Richmond-Area Kroger Grocery Employees File Federal Petition to Challenge ‘Card Check’ Unionization with Secret-Ballot Vote
UFCW bosses imposed through abuse-prone ‘card check’; have moved to ‘merge’ store with unionized locations to block efforts to remove union
Chester, VA (November 6, 2026) – Employees at a Richmond-area Kroger grocery store have filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a “decertification” election to remove unwanted United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 union bosses from their workplace. The workers’ efforts are spearheaded by Kimberly Stratton, who filed the petition 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, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions.
Stratton’s petition, seeking a secret-ballot election among the 187 grocery employees at Kroger’s 10800 Iron Bridge Road location in Chester, was initiated by the employees after UFCW “representation” was imposed on the workers via the abuse-prone “card check” process. Card check allows union bosses to bypass the secret-ballot election process, which has long been recognized as the most secure and reliable way to determine if a majority of employees actually support unionization.
During card check drives, groups of union organizers can repeatedly pressure workers face-to-face to sign authorization cards, and there are many documented cases of organizers using intimidation tactics, lies, and sometimes even threats of violence to acquire cards. Each signed card then counts as a “vote” to impose the union on all employees.
The employees’ decertification election request is especially important because union officials are currently demanding the bargaining unit be “merged” into a massive bargaining unit of thousands of employees at more than 20 stores across Virginia. Once merged, under the NLRB’s non-statutory “merger doctrine,” it would become virtually impossible for employees to remove the union, since independent workers would then need to collect signatures from employees they have never met at locations spread across the state just to get the NLRB to consider, let alone schedule, an election.
Virginia is one of 26 states with a Right to Work law, which safeguards workers by making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, federal law grants union officials the power to impose their exclusive “representation” on every employee in a bargaining unit, including those who never voted for, joined, or supported the union.
In June, Foundation staff attorneys submitted a formal rulemaking petition to the NLRB asking the new Board to initiate rulemaking to expand worker free choice and end various non-statutory policies that disenfranchise employees seeking to remove unwanted unions. The petition calls on the Board to eliminate the “merger doctrine” and the “card check bar” created by the Biden-era NLRB to restrict workers’ decertification rights after a union is imposed through card check.
“Time and again employees like Ms. Stratton and her colleagues are forced, against their will, into union ranks by union bosses relying on biased NLRB policies designed to keep unions in power no matter the wishes of rank-and-file employees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This situation shows how union bosses use these policies, like the totally created, non-statutory ‘merger doctrine,’ to trap workers in union ranks they oppose in perpetuity.”
“Here UFCW bosses are attempting to use the time afforded by the ‘card check bar’ to impose a contract on these employees that would not only block any decertification attempt for up to three years but also merge them into a virtually decertification-proof bargaining unit of thousands of employees at numerous locations,” added Mix. “Cases like this show why the new Board majority must take immediate action to defend employees’ statutory right to vote out unions they oppose.”
Illinois Cannabis Workers Win Decertification Election to Oust UFCW Union Bosses
Zen Leaf Dispensary employees overwhelmingly vote to remove union
Highland Park, IL (November 5, 2026) – Employees of Zen Leaf Dispensary overwhelmingly voted United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 881 union bosses out of power at their workplace. The “decertification” effort, led by Zen Leaf employee Elias Driscoll, is the latest in a growing movement of cannabis industry workers seeking to remove unwanted unions.
Driscoll filed the petition for his coworkers with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last month 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, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions.
Because Illinois lacks Right to Work protections, union officials are allowed to demand that workers pay union dues or fees just to stay employed. Additionally, union officials in a unionized workplace enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges, a government-granted power which allows them to contract and speak for every worker in the work unit — including those employees who oppose their presence. In Right to Work states, by contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary, and the choice of each individual worker.
On October 26, Zen Leaf employees voted 10-1 to remove UFCW Local 881 union bosses from their workplace. On November 3, the NLRB officially certified the election result, formally ending UFCW’s forced union dues and bargaining powers over the employees.
