatened by Teamsters union officials at Sysco Foods facilities across the nation. Media reports indicate that the strike began in Syracuse, New York, and while the strike at the Syracuse location reportedly ended, Teamsters boss-ordered strikes continue at other locations with potentially more occurring.

Because of Teamsters’ union monopoly power, these strikes will affect thousands of employees, impacting the lives of workers and their families across the nation. The Foundation’s legal notice informs workers of the rights union officials often conceal, including that workers have the right to continue working in order to support themselves and their families.

Importantly, the notice gives workers who want to exercise their right to work information on how to avoid fines and punishment that would likely be imposed by union officials.

“Teamster union officials have a decades-long history of abusing workers’ rights and disciplining and firing workers who do not kowtow to their dictates,” the legal notice reads. “Sysco workers may want to contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and other vicious union discipline for continuing to report to work to support themselves and their families.”

The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights workers’ rights to resign union membership and to revoke their union dues check-offs. With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, numerous workers have won cases challenging illegal Teamster union official actions.

In just the past few years, Foundation staff attorneys have assisted other Sysco Foods workers. With Foundation free legal aid, Alabama Sysco Foods worker Sulane Lowery filed charges against the Teamsters Local 612 challenging unlawful intimidation tactics after Lowery and others attempted to oust the Teamsters from their workplace. In another case filed with Foundation legal aid, a group of Sysco Oklahoma workers signed petitions seeking to remove the Teamsters eventually leading to their being free of unwanted so-called “representation” that they opposed.

The National Right to Work Foundation is the nation’s premier organization exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employee victims of forced unionism abuse. The full special notice can be found at https://www.nrtw.org/sysco-foods/

“For decades, the Foundation has provided free legal aid to workers to protect them from Big Labor’s coercive tactics, which are especially common during union boss-instigated strikes,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “Workers always have the right to continue to work during a strike, despite what union officials may tell them or try to pressure them into doing, however there are important steps workers should take to protect themselves from vindictive union boss retaliation.”

Vote to remove union comes as Pennsylvania employees fight legal battle against Steelworkers officials who trapped them under union power and disregarded votes

Burlington, NJ (October 18, 2022) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Michael Cobourn and his coworkers at Gold Bond Building Products in Burlington, NJ, have successfully exercised their right to vote unwanted Steelworkers (USW) union officials out of their facility. The vote, held by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), was decisive, with nearly 70 percent of those participating in the election casting ballots to oust the union.

The vote follows Cobourn’s submission of a “decertification petition” signed by enough of his coworkers to prompt the NLRB to hold a vote on whether to remove the union. Although the NLRB’s decertification process is still prone to union boss-created roadblocks, Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 have made the decertification process somewhat easier.

Before the reforms, union officials could stop workers who had requested a decertification vote from casting ballots by filing so-called “blocking charges,” which often contain unverified and unrelated allegations of employer misconduct. The rule changes improved the process so employees can at least have a chance to vote before any allegations surrounding the election are handled.

Because New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, USW union officials had the power to force Cobourn and his colleagues to pay dues or fees to the union hierarchy just to stay employed. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are the choice of each individual worker and can’t be required as a condition of employment.

“My coworkers and I were paying money to the Steelworkers union constantly, yet the union didn’t seem to be doing anything for us,” commented Mr. Cobourn. “I’m very grateful to the National Right to Work Foundation for helping us through the union decertification process, and we look forward to being free of the union’s control and influence.”

USW Union Officials in Pennsylvania Fight to Quash Similar Foundation-Backed Employee Effort

Cobourn’s victory comes as USW union officials are battling another employee-led decertification effort in Franklin, PA. There, the USW bosses claim at the NLRB that their rushed and unilateral approval of an unpopular union contract must block Latrobe Specialty Steel/Carpenter Technology employees’ right to vote the union out. In that case, USW officials hastily “ratified” the unpopular contract after getting wind that employees were seeking to remove the union. This was an apparent attempt to deploy the “contract bar,” a non-statutory restriction that blocks workers from voting out unions they oppose for up to three years after union officials sign a contract with management.

USW bosses, by their own admission, held a phony employee “vote” on the contract after it had already been covertly signed by them, tricking workers into thinking their votes would determine the fate of the contract. In sworn testimony, one union boss admitted that USW agents are free to execute contracts despite employees voting them down, and that union officials misled the Latrobe workers and ignored their votes against the contract “to protect the integrity of the union.”

