Hundreds of OH Workers Exit Teamsters as Union Bosses’ Amazon ‘Strike’ Stunt Flounders
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Teamsters O’Brien tried to take away Christmas cheer, but couldn’t take away Ohio workers’ freedom
Daniel Caughhorn led a scrappy group of his coworkers in voting Teamsters bosses out of their workplace, a scrap metal processing facility in Toledo, OH. They also beat back union bosses’ attempts to overturn their vote.
WASHINGTON, DC – This past December, Teamsters President Sean O’Brien announced the “largest-ever strike against Amazon,” claiming that thousands of workers would heed his strike order, abandon their delivery vehicles and hit the picket lines. O’Brien threatened that Christmas gifts would be delayed unless his demands were met.
Those who took O’Brien’s rhetoric at face value would have thought he was a veritable Grinch stealing Christmas (even though he tried to explain it was Amazon’s fault that the strike had to occur). But even reporting from pro-Big Labor outlets soon revealed that the order was more story than substance: According to Labor Notes, only about 600 employees obeyed the strike order despite Teamsters honchos claiming to “represent” some 7,000 to 10,000 Amazon employees.
Even the small number who did cease work on O’Brien’s command are arguably not employees of Amazon, and likely aren’t under Teamsters control at all: They work primarily for independent contractors that carry out some delivery functions for Amazon. Even if O’Brien’s dubious theory claiming he had control over those delivery drivers was correct, it would have only affected 10 out of the roughly 110 Amazon centers nationwide. Still, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys put a special legal notice out to delivery drivers nationwide informing them of their rights if they were illegally coerced to strike.
Workers Defeat Cynical Attempt by Teamsters to Overturn Vote
The December 2024 Teamsters “strike” against Amazon may go down in history as a strained publicity stunt. But the more significant Teamsters news that month was that hundreds of Foundation-backed workers across Northern Ohio took real action by voting to free themselves from unwanted Teamsters officials’ so-called “representation.”
Dusty Hinkle, an employee for Frito-Lay’s plant in Wooster, OH, and Daniel Caughhorn, a worker at scrap metal firm Omnisource’s facility in Toledo, OH, paved the way to freedom for their coworkers by submitting petitions asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold votes among their coworkers to remove or “decertify” Teamsters unions at their facilities. They submitted these in October and August 2024, respectively, with free Foundation legal assistance.
Because Ohio lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Teamsters officials enforced contracts that required Hinkle, Caughhorn, and their colleagues to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
The NLRB, the federal agency that enforces federal labor law, administered decertification votes at Hinkle’s and Caughhorn’s workplaces after finding that both petitions contained enough employee signatures to trigger a vote under agency rules. Even though clear majorities of workers voted against Teamsters union control in both votes, Teamsters union officials filed objections alleging misconduct by Frito-Lay and Omnisource management in an attempt to overturn the election results.
However, in both cases regional NLRB officials tossed the union objections and certified the workers’ votes. The Omnisource and Frito-Lay employees — over 430 in total — thereby cut all ties with the Teamsters unions. Now both sets of employees are free both of union bosses’ forced-dues demands and their ability to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on the workplace.
In the final months of 2024, Foundation attorneys assisted a number of other workers from across industries with efforts to remove unwanted Teamsters officials. From just October to December 2024, truck drivers from Georgia, California, Virginia, and New Jersey successfully booted out Teamsters union officials or initiated removal efforts with Foundation aid. These cases came despite increasingly hostile rulemaking from the outgoing Biden Administration’s NLRB bureaucrats in 2024, which undid key Foundation-backed reforms that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections.
Teamsters Schemes to Steal Christmas and Workers’ Rights Both Failed
“Sean O’Brien’s Christmas publicity stunt might have made him seem like an attempted stealer of gifts and holiday cheer, but these two Foundation cases from Ohio demonstrate what Teamsters bosses really are: stealers of workers’ rights and freedom,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“That Teamsters officials in both these cases attempted to disenfranchise workers who opposed them shows why workers are turning against their power-hungry tactics, and why American workers deserve the Right to Work choice to withhold financial support from union officials who aren’t serving their interests.”
