Tire Wholesaler Employees Force RWDSU Union Out of 15 Locations
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.
RWDSU union officials abandon 500+ employee unit ahead of vote at tire wholesaler
Tire-d of the RWDSU: Chris Dorney submitted a huge number of signatures from his coworkers at tire wholesaler Max Finkelstein when petitioning the NLRB for a vote to remove the RWDSU union.
WINCHESTER, VA – The Biden National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which includes among its members two former union bosses from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), is pursuing an agenda that hasn’t exactly been making it easy for workers to vote out a union they don’t want. But that hasn’t stopped workers across the country from going to extraordinary lengths to kick out unions that don’t serve their interests.
In October 2023, Chris Dorney, a Winchester, VA-based employee of tire wholesaler Max Finkelstein, kick-started a cross-country effort to vote the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) out of 15 warehouse facilities across the eastern United States. This work unit included more than 500 employees across Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut.
Virginia Worker Mustered Strong Showing on Petition for Union Ouster Vote at Tire Wholesaler
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Dorney submitted a petition to the NLRB containing more than enough employee signatures to trigger a vote to remove the union from the large unit.
While Dorney and his fellow Virginia employees enjoyed the Right to Work freedom to opt-out of dues payments to the union, the same couldn’t be said for any of the other employees, all of whom hail from states where dues payments can be mandated as a condition of employment. But voting RWDSU bosses out of power entirely at the tire wholesaler would end the union’s forced-dues power.
“We warehouse workers and drivers at Max Finkelstein may be from many different facilities in many different states, but we are in agreement about one thing: RWDSU union officials don’t represent our interests,” Dorney said of the effort. “It’s our right under federal law to challenge RWDSU’s forced representation power.”
RWDSU Bosses Flee Unit as Union Officials Rack Up Losses Nationwide
However, before the vote could occur, RWDSU union officials disclaimed interest in continuing their monopoly representation powers over the unit, likely to avoid an embarrassing rejection by workers at the ballot box.
Unionized workers are increasingly requesting elections to remove unwanted unions — a potential reason for the Biden NLRB’s efforts to crack down on decertification votes. Additionally, union bosses are increasingly losing these contests. As of last year, filings for union decertification votes had shot up by over 40 percent since 2020. Of decertification elections that occurred, the number which resulted in union bosses losing went up by 72 percent.
“Mr. Dorney and his coworkers’ effort to kick out the RWDSU union, which spanned several states, 15 facilities, and hundreds of workers, is yet another example that workers often want to escape union officials’ one-size-fits-all agenda. It’s also a demonstration that workers will go to great lengths in order to exercise this right,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “But the Biden NLRB, bent on empowering the President’s union boss political allies, plans to grant unions even more power to defeat workers’ will.”
Buffalo Starbucks Barista Counters NLRB’s Move to Trap Workers in Union
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.
Appeals Court brief defends workers’ right to oppose and decertify union
As Mark Mix explained on Newsmax TV, SBWU officials spent millions to infiltrate Starbucks with covert union agitators. That led to some of the first unionized Starbucks stores in Buffalo, NY, but now Buffalo baristas are trying to oust SBWU.
BUFFALO, NY – Although the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is charged with neutrally enforcing federal labor law, it has a notorious reputation for strengthening union officials’ power while diminishing the rights of workers opposed to union representation. Even with this biased history, the Biden Labor Board has already established itself as the most radically pro-forced unionism board in history.
The NLRB’s ideological bias is most apparent in its massive campaign to impose coercive unionism on Starbucks workers, while repeatedly blocking and undermining Starbucks employees’ attempts to remove unwanted union representation. While agency officials have approved hundreds of petitions for votes to bring the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union in, it has not let any of the roughly 20 worker-backed petitions seeking votes to remove the union advance to an election.
NLRB Cites Workers’ Desire to Oust Union as Reason to Impose Union
The NLRB’s anti-worker tactics have reached a new frontier. The NLRB is now citing a petition to remove the union as a reason why the union should not be removed and should serve as the basis for an injunction against Starbucks. NLRB lawyers are asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a District Court ruling and issue an injunction that would force Starbucks to engage in bargaining talks with the union, despite the fact that the decertification petition proves that a majority of employees at a Buffalo, NY, Starbucks want to throw the union out.