The employee effort to oust the union is being led by Latrobe Specialty Steel employee Kerry Hunsberger, who obtained free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. Foundation attorneys argue for her and her coworkers that the USW bosses’ ploy is “nothing more than a smokescreen, concocted by a desperate and unpopular Union to entrench itself and bar employee free choice” under federal law.

“USW officials openly admit that their modus operandi is to subordinate employee rights and interests to maintain union power, so we’re glad that that Mr. Cobourn and his coworkers were able to exercise their right to kick such union officials out of their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Still, as the situation in Franklin, PA, demonstrates, more work needs to be done to safeguard employees’ right to decertify unions that they oppose.”

“The Foundation will continue to defend Ms. Hunsberger, her coworkers, and any other American employee who faces union-created roadblocks to exercising their right to eject the USW or any other union officials from their workplace,” added Mix.

Comments argue against rule that would increase costs in order to discriminate against vast majority of American construction workers who are non-union

Washington, DC (October 17, 2022) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed comments opposing a Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council proposed rule to block non-union workers from working on federal contracts. The rule, which implements President Biden’s Executive Order 14063, requires federal agencies to impose PLAs (Project Labor Agreements) on contractors and employees who work on federal construction projects that will cost $35 million or more.

PLAs mandate that, to work on a construction project, contractors’ workers must be under union monopoly control. Given that around 80 percent of construction workers and contractors have opted against unionization, this union-only requirement discriminates against the vast majority of America’s construction workers. This also drives up the costs to taxpayers due to inefficient union work rules that union officials insist on.

Foundation attorneys note in the comments that “[t]here is no legitimate legal or policy basis for forcing employees and contractors to abide by union-only PLAs to work on major federal construction projects,” and that the executive order “is simply naked political payback by the current administration to its union supporters.”

The comments explain six ways in which the proposed rule violates federal law, particularly noting that the PLA requirement “will serve only to harm construction workers who reject union representation,” arguing they will be “subjected to unwanted union representation; forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment in non-Right to Work states…and will have large portions of their compensation diverted to union pension plans from which they will receive no benefits,” among other things.

Comments: Discriminating Against Majority of Construction Workers Violates Federal Law

The Foundation’s comments also point out that the proposed rule violates the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), a federal law intended to improve costs by increasing competition for federal contracts. The comments state that shrinking the pool of contractors to only those that are willing to give into union boss demands “will inevitably lead to increased contracting costs for the federal government,” making the executive order and the rule it promulgates inconsistent with CICA.

In fact, as the comments explain, the proposed rule itself acknowledges that “between 2009 and 2021, federal contracting officers—who are trained to award contract to bidders that provide the best value to the government —required the use of PLAs in only 12 out of the approximately 2,000 instances where a Federal construction project cost $25 million or more.” This statistic underscores the inefficiency of PLAs.

The Foundation’s comments also argue that the proposed rule violates the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because it doesn’t analyze how small non-union contractors unwilling to submit to PLAs will be affected by the rule. The rule is also “arbitrary and capricious,” according to the comments, because of the rule’s failure to consider its cost impacts.

“So-called ‘Project Labor Agreements’ simultaneously discriminate against the over 8 in 10 American construction workers who exercise their right not to associate with a labor union, while forcing taxpayers to shoulder the extra cost of wasteful union work rules,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Once again the Biden Administration shows its willingness to throw rank-and-file workers under the bus, just to enrich their special interest allies in Big Labor.”

Employee submitted majority-backed petition seeking ouster of union in accordance with federal Labor Board standards, but IAM officials fought it for years

Lexington, KY (October 7, 2022) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Keith Purvis and his coworkers at furniture manufacturer Leggett & Platt have finally formally freed themselves from the control of unwanted International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials. Purvis and his coworkers have been fighting since 2016 to exercise their right to remove the union.

The victory comes after a DC Circuit Court decision reversed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and found that, under the Foundation-won Johnson Controls case, NLRB bureaucrats had arbitrarily allowed IAM union bosses to remain in power at the facility despite a petition showing a majority of workers wanted them gone. Following that DC Circuit decision, the NLRB finally confirmed that IAM union officials are no longer the bargaining “representatives” at Purvis’ workplace.