National Right to Work Foundation Files Legal Brief Defending Wisconsin Act 10 as Union Bosses Seek to Regain Coercive Powers
Amicus brief exposes lower court’s flawed argument that union bosses have “right” to monopoly bargaining powers over workers and government
Washington, DC (July 9, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has submitted an amicus brief to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Abbotsford Education Association v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. The case, which is on appeal from the Dane County Circuit Court, is a challenge by a cadre of labor unions against Act 10, a 2011 state law that set important restrictions on public sector union officials’ ability to control Wisconsin public services and public workers.
Act 10, among other provisions, prevents unelected union bosses from enforcing monopoly bargaining contracts that would let them dictate key aspects of work and compensation for large portions of state government – even over the objections of public workers themselves and their managers. It also requires union officials to periodically submit to employee votes (or “re-certification”) to ensure that they still enjoy majority employee support in public workplaces where they are in power. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional in 2014, but union officials believe that the changed ideological makeup of the Court gives them a new opportunity to get the law overturned and regain power.
“[T]he Foundation has frequently offered its views as amicus curiae in cases impacting upon important aspects of employee freedom,” the Foundation’s amicus brief reads. “Most importantly here, the Foundation has provided free legal aid to employees in other challenges mounted by unions against various provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.”
Lower Wisconsin Court Ignores Clear Supreme Court Precedent in Flawed Act 10 Ruling
The Foundation’s amicus brief first contends that a state like Wisconsin “can define and limit the parameters of exclusive representation as it sees fit,” and union officials’ public sector monopoly bargaining powers are not a “right” that the U.S. or Wisconsin constitutions require the government to acknowledge.
“The United States Supreme Court recognized this principle long ago” in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, the amicus brief says. The Dane County Circuit Court erroneously called monopoly bargaining a “right” the Wisconsin legislature could not ban in certain public departments but allow in others.
In 2007, Foundation attorneys won a victory at the United States Supreme Court in Davenport v. Washington Education Association that established a similar point to Smith: Union officials have no constitutional “right” to seize money from nonconsenting workers. Wisconsin’s Right to Work law and the Foundation’s Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME continue to protect Wisconsin workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs.
The Foundation’s amicus brief also states that the Dane County Circuit Court failed to consider whether, instead of striking down Act 10 as a whole, it could have expanded the statute’s pro-employee liberty provisions to cover all public departments to correct the alleged imbalances the court perceives in the law. “[T]he Circuit Court could have expanded the protection of Act 10’s re-certification requirements to all public employees in the State,” the brief says.
In addition to Act 10’s benefits for independent-minded public workers, public spending analyses indicate that the law has relieved Wisconsin taxpayers from the enormous financial weight of wasteful union contracts. Some estimates show that Act 10 has saved the state roughly $35 billion since it was enacted.
“Act 10 is a simple recognition that voters and taxpayers – not unelected union bosses – should be in control of how the public services Wisconsinites fund are managed,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But the union boss attempt to nix it is an even more egregious attack on Wisconsin public workers, who under union officials’ proposed regime would be forced to sacrifice to unions the right to freely choose who will speak for them on workplace matters. Even convicted felons have the right to choose their own representation, but union officials seek to deny this right to dissenting public employees.
“The latest attempt to get Act 10 overturned is a power play by Wisconsin union officials that will severely harm the public interest, and no Wisconsin court should be complicit in that scheme,” Mix added.
MIT Graduate Students Defeat Discriminatory Dues Demands From Radical Campus Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union must cease forced dues, inform thousands of MIT graduate students of right to defund union politics
Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman, who aided the MIT graduate students in their legal victory, told NTD News his phone is “ringing off the hook” because university students and faculty nationwide are seeking ways to defund radical campus unions.
BOSTON, MA – “Jewish graduate students are a minority at MIT. We can’t remove the [Graduate Student Union (GSU)] or disabuse it of its antisemitism. But we also can’t support an organization that actively works toward the eradication of the Jewish homeland, where I have family living now.”
These were the words MIT Ph.D. student Will Sussman used to describe his, and other graduate students’, battle against radical union bosses at his campus, both in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and in June testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. GSU union officials gained the legal privilege to force MIT graduate students to pay dues or lose their academic work thanks to biased rulings by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under both President Biden and President Obama. Since then, they’ve wasted no time in forcing even Jewish students with strong objections to the union’s anti-Israel agitating to fund their activities.
Students Battle Anti-Israel Sentiment Boosted by GSU Union Bosses
However, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Sussman and his fellow Jewish graduate students Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Adina Bechhofer, and Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky fought back against the GSU’s discriminatory dues demands. They each filed federal charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charging the GSU with denying them religious accommodations required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now they’ve won full accommodations that allow them to cut off all financial support for the union.
