College Park MOM’s Organic Employees Demand Vote to Remove UFCW Local 400 Union Officials
Earlier this year DC-area Union Kitchen workers voted 24-1 to remove Local 400, but union lawyers continue fighting to block certification & overturn result
Washington, DC (November 7, 2024) – Employees from MOM’s Organic Market’s College Park, MD, location are petitioning a federal labor board for an election to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 union officials from power at the store. MOM’s employee Maria Sanya Dobbins, who is leading the effort, submitted the petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at the beginning of the month with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
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. Dobbins’ decertification petition contains employee signatures well in excess of the threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
According to Dobbins’ petition, the workers’ requested vote should take place among “[a]ll full-time and regular part-time MOM’s team members” at the grocery store’s College Park branch.
Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials can legally enforce contracts that require Dobbins and her coworkers at MOM’s to pay union dues or fees as a condition of staying employed. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
A successful decertification vote strips union officials of both their forced-dues power and their ability to impose union monopoly bargaining contracts on every employee in a workplace, even those who voted against the union’s presence or otherwise oppose it.
“I have been working for MOM’s for 19 years,” commented Dobbins. “We have an understanding management team that has always been there for us and our families. We do not need a union to come and take money out of our paycheck when we have the best management team.”
DC-Area Union Kitchen Employees Also Seek to Boot UFCW Local 400 Union Officials
This isn’t the first time that DC-area grocery employees have banded together to remove UFCW Local 400 union officials. In January, workers from five locations of regional grocery concept Union Kitchen voted 24-1 to kick out UFCW Local 400, following employee Ashley Silva’s submission of a majority-backed decertification petition.
That effort began amid aggressive union boss-ordered pickets and boycotts against Union Kitchen Grocery locations, which sometimes escalated to the point that police intervention was needed. Despite that overwhelming ouster vote, UFCW union officials have so far successfully blocked the vote from being certified as they seek to cling to power by overturning the workers’ near unanimous vote to remove Local 400.
Biden-Harris NLRB Making It Harder for Workers to Oust Unwanted Unions
Dobbins and her coworkers may face similar stonewalling from UFCW bosses in their case, and unfortunately may face headwinds from the NLRB as well. Despite an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years, Biden-Harris NLRB bureaucrats recently repealed key reforms (known collectively as the “Election Protection Rule”) that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections.
Now, under rules that took effect in late September, union officials have a nearly unlimited ability to manipulate unproven allegations against an employer (also known as “blocking charges”) to stop workers from exercising their right to vote out a union. The new rules also end the ability of workers to hold decertification elections as a way to challenge a union’s ascent to power via “card check.” Card check is an unsecure, abuse-prone process that bypasses the protections of a traditional secret-ballot election.
“UFCW Local 400 officials have a track record of stifling the will of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’ and the Biden-Harris NLRB’s cynical policy shifts have unfortunately given them more ways to do that,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While such cases show why workers need more freedom to have secret ballot votes to eliminate union officials that they disapprove of, they also demonstrate the importance of Right to Work protections – workers who find themselves under the control of a union they oppose should never be forced to pay for that ‘representation.’”
Austin Worker Files Federal Constitutional Challenge Against Biden-Harris Labor Board
National Labor Relations Board facing numerous worker-brought lawsuits citing unconstitutional structure
Fort Worth, TX (November 2, 2024) – Dallas Mudd, an employee of Aunt Bertha (d/b/a FindHelp), has launched a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the grounds that the agency’s structure violates the U.S. Constitution. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys representing Mudd filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The lawsuit joins a string of cases challenging the NLRB’s structure on separation of powers principles.
Mudd’s case comes on the heels of his own employer’s suit against the NLRB. In that case, a federal district court judge ruled in favor of FindHelp and granted an injunction to halt proceedings against the company.
Mudd filed a decertificiation petition with the NLRB back in September, requesting a vote to remove the Office & Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) from his workplace. Instead of allowing the vote to proceed, NLRB officials blocked the election, leaving the workers indefinitely trapped in a union they oppose. Mudd is appealing that decision to the full Board in Washington DC.
Mudd’s federal lawsuit argues he is entitled to have his appeal adjudicated before a federal agency that is accountable to the president. The case joins four other constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure from Foundation-backed rank-and-file workers, including the first-ever such lawsuit challenging NLRB Board Member removal protections, which is currently being briefed at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals by Foundation attorneys representing Buffalo, NY-based Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam.
