Orange County Lifeguards Push for Rehearing of First Amendment Challenge to Union Scheme Trapping Them in Union Membership
Restrictions will trap lifeguards in union membership and full dues payments for almost four years after they opted out of union
Orange County, CA (May 16, 2022) – California lifeguard Jonathan Savas and 22 colleagues are pressing for a rehearing of their federal civil rights lawsuit before an en banc panel of judges of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Savas and the others are suing the State of California and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) union for violating their and their coworkers’ First Amendment right to abstain from forced union membership and compelled financial support.
Savas and his colleagues are asserting their rights under the National Right to Work Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which the Court declared that no public sector worker can be forced to bankroll a union without voluntarily waiving their First Amendment right to abstain from union payments.
A so-called “maintenance of membership” requirement enforced by CSLEA union bosses and the State of California is forcing the lifeguards to both remain union members and supply full dues payments to the CSLEA union against their will. Savas and the other plaintiffs sent messages resigning their union memberships and ending dues authorizations on or around September 2019, but union officials denied their requests, alleging they have to remain full members until 2023. Despite Janus, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that this requirement does not violate the First Amendment.
Lifeguards’ Attorneys: ‘Maintenance of Membership’ Requirements Have Been Unconstitutional for Decades
Savas’ attorneys criticize the Ninth Circuit panel’s giving a pass to “maintenance of membership” requirements as contradicting Janus, and note that forcing dissenting employees to pay full union dues was unconstitutional even under Abood, the 1977 Supreme Court decision which Janus overruled. The lifeguards are receiving free legal representation from staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Freedom Foundation, along with Mariah Gondeiro of Tyler Bursh, LLP.
“The Supreme Court recognized decades prior to Janus, in Abood, that it violates the First Amendment for government employers and unions to require dissenting employees pay full union dues…If maintenance of membership requirements could not survive constitutional scrutiny under Abood,” Savas’ attorneys argue, the requirements are definitely foreclosed by the higher level of First Amendment protection applied in Janus.
Savas’ en banc request also refutes the Ninth Circuit panel’s claim that the lifeguards somehow “contractually consented to the maintenance of membership requirement.” Savas’ attorneys point out that the dues deduction authorization form that the lifeguards signed only vaguely alluded to the presence of the “maintenance of membership” requirement in the union contract with their state employer, and never explicitly informed the lifeguards what that requirement was.
On that same point, Savas’ attorneys point out that “the panel’s contract-law analysis is wrongheaded because Janus requires a constitutional-waiver analysis.” Janus requires that employees voluntarily waive their First Amendment right not to make dues payments before such payments are extracted. Savas’ attorneys state “[t]here is no evidence the Lifeguards knew of their First Amendment rights under Janus or intelligently chose to waive those rights.” Indeed, many of the lifeguards could not have known about those rights because they signed the dues deduction authorization forms before the Supreme Court decided Janus.
“Even if such evidence existed, any purported waiver would be unenforceable…because a four-year prohibition on employees’ exercising their First Amendment rights under Janus is unconscionable,” Savas’ attorneys continue.
Ninth Circuit Panel Ruling Completely Inconsistent with Janus, Rehearing Required
“So-called ‘maintenance of membership’ requirements have been unconstitutional for decades, and it’s outrageous that courts have looked the other way and allowed CSLEA union bosses to infringe Savas’ and his fellow lifeguards’ First Amendment rights under the guise of such restrictions for so long,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “A rehearing of Savas’ case is necessary so the plain meaning of Janus can be applied. Otherwise the Ninth Circuit will not only have ignored Janus, but turned back the clock over half a century on workers’ right to refrain from union membership.”
Federal Judge Rejects Attempt by TWU Union and Southwest to Thwart Flight Attendant’s Religious Discrimination Suit
Flight attendant’s case will go to trial at District Court in Dallas
Dallas, TX (May 10, 2022) – A federal judge has ruled that Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter’s federal lawsuit, in which she is suing Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556 officials and Southwest for illegally firing her over her religious opposition to abortion, will continue at the US District Court in Dallas. Carter is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
District Court Judge Brantley Starr ruled late last week denying the TWU union’s and Southwest Airlines’ motions for summary judgment, which would have given the union and airline an early victory in the case. Starr affirmed in the decision that the case must move to trial because “genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment” on all claims.
