Starbucks Employee Takes Case Challenging Federal Labor Board Structure as Unconstitutional to Court of Appeals
NY Starbucks workers are challenging NLRB that refuses to let them hold decertification votes to remove unwanted SBWU union
Washington D.C. (June 10, 2024) – Ariana Cortes and fellow plaintiff Logan Karam, two Starbucks employees from New York, are taking their groundbreaking lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 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, filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, argues that the NLRA violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the President. The appeal challenges the 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.
Multiple Starbucks Employees Are Suing the NLRB
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 workplace to remove SBWU union officials’ bargaining powers over workers at the store. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against Starbucks. 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’s 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.
Their lawsuit is not the only instance where Starbucks employees are challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB with free legal representation by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Reed Busler, an employee at the “Military Highway” Starbucks in Shavano Park, TX, brought a similar federal lawsuit against the NLRB in January, contending that the agency’s structure violates the separation of powers. Busler’s petition seeking a vote to remove the SBWU remains pending before the NLRB.
“Workers should never be trapped in union ranks they oppose, and they certainly shouldn’t be trapped on the whims of powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Despite the wishes of Big Labor and the NLRB who appear intent on squashing free speech and exercising unfettered power, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law of the land.”
Workers at Americold Logistics Win Campaign to Remove Teamsters Union from Workplace
Facing imminent workers’ vote in a decertification election, Teamsters Local 695 officials end forced “representation”
Darien, WI (June 6, 2024) – Employees at Americold Logistics in Darien, Wisconsin have won their freedom from Teamsters Local 695. Americold Logistics employee, Leo Garcia, originally filed a petition on behalf of a majority of workers at the facility seeking a vote to remove the Teamsters from their workplace. The decertification petition was filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Garcia filed the petition on May 16 with the NLRB, the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Garcia’s petition contained support from a majority of employees, which is more than is required to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
When it became clear that the election would be scheduled, Teamsters Local 695 disclaimed recognition on May 23, 2024, stating in an email to the employer that the union “unequivocally disclaims its interest in representing and collectively bargaining for the unit at Americold in Darien, Wisconsin…that this will end processing of the Petition.” On May 24, NLRB Region 18 acknowledged the union disclaiming recognition, meaning no election would be needed since the workers’ desired result – the removal of the union – had already been accomplished.
Because Wisconsin is a state with Right to Work protections, union officials can’t force employees like those at Americold Logistics to join the union or pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, non-Right to Work states like neighboring Illinois and Minnesota let union officials push for terms with employers that compel workers to pay dues as a condition of employment.
But even in Right to Work states, federal law grants union officials the power to impose their “representation” on all workers in a unit, even those who oppose the union or voted against its presence. However, workers can choose to exercise their right to decertify a union they disapprove of.
Until the union disclaimed representation, the workers’ were subjected to a one-size-fits-all union monopoly contract. Under the NLRB-created “contract bar” policy, workers cannot get a decertification vote for up to three years as long as a union monopoly bargaining agreement is in place. However, at Americold, the union contract was five years long and had already been in effect for over three years.
“Having already been subjected to Teamsters’ bosses so-called ‘representation’ and monopoly contract for years, these workers had more than enough information to decide they would be better off without the union, and apparently Teamsters officials knew it too since as soon as the vote became inevitable they left rather than contest it,” said Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we are pleased these employees have succeeded in their effort to remove an unwanted union, cases like this show why the NLRB’s non-statutory contract bar policy should be eliminated entirely.”
“Workers shouldn’t be trapped under a union contract they oppose for three years until they can avail themselves of their clear right under federal law to petition for a vote to end union affiliation they oppose,” added Mix.
DHS Security Guard’s Federal Lawsuit Forces IGUA Union Bosses to Stop Illegal Forced Union Dues Demands
After union officials did not provide legally required financial disclosures, guard wins reduction in mandatory union fees
Washington, DC (June 6, 2024) – Rosa Crawley, a security guard at the Department of Homeland Security’s Nebraska Avenue Complex, has triumphed after filing a federal lawsuit charging the International Guards Union of America (IGUA) with unlawfully demanding and seizing union dues from her paycheck. Crawley, who is employed by Master Security, forced the union to back off its illegal dues demands with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Crawley is not a member of the IGUA union, but is still subject to IGUA’s monopoly bargaining power over the security guards at the DHS Nebraska Avenue Complex. As part of the settlement, IGUA union bosses must reduce the compulsory fee that they seize from Crawley as a condition of keeping her job. Before she filed suit, union bosses demanded the equivalent of full membership dues from her.