In the 2019 Johnson Controls decision, the NLRB established an employer’s power to cease recognition of a union in a workplace once the current monopoly bargaining agreement expires, provided employees have submitted a petition indicating the majority of them do not wish to be “represented” by the union. If union officials dispute their loss of majority support, the issue is resolved by a secret-ballot election among workers on whether the union should remain in power.

The Johnson Controls process is a marked improvement over the old standard, in which union officials could unilaterally invalidate a petition showing the majority of workers rejected the union by submitting “union cards” or other documentation purportedly showing the union had regained majority status. Before Johnson Controls, secret-ballot elections were generally not conducted to resolve these disputes, despite courts affirming that such elections are the best gauge of employee approval.

Even After Two Petitions for Union’s Ouster, Union Bosses Tried to Force Themselves Back into Facility

In 2016, Purvis submitted to Leggett & Platt management the first of two “decertification petitions,” which demonstrated a majority of his coworkers wanted the union removed from the facility. In response, his employer announced that it would stop recognizing IAM union officials on March 1, 2017. However, IAM union bosses filed charges with the NLRB immediately after, alleging that Leggett & Platt management’s withdrawal of recognition at employees’ behest was unlawful. Undeterred, Purvis gathered signatures for and submitted a second decertification petition, this time seeking a secret-ballot election conducted by the NLRB.

While litigation over union officials’ charges was pending before the DC Circuit Court in 2019, the NLRB issued the Johnson Controls decision. The DC Circuit Court sent the case back to the NLRB, ostensibly because Johnson Controls meant Leggett & Platt had acted lawfully by anticipatorily withdrawing recognition from the union when presented with a majority of employee signatures seeking that outcome.

The NLRB refused to apply the Johnson Controls standard to the case, but, when the case came before the DC Circuit Court again on appeal, the DC Circuit ruled that the NLRB’s refusal to do so was “arbitrary and capricious.” Finally, as September 2022 ended, the NLRB issued a decision confirming the IAM was no longer the majority representative, and IAM officials could not use litigation to foist monopoly bargaining power over the facility.

American Workers Increasingly Giving Boot to Unpopular Unions

Purvis and his coworkers’ successful exercise of their right to boot the unpopular IAM bosses comes as private sector workers across the country are increasingly moving to get rid of union officials that don’t serve their interests. 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 the average nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.

“No worker in America should be subjected to union control that they oppose, and the Foundation-won Johnson Controls NLRB decision safeguards a vital pathway for workers to exercise their free choice rights in that regard,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, as was the case with Mr. Purvis’ effort, union bosses and Big Labor allies at the NLRB continuously try to pare back this decision so union officials can maintain their grip on workplaces even when it’s obvious workers want them gone.”

“We’re glad Mr. Purvis and his coworkers are finally free of the union and we were proud to assist him,” Mix added.

Federal labor board data show that workers across the country are increasingly likely to be involved in efforts to remove unions from workplaces

Sacramento, CA (September 23, 2022) – Seron Chand and her fellow nurses at Pine Creek Care Center, a Roseville nursing and rehabilitation facility, successfully exercised their right to vote unwanted Teamsters Local 150 union bosses out of their workplace. Chand obtained free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who aided her in filing a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to conduct a vote to remove the union (also known as a “decertification vote”).

The NLRB’s election certification showed more than 70% of the nurses voted to scrap the union. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, which includes holding employee votes to either remove or install a union in a workplace.

Chand and her colleagues benefitted from Foundation-backed reforms adopted by the NLRB in 2020, which make it easier for workers to exercise their right to boot unwanted union officials. Before the reforms, union officials could stop workers who had requested a decertification vote from casting a single ballot by filing so-called “blocking charges,” which often contain unverified and unrelated allegations of employer misconduct. The rule changes improved the process so employees can at least have a chance to vote before any allegations surrounding the election are handled.

Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Chand and her fellow nurses were forced not only to accept the so-called “representation” of the clearly unpopular Teamsters union, but were required to subsidize union activities financially just to keep their jobs. In Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.

