Labor Board to Prosecute Teamsters for Illegally Threatening Long Beach Savage Services Employee with Termination and Fines
Complaint says union officials failed to properly inform worker of forced dues; Local 848 now under second federal prosecution this year
Long Beach, CA (May 20, 2024) – After facing federal charges from workers at transportation company Savage Services, Teamsters Local 848 union officials are now facing federal prosecution for saddling employees with illegal threats to have them fired. On May 15, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 21 in Los Angeles issued a complaint against the Teamsters union based on unfair labor practice charges filed by Savage Services employee Nelson Medina. Medina is receiving free legal representation from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
In states like California that lack Right to Work protections for private sector workers, union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that force nonmember workers to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment, though these demands are limited by the Right to Work Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court case to only dues or fees that go toward the union’s core bargaining activities. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
The complaint targets Teamsters officials’ violations of a 1962 NLRB decision. The precedent in Philadelphia Sheraton requires union officials to inform workers of exactly what obligations they must fulfill to satisfy the requirements of a forced unionism clause in a union contract. This includes providing employees notice of how the union calculates what the employee must pay in terms of dues and a reasonable opportunity for the employee to pay those amounts.
According to the complaint, Teamsters officials, in a July 2023 letter, “threatened [Medina] with sending a letter of removal to the Employer” if he didn’t pay allegedly outstanding fees to the union, without providing the legal protections required by Philadelphia Sheraton. The complaint also says that Teamsters bosses threatened Medina with a fine for the same reason.
New NLRB Complaint Latest in Flurry of Legal Actions Against Teamsters Local 848
This isn’t the first time that Teamsters Local 848 has been subject to federal prosecution at Savage Services. In February, NLRB Region 21 issued a complaint against Local 848 because its agents had threatened employees with violence for not supporting the union. That complaint followed an unfair labor practice charge from Savage Services employee Victor Avila detailing the threats.
Teamsters Local 848 has also faced recent pushback from Savage Services employees for illegal dues practices. In February 2022, Medina forced the union to settle charges that it illegally forced nonmember workers to pay for union political activities in violation of Communications Workers of America v. Beck. The settlement required union officials to pay back thousands of dollars in illegal dues they seized from about 60 of his coworkers who objected to union membership and to funding the union’s political activity.
“Teamsters Local 848 union chiefs are continuing their dismal track record of complying with employees’ legal rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Their repeated threats and illegal dues practices show pretty clearly that they value power and dues revenue beyond the well-being of Savage Services employees, who have now attempted twice to throw the union out.
“It’s good that the union is being prosecuted for violating employees’ rights under federal law. But ultimately, Right to Work protections would solve such conflicts about whether or not union officials have complied with their obligations to justify forced union dues by ensuring every workers’ individual right to decide for themselves whether or not to voluntary fund union activities,” Mix added.
Healthcare Employees in PA, MN Oust Unions with Foundation Aid
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Over 270 workers now free of AFSCME at Philly hospital; Steelworkers union booted in MN
After being told by a union official that “the union isn’t going anywhere,” outpatient service coordinator Shidiah Jackson (back right) and her coworkers led a successful effort to kick the AFSCME union out of St. Christopher Hospital.
PHILADELPHIA, PA – In December 2023, National Right to Work Foundation-supported workers added two new victories to the growing string of successful union decertification efforts around the country.
In Philadelphia, a 270+ worker unit comprised of medical assistants, office coordinators, medical secretaries, and many other support employees voted by a nearly 60% margin to remove the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union from St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children.
Outpatient service coordinator Shidiah Jackson led the union decertification effort with free legal advice from the Foundation.
In Austin, MN, patient care specialist Erin Krulish and other support workers at the Austin Mayo Clinic location forced Steelworkers union officials out of their facility. That ouster follows multiple recent union removals involving other Minnesota healthcare employees, including nurses at Mankato Mayo Clinic, support staff at Mankato Mayo Clinic, and nurses at St. James Mayo Clinic, all of whom received free Foundation legal aid.
Both Krulish and Jackson kick-started these efforts by submitting decertification petitions to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Each petition contained enough signatures from employees interested in having a union removal vote to prompt the NLRB to hold such a vote.