In her federal lawsuit, which she filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Crawley sought to defend her rights under the 1988 Right to Work Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
While union officials can force private sector workers in non-Right to Work jurisdictions like the District of Columbia to pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs, the Beck decision prevents union bosses from forcing employees who have abstained from union membership to pay for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions, such as union bosses’ political activities. Full membership dues often contain charges for these unrelated items.
Beck also requires union bosses to furnish nonmembers who invoke their rights under the decision with an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials spend forced contributions.
Beck protections aren’t necessary in Right to Work states like neighboring Virginia, where union membership and all union financial support are fully voluntary.
IGUA Union Bosses Took Full Dues from Guard, Provided No Financial Disclosures
According to the suit, Crawley sent a letter to union officials resigning her union membership back in July 2023. Instead of immediately providing her with her Beck rights, union officials informed her that she would be charged a so-called “agency fee” which “is the same exact cost as what the union members pay.”
“So there will be absolutely no change in a financial sense,” the union’s reply letter stated.
Not satisfied with that explanation, Crawley in September 2023 formally invoked her Beck rights and asked union officials to reduce her dues payments in accordance with the decision. She also asked them to “provide [her] with an accounting, by an independent certified public accountant, that justifies Local 160’s calculation of its agency [forced] fee,” according to her lawsuit.
In an October 2023 reply to her Beck request, union officials used a confusing percentage averaging calculation to determine a fee amount that contradicted what they told Crawley when she resigned her membership. An independent audit of the union’s finances was nowhere to be found. Despite that, Crawley’s lawsuit reported that IGUA bosses continued to collect full union dues from her paycheck, and tried to impose extra steps that would need to be completed if she wanted to see the union’s financial info.
Workers Must Be On Guard for Illegal Union Uses of Worker Funds as Election Nears
After the filing of her lawsuit, Crawley expressed concern that her money was flowing toward union politics while IGUA bosses dragged their feet on honoring her Beck rights. “I shouldn’t have to pay for the IGUA union’s political activity just so I can continue to do my job,” commented Crawley. “Union officials have a legal obligation to stop charging me for politics and provide me with an accounting of how they are using my money, and so far they have done neither. This isn’t how they should treat the workers they say they ‘represent.’”
“We’re pleased that Ms. Crawley was able to terminate IGUA union officials’ outrageous seizure of full union dues from her paycheck,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, IGUA union officials’ inability to follow even the modest limitations that Beck places on their ability to impose mandatory dues on workers is ridiculous, and no worker should have to file a federal lawsuit to force union bosses into recognizing those rights.
“Workers’ right to prevent their money from going toward unwanted union activities, particularly politics, is especially important as union bosses try to push forward their agendas in advance of the 2024 election,” Mix added. “So workers should be vigilant of Beck violations, and remember they can contact Foundation attorneys for free legal aid in exercising their rights under that decision.”
Foundation: Under Janus, Union Boss “Release Time” Violates AZ Constitution
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
So-called “official time” scheme puts tax dollars toward union politics, says Foundation brief
Foundation attorneys argue before the Arizona Supreme Court (above) and Texas Supreme Court that Janus’ ban on forcing public workers to fund union activities shows why state constitutions forbid the same coercion applied to taxpayers.
PHOENIX, AZ – The National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision provided massive new protections for American public employees’ free association rights. In 2018, the Court recognized for the first time that forcing a public employee to pay union dues just to keep his or her job is a First Amendment violation.
The Janus decision, buoyed by National Right to Work Foundation follow-up enforcement actions, means today well over half a million public employees are free of mandatory union payments. Yet, the implications of Janus go even beyond the billions of dollars in previously mandatory dues payments that union bosses can no longer force workers to pay.
Underpinning the Janus ruling was Foundation attorneys’ core argument that all public sector union activities involve influencing the government, and are therefore inherently political speech. Because of this, Foundation staff attorneys now argue that applying Janus to the practice known as union “official time” or “release time” — where government union officials are paid tax money to conduct union business instead of government work — shows how the scheme violates multiple state constitutions.