Separately, Foundation attorneys also filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the NLRB for Katerina Boukin, who objected on political grounds to the GSU’s ideological activity. Boukin sought to exercise her rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which lets workers who abstain from union membership opt-out of paying for the union’s political expenses.
In the wake of the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, Sussman and his fellow students experienced a massive wave of anti-Israel sentiment on MIT campus, including from GSU union chiefs.
“The blood had not yet dried when my colleagues at MIT declared, ‘Victory is Ours,’” related Sussman at a congressional hearing on anti- Semitism in unions. “The full-time GSU staff organizer told NBC10 Boston, ‘Those who rebel against oppression cannot be blamed for rebelling against that repression.’”
GSU Union Backed Off Unlawful Demands After Foundation Intervention
Sussman, Fried, Gordon, Bechhofer, and Zhitomirsky each requested in early 2024 that GSU union officials provide them with religious accommodations to paying union dues based on their objections to union officials’ extremist beliefs. Under federal law, such accommodations vary, but often take the form of letting the objector divert the dues from the offensive union to a 501(c)(3) charity instead. The GSU union’s brazen response was that “no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union” and that no religious conflict existed because one of the founders of GSU’s parent union was himself Jewish.
The GSU union backed down after Foundation staff attorneys filed EEOC anti-discrimination charges in response to the lack of accommodation. The students have secured full religious accommodations and will pay money to charities of their choice, despite initial pushback from union bosses. The charities include American Friends of Magen David Adom and American Friends of Leket.
Katerina Boukin’s NLRB case was spurred by her disagreements with the union’s political stances on Israel. She stated that she was deeply offended by GSU’s “opposition to Israel and promotion of Leninist- Marxist global revolution” and that “[t]he GSU’s political agenda has nothing to do with my research as a graduate student at MIT, or the relationships I have with my professors and the university administration.”
“[Y]et outrageously they demand I fund their radical ideology,” Boukin said.
Foundation-Won Settlement Informs Students They Can Defund ‘Marxist’ Union
Foundation attorneys won a settlement for Boukin that not only returned illegally-seized dues to Boukin, but also required GSU bosses to inform the entire MIT graduate student body of their rights to invoke the Beck decision.
GSU bosses were forced to declare by email that they will not restrict the ability of those who resign their union memberships to cut off dues payments for political expenses and pay a reduced amount to the union. This email notice went out to approximately 3,000 MIT students.
Legal Protections Should Protect Employees’ Right to Object on Any Grounds
“The Foundation-backed MIT graduate students who fought these legal battles have earned well-deserved victories. But defending basic free association rights shouldn’t require such complicated litigation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“This ordeal at MIT should remind lawmakers that all Americans should have a right to protect their money from going to union bosses they don’t support, whether those objections are based on religion, politics, or any other reason.”
Evansville Electrician Files Federal Charges Against IBEW Local 16 for Union Bosses’ $1.29 Million Retaliatory ‘Fine’
Electrician validly resigned union membership and left union to purchase a non-union electrical firm, but union used sham proceeding to levy massive fine
Evansville, IN (June 30, 2025) – Brian Head, an Evansville-based electrician, has just filed federal charges against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 16 union for threatening him with a $1.29 million fine after he exercised his right to resign from the union. Head filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
IBEW Union Bosses Threaten Fake Limits on Membership Resignation, Bogus Discipline
Head’s charges to the NLRB, which is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, report that he resigned his IBEW union membership on March 27, 2025, in a notarized letter that IBEW officials acknowledged in an April 3 reply letter. However, the reply letter claimed that “[i]t is a six-month process before the resignation is finally effective.”
Putting such restrictions on workers’ right to resign their union memberships has no basis in law. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Pattern Makers v. NLRB spell out that workers have a right to end union membership and union officials cannot require such membership as a condition of getting or keeping a job (though states that lack Right to Work laws like Indiana’s let union officials force workers to pay dues or be fired). Union officials also may not impose union discipline, like fines, on workers who aren’t members.
In the interim between the two letters, IBEW Local 16 pursued union discipline against Head for “purchas[ing] a non-union electrical contractor and…decid[ing] not to sign a Letter of Assent” that would have likely handed the business over to union control without any kind of worker vote. Notably, the union’s discipline took place after Head’s March 27 union resignation – meaning Head was legally beyond the union’s powers to impose any sort of internal punishment.
