Series of successful worker-led decertifications of Teamsters union bosses nationwide follow federal labor board rule change simplifying process

Chicago, IL (July 26, 2021) – Maintenance workers at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago have successfully removed Teamsters Local 743 union officials from their workplace, following a vote in which more than 70% of those who cast ballots voted to free themselves from the Teamsters’ monopoly bargaining power. The election was held after worker Tim Mangia submitted a petition to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 13 in Chicago demonstrating sufficient support among his coworkers for a decertification vote.

Mangia received free legal aid in filing the petition from a National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorney. The successful ouster is the latest in a string of successful worker-led decertifications of Teamsters officials across the country. Just last month, Frito-Lay salesmen voted Teamsters Local 657 officials out of their monopoly bargaining status in Del Rio, TX, and Eagle Pass, TX, a removal which followed Santa Maria, CA Allied Central Coast Distributing delivery drivers’ April dethroning of Teamsters Local 986 bosses. The workers who submitted petitions requesting decertification votes in each of these cases received legal help from Foundation staff attorneys.

Mangia and his coworkers are employed by Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc. Mangia gathered the necessary signatures from his coworkers and on May 17, 2021 submitted the petition requesting that NLRB Region 13 supervise a secret ballot vote to remove the union. The ballots were counted on July 8 and by July 16 NLRB Region 13 confirmed that the workers had voted 25-8 to eject Teamsters bosses from their workplace.

For almost a year workers have been enjoying an easier pathway to exercising their right to remove unwanted union officials. The NLRB in Washington, DC, in July 2020 enacted new rules governing decertification elections which, drawing from comments Foundation attorneys submitted to the agency earlier that year, now forbid union bosses from indefinitely stalling worker-requested votes based on “blocking charges.” Those charges are allegations against an employer that are often unproven and unrelated to workers’ desire to oust union officials.

In Mangia’s case, the new rules may have prevented union officials from submitting “blocking charges,” as filing them would have neither delayed the election nor stopped the results of the vote from being released.

Had the effort by Mangia and his colleagues to oust Teamsters Local 743 officials been blocked, every full-time employee in Mangia’s workplace would have been forced to continue to suffer under union boss monopoly power. Additionally, the employees would have been forced to pay money from their wages to fund the union boss hierarchy because Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its workers.

Right to Work protections ensure that no worker can be required to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of keeping his or her job. In a non-Right to Work state like Illinois, workers who choose not to affiliate with a union can still be forced to pay at least a portion of union dues as a condition of employment.

“Although Foundation-backed NLRB rule changes eliminated some of the barriers faced by Mr. Mangia and his coworkers in removing the Teamsters union from their workplace, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that it is wrong for so-called union ‘representation’ to be imposed on even one worker who doesn’t want it,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “States like Illinois which lack Right to Work protections compound the injustice of letting union officials force workers under union representation against their will by also empowering union bosses to threaten workers to pay union dues or else be fired.”

“We will continue to work towards a day when unions can neither impose their so-called ‘representation’ on individual workers against their will, nor force them to fund union activities,” Mix added.

New settlement requires union bosses to provide workers information on how union is spending their money

Buffalo, NY (July 13, 2021) – With free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Lockport, NY-based Student Transportation of America school bus driver Cynthia Roszman has won a settlement in her case charging the Teamsters Local 449 union with failing to provide information about how worker dues are spent.

As part of the settlement, Teamsters union officials must provide Roszman and her coworkers who have refrained from formal union membership sufficient information to decide whether to challenge the union’s dues calculation for nonmembers.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 3 in Buffalo is enforcing the settlement. Roszman, who resigned her union membership in May 2018, first hit Teamsters bosses with federal charges in September of that same year, asserting that they had not provided her with an independently-verified breakdown of the union’s expenditures and accompanying information about the process for disputing union officials’ calculation of the reduced dues rate for nonmembers.

The NLRB ruled in 1995 that under the 1988 Foundation-won CWA v. Beck case private sector union officials must provide nonmember employees with this information. Beck mandates that private sector union bosses cannot, as a job condition, force workers who have abstained from union membership to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s core representational activities.

In states that have Right to Work protections for their employees, union membership and financial support are completely voluntary and union bosses cannot force workers to pay any portion of dues as a condition of keeping a job. Even though New York lacks such protections, union bosses still must follow the requirements of Beck to justify their forced dues demands.