Big Labor and Union-Label Lawmakers Target Cannabis Industry Workers
The cannabis industry has long been the target of both union bosses and union-label state legislators, who have sought to use state laws to help sweep cannabis workers into forced-dues union ranks. In Illinois for example, when granting licenses to lawfully operate, state officials give preferential treatment to cannabis dispensaries who have so-called “labor peace agreements” — agreements where employers pledge to assist in forcing a union on employees. Other states have passed laws to make such employer assistance mandatory in order to get a business license, even though such laws violate longstanding federal labor law.
As a result, workers in the cannabis industry from around the country have been seeking to free themselves from union officials’ control. With legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, cannabis employees in New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Missouri have all won decertification drives to free themselves from unwanted union control.
“Zen Leaf employees have joined the groundswell of workers nationwide who are exercising their right to declare independence from union bosses who don’t represent their interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This again shows the pressing need for the NLRB to step in and take action against state laws which, in violation of federal labor law, unlawfully mandate that businesses hand over their workers to forced-dues union ranks.”
Electrical Workers Successfully Defeat Illegal IBEW Union Strike Fines with National Right to Work Legal Aid
Following successful worker effort to remove the union from their workplace, Brent Electric employees force IBEW to rescind unlawful strike fines
Pryor, OK (November 2, 2026) – An Oklahoma electrical worker has prevailed in a legal fight against retaliatory strike fines issued by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 584 officials. Joey Blankenship-Scott, of the Brent Electric Company, Inc., won the victory with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
When IBEW Local 584 union bosses ordered a strike in June 2024, Blankenship-Scott and two coworkers exercised their legal right to resign from the union and return to work. Even though the workers resigned before returning to work and were therefore no longer legally subject to internal union “discipline,” IBEW Local 584 officials informed the workers that not only would they refuse to honor the workers’ valid resignations, they also intended to impose “strike fines” of up to $12,000 each, ostensibly for continuing to work in defiance of the union strike demand.
IBEW Local 584 officials’ refusal to recognize the employees’ valid resignations has no basis in law, and inflicting outrageous fines on employees who are not voluntary union members violates federal law. So with the assistance of Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Blankenship-Scott filed unfair labor practice charges against IBEW Local 584 with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 14.
Brent Electric workers who opposed the union collected signatures for a decertification election to formally end IBEW officials’ so-called representation at their workplace. After the decertification petition was filed in November 2024, IBEW filed “blocking charges” seeking to block the vote with unproven allegations against the workers’ employer.
Union Bosses’ Attempt to Block Vote Fails, Forced to Rescind Illegal Strike Fines
By April, with the NLRB finally investigating that charge, the union withdrew it, likely to avoid the NLRB formally determining that the charge was meritless. At that point, the election was scheduled for May 14, 2025. However, two days before the vote, the IBEW effectively conceded that it would lose the vote by sending a letter disclaiming interest in maintaining monopoly power over the Brent Electric workers.
While this disclaimer freed the employees of an unwanted union, the NLRB continued to investigate the unfair labor practice charges against IBEW for the illegal strike fines. Rather than face a formal prosecution and a potential trial by the Board for violating federal law by issuing the unlawful strike fines against employees who had resigned from the union, IBEW Local 584 union bosses recently decided to back down and settle the case.
Under the settlement, IBEW union bosses will rescind all fines against the three employees and refrain from interfering with the workers’ right to resign their union membership. The union is also required to notify other workers, including through the union’s intranet, of the workers unrestricted legal right to resign their union membership, and to be free from union attempts to impose internal union fines on them post-resignation.
This case is just the latest in a long history of union officials attempting to retaliate against employees who resign their union membership with massive fines. For example, in June 2025, Evansville, Indiana, electrician Brian Head won a legal battle against another IBEW affiliate (Local 16) after union officials attempted to fine him $1.29 million because he resigned from the union to start a non-union electrical business, and rebuffed union boss demands that he hand his new business over to union control.
