Citing Federal Student Privacy Law, Vanderbilt Graduate Students Move to Block UAW Union Organizers from Obtaining Their Personal Info
“John Doe” grad students resist Labor Board claim that labor law can override Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
Nashville, TN (October 23, 2024) – Two graduate students at Vanderbilt University are seeking to intervene in a federal case in which Vanderbilt Graduate Workers United (VGWU, an affiliate of the United Auto Workers union, UAW) union officials are demanding personal information that the students wish to keep private. The students, who identify themselves in legal documents as “John Doe 1” and “John Doe 2,” have obtained free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to challenge a union subpoena demanding their personal information.
The students’ motion to intervene is now before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, following a special appeal from an NLRB Region 10 decision that tossed the motion on the specious ground that the students are “not a labor organization” and consequently have no interest in the case.
VGWU union bosses are seeking the students’ personal information as part of the union campaign to place Vanderbilt graduate students under UAW union monopoly bargaining control. NLRB Region 10 in Atlanta has issued a subpoena at the union’s behest seeking to force Vanderbilt University to hand over this information to union officials. However, the graduate students argue that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) forbids the Vanderbilt administration from disclosing this information to any third parties without their permission, including the UAW.
“The…subpoena to Vanderbilt is an attempt to violate FERPA’s protections, privileging union interests over the graduate students[’] privacy rights,” reads the graduate students’ appeal. “The Graduate Students seek to provide the Region legal arguments in support of their privacy interests, and against the…subpoena of Vanderbilt.”
Students Want Stop in Subpoena Enforcement So They Can Defend Their Privacy
The students’ original motion to intervene notes that FERPA’s language permits students to seek “protective action” if a university receives a subpoena seeking their personal information, as in this case. In light of that, the students are asking for a halt in the subpoena’s enforcement so they can properly defend their privacy interests. While the motion notes that the NLRB’s standards for allowing intervention have been unclear over the years, it argues that the students’ goal to defend their privacy interests provides a solid ground for intervention.
The VGWU union is an affiliate of the UAW union, which has a penchant for ignoring or violating employee rights in pursuit of gaining greater power over workers, businesses, and other institutions. The union is still under federal monitoring following a years-long embezzlement probe that uncovered millions of dollars in workers’ dues money misspent on luxury items, gambling, vacations, and more. The probe resulted in the convictions of about a dozen top UAW bosses.
“UAW officials are seeking to override college students’ federal privacy protections, which in addition to having no basis in law also treats students as pawns in the union’s ascent to power at the university,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB under both Obama and Biden has twisted longstanding labor law to give union bosses the power to force students into dues-paying union ranks. But graduate students across the country are increasingly discovering that heavy-handed union monopoly bargaining power means less freedom both in and out of the classroom and more inefficiency, disruption, and radical political activism.
“Union monopoly bargaining is a system particularly ill-suited to an academic environment. But it also forces workers all over the country to associate with and pay dues to union bosses they never wanted and may have explicitly voted against,” Mix added. “The Vanderbilt students we represent are right to resist this kind of compulsion and we will defend their right to privacy.”
SoCal AT&T Employee Hits Company and CWA Union With Federal Charges for Illegal Collusion to Unionize Workers
Charge: Union left after employees demanded vote to kick union out; now back as unlawful ‘company union’ under backroom deal
Los Angeles, CA (October 22, 2024) – Matthew Gonzales, an In-Home Expert for AT&T Mobility in Southern California, has just filed federal charges against both his employer and officials of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union. Gonzales maintains that AT&T and CWA officials have colluded to force workers under the control of a “company union” in violation of federal labor law. Gonzales filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The charges state that the CWA union and company started this arrangement despite the fact that there is no evidence of majority employee support for a union, and despite the fact that CWA union officials voluntarily abandoned Gonzales’ unit of In-Home Experts just last month after a large number of employees demanded an election to remove CWA from power (but before that vote could occur). According to the charges, despite the union’s formal departure, a CWA notice declared shortly after that “[n]ew hires will immediately be included in the [union] bargaining unit” and that AT&T would even help conduct a campaign to add existing workers to the union’s monopoly bargaining ranks.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which is administered by the NLRB and governs labor relations in the private sector, disallows the formation of company unions. Specifically, it prohibits employers from “dominat[ing] or interfer[ing] with the formation or administration of any [union]” or “coerc[ing] employees in the exercise of [their] rights” to either participate or not participate in a union.
