Second Group of Philly Ultimo Coffee Employees Successfully Remove Unwanted “Workers United” Union
Employees submitted nearly unanimous petition seeking union decertification vote, become fourth recent group of Philly coffee workers to kick out unwanted union
Philadelphia, PA (January 18, 2024) – Ultimo Coffee employee Jacob Johnston and his coworkers have successfully removed unwanted “Workers United” (WU) union officials from the Southwest Center City location of the coffee shop. Johnston and his coworkers’ effort, which comes on the heels of WU’s ouster by employees at Ultimo’s Germantown-area shop, received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
Johnston initiated the effort by filing a petition earlier this week asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove the union among his colleagues. The petition contained signatures from nearly all the employees (“full-time and regular part-time Baristas, Bakers, Coffee Quality Managers, Inventory Coordinators/Baristas, and Trainers”) at the shop, greatly exceeding the required threshold to trigger a union decertification vote under federal law. However, before the NLRB could schedule a vote, union officials instead filed a “disclaimer of interest” in continuing their control of the store, likely to avoid an embarrassing loss at the ballot box. Pending the NLRB’s approval of the disclaimer, Johnston and his colleagues are free of the union.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, WU union bosses could compel Johnston and his coworkers to pay union dues and fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials are empowered by federal law to impose union representation on all employees in a work unit, including those who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of that monopoly power.
“Workers United union officials have had over a year in power in our workplace, and in that time have made it increasingly clear that our interests are not aligned,” commented Johnston. “That’s why we’re joining other Ultimo employees in exercising our right to remove this union.”
Coffee Employees Across Philly and U.S. Seeking Freedom from Union Control
Johnston and his colleagues join Starbucks workers and other coffee employees across the country in banding together to oust the WU union (also referred to as “Starbucks Workers United,” or SBWU), which has targeted coffee shops nationwide for unionization. WU’s unionization activities are funded and directed in significant part by the large Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Within the last year, Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY; two Buffalo, NY locations; Pittsburgh, PA; Bloomington, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; Greenville, SC; Oklahoma City, OK; and San Antonio, TX, have all sought free Foundation legal aid in navigating NLRB processes to decertify the WU union. Workers from a Center City Starbucks in Philadelphia are also pursuing a decertification petition against WU with Foundation legal assistance.
Coffee employees in the Philadelphia area have scored a string of recent victories in removing unpopular union officials. In May 2023, workers at Guava and Java’s location at Philadelphia International Airport successfully voted to oust UNITE HERE union officials, and a few months later Good Karma Café employees cast ballots to remove the WU union. This month, Ultimo Coffee barista Samuel Tarasenko and his colleagues successfully forced WU out of the coffee shop’s Germantown-area location.
Many workers targeted by this campaign are demanding decertification votes roughly one year after a WU union was installed at their store, which is the earliest possible opportunity afforded by federal law to do so.
WU Officials Using Legal Maneuvers to Stop Coffee Employees from Removing Union
Unfortunately, union officials have many ways to manipulate federal labor law to prevent workers from voting them out, including by filing unverified charges. Currently, WU union officials are attempting to block Starbucks workers nationwide (including at the Center City Starbucks in Philadelphia) from exercising their right to decertify the union by filing a blizzard of charges against company management.
“The ‘Workers United’ union’s aggressive unionization campaign may have generated plenty of headlines, but the growing number of decertification efforts by coffee workers in Philadelphia and around the country demonstrates that many rank-and-file workers have come to the conclusion that remaining unionized is contrary to their best interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While it’s encouraging that some coffee shop employees have been successful after fighting for their right to remove WU union bosses, others are being trapped by union legal tactics which only demonstrate further that the union is more concerned with maintaining power than respecting worker rights.”
“Workers who encounter coercive maneuvers from WU union officials should contact Foundation attorneys for free legal aid in defending their free choice rights,” Mix added.