Mudd’s lawsuit points to recent Supreme Court rulings, including Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen, which emphasized that the President has direct authority to remove executive officials who exercise significant authority. Mudd argues that the NLRB’s structure, as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), places unlawful limitations on the president’s power to oust NLRB officials who exercise significant executive authority.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, joins a similar suit at the same court from Reed Busler. Similar to Mudd, Busler, a Starbucks employee, filed a petition asking the NLRB to hold a vote to remove the incumbent Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union, only to have the vote blocked by NLRB officials. In all the cases the employees argue they are entitled to have their cases heard by Board officials who are not exercising powers in violation of the Constitution.
“Independent-minded workers should not be forced to depend on biased agencies staffed by bureaucrats, that exercise power in violation of the Constitution, just to free themselves of unwanted union affiliation,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Constitution does not permit a powerful federal agency to operate as the judge, jury, and executioner without oversight, and these legal challenges seek to ensure that the Labor Board functions within the law, for the sake of all workers.”
Trucking Company Employees Force Out Teamsters Union Bosses in Virginia, Similar Ouster Could Soon Come in New Jersey
Efforts come in the face of anti-Right to Work push by Teamsters bosses and Teamster-backed Biden-Harris Labor Board rule change to disenfranchise workers
Washington, DC (November 1, 2024) – In two recent efforts by trucking employees across the Eastern Seaboard to free their workplaces from Teamsters union officials, a group of Virginia workers has successfully forced out Teamsters Local 322, while a similar effort by Philadelphia-area workers against Teamsters Local 500 continues.
Nelson Chilson, a truck driver for NAPA Transportation in Richmond, VA, submitted a petition earlier this month in which the majority of his coworkers asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove Teamsters Local 322 union bosses. Just days earlier, a group of Philadelphia-area Penske Logistics truckers led by Shawn Shute also filed a petition demanding the same kind of NLRB election to oust Teamsters Local 500. Both Chilson and Shute are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
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. Both Chilson’s and Shute’s decertification petitions contain employee signatures well in excess of the threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
All truck drivers from each facility are eligible to vote in each union decertification election. However, in Chilson’s workplace it appears that Teamsters Local 332 officials are attempting to flee the workplace ahead of a worker vote, as they’ve filed a “disclaimer of interest” renouncing their desire to continue their power over the Virginia workers, perhaps to avoid a ballot-box embarrassment.
As for the Philly-area Penske Logistics workers, their continued effort is higher stakes because they are based in New Jersey, a state that lacks Right to Work protections. In such states, union officials can enforce contracts that require workers to pay dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states like Virginia, union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work jurisdictions, union bosses can use their monopoly bargaining privileges to subject all workers in a unionized facility to one-size fits-all contracts – even those who voted against the union or otherwise oppose it. A successful decertification election ends union officials’ forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers in a workplace.
Pro-Union Boss Shifts in NLRB Policy Will Disenfranchise Workers
Despite an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years, Biden-Harris NLRB bureaucrats recently repealed key reforms (known collectively as the “Election Protection Rule”) that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections. Now, union officials can manipulate often-unproven allegations against management (also known as “blocking charges”) to stop workers from exercising their right to vote out a union, and can also stop workers from requesting decertification elections to challenge a union’s ascent to power via “card check,” an unsecure process that bypasses the traditional secret-ballot vote process.
The policy shift comes as Teamsters union officials push a vehemently anti-Right to Work political agenda, despite nearly 80% of current union members expressing support for the idea that workers should never be forced to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment, according to a recent Rasmussen Media Group poll.
“Despite union boss rhetoric touting ‘solidarity,’ there has never been more evidence that union officials – Teamsters officials especially – are pushing an agenda out of touch with the rank-and-file,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Whether it’s continued worker attempts to decertify Teamsters unions, the Teamsters hierarchy ignoring the rank-and-file’s preferences regarding policies and candidates, or worker-filed unfair labor practice charges against Teamsters militants, employees are growing wise to the fact that the chiefs of their union may prize power and influence far above their individual rights.
“The Foundation’s cases for Mr. Shute and Mr. Chilson are just a couple examples of workers declaring their independence from unwanted union officials, and Foundation attorneys will stand with them and many other workers even in the face of opposition from both union chiefs and hostile federal bureaucrats,” Mix added.
