30 Jan 2026

Washington State Medical and Aerospace Materials Manufacturing Workers File Petition to Remove Machinists Union Bosses

Posted in News Releases

Majority of manufacturing workers back petition to end IAM union officials’ monopoly “representation” powers

Bellingham, WA (January 30, 2026) – Albert Sherman Toribio, an employee of Trulife, Inc., has filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a “decertification” election to remove International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local 2379 union officials from his workplace. The petition, which a majority of workers support, was filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. The workers are requesting NLRB Region 19 schedule an election so that they can exercise their right to remove the IAM from their facility.

Toribio’s petition was signed by a majority of his 58 coworkers, far more than the number of signatures required to trigger an NLRB-supervised secret ballot decertification vote.

Washington is one of the 24 states that lack Right to Work safeguards for workers, which allows IAM union bosses to impose monopoly bargaining contracts that force employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. By contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Idaho, union membership and union financial support are strictly voluntary.

“We are pleased to be able to assist Mr. Toribio and his fellow employees in their effort to exercise their rights under the NLRA to hold a secret ballot election to remove unwanted IAM union bosses from their facility,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB should promptly schedule this vote so these workers can free themselves from a union that most workers want nothing to do with.”

27 Jan 2026

College Park MOM’s Organic Employees Slam Union Officials with Charges for Election Interference

Posted in News Releases

New filings detail that UFCW bosses cornered employee in bathroom and engaged in other intimidation tactics ahead of vote on forced-dues requirements

Washington, DC (January 27, 2026) – Nora Ricse, an employee of MOM’s Organic Market in College Park, MD, is asking a federal labor board to rerun a “deauthorization election” she and her colleagues requested to strip United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union bosses of their power to force workers to pay dues. In a brief filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, she charges that union officials interfered with the vote by subjecting MOM’s employees to intimidation and coercion to join the union in the lead-up to the election.

Although MOM’s employees voted nearly 5-to-1 to block the UFCW union from having forced-dues power, this was insufficient for Ricse’s effort to prevail because federal law provides that a majority of an entire work unit must vote to deauthorize a union. In contrast, only a majority of those participating in a vote are needed to bring a union into a workplace.

Ricse’s objections, filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), detail the same conduct that MOM’s employee J-quan Tingling is charging UFCW union officials with in unfair labor practice charges before the NLRB. Tingling, who is also receiving free Foundation legal aid, maintains in his charges that a UFCW union agent cornered him in a bathroom to coerce him into signing a union membership card. He also reports that UFCW operatives falsely told him that union membership is a condition of employment, and rebuffed his multiple requests to be left alone or to take the union documents home so he could at least read them. His charges state that he discussed with his coworkers the confrontations he had with union bosses.

“The concern that the Union official’s conduct compromised laboratory conditions and the ultimate integrity of the election is also heightened where, as here, there is a possibility that other employees” acted on the belief that union officials could carry out their threats, Ricse’s objections brief says.

Ricse’s filing cites other NLRB cases in which election results were set aside because union officials threatened workers into signing union cards, and exhorts the Board to administer a rerun election. “The Board would seriously prejudice [Ricse] and her colleagues by denying them access to a free and fair election within this context,” the brief says.

UFCW Officials Imposed Contract Over Workers’ Objections

MOM’s Organic employees pushed for a deauthorization vote after UFCW Local 400 union officials ratified a contract that binds all employees at MOM’s Organic – even though a majority of the employees voted to reject that contract. In doing this, union officials cited the UFCW’s constitution, which apparently requires union chiefs to ratify a contract over workers’ objections if less than two-thirds of the workers authorize a strike.

Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for employees, meaning union officials can impose contracts that require workers to pay dues or be fired. While UFCW officials claim that they won’t enforce their forced-dues privileges, the union’s contract contains a clause that makes paying union dues a condition of employment.

“I and many of my colleagues at MOM’s don’t support UFCW union officials, but we are compelled by law to deal with them,” commented Ricse ahead of the vote. “We are requesting this vote so we can ensure our hard-earned money doesn’t flow into union bosses’ pockets, regardless of what they’ve told us is going to happen.”

Workers’ Opposition to UFCW Actions Continues

Ricse’s and Tingling’s actions concerning the deauthorization election are just the latest skirmish in an ongoing conflict between UFCW union officials and MOM’s Organic employees. In November 2024, College Park MOM’s employees requested a vote to remove the union entirely (also known as a “decertification vote”).