“Once again, union bosses have been caught red-handed trying to illegally extort rank-and-file workers who exercised their right to break free of the union and work despite the IBEW’s strike demands,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No one should have to choose between feeding their family and toeing the union line, and we’re proud to assist these workers in standing up to union bullies.
“It shouldn’t take the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys just to force thuggish union officials to abide by federal law, but we will continue to be a resource for all workers wanting to exercise their freedom to work,” added Mix.
Starbucks Worker Asks Federal Labor Board Again to Stop Blocking Vote to Remove Unwanted Union
Filing highlights underhanded tactics union officials use under Biden-era NLRB rules
San Diego, CA (October 28, 2026) – Encinitas Starbucks employee Joe Emmenegger has filed a second request to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., asking the Board to stop blocking the decertification election he and his coworkers requested to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from their workplace. Emmenegger, who is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, filed the initial petition requesting the vote in February.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Emmenegger’s February petition contained the signatures of more than 60% of the baristas at his Encinitas Starbucks location simply asking for a vote to determine whether the union stays or goes.
Despite this, Region 21 NLRB officials blocked the vote at the request of SBWU union officials citing unproven union “blocking charges.” This prompted Emmenegger’s initial Request for Review with the Board in March, which argued the Board’s current blocking charge policy is inconsistent with federal law and wrongly ignores the statutory rights of employees to vote to end unwanted union “representation.”
Emmenegger’s second request to the full Board comes after SBWU withdrew their alleged complaints being used as grounds for blocking the vote, likely anticipating the NLRB was going to dismiss the union’s claims for lack of merit. But SBWU then filed a new charge and once again requested to block the election, which Region 21 granted on September 24.
Emmenegger’s new filing argues that the Board should at the very least adopt NLRB Member Scott Mayer’s concurrence in Everon, LLC, urging the Board “at a minimum” to “require that blocking letters identify the specific allegations on which the blocking determination is based.” The request states, “Fairness and due process require the Region to show its work and explain why the election should be blocked.”
Additionally, the request points to the position of former Chairman Marvin Kaplan, who argued that “excessive delay” in administering elections fails to give proper consideration for the Board’s mandate to defend employee freedom of choice. The new request asks the Board to find that the situation constitutes such an “excessive delay” that warrants moving ahead with the vote.
Starbucks Baristas Nationwide Seek Freedom From SBWU Officials, Challenge Biased NLRB Policy
The Encinitas Starbucks employees are hardly alone in wanting SBWU out of their store. Foundation staff attorneys have represented Starbucks baristas in over a dozen stores seeking votes to remove the union. Emmenegger even took to the pages of USA Today to describe the frustration he had with the union and its tactics to prevent him and his coworkers from holding the decertification vote:
“I know my experience is not unique. Countless workers across the country end up stuck in unions they want no part of. My store, like many others, serves as proof that getting rid of a union is not easy, regardless of how detrimental it may be. Before my experience with Workers United, I thought of unions as a net positive. I still believe they could be, in some other industries or environments. However, when it comes to my workplace and my profession, I know without a doubt this union did not have my best interests at heart.”
Emmenegger’s Request for Review comes days after Foundation staff attorneys requested NLRB officials stop blocking a vote requested over three years ago by Oklahoma City-area Starbucks employees. Foundation staff attorneys have also requested formal NLRB rulemaking to repeal the current blocking charge rule and other non-statutory policies that prevent employees from exercising their right under the NLRA to vote out unwanted unions.
“SBWU union bosses have been allowed to use and abuse the blocking charge system for too long, as they have thwarted dozens of attempts by Starbucks workers to vote on removing the union from individual stores,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The new Trump Board is now in a position to reestablish worker free choice as the agency’s goal and undo decades of bureaucratic harm enabled by their predecessors.
“Ultimately, formal rulemaking will be needed, but until then the new Board majority could start by recognizing that protracted delays, often caused by union legal tactics, become a ‘special situation’ that requires the Board to order decertification votes to move forward,” added Mix.