Gonzales’ charge argues that AT&T’s and CWA’s actions have “violated employee free choice guaranteed by Section 7 of the [NLRA] by allowing CWA to act as their exclusive representative without majority [support],” and “given CWA unmerited opportunities to foist exclusive representation on unwilling employees.” Further, Gonzales maintains that a “Memorandum of Agreement of Voluntary Recognition” that AT&T and CWA are using to spell out this scheme actually amounts to a monopoly bargaining contract, and has been used to justify restrictions against Gonzales for opposing the union campaign.
CWA Union Officials Want Illicit ‘Second Bite at Apple’ After Being Forced Out by Employees
Gonzales’ charges detail that, roughly a month after he and his coworkers had successfully forced the CWA union out by petitioning for a union decertification vote, CWA released notices to the work unit in late September stating that a survey would soon be released to determine which employees to add to a separate “bargained-for unit” controlled by the union. It also stated that “[a]ll employees hired into the IHX department after this process is complete will be protected under our collective bargaining agreement.”
On October 8, the charges say, Gonzales visited an AT&T facility on his own time to observe an event that CWA officials held to drum up support for joining the union-controlled unit. At the union’s behest, an AT&T official asked him to leave, reasoning that the union and employer had an “agreement” that allowed CWA to campaign at the facility. Gonzales responded by asserting that the agent was stopping him from exercising his rights to oppose the union drive.
“The company representative said that [Gonzales] must receive permission to campaign or discuss labor organizing on the premises and that she did not know where he could go to receive such permission,” the charges state.
AT&T Employee Wants Federal Court Order to Stop Illegal Union Campaign, Which Could Soon Have Nationwide Impact
Gonzales is asking that the NLRB seek a federal court injunction “to prevent CWA from continuing its membership drive, its collection of dues, and its attempts to coerce non-bargained for employees into any unit without a secret ballot election.” He also seeks to revive his and his coworkers’ petition seeking a vote to remove the union.
“Union officials will often use rhetoric portraying employers as ‘bad guys’ that employees can only defeat by submitting to union power, but are more than willing to accept illegal employer assistance if it will help them sweep more workers into dues-paying ranks,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In Mr. Gonzales’ case, this tactic is especially shameful because he and his coworkers already forced CWA union officials into abandoning the workplace just before their so-called ‘representation’ of employees was about to be put to a secret ballot vote. Not only that, but CWA union officials claim that this bargain they’ve struck with AT&T will also apply to other units of employees across the country that have similarly rejected the union.
“Instead of facing the will of the employees, it looks like CWA officials would prefer to finagle themselves into the workplace with the backing of AT&T in total violation of federal law,” Mix added. “Our attorneys will defend the right of AT&T In-Home Experts to freely choose whether they want a union or not, and will get to the bottom of this scheme.”
Kaiser Permanente Hospital Employee Slams SEIU with Federal Charge for Illegal Dues Demands and Termination Threats
Charge: SEIU officials illegally threatened to have worker fired if she didn’t sign union membership card and authorize dues deductions
Los Angeles, CA (October 21, 2024) – Nadine Reyes, a Los Angeles-based Kaiser Permanente Hospital worker, has filed federal charges against the Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers (SEIU-UHW) after union officials falsely claimed full, formal union membership was a condition of her employment, additionally, union officials threatened to have her fired if she didn’t sign membership and dues deduction cards. Reyes is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Under longstanding law it is illegal to require full union membership (known as a “closed shop” arrangement) as a condition of employment. Further, employees can be required to sign a union dues deduction cards that authorize union officials to collect dues directly from their paycheck.