The decertification petition in question was collected by Starbucks barista Ariana Cortes. Cortes sought a vote to remove SBWU from her workplace, but the NLRB has refused to conduct the election. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys represent Cortes and Starbucks employees in nine other locations where workers are seeking votes to remove the SBWU. Now staff attorneys have filed a legal brief for Cortes and fellow Buffalo Starbucks employee Logan Karam in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, countering the NLRB’s latest outrageous maneuver.
Cortes’ brief attacks the NLRB’s strategy as condescending toward workers. It argues the NLRB’s view that Cortes’ decertification must be stopped to protect workers is rooted in the wrongful idea that workers cannot think for themselves and lack independent reasons for wanting to get rid of a union.
Foundation Brief: NLRB Denies Workers’ Agency, Free Choice
“In reality, Cortes collected her petition because of the Union’s anti-employee behavior,” the brief says.
Foundation attorneys also contend in Cortes’ brief that what the NLRB is seeking from the Second Circuit — a 10(j) injunction under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that will force Starbucks managers into working with SBWU union bosses to craft a monopoly bargaining contract — is extreme. Such injunctions can only be ordered when the harm done to workers in their absence would be “irreparable.” Foundation attorneys argue Cortes’ and other employees’ attempts to decertify do not make any injuries suffered by the union “irreparable.”
Dangerous Precedent Set If Court Grants Injunction That Undermines Right to Remove Unwanted Unions
If the Second Circuit grants the NLRB’s request for an injunction on behalf of SBWU union bosses, it would be the first time that a federal court has ordered a Starbucks store to engage in bargaining with union bosses on the basis of an employee’s decertification petition.
“The NLRB is digging an even deeper grave for employees trying to exercise their rights to remove an unwanted union from their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Board’s attempt to twist the limited employee rights to throw out a union into a reason to force a union upon employees is a new low.
“Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam are taking a courageous stand to ensure their coworkers aren’t disenfranchised and trapped under a union hierarchy they oppose, and we’re proud to support them,” Mix added.
Federal Lawsuit Hits Guards Union of America for Illegally Forcing DC-Based Security Guard to Pay for Union Politics
Union officials provided contradictory information on amount a guard must pay the union to keep a job
Washington, DC (April 19, 2024) – Rosa Crawley, a DC-based security guard employed by Master Security, has just hit the International Guards Union of America (IGUA) Local 160 with a federal lawsuit, which maintains that full union dues, including dues for union political activities, are being illegally deducted from her paycheck. Crawley filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Crawley, who with her coworkers provides security services to the Department of Homeland Security’s “Nebraska Avenue Complex,” seeks to enforce her rights under the 1988 Right to Work Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. The Court held in Beck that union officials cannot force workers who have abstained from union membership to pay union dues or fees for any expenses not directly germane to contract negotiations. Nonmember workers who exercise their Beck rights are also entitled to an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials spend forced contributions.
Beck rights are only relevant in non-Right to Work jurisdictions like the District of Columbia, where union officials have the legal prvivilege to force private sector workers to pay dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In jurisdictions that have Right to Work protections, like neighboring Virginia, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
“I shouldn’t have to pay for the IGUA union’s political activity just so I can continue to do my job,” commented Crawley. “Union officials have a legal obligation to stop charging me for politics and provide me with an accounting of how they are using my money, and so far they have done neither. This isn’t how they should treat the workers they say they ‘represent.’”
Union Officials Haven’t Revealed How They Spend Worker Money
According to the suit, Crawley sent a letter to union officials resigning her union membership back in July 2023. Instead of immediately providing her with her Beck rights, union officials informed her that she would be charged a so-called “agency fee” which “is the same exact cost as what the union members pay.”
“So there will be absolutely no change in a financial sense,” the union’s reply letter stated.
Not satisfied with that explanation, Crawley in September 2023 formally invoked her Beck rights and asked union officials to reduce her dues payments in accordance with the decision. She also asked them to “provide [her] with an accounting, by an independent certified public accountant, that justifies Local 160’s calculation of its agency [forced] fee,” according to her lawsuit. In an October 2023 reply to her Beck request, union officials used a confusing percentage averaging calculation to determine a fee amount that contradicted what they told Crawley when she resigned her membership. An independent audit of the union’s finances was nowhere to be found.
Crawley’s lawsuit recounts that, since October 2023, union officials have made her reiterate her request for an accounting, pay an initiation fee equal to the initiation fee paid by full members, and “[have] collected and [continue] to collect from Crawley amounts equal to full union dues.”