Electrician Prevails in Case Against IBEW Local 2100 Bosses Blocking Him From Cutting Off Union Dues
Union officials refused to provide worker a copy of his dues checkoff card, forced employee to drive nearly 50 miles for physical access
Louisville, KY (October 23, 2026) – Brandyn Marion, an electrician at Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities Company (KU), has prevailed in his dispute with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 2100, after union bosses backed down and settled Marion’s case against them.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) began investigating when Marion filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge against Local 2100 officials for violating his rights by refusing to provide him with the information he needed to revoke his dues checkoff authorization. Marion’s charge was filed 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), a task that includes adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual workers. Marion was seeking to cut off all union dues payments, a right guaranteed under Kentucky’s popular Right to Work law, which is designed to ensure union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
According to the charge, Marion asked IBEW Local 2100 officials to email him a copy of his union dues checkoff authorization card. Union officials denied his request, insisting instead that employees physically appear at the union hall with proper identification to receive a copy of their own authorization. To obtain the document, Marion was forced to drive 24 miles each way to Local 2100’s union hall.
Dues checkoff authorizations frequently contain restrictive language limiting when workers can revoke them, often to brief “window periods” that occur only once a year. Without a copy of his authorization, a worker has no way of knowing when or how he can stop union dues from being deducted from his paycheck.
The NLRB Regional Director initially dismissed Marion’s charge. Foundation staff attorneys then appealed that decision to the NLRB General Counsel, who supported the appeal, having examined the facts of the case and found that there was sufficient evidence to allege Local 2100 violated Marion’s rights under the NLRA. The case was sent back to the Region for further processing consistent with the General Counsel’s determination supporting Marion’s appeal.
Rather than face prosecution for violating Marion’s right to revoke his authorization card, IBEW Local 2100 bosses moved to settle.
The settlement requires IBEW Local 2100 to post and mail a notice informing LG&E and KU employees of their legal rights and that union officials “WILL NOT:” refuse to provide information necessary for employees to revoke their dues checkoff authorizations; require them to appear in person at the union hall to receive copies of their dues checkoff authorizations; or interfere with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA.
Kentucky is one of 26 states with a Right to Work law, which makes it illegal for union bosses to force employees to pay union dues or else be fired. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials often rely on restrictive dues checkoff authorizations to keep money flowing from workers who no longer wish to support the union.
“We are pleased Mr. Marion stood up to IBEW union bosses and that his Foundation-assisted case has dismantled the obstacle course union officials built to obstruct his and his coworkers’ right to cut off union dues,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “His ordeal shows why workers, even in Right to Work states like Kentucky, need stronger protections against union boss schemes to trap them into dues payments that they would not pay if the choice was truly voluntary.”
Starbucks Employee Files Demand to Unblock Long-Delayed Vote to Remove Union
Filing: “Three-year delay” in adjudicating NLRB charge used as basis for blocking employee vote, warrants election being finally scheduled
Oklahoma City, OK (October 21, 2026) – Starbucks employee Amy Smith has filed a second request asking National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 14 to reinstate her decertification petition to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from her Nichols Hills Starbucks store. She originally filed for decertification over three years ago. Smith is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The request for reinstatement comes after Region 14 began treating Smith’s case as closed, even though the agency itself ruled the petition remained subject to reinstatement. Smith’s request says the Region did so “erroneously,” and further argues that the NLRB’s years-long failure to resolve the charges blocking her election is precisely the kind of “unusual and special situation” that requires the agency to let workers vote.
Three-Year NLRB Delay Instigated by SBWU Union Bosses Must End
Smith’s petition was backed by enough of her coworkers’ signatures at the Nichols Hills store to meet the necessary threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote. At union officials’ urging, the NLRB dismissed the petition “subject to reinstatement” pending resolution of an alleged unfair labor practice case against Starbucks.