Pine Creek Nurses Join Nurses Across the Country Who Have Cut Ties with Unpopular Unions

Just a month before Chand and her colleagues’ successful decertification vote, Foundation attorneys aided nurses at Mayo Clinic in Mankato, Minnesota, in their successful effort to throw out the unpopular Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union from their workplace. About the same time, nurses from the St. James, Minnesota, branch of Mayo Clinic voted to decertify American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 65 union officials by a nearly 9-to-1 margin, also with Foundation legal assistance.

In California, Foundation-backed nurses at Monterey’s Cypress Ridge Care Center voted to remove Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015 officials a few months ago.

The increase in efforts by workers to free themselves from unions they do not want is not limited to nurses. 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 the average nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.

“Big Labor is claiming that worker support for unions is soaring – a narrative that they will use ahead of midterm elections to convince their political allies to grant them even more coercive legal powers over rank-and-file workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, the NLRB’s own stats concerning unionization, as well as a spike in workers seeking Foundation aid in kicking out unwanted union officials, show that the real story is that workers are rejecting the increasingly politicized and coercive ‘representation’ today’s union officials are offering.”

Workers petitioned for election to oust union after first vote against contract, but union boss secretly signed unpopular contract in July anyway to maintain power

Franklin, PA (September 19, 2022) – Workers at Latrobe Specialty Steel’s facility (also known as Carpenter Technology) in Franklin, PA, are fighting Steelworkers union officials’ attempt to trap them under a union contract workers voted down twice. Their effort follows union bosses’ secret “ratification” of the unpopular contract despite telling workers that their votes would determine whether the contract would go into effect. Latrobe Specialty Steel employees are seeking to “decertify,” i.e. vote out, the Steelworkers Union with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Kerry Hunsberger leads an employee push to vote out the Steelworkers union at Latrobe Specialty Steel. Hunsberger’s attorneys filed a brief this week at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) arguing that union officials concocted an improbable contract ratification story to avoid being voted out by the workers they claim to “represent.” The union bosses admit to signing the unpopular contract behind workers’ backs in an attempt to trigger the NLRB’s so-called “contract bar” policy. The “contract bar” arbitrarily immunizes unions from employee decertification votes for up to three years after a contract between union and company officials is finalized.

Steelworkers Union Officials Signed Unpopular Contract to Avoid Being Voted Out by Workers

Latrobe Specialty Steel workers first voted July 25 on the contract drawn up by Steelworkers union officials. The workers soundly rejected the contract, and Hunsberger began collecting employee signatures for a “decertification petition” shortly afterwards. The NLRB will administer a union decertification election among the workers of a facility if the petition contains the signatures of 30% or more of the employees.

According to documents and transcripts filed with the NLRB, when Steelworkers union officials discovered a decertification petition was circulating, they secretly signed the disfavored contract on July 28, without telling the employees or the employer, in an attempt to activate the “contract bar” rule and avoid being voted out.

In their haste to enact the employee-rejected contract to trigger the “contract bar,” union officials didn’t even finalize critical details of the contract like the start and end dates. Even though the union claims this contract was supposedly in effect on July 28, union officials held a new employee ratification vote on August 1, encouraging workers to ratify the contract, but not telling them their “vote” was a meaningless formality because the contract was already signed and in effect.

Hunsberger submitted a valid decertification petition on August 1, just hours before the sham contract vote occurred. As with the previous vote, the workers again lopsidedly rejected the contract. But later that night, union officials suddenly announced to the employer that the contract was already in effect and the ratification vote was a nullity because of the union bosses’ covert signing on July 28. According to the trial transcript, one union boss admitted under oath that the Steelworkers union executes contracts despite employees voting them down, and that he did so in this case and ignored the employees’ vote against the contract “to protect the integrity of the union.” Apparently the Steelworkers bosses’ lust for monopoly bargaining power and compulsory union payments takes precedence over employee democracy.

In fact, the Steelworkers Union’s post-hearing brief openly admits that union officials “executed the contract on July 28 to… pre-empt the decertification petition circulating at the facility” and that the August 1 “vote was only taken as a courtesy to employees [and] was an attempt to obtain their blessing of the contract that the [union officials] had already executed.”

In the same brief union bosses doubled down on their deceptive practices, stating that “the Union’s representations to employees here are irrelevant… and the union was within its discretion to take a vote of its members and was not obligated to abide by the results of such a vote” (emphasis added).