To avoid prosecution, Teamsters Local 449 officials initially entered into a settlement in the case in January 2019. They agreed to only deduct from Roszman the nonmember dues rate based on the Teamsters national union’s financials, so they could rely on the national union’s breakdown as opposed to providing one themselves. However, after about a year union bosses reneged on this agreement and resumed demanding Roszman pay Local 449’s nonmember rate, yet refused to give her the legally-mandated financial breakdown and information for challenging that rate.

The latest Foundation-won settlement now compels Teamsters Local 449 officials to give Roszman and her coworkers who have decided not to associate with the union “information that is relevant and sufficient to enable the objector to determine whether to challenge the calculation” of the union’s dues amount for nonmembers. Union officials must also post a notice at Roszman’s workplace informing employees of the settlement.

“Although this favorable outcome for Ms. Roszman is good news, no workers should have to battle union bosses for years just to get basic information on how the union is spending their money, and on how they can contest what union officials force them to contribute just to keep their jobs,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “All American workers deserve the protection of a national Right to Work law, which would ensure that no worker could legally be forced to pay dues or fees to a union boss just to get or keep a job.”

Teamsters officials pushed to have union representation vote by mail as opposed to in-person, worker presents evidence of union using system to illegally solicit ballots

Los Angeles, CA (July 2, 2021) – Nelson Medina, an employee at transportation company Savage Services’ Wilmington, CA, facility, has just filed a Request for Review to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC. He is demanding the Board review an NLRB Regional Director’s discarding of his objections to a mail ballot election pushed by Teamsters Local 848 union officials. This vote resulted in the Teamsters gaining monopoly bargaining power in Medina’s workplace, despite significant evidence that union officials manipulated the less-secure nature of mail elections to illegally solicit ballots, and despite evidence of other voter disenfranchisement that occurred due to flaws in the process.

Medina, who is represented for free by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, in his brief reiterates evidence that at least 12 of his fellow employees never had their votes counted purely due to errors by the US Post Office and the NLRB regional office. He also details that a union lawyer had “access to the tracking numbers for two of the ballots” which were originally considered late, indicating unlawful vote harvesting by union officials.

Medina seeks to have the NLRB in Washington overturn the NLRB Regional Director’s decision and order a hearing on voter disenfranchisement. His brief argues that, if the Board orders such a hearing and “ultimately finds merit to some, but not all of these objections, there is a chance that the ballot solicitation objections” involve enough ballots to invalidate the mail election win that Teamsters officials claim they have. He also demands that a rerun vote be administered for him and his coworkers.

On the issue of voter disenfranchisement, Medina’s brief states: “the evidence will show that the timing of the mail ballot election during the pandemic and the U.S. Presidential election” led to a substantial number of votes not being counted. The circumstances surrounding the election also didn’t meet any of the criteria the NLRB set forth in its Aspirus Keweenaw standard for administering a mail vote, the Request for Review argues. The NLRB generally prefers the security of in-person elections to mail ballot ones.

With regard to ballot solicitation, Medina’s brief contends that the Teamsters lawyer’s possession of the tracking numbers of the untimely ballots “is highly suspect and creates an inference that the Union was involved in or assisted with the mailing of those two ballots,” and that the Regional Director’s decision to reject these concerns and those about voter disenfranchisement without a hearing to evaluate the issues is impossible to justify.

Earlier in 2021, Foundation staff attorneys filed an amicus brief for Medina in Professional Transportation, another NLRB case in which workers asserted that union officials were soliciting and collecting ballots illegally. That brief pointed out that the under the NLRB’s Fessler precedent “unions faced with mail ballot elections are likely to engage in voter solicitation knowing that…they are unlikely to ever get caught,” even though employers would almost certainly be punished for attempting the same thing.

“Union bosses prefer mail ballots for unionization elections over in-person NLRB-monitored secret ballot votes for the same reason Big Labor advocates for ‘card check’ unionization: without direct NLRB oversight it is easier for union agents to apply pressure tactics, threats, and other coercive measures,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Medina and his coworkers deserve a secure in-person election so they can freely choose who will speak for them in the workplace, and Foundation staff attorneys will keep fighting for them until they get it.”