“If MOM’s Organic employees needed any reason to believe that UFCW officials won’t honor their promise to refrain from imposing forced dues on the whole workplace, the intimidation tactics detailed in these employee charges more than fit the bill,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s now clearer than ever that if MOM’s Organic employees want any chance to escape from being forced to pay dues to the UFCW hierarchy, they need to be able to vote in a free and fair deauthorization election.

“If UFCW union officials really wanted workers to have a free choice on whether to pay dues, they should have supported – not opposed – the workers’ effort to have a deauthorization vote,” Mix added. “But the UFCW’s priorities appear to be power and control, as shown by these new charges and the UFCW’s constitution, which requires union bosses to ratify forced-dues contracts over the objections of workers.”

22 Jan 2026

National Right to Work Foundation Issues Legal Notice to NYC Nurses Subject to NYSNA Strike Order

Posted in News Releases

As strike continues, notice reminds nurses wishing to return to work that they must resign their union memberships to avoid potentially ruinous strike fines

Washington, DC (January 22, 2026) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for New York City-area nurses subject to New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) union bosses’ recent strike order against five major hospitals. News reports indicate that strike activity will continue even as bargaining talks proceed.

The legal notice informs these workers of rights that union officials often do not want them to know. First and foremost, nurses have the right to resign their union memberships and keep working to support their families, thereby avoiding union fines and internal discipline.

“The situation presents serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “That is why workers confronted with strike demands frequently contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and union discipline for continuing to work during a strike to support themselves and their families.”

The notice is available at: https://nrtw.org/nysna/

Foundation: Resign Union Membership Before Returning to Work to Avoid Fines and Discipline

Most importantly, the notice informs nurses who want to keep working that the safest way to avoid strike fines and other punishment by union bosses is to resign union membership before returning to work. “Unions cannot fine non-members for post-resignation conduct, and union members have the legal right to resign their membership at any time,” the notice says.

The Foundation’s special legal notice provides nurses sample union resignation letters, as well as information on how to exercise their right under the CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision to opt out of paying dues for union politics. The notice also gives workers information on how to begin a petition for a “decertification election,” in which employees request a workplace election to remove the union.

“While Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani use this strike as an opportunity to grandstand alongside NYSNA union officials, many rank-and-file Big Apple nurses simply want to get back to caring for their patients,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation staff attorneys are already receiving inquiries from nurses who have already been threatened by union bosses with five figure fines for refusing to strike.

“In addition to those who have already contacted Foundation attorneys, there are likely countless other nurses feeling the pressure as they face a choice between caving to union officials’ intimidation tactics or continuing to care for their patients and support their families,” added Mix. “New York City-area nurses need to know that union bosses have no legal power to require them to abandon their patients and Foundation attorneys stand ready to ensure they can fully exercise their rights.”

14 Jan 2026

Sacramento St. Hope Educators Ask Federal Labor Board to Hold Vote to Eject SCTA Union Officials

Posted in News Releases

Majority of St. Hope teachers support union decertification vote, petition submitted to National Labor Relations Board

Sacramento, CA (January 14, 2026) – A majority of educators for charter school operator St. HOPE Public Schools are requesting a vote to end Sacramento City Teachers Association (SCTA) union officials’ bargaining power over their schools. SCTA is an affiliate of both the California Teachers Association (CTA) and National Education Association (NEA).

St. HOPE educator Beth Simonton filed a petition backed by the majority of her coworkers late last week, requesting the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hold a union removal vote among St. HOPE teachers. Simonton is receiving 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”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. The work unit covered by the petition includes over 50 teachers from PS7 Elementary School, PS7 Middle School, and Sacramento Charter High School.

The SCTA first gained monopoly bargaining power over the charter system in 2018. St. HOPE teachers petitioned for a union decertification vote in 2021, but SCTA union officials were able to manipulate allegations of employer misconduct to scuttle it.

CTA Union Officials Cause Division in Sacramento Schools and Other CA Schools

“SCTA union officials have been extremely divisive and have not had a positive impact on teachers, students, or the St. HOPE community as a whole,” commented Simonton. “They’ve spent much more time trying to demonize school leadership than simply standing up for our interests. I’m proud to represent the majority of educators at St. HOPE who are standing up and saying ‘enough is enough.’”

St. HOPE Public Schools operates public charter schools within the Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD). In the past, California’s public schools have been subject to state labor boards and regulations. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in NLRB v. Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County strongly suggests that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) covers charter school operators like St. HOPE within its definition of “employers” subject to the NLRB’s authority.