“Federal labor law’s default position is that union officials are empowered to demand workers’ hard-earned money as a condition of employment. This is problematic because there are any number of reasons workers may not want to support the union, including religious, political, or financial reasons,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the Beck decision provides important protections, a Right to Work environment is ultimately better because workers are completely free to decide whether or not union officials deserve any of their hard-earned money.”
Penske Truck Rental Employees in Minneapolis and Nashville Seeking Votes to Remove IAM Union Officials
Majorities of workers in both work units want federal Labor Board to administer union decertification vote
Washington, DC (April 17, 2024) – Employees of Penske Truck Rental have submitted petitions seeking votes to remove International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials from power at Penske locations in the Minneapolis, MN, metro area, and in Nashville, TN. Penske employees Kyle Fulkerson and David Saylor filed the petitions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense 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. Fulkerson, acting on behalf of the Minnesota employees, and Saylor, acting on behalf of the Tennessee employees, both filed petitions containing signatures from a majority of their coworkers, clearly exceeding the 30% support threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, IAM union officials have maintained contracts with Penske management that require Fulkerson and his coworkers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. As for Saylor and his coworkers in Right to Work Tennessee, IAM union officials are forbidden from enforcing a contract that mandates union membership and dues payments.
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.
Workers in Transportation and Other Industries Increasingly Seek Exit from Unions
Across the country, workers are choosing to affiliate with unions in record-low numbers, according to the most recent Gallup poll on the subject. 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 that contains multiple important safeguards regarding employees’ right to decertify unions they oppose.
In the transportation industry specifically, Foundation staff attorneys have recently assisted drivers and warehouse workers in a number of high-profile union removal efforts. Earlier this month, Foundation attorneys assisted Dependable Highway Express employees in Southern California remove Teamsters union officials who had threatened a worker for revealing info on union boss salaries, and in January they aided Keurig Dr. Pepper distribution workers from three locations across Wisconsin in ousting another Teamsters local.
“Transportation and trucking employees across the country are realizing that monopoly union control is frequently harmful. While workers’ right to vote out union bosses they oppose is vital in every state, it’s especially important in forced-dues states like Minnesota, where union bosses can force workers to pay for ‘representation’ they don’t agree with,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s outrageous this current Administration is intent on paring back this right just to give union officials more tools to expand their coffers and their coercive influence over workers.”
MI Kroger Employee Hits UFCW Union, Kroger with Federal Charges for Illegally Requiring Dues Payments, PAC Contributions
Worker contends that union lacks valid contract and thus can’t demand any money from workers, despite recent MI Right to Work repeal
Detroit, MI (April 16, 2024) – An employee of Kroger’s supermarket in the Prospect Hill Shopping Center in Milford, MI, has just hit United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 876 union officials and Kroger management with federal charges. The employee, Roger Cornett, charges that Kroger declared it would fire him unless he signed a union membership form, and authorized union dues deductions and contributions to the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC) from his paycheck. Cornett notably points out that UFCW lacks a legal basis to demand money from any worker.
Cornett’s charges are now pending with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for governing private sector labor relations. Cornett’s charge recounts that, despite his requesting a copy, neither union officials nor Kroger produced a copy of a union contract containing a so-called “union security clause,” more accurately called a “forced-dues clause.”
Under longstanding federal law, even in a state without Right to Work protections, union officials can only enforce a contract requiring employees to pay dues as a condition of employment if the contract contains a forced-dues clause. To be valid, federal law requires that such clauses have a 30-day grace period before union bosses’ “pay-up-or-be-fired” demands can be enforced.
Since Kroger and UFCW cannot produce a contract that contains such a clause, union demands for dues money should be illegal. This is true notwithstanding Michigan’s repeal of its Right to Work law, a provision that made union membership and union financial support strictly voluntary.
Under federal law, no employee can be required to authorize payroll deductions of union dues or to pay money to a union PAC used to fund union boss-backed political candidates. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and U.S. Supreme Court cases like General Motors v. NLRB safeguard the right of workers to abstain from formal union membership, while the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision forbids union officials from forcing nonmember workers to pay money for any expenses outside the union’s core bargaining functions, which includes political expenses.