Flight Attendant Called Out Union Officials for Their Political Activities
As a Southwest employee, Carter joined TWU Local 556 in September 1996. A pro-life Christian, she resigned her membership in September 2013 after learning that her union dues were being used to promote social causes that violate her conscience and religious beliefs.
Carter resigned from union membership but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. State Right to Work laws do not protect her from forced union fees because airline and railway employees are covered by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA). The RLA allows union officials to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. But it does protect the rights of employees to remain nonmembers of the union, to criticize the union and its leadership, and advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.
In January 2017, Carter learned that Audrey Stone, the union president, and other TWU Local 556 officials used union dues to attend the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.,” which was sponsored by political groups she opposed, including Planned Parenthood. Carter’s lawsuit alleges that Southwest knew of the TWU Local 556 activities and participation in the Women’s March and helped accommodate TWU Local 556 members wishing to attend the March by allowing them to give their work shifts to other employees not attending that protest.
Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, took to social media to challenge Stone’s leadership and to express support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message affirming her commitment to both the recall effort and a National Right to Work law after union officials sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.
After sending Stone that email, Carter was notified by Southwest managers that they needed to have a mandatory meeting as soon as possible about “Facebook posts they had seen.” During this meeting, Southwest presented Carter screenshots of her pro-life posts and messages and questioned why she made them.
Carter explained her religious beliefs and opposition to the union’s political activities. Carter said that, by participating in the Women’s March, President Stone and TWU Local 556 members purported to be representing all Southwest flight attendants. Southwest authorities told Carter that President Stone claimed to be harassed by Carter’s messages. A week after this meeting, Southwest fired Carter.
In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit with help from Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the firing as an abuse of her rights, alleging she lost her job because of her religious beliefs, standing up to TWU Local 556 officials, and criticizing the union’s political activities and how it spent employees’ dues and fees.
Federal Judge: Flight Attendant’s Claims Against Southwest and Union Should Go to Trial
Notably, the District Court’s decision tosses arguments made by Southwest’s lawyers that Carter lacks a “private right of action” to enforce her fights under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and arguments that her case concerned only a “minor” dispute over interpretation of the union contract that is outside the purview of the District Court.
The District Court’s ruling instead recognizes that the RLA’s explicit protection for employees’ free association rights means that Carter, who was fired for opposing the union based on its politics, “does have a private right of action” under the RLA.
The District Court re-affirmed its prior ruling that classifying the suit as a “minor dispute” is inappropriate, because “Carter had plausibly alleged that she engaged in protected speech and activity” and those claims “do not rest on and require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.”.
“[H]aving determined that Carter has a private right of action under [the RLA] and that this case concerns a major dispute,” the court ruled that a genuine dispute of material fact precludes summary judgment on this claim.
The decision also rejects an argument by Southwest and the union that the District Court is bound by an arbitrator’s findings. Such “issue preclusion” is inappropriate in this case because, while arbitrators are competent to resolve factual questions, they are “not competent to resolve the ultimate legal questions of a case,” the decision says.
“This decision is an important step towards long overdue justice for Charlene. The ruling rejects several attempts by Southwest and union officials to deny Ms. Carter’s right to bring this case in federal court and enforce her RLA-protected speech and association rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Further, the decision acknowledges that, at its core, this case is about an individual worker’s right to object to how forced union dues and fees are spent by union officials to take positions that are completely contrary to the beliefs of many workers forced under the union’s so-called ‘representation.’”
“The Foundation is proud to stand with Charlene Carter and will continue fighting for her rights for as long as is necessary,” Mix added.
Worker Wins Additional $1,500 from Car Dealership in Federal Case for Illegal Firing at IAM Union Bosses’ Behest
IAM officials already paid nearly $17,000 for union role in Robert Basil Buick GMC employee’s illegal termination for refusal to join union and pay full dues
Buffalo, NY (May 9, 2022) – In March 2022, after car dealership employee Remmington Duk filed federal charges against International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Automotive (IAM) Lodge 447, union officials agreed to pay him $16,916. Mr. Duk now has also won a settlement from Robert Basil Buick GMC for $1,500 for firing him at the IAM union officials’ behest because he exercised his right not to be a union member. Both unfair labor practice charges were filed for Mr. Duk with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.