Multiple cases headed to High Court seeking ruling against arrangements that violate workers’ rights under 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision

Washington, DC (June 21, 2021) – Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have just submitted petitions for writ of certiorari in two class-action civil rights cases seeking to enforce workers’ First Amendment rights. In both cases public educators are challenging union boss-created restrictions on their First Amendment right to refrain from funding unwanted union hierarchies in their workplaces.

One petition was filed for Chicago Public Schools educators Joanne Troesch and Ifeoma Nkemdi, whose lawsuit against the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and the Chicago Board of Education challenges a union boss-created “escape period” scheme that blocks workers from exercising their right to terminate dues deductions from their paychecks outside the month of August.

The second petition was filed in a lawsuit brought by New Jersey teachers Susan Fischer and Jeanette Speck, who are suing the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) union for enforcing a similar annual window that restricts employees in the exercise of their Janus rights to just 10 days annually, less than 3% of the year.

Both lawsuits argue that these union dues “escape periods” run afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which was won by Foundation staff attorneys in 2018. In Janus, the court ruled that no public worker can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping his or her job. The Court further held that union bosses contravene the First Amendment if they seize any money from an employee’s paycheck without an affirmative consent and a knowing waiver of that employee’s First Amendment rights.

Fischer and Speck, who both work in Ocean Township, NJ, attempted to exercise their Janus rights in July 2018, just a month after the High Court handed down the Janus decision. But Township officials told the teachers they could only stop payments and withdraw their memberships during an annual 10-day window. Unbeknownst to them, union partisans in the New Jersey legislature had actually established that “escape period” by law in May 2018 in an apparent attempt to defang the pending Janus decision.

Fischer and Speck’s suit argues that because the Janus ruling gave public employees the First Amendment right not to financially support union activities, the New Jersey law is unconstitutional and must be nixed. In addition to eliminating the “escape period” scheme, they seek a refund of membership dues for themselves and all other public employees who were blocked by NJEA officials from stopping dues deductions following Janus.

Nkemdi and Troesch’s original lawsuit explains that both educators “did not know they had a constitutional right not to financially support” the union hierarchy until the fall of 2019, when they discovered their Janus rights while looking for information on how to continue working during a strike that CTU bosses ordered that October. They sent letters the same month to CTU officials to exercise their Janus right to resign union membership and cut off all dues deductions.

Both educators received no response until November of that year, when CTU officials confirmed receipt of the letters but said that they would continue to seize dues from the teachers’ paychecks “until September 1, 2020,” as per the union’s “escape period” scheme. Troesch and Nkemdi demanded in their lawsuit that CTU union officials and the Board of Education stop enforcing the “escape period,” notify all bargaining unit employees that they can end dues deductions any time, and permit bargaining unit employees to claim back dues that were already seized without their consent.

“‘Escape periods’ like those forced on Troesch, Nkemdi, Fischer, and Speck serve no purpose other than to keep the hard-earned cash of public servants who oppose union officials’ so-called ‘representation’ flowing into union coffers even after those employees have clearly exercised their First Amendment right to object to such payments,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “With opposition to these schemes growing among public employees, the Supreme Court must quickly take up this issue and clarify that Janus does not permit union bosses to profit from curtailing workers’ constitutional rights.”

NLRB still investigating union officials for fine issued after worker exercised right to end union membership and began working for firm outside union’s control

Colorado Springs, CO (June 11, 2021) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Colorado Springs metal worker Russell Chacon has forced International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers (SMART) Local 9 union officials to abandon their illegal demands against him for tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

Chacon filed an unfair labor practice charge at Region 27 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Denver last month after he received a message from SMART union bosses imposing $21,252 in union disciplinary fines on him. The demand came despite the fact that Chacon had resigned his union membership and left a job at a contractor under SMART Local 9’s power several months earlier to work at a Pueblo facility free from union control.

Now, just weeks after the charge was filed, SMART union bosses have rescinded their fine demands. However, an NLRB investigation is ongoing into SMART union officials’ actions surrounding the ruinous fine they attempted to impose against Chacon.

SMART agents claimed in correspondence with Chacon that the fine was for an alleged “loss of funds” supposedly resulting from his working for an employer outside SMART’s influence. Decades-old federal law prohibits union officials from forcing internal union discipline on workers who have exercised their right to refrain from union membership, and from restricting the exercise of that basic right.