Hydra-Lock Employees Win Decertification Vote, Oust UAW Union
After corruption scandal and Right to Work Repeal, Michigan workers win their freedom from UAW bosses and forced union dues
Detroit, MI (October 29, 2024) – Production and maintenance employees at Hydra-Lock Corp. a hydraulic tooling company based in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, have voted to remove United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 155 union officials from their workplace. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) conducted the vote following Hydra-Lock employee Keith Woody’s submission of a petition in which his colleagues requested an election to “decertify,” or remove, the union. Woody received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install and remove unions. Woody’s petition contained signatures from the majority of his colleagues in support of having a decertification election, well over the threshold of employee signatures needed to trigger such a vote under NLRB rules.
Michigan legislators’ 2023 repeal of the state’s Right to Work protections went into effect this February, meaning UAW union officials had the legal power to enforce job conditions that required Woody and his coworkers to pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
The decertification win means Woody and his coworkers are no longer obligated to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and are officially free from UAW union officials’ one-size-fits-all monopoly “representation.”
Michigan Legislators Repealed Right to Work Despite Massive UAW Scandal
In March 2023, a bare majority of Michigan legislators voted along partisan lines to repeal Right to Work at the behest of union special interests, ending workers’ ability to decide for themselves whether or not union officials deserve their dues money. The imposition of union bosses’ power to force employees to “pay up or be fired” came despite polling showing Michiganders, including those in union households, overwhelmingly opposed the elimination of workers’ Right to Work protections.
After the repeal became effective this February, workers from across the Great Lakes State sought help from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in escaping union bosses’ forced-dues demands. The total cases that Foundation attorneys have filed for Michigan workers in 2024 is already well more than double the number for all of 2023. Foundation-backed workers from across the state have recounted a wide variety of union boss misdeeds since the repeal, including forcing workers with religious objections to join and pay dues, taking dues money directly from workers’ paychecks without their permission, coercing workers into contributing to union Political Action Committees (PACs), and more.
The Michigan Right to Work repeal also came after a years-long federal probe revealed massive corruption within the UAW hierarchy. Over a dozen UAW officials received jail sentences for embezzling and spending millions in workers’ dues money on luxury goods, vacations, and other personal items. A federal monitor is still overseeing the Detroit-based union, and reportedly are investigating current UAW President Shawn Fain for misappropriating union funds and abusing his power.
“Michigan’s repeal of Right to Work left many workers forced to fund union bosses that were ineffective, divisive, or outright corrupt, which is outrageous considering Michigan legislators had just witnessed the implosion of the Detroit-based UAW over corruption and embezzlement,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Hydra-Lock employees, like many others across the state, are nonetheless fighting to regain control of their workplaces from unwanted union hierarchies. We are proud to support their efforts to stand up against union coercion
“Michigan workers should not hesitate to contact National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for free assistance in standing up for what rights they still have in this new legal environment,” Mix added.
As IAM Strike Order Drags on, National Right to Work Foundation Offers Legal Aid to Boeing Employees Who Want to Work
Foundation notifies employees that those wishing to continue working during a strike should resign their memberships before returning to work
Seattle, WA (October 25, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is emphasizing to Seattle-based Boeing employees that they have options to return to work even amidst International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials’ extended strike order. Union officials announced on October 23 that their strike order against Boeing – which began well over a month ago – would continue.
A Foundation legal notice informs Boeing employees of their rights, including their right to rebuff the strike order and work to support their families as the strike is ongoing. The notice discusses why workers across the country frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in such situations.
“The situation presents serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the notice reads. “That is why workers confronted with strike demands frequently contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and other harsh union discipline for continuing to report to work to support themselves and their families.”
The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/BoeingStrike/.
Legal Notice: Boeing Workers Who Wish to Work Must Resign From Union Before Returning
The notice outlines the process that Boeing employees should follow if they want to exercise their right to return to work during the strike and avoid punishment by union bosses, complete with sample union membership resignation letters. The notice reminds workers that IAM union officials have no disciplinary power over workers who are not union members, and advises employees who wish to work during a strike to resign their memberships before returning to work.
“Union officials can (and often do) fine actual union members who work during a strike,” the notice says. “So, you should seriously consider resigning at least one day BEFORE you return to work during a strike, which is the best way to avoid these union fines and discipline.