UFCW Union Unleashed Pressure Campaign on Nonmember Workers After Right to Work Repeal
Michigan’s Right to Work law, which prevented union officials from having workers fired for refusing to join or pay dues to a union, was officially repealed on February 13, 2024. According to Cornett’s charges, in February he asked if there was an updated version of the union contract that would require him and other nonmembers to pay dues as a condition of employment in light of the repeal. Neither UFCW nor Kroger provided Cornett with such a contract in response to his request.
Union officials threatened Cornett and other workers that it was a condition of employment for them to become union members, authorize direct deductions of union dues from their pay, and “sign all or part of the three-part Union membership application and checkoff form,” the latter of which included a page authorizing deductions for the union’s PAC.
Worker Faced Termination After Being Threatened to Contribute to Union PAC
Cornett’s charges state that he received a letter from management on February 28 “informing him that…Kroger terminated [him] for failure to become a member of the Union.” This termination took place within the statutorily-required 30-day grace period before forced-dues contracts can be enforced against union nonmembers – meaning the firing would be illegal even if the union had a valid contract that allowed it to require dues payments as a condition of employment.
Cornett says in his charges that he signed the three-part form in order to keep his job. His charges state that the union’s threats and pressuring of employees “violate the [NLRA], and threaten, restrain, and discriminate against Charging Party and similarly situated employees in the exercise of their Section 7 right to refrain from [union activity].”
“Here we have yet another example of union bosses browbeating the very Michigan workers they claim to ‘represent’ as soon as Right to Work protections are gone,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Security guards at government buildings across Western Michigan are already banding together to oppose forced-dues demands from UGSOA union officials, and we now see UFCW union officials trying to squeeze dues money out of Kroger employees using coercive tactics that are forbidden even in a non-Right to Work environment.
“Especially concerning is Cornett’s charge that he was forced to sign his money away for the union’s PAC, a demand that blatantly violates several federal laws while paying no regard for workers’ free choice,” continued Mix. “Foundation staff attorneys will get to the bottom of this and defend Mr. Cornett’s rights.”
Somerset, NJ, Nissan Parts Distribution Center Employees File Petition for Vote to Kick Out UAW Union
UAW union officials imposed forced-dues contracts on Nissan employees
Somerset, NJ (April 4, 2024) – Michael Oliver, an employee of Nissan North America’s parts distribution center in Somerset, NJ, has just filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a workplace vote to remove United Auto Workers (UAW) officials from his workplace. Oliver filed the petition with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense 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. Oliver’s petition contains signatures 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 have 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.
“UAW union officials haven’t bargained effectively or communicated well with me and my coworkers, and they have refused to inform us of bargaining developments,” commented Oliver. “Because New Jersey isn’t a Right to Work state and we can’t protect our paychecks from future deductions simply by opting out of dues payments, my coworkers and I are left with no choice but to throw out the UAW. We hope the NLRB will let us vote on the union without delay.”
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.
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.
“With UAW union bosses spending millions of dollars to expand their influence to nonunion facilities around the country, it’s important to remember that workers who have experienced UAW officials’ ‘representation’ often end up resenting it,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In addition to these Nissan employees seeking to decertify the UAW, autoworkers recently protested outside UAW headquarters, saying UAW President Shawn Fain’s lies led to them losing their jobs.
“These situations show why workers must have the unfettered right to vote out unions they disapprove of, and Foundation attorneys will fight for individual workers to defend that right and will challenge top-down attempts by the Biden NLRB to restrict that right,” Mix added.
Ontario, CA-Based Dependable Highway Express Employees Force Out Teamsters Local 63 Union Officials
Tension escalated between workers and union after Teamsters officials threatened termination of worker who revealed union boss salaries
Ontario, CA (April 2, 2024) – Following a majority-backed petition to remove the Teamsters union, employees at Los Angeles-based transportation company Dependable Highway Express have successfully ousted Teamsters Local 63 union officials from their workplace. John Cwiek, the employee who led his coworkers in the effort to remove the union, received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Cwiek filed a union decertification petition in March, asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote at his workplace to determine if the Teamsters union should continue its control over Dependable Highway Express employees. 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.
Cwiek’s petition contained signatures from a nearly 2-1 majority of employees at Dependable Highway Express’ Ontario location, far more than the 30% needed to trigger a vote under NLRB rules. However, before the NLRB could hold a decertification vote, Teamsters officials filed a “disclaimer of interest” announcing they were ending their “representation” of the work unit.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Teamsters union officials had the power to force Cwiek and his colleagues to pay fees to the union as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary. Following the disclaimer, Cwiek and his coworkers are now free of the union’s forced-dues demands and its control over their working conditions.
