Starbucks Baristas File Brief Urging Supreme Court to Allow President to Remove Rogue Agency Officers
National Right to Work Foundation-backed federal case for Starbucks employees was first federal case to argue that NLRB officials can’t be shielded from the President’s oversight
Washington, DC (October 20, 2025) – Two Starbucks employees represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed an amicus brief at the United States Supreme Court in the case Trump v. Slaughter. The brief argues that restrictions on the President’s authority to fire members of executive bodies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), are unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers.
The amicus brief was filed on behalf of Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two New York Starbucks employees who challenged the constitutionality of the structure of the NLRB in a separate federal court case with the assistance of Foundation staff attorneys.
Since 2023, Foundation staff attorneys have pioneered the legal argument that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional because it places restrictions on the President’s authority to fire the NLRB’s members, despite it being part of the executive branch of government. This disconnect exemplifies the problem of federal bureaucrats operating as an unaccountable, “headless fourth branch,” something clearly at odds with the government’s constitutional structure.
Now, the Trump Administration is using this same argument as a justification to fire members of the FTC. Rebecca Slaughter, a Biden appointee to the FTC, has sued to be reinstated, and the case is now before the Supreme Court. The Foundation-backed amicus brief argues that as the Court considers the FTC, it must keep in mind that other so-called “independent agencies” that wield executive power, such as the NLRB, must be subject to Presidential control and removal.
Supreme Court May Reverse Humphrey’s, Must Recognize Its Limitations
Trump v. Slaughter provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to reverse its decision in the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Court crafted an exception to the general rule that the President can remove principal officers at will under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In theory, Humphrey’s exempted agencies that exercised “quasi-judicial” or “quasi-legislative” power, but not those that exercise executive power.
But regardless of the Court’s reevaluation of the case, “the NLRB fails the Humphrey’s Executor test,” the brief argues.
“The NLRB is a policymaking body that enforces the [National Labor Relations Act] based on its legal conclusions, not scientific or technical judgments,” write Foundation staff attorneys. “[T]he Board does not exercise quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial authority. It exercises executive power in everything it does.”
The brief concludes with the Foundation’s legal argument that Humphrey’s “cannot neuter the President’s ability to supervise those who exercise substantial parts of [executive] power.” Therefore, the Supreme Court “should make clear that the President’s removal power applies to every agency that exercises executive power, including the NLRB.”
Clear Separation of Powers Would Support Workers’ Individual Rights
A proper understanding of the limitations of Humphrey’s when it comes to executive bodies like the NLRB would support workers like Cortes and Karam as they exercise their individual rights. Cortes and Karam are trying to exercise their right to remove local union bosses from their respective workplaces. But non-statutory policies enforced by the pro-Big Labor Biden NLRB have stymied their efforts. Success in this case could help ensure that Cortes and Karam receive a fair judgment from the NLRB in their cases.
“Unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats have caused direct harm to independent-minded workers and their individual rights, and the Supreme Court should rightfully restore the proper separation of powers, including at the NLRB,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We are proud that the very legal arguments made by Foundation attorneys are now being utilized by this administration to dismantle the unaccountable fourth branch of government and restore proper constitutional structure.”
City of Everett Employee Appeals to Washington State PERC in Case Challenging Unconstitutional Money Seizures by AFSCME Officials
Appeal: Employer botched handling employee request to cut off dues deductions, AFSCME union officials refuse to return ill-gotten money
Olympia, WA (October 17, 2025) – City of Everett employee Xenia Davidsen is asking the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) to reverse a ruling letting union bosses and city officials off the hook for taking union dues from her paycheck after she requested a stop to further deductions. Davidsen is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Davidsen’s case charges American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials and City of Everett officials with seizing union dues from her paycheck after she invoked her First Amendment rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Supreme Court recognized that public employees have a First Amendment right to refuse to pay dues to an unwanted union in their workplace. Janus also held that union officials can only deduct union dues and fees from a public sector worker who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Davidsen’s latest filing in her case, which is an appeal from a PERC Hearing Examiner’s ruling, maintains that after revoking her dues-deduction authorization, “on 14 separate pay periods…dues were nevertheless deducted from her paycheck.” According to the appeal, Davidsen requested that dues deductions end in June 2024, at which point union officials informed the City of Everett that it should cease remitting money from her paychecks into the union’s accounts.
However, the appeal says, “the [City of Everett] failed to follow these instructions because it failed to monitor the email address that it had designated for the Union to communicate dues revocations.” Even worse, AFSCME union officials twelve times accepted dues money that City officials wrongfully took from Davidsen’s paycheck.