Union Letter Imposes Million-Dollar-Plus ‘Punishment’ on Electrician
Nevertheless, IBEW Local 16 officials sent Head correspondence on May 1 demanding he appear before a union tribunal. Head later received a letter from IBEW Local 16 bosses on June 9 finding him “guilty” of violating the union’s constitution and imposing a “$1.29 Million dollar fine” as a penalty.
“IBEW Local 16 union bosses’ imposition of this cruel million-dollar-plus ‘punishment’ on a rank-and-file worker shows that their real priority is maintaining cartel-like control over Indiana electricians – not standing up for workers’ rights or freedom,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “IBEW bosses have no legal grounds for this obscene exploitation. But as ridiculous as this situation is, it’s important to remember that union monopoly bargaining is still the law of the land in all 50 states – a power that allows overtly self-interested union bosses like IBEW officials to extend their so-called ‘representation’ over every worker in a unionized facility, no matter how strenuously any worker opposes the union.”
Full Foundation Action March/April Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the March/April 2025 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- Workers Nationwide Urge Trump NLRB to End Policies Trapping Them Under Union Power
- Cincinnati-Area Kroger Worker Secures Victory Against Illegal Union Dues Deductions
- AT&T-BellSouth Workers Challenge Union-Concocted ‘Window Period’ Restrictions on Ending Dues
- Trump Was Right to Tell Biden Labor Board Appointee “You’re Fired!”
- NY Healthcare Worker Asks Labor Board to Unblock Vote to Oust SEIU
- Foundation-Backed Baristas Support Trump’s Firing of Biden NLRB Member
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of the page.
Full Foundation Action May/June Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the May/June 2025 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- Workers Nationwide Urge Trump NLRB to End Policies Trapping Them Under Union Power
- Cincinnati-Area Kroger Worker Secures Victory Against Illegal Union Dues Deductions
- AT&T-BellSouth Workers Challenge Union-Concocted ‘Window Period’ Restrictions on Ending Dues
- Trump Was Right to Tell Biden Labor Board Appointee “You’re Fired!”
- NY Healthcare Worker Asks Labor Board to Unblock Vote to Oust SEIU
- Foundation-Backed Baristas Support Trump’s Firing of Biden NLRB Member
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of the page.
Foundation-Backed Starbucks Baristas Support Trump’s Firing of Biden NLRB Member
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Starbucks employees’ challenge to agency power boosted by firing of Biden Board Member
It may not look like much, but this Starbucks store in downtown Buffalo, NY, is the place where barista Ariana Cortes started her trailblazing legal battle against both the SBWU union and a hostile NLRB bureaucracy.
WASHINGTON, DC – President Trump isn’t the only person seeking reform in the federal government. Several National Right to Work Foundation-backed workers have advanced lawsuits in federal courts challenging the constitutionality of a federal agency.
Two upstate New York Starbucks baristas (Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam), represented by Foundation staff attorneys, filed the first case in the nation challenging NLRB members’ removal protections. Their case advanced a revolutionary argument that the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) removal protections for NLRB members — which protect them from presidential removal during their entire terms except in very rare cases — let them exercise executive power in violation of separation of powers doctrines in Article II of the Constitution.
This power is plain to see — unelected NLRB members have the power to decide who can vote in union elections, adjudicate disputes between employers and unions, impose one-size-fits-all union “representation” on employees who don’t want it, and much more. Showdown Over Removal of Biden Appointee Headed for SCOTUS President Trump utilized the same arguments when he announced he was ousting Biden-appointed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox (a former SEIU union lawyer) for issuing radical decisions that “vastly exceeded the bounds” of federal law.
Wilcox’s lawyers sued Trump over the removal, arguing — wrongly — that NLRB members’ removal protections are valid and prevent the President from doing virtually anything to stop NLRB members who have gone rogue. The case between President Trump and Gwynne Wilcox has now joined Cortes and Karam’s suit in being considered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
As this issue goes to print, the Supreme Court has ordered Wilcox off the NLRB while it decides whether Wilcox should remain off the NLRB while the case is ongoing. Foundation attorneys submitted a legal brief on behalf of Cortes and Karam backing the President’s contentions. Cortes and Karam’s brief focuses on how the Board’s powers to enforce federal labor law, lack of technical expertise, and the partisan nature of its membership are not characteristics of a federal agency where removal protections might be appropriate under Supreme Court caselaw.