“SEIU bosses attempted to take advantage of me and threatened me, assuming I didn’t know my rights or wouldn’t stand up for myself,” commented Reyes about her case. “But I knew what they were doing was wrong, and I’m standing up for myself against their bullying.”
In states without Right to Work laws like California, union officials must follow certain requirements to justify the amount of forced union fees someone must pay to get or keep a job. Under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, union officials cannot force employees who have abstained from union membership to pay dues or fees for anything beyond union boss expenditures unrelated to union monopoly bargaining activities.
Union political and lobbying expenditures, which regularly are included in full membership dues, are among those expenses that Beck prevents union officials from forcing nonmember workers into funding under threat of termination. Nonmember employees who exercise their Beck rights are also entitled to an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials calculated the mandatory fee amount.
“Nadine Reyes is just the latest victim of SEIU threats, and another example of union officials prioritizing their own greed and power over the rights of those they claim to ‘represent,’” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Cases like this show why California workers need Right to Work protections, so Big Labor bosses are required to earn the voluntary support of rank-and-file employees, not be allowed to extort dissenting workers by threatening to have them fired.”
Chicago 911 Operator Successfully Defends Janus Rights Against IBEW Forced Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Six years after Janus, union bosses still violating workers’ First Amendment rights, but workers fight back
Hundreds of thousands of American public sector workers felt the impact of the Foundation-won Janus decision almost immediately after the Supreme Court decided it in June 2018, and its legacy has only continued to grow.
CHICAGO, IL – “I decided to leave [International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)] 21 because for some time now I believed that IBEW 21 was not acting in the best interest of its members. Be it a new job title that senior employees were deliberately misinformed about, to breach of contract on my employer’s part, to having to navigate the police and court alone after being threatened at work, IBEW 21 was either ineffective or absent.”
This is how Rhonda Younkins, a City of Chicago 911 operator, described the so-called “representation” she and her colleagues were getting from IBEW 21 union bosses. With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Younkins in June was able to force IBEW Local 21 officials to return unlawfully deducted dues and cease future payroll deductions.
IBEW Bosses Backed Off Anti-Janus Demands After Foundation Involvement
Younkins was defending her rights under the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the justices ruled that the First Amendment forbids union bosses from forcing public sector workers to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. The Justices further clarified that union officials could only take dues from a worker’s paycheck after receiving their clear and affirmative consent.
Younkins repeatedly tried to end dues payments to the IBEW 21 union, but union officials either ignored her requests or tried to foist other demands on her. After many unsuccessful attempts, Younkins sought free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, who filed charges against the IBEW union at the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB).
IBEW 21 union officials eventually backed down, ceased dues collections, and issued refunds of past illegally seized dues.
Janus Impact Still Growing
While Younkins’ reasons for defunding IBEW union bosses are unique to her job and experience, she’s certainly not alone in using Janus to break free from union bosses’ influence. After Janus was issued in 2018, an estimated 450,000 public employees immediately stopped payment to unions, and in the six years since then, Foundation-backed litigation has helped defend the rights of tens of thousands of other government employees.
“We at the Foundation are encouraged at the strides workers have made since our Janus victory at the Supreme Court,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “But the fight is far from over. As cases like Ms. Younkins’ show, union bosses still stonewall public workers when they try to exercise their First Amendment Janus freedoms, and private sector workers don’t yet enjoy similar protections.
“Foundation staff attorneys will keep fighting for a future where all American workers’ right to freely associate or dissociate with a union is fully protected,” Semmens added.