“On none of those…instances did the Union stop to question why it was accepting dues that it knew were unauthorized to it,” Davidsen’s brief says, yet the PERC Hearing Examiner did not find any violation of Washington labor law on the union’s part. Davidsen also contests the Hearing Examiner’s logic freeing the City of Everett from any fault regarding its improper handling of the notification to stop dues deductions: “Under the Hearing Officer’s reasoning…[the City of Everett] could indefinitely deduct dues that it has constructive notice it must put a stop to.”
Davidsen’s appeal argues that the PERC Hearing Officer incorrectly ruled Davidsen’s complaint as being filed too late under the six-month statute of limitations. Instead of treating each dues deduction from Davidsen’s paycheck as a separate violation of the law, Davidsen’s attorneys argue, the Hearing Examiner arbitrarily treated City of Everett officials’ ignoring her instruction to stop dues deductions as the only event at issue, putting the date of her original complaint outside the statute of limitations.
“AFSCME union officials believe they should be able to hold onto the hard-earned money of dissenting employees like Ms. Davidsen simply because they and City of Everett officials refuse to correct their own misdeeds,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While this certainly shows the contempt that AFSCME officials have for public employees’ First Amendment Janus rights, it’s even more worrying that PERC officials are doing legal gymnastics to let union bosses get away with it.
“Under Janus, union bosses must now convince public sector workers to voluntarily support their agenda, and are not entitled to take – or keep – any money they know was seized without that voluntarism,” Mix added.
AT&T-BellSouth Workers Challenge Union-Concocted ‘Window Period’ Restrictions on Ending Dues
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.
CWA officials trap dissenting workers, but case asks NLRB to declare ‘window period’ restrictions illegal
Jennifer Abruzzo went straight from being a top CWA union lawyer to being General Counsel of the Biden NLRB. Though President Trump fired her, that doesn’t mean that workers don’t still have to battle the anti-freedom policies she advanced.
MIAMI, FL – In August 2024, Communications Workers of America (CWA) union bosses ordered thousands of AT&T employees across the Southeast to abandon their jobs and go on strike. Unsurprisingly, despite union officials’ propaganda surrounding the strike, many workers disagreed with the decision.
“CWA union officials ordered us to abandon our jobs when many of us just wanted to keep working and supporting ourselves and our families,” commented Amanda Marc, a Miami-based worker for AT&T-BellSouth. “That’s bad enough, but now they’re putting up all these roadblocks to try to prevent those of us who don’t like the union’s agenda from stopping our money from flowing to them.”
Marc is referring to a situation that South Florida AT&T-BellSouth workers have been increasingly dealing with in the aftermath of the strike, which came to an end in September 2024. With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Marc and her coworker Sofia Hernaiz filed unfair labor practice charges against CWA union officials, detailing that the union hierarchy has ignored their requests to cut off dues payments and has continued to siphon money from their paychecks illegally. Additional charges for other AT&T-BellSouth workers are also being filed.
Dues Kept Flowing to Union After Workers Requested Stop
Marc and Hernaiz’s charges point out that CWA officials are imposing a “window period” scheme on workers who want to end financial support, limiting to just ten days per year the time in which workers can demand that dues deductions cease from their paychecks.
“This kind of behavior makes me feel like they’re really just interested in having control over us and taking our money,” Marc added. Marc and Hernaiz filed their charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law.
Marc’s charge in particular challenges the practice of imposing “window periods” as violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): While the NLRA unfortunately allows union officials to prevent a worker from revoking his or her dues authorization card for the first year after it is initially signed, Marc’s charge notes that any further restrictions are unlawful.
“The unions have no statutory license to create tricky and arbitrary ‘window periods’ to force unwilling employees to keep paying dues,” Marc’s charges say.
Because Marc, Hernaiz, and their colleagues work in the Right to Work state of Florida, CWA union bosses are forbidden from forcing workers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs, though CWA union officials are trying to limit the exercise of this freedom with their window period scheme. In states that lack Right to Work protections, in contrast, union officials can force employees to pay fees to the union or be terminated, meaning even perfect “compliance” with a union boss’s arbitrary window period restriction would not get a worker out of forced union payments.
Marc and Hernaiz’s charges state that they, and many of their coworkers, resigned their union memberships in August 2024, which was around when CWA union officials ordered AT&T-BellSouth workers out on the strike. Despite the women’s requests to end union membership and stop financial support for the union, the charges read, CWA agents never responded to their requests to stop dues deductions, and never even informed them of the window period dates in which they would consider their requests valid.