Foundation Attorneys Bring Janus Expertise to Public Employee Lawsuit
In Arizona for example, Phoenix city employees Mark Gilmore and Mark Harder sued Phoenix mayor Kate Gallego in 2023 for engaging in a scheme that redirects taxpayer funds intended for public employees’ compensation toward political advocacy conducted by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Field II agents.
That case, Gilmore v. Gallego, is now before the Arizona Supreme Court, where Foundation attorneys filed a legal brief arguing that this so-called “release time” scheme violates Arizona’s Gift Clause, which forbids the government from paying out benefits to private parties that serve no public purpose.
The brief points out that, in Janus, the Supreme Court found that all government union bargaining is a form of lobbying designed to influence public policy for the benefit of the union. That means taxpayer subsidies of such union activities inherently violate the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause.
Phoenix’s Arrangement Pays Union Bosses to Lobby City
Phoenix’s “release time” scheme funnels taxpayer money into four full-time positions for union officials for the purpose of conducting union business, creates a bank of over 3,000 paid hours to be used by other union official employees for union purposes, and provides multiple other perks for union agents.
The policies unions lobby for “often are matters of substantial public concern, such as how much money the government expends on wages and benefits,” the Foundation’s brief reads. With its release time policy, the City is effectively paying individuals to lobby the City for a private advocacy organization and its members. The notion that this political advocacy serves a public purpose is untenable.”
Foundation attorneys are backing a similar lawsuit at the Texas Supreme Court. In Roger Borgelt v. City of Austin, Texas taxpayers are fighting a scheme that City of Austin officials are using to direct taxpayer dollars to Austin Firefighters Association union officials to conduct union business.
“Union bosses, who will often screech about ‘corporate welfare,’ are more than happy to arrange so-called ‘release time’ schemes in which taxpayer dollars are funneled toward supporting their massive lobbying efforts,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Janus made it plain and simple that compelling public sector employees to fund union activities constitutes forced political speech, and courts everywhere have an obligation to declare such compulsion illegal when foisted on taxpayers.”
Court of Appeals Hearing Arguments in Case Brought by Southwest Flight Attendant Who Was Illegally Fired for Criticizing Union Officials
District Court jury found and federal judge ruled: TWU union and Southwest violated multiple federal laws in firing Charlene Carter
New Orleans, LA (June 3, 2024) – Today, a three-judge panel of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing arguments in an appeal of a 2022 District Court decision that found that Southwest Airlines and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 556 illegally fired veteran flight attendant Charlene Carter in retaliation for Carter expressing her religious beliefs. Carter filed the lawsuit in 2017 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Her lawsuit against the TWU Local 556 union and Southwest challenged her termination by Southwest at the behest of TWU union officials as a violation of both the Railway Labor Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In 2022, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas awarded Carter $5.1 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages against TWU and Southwest for their respective roles in her unlawful termination.
In December 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered Southwest and the union to give Carter the maximum amount of compensatory and punitive damages permitted under federal law, plus back-pay, and other forms of relief that a jury originally awarded following Carter’s victory in a July 2022 trial. The Court also ordered that Carter be reinstated as a flight attendant at Southwest, writing that, “Southwest may ‘wanna get away’ from Carter because she might continue to express her beliefs, but the jury found that Southwest unlawfully terminated Carter for her protected expressions.”
Both the union and Southwest appealed their loss to the Court of Appeals, resulting in today’s arguments.
Flight Attendant Challenged Union Officials for Their Political Activism
Carter resigned from union membership in 2013 but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. The Railway Labor Act (RLA), the federal law that governs labor relations in the air and rail industries, permits the firing of employees for refusal to pay dues and preempts the protections that state Right to Work laws provide.
However, the RLA does protect employees’ rights to refrain from union membership, to speak out against the union and its leadership, and to advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.
In January 2017, Carter, a pro-life Christian, learned that then-TWU Local 556 President Audrey Stone and other Local 556 officials used union dues to attend a political rally in Washington, D.C., which was sponsored by activist groups she deeply opposed, including Planned Parenthood.
Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, sent private Facebook messages to Stone challenging the union’s support for political positions that were contrary to Carter’s beliefs, and expressing support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message emphasizing her commitment to a National Right to Work law after the union had sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.