Healthcare Professionals Free of Monopoly Bargaining and Forced Dues
Both Pennsylvania and Minnesota lack Right to Work protections for their private sector workers, meaning that union officials had the power to enter into contracts with management that would force Krulish, Jackson, and their coworkers to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
Steelworkers Officials Depart MN Clinic to Avoid Likely Embarrassing Vote
If a majority of workers vote against a union in a decertification vote or otherwise force a union out, the union loses not only its ability to demand forced dues from employees, but also its monopoly bargaining power.
Such power permits union officials to dictate the contract provisions of all employees in a unit, even those who oppose or voted against the union’s presence in the first place.
The effort by Krulish and her coworkers at Mayo Clinic Austin to remove the Steelworkers union was unique in that they had already stripped union officials of their forced dues power through a “deauthorization election,” which can be petitioned for in the same way as a decertification election. In December 2022, Krulish and her fellow employees voted 49-17 to revoke the union’s power to compel them to pay dues.
Deauthorization is the only way employees in non-Right to Work states can stop a union from seizing dues from workers as a condition of employment, outside of completely decertifying the union.
Krulish and her coworkers resorted to this option because the NLRB’s questionable “contract bar” doctrine prevented them from kicking the union out in December 2022, simply because the union’s contract was still active.
After experiencing a big loss in the deauthorization election, Steelworkers officials likely knew another devastating defeat was coming after Krulish filed her decertification petition. They departed the hospital before the election could take place.
Philly Workers Reject One-Size-Fits-All Union Bureaucracy
In an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jackson related that she had no contact with the union until she tried to ask for a raise she felt she had earned, at which point hospital administrators said her salary and benefits were a union matter. When she voiced her displeasure with the situation to the union and asked what the union actually did for her, a union official suggested her views didn’t matter anyway because “the union isn’t going anywhere.”
“OK, we’ll see about that,” she told the union agent, according to the Inquirer. Soon after, she proceeded with her decertification effort, which ultimately resulted in the overwhelming vote among her colleagues for ending the union’s so-called “representation.”
“It seems that American medical employees are discovering that union officials’ one-size-fits-all ‘representation’ doesn’t always work to their benefit, nor does it help them take better care of their patients,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s easy to see why healthcare workers would want to avoid compulsory dues payments, or being ordered to strike and abandon their patients during a busy time.
“Those in the healthcare industry should know that they have a right to petition the NLRB for a vote to remove a union, and that National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys can assist them through this daunting process,” Mix added.
DC-Area ‘Union Kitchen’ Employees Vote 24-1 to Remove UFCW Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation now defending workers against union attempt to overturn employee vote
Union Kitchen, a unique grocery concept that helps local DC entrepreneurs get their food products to market, was the target of a dangerous UFCW picket scheme.
WASHINGTON, DC – Ashley Silva, an employee at independent DC-area food store Union Kitchen, could sense in July 2023 that her coworkers had had enough of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union in their workplace.
UFCW union officials had been ordering contentious boycotts and pickets on the stores, and some of the demonstrations even required police intervention after union picketers blocked store exits.
“The vast majority of the workers at Union Kitchen are sick and tired of the UFCW’s picketing, harassment of employees, and constant disruptions of our day-to-day work life,” Silva said at the time.
Despite Searing Worker Rejection, UFCW Bosses Trying to Cling to Power
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Silva filed a decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asking the federal agency to hold a vote among the employees of Union Kitchen’s five stores on whether the union should be ousted. The vast majority of her coworkers signed the petition.
UFCW union officials levied allegations against Union Kitchen management in an attempt to stop the vote from happening. Despite some delays, Silva and her coworkers cast ballots in October 2023, and a January 2024 vote count revealed that she and her colleagues had voted against the union 24-1.
The union challenged eight employee ballots, meaning the full tally of votes against the union is most likely 32-1.
Once the NLRB certifies this election result, Silva and her coworkers will be free of the union. However, in an attempt to stop this, UFCW officials continue to press the “blocking charges” against Union Kitchen management that they filed at the NLRB before the vote, and have also piled on objections to the election that contain the same basic accusations as the blocking charges.