Even worse, Hernaiz details in her charge that union officials tried to subject her to internal union discipline for not participating in the strike. Under federal law, union bosses cannot impose union proceedings on workers who are not union members. Foundation attorneys are in the process of aiding other AT&T-BellSouth workers targeted by such illegal discipline.
No Legal Justification for ‘Window Periods,’ New NLRB Should Toss Policy
“Federal labor law is supposed to protect the right of workers to decide freely whether they want to join or financially support a union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “So-called ‘window periods’ exist only to restrict this freedom just so union officials can continue to funnel dues money from workers’ pockets straight into union agendas.
“The NLRB under the new Administration should recognize that this practice contradicts both worker freedom and federal law, and end it accordingly,” Mix added.
Cincinnati-Area Kroger Worker Secures Victory Against Illegal Union Dues Deductions
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.
After legal win, grocery employee based near Cincinnati finds job in nearby Right to Work Kentucky to escape forced dues
Northern Kentucky (foreground) might be just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, OH, but the difference in worker freedom is stark. Without Right to Work, forced dues abuses are rampant compared to Right to Work Kentucky.
CINCINNATI, OH – In a win for employee freedom, James Carroll, a Kroger employee based near Cincinnati, has secured victory in his federal case against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 75 and Kroger. The win comes after Carroll challenged the union and his employer for unlawfully deducting union dues from his paycheck and threatening him with termination for refusing to sign an illegal dues deduction form.
Carroll, with free legal support from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 9 in Cincinnati. His case exposed the UFCW’s use of an unlawful “dual-purpose” membership form, which combines union membership and dues deduction authorization into a single signature. Under established Supreme Court legal precedents, workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership, and any dues deduction authorizations must be voluntary and separate from membership agreements.
In order to avoid further prosecution, Kroger and UFCW entered into a settlement that requires them to reimburse Carroll for the illegally seized dues and publicly post a notice informing other employees of their rights.
But Carroll didn’t stop there. To protect himself from future union coercion, he secured a transfer to a Kroger store in Right to Work Kentucky. Unlike Ohio, where workers can be forced to pay union fees even as non-members, Kentucky’s Right to Work law ensures that all union payments are voluntary, shielding Carroll from further threats that he pay up or face termination.
This case challenging the UFCW’s forced dues abuse of grocery employees isn’t an isolated incident. In 2023, Houston-area Kroger employee Jessica Haefner, also aided by Foundation attorneys, filed charges against UFCW for using a dual-purpose form and altering her response to falsely indicate consent for dues deductions.
More recently, in 2024, Portland grocery worker Reegin Schaffer won a case against UFCW after union officials ignored her resignation request during a strike and retaliated by attempting to fine her for working.
Another Worker Flees to the Freedom of Right to Work
“We are pleased with this legal win for Mr. Carroll, and that he is now completely free of union bosses’ forced-dues demands in Right to Work Kentucky,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.
“Unfortunately most workers employed in forced dues states don’t have the option to commute to a job in a Right to Work state, which is why workers everywhere need the protection of Right to Work laws.”
Workers Nationwide Urge Trump NLRB to End Policies Trapping Them Under Union Power
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.
NLRB-invented policies currently allow union bosses to block worker-requested votes
Theresa Hause, an Oregon-based school bus driver, wants the Trump NLRB to end the so-called “merger doctrine” that grants union officials the power to combine workplaces into giant, inescapable mega-units.
WASHINGTON, DC – During the Biden Administration, biased, pro-Big Labor National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bureaucrats went out of their way to undermine the idea that workers and workers alone should choose whether or not they want a union. Rolling back multiple National Right to Work Foundation-backed reforms that made it easier for workers to vote out unions they didn’t want was a prime example of this.
But the Biden NLRB’s extremism is only the latest example of how federal labor law is biased against workers opposed to union affiliation. The truth is that biased bureaucrats on the NLRB have, for decades, burdened independent-minded workers with arbitrary barriers to freeing themselves from union influence. Many of these policies — which are the inventions of NLRB decisions and appear nowhere in the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) text — let union bosses block workers from exercising their statutory right to vote to remove a union.
Bus Drivers Fight Forced Dues in Huge, Inescapable Teamsters Unit
The Trump Administration taking control of the NLRB in Washington, D.C., has presented workers around the country who want to escape union influence with a new opportunity to attack these restrictions. Foundation attorneys are already helping workers lead the charge for reform to create precedents that will allow others to remove unions opposed by most workers.