Starbucks Employees File Brief with Appeals Court in Case Challenging Constitutionality of Labor Board Structure
NY Starbucks workers are challenging NLRB that refuses to hold votes to remove unwanted SBWU union
Washington D.C. (October 16 2024) – New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have filed the opening brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their groundbreaking lawsuit challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as unconstitutional. The lawsuit, initially filed by Cortes, and later joined by Karam, follows NLRB officials’ refusal to process their respective petitions requesting a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace.
The lawsuit states that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the president. The appeal challenges a District Court decision that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack legal standing. That decision did not address the underlying claim regarding whether the Labor Board’s structure complies with the requirements of the Constitution.
The brief, filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, thoroughly refutes the District Courts decision that Cortes and Karams lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Board, and also argues why the Court should side with the plaintiffs on the merits of their constitutional challenge against the NLRB.
Starbucks Employees Are Being Denied Their Right to Vote
On April 28, 2023, Cortes submitted a petition, supported by a majority of her colleagues, asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election at her Buffalo-area “Del-Chip” Starbucks store to remove SBWU union officials’ bargaining powers over workers. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification request.
Similarly, Karam filed a decertification petition seeking a vote to remove the union at his Buffalo-area Starbucks store. Like Cortes’ petition, NLRB officials refuse to allow the vote to take place, citing claims made by SBWU officials. As a result the workers remain trapped under union “representation” they oppose.
“The lower court’s decision was wrong in finding that Cortes’ and Karam’s case lacked standing, as both have business before the NLRB right now and also did at the time their lawsuit was filed,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re hopeful that the D.C. Court of Appeals will agree, and sides with these workers who are entitled to have their decertification case adjudicated by a Labor Board whose structure complies with the Constitution.”
“Despite the wishes of Big Labor and the NLRB who appear intent on squashing the rights of workers opposed to unionization and exercising unfettered power, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law of the land,” added Mix.
Philly-Area Dometic Workers Win Case Against UAW for Illegal Threats During Union-Boss Ordered Strike
UAW officials unlawfully threatened to fire workers that didn’t go on strike, must now attend mandatory training on workers’ rights
Philadelphia, PA (October 16, 2024) – Seven employees of auto accessory manufacturer Dometic’s Philadelphia-area plant have triumphed over United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials in a federal case against the union for threatening illegal discipline on workers during a strike.
The favorable settlement for the Dometic workers forces UAW union officials to provide remedies not only for the illegal threats, but also for blocking workers from exercising their right to resign their memberships in the union and unlawfully demanding full union dues. The employees, Eric Angell, Robert Haldeman, Mario Coccie, Nancy Powelson, Joseph Buchak, Md Rasidul Islam, and James Nold received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The seven employees originally filed federal Unfair Labor Practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the union following a September 2023 strike order issued by UAW officials at their workplace. The order was accompanied by statements, text messages, and even social media posts from union officials stating that employees would be disciplined or even fired if they continued to do their jobs.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that governs private sector labor relations in the United States. Under the NLRA, American private sector workers have a right to refrain from union activity, and the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in General Motors v. NLRB the right of employees to resign union membership during a strike and continue working.
The Foundation-won settlement fully vindicates Dometic workers’ rights. It requires notices to be posted both at union offices and at Dometic’s Royersford, PA, plant detailing employees’ rights, including their right to refrain from joining a union or participating in union activities. Such information must also be shared with employees by text message. The settlement additionally requires UAW bosses to delete a Facebook post threatening workers who continued to work during the strike with being fired. Finally, the settlement orders mandatory training for union officials on a number of topics, including “a union’s right to impose internal discipline.”
Illegal Strike Threats Just Tip of Iceberg for Union Malfeasance at Dometic
All seven workers reported in their original federal charges, against the UAW, that they were informed during a September 8, 2023, union meeting that a strike would begin the following week, and any employee who refused to participate would be subject to internal union charges, fined, and ultimately terminated. The next month, each worker resigned their membership, and UAW union officials notified them that the union had started internal proceedings against them. Under federal law, union officials have no right to impose discipline on those who aren’t union members.