Blocking charges are often unverified or unrelated charges of employer misconduct that union officials can manipulate to stall a ballot count or a certification of results in a union decertification case.
If the NLRB issues a complaint against an employer based on a union’s “blocking charges,” the decertification process is halted.
Foundation Will Fight UFCW Bid to Overturn Vote
Foundation staff attorneys are defending Silva and her colleagues’ victory at the ballot box from UFCW union officials’ bald-faced attempts to oppose their will.
“We’re happy that Ms. Silva and her coworkers were finally able to exercise their right to vote out a union they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “It’s unfortunate, though hardly surprising, that despite such an overwhelming rejection UFCW union officials won’t take a hint and stop attempting to impose their unwanted so-called ‘representation’ on Union Kitchen employees.
“The Foundation is proud to defend Silva and her coworkers against these union tactics as they seek freedom from coercive unionism,” Semmens concluded.
KIPP St. Louis Charter High School Educators to Vote This Week on Whether to Oust AFT Union Bosses
Union decertification election will take place among wide swath of school employees, including teachers, advisors, administrative staff, and others
St. Louis, MO (May 14, 2024) – Teachers, advisors, nurses, and other employees at KIPP St. Louis High School will vote this week on whether to remove American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union officials from power at the school. The union decertification vote follows KIPP teacher Robin Johnston’s submission of a “decertification petition” earlier this month to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 14 in St. Louis. Johnston filed the decertification petition with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Johnston’s petition contains signatures from enough of her coworkers to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
Because Missouri lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers (which includes employees at public charter schools like KIPP), union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials in a unionized workplace are empowered by federal law to impose a union contract on all employees in the work unit, including those who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of both their forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers.
Vote Set to Take Place May 17
“AFT union officials haven’t stood up for us,” commented Johnston. “I think the majority of my coworkers agree that they’ve only made it harder for us to help our students succeed, especially through a divisive strike order, and that’s a trend I hope we can reverse with this vote. We hope the election proceeds without delay and without interference from union officials.”
The NLRB has scheduled a vote to occur on Friday, May 17. According to Johnston’s petition, the vote will occur among “College and Career Advisors, English Language Learners, Leads, Lead Teachers, Learning Support Teachers, Mental health Professionals, School Nurses, Special Ed. Teachers, Specials Teachers, Speech Language Pathologists, Virtual Learning Facilitators, Behavior Support Specialists, High School Registrars, Long Term Subs, Office Coordinators, Paraprofessionals, Permanent Building Subs and Receptionists” at the school.
Foundation attorneys have recently aided other charter school educators in efforts to remove unwanted union officials, most recently in San Diego, CA, where employees of Gompers Preparatory Academy prevailed in 2023 after a nearly four-year effort to vote out the San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union, an affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA).
“Top teacher union officials, including Randi Weingarten of the AFT and Becky Pringle of the NEA, seem to regularly make headlines for political radicalism and not for anything related to helping teachers, which seems to be a reality on the ground at KIPP St. Louis,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Johnston and her fellow educators join a growing number of workers across the country who are realizing that union boss agendas don’t align with what’s best for them, and Foundation attorneys are proud to help them exercise their right to vote away unwanted union control.”
Foundation-Aided Employees Tell Congress: All Workers Need Right to Work
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Workers’ real-life battles against union bosses emphasize need to end forced union dues
Foundation clients Brunilda Vargas (left) and Jeanette Geary (right) testified to Rep. Bob Good (center) and other members of the House Education and Workforce Committee about the danger forced dues still pose to America’s workers.
WASHINGTON, DC – In November, two recipients of National Right to Work Foundation free legal representation went to Capitol Hill to testify before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce about their battles against union bosses.
This was the first-ever congressional hearing on the National Right to Work Act, legislation that will safeguard American private sector workers’ freedom to refrain from paying dues to an unwanted union.