The Foundation has aided numerous charter school employees over the years in opposing unwanted union hierarchies. Elsewhere in California, charter school teachers at Gompers Preparatory Academy in San Diego sought Foundation aid in obtaining a vote to remove San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union officials from the school. After two such efforts (one in 2019 and another in 2023) and much litigation over union delay tactics, the educators finally voted the SDEA out in 2023.

Educators Seek Escape from Teacher Union and California Labor Bureaucracy

“St. HOPE educators serve some of Sacramento’s most underprivileged young people, and they deserve to have their voices in the workplace heard,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “California’s legislature and administrative state are deep in the pockets of CTA teacher union bosses, who overwhelmingly seek to further their own interests and power over the rights of educators themselves.

“We at the Foundation hope that Ms. Simonton and her colleagues’ effort to break free of both CTA union officials and the onerous California labor bureaucracy is just the first step in achieving greater freedom for charter school educators across the Golden State,” commented Mix.

12 Jan 2026

Pittsburgh-Area ABARTA Coca-Cola Driver Triumphs in Federal Case Challenging Forced Teamsters Union Membership Demands

Posted in News Releases

Federal labor board orders employer to post notice properly informing employees of their rights and will soon prosecute Teamsters Local 585 union

Pittsburgh, PA (January 12, 2026) – Josh Hammaker, a driver for ABARTA Coca-Cola’s Houston, PA, distribution center, has notched a victory in his National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case against Teamsters Local 585 union officials and his employer.

After filing federal charges stating that union officials and his employer threatened to fire him for refusing to join the union, ABARTA management backed down and settled its part of the case. Regional NLRB officials have also indicated that they will prosecute Teamsters officials for making forced-membership demands, pending the resolution of other elements of Hammaker’s case.

Hammaker pursued his case at the NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Under the National Labor Relations Act and Supreme Court cases like General Motors v. NLRB, neither union officials nor employers can require workers to maintain formal union membership as a condition of getting or keeping a job. According to Hammaker’s charges, Teamsters union officials and ABARTA management violated federal labor law by effectively telling him they would get him fired if he did not join.

As part of the settlement, ABARTA officials must post notices at Hammaker’s workplace stating that they “will not tell employees that we will discharge them if they do not sign and submit applications to join the Union…”

Coca-Cola Driver Continues Battle Against Political Dues Skimming

However, one charge that Hammaker made against Teamsters Local 585 is still pending at the NLRB. This charge concerns Teamsters bosses unlawfully seizing dues for politics out of workers’ paychecks. Hammaker argues that Teamsters policies breached federal labor law by requiring workers to “affirmatively opt out of paying [dues] for non-chargeable expenditures” as opposed to seeking worker consent beforehand.

Federal law lets union bosses enforce contracts that force workers to pay union fees or be fired in states that lack Right to Work protections, like Pennsylvania. However, the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision limits this compulsory fee amount to only what union officials claim goes toward bargaining – which excludes “non-chargeable” expenses like political or ideological activities. In Right to Work states, by contrast, all union financial support is voluntary.

In an appeal currently pending before the new NLRB General Counsel, Foundation attorneys argue that workers should not be forced to affirmatively assert their Beck rights just to stop their money from flowing to union political and ideological activities. After being confirmed by the U.S. Senate last month, new NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey was officially sworn in last Wednesday.

“We are proud to have supported Mr. Hammaker’s victory over these blatantly illegal attempts to coerce formal union membership,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But his fight is far from over. The sad fact is that union bosses across the country skim dues for their often-radical political activities straight from worker paychecks without any positive consent at all. To make matters worse, union officials often don’t inform workers about their Beck rights, which is workers’ only escape from such deductions in non-Right to Work states.

“Right to Work protections should exist nationwide because they put American workers – not union bosses or bureaucrats – back in control of deciding whether a union has earned employees’ financial support,” Mix added. “But in the meantime, the NLRB should at least require union officials to earn political support from those workers they claim to ‘represent’ and end schemes that require workers to opt-out of funding union political activities.”

9 Jan 2026

Two Additional Heavy Equipment Operators Targeted By Operating Engineers Union Bosses File Federal Charges

Posted in News Releases

Workers face unlawful IUOE union bosses’ retaliation measures for remaining employed with nonunion contractor

Lawrenceville, GA (January 9, 2026) – Two more employees of Dennis Taylor & Co., John Stroh and David Johnson, have filed federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 926. They now join their coworkers Michael Mitchem, Billy Johnson, and Chris Oaks who filed similar charges in September 2025 stating that IUOE union officials subjected them to illegal post-resignation discipline after the employees legally resigned their union memberships.