The charges also recounted that union officials failed to follow processes laid out by the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. Under Beck, workers under union monopoly bargaining control who have abstained from formal membership can only be required to pay the amount of dues that the union claims goes towards bargaining, and are also entitled to receive financial information on how the union calculates the compulsory fee they charge to nonmembers as a condition of employment.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, union officials can impose contracts that force workers who have refrained from formal union membership to pay fees to the union or lose their jobs. However, as per Beck, this fee must exclude any money that funds a union’s political or lobbying activities, and can only include bargaining-related expenses. Beck also requires union officials to provide financial disclosures to workers who send a Beck notice.
UAW Bosses Again Caught Red-Handed Violating Employee Rights
“The UAW hierarchy, which is still under federal monitoring following a massive embezzlement probe that already resulted in a dozen union bosses’ convictions, has given workers plenty of reasons to doubt whether union officials truly have their best interests in mind,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That was on display again at the Pennsylvania Dometic plant, where UAW officials resorted to patently illegal methods to force workers out on strike.”
“We’re proud to have helped these employees vindicate their rights, however, blatantly illegal threats like this are unfortunately common during union boss-instigated strikes,” added Mix. “That’s worth remembering as the UAW’s radical top boss Shawn Fain continues his fevered 2028 dreams of a Marxist-inspired May Day General Strike which, if it actually were to happen, would almost certainly be backed up with similar illegal threats against rank-and-file workers.”
Professors Launch Landmark SCOTUS Bid to End Forced Union Association
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
NY law unconstitutionally forces professors under “representation” of anti-Semitic union
Together, (from left) Foundation Legal Director William Messenger, Fairness Center General Counsel Nathan McGrath, and CUNY Professors Mitchell Langbert and Avraham Goldstein seek to establish new protections against forced union association.
WASHINGTON, DC – Avraham Goldstein, a mathematics professor at the City University of New York (CUNY), wrote in a 2022 Wall Street Journal op-ed about the predicament that he and many of his Jewish colleagues face because New York law forces them under the “representation” of an anti-Israel union: “I had paid thousands of dollars in union dues for workplace representation, not for political statements or attacks on my beliefs and identity. I decided to resign my union membership and naively thought I could leave the union and its politics behind for good . . . I was wrong.”
It was this situation that led Avraham Goldstein, along with fellow professors Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, to file a federal lawsuit against the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union, CUNY, and State of New York officials in 2022. That lawsuit challenged New York State’s “Taylor Law,” which grants union bosses monopoly bargaining power in the public sector. Such power permits union bosses to speak and contract for public workers — including those that want nothing to do with the union.
Professors’ Petition: First Amendment Protects Union Dissenters
Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation and The Fairness Center have litigated the professors’ case up through the federal court system. Now they’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take their case and clarify that the First Amendment forbids union officials from foisting their voice and values on public sector workers who oppose the union.
“The core issue in this case is straightforward: can the government force Jewish professors to accept the representation of an advocacy group they rightly consider to be anti-Semitic? The answer plainly should be ‘no,’” the petition begins.
The High Court has recognized for decades how public sector monopoly bargaining burdens workers’ First Amendment freedom of association rights. In 1944, the Supreme Court’s decision in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. recognized how rail union bosses were manipulating their powers over the workplace to discriminate against African-American railway workers. The Supreme Court restated its concerns most recently in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, with the majority calling monopoly bargaining “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.”
Original Complaint Detailed Union Bosses’ Discrimination
The professors’ original complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a host of discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents — including a June 2021 union resolution that the professors viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel.”
The complaint said Prof. Michael Goldstein “experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family.” Goldstein has needed a guard to accompany him on campus, the complaint noted.
Prof. Lax, the complaint explained, already received in a separate case a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “that CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” As their petition at the Supreme Court notes, these conflicts have significantly increased since the events of October 7.
Professors Could Create Groundbreaking Precedent
The petition asks the Supreme Court to take up the case and stop CUNY and the State of New York from letting PSC union bosses impose their “representation” on the professors.