Jeanette Geary, a retired nurse, and Brunilda Vargas, a Philadelphia-based public defender, both successfully challenged illegal forced-dues demands with Foundation aid. Their testimony at the hearing, alongside Foundation President Mark Mix, gave policymakers stark examples of how union officials often manipulate their forced-dues powers to advance coercive agendas over the objections of workers.
Vargas, Geary Share Stories of Union Coercion
The current federal law governing most private sector workers in America — the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) — grants union bosses the power to force workers to pay union dues just to keep their jobs. Only by passing Right to Work laws can states protect workers covered by the NLRA from forced dues.
Meanwhile, airline and railroad employees covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) can be required to pay union dues no matter where they work because federal law prevents them from being covered by state Right to Work laws. The one-page National Right to Work Act discussed in the hearing would repeal the portions of both the RLA and NLRA that authorize union officials to require union payments as a condition of employment.
“We’re proud and thankful that Ms. Geary and Ms. Vargas both agreed to testify before Congress on the struggles independent-minded workers face every day because of federal law’s lack of protection for worker freedom,” Mix commented. “Union bosses and their allied politicians don’t want to hear it, but the truth is rank-and-file workers are the victims of Big Labor’s government-granted coercive powers, which makes the stories of those victims especially powerful.”
Geary discussed her struggle against United Nurses and Allied Professionals (UNAP) union bosses, who subjected her and her fellow nurses in Rhode Island to an illegal scheme in which they were compelled to pay for union political expenditures, including lobbying in state legislatures. Geary fought UNAP union officials over the illegal dues demands for 12 years with free legal representation from Foundation staff attorneys. She finally prevailed in 2021, when the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in her favor and rejected a union appeal.
Vargas and Geary: Unions Purposely Hide Rights from Employees
“Unions do not tell employees about their rights because union officials have no incentive to do so, and regular employees without lawyers . . . are left to fend for themselves,” Geary testified before the House Committee. “This is America, and membership in a union and payment of dues should be strictly voluntary.”
Vargas testified about her case against United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials, who threatened to dock the salary of her and any other public defender in her office who refused to let the union seize money directly from their paychecks. Under federal law, even in forced-dues states, union officials must obtain express consent from workers before taking dues money by direct deduction. With Foundation legal aid, Vargas secured a favorable finding from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that initiated a formal prosecution against the union. Eventually, UAW union bosses were forced to settle the matter and end their illegal conduct.
“As attorneys, we do have a level of sophistication when it comes to the law and legal processes. However, I cannot imagine a lay person having to face this type of pressure. I believe that most people sign union membership and authorization cards because they believe they have no choice, and they are often told that,” Vargas testified.
Michigan Security Guard Slams Union with Federal Charges for Illegal Dues Seizures, Transparency Issues
Union officials fail to provide required information on how dues money is spent, already face vote which could stop forced-dues spigot
Grand Rapids, MI (May 8, 2024) – James Reamsma, a security guard whose posts include the Gerald R. Ford Federal Building and other government sites in the Grand Rapids area, has hit the United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union with federal unfair labor practice charges maintaining that UGSOA union officials are seizing dues money from his paycheck without providing required disclosures on how the union spends worker cash. Reamsma filed the charges at Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Detroit.
Reamsma is also leading his fellow security guards at Triple Canopy Inc. in an effort to vote away the UGSOA’s power to compel guards to pay dues or fees to the union in what is known as a “deauthorization election.” He is receiving free legal aid in both actions from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Reamsma’s charges seek to enforce his rights under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which was won by Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The Court held in Beck that union officials cannot force workers who have abstained from union membership to pay union dues or fees for expenses not directly germane to contract negotiations, such as union political activities. Workers who exercise their Beck rights are also entitled to an independent audit of the union’s finances, a breakdown of how union officials spend forced contributions, and an opportunity to challenge how the union calculates its reduced “Beck fee.”
Beck rights are only relevant in non-Right to Work jurisdictions like Michigan, where union officials have the legal privilege to force private sector workers to pay dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Indiana and Wisconsin, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary. Michigan had Right to Work protections until a 2023 repeal rammed through by union partisans on the Michigan Legislature became effective earlier this year.