“If possible, use certified mail, return receipt requested, and save copies of your letters and the return receipt to prove delivery,” the notice continues, adding that workers who choose to submit their union resignations to union officials in person should have a reliable witness present to combat potential false claims from union officials that they did not actually receive a worker’s resignation.
Further, the notice reminds employees of their rights to cut off all union dues payments in the absence of a monopoly bargaining contract between IAM union officials and Boeing management. The notice encourages employees to seek free legal aid from the Foundation if they experience any resistance as they attempt to exercise any of these rights.
Foundation attorneys recently helped a Seattle Boeing worker take legal action against IAM officials for seizing his money illegally.
“As this strike order continues with no clear end in sight, many Boeing workers may decide that going on strike is not the best course of action for them, and Foundation attorneys stand ready to aid these workers in defending their right to continue working and providing for their families,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
IBEW Union Back Down After Chicago 911 Operator Filed Charges Challenging Dues Seizures
IBEW union officials falsely told employee that union had no power to stop dues deductions
Chicago, IL (October 24, 2024) – Patricia Whittaker, a 911 operator for the City of Chicago, has triumphed in her legal fight to halt union dues payments to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 21 after union officials misled her about her rights and obstructed her attempts to stop the deductions. With help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Whittaker filed charges with the Illinois Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to assert her rights.
Whittaker sent multiple requests to IBEW union officials to end union deductions, as is her First Amendment right under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Supreme Court declared that union officials could not force public sector employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and that union officials must obtain affirmative employee consent before deducting union dues from any public worker’s paycheck.
Union officials instead engaged in a deceptive cycle in which Whittaker was told to resolve the matter with her employer, while the employer directed her back to the union, resulting in continued dues deductions without her consent that lasted over 10 months. In doing so, the charges maintained, union officials misstated the law by making it appear as if the employer, not the union, was the one responsible for ordering a stop to dues deductions.
Union Deception Violates Workers’ Rights
As part of this scheme, IBEW Local 21 union officials at one point tried to portray themselves as the “good guys” by continuing to take dues money from Whittaker’s paycheck, but then “reimbursing” those dues deductions by check, according to Whittaker’s charges. They did this to appear as if they were pacifying Whittaker while they worked out a way to “win her back,” despite the fact that Whittaker made clear to them she just wanted to cut ties with the union.
In Other Recent Case, IBEW Local 21 Stopped Janus Violations After Foundation Involvement
This isn’t the first time IBEW 21 union officials have been caught imposing illegal dues practices on Chicago 911 employees. In June, Rhonda Younkins, also triumphed in her months-long legal battle to exercise her First Amendment right to stop all union dues payments to IBEW Local 21. As with Whittaker’s case, IBEW Local 21 union officials stopped their violation of Younkins’ Janus rights only after Foundation attorneys filed charges at PERB on Younkins’ behalf.
Continued Impact of Janus Decision
The Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court ruling, issued in June 2018, affirmed that public employees cannot be forced to pay union dues or fees without their affirmative consent. This decision has empowered employees like Whittaker to challenge union overreach and unlawful dues deductions. Since the ruling, hundreds of thousands public employees across the country have exercised their Janus rights to opt out of union payments.
The Janus ruling has already led to major changes across the country. Before the decision, millions of public sector workers, including many in Illinois, were required to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Immediately following the ruling, around 450,000 public employees stopped paying union dues, with many others following in subsequent years as litigation backed by Foundation attorneys continues to defend their rights.
“The behavior of IBEW Local 21 union officials highlight just how crucial it is for public employees to be aware of and assert their Janus rights,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we are pleased to see IBEW officials back down once again, it is unacceptable that it takes aggressive legal action just to force union officials to respect workers’ constitutional rights.”
Citing Federal Student Privacy Law, Vanderbilt Graduate Students Move to Block UAW Union Organizers from Obtaining Their Personal Info
“John Doe” grad students resist Labor Board claim that labor law can override Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
Nashville, TN (October 23, 2024) – Two graduate students at Vanderbilt University are seeking to intervene in a federal case in which Vanderbilt Graduate Workers United (VGWU, an affiliate of the United Auto Workers union, UAW) union officials are demanding personal information that the students wish to keep private. The students, who identify themselves in legal documents as “John Doe 1” and “John Doe 2,” have obtained free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to challenge a union subpoena demanding their personal information.