Ontario Trucking Employee Faced Retaliation for Revealing Union Boss Salaries
Prior to their ouster, Teamsters union officials stirred tension in the workplace by threatening Cwiek, who in January sent letters to his coworkers containing publicly-available Department of Labor data on Teamsters bosses’ salaries. In retaliation for Cwiek sending the letters, a union official appeared at Cwiek’s workplace the next day, made accusations against him, and threatened that Cwiek wouldn’t be working at Dependable Highway Express by the next contract period.
These types of threats are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects employee speech critical of union officials, and protects employees’ right to refrain from union activities if they so choose. With Foundation aid, Cwiek separately filed federal charges against Teamsters Local 63 in February over this behavior. That charge was dropped in light of the union’s disclaimer of interest, and Cwiek remains employed at Dependable Highway Express.
“I am deeply troubled by the blatant retaliatory actions taken by officials at Teamsters Local 63 in response to expressing the views of myself and several other hard-working drivers at Dependable Highway Express,” Cwiek commented at the time. “We will not be deterred by their bullying tactics and the baseless accusations they levy against myself and others.
“I hope that the actions of the officials from Teamsters Local 63 serve as a clear example to my colleagues that the union cannot dispute the facts of their incompetence in representing us, so they must resort to intimidation and slanderous accusations,” Cwiek added. “We will remain steadfast in our pursuit of a better future for ourselves and our families.”
SoCal Teamsters Officials Have Penchant for Threatening Workers
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are currently helping other transportation industry employees in Southern California oppose unwanted Teamsters union influence. The NLRB recently issued a complaint against Teamsters Local 848 union officials at Savage Services’ Long Beach facility, where employee Victor Avila filed federal charges against union bosses for threatening him and his coworkers with violence for not supporting the union. The complaint begins the NLRB’s formal prosecution of the union for its malfeasance.
“Mr. Cwiek’s battle and the struggles of other transportation workers across Southern California show exactly why Right to Work protections are so necessary,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While it’s illegal to threaten workers for opposing the union or merely revealing truthful information, workers should never be forced to pay a union hierarchy that perpetrates such threats. On a more fundamental level, however, the choice should be completely with individual workers as to whether union officials have earned a cut of their hard-earned paychecks.”
Foundation Lawsuit: Biden NLRB Structure Violates the U.S. Constitution
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Groundbreaking suit filed for Starbucks employee who was denied vote to oust unwanted union bosses
Starbucks employee Ariana Cortes’ Foundation attorney, Aaron Solem (right), is making a cutting-edge argument targeting the NLRB’s lack of accountability.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is supposed to protect the right of workers to freely choose whether to associate with a union or not. The NLRB is also charged with holding unions and employers accountable when they violate worker rights. Too often, however, it has simply acted as an agency that generates policies to entrench union bosses’ power over workers while shielding union bosses from any kind of liability.
A new federal lawsuit from a National Right to Work Foundation-backed Starbucks employee, currently pending at the D.C. District Court, could upend the federal agency and result in a ruling that the current Labor Board’s structure violates the Constitution.
Employee Challenges NLRB Bureaucrats’ Protections from Presidential Removal
Ariana Cortes, a worker at the Buffalo, NY, “Del-Chip” Starbucks branch, hit the NLRB with the groundbreaking lawsuit in October, contending that the federal agency’s current structure violates the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution.
Cortes’ suit follows Foundation attorneys’ defense of her and her coworkers’ petition requesting a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace. Regional NLRB officials dismissed Cortes’ majority-backed petition based on SBWU allegations against Starbucks management that have no proven connection to Cortes and her coworkers’ desire for a union decertification vote.
Cortes’ lawsuit argues that because NLRB members cannot be removed at-will by the President, the NLRB’s structure violates Article II of the Constitution. Under Article II, the lawsuit contends, the President must have the power to remove officials that exercise substantial executive power.
Because the NLRB enforces federal labor law, manages union elections, and can issue legally binding rules and regulations, the lawsuit contends that the agency exercises substantial executive power. Therefore, it falls within the scope of the President’s power to remove officials at will. However, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law that established the NLRB, restricts the President’s ability to remove Board members except for neglect of duty or malfeasance.