Union Dubiously Claims No Dues Money Goes to Politics
According to Reamsma’s charge, he submitted a notice to UGSOA union agents in March that requested the union reduce his dues payments in accordance with Beck and provide him with the required financial information. In response, union officials claimed that the amount of dues chargeable to nonmembers was equal to 100% of full union dues. Reamsma’s charge states that UGSOA “failed to provide the required financial disclosures for itself and its affiliated unions, and a chance to object to its alleged reduced fee.”
The charge also notes that, despite Reamsma notifying union officials in April that he prefers to pay union dues by check, UGSOA ignored this request and has continued to take money directly from his paycheck by payroll deduction. Federal labor law forbids union officials from using direct deduction to collect union dues or fees without worker consent.
Foundation attorneys argue in the charge that the union’s continued seizing of dues money from Reamsma’s paycheck “restrain[s] and coerce[s] Charging Party in the exercise of his Section 7 rights” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA protects the right of workers to refrain from union activities.
Guards May Vote to End Forced Dues
The NLRB has scheduled May 17 to count the votes in Reamsma’s deauthorization election, which is currently taking place by mail. If a majority of his colleagues vote to deauthorize the union, it will no longer have the legal power to coerce Reamsma and his colleagues to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment. Michigan’s non-Right to Work environment forces workers to either deauthorize a union or vote it out of a workplace completely (via a similar process known as “decertification”) if they want to end union officials’ forced-dues power.
“UGSOA union officials appear to be withholding vital information about how they spend worker money from the very security guards they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “If union bosses won’t respect basic worker rights regarding the collection and spending of dues money, Triple Canopy security guards should rightly be skeptical of whether UGSOA deserves the privilege to force them to pay dues or fees at all.
“While it’s illegal everywhere to force workers to pay for union political expenditures they oppose, the choice to financially back a union at all should rest solely with each individual worker, which is why Right to Work protections are so important,” Mix added.
Puerto Rico Union Bosses Try to Dodge Consequences of Janus Lawsuit
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Worker still battling scofflaw union officials who tried to saddle him with restraining order
PRASA employee Reynaldo Cruz didn’t back down after UIA union officials tried to foist a specious restraining order on him. He isn’t backing down in the face of UIA union officials’ Janus violations either.
SAN JUAN, PR – When Reynaldo Cruz, an employee of the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), made a Facebook post referring to a chapter president of the Authentic Independent Union of Water and Sewer Authority Employees (UIA) as “lazy,” the chapter president tried to hit him with a restraining order.
“A UIA union official targeted me with a restraining order for daring to speak out against the union, which is my free speech right,” commented Cruz. “That’s ridiculous coming
from union officials who claim to ‘represent’ me and my coworkers.”
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in October 2023 defeated the UIA official’s specious argument that the court should issue a restraining order against Cruz because he
would have had to “stalk” him to know of his laziness. But Cruz’s battle against the UIA union is far from over.
District Court Refuses to Crack Down on Obvious Janus Violations
Cruz is currently challenging a decision by the District Court of Puerto Rico in his years-long case to reclaim dues money that UIA union officials took unconstitutionally from his paycheck.
The District Court made the puzzling move of dismissing Cruz’s suit as “moot” after UIA officials deposited money due to Cruz with the Clerk of the District Court of Puerto Rico. In his motion to alter and amend the judgment, Cruz argues that because the court has not decided any of his underlying claims or entered a judgment in his favor, he has no entitlement to and cannot seek or obtain that money. Cruz is also appealing the District Court’s dismissal of his suit to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, MA.
“Until the Court enters a declaratory judgment for Cruz, Cruz’s injury-in-fact will persist because Cruz has not received monetary relief and the Court has not entered judgment for Cruz entitling him to the UIA deposit,” Cruz’s motion reads.
Cruz argues in his suit that various provisions of the Puerto Rico Labor Relations Act, which UIA union bosses relied upon to take money from his paycheck, violate the First Amendment. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME case that public employees have a First Amendment right to opt-out of dues payments to
an unwanted union, and that public employees must waive this right before any dues are deducted from their paychecks.