“New York’s legal scheme forces these CUNY professors to associate with union officials who insult their identity and create a work environment rife with bullying and harassment. It’s hard to think of a more obvious violation of the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s high time that the Justices finally acknowledge the First Amendment protects government employees from being forced to accept political ‘representation’ they adamantly oppose.”
Starbucks Baristas Ask Labor Board to Allow Election to Remove SBWU Union to Proceed
Case cited as excuse for blocking workers’ vote recently ended
OKLAHOMA AND UTAH (October 9,2024)– Starbucks employees in Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City filed requests with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asking the agency to proceed with holding an election at their respective stores to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from the workplace. Both employees, Amy Smith (OK) and Indya Fiessinger (UT), are receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Both employees filed petitions last year asking the NLRB to hold decertification elections so they could vote to remove SBWU from their workplace. However, at SBWU union officials’ request, the NLRB dismissed the petitions “subject to reinstatement” when the unfair labor practice case, Starbucks Corporation (01-CA-305952), was resolved. That case has now been closed and resolved.
With that case now resolved, the Starbucks petitioners ask the NLRB Regional Directors in Region 14 (covering Oklahoma City) and Region 27 (covering Salt Lake City) to reinstate their respective petitions so the NLRB can promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ monopoly power at each store.
Smith submitted her decertification petition to the NLRB on October 4, 2023, while Fiessinger requested her vote to remove SBWU officials on July 25, 2023. Both petitions had enough employees’ signatures to meet the 30% necessary to trigger a decertification vote.
Oklahoma and Utah are both Right to Work states, meaning union payments must be voluntary and cannot be required as a condition of employment. However, under federal law, SBWU officials’ monopoly bargaining powers still allow them to impose a union contract on all employees at the store, even those who are not union members and who oppose SBWU’s so-called “representation.” A successful decertification vote would strip union officials of that extraordinary monopoly bargaining power.
The growing movement among Starbucks partners to eject unwanted union officials from their stores is part of a larger trend, with a 40% increase in worker decertification petitions from 2020 to 2023. Already, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have assisted Starbucks employees in over a dozen stores seeking votes to remove the SBWU union, however union officials have so far manipulated federal labor law to block any decertification votes from being held.
“These workers have waited over a year to finally have their decertification vote to decide whether or not they want the union in their workplace, and with the blocking charge now fully resolved, the NLRB should promptly schedule these elections,” commented Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Majority support is supposed to be fundamental to federal labor law, otherwise the NLRB is just protecting incumbent union bosses to the detriment of actual rank-and-file workers’ wishes. It is past time for these votes to be allowed to take place.”
New York Farmworkers Defend Effort to Vote UFW Union Out of Power in Case at NY State Labor Relations Board
UFW union officials gained power through “card check” and denied workers secret ballot vote, now stonewalling employee request for union removal
Marlboro, NY (October 8, 2024) – Employees of Porpiglia Farms, an apple grower located in Upstate New York, are taking legal action to defend their effort to remove the United Farm Workers (UFW) union from power. Porpiglia employee Ricardo Bell, who is leading the worker effort to oust the union, just filed a brief at the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) refuting several arguments UFW lawyers put forth for why the employees’ union decertification petition should be dismissed. Bell is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The workers’ petition to kick the union out comes after UFW union agents foisted a hasty “card check” unionization drive on the farm employees. New York labor law mandates card check, and prohibits employers from insisting on secret ballot union elections.
Under the card check process, union officials bypass a traditional secret ballot union election and instead solicit union authorization cards directly from workers, which are later counted as “votes” for the union. Due to the lack of privacy in this method, workers are frequently subjected to pressure tactics, intimidation, or even threats by union agents.
After the UFW union gained power in the workplace using card check, Bell and his coworkers filed a union decertification petition with PERB challenging the union’s claims of majority status. PERB is New York’s agency in charge of enforcing state labor law for both the public and agricultural sectors, which includes managing representation proceedings to install and remove unions.