Last December, Theresa Hause, a Washington State-based school bus driver, submitted to the NLRB a deauthorization petition which contained employee support well over the necessary threshold needed to trigger a vote to strip Teamsters Local 58 bosses of their forced-dues power in Hause’s workplace. Hause and her fellow drivers are employed by First Student, Inc.
She was surprised to learn during NLRB proceedings that First Student management and Teamsters union officials had covertly signed an agreement “merging” Hause’s small unit of workers into a much larger national unit, composed of thousands of Teamsters-controlled bus drivers across the country.
Because of the NLRB’s so-called “merger doctrine” policy, Hause and her colleagues are now in this “mega-unit,” and any petition to end the union’s forced-dues power (or remove the union completely) needs to contain signatures from at least 30% of the “mega-unit” — thousands of people Hause has never met — to be considered valid. The NLRB official that dismissed Hause’s petition even ruled that the fact employees were kept in the dark about this merger was irrelevant, outrageously saying “there is nothing in the merger doctrine that requires acquiescence or even notification of employees of a change in a bargaining unit.”
Hause’s Foundation-provided attorneys are challenging the merger doctrine in an appeal of Hause’s case to the NLRB in D.C., arguing among other things that the policy violates employee free choice and that it serves as a protection racket for established unions.
While Hause and her colleagues are fighting for a vote to free themselves from forced dues, attacking the merger doctrine also has significant ramifications for workers seeking to decertify a union. Foundation attorneys have represented many workers who have been shanghaied into huge, inescapable work units against their will. That includes a group of less than 10 Wisconsin First Student workers who filed a majority-backed petition to remove Teamsters officials as soon as allowed by federal law, only to be stymied by the merger doctrine because they had been secretly “merged” into a multi-company unit of around 24,000 workers in multiple states.
WV Homecare Workers Not ‘Settling’ for ‘Settlement Bar’
Meanwhile, in West Virginia, a Foundation-assisted employee of senior homecare nonprofit McDowell County Commission on Aging is attacking the NLRB’s use of another union boss-friendly policy to block his and his coworkers’ effort to kick out Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses: the so-called “settlement bar,” which lets unions and employers unilaterally agree in settlements to end employee-led union decertification efforts.
The employee, John Reeves, and his coworkers cast ballots in a July 2024 vote to remove SEIU union officials, but are now battling claims that a settlement SEIU bosses and Commission management signed should relegate those ballots to the trash bin. The SEIU and Commission entered into the settlement to end the decertification and resolve unfair labor practice allegations union agents had filed against the employer. That supposed employer wrongdoing was cited as the impetus for Reeves and his coworkers’ desire to remove the union — even though it was never admitted to by the employer nor proven by union lawyers.
Instead of letting Reeves show why the union’s accusations didn’t cause his employees’ disenchantment with the union, regional NLRB officials instead invoked the settlement bar and dismissed the decertification effort, based on the phony “resolution” of speculative charges by the union. Reeves is asking the NLRB in Washington, D.C., to review his case.
Reform Needed to Undo Coercive Policy
“Ms. Hause’s and Mr. Reeves’ cases provide just a sampling of the grand buffet of privileges the NLRB has granted union bosses over the years,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Union bosses and complicit employers should not be able to cut workers off from exercising their basic right to remove unpopular union bosses, yet that’s exactly what both the ‘merger doctrine’ and ‘settlement bar’ allow.
“If members of the Trump NLRB are dedicated to defending the rights of all American workers, they will focus not only on countering the extensive damage done to individual worker rights by the Biden Labor Board, but also on digging deeper to undo the web of non-statutory coercive union boss powers that has been created over decades,” Semmens added.
Right to Work Foundation Urges Ninth Circuit to Reject CA Law Granting Union Bosses Massive Power Over Cannabis Industry Workers
Amicus brief: “Labor peace agreement” mandate violates federal law and subjects workers to coercive union organizing tactics
San Francisco, CA (October 8, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Ctrl Alt Destroy v. Elliott, arguing that California’s regulatory regime imposing so-called “labor peace agreements” on the cannabis industry violates federal law.
These so-called “agreements,” which cannabis companies must adhere to in order to maintain a license under California law, rig the law against workers opposed to union control by censoring speech critical of unionization. They also mandate that employers grant union campaigners access to employees.
“Since 1968, the Foundation has been the nation’s leading litigation advocate for employee freedom to choose whether to associate with unions,” the amicus brief reads. “The Foundation has an interest in this case because it concerns whether California can lawfully subject employees of cannabis retailers to union organizing agreements.”