After a meeting at which Southwest officials confronted Carter about her posts protesting union officials’ positions, the company fired Carter. In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit challenging the firing as a clear violation of her rights under two federal laws. She maintained that she lost her job because of her religious beliefs and criticized how union officials spent employees’ dues and fees on political activism.
Ultimately, after an eight-day July trial, a federal jury agreed with Carter and her Foundation staff attorneys. In email communications unearthed and introduced at trial by Foundation staff attorneys, TWU union militants advocated for “targeted assassinations” of union dissidents and mocked Carter for being unable to stop her money from going toward union-backed causes she opposed.
“Southwest and TWU union officials made Ms. Carter pay an unconscionable price just because she decided to speak out against the political activities of union officials in accordance with her deeply held religious beliefs,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Yet rather than comply with the jury’s decision and the District Court order, Southwest and TWU union bosses have decided to attempt to defend their ‘targeted assassinations’ against a vocal union critic.
“We are proud to defend Ms. Carter throughout this prolonged legal case to vindicate her rights,” added Mix. “Ultimately, her case should prompt nationwide scrutiny of union bosses’ coercive, government-granted powers over workers, especially in the airline and rail industries, because even after winning her reinstatement Charlene and her colleagues at Southwest and other airlines under union control are forced, as per the Railway Labor Act, to pay money to union officials just to keep their jobs.”
St. Louis KIPP Charter High School Educators’ Vote to Remove Unwanted AFT Union Bosses is Now Official
Federal Labor Board has now certified majority decertification vote to end AFT union officials’ “representation” at the school
St. Louis, MO (May 30, 2024) – Teachers, advisors, nurses, and other employees at KIPP St. Louis High School are officially free of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Local 420 union. Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified the results of the educators’ May 17 decertification vote in which a majority voted to end AFT union officials’ monopoly bargaining powers at the charter high school.
KIPP teacher Robin Johnston filed a petition to decertify the union on May 2 with NLRB Region 14 in St. Louis using free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The petition included the signatures of enough employees at the school to trigger the decertification election, resulting in the 19-17 vote against the AFT.
Because Missouri lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers (which includes employees at public charter schools like KIPP), union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that force workers to pay union dues or fees to get or keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials in a unionized workplace are empowered by federal law to impose a union contract on all employees in the work unit, including those who oppose the union. The successful decertification vote at KIPP St. Louis High School strips AFT union officials of both their forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers.
“AFT union officials never stood up for us and instead undermined our students’ success,” stated Johnston. “This was especially on display when union officials called a divisive strike to demand we abandon our classrooms and our students. I’m grateful for my colleagues who have decided to set our school on a better path without the union.”
The KIPP High School educators are not the only charter school employees who have removed unwanted unions with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. In 2023 in San Diego, CA, employees of Gompers Preparatory Academy prevailed in 2023 after a nearly four-year effort to vote out the San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union, an affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA).
“The decision by KIPP High School educators to remove the union from their school isn’t the first, nor will it be the last time charter school employees decide they are better off without teacher union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The fact is, if it were up to national teacher union bosses at the AFT and NEA, charter schools wouldn’t exist at all. So, it is hardly surprising that the educators at these schools, which provide an alternative to the public schools that are so often under union monopoly control, are choosing to kick out the union officials that oppose their very existence.”
NYC Electrical Workers Prevail in Year-Long Battle to Kick Out Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union and NLRB colluded to stop worker vote with unsupported allegations
Shloime Spira and his coworkers fought for months against IUJAT union allegations designed to stop him and his coworkers from ousting the union — only to see NLRB officials admit there was no evidence at all to support them.
NEW YORK, NY – National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bureaucrats frequently rush to advance flimsy union boss allegations (or “blocking charges”) as a justification for stopping or delaying employees’ efforts to remove an unwanted union. Yet as a recent Foundation decertification victory for a group of workers in New York City demonstrates, sometimes NLRB officials get especially creative when it comes to assisting union bosses’ efforts to trap workers in unionization they oppose.
Take the obstacles Shloime Spira and his colleagues, who work for Brooklyn, NY-based contracting company Horsepower Electric, faced in their effort to remove the International Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades (IUJAT) from their workplace. In December 2022, Spira submitted a petition asking the NLRB for a vote to decertify the union.