The students’ motion to intervene is now before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, following a special appeal from an NLRB Region 10 decision that tossed the motion on the specious ground that the students are “not a labor organization” and consequently have no interest in the case.
VGWU union bosses are seeking the students’ personal information as part of the union campaign to place Vanderbilt graduate students under UAW union monopoly bargaining control. NLRB Region 10 in Atlanta has issued a subpoena at the union’s behest seeking to force Vanderbilt University to hand over this information to union officials. However, the graduate students argue that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) forbids the Vanderbilt administration from disclosing this information to any third parties without their permission, including the UAW.
“The…subpoena to Vanderbilt is an attempt to violate FERPA’s protections, privileging union interests over the graduate students[’] privacy rights,” reads the graduate students’ appeal. “The Graduate Students seek to provide the Region legal arguments in support of their privacy interests, and against the…subpoena of Vanderbilt.”
Students Want Stop in Subpoena Enforcement So They Can Defend Their Privacy
The students’ original motion to intervene notes that FERPA’s language permits students to seek “protective action” if a university receives a subpoena seeking their personal information, as in this case. In light of that, the students are asking for a halt in the subpoena’s enforcement so they can properly defend their privacy interests. While the motion notes that the NLRB’s standards for allowing intervention have been unclear over the years, it argues that the students’ goal to defend their privacy interests provides a solid ground for intervention.
The VGWU union is an affiliate of the UAW union, which has a penchant for ignoring or violating employee rights in pursuit of gaining greater power over workers, businesses, and other institutions. The union is still under federal monitoring following a years-long embezzlement probe that uncovered millions of dollars in workers’ dues money misspent on luxury items, gambling, vacations, and more. The probe resulted in the convictions of about a dozen top UAW bosses.
“UAW officials are seeking to override college students’ federal privacy protections, which in addition to having no basis in law also treats students as pawns in the union’s ascent to power at the university,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB under both Obama and Biden has twisted longstanding labor law to give union bosses the power to force students into dues-paying union ranks. But graduate students across the country are increasingly discovering that heavy-handed union monopoly bargaining power means less freedom both in and out of the classroom and more inefficiency, disruption, and radical political activism.
“Union monopoly bargaining is a system particularly ill-suited to an academic environment. But it also forces workers all over the country to associate with and pay dues to union bosses they never wanted and may have explicitly voted against,” Mix added. “The Vanderbilt students we represent are right to resist this kind of compulsion and we will defend their right to privacy.”
SoCal AT&T Employee Hits Company and CWA Union With Federal Charges for Illegal Collusion to Unionize Workers
Charge: Union left after employees demanded vote to kick union out; now back as unlawful ‘company union’ under backroom deal
Los Angeles, CA (October 22, 2024) – Matthew Gonzales, an In-Home Expert for AT&T Mobility in Southern California, has just filed federal charges against both his employer and officials of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union. Gonzales maintains that AT&T and CWA officials have colluded to force workers under the control of a “company union” in violation of federal labor law. Gonzales filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The charges state that the CWA union and company started this arrangement despite the fact that there is no evidence of majority employee support for a union, and despite the fact that CWA union officials voluntarily abandoned Gonzales’ unit of In-Home Experts just last month after a large number of employees demanded an election to remove CWA from power (but before that vote could occur). According to the charges, despite the union’s formal departure, a CWA notice declared shortly after that “[n]ew hires will immediately be included in the [union] bargaining unit” and that AT&T would even help conduct a campaign to add existing workers to the union’s monopoly bargaining ranks.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which is administered by the NLRB and governs labor relations in the private sector, disallows the formation of company unions. Specifically, it prohibits employers from “dominat[ing] or interfer[ing] with the formation or administration of any [union]” or “coerc[ing] employees in the exercise of [their] rights” to either participate or not participate in a union.
Gonzales’ charge argues that AT&T’s and CWA’s actions have “violated employee free choice guaranteed by Section 7 of the [NLRA] by allowing CWA to act as their exclusive representative without majority [support],” and “given CWA unmerited opportunities to foist exclusive representation on unwilling employees.” Further, Gonzales maintains that a “Memorandum of Agreement of Voluntary Recognition” that AT&T and CWA are using to spell out this scheme actually amounts to a monopoly bargaining contract, and has been used to justify restrictions against Gonzales for opposing the union campaign.