Brooklyn Electrical Workers Win Year-Long Legal Battle to Remove Unwanted Union from Workplace
After Horsepower Electric employees voted to remove IUJAT union, Labor Board refused to count ballots for months based on empty union charges of misconduct
New York, NY (January 10, 2024) – Following a year-long legal battle, Brooklyn-based Horsepower Electric employee Shloime Spira and his colleagues are finally free of unwanted IUJAT (International Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades) representation. IUJAT union officials worked with the NLRB to manipulate the legal process with unproven claims against Horsepower Electric management to avoid the results of the workers’ union decertification vote. However, union officials have now chosen to renounce their so-called “representation” of the unit instead of facing a likely losing vote tally.
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, both before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Federal Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 31, 2023, IUJAT union officials’ “disclaimer of interest” became effective, and the union is no longer in the workplace. As a result, a federal case to demand the NLRB stop delaying the decertification effort has been voluntarily dismissed as moot.
“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. “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.”
NLRB Bureaucrats Sat On Case to Delay Counting Worker Votes, Necessitating Lawsuit
Spira first submitted a petition to the NLRB seeking an employee vote to remove the union in December 2022. Under NLRB rules, a petition requesting a union decertification vote must contain the signatures of at least 30 percent of the employees in a work unit to trigger a vote, a threshold which Spira’s petition met. The election took place in March 2023, but the NLRB ruled that the ballots could not be tallied because it had issued a complaint against Horsepower Electric based on allegations of employer misconduct (or “blocking charges”) filed by IUJAT union officials.
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 “blocking charge” case for months, effectively using it as a pretense for delaying the vote count.
This delay meant Spira and his colleagues were trapped under the power of IUJAT union bosses without knowing the results of their vote. Because New York lacks Right to Work protections that make union affiliation and financial support strictly voluntary, IUJAT union bosses continued to collect forced dues from the workers, paid under threat of termination, while the vote count was indefinitely delayed.
No Witnesses Could Back Up Union’s Allegations Meant to Stymie Election
Pressure increased on the NLRB after the agency faced a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York alleging due process violations. To defend his and his coworkers’ right to have their votes counted, Spira joined Horsepower Electric’s suit in the District Court and also intervened in the NLRB case to challenge the “blocking charges.”
Faced with this threat of federal litigation, including a “show cause” order from the judge in the federal case against the NLRB, Board officials finally moved forward on the NLRB “blocking charge” case and scheduled a hearing to take place on December 5, 2023. This was nearly a year after Spira had requested the vote to remove the union.
Spira’s legal team traveled to New York to defend his rights against the union’s allegations in the NLRB case. Minutes before the hearing was scheduled to begin before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge, NLRB lawyers conceded they could produce no witnesses to testify in favor of the union’s charges against Horsepower Electric. Soon after, the NLRB formally dropped its complaint against Horsepower Electric, thus clearing the way for the ballots to be counted.
Finally, on December 12, 2023, IUJAT union officials issued a disclaimer of interest effectively announcing they were departing the workplace. This was presumably done to avoid a vote count the union figured it would lose. The NLRB case ended on January 2, 2024, and the District Court declared the federal case dismissed on January 5, 2024.
“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 President Mark Mix. “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, but as this case shows, too often the Board has contorted the law into a shield to insulate union bosses from workers’ choices,” added Mix. “The Biden Labor Board is taking this bias to more and more extreme levels every day, granting union officials sweeping new powers to coerce workers into union ranks, while systematically undermining the rights of workers opposed to union affiliation.”
Philadelphia Ultimo Coffee Workers Win Bid to Remove So-Called “Workers United” Union
Ultimo employees are third recent group of coffee shop workers in Philly to kick out an unwanted union, as Center City Starbucks workers await vote to remove SBWU
Philadelphia, PA (January 8, 2024) – Following Ultimo Coffee employee Samuel Tarasenko’s submission of a petition seeking an employee vote to remove the union, “Workers United” (WU) union officials filed paperwork announcing they will give up control of the Germantown-area coffee shop. Pending certification of the union’s disclaimer of interest, Tarasenko and his fellow Ultimo employees will be free of the control of the WU union.
Tarasenko’s petition, which he filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, contained signatures from a majority of employees at his workplace, more than enough to trigger a vote under NLRB rules. Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SBWU union bosses can compel Tarasenko and his coworkers to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all 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 a work unit, including those who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of that power. However, WU union officials, likely fearing a losing vote tally, disclaimed interest in the unit of Ultimo employees before a vote could occur.