The brief also argues that reinstating Wilcox would cause chaos because it would let her participate in deciding cases before the NLRB while her continued presence on the Board is still the subject of litigation.
“Cortes and Karam have a vital interest in the outcome of this case, and not only because it concerns the constitutionality of [NLRB member removal protections],” the brief says. “Cortes and Karam do not want an individual the President properly removed from the Board because of her unsound rulings — Gwynne Wilcox — to decide their pending NLRB cases.”
Because of the weighty constitutional matters at stake, many have already predicted that this question will likely receive final consideration from the U.S. Supreme Court. Cortes and Karam’s lawsuit is fully briefed at the D.C. Circuit Court, and a hearing is scheduled for May. Their case was spurred by NLRB bureaucrats’ decision to block the baristas and their coworkers from exercising their right to vote to decertify (or remove) Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials.
NLRB Region 3 rejected petitions in which a sufficient number of coworkers from both Cortes’ and Karam’s upstate New York Starbucks locations requested such elections. Regional NLRB officials cited unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation as the reason for barring the votes. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification requests.
Starbucks Baristas’ Battle Promotes Liberty for Workers Across Country
“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam spoke up on behalf of untold numbers of independent-minded workers nationwide when they filed their federal lawsuit challenging the NLRB’s constitutionality,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“The NLRB regularly stops workers from exercising their rights to push back against union influence for any reason union bosses dream up. Board members’ ability to do this without fearing any accountability to the elected President has effectively turned the agency into a fourth branch of government.
“We hope the Starbucks baristas’ lawsuit, boosted by the President’s efforts to reform the government, eventually results in lasting change to the Board that protects worker freedom,” Semmens added.
NY Healthcare Worker Asks Labor Board to Unblock Vote to Oust SEIU
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Sun River Health employees’ election abruptly canceled by NLRB officials
Laura Gallo is passionate about the healthcare work she does at Sun River Health to improve the wellbeing of people across Long Island. She’s now using that same passion to win her coworkers a chance to vote out divisive SEIU union bosses.
LONG ISLAND, NY – Laura Gallo, a senior patient representative at Sun River Health in Long Island, NY, thought she’d secured a rare chance for her and her coworkers to vote out the 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East union.
Her goal? Give hundreds of colleagues a chance to escape from unwanted union “representation.” Unfortunately, on February 13, 2025, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 29 Director abruptly derailed her campaign citing a dubious technicality.
Now, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Gallo is battling to reverse the ruling and expose a system that allows union legal trickery to block workers from voting on whether a union deserves to remain in their workplace.
Legal Hurdles Undermine Right to Remove Unwanted Unions
Despite the clear right of employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to petition for decertification elections to free themselves of unwanted union “representation,” numerous NLRB-invented rules and policies give union officials the ability to block or delay employee-requested decertification votes.
In Gallo’s case, not only did she need to collect signatures for the required 30% of the bargaining unit, but because she works in the healthcare industry, NLRB rules require her to file the petition within a short window before the union contract expires. If she missed the window, union officials could have blocked her vote for up to three years under the Board-invented “contract bar” policy.
Despite navigating the complicated process pro se (without formal legal representation), Gallo nailed the timing, submitting her petition with the supporting signatures of her coworkers in August 2024, following instructions from NLRB officials to trigger the vote.
At that point, the decertification was on track, with the company and union agreeing to how the election would be run. Only then did the NLRB Regional Director, possibly due to improper backchannel communications with union lawyers, suddenly cancel the scheduled vote without providing any meaningful explanation to Gallo or Sun River attorneys.
When the full Board in Washington, D.C., was asked to review the case, the Regional official suddenly “clarified” that additional signatures in support of the petition arrived just outside the contract bar window, meaning under a 1993 precedent the decertification election request could be rejected under the contract bar.
In February, having retained National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys to represent her, Gallo filed a Request for Review with the NLRB in Washington, asking that the Regional Director’s decision be overturned. The filing argues that her election should be allowed to go forward because she followed the Board agent’s instructions and, as a pro se petitioner, she should receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to estimating the total number of signatures needed to trigger a vote.
This decertification effort isn’t the only battle Ms. Gallo is fighting against the 1199SEIU union. Laura Gallo is passionate about the work she does at Sun River Health to improve the wellbeing of people across Long Island. She’s now using that same passion to win her coworkers a chance to vote out divisive SEIU union bosses.