Labor Board Stalled Litigation to Keep Union in Power
The petition contained the requisite number of employee signatures to trigger such a vote. While the vote eventually took place in March 2023, NLRB bureaucrats sat for months on charges that IUJAT officials had levied against Horsepower Electric management, which delayed the ballot count and permitted IUJAT union officials to stay in power. Months later, following litigation at the NLRB and in federal court, it became apparent the NLRB lacked any evidence that could justify that delay.
Spira received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in defending his coworkers’ right under federal law to remove the union, and in suing the NLRB for the delays. Only at the end of 2023, after a year of delays and litigation, did IUJAT union officials finally back down and file a “disclaimer of interest” to end their control over the Horsepower Electric workers.
“While my colleagues and I are pleased with this result, it’s simply ridiculous that the NLRB sat on our ballots for so long over union charges that were apparently meritless,” Spira commented on his experience. “The NLRB is supposed to protect employees’ right to choose whether or not they want a union, not delay that process indefinitely to maintain union officials’ power.”
Federal Court Action ‘Shocks’ Labor Board into Ending Delays
Union “blocking charges” contain claims of employer misconduct that are usually unverified and often have no connection to employees’ desire to vote out the union. NLRB officials inexplicably refused to hold a hearing or otherwise advance the IUJAT’s “blocking charge” case for months, effectively using it as a pretense for delaying the vote count in Spira and his coworkers’ effort to remove the union.
The delayed ballot count meantIUJAT union bosses stayed in power, and also meant that forced union dues continued to flow out of Spira and his colleagues’ paychecks. Because New York lacks Right to Work protections that make union affiliation and financial support strictly voluntary, union bosses could force the Horsepower Electric workers to pay the union as a condition of keeping their jobs.
Eventually, the NLRB faced a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York, alleging due process violations because the delay in the “blocking charge” case was being used to justify the delay of the decertification ballot count. That case, initially bought by the employer, was soon joined by Spira who successfully intervened with the help of his Foundation attorneys. The District Court demanded an explanation from the NLRB about the delay.
NLRB Agents Found Zero Witnesses to Back Union ‘Blocking Charges’
Faced with the threat of a federal court order to proceed with the ballot count, NLRB officials finally moved forward on the “blocking charge” case. But just minutes before a December 2023 hearing the NLRB had scheduled in the case — which Spira’s Foundation-provided attorneys had traveled all the way to New York to attend — NLRB lawyers conceded they could produce no witnesses to testify in support of the union’s charges against Horsepower Electric.
The NLRB formally dropped its complaint against Horsepower Electric that very day, clearing the way for the ballots to be counted. To avoid facing a vote result that would have very likely been an embarrassing loss, IUJAT union officials announced a “disclaimer of interest” that would finally result in the union leaving. With the union conceding defeat, both the NLRB and federal cases surrounding the union decertification election wrapped up in January.
Workers’ Struggle Shows NLRB Needs Reform
“That union officials were so easily able to manipulate NLRB processes to block Mr. Spira and his colleagues from exercising their basic right to choose whether they want union representation shows that the agency is desperately in need of reform,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “It is outrageous that it took a federal court case to force the NLRB to admit that it had no evidence to back up union officials’ allegations that were being used to trap workers in a union they opposed.
“Worker free choice is supposed to be the center of the National Labor Relations Act. Foundation attorneys will continue to defend this principle, even as the Biden Labor Board continues to grant union officials sweeping new powers to coerce workers into union ranks,” Semmens added.
Sofitel Lafayette Square Employees Have Successfully Obtained Secret Ballot Vote to Remove Unite Here Union from Hotel
Hotel employees’ petition seeks to challenge union’s installation without a vote through abuse-prone “card check” process
Washington, DC (May 28, 2024) – After Unite Here union officials imposed union control over hotel employees without a secret ballot vote, workers at Sofitel Washington DC Lafayette Square have successfully obtained an election to remove the union. Sofitel employee Mwandu Chibwe submitted on May 15 a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a decertification election at her workplace. Ms. Chibwe is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Ms. Chibwe’s decertification petition contains well over the threshold of employee signatures needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. The agency has now scheduled a vote to take place at her workplace on June 6, 2024.