Union officials tried to block Bell’s petition by filing a motion to dismiss the case completely. UFW union officials claim they are entitled to an “insulated period” after the card check drive during which employees are barred from trying to remove the union. Bell’s latest filing in the case defends the union decertification petition and refutes all the arguments in the union’s motion to dismiss.
Worker Attacks Specious Union Arguments Against Letting Workers Vote to Oust Union
Bell’s brief notably attacks UFW union lawyers’ theory that once a union is certified as the monopoly union “representative” of all employees in a work unit, there can be no option at all to remove an unwanted union. “[New York labor law] does not indicate that employees have a single chance at self-organization, and once they make a choice, they are no longer permitted to make any other choice regarding self-organization,” the brief says. “If that were the case, the very action of choosing a representative under Section 703 would deprive employees of the ability to exercise Section 703 in perpetuity….”
The response brief also refutes union officials’ tyrannical contention that foisting a card check union campaign on the workplace should grant them a period of immunity from employees submitting another representation petition (including one to remove an incumbent union). “In fact, PERB’s FLFLPA regulations say the opposite…not only do the FLFLPA regulations not include an insulated period, PERB explicitly denied a request to add one via regulation,” the brief says.
In California, Foundation attorneys are aiding farmworkers from Wonderful Nurseries, the largest grapevine nursery in the U.S., in a similar situation. In unfair labor practice charges filed with the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), Wonderful Nurseries workers state that UFW union officials lied about the true purpose of cards that they collected from workers during a card check campaign that they used to sweep to power, and even presented English union authorization cards to Spanish-speaking employees whom they knew wouldn’t understand. They now report that UFW union officials are harassing and threatening employees who support an effort to vote the UFW out.
“The aggressive and often demeaning tactics that UFW union officials use to seize power over agricultural workers show clearly why ‘card check’ is a bad idea in the agricultural sector, the public sector, and in any sector,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Forcing any workers under union representation they oppose is fundamentally wrong and anti-worker, and it is especially egregious when union organizers are authorized to do so through the unreliable and abuse-prone ‘card check’ scheme.”
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice to Port Employees Impacted by ILA Union Boss Strike Order
Foundation notifies employees that those wishing to continue working during a strike should resign their memberships before returning to work
Washington DC (October 3, 2024) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a special legal notice to the roughly 50,000 port employees reportedly affected by the strike order issued by International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) union officials this week.
The Foundation’s legal notice informs East and Gulf port employees of their rights, including their right to rebuff the strike order and to keep working to support their families as the strike is ongoing. The notice discusses why workers across the country frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in such situations.
“The situation presents serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the 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 other harsh union discipline for continuing to report to work to support themselves and their families.”
The full notice is available at www.nrtw.org/ILAstrike
The notice outlines the process that employees should follow if they want to exercise their right to return to work during the strike and avoid punishment by union bosses, complete with sample union membership resignation letters. The notice reminds workers that ILA union officials have no disciplinary power over workers who are not union members, and advises employees who wish to work during a strike to resign their memberships before returning to work.
“Union officials can (and often do) fine actual union members who work during a strike,” the notice says. “So, you should seriously consider resigning at least one day BEFORE you return to work during a strike, which is the best way to avoid these union fines and discipline.
“If possible, use certified mail, return receipt requested, and save copies of your letters and the return receipt to prove delivery,” the notice continues, adding that workers who choose to submit their union resignations to union officials in person should have a reliable witness present to combat potential false claims from union officials that they did not actually receive a worker’s resignation.
“ILA union officials have a history of corruption and seeking to increase their own power instead of doing what’s right for rank-and-file workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Given a strike order that may last weeks or even months, many port workers may decide that remaining on strike is not the best course of action for them, and Foundation attorneys stand ready to aid these workers in defending their right to continue working and providing for their families.”