Coffee Employees Across Philly and U.S. Seeking Freedom from Union Control
Tarasenko and his colleagues join Starbucks workers and other coffee employees across the country in banding together to vote out WU union officials, who have targeted coffee shops nationwide for unionization. This year, Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY; two Buffalo, NY locations; Pittsburgh, PA; Bloomington, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; Greenville, SC; Oklahoma City, OK; and San Antonio, TX, have all sought free Foundation legal aid in filing or defending decertification petitions at the NLRB.
In Philadelphia, workers at Guava and Java’s location at Philadelphia International Airport successfully voted in May 2023 to oust UNITE HERE union officials, and a few months later Good Karma Café employees voted out WU union officials. Tarasenko and his colleagues are now the third recent group of Philadelphia coffee employees to successfully remove union representation with Foundation aid. Currently, workers from a Center City Starbucks are pursuing a decertification petition with Foundation legal assistance, also against the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union.
This growing wave of decertification attempts is occurring after WU union agents engaged in a multi-year, aggressive unionization campaign against Starbucks employees. As part of the campaign, WU (an affiliate of the large Service Employees International Union) spent over $2 million to target the coffee chain with paid union agents – including “salts” who obtained jobs at Starbucks locations with the covert mission of installing union power. After achieving this goal, many “salts” abandoned the stores.
Many workers targeted by this campaign are demanding decertification votes roughly one year after a WU union was installed at their store, which is the earliest possible opportunity afforded by federal law to do so.
WU Officials Using Legal Maneuvers to Stop Coffee Employees from Removing Union
Unfortunately, union officials have many ways to manipulate federal labor law to prevent workers from voting them out, including by filing unverified charges. Currently, WU union officials are attempting to block Starbucks workers nationwide (including at the Center City Starbucks in Philadelphia) from exercising their right to decertify the union by filing charges against company management.
“While we’re happy that Mr. Tarasenko and his coworkers successfully sent the WU union packing, it’s unfortunate that many others in Philadelphia and across the country are unable to exercise this right due to union legal tactics,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That WU union officials spent millions to extend their power over Starbucks and other coffee employees and are now stopping those same employees from exercising their rights indicates their campaign is about union power, not workers’ concerns.”
“Workers who encounter coercive maneuvers from WU union officials should contact Foundation attorneys for free legal aid in defending their free choice rights,” Mix added.
DC-Area Union Kitchen Employees Overwhelmingly Vote to Remove UFCW Union
Workers requested decertification vote amid contentious boycott and picket ordered by union officials against rank-and-file workers
Washington, DC (January 8, 2024) – Employees of five Union Kitchen locations in the Washington, DC, metro area have voted to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 union officials from power at the chain. The final vote tally was 24-1 in favor of ending UFCW Local 400’s monopoly bargaining power over the workers. Pending certification of the vote result by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 5 in Baltimore, the employees will be free of the union.
The effort to oust the UFCW union began in July 2023 when Union Kitchen employee Ashley Silva submitted a petition asking the NLRB to hold a union decertification vote among her coworkers, the vast majority of whom backed the petition. She received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Because the District of Columbia lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials had the power to force Silva and her coworkers at the four DC Union Kitchen locations to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work jurisdictions like Virginia (home to one of the affected Union Kitchen locations), union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work jurisdictions, union officials can use their monopoly bargaining power to dictate the work conditions of all employees in a work unit, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union. A union decertification vote ends that union monopoly power.
Employees Voted to Remove Divisive Union Despite Union Attempts to Delay Vote Count
Silva and her coworkers’ effort began amid union boss-ordered pickets and boycotts against Union Kitchen Grocery locations, which inflamed tensions among workers. In some instances, union picketers endangered workers by blocking exits, requiring the intervention of police.
“The vast majority of the workers at Union Kitchen are sick and tired of the UFCW’s picketing, harassment of employees, and constant disruptions of our day-to-day work life,” Silva said at the time. “If the union cares at all about what we want, they will respect our wishes and immediately disclaim their interest in representing workers who have overwhelmingly rejected them.”