The workers’ charges were filed at the NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.

After Stroh and Johnson had resigned their memberships so they could continue working, IUOE union officials sent both workers a letter threatening them with fines for simply going to work with an employer that had been part of a “hiring hall” arrangement with the IUOE in the past.

The employees resigned their union membership after Dennis Taylor & Co. ended an arrangement requiring it to employ workers through an IUOE hiring hall. Legally, union-run hiring halls are supposed to be accessible to both union members and nonmembers seeking employment with employers that chose to make use of hiring halls to fill open roles. However, there is a long history of union officials using hiring halls to discriminate against nonmembers and coerce workers into formal union membership in order to attain employment.

IUOE union officials are allegedly pursuing illegal internal disciplinary measures against resigned former members months and years after they cut their ties with the union. Longstanding law says workers cannot face discipline for actions that occur after a worker has resigned from union membership.

Union bosses have a history of retaliating against workers with ruinous “disciplinary” fines, frequently for thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. In one recent case, Foundation staff attorneys successfully defended an Indiana electrician against an attempt by IBEW bosses to illegally levy a $1.3 million fine.

“It is unfortunate that it is necessary for more workers to file federal charges to defend themselves against IUOE union bosses’ thuggish intimidation tactics,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “They now join a growing number of their colleagues who are standing up to IUOE union officials’ illegal persecution.

“Like the vast majority of American workers, these employees simply want to work without any union affiliations, and it is outrageous that IUOE bosses are attempting to retaliate against them for making that simple choice,” added Mix.

8 Jan 2026

Security Guards at Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Demand Vote to Remove SPFPA Union Officials

Posted in News Releases

Guards collect enough signatures to prompt federal labor board to administer union removal vote

Waynesboro, GA (January 8, 2026) – Security guards working for Southern Nuclear Operating Company have recently filed a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union from their workplace. The guards, who filed the petition with assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, work at Plant Vogtle, a major nuclear power plant in Waynesboro, Georgia.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions in workplaces. Under NLRB rules, the Board should administer a decertification election if employees submit a petition in which a required number of workers in a work unit demand such an election. The Southern Nuclear Operating Company workers’ petition, which Dallas Howard submitted on behalf of his coworkers, met this threshold.

Security Guards Dissatisfied with Union ‘Representation’

Georgia is a Right to Work state, meaning that SPFPA officials cannot enforce union contracts that require workers to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs. In non-Right to Work states, union bosses can have workers fired solely for refusing to financially support union officials’ activities.

However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials can wield exclusive “representation” power over every employee in a workplace, even those that don’t want to be represented by the union. A successful decertification election would strip SPFPA union bosses of exclusive bargaining power over these 250 security guards, enabling the workers to negotiate for themselves.

SPFPA Union Officials Continue to Ignore Worker Interests

The Foundation has seen a history of unwanted “representation” by the SPFPA. In 2024, the Foundation provided free legal aid to security guards in Delaware after the SPFPA negotiated a contract behind their backs. In Las Vegas, security guards scored a settlement returning thousands of dollars in illegally-seized union dues after SPFPA officials failed to acknowledge many employees’ attempts to revoke their union memberships and cut off dues deductions.

“SPFPA union officials have repeatedly shown that they care little about workers they claim to ‘represent.’ They only care about maintaining control and power, and we are proud to assist these security guards as they try to restore their individual freedom,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While Georgia’s Right to Work law guards employees from the forced-dues demands of union officials, no worker should be forced under the control of union chiefs who are self-interested or simply aren’t doing a good job.”

7 Jan 2026

College Park MOM’s Organic Employees Will Soon Vote on Whether to Block UFCW Union Officials From Collecting Forced Dues

Posted in News Releases

UFCW bosses ratified union monopoly bargaining contract over the objections of MOM’s employees; vote to take place January 13

College Park, MD (January 7, 2026) – Employees at the College Park branch of MOM’s Organic Market will soon vote on whether to strip United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 union bosses of the ability to force workers to pay union dues to keep their jobs. The election will take place on January 13, 2026, and will be administered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

MOM’s Organic employee Nora Ricse successfully obtained the vote by submitting a petition to the NLRB in which a sufficient number of her colleagues requested that such a vote (also known as a “deauthorization vote”) be held. Ricse received free legal aid in filing the petition from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law. Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, so union officials can impose contracts that require workers to pay dues or be fired. Short of voting out the union entirely, the only way Maryland employees can escape forced-dues demands from union chiefs is by voting to revoke forced-dues privileges in a deauthorization election. Obtaining either kind of vote is a procedurally difficult process that is often subject to union boss interference.