Unite Here Local 25 union officials gained power in Ms. Chibwe’s workplace in March through a process called “card check,” which bypasses workers’ right to have an NLRB-administered secret ballot election and instead grants monopoly bargaining power to union officials on the basis of union-solicited “authorization cards.” During a card check drive, union officials can confront workers directly and demand they sign cards, a process that is often rife with threats and misinformation from union officials. Even AFL-CIO organizing manuals admit that workers often sign authorization cards during a card check drive to “get the union off my back.”
Because the District of Columbia lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Unite Here union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that require employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of their monopoly bargaining and forced-dues powers.
Biden Administration Attacking Reforms That Give Workers Opportunity to Vote Out Unions
“I believe that the majority of my fellow employees actually oppose this union and don’t want union bosses trying to speak for them,” Ms. Chibwe commented. “While I wish Unite Here had just respected our right to vote from the beginning, I’m glad we’re getting a chance to vote now.”
Ms. Chibwe and her colleagues were able to obtain an election to remove the union under the auspices of the Election Protection Rule (EPR), a set of Foundation-backed reforms that safeguards workers’ right to have secret ballot votes in the face of various coercive union tactics. The EPR gives workers 45 days after the conclusion of a card check campaign to challenge the union’s claims of majority support by filing petitions for union decertification elections. This process was pioneered by Foundation staff attorneys in the 2007 Dana Corp. NLRB decision; though the Obama NLRB overturned that decision, “Dana elections” were reestablished with the EPR.
The EPR also limits union officials’ ability to delay or stop worker-requested union decertification votes by filing so-called “blocking charges” alleging employer misconduct.
The NLRB adopted the EPR in 2020. However, the Biden NLRB is in the process of rulemaking to eliminate the EPR, as part of its broader agenda to give union bosses more tools to corral workers into unions despite polling showing most American workers are “not interested at all” in joining a union.
“Lafayette Square Sofitel employees successfully petitioned for a vote on whether to remove Unite Here officials, and they did so just steps away from the residence of the man whose administration is trying to strip them of that right – Joe Biden,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re proud that Ms. Chibwe and her colleagues will get their requested union decertification vote. But it’s outrageous that the Biden NLRB will soon condemn workers to a future where they can be forced into union-controlled ranks with little or no opportunity to vote in secret or otherwise challenge union bosses’ power grabs, and then become subject to forced-dues obligations and other union demands.”
CA Fire Safety Inspector Wins Reinstatement, Back Pay After Union-Instigated Firing
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
IUOE tried to compel union membership, settlement now mandates $9,000+ payout
Beaming: Fire safety inspector Alexandra Le can now return to her vital work knowing her rights are fully vindicated. Her settlement goes beyond reinstatement and provides refunds of illegal dues.
PLEASANTON, CA – Even in states like California that lack Right to Work protections, U.S. Supreme Court precedents forbid union bosses from compelling workers to become full union members. Thanks to the National Right to Work Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, workers in non-Right to Work states who wish to abstain from formal union membership also can’t be required to pay union dues for expenses beyond what the union claims goes toward its bargaining costs.
Union bosses have a legal obligation to inform workers of these rights. But that wasn’t the experience of Pleasanton, CA, fire safety inspector Alexandra Le, whom International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) officials got fired over her refusal to formally join the union in late September 2023. On top of that, union chiefs also deducted full union dues from her paycheck without her permission in violation of Beck — meaning she was likely paying for union political activities against her will.
IUOE Officials Backed Off Illegal Demands Following Foundation Involvement
Le sought out free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, who filed unfair labor practice charges for Le at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 32 in Oakland, CA. “It’s outrageous that IUOE union officials believe they can get me fired simply because I don’t agree with their organization and don’t want to support or affiliate with them,” Le said at the time. “IUOE union officials have been far more concerned with consolidating power in the workplace and collecting dues than caring about me and my coworkers, and I hope the NLRB will hold them responsible for their illegal actions.”
Rather than defend their blatantly illegal actions against Foundation staff attorneys, IUOE union officials backed down in January and settled the case. Now, as per the settlement, Le’s employer (Construction Testing Services) must reinstate Le, and both the union and company must jointly pay out to her over $9,000 in back wages and benefits.
Employee Highlights Struggle Against Forced Dues to U.S. House of Representatives
As Le’s case was ongoing, Le sought to expose the injustices that forced-dues and forced-membership demands impose on workers. Le submitted written testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Education and the Workforce for a November hearing on a federal law which aims to expand Right to Work protections and make union dues and membership strictly voluntary nationwide.