While Silva and her coworkers cast ballots in the union decertification election in October 2023, tension increased when UFCW union officials used “blocking charges” to stop the votes from being counted. “Blocking charges” are often unverified or unrelated charges of employer misconduct that union officials can manipulate to stall a ballot tally in a union decertification case.
However, as per NLRB rules, if the NLRB does not issue a complaint based on union officials’ allegations within 60 days of a decertification election, the ballots must be counted. NLRB Region 5 did not issue a complaint based on UFCW lawyers’ allegations within the 60-day window, thus allowing the ballot count to proceed.
However, despite the overwhelming 24-1 vote against the union, UFCW officials may still try to manipulate their charges to stop certification of the vote result. The union also challenged eight employee ballots (meaning that 32 workers total likely voted against further union presence), but the number of challenged ballots is not enough to alter the final result of the vote.
“We’re happy that Ms. Silva and her coworkers were finally able to exercise their right to vote out a union that actively worked against their interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “What’s concerning, however, is the fact that UFCW union officials could still prop up questionable allegations to stall the certification of an election that the very employees they claim to ‘represent’ asked for.”
“That, combined with the fact that UFCW officials’ combative tactics made life harder for Union Kitchen employees, again shows why all American employees deserve the freedom to abstain from funding a union they disapprove of,” Mix added.
“We call on union officials to withdraw their allegations and let the decision of the Union Kitchen workers stand,” Mix concluded.
Support Staff at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children Vote to Eject AFSCME Union Officials
Large unit of over 270 medical assistants, office coordinators, and others will now be free of union control
Philadelphia, PA (December 20, 2023) – Support staff at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia have successfully voted American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials out of power at their facility. The victory follows hospital employee Shidiah Jackson’s submission of a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which contained signatures from enough of her coworkers to trigger a union decertification vote under NLRB rules.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys provided Jackson with free legal advice during the decertification process. The approximately 277-person work unit contains medical assistants, office coordinators, medical secretaries, and many other support employees, and the tally of ballots showed nearly 60% of those participating in favor of ousting AFSCME. The vote occurred on November 30, and the NLRB certified the results of the election earlier this month.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install or remove unions. Under NLRB rules, a union decertification petition must contain the signatures of at least 30% of the employees at a workplace to trigger a decertification election.
If a majority of workers vote against a union in a decertification vote, the union is removed from the workplace and loses its monopoly bargaining power. Such power permits union officials to dictate the contract provisions of all employees in a unit, even those who oppose or voted against the union.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, AFSCME union bosses had the power to enter into contracts with hospital management that forced Jackson and her coworkers to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
Healthcare Employees Across the U.S. Reject Union Control
“AFSCME union officials were taking money from many employees’ paychecks but didn’t advocate effectively for me or my colleagues,” Jackson commented. “I’m glad that we were able to exercise our right to remove the AFSCME, and I think we will be able to serve the hospital’s medical staff and patients better with the union gone.”
In Minnesota, support staff at Mayo Clinic in Austin are currently seeking to boot Steelworkers union officials from their facility as well. Foundation staff attorneys earlier this month filed an NLRB union decertification petition for patient care specialist Erin Krulish, which contains signatures from a majority of other support staff at the clinic. Krulish’s effort is the latest in a string of Foundation-backed union decertification efforts in the Gopher State, with nurses and support staff at Mankato’s Mayo Clinic and St. James Mayo Clinic nurses all voting successfully to remove unions in 2022 alone.
“It seems that American medical employees are discovering that union officials’ one-size-fits-all ‘representation’ doesn’t always work to their benefit, nor does it help them take better care of their patients,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s easy to see why healthcare workers would want to avoid compulsory dues payments, or being ordered to strike and abandon their patients during a busy time.”
“Those in the healthcare industry should know that they have a right to petition the NLRB for a vote to remove a union, and that National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys can assist them through this daunting process,” Mix added.
Right to Work Foundation Brief: 2018 Janus Decision Means Union “Release Time” Violates AZ Constitution’s Gift Clause
Brief supports challenge pending at Arizona Supreme Court against Phoenix’s scheme to subsidize inherently political union activities with tax dollars
Phoenix, AZ (December 14, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation has just filed an amicus brief in Mark Gilmore v. Kate Gallego, a case currently pending before the Arizona Supreme Court. In the case, Phoenix city employees Mark Gilmore and Mark Harder are suing Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego 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 on so-called “release time.”