Pending unfair labor practice charges Gallo filed against the union show why many workers have likely soured on the union: The charges maintain that SEIU union officials unlawfully interfered with access to the hospital, took pictures of Gallo without her consent as an intimidation tactic, and engaged in other disruptive and coercive behaviors that were so egregious local police were called to end the disruption.
Time to End NLRB’s Rigged Rules that Protect Incumbent Union Bosses
Gallo’s case is one of many where Foundation attorneys are asking the Board to overturn non-statutory barriers that workers face when trying to remove unions they oppose.
“Ms. Gallo’s case pulls back the curtain on how NLRB policies are rigged against individual workers to protect unpopular incumbent union bosses,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.
“She followed NLRB agents’ instructions, navigated the Board-created ‘window’ for filing her petition, and even got an election scheduled, yet the Regional Director blocked the vote and handed SEIU bosses a gift at the expense of Gallo and her coworkers’ rights.
“The NLRA, which the NLRB is supposed to neutrally enforce, only has one limitation on a workers’ right to vote out a union they oppose, which is a previous vote within the last year.” added Messenger. “All the other NLRB-invented policies and bars should be eliminated so workers can fully exercise their right to free themselves of unwanted unions.”
Holistic Industries Cannabis Packing and Delivery Workers Overwhelmingly Request Vote to Remove UFCW Union
Effort comes as UFCW union officials try to rush contract to establish control over Western Mass facility
Springfield, MA (June 20, 2025) – A majority of production employees at cannabis company Holistic Industries’ Monson facility have requested a vote to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1459 union officials from their workplace. Packaging associate Scott Browne submitted the union decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of his colleagues with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) or remove (or “decertify”) unions. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) stipulates that a decertification petition must contain signatures from at least 30% of employees in a work unit to prompt a decertification election. Browne far exceeded this threshold, submitting a showing of interest that contained signatures from over 70% of his work unit.
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can enforce contracts that require employees 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 all union financial support are strictly voluntary and the choice of each individual worker. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union monopoly bargaining contracts control the working conditions of all workers in a unionized workplace, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union.
“UFCW union officials are trying to strike a deal with our employer that will require us to pay fees out of our wages just to stay employed here. But with this petition, I and all of my coworkers have made our position clear: We don’t want or need a union,” commented Browne. “UFCW bosses haven’t convinced us that they’re going to deliver on the promises they made when they first came to our workplace, and the prospect of being forced to pay for that kind of ‘representation’ isn’t exactly appealing.”
UFCW Bosses Rush Contract Despite Worker Opposition
UFCW Local 1459 recently called a vote on a contract drafted by union officials. Union officials will often rush to finalize a contract in order to trigger the “contract bar,” a non-statutory NLRB policy that bars workers from requesting a union decertification vote while a union contract is active, up to three years.
Because there is no legal requirement to abide by the results of a worker contract vote, situations sometimes arise in which union officials ratify a contract that workers rejected to keep them trapped in the union under the NLRB’s non-statutory “contract bar” policy. However, because Browne submitted his decertification petition before any contract ratification occurred, Holistic Industries employees have likely avoided this situation.
Union-Label Legislators Seek to Strip Cannabis Workers Nationwide of Freedom to Resist Unionization
Foundation staff attorneys recently assisted employees of Green Thumb Industries – a New Jersey-based cannabis company – in filing a petition to remove UFCW union officials from power at their facility. Foundation attorneys have also opposed state legislative schemes that would require cannabis companies to grant union bosses special access to their workers just as a condition of operating. Such arrangements – misleadingly called “labor peace agreements” – infringe workers’ right to freely decide for or against union control, yet have become law in California, New York, and other states. Massachusetts legislators filed a bill last legislative session to establish such a framework.
“Holistic Industries workers have joined the groundswell of workers nationwide who are exercising their right to declare independence from union bosses who don’t represent their interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re confident that they will succeed in their effort to oust UFCW officials, union-label legislators are trying to stifle cannabis industry employees’ rights across the country as a sop to their union boss political allies.
“State lawmakers have no shortage of factors to wrestle with when deciding whether to greenlight the cannabis industry, but one thing should be non-negotiable: Letting the industry take root shouldn’t mean that workers’ individual rights go up in smoke,” Mix added.