After that case was resolved through a non-Board settlement, Smith asked the Region to reinstate her petition, only to have the Regional Director point to a different set of charges filed by the union against Starbucks to keep the vote on hold. Smith appealed to the full Board in Washington, D.C. In April 2026, the Board denied her request for review, relying on its controversial Biden-era 2022 Rieth-Riley decision, which granted Regional Directors wide discretion to dismiss decertification petitions subject to reinstatement, while the NLRB pursues complaints based on union allegations.
“In light of this return of… the over three years that have passed since she filed her petition, Petitioner yet again requests reinstatement of the petition,” the filing states. It argues that “[t]he Board’s inexcusable delay in litigating the unfair labor practice charges blocking this election” is itself grounds to hold the vote.
Board Member Signals Blocking Policy Deserves Scrutiny by New NLRB Majority
When the Board denied Smith’s appeal in April, NLRB Member Scott Mayer joined the decision for institutional reasons but wrote separately that Rieth-Riley may not strike the proper balance between “the statutory goal of promoting labor relations stability” and the Board’s duty to give effect to employees’ wishes about representation.
At the time, with Biden-holdover Member David Prouty holding one of three filled seats on the Board, the NLRB lacked the three votes traditionally needed to overturn past precedents. However, in August a fourth member joined the Board.
Mayer has continued to press the issue. In other recent Board orders denying review of blocked petitions, he emphasized that Regional Directors must, at a minimum, give more detail about why a petition is being blocked so the Board can properly evaluate those decisions, and that blocking determinations should be reassessed as cases drag on.
“For years, the one-two punch of Rieth-Riley and the Biden Board’s blocking charge rule has trampled the statutory rights of workers seeking to remove unions they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Amy Smith and her coworkers asked for a vote more than three years ago, and they’re still waiting – not because of anything they did, but because union officials and NLRB bureaucrats keep finding new reasons to disenfranchise them.
“Every American has the right to decide whether a union in their workplace is right for them. If President Trump’s new NLRB majority is serious about putting American workers first, reversing these union-label, Biden-era precedents would be an excellent place to start,” Mix added.
Minneapolis Worker Files Federal Charges Against Union for Unlawful Dues Demands, ‘Pay Up or Be Fired’ Threats
OPEIU union bosses failed to follow federal law and Beck Supreme Court precedent, ignored and obstructed employee for exercising his rights
Minneapolis, MN (October 14, 2026) – William Kocke, an employee of CenterPoint Energy, has filed unfair labor practice charges against Office and Professional Employees International (OPEIU) Local 12. The charges state that OPEIU union officials ignored and obstructed Kocke when he attempted to exercise his right to refrain from union membership and his right to pay less than full union dues under the National Right to Work Foundation-won Communication Workers v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Kocke filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
In April 2026, Kocke reached out to union officials inquiring about how to opt out of union membership. After having received no response for almost a month, he sent a registered letter to union President Devin Hogan informing him of his intentions to be a Beck objector. Instead of honoring his request and sending him the required financial disclosures, Hogan insisted that Kocke sign a membership form without Beck language. When Kocke refused, Hogan told him he would need to fill out a so-called “Beck objector form,” but claimed that form was not yet ready.
Under the Foundation-won Beck decision, union officials are prohibited from requiring workers who opt out of union membership to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s monopoly bargaining functions. Such expenses include members-only activities and union officials’ spending on politics and lobbying.
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can enforce contracts that require workers to pay money to the union or be fired. However, this “pay-up-or-be-fired” power is limited by Beck.
After nearly a month of no response, Hogan sent Kocke an incorrect link to a union membership form instead of the “Beck objector form,” and subsequently sent him an undetailed, inadequate financial report claiming that nearly 90 percent of his union dues were required to keep his job.
On August 13th, Kocke again attempted to assert his Beck rights, requesting only to pay for monopoly bargaining activities, and again asked for a complete financial report along with a copy of his union membership and dues check-off authorization. Although union officials received his request, they refused to respond and deducted the full dues amount out of his paycheck.