Cruz’s Janus lawsuit began in 2017, after UIA officials responded to his request to end his union membership and stop dues payments by telling him that he could only cut ties with the union if he left his current job. In addition to naming the UIA, Cruz’s lawsuit also names the Governor of Puerto Rico in his official capacity as Cruz is also challenging the constitutionality of Puerto Rico’s laws authorizing mandatory dues and so-called “maintenance of membership” agreements.
The Janus case was decided as Cruz’s case was ongoing. The Justices definitively ruled that requiring public sector employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment violates their First Amendment free association rights.
The Puerto Rico District Court issued its ruling on October 17, 2023. In addition to not entering a judgment for Cruz deciding his entitlement to the unconstitutionally seized money, the Court also didn’t reach a conclusion on the constitutionality of the Puerto Rico law authorizing mandatory dues payment and membership, nor did it require the UIA union to abandon anti-Janus contract provisions.
Union Bosses Must Be Made to Comply with Janus
“The ruling in Mr. Cruz’s case poses serious issues for public employees across Puerto Rico and across the country,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “If allowed to stand, it creates a precedent in which workers get no relief when union bosses seize money unconstitutionally from their hard-earned pay, and in which laws that authorize such illegal dues deductions are allowed to stand despite Janus unambiguously prohibiting them.
“Foundation staff attorneys will continue to fight for Mr. Cruz until his rights are vindicated and he gets a judgment awarding him the money he is constitutionally entitled to,” Semmens added.
Somerset, NJ, Nissan Employees Overwhelmingly Vote Out UAW Union Bosses
Nearly 70% of distribution center employees voted against UAW, vote proceeded despite last-minute contract ratification by union officials and management
Somerset, NJ (April 30, 2024) – During a secret ballot election last week, workers at Nissan North America’s parts distribution center in Somerset, NJ, voted to oust United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials from power at their facility. The workers who participated in the April 24 union decertification election voted by nearly 70% to remove the union. Nissan employee Michael Oliver spearheaded the union removal effort with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Oliver kick-started the effort by filing a union decertification petition on April 1 with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Oliver’s petition contained support from enough of his coworkers to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
Because New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UAW officials maintained contracts with Nissan management that require Oliver and his coworkers to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials in a unionized workplace are empowered by federal law to impose a union contract on all employees in the work unit, including those who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of both their forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers.
If union officials file no objections to the election by midnight on April 30, NLRB officials will certify the vote and Somerset Nissan employees will be officially free of the union.
UAW Union Officials Rushed New Contract in Likely Attempt to Prevent Removal Vote
After Oliver’s April 1 submission of the decertification petition, UAW union officials announced on April 18 that they had ratified a new union contract with Nissan management. The last contract had expired.
While the NLRB’s dubious “contract bar” generally allows union bosses to quash worker-filed decertification efforts for up to three years while a union contract is in effect, the contract bar didn’t stop Oliver and his coworkers’ requested election, because union officials weren’t able to reach a monopoly bargaining agreement with Nissan before Oliver filed his decertification petition. The contract bar does not appear in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is charged with enforcing, and is instead the product of union boss-friendly Board decisions.
Had union officials been able to ratify the contract just a few days earlier, the UAW likely would have succeeded in trapping the workers in union “representation” and forced-dues payments, despite a wide majority wanting to be free of the UAW.
Workers Across Country Growing Dissatisfied with UAW Agenda
Across the country, workers are choosing to affiliate with unions in record-low numbers, according to the most recent Gallup poll on the subject. In 2023, the UAW’s membership fell to its lowest level since 2009. Nonetheless, the UAW’s top bosses are engaged in a multi-million-dollar campaign to expand their influence across nonunion auto facilities, particularly in the South.
Workers are also increasingly attempting to exercise their right to vote out union officials they disapprove of. According to NLRB data, since 2020 decertification petition filings have gone up by over 40%. To resist this trend, the Biden NLRB is attempting to make it substantially more difficult for workers to decertify unions, and could soon issue a final rule invalidating the Election Protection Rule. The Election Protection Rule is a policy which contains multiple important safeguards regarding employees’ right to decertify unions they oppose.