The Foundation’s amicus brief argues in particular that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts California’s “labor peace agreement” statutes. The NLRA is the federal law that governs most private sector labor relations. The four conditions mandated for cannabis companies under California law, “an agreement with a…union, a ban on disrupting union organizing, a ban on union members picketing, boycotting, or striking, and a clause granting union organizers access to employees at work” all concern activity that the U.S. Congress intended the NLRA to deal with – not state law.
CA Statutes Force Employers to Bargain With Union Bosses Their Employees Never Voted For
Notably, the brief explains that California’s labor law requires cannabis employers to bargain with union officials – even if a majority of employees have not expressed that they want a union in the workplace. “California obligating employers to simply bargain with unions over labor peace agreements runs also afoul of [Supreme Court precedent] because the NLRA contains no such obligation,” the brief says. “The NLRA only requires employers to bargain with unions after a majority of employees choose that union to be their exclusive representative, but not before as California’s law does.”
Federal law also preempts California’s mandate that cannabis employers provide union bosses access to workers, the brief contends. The mandate lets union agitators intrude on private property so they can subject employees to campaign activity whether they want it or not. “This requirement unconstitutionally deprives employers of their property rights,” the brief reads. “The requirement also deprives employees who oppose unions of being able to work free from unwanted solicitations by outside union organizers.”
“California and several other states are pushing forward so-called ‘labor peace agreements’ to appease powerful union special interests, while workers and entrepreneurs in the fledgling American cannabis industry are left in the lurch,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While federal labor law certainly has its flaws, California’s statutes and similar ones around the country provide even less protection for workers, and seemingly treat employees’ free association rights as an obstacle to greater control over the industry.
“California’s scheme has no legal underpinning and will cause employees great harm. The Ninth Circuit should invalidate it,” Mix added.
Pratt & Whitney Employee Slams IAM Union With Federal Charges For Imposing Illegal Post-Strike Discipline
Union officials insulted worker for wanting to resign membership and keep working, incorrectly told workers P&W was “closed shop”
Middletown, CT (October 6, 2025) – An employee of jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney’s Middletown facility is filing federal charges against International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local Lodge 700 union officials at the facility. The worker, Christopher Utley, is charging IAM union bosses with unlawfully imposing internal union discipline on him because he exercised his right to resign his union membership and continue working during a May strike. He also details IAM officials telling him that Pratt & Whitney is an illegal “closed shop” in which he needed to maintain union membership or be fired.
Utley filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency charged with enforcing federal labor law in the private sector, a task that includes adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual workers.
Federal labor law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like NLRB v. General Motors forbid union officials from enforcing “closed shop” union contracts that require formal union membership as a condition of employment. Workers who abstain from formal union membership are immune from internal union rules and discipline regarding things like strikes.
Because Connecticut lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, however, IAM union officials can impose contract provisions that require every employee in a workplace (even those who are not union members) to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. In contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary in Right to Work states.
“Instead of letting me exercise my right to leave the union and go back to work during the strike, IAM union bosses just insulted me and kept stonewalling,” commented Utley. “It’s almost like they wanted to trap me in the union just so they could subject me to internal discipline and punish me for daring to disagree with them.”
“Good Luck With That”: IAM Union Officials Ignore Resignation and Threaten Discipline on Worker
According to Utley’s charges, he called IAM Local Lodge 700 President Wayne McCarthy one day before the May strike began and informed him that he wanted to resign from the union. McCarthy “responded with various invectives, refused to identify any process to resign, said ‘good luck with that,’ and hung up the phone,” Utley’s charges say. After trying other methods of resigning, the charges read, IAM Local Lodge 700’s Vice President Chuck Hermann informed Utley that Pratt & Whitney was a “closed shop” and “he would have to be and remain a formal member of the union or face termination from his employment.”
On September 19 – months after the strike had concluded – Utley learned that IAM union bosses were “processing internal union disciplinary charges against him” for continuing to do his job during the strike. The charge argues that union officials calling Utley before a union tribunal, after he exercised his right to end union membership, violates his rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
“Instead of convincing workers to voluntarily support their agenda, IAM union officials are trying to turn Mr. Utley into an example of what happens when workers defy them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Federal labor law unambiguously permits workers to decline formal union membership and to continue to work during union-ordered strikes. But IAM bosses misled Mr. Utley about his rights so they could attempt to subject him to their illegal retaliation.