Chacon used to work for Colorado Sheet Metal, a Colorado Springs-based contractor whose employees are under the monopoly bargaining power of the SMART Local 9 union. According to his unfair labor practice charge, he sent a letter to SMART union officials resigning his union membership in November 2020, and soon after went to work for Rocky Mechanical, a Pueblo-based firm outside the SMART union’s control.

The union fine demand, which came several months after his change in jobs, ordered Chacon to fork over money to cover the alleged union “loss of funds” for a period through May 31, which at that time included days that Chacon had not even worked yet.

“While we are pleased that Mr. Chacon no longer faces this outrageous and unlawful fine, rank-and-file workers should not have to file federal charges just to have rights respected,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Colorado still lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers to ensure that no employee is forced to pay tribute to union bosses just to get or keep a job, including union officials who blatantly ignore decades of longstanding law to retaliate against workers seeking not to associate with a labor union.”

Worker slammed with unlawful demands after he exercised right to end union membership and began working for firm outside union’s control

Colorado Springs, CO (May 25, 2021) – A Colorado Springs metal worker has just filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers (SMART) Local 9 union officials, whom he asserts are illegally trying to fine him tens of thousands of dollars after he resigned his union membership and went to work for a contractor not under union control.

He filed his charge at Region 27 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Denver with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

The worker, Russell Chacon, maintains in his charge that by “issuing unlawful fines and or internal charges” SMART union officials violated his right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to refrain from all union activities. Under federal law, union officials cannot forbid workers from ending their formal union memberships or mete out internal union discipline on employees who refrain from union membership.

Although federal law going back to 1947 also prohibits union bosses from requiring union membership as a condition of employment, states like Colorado which lack Right to Work protections grant union officials the power to force workers to pay them fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In Right to Work states, both union membership and financial support are completely voluntary.

Chacon used to work for Colorado Sheet Metal, a Colorado Springs-based contractor whose employees are under the monopoly bargaining power of the SMART Local 9 union. According to his charge, he sent a letter to SMART union officials resigning his union membership in November 2020 and soon after went to work for Rocky Mechanical, a Pueblo-based firm outside the SMART union’s control.

Chacon’s charge reports that he later received a message from union officials ordering him to pay $21,252 to make up for an alleged “loss of funds” supposedly resulting from his working at a contractor outside the SMART union’s bargaining power. The period for which SMART officials are demanding this payment goes through May 31, 2021, and includes days Chacon has not even worked yet.

“It’s shameful that SMART union officials claim to ‘represent’ rank-and-file metal workers while demanding a devastating sum of money from a worker who has clearly exercised his right to refrain from union activities, and doesn’t even work for an employer under their power anymore,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Colorado workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to ensure that employees cannot be required as a condition of employment to fund a union hierarchy that so flagrantly violates workers’ rights.”

Mix continued: “Other Colorado metal workers who have suffered similar malfeasance from SMART union officials should not hesitate to reach out to the National Right to Work Foundation for free assistance in defending their rights.”

Foundation attorneys argue IAM union “opt-out” requirement to escape payment for union officials’ political activities violates Supreme Court’s Janus standard

Washington, DC (May 24, 2021) – Today staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation filed a petition for writ of certiorari in United Airlines employee Arthur Baisley’s federal class-action civil rights case, which charges International Association of Machinists (IAM) union bosses with forcing him and his coworkers by default to pay for union political expenditures in violation of the First Amendment and the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

In particular, Baisley challenges a union requirement that employees who choose not to join the union must opt out of funding the union’s political and ideological activities during a brief annual “window period,” or else have money automatically seized from their paychecks for those purposes against their will.

Baisley’s attorneys argue the opt-out arrangement violates workers’ rights under the RLA, and the First Amendment under the standard laid out in the landmark 2018 Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision.

They contend that, under Janus and the 2012 Knox v. SEIU Supreme Court case – both of which were argued at the High Court by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys – no employee can be charged for union political or ideological expenditures without first giving their affirmative and knowing consent, because language from a 1961 case that union lawyers use to prop up “opt out” language was only dicta.