“Time after time, union officials ignore their legal obligations and abuse the rights of hardworking people just to fill their coffers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Kocke’s experience is not an isolated case, but is one Foundation staff attorneys see repeated across the country.
“Cases like this show why all workers need Right to Work protections, so all union financial support is fully voluntary and every employee gets to decide for themselves whether union officials deserve a portion of their hard-earned paycheck,” added Mix.
NY Home Care Provider Files Unfair Labor Practice Charges & Motion to Intervene Challenging SEIU’s Push to Unionize 190,000 Providers
Motion: NY provider must be allowed to challenge claim that in-home personal care providers selected by Medicaid recipients can be unionized by SEIU
Buffalo, NY (October 14, 2026) – Elena Rizzo, a home care provider who cares for her fiancé under New York’s Medicaid-funded Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP), has just filed unfair labor practice charges and a motion to intervene with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Both actions are related to a case filed by 1199 Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers East (SEIU), seeking to unionize an estimated 190,000 personal assistants who care for people with disabilities, often family members, through CDPAP.
Rizzo, who would be subjected to unwanted unionization under an SEIU petition filed with NLRB Region 3 in Buffalo on September 22, filed the charges and motion to intervene with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The federal unfair labor practice charges were filed against SEIU and Public Partnerships, LLC (PPL), which SEIU erroneously claims in its petition is the employer of Rizzo and nearly 200,000 other providers in the program. The charges allege that PPL gave unlawful assistance to SEIU with soliciting and obtaining support for its unionization petition and that SEIU requested and accepted that assistance. According to news reports, SEIU has “been working closely with the PPL for years” and “worked to ensure the success of the company’s takeover of the home care program.”
Rizzo’s Foundation staff attorneys also filed a Motion to Intervene in the SEIU’s unionization petition, asking NLRB Region 3 to allow her to participate in the case in order to raise multiple issues regarding the legality of SEIU officials’ effort to impose unionization on her and every other personal assistant providing care through the Medicaid-funded CDPAP.
Among other issues, the motion argues she must be allowed to challenge SEIU’s claims that PPL is the employer of providers like Rizzo. The motion notes that home care providers are actually employed by the hundreds of thousands of individual CDPAP participants who hire them to work in their homes, and that PPL merely assists these participants with payroll processing, record keeping, and regulatory compliance issues.
The motion notes intervention is especially necessary because SEIU and PPL are actually working together, pursuant to an organizing agreement under which PPL assists SEIU in obtaining monopoly union “representation” over all personal assistants, after SEIU helped make PPL the sole fiscal intermediary of all CDPAP participants. With SEIU and PPL acting in tandem against the interests of care providers, it is vital that the NLRB allow the purported “employees” in the case to fully participate and defend their legal rights.
Controversial NY Medicaid Home Care Contract Tied to Secret SEIU Deal, Federal Fraud Lawsuit
Rizzo’s unfair labor practice charges and motion to intervene follow a motion filed last month by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asking the NLRB to pause the case to allow for amicus briefs and to consult with the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services.
That motion similarly pointed out that the Region won’t get complete briefing from the current parties on the important issues the case implicates, because “SEIU and PPL are not adverse to one another” due to their organizing agreement. The motion also noted consultation with federal agencies is needed because the U.S. Department of Justice has a pending lawsuit alleging PPL committed fraud to win its contract as the program’s sole fiscal intermediary in New York, and because certifying a union over every provider in a state Medicaid program could conflict with federal Medicaid law.
New York is one of 24 states that lack a Right to Work law to ensure union affiliation and financial support are strictly voluntary. As a result, if SEIU officials’ NLRB petition is successful, all CDPAP home care providers in New York State would be expelled from the program unless they hand over a portion of the money they receive from Medicaid to SEIU officials.