“Foundation attorneys stand ready to provide legal aid anywhere in the country to defeat union bosses’ attempts to discipline workers for making decisions about their own livelihoods,” Mix added.
Texas Workers at Multiple Workplaces Latest to Successfully Free Themselves from Unwanted Teamsters Union ‘Representation’
Dallas-based workers at two companies petitioned the NLRB for decertification elections to remove Teamsters Local 745 bosses
Dallas, TX (October 3, 2025) – Two successful union decertification efforts have freed workers from the control of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 745 Union bosses in Dallas, Texas. Both Dallas-based delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. and employees at FCC Environmental Services in Dallas filed decertification petitions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees. When employees are dissatisfied with union officials and want to remove the union from their workplace, they may file a “decertification” petition with the NLRB.
Union bosses often try to block elections with charges of unfair labor practices, and vigorously campaign to keep workers under their control. In both of these cases, workers ultimately were able to remove the union.
Teamsters Local 745 Can’t Win Decertification Efforts
Local Teamsters officers tried to block a decertification election at FCC Environmental Services last year, filing numerous charges of unfair labor practices, but despite these stalling attempts, the employees were successful in their effort to remove the union. The union ultimately withdrew all of their objections but one, which the NLRB Regional Director dismissed as it had no bearing on the election itself in which a majority opposed union affiliation.
Meanwhile, Local 745 officials couldn’t even put up a fight against delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. After workers filed a decertification petition at the NLRB in April, a decertification election was set for September. Only three days before the election was scheduled to take place, union officials themselves decided not to contest it, and instead disclaimed any further interest in representing the employees, who are now free from their control.
Workers Fleeing Teamsters Union Nationwide
These successful decertification efforts are part of a larger trend across the country. For four years, the Foundation has seen increasing demand for assistance from groups of workers seeking votes to remove unions. This trend has disproportionately affected the Teamsters Union, as NLRB statistics for the past 12 months show that one of every five decertification cases involved the Teamsters union.
“More and more, American workers across the country are deciding they are better off without Teamsters union bosses who prioritize their own interests over that of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These successful decertification efforts demonstrate what happens when courageous and independent-minded workers assert their rights.”
“Union bosses often do not speak for the workers under their so-called ‘representation,’ and statistics show that over 90% of employees have never had a chance to vote on the union that purports to represent them,” Mix added. “That one in five decertification petitions filed last year involved the Teamsters only drives home the point that workers are increasingly rejecting the union’s coercive agenda.”
Builders FirstSource Workers Join Other KY Construction Industry Workers in Ending Teamsters Local 89 ‘Representation’
Majority of workers backed petitions calling for Teamsters removal as second workplace ejects Teamsters Local 89 bosses in recent weeks
Louisville, KY (October 2, 2025) – Kenneth Moore, an employee of Builders FirstSource, and his coworkers have been freed from the hold of Teamsters Local 89 union bosses after Builders FirstSource ended its recognition of the Teamsters as the workers’ “representative.” The employer took this decision following a petition signed by a majority of the workers demanding that Builders FirstSource end the recognition of the Teamsters.
This development comes after Moore filed a petition last month at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a decertification election to remove the union from his workplace. Moore filed his petition at the NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Moore and his colleagues now join Chris Smith and other IMI – Irving Materials drivers who were successful in removing the Teamsters Local 89 in Scottsville, KY last month.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
Thanks to the 2019 Right to Work Foundation-won Johnson Controls NLRB decision, workers seeking to remove unwanted union bosses can also do so by submitting a majority-backed petition asking their employer to stop recognizing the union. If there is a dispute about the petition, the NLRB can administer a secret-ballot vote to assess the employees’ opposition to the union.
The workers’ petition to Builders FirstSource managers provided the company with proof that the majority of their employees do not support the Teamsters presence at their facility. In compliance with the Johnson Controls decision, the employer withdrew the Teamsters’ recognition.
Moore and his Builders FirstSource colleagues are amongst the most recent workers who have made strides to remove the Teamsters from their workplaces. According to the NLRB’s owns statistics, over the past 12 months over 20% of all decertification cases involved the Teamsters union.
Kentucky is one of the 26 states with a Right to Work law that protects workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can still impose monopoly bargaining control upon all workers within a workplace, even those who oppose the union.
“These two groups of Kentucky workers are the latest to come to the conclusion that the interests that Teamsters bosses are pursuing are at odds with the wishes of the rank and file,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation will continue to assist workers in their efforts to free themselves from the Teamsters or any other unwanted so-called ‘representation.’”