Baisley is not a member of the IAM but is still forced to pay some union fees despite being based in the Right to Work state of Texas. The RLA preempts state Right to Work protections which make union membership and all union financial support strictly voluntary. However, under longstanding law, even without Right to Work protections nonmembers cannot, as a condition of keeping their jobs, be required to pay fees for anything beyond the union’s expenses directly related to bargaining.

Baisley’s petition details the convoluted union boss-created process that workers must navigate just to prevent money from being taken from their paychecks in violation of their First Amendment rights. In Baisley’s situation, even though he sent a letter to IAM agents in November 2018 objecting to funding all union political activities, union officials only accepted his objection for 2019, and told Baisley he had to renew his objection to full dues and fees the next year or else be charged full union dues.

The lawsuit challenges this union-created policy on the grounds that it requires employees to withdraw from paying union fees that they have no legal obligation to pay and thus breaches workers’ First Amendment rights. The complaint also alleges that the IAM’s opt-out requirement violates the RLA, which governs labor in the air and rail industries and protects the right of employees to “join, organize, or assist in organizing” a union of their choice, as well as the right to abstain from all union activities.

Baisley’s lawsuit seeks to strike down the opt-out requirement not only as it is applied to him, but also for his coworkers whose rights are similarly restricted by the IAM’s opt-out policy. Union officials would then be required to get nonmember workers to give affirmative consent to paying for union boss activities beyond the bargaining-related expenses they can legally be required to subsidize under the RLA.

“The sordid goal of these kinds of union ‘opt-out’ requirements is clear: trap unsuspecting workers into subsidizing union bosses’ radical political agenda without their consent and in violation of their constitutional rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court ruled in the Foundation-won Janus case that union officials must first seek the affirmative approval of public sector workers before charging them for union politics, and this case simply seeks to ensure that Mr. Baisley and all employees subject to the Railway Labor Act enjoy those same basic protections.”

UFCW union officials demanded employer hand over unique information only about worker who petitioned to oust union, not any coworkers

Selbyville, DE (May 18, 2021) – Delaware Mountaire Farms employee Oscar Cruz Sosa is challenging National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 5’s dismissal of his federal charge against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27 union. Cruz Sosa charged Local 27 officials with illegally surveilling him while he was helping his coworkers exercise their right to vote out the union.

Cruz Sosa submitted a petition in February 2020 signed by hundreds of his coworkers – enough to trigger an NLRB-supervised vote to remove the union (known as a “decertification election”) – but UFCW officials sought to block the vote by claiming that a “contract bar” existed that prevented any election. The “contract bar” is a non-statutory NLRB-concocted policy that forbids workers from voting out unpopular union bosses for up to three years after management and union officials broker a monopoly bargaining contract.

Over the union’s objections, the NLRB Region 5 Director in Baltimore allowed the vote Cruz Sosa and his coworkers requested because he found that the union contract contained an illegal forced-dues clause, and thus the “contract bar” did not apply. However, unwilling to lose power over 800 forced-dues payers in Cruz Sosa’s workplace, UFCW lawyers petitioned the full NLRB to reimpose the “contract bar.” In response, Foundation staff attorneys urged the Board to reform the restriction or eliminate it entirely.

The case was under consideration by the full Board until last month, when it reversed the Regional Director’s months-old ruling that the contract was invalid, kept the controversial “contract bar” in place, and ordered that hundreds of employee ballots cast in the election to remove the unpopular UFCW union bosses be destroyed rather than counted.

While the case was still being litigated, the NLRB issued a complaint against Mountaire Farms in a separate case UFCW union officials filed, which revealed that Mountaire Farms officials had not acquiesced in union officials’ March 2020 demands for “[c]opies of the daily hours of work and the time and attendance records for employee Oscar Cruz Sosa between August 1, 2019 and March 15, 2020.” Cruz Sosa submitted the employee-backed petition for a vote to decertify UFCW union officials in February 2020.

Foundation staff attorneys subsequently filed an unfair labor practice charge for Cruz Sosa, arguing the union’s demands for Cruz Sosa’s private information were an obvious attempt to intimidate and retaliate against him and stymie his and his coworkers’ efforts to exercise their right to vote union bosses out of power.

Cruz Sosa’s Foundation-provided staff attorneys defend that charge in the current appeal, contending that NLRB Region 5’s dismissal of his charge was wrong because “Local 27 had no legitimate representational objective for this information―unless surveilling your decertification opponent (an employee you purport to represent) is now considered ‘legitimate representational activity.’”