Specifically, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit argues the Arizona Constitution prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to fund four full-time positions for union officials for the purpose of conducting union business, in addition to a bank of over 3,000 paid hours to be used by other union officials for union purposes, and multiple other perks for union agents.
The Foundation’s brief argues that the release time scheme violates Arizona’s Gift Clause, which forbids government transactions that bestow benefits on private entities while serving no public purpose. The brief points out that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME case demonstrates that, under the First Amendment, all government union activities are a form of lobbying designed to influence public policy for the benefit of the union. That means taxpayer subsidies of such activities inherently violate the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause.
Brief: “Release Time” Funnels Tax Dollars Unconstitutionally to Union Bosses
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 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.”
In the Janus decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forcing public sector workers to fund any union activities as a condition of employment constitutes forced political speech barred by the First Amendment.
The Foundation’s brief also deconstructs a proposition that the City of Phoenix’s ability to impose one-size-fits-all union contracts on entire swaths of employees somehow counts as a “public benefit” that the City receives in exchange for enforcing the release time scheme. Foundation attorneys instead argue that the municipal labor code already imposes this obligation on both the union and the City, and thus isn’t a benefit that union bosses are giving the City.
“Given the code already requires the City and AFSCME to impose uniform terms of employment on unit employees, union member and nonmember alike, it necessarily follows that the City did not need to provide AFSCME agents with release time to comply with its pre-existing legal obligations,” the brief contends.
“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 President Mark Mix. “Janus made it plain and simple that compelling public sector employees to fund union activities constitutes forced political speech, and the Arizona Supreme Court has an obligation to declare unlawful compulsion foisted on taxpayers.”
L’Oréal Employee Hits Union with Federal Charges for Illegal Dues Deductions, Threats for Seeking to Oust Union
According to charge, union agent threatened: “The union is like a big mafia…something bad is going to happen to you”
Piscataway, NJ (December 6, 2023) – Piscataway L’Oréal USA employee Ana Maria Hoyos Lopez has slammed the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU/UFCW) Local 262 with federal charges, which assert that RWDSU made illegal threats against her for opposing the union. She filed the charges at Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
In September, Hoyos Lopez submitted a petition to the NLRB in which she and her coworkers requested a vote to remove the union (or “decertification vote”). She asserts in her charges that union agents targeted her as she was circulating the petition. In particular, Hoyos Lopez stated that a L’Oréal employee told her on September 6, 2023, that “the union is like a big mafia” and “something bad is going to happen to you if the union leaves.”
Hoyos Lopez’s charges also recount a September 22 union meeting in which union officials, including the RWDSU Local 262 President and shop steward, shouted her and other employees down after they brought up shortcomings in the union’s performance. The union officials demanded the pro-decertification employees leave the union’s meeting.
Even after Hoyos Lopez and other employees voluntarily departed the meeting, the charges state, the union president “chased after” Hoyos Lopez and threatened to call the police on her if she did not completely leave the public park in which the meeting took place. The charges also state that union officials approached pro-decertification L’Oreal employee Jarry Moreno at the same meeting and told him to convince Hoyos Lopez to withdraw the petition.
Hoyos Lopez’s charges indicate that she experienced more illegal activity than just intimidation from union agents. RWDSU union officials also refused to honor or respond to emails she sent resigning her union membership and opting out of dues payments for union political expenses. New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, and thus allows union officials and management to enforce contracts in which workers are forced to pay union fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. However, the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision guards workers from being forced to pay any dues that go toward union politics or other expenses unrelated to the union’s bargaining functions.
“As such, RWDSU/UFCW Local 262 must honor [Hoyos Lopez’s] resignation request, and given there is no collective bargaining agreement in place, cease all further deductions from [her] paycheck,” the charges state.
Illegal Union Threats Continue After Contested Election
The election to decertify RWDSU, which took place October 19 and 20, is currently the subject of objections from Hoyos Lopez. The objections assert that union officials unlawfully interfered with the election through their intimidating actions during the September 22 meeting, as well as through campaign misrepresentations and racially-charged tactics.