CWA Union Officials Want Illicit ‘Second Bite at Apple’ After Being Forced Out by Employees
Gonzales’ charges detail that, roughly a month after he and his coworkers had successfully forced the CWA union out by petitioning for a union decertification vote, CWA released notices to the work unit in late September stating that a survey would soon be released to determine which employees to add to a separate “bargained-for unit” controlled by the union. It also stated that “[a]ll employees hired into the IHX department after this process is complete will be protected under our collective bargaining agreement.”
On October 8, the charges say, Gonzales visited an AT&T facility on his own time to observe an event that CWA officials held to drum up support for joining the union-controlled unit. At the union’s behest, an AT&T official asked him to leave, reasoning that the union and employer had an “agreement” that allowed CWA to campaign at the facility. Gonzales responded by asserting that the agent was stopping him from exercising his rights to oppose the union drive.
“The company representative said that [Gonzales] must receive permission to campaign or discuss labor organizing on the premises and that she did not know where he could go to receive such permission,” the charges state.
AT&T Employee Wants Federal Court Order to Stop Illegal Union Campaign, Which Could Soon Have Nationwide Impact
Gonzales is asking that the NLRB seek a federal court injunction “to prevent CWA from continuing its membership drive, its collection of dues, and its attempts to coerce non-bargained for employees into any unit without a secret ballot election.” He also seeks to revive his and his coworkers’ petition seeking a vote to remove the union.
“Union officials will often use rhetoric portraying employers as ‘bad guys’ that employees can only defeat by submitting to union power, but are more than willing to accept illegal employer assistance if it will help them sweep more workers into dues-paying ranks,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In Mr. Gonzales’ case, this tactic is especially shameful because he and his coworkers already forced CWA union officials into abandoning the workplace just before their so-called ‘representation’ of employees was about to be put to a secret ballot vote. Not only that, but CWA union officials claim that this bargain they’ve struck with AT&T will also apply to other units of employees across the country that have similarly rejected the union.
“Instead of facing the will of the employees, it looks like CWA officials would prefer to finagle themselves into the workplace with the backing of AT&T in total violation of federal law,” Mix added. “Our attorneys will defend the right of AT&T In-Home Experts to freely choose whether they want a union or not, and will get to the bottom of this scheme.”
Kaiser Permanente Hospital Employee Slams SEIU with Federal Charge for Illegal Dues Demands and Termination Threats
Charge: SEIU officials illegally threatened to have worker fired if she didn’t sign union membership card and authorize dues deductions
Los Angeles, CA (October 21, 2024) – Nadine Reyes, a Los Angeles-based Kaiser Permanente Hospital worker, has filed federal charges against the Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers (SEIU-UHW) after union officials falsely claimed full, formal union membership was a condition of her employment, additionally, union officials threatened to have her fired if she didn’t sign membership and dues deduction cards. Reyes is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Under longstanding law it is illegal to require full union membership (known as a “closed shop” arrangement) as a condition of employment. Further, employees can be required to sign a union dues deduction cards that authorize union officials to collect dues directly from their paycheck.
“SEIU bosses attempted to take advantage of me and threatened me, assuming I didn’t know my rights or wouldn’t stand up for myself,” commented Reyes about her case. “But I knew what they were doing was wrong, and I’m standing up for myself against their bullying.”
In states without Right to Work laws like California, union officials must follow certain requirements to justify the amount of forced union fees someone must pay to get or keep a job. Under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, union officials cannot force employees who have abstained from union membership to pay dues or fees for anything beyond union boss expenditures unrelated to union monopoly bargaining activities.
Union political and lobbying expenditures, which regularly are included in full membership dues, are among those expenses that Beck prevents union officials from forcing nonmember workers into funding under threat of termination. Nonmember employees who exercise their Beck rights are also entitled to an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials calculated the mandatory fee amount.
“Nadine Reyes is just the latest victim of SEIU threats, and another example of union officials prioritizing their own greed and power over the rights of those they claim to ‘represent,’” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Cases like this show why California workers need Right to Work protections, so Big Labor bosses are required to earn the voluntary support of rank-and-file employees, not be allowed to extort dissenting workers by threatening to have them fired.”