Unpopular Union Contract Contains Forced-Dues Clause

Ricse’s effort comes after UFCW Local 400 union officials ratified a contract that binds all employees at MOM’s Organic – even though a majority of the employees voted to reject that contract. In doing this, union officials cited the UFCW’s constitution, which apparently requires union chiefs to ratify a contract over workers’ objections if less than two-thirds of the workers authorize a strike.

Despite UFCW officials’ claims that they will not enforce their forced-dues privileges, NLRB documents reveal that the contract contains a clause authorizing the union to require dues payment as a condition of employment.

“I and many of my colleagues at MOM’s don’t support UFCW union officials, but we are compelled by law to deal with them,” commented Ricse. “We are requesting this vote so we can ensure our hard-earned money doesn’t flow into union bosses’ pockets, regardless of what they’ve told us is going to happen.”

This isn’t the first time that MOM’s Organic workers have obtained Foundation legal aid in dealing with UFCW union officials. In November 2024, College Park MOM’s employees requested a vote to remove the union entirely (also known as a “decertification” vote). The same year, employees of another DC-area grocery chain, Union Kitchen, voted 24-1 to remove UFCW Local 400 after National Right to Work Foundation attorneys helped them obtain a decertification vote.

“If UFCW union officials are telling the truth about not requiring employees to pay dues as required by the unpopular contract the union imposed on them, they should support this effort to remove the forced-dues requirement from the union contact,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.

“The very fact that UFCW’s constitution dictates that UFCW officials are mandated to impose forced-dues contracts over the objections of a majority of workers is further evidence that union boss power and money are the union’s priorities, not what is best for rank-and-file workers,” added Mix. “That’s why all workers in Maryland and across America deserve the protection of Right to Work, which lets each worker decide for him or herself whether a union has earned their dues payments.”

6 Jan 2026

Workers in North Carolina and California Ask Federal Labor Board to Nix Policy Letting Union Bosses Block Elections

Posted in News Releases

With new quorum, National Labor Relations Board can eliminate “blocking charge” policy used to stop union removal elections

Washington, DC (January 6, 2026) – Workers in North Carolina and California are pushing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to strike down its “blocking charge” policy, which is preventing them from removing unwanted union officials from their workplaces.

The workers, which include miners employed by The Quartz Corp. in Spruce Pine, NC, and Fresno, CA-based construction materials workers for CalPortland, both backed petitions in late 2025 asking the NLRB to administer votes to remove (or “decertify”) unions from their workplaces. Despite both petitions containing enough signatures to trigger union decertification elections, regional NLRB officials blocked both votes pursuant to the NLRB’s current blocking charge policy. This Biden-era policy permits union officials to stymie the union decertification process simply by filing unproven or unrelated “unfair labor practice” charges at the NLRB alleging employer misconduct.

Quartz Corp. employee Blake Davis and CalPortland worker Darrell Dunlap have both submitted Requests for Review to the NLRB in Washington, DC. These filings ask the Board to overturn the blocking charge policy and let their coworkers’ requested votes to remove the United Mine Workers and Teamsters unions (respectively) go forward. Davis and Dunlap are both receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. While vacancies on the NLRB have caused a backlog of cases, the U.S. Senate recently approved two new presidential appointees to the NLRB, meaning the Board now has a “quorum” and can hear these and other cases.

“Blocking Charge” Policy Inconsistent With Federal Labor Law

Dunlap’s Request for Review argues that the NLRB’s blocking charge policy directly conflicts with the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that the NLRB is responsible for enforcing. “Allowing a self-interested party to unilaterally block elections conflicts with [the NLRA], which requires the Board to hold an election” if employees submit a valid decertification petition, Dunlap’s brief says. “The blocking charge policy does not just contravene a clear Congressional command, but also offends the entire structure and purpose of the Act: employee free choice.”

Dunlap’s brief also maintains that the blocking charge rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary and fails to accomplish even its own stated goals. For example, the Request for Review says, NLRB bureaucrats impose the policy without considering key data showing the blocking charge policy has caused substantial delays in the union election process. Furthermore, the Board has argued that the rule is required to stop “coercive elections” from happening – even though its only mechanism for doing this is giving self-interested union bosses massive power to block elections or let them proceed.