“Mr. Oliver and his fellow Nissan employees are another example that workers who see the UAW up close and personal end up disliking the union’s so-called ‘representation,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“While these Nissan workers were able to get a vote to eliminate the UAW from their workplace, too often we hear from workers who are frustrated to learn they may have to wait years before even being able to seek a vote to remove unwanted union monopoly representation,” Mix added. “The vast scores of auto industry workers now within the crosshairs of the UAW’s sweeping organizing plan should remember that union officials often prioritize their own power over workers’ interests, and that biased NLRB standards like the ‘contract bar’ may make it very difficult to remove a union after it has been installed.”
Foundation Blasts Biden Plan to Sneak Union Monopoly Power into Agricultural Sector
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Comments expose DOL rule’s rigging of agricultural visa program to favor union organizers
Julie Su — “acting” secretary of the Biden Labor Department due to bipartisan opposition barring her from the agency’s top job — is overseeing an attempt to sneak union boss power into the agricultural sector against Congress’ will.
WASHINGTON, DC – Federal labor policy in the United States provides a smorgasbord of powers to union bosses in the private sector, not the least of which are the powers to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on dissenting workers in a unionized workplace, and to force workers to pay dues in non-Right to Work states.
Traditionally that hasn’t been the case in the agricultural sector, where each state has the freedom to make its own labor policy. But in November 2023, the Biden Department of Labor announced a rule which could upend this balance and effectively impose on temporary agricultural employees portions of federal labor law that are overwhelmingly favorable to union bosses. The National Right to Work Foundation promptly filed comments exposing the slated rule as a Big Labor power grab.
Biden Admin Defies Congress by Granting Union Bosses Power Over Farmworkers
The proposed rule would assist union bosses with imposing monopoly bargaining privileges over temporary agricultural workers in the United States, including workers who don’t support a union. Among other things, the rule requires that employers fork over employee contact information at union bosses’ request — regardless of whether the union has any employee support. The proposed rule would also cajole employers into entering into so-called “neutrality agreements” with union bosses. “Neutrality agreements” typically require employers to censor information about the union and provide other aid to union bosses in their efforts to collectivize workers.
The comments cite multiple reasons as to why the Department of Labor lacks the legal authority to implement the proposed rule, such as the fact that Congress expressly excluded agricultural workers from federal labor statutes.
According to the comments, the Biden Department of Labor admitted in its rulemaking announcement that it is trying to impose parts of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) on
the agricultural sector, despite Congress’ intent.
“The Department not only lacks Congressional authorization to take this action, it is defying express Congressional intent to not subject these types of employees to provisions of the NLRA,” the comments state.
Comments: Union Power Grab Won’t Help Workers
The comments also point out that the provisions in the Department of Labor’s rule are unrelated to the rule’s stated purpose of helping agricultural workers avoid exploitation, and rather resemble a list of proposals to empower union officials at workers’ expense.
“The Department fails to explain how allowing unions to access employees’ personal information, to bargain for neutrality agreements, and to prevent employees from accessing information for and against unionization helps to alleviate the concerns identified in the proposed regulations,” the comments argue.
“The Department should not adopt the proposed regulation,” the comments conclude.
The Department of Labor’s notice of rulemaking comes as the Biden Administration is making a full court press to expand union boss legal privileges across the country. That includes the Biden National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) plan to wipe out the Foundation-backed Election Protection Rule, which eased the process by which workers could obtain votes to remove unpopular unions from their workplaces. The Biden NLRB seeks to make it more difficult for American private sector workers to exercise their right to remove unwanted unions, while giving union officials more tools to gain power in a workplace without even a vote.
“Despite the Department of Labor’s claims, the true underhanded goal of this rule is clear: handing union bosses more power to corral workers into union ranks, while cutting back on workers’ privacy and rights to resist unwanted unionization,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“Temporary agricultural workers should not be used as pawns to expand union bosses’ sphere of control into the agricultural sector. But that’s exactly what the Biden Department of Labor is attempting in direct contradiction of the choice made by Congress not to subject such workers to federally imposed monopoly unionism.”