“[T]hese restrictions are impermissible limitations on the President’s ability to remove Board members and violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Thus, the Board, as currently constituted, is unconstitutional,” the complaint states.
Lawsuit: Unconstitutional NLRB Proceedings Must Stop
Cortes’ new federal lawsuit seeks a declaration from the District Court that the structure of the NLRB as it currently exists is unconstitutional.
“For too long the NLRB, especially the current Board, has operated as a union boss-friendly kangaroo court, complete with powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “The NLRB’s operation outside constitutional norms is easily exploited by Big Labor.”
“But as the story of Ms. Cortes shows, the NLRB’s unchecked power creates real harms for workers’ rights, especially when workers seek to free themselves from the control of union bosses they disagree with,” Messenger added.
Jewish MIT Graduate Students Slam BDS-Linked Union with Federal Discrimination Charges
Students assert their rights under Civil Rights Act by requesting religious exemptions from funding union, but union officials continue to demand dues payments
Boston, MA (March 21, 2024) – Graduate students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have filed federal discrimination charges against the United Electrical Workers (UE) and MIT Graduate Students Union (GSU), stating that union officials have illegally denied their requests for religious accommodations to the forced payment of union dues. The students submitted their charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The students, William Sussman, Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky, and Adina Bechhofer, are Jewish and conduct various research activities for professors at MIT. For example, Sussman is earning his PhD in Computer Science at MIT. He is also President of MIT Graduate Hillel, is a member of the MIT Israel Alliance, and has family in Israel.
The university students object to the union’s anti-Semitic advocacy, including the union’s endorsement of the anti-Israel “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) movement. Each of the EEOC charges state that the union is “discriminating against me based on a failure to accommodate my religious beliefs and cultural heritage” and “discriminating against me based on national origin, race, cultural heritage & identity.”
The students sent individual letters asserting their religious objections to supporting the union and asserting their rights to religious accommodations, but union officials brazenly rejected each request and continue to demand dues from the students.
Union officials’ form letter denying the students’ requested religious accommodations explained Judaism to these Jewish students, callously claiming “no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union.” The union also attempted to justify its position on the grounds that a founder of GSU’s parent union was himself Jewish.
“Jewish graduate students are a minority. We cannot remove our union, and we cannot talk them out of their antisemitic position — we’ve tried,” said Sussman. “That is why many of us asked for a religious accommodation. But instead of respecting our rights, the union told me they understand my faith better than I do.”
Religious Accommodations Are Required Under Title VII
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections, union officials in the private sector (which includes private educational institutions like MIT) generally have the power to compel those under their monopoly bargaining power to pay union dues or fees. However, as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious accommodations to payment of dues or fees must be provided to those with sincere religious objections.
For decades, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have successfully represented religious objectors in cases opposing forced dues. While religious accommodations in these cases have varied, all of them forbid union bosses from demanding the worker pay any more money to the union.
If the EEOC finds merit to the students’ charges of discrimination, the agency will either take legal action against the union itself, or will issue a “right to sue” letter to the students, which will entitle them to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the union in federal court. Because MIT has a contract with this union and is also involved in enforcing the union’s dues demands on the students, Foundation attorneys sent a letter to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, notifying her of the EEOC charges and warning that the university will face similar charges if it does not promptly remedy the situation. MIT is already under fire in Congress and elsewhere due to its treatment of Jewish students in the face of widespread harassment.
Jewish Grad Student Already Won Federal Labor Board Case Against GSU Union Related to Dues
Sussman already dealt a blow against GSU officials in late February, when he forced union officials to settle federal charges he filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning the union’s dues demands. In those charges, Sussman invoked his right under the Right to Work Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which prevents union officials from forcing those under their control to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions.
While the settlement required GSU union officials to send an email to all students under their control stating that they would now follow Beck, Sussman and his fellow students’ current EEOC case seeks to cut off all financial support to the union, as is their right under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“GSU union officials appear blinded by their political agenda and their desire to extract forced dues,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Their idea of ‘representation’ apparently includes forcing Jewish graduate students to pay money to a union the students believe has relentlessly denigrated their religious and cultural identity, all during a time when anti-Semitism is ripping across our nation and world.
“GSU union bosses’ refusal to grant these students religious accommodations is as illegal as it is unconscionable, and Foundation attorneys will fight for their freedom from this tyrannical union hierarchy,” Mix added.