“We fully support Ms. Rizzo and other personal care providers as they move to challenge the SEIU’s outrageous power grab designed to siphon union dues from Medicaid funds that are supposed to be used to provide care for those in need,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Whether it’s the allegations of fraud in how PPL obtained its state-granted monopoly, unlawful assistance by PPL to support SEIU’s organizing campaign, or ludicrous claims that a payroll processor ‘employs’ hundreds of thousands of individuals required to use it to obtain payments from Medicaid — every aspect of this scheme is rotten.
“When the union and the company it claims is the ‘employer’ are working hand in glove, the NLRB must allow caregivers like Elena Rizzo to participate in the case to defend their own rights,” added Mix. “Many of these providers are caring for their own parents, children, or spouses, and they should never be forced to pay union officials for the privilege of doing so.”
Workers File Brief in Appeals Court Challenge to Biden-Era Labor Board Decision Preventing Halt of Union Dues Deductions
National Right to Work Foundation-backed employees are also challenging similar restriction on workers’ right to stop dues in ongoing NLRB cases
Washington, DC (October 13, 2026) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, two employees have filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case (Kroger Texas L.P. v. NLRB) challenging a Biden-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling blocking employers from ceasing union dues deductions after a contract expires.
The two workers, Brittani Butler and Cypress Meadowlark, are already challenging a separate but related NLRB precedent that restricts employees from stopping dues deductions when no union contract is in effect. Both had attempted to stop union dues deductions only to have those requests ignored by union officials, despite neither being subject to a union monopoly bargaining agreement.
Their brief urges the Court of Appeals overturn a 2022 NLRB decision in a case known as Valley Hospital II. The underlying May NLRB decision at issue in Kroger Texas L.P. v. NLRB, the Board applied Valley Hospital II to find that Kroger unlawfully stopped deducting union dues after contracts with the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 455 had expired.
Prior to Valley Hospital II, under a standard first decided in a 1962 Board Decision, employers could lawfully stop dues deductions after the expiration of a union contract. That decision said that dues collections, like union no-strike clauses, arbitration clauses, and compulsory unionism clauses, are exceptions to the general rule that the status quo must be continued after the expiration of a union contract.
In 2012, an Obama NLRB with two unconstitutionally appointed Board members overturned 50 years of precedent to require employers to deduct union dues even during a contract hiatus. Another lawfully appointed Obama NLRB reinstated the same rule in 2015. During the first Trump administration, the NLRB went back to the longstanding rule in Valley Hospital I, only to have the radical Biden Board reverse it again in Valley Hospital II.
Brief: The NLRB Disregards Federal Statue; Reverses Positions Regarding Dues Deductions
The brief filed by Foundation staff attorneys argues that Valley Hospital II and the subsequent Kroger decision wrongly disregarded the clear meaning of a statue that addresses payroll deduction of union dues, Section 302(c)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).
First, the brief notes that under Section 302(c)(4) of the LMRA, Congress stated that union dues deduction assignments must be revocable “beyond the termination date of the applicable collective agreement.” This demonstrates that Congress thought dues deduction assignments are “rooted in contract,” and therefore do not persist beyond the expiration of a monopoly bargaining contract.
The brief further argues that Section 302(c)(4) shows Congress separated dues deductions from other employment terms by establishing an employee’s right to stop dues deductions “at will” when there is no monopoly bargaining contract in place. Finally, the brief contends that if an employer must continue dues deductions when a contract has expired, that would impermissibly make the dues assignment “irrevocable” for employers, which violates the plain language of LMRA Section 302(c)(4).
“No worker should have to wage a legal battle just to exercise their right to stop union dues from being taken out of their paycheck, especially when there isn’t even a union contract in effect,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Brittani Butler and Cypress Meadowlark know firsthand how union officials exploit Valley Hospital II and similar NLRB precedents to keep dues flowing over workers’ objections.
“The Fifth Circuit should strike down this Biden-era scheme, and the current NLRB should finish the job by scrapping every Board precedent that traps workers in dues deductions they’ve attempted to revoke,” added Mix. “Doing so would not impede the payment of voluntary union dues at all, since union bosses are always free to collect dues directly from workers who want to pay them.”