Davis’ Request for Review makes many similar arguments, but adds that even if the Board were to uphold the blocking charge policy, regional NLRB officials egregiously misapplied it in his case. As his brief points out, even before he and his colleagues had submitted the union decertification petition, “the union filed a barrage of [unfair labor practice charges],” some of which were just speculation about employer activity aiding the union removal process. Even so, the regional NLRB appears to have blocked Davis and his coworkers’ requested election based on the mere quantity of the union’s charges, without explaining which allegation justified blocking. “By failing to distinguish between allegations that might warrant blocking and those that plainly would not, the Region reduced the rule to a numbers game,” the Request for Review says.

Trump NLRB Can Undo ‘Blocking Charge’ Policy and Empower Independent-Minded Workers

The National Right to Work Foundation has long advocated for the NLRB to return to the Election Protection Rule, which prevented many aspects of blocking charge-related gamesmanship before the Biden NLRB overturned it in 2022. Under the Election Protection Rule, allegations of misconduct related to a union decertification election could not block employees from exercising their right to vote, and in most cases permitted the immediate release of the vote tally as opposed to ordering ballots to be impounded during litigation over blocking charges.

“The NLRB’s ‘blocking charge’ policy serves only to let union officials stop the workers they claim to ‘represent’ from making a free choice about whether a union in their workplace is right for them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Davis speak for countless workers across the country who are trapped under union boss dictates and forced-dues payments because of this rule.

“If President Trump’s new NLRB appointees are serious about putting American workers back in control of their own livelihoods, reversing this union boss power giveaway is an excellent place to start,” Mix added.

31 Dec 2025

Wisconsin Funeral Home Workers Win Freedom from Teamsters Local 344

Posted in News Releases

Teamsters abandon legal effort to block worker-backed union removal petition

Milwaukee, WI (December 31, 2025) – Employees of Krause Funeral Home & Cremation Services have freed themselves from the unwanted “representation” of Teamsters Local 344 union officials. The workers’ victory comes after Krause management withdrew recognition of the Teamsters based on an employee-backed petition showing that the union had lost majority support.

While Teamsters union bosses initially tried to block the ouster, claiming Krause committed an unfair labor practice by withdrawing recognition, union officials quickly backed down after National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a Motion to Intervene with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of Krause employee Noah Watry.

In October, Watry submitted a “decertification petition” to the NLRB, in which he and his coworkers requested that the NLRB hold a vote to remove the Teamsters union. That petition contained more than enough signatures from employees in his work unit (which includes funeral directors, embalmers, and apprentices at Krause’s facilities in Milwaukee, Brookfield, and New Berlin) to trigger a decertification election under NLRB rules.

Watry shared a copy of this employee petition with Krause officials, who, following the NLRB’s Levitz Furniture Co. precedent, withdrew recognition from the union after seeing that the petition signers also requested that their employer withdraw recognition.

Teamsters union agents sought to block the employee petition and the employer’s withdrawal by filing unfair labor practice charges against Krause with the NLRB, alleging that it had withdrawn recognition illicitly. Even though Krause had followed NLRB case law in withdrawing, an NLRB Regional Office issued a complaint against the funeral home company. Watry defended the withdrawal that he and his coworkers had requested by filing a Motion to Intervene.

NLRB Region 18 eventually referred the case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which set the stage for a hearing on the union’s legal claims. However, before the ALJ could move forward with the proceedings, Teamsters lawyers withdrew all charges against Krause, likely knowing that a hearing would reveal the meritless nature of union officials’ unfair labor practice charges. This effectively laid to rest the Teamsters presence in Krause’s facilities.

Wisconsin is one of 26 states with Right to Work safeguards that protect workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. Yet, even in Right to Work states, union officials can impose exclusive bargaining control upon all workers in a workplace, even those who oppose the union.

“This case illustrates clearly the lengths that union officials will go in order to hold on to power in a workplace where workers would prefer to be independent,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation is pleased to have been able to aid Mr. Watry and his colleagues in navigating the convoluted federal labor bureaucracy that places hardworking Americans like them at a disadvantage whenever they seek to exercise their rights.

“While this case worked out in Mr. Watry’s favor, it’s important to remember that he and his coworkers have the benefit of Right to Work and could not be forced to subsidize the same Teamsters union that was trying to trap them,” Mix added. “That is why every American deserves Right to Work protections, and even in states where Right to Work exists, it must be defended.”