The appeal reiterates the intimidating and harassing nature of UFCW officials’ actions, emphasizing “that Local 27 made no similar information requests about any of the 799 other chicken processors employed at Mountaire Farms.”

“UFCW bosses have unequivocally shown that they value maintaining power at the Selbyville Mountaire plant far more than respecting the rights of the employees they claim to represent, whether that entails unlawfully surveilling an employee who is engaging in protected activity or fighting for the destruction of workers’ ballots,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No American employee should have to go to work thinking that they are being spied on merely for helping their fellow employees exercise their right to resist union power.”

Union officials’ vague letters to workers failed to acknowledge requests to end dues deductions

Washington, DC (May 13, 2021) – Michigan Rieth-Riley Construction Company employees Jesse London and Rob Nevins are appealing to the National Labor Relations Board Office of Appeals their case charging International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 324 union officials with blocking their right to refrain from union financial support.

Their appeal, filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, challenges IUOE bosses’ cryptic responses to London’s and Nevins’ requests in early 2020 to resign from the union and stop all dues deductions from their checks.

According to their appeal, IUOE officials responded to both men’s letters in April 2020, acknowledging their resignations but not accepting their dues revocations, instead telling them to refer to copies of their dues authorization forms “with respect to revocation.” Both men assert that they had submitted their requests to terminate dues deductions within a 15-day “window period” for such demands imposed by IUOE officials, and it was unclear what the union bosses’ reply meant.

The appeal also recounts that IUOE bosses mailed a check to each man for roughly $250, though no explanation was given on what the money was for or whether the checks meant that “Local 324 actually had honored their revocations so that roughly $2,100-2,500 in union dues would not be taken out of their” checks later in the year.

The appeal comes after NLRB Region 7 in Detroit, last month, refused to prosecute IUOE Local 324 for the inadequate responses, even though the Region had issued its second amended complaint just a month earlier stating that the union officials’ responses violated London’s and Nevins’ rights.

The rationales given for this reversal included Acting General Counsel Peter Ohr’s rescission of a memo from former NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb. That memo urged NLRB Regional Directors to prosecute unions who didn’t communicate with workers who missed union-imposed “window periods” in their attempts to stop dues deductions. NLRB Region 7 also magically cited “newly submitted evidence” that supposedly obviated London’s and Nevins’ assertions about the insufficiency of the union’s response.

The appeal argues that Ohr’s withdrawal of Robb’s memo is completely irrelevant to the case because Robb’s old memo “only required unions to actually communicate with employees regarding untimely revocation requests,” and London’s and Nevins’ requests were timely.

It also contends that NLRB Region 7 was wholly unspecific when referring to the “newly submitted evidence” from the union. Although this “evidence” presumably was the “two checks with no explanation or cover letter,” the appeal says, that does not “change the fact that Local 324 failed to accept Mr. London’s and Mr. Nevins’ revocations.”

London’s and Nevins’ appeal coincides with Michigan Rieth-Riley workers’ continued effort to safeguard their right to vote IUOE bosses out of their workplace. In February of this year, the NLRB announced that it would hear Rieth-Riley employee Rayalan Kent’s case that he and his coworkers already-cast ballots should be counted, after NLRB Region 7 officials ordered them destroyed based on unproven union “blocking charges.”

The appeal also was submitted amidst Acting NLRB General Counsel Peter Ohr’s continued attempts to undermine Foundation cases brought for workers who seek to free themselves from coercive union boss control. Just weeks after President Biden fired General Counsel Peter Robb before his Senate-confirmed term was over and installed Ohr, Ohr began dismissing complaints against unions that had forced themselves on Foundation-represented workers via coercive “card check” drives. He also began nixing multiple memoranda issued by Robb which drew on Foundation advice.

“So-called ‘Acting’ General Counsel Peter Ohr will have to make a decision: side with Mr. London and Mr. Nevins against clear violations of their right to refrain from financially supporting union bosses, or add both men to the growing list of rank-and-file workers he has betrayed by letting union officials trample their freedoms,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union dues deductions should be completely voluntary, not the result of union boss deception. Foundation staff attorneys will continue to fight to ensure that all Rieth-Riley workers know their ‘no means no’ when it comes to dues deductions.”