Hoyos Lopez’s federal charges, which she filed after submitting her election objections, state that employees she believed were acting on behalf of the union targeted her after she attempted to defend the integrity of the election. On November 27, “a L’Oréal contractor…intimidated [Hoyos Lopez]” and told her that “people say you have to leave because you have problems with the union.”
The charges argue that all of these actions by RWDSU union officials and alleged union agents are clear violations of Hoyos Lopez’s rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is charged with enforcing. Section 7 protects workers’ right to refrain from union activities.
“It appears abundantly clear that RWDSU union officials at the L’Oréal USA plant leveraged threats, intimidation, and a host of other divisive tactics in order to demonize any worker who went against their agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The union’s focus was clearly on maintaining their forced-dues power over L’Oréal employees, even at the expense of steamrolling the rights of the workers they claim to ‘represent’ – they were deprived of a fair election, and couldn’t even voice legitimate concerns about the union without fear of retaliation.”
“Foundation staff attorneys will continue to fight for Ms. Hoyos Lopez and her coworkers until they can exercise their right to vote on whether RWDSU bosses deserve to stay in a free and uncoerced environment,” Mix added.
Buffalo Starbucks Baristas Blast National Labor Relations Board’s Move to Trap Workers in Union at Court of Appeals
NLRB lawyers claim workers’ opposition to union “justifies” union being imposed on unwilling employees
Buffalo, NY (November 28, 2023) – Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, Starbucks partners in the Buffalo area, have just filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals case Leslie v. Starbucks Corp. In the case, NLRB officials are attempting to prosecute Starbucks for misconduct alleged by SEIU-affiliated Workers United union officials. The NLRB cites a petition that Cortes and her coworkers filed seeking a vote to remove the union as a reason why Starbucks management should be subjected to a court-ordered injunction.
Cortes and Karam, who are represented for free by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, challenge this legal maneuver in their brief. The employee’s brief argues that the NLRB’s strategy treats workers as if they have no agency of their own and have no independent reasons for wanting to get rid of a union.
“Given the biases of the current Board, it is disheartening ― but not surprising ― to see the NLRB claim Cortes’ petition is the product of Starbucks’ alleged unfair labor practices,” the brief states. “Its own records show that nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, Cortes collected her petition because of the Union’s anti-employee behavior.”
The employees’ brief also contends that the relief NLRB lawyers are seeking from the Second Circuit – a 10(j) injunction under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that will force Starbucks managers into working with SBWU union bosses to craft a monopoly bargaining contract – is extreme. Such injunctions can only be ordered when the harm done to workers in their absence would be “irreparable.” Foundation attorneys argue that the fact that Cortes and other employees have attempted to decertify does not make any injuries suffered by the union “irreparable.”
“The NLRB’s argument it needs an injunction to suppress decertification efforts already underway―which have already garnered majority support―is a tacit admission it is seeking to alter the status quo, not preserve it,” states the brief.
Cortes is also receiving Foundation legal aid in a case challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB’s structure. That case, currently pending at the D.C. District Court, argues that the structure of the NLRB is unconstitutional.
Dangerous Precedent Set If Court Grants Anti-Worker Injunction
If the Second Circuit grants the NLRB’s request for an injunction on behalf of SBWU union bosses, it would be the first time that a federal court has ordered a Starbucks store to engage in bargaining with union bosses on the basis of an employee’s decertification petition. This would be a horrendous precedent for independent-minded Starbucks workers across the country.
Starbucks workers all across the country have submitted decertification petitions seeking votes to remove SBWU union bosses, including at least nine groups of employees who are utilizing free Foundation legal aid. The NLRB would be able to use the federal court precedent to make the dubious argument that union bargaining should be mandated simply because employees want a chance to oust the union.
“The NLRB is digging an even deeper grave for employees trying to exercise their rights to remove an unwanted union from their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Board’s attempt to twist employees’ desire to exercise their right to throw out a union into a reason to force a union upon them is a new low.”
“Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam are taking a courageous stand to ensure their coworkers aren’t disenfranchised and trapped under a union hierarchy they oppose, and we’re proud to support them,” Mix added.