In her testimony, she described the impact the illegal union-instigated firing had on her life: “My absence significantly set me back from a financial standpoint and has led to the stressful process of having to fight for my rights via the legal process . . . [a]nd while the union fees cause a notable decrease in my hard-earned take-home pay, the time lost and stress incurred by asserting rights that I had to discover independently has been equally detrimental.
“Simply put, nobody should be forced to join or pay any dues or fees to a union that they do not want to join,” Le concluded.
Despite Legal Victory, CA Workers Need Right to Work
Foundation attorneys’ favorable settlement for Le goes far beyond requiring just reinstatement and back pay from the company and union. The settlement also dictates that the company will only deduct the reduced Beck amount of union dues from Le’s paycheck going forward. The union will also waive fees totaling roughly $1,700 that its officials tried to force Le to pay from the time her case began back to the date of her hiring.
“Ms. Le’s battle to protect her freedom of association from IUOE union officials is courageous, but no worker should ever have to fight this hard to protect their livelihood from dues-hungry union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “It’s also unfortunate the Golden State’s lack of Right to Work permits the same IUOE bosses who instigated her illegal firing to collect mandatory union fees from her.
“Workers themselves — not union bosses — should be in charge of determining whether a union is worthy of receiving their hard-earned cash,” Messenger added.
Worker Advocate Testifies Before Congress on Need to Defend Employees Against Increasingly Coercive Union Tactics
Testimony: Biden Labor Board undermining rights of workers opposed to union affiliation, censoring speech critical of unions
Washington, DC (May 22, 2024) – This morning, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William L. Messenger is testifying before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions. The Subcommittee, which is chaired by Rep. Bob Good (R-VA), is holding a hearing titled “Exposing Union Tactics to Undermine Free and Fair Elections”.
As a National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney and now as Foundation Legal Director, Messenger has represented both public and private employees in numerous high-profile cases challenging coercive unionism. He was the lead counsel in multiple Supreme Court cases, including the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, where he successfully argued that the First Amendment protects public employees against being compelled to financially support union activities.
Building on his over two decades of experience litigating on behalf of workers, including in cases before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Messenger will testify on some of the ways federal labor law has been twisted, especially by Biden appointees to the NLRB, to undermine the rights of employees opposed to union affiliation in order to promote union bosses’ coercive power.
In his testimony, Messenger documents how the NLRB, including through its radical 2023 Cemex decision, is promoting unreliable and abuse-prone “card check” organizing, undermining the protections workers enjoy by voting on unionization in the privacy of a secret ballot election, and infringing on the First Amendment by censoring speech critical of union officials:
“To suppress speech unfavorable to unions, the Biden NLRB operates the most repressive regime of government censorship in the nation. Even though Congress sought to foster free speech and debate about unionization with NLRA Section 8(c)—which provides that speech cannot be evidence of an unfair labor practice “if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit”—the Biden NLRB flouts that limitation by declaring employer utterances unfavorable to unions, or even just questions about unions, to carry unspoken and implicit threats or promises of benefit…
“Cemex itself is designed to muffle speech critical of unionization. The Biden NLRB’s rationale for nullifying secret ballot elections if an employer engages in speech or conduct NLRB officials consider wrongful, and installing the union as the employees’ representative without an election, is to dissuade employers from engaging in such speech or conduct. This rationale is perverse—the agency plans to deprive employees of their right to vote if their employer says or does something NLRB officials disapprove of. This is like a kidnapper threatening to harm innocent hostages if his victim does not comply with his extortionate demands.”
Testifying alongside Messenger will be Stephen Delie of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michael Alcorn, a Trader Joe’s employee who saw firsthand the ways unions and their allies at the NLRB undermine the rights of workers who may be skeptical of unionization, and Lynn Rhinehart of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). EPI is a union-funded front group whose Board of Directors includes many of the most powerful union bosses in the country.
“This hearing shines a badly-needed spotlight on the many ways the Biden NLRB has abandoned its Congressional mandate to be a neutral enforcer of the law, and instead is acting as a taxpayer-funded organizing arm for Big Labor,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Through its oversight and legislative powers Congress has an important role to play in stopping the Labor Board from continuing to undermine the freedoms of the vast majority of American workers who want nothing to do with union affiliation.”