Hunsberger now waits for Regional NLRB officials to decide if union bosses’ ploy to hastily “ratify” an incomplete and unpopular contract over the objections of multiple workers’ votes successfully blocked workers’ statutory right to a decertification vote.

Foundation President: “Contract Bar” Policy Encourages Anti-Democratic Gamesmanship by Union Bosses

Foundation attorneys’ brief defending Hunsberger and her coworkers’ right to vote the union out argues that the contract never took effect due to the lack of a discernible effective date as well as the lack of an employee vote in favor of ratification. The Foundation attorney’s brief argues that Steelworkers officials’ assertions that they entered into a binding contract are “nothing more than a smokescreen, concocted by a desperate and unpopular Union to entrench itself and bar employee free choice” by manipulating the “contract bar.”

“The ‘contract bar’ arbitrarily blocks, often for years, workers’ statutory right under federal law to vote out union officials they oppose. Worse, it encourages union officials to cynically impose a contract at all costs, especially when union bosses know rank-and-file workers would see such a contract as a reason to want to be free of so-called union ‘representation,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Immunizing union officials from being voted out by the workers they claim to ‘represent’ creates an incentive structure in which union boss power comes first and majority support among workers comes last.”

“This case presents an easy choice for the NLRB: defend the rights of rank-and-file workers or side with Steelworkers union officials who repeatedly misled those workers and twice disregarded their votes simply to protect union power and compulsory dues,” added Mix.

Employee request for vote to oust union was denied after Federal Labor Relations Authority merged two units without employee consent

Washington, DC (September 9, 2022) – National Park Service (NPS) employee Lauren Labrie has just filed a brief at the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), opposing an order blocking her and her coworkers’ right to vote American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union officials out of power.

Her brief, filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, challenges the FLRA’s dismissal of a “union decertification petition” seeking an election to remove the union. Labrie and her colleagues signed the petition after FLRA officials administratively merged their work unit with another without any vote by her and her fellow employees on the new arrangement. Union officials and the FLRA then cited the merger as a reason to block the decertificiation vote the workers requested.

The brief challenges the FLRA’s suspect position that, under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act, an employee-requested election to remove a union can be blocked after a union is installed by agency fiat through “unit consolidation.” The only “election bar” authorized by the statute is one for 12 months after employees have voted to install a union by secret ballot, the brief argues.

FLRA “Consolidated” Units at Union Behest, Then Stopped Workers from Voting on Union

Labrie’s brief explains that she and her fellow Blue Ridge Parkway NPS employees were under the control of two different AFGE union locals as of June 2021. AFGE union officials then petitioned to consolidate the two units, and a regional FLRA official approved the move in September 2021 – without giving employees any opportunity to vote on whether they wanted the merger.

In December 2021, the petition to decertify AFGE as the union with control over the workers was filed. The petition was signed by a number of her colleagues sufficient to trigger an FLRA-administered election whether to remove the union. A regional FLRA official dismissed the petition in March 2022, claiming it was blocked by a 12-month “election bar” stemming from the top-down, unilateral consolidation of the work units.

Park Employee’s Brief: Blocking Election Stifles Employees’ Free Choice Rights

Foundation attorneys argue in Labrie’s brief that applying “election bars” after agency-imposed unit consolidations violates federal employees’ free choice rights, which the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act 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 says. “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.”

The brief asks that the FLRA reverse its decision blocking Labrie and her coworkers’ vote and immediately hold an election.

Labrie’s defense of her and her coworkers’ request to decertify the AFGE union comes as Foundation attorneys are aiding private sector workers across the country in defending their right to vote out union officials of whom they disapprove. Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for overseeing labor relations in the private sector, has just announced rulemaking to undo Foundation-backed 2020 reforms that make it harder for union officials to stop workers from exercising this right.

“Union officials in both the public and private sectors want to maintain their coercive grip on workplaces across the country, regardless of how many workers oppose their monopoly so-called ‘representation,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Thanks to the Foundation-won Janus Supreme Court precedent, Ms. Labrie and her fellow park employees at least have a First Amendment right to cut off any dues payments to AFGE union bosses they oppose.”

“But the fact that FLRA officials are letting union officials dodge employee-requested decertification votes simply by consolidating units shows the degree to which union power is not a function of rank-and-file support, but a result of the way government policy entrenches union bosses to the detriment of individual workers’ rights,” Mix added.