Mr. Duk’s charges were filed on January 31, 2022, with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that enforces the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicates disputes among private sector employers, unions, and individual employees. The charges recited that on October 7, 2021, an IAM official demanded that Mr. Duk sign paperwork authorizing union membership, threatening that he would be fired if he declined. Mr. Duk refused to sign and Robert Basil Buick GMC then terminated him on October 12, 2021.
Because New York lacks Right to Work protections for private sector employees, unions can force them to pay union fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, under Communications Workers v. Beck, a U.S. Supreme Court decision won by Foundation staff attorneys, formal union membership cannot be required, nor can payment of the part of dues used for non-bargaining expenditures like union political activities. In contrast, in the 27 states with Right to Work protections, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
To make Mr. Duk’s federal unfair labor practice charge go away, the IAM union not only paid him $16,916, but also posted a notice in his workplace for a 60 day period informing other workers of their right not to be union members, and agreed to inform future new employees of that right. A similar notice will be posted by Mr. Duk’s employer, per the new settlement’s terms.
“National Right to Work attorneys will continue to defend workers who are threatened by union officials for exercising their rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Employers who carry out unlawful orders at the bidding of union officials will similarly be held accountable by Foundation attorneys providing free legal representation to the victims of such schemes.”
“Ultimately, this case shows why New York workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to make all union payments strictly voluntary,” Mix added.
Northern PA Metal Worker Slams CWA Union with Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Union PAC Money from Wages
CWA officials also refused worker’s membership resignation, case comes as former CWA official Jennifer Abruzzo is top labor board prosecutor
Galeton, PA (May 4, 2022) – Curtis Coates, an employee of metal corporation Catalus, just hit a Communications Workers of America (CWA) union local with federal charges for seizing dues money from his paycheck illegally, plus money for CWA’s political action committee (PAC). He is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Foundation attorneys filed Coates’ charges at Region 6 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Pittsburgh. Coates’ charges come as NLRB General Counsel and former CWA attorney Jennifer Abruzzo has expressed support for a number of policies giving union officials greater power to sweep workers into dues-paying union ranks, even without a vote. Foundation attorneys also requested last year that Abruzzo recuse herself from a case involving an Oregon ABC cameraman who accused another CWA local of demanding illegal dues from him, including dues for politics.
CWA Union Bosses Siphoned Political Contributions, Dues from Worker – and Forced Him to Remain Shop Steward
Coates sent a message to CWA union officials on October 20, 2021, declaring that he was resigning from his position as shop steward and terminating his union membership. The charge says a union official rebuffed both of Coates’ requests the next day, insisting that he had to remain both a union member and a shop steward.
In December 2021 and January and February of 2022, Coates followed up with union officials several times via email and mail. He asked when union officials would cease taking dues money from his wages, what process he had to follow to revoke his dues deduction authorization, and that contributions to the union’s PAC immediately stop being taken from his paycheck.
“To date, the Union has not responded…and dues and contributions continue to be deducted from his wages,” the charge reads.
Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, so unions can legally force them to pay union fees just to keep their jobs even if they choose not to become union members. However, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CWA v. Beck, won by Foundation attorneys, this is limited to only the part of union dues that union officials claim goes toward a union’s core “representational” functions. Additionally, under federal election law, union officials can never force workers to contribute to a union’s PAC.
In contrast, in states with Right to Work protections, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
Coates’ charge asserts that CWA union officials, by refusing his repeated requests to resign his union membership, violated his rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA recognizes workers’ right to “refrain from any or all” union activities.
Coates seeks the return of all money the union took from his paycheck in violation of his rights, and for PAC contributions to cease.
Foundation President: NLRB GC – a Former CWA Union Official – Should Not Get Involved in Case
“CWA officials are brazenly ignoring Mr. Coates’ right to refrain from union activates, so they can continue seizing his money not only for unwanted union activities but also for the increasingly radical politics of DC-based CWA operatives,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The union bosses’ arrogant attitude toward independent-minded workers is mirrored perfectly by NLRB GC Jennifer Abruzzo, who up until recently was also a top, DC-based CWA lawyer and has a track record of stacking the deck against workers who don’t toe the union line.”
“The obvious violations of federal law described in Mr. Coates’ case should make this a quick victory for him. Any meddling in this case by Abruzzo for her former employer will be met with a swift response from Foundation attorneys,” Mix added.
Brockton Visiting Nurse Staff Petition to Remove Unwanted SEIU Officials from Workplace
Mail-in ballots must be returned by close of business on June 2, 2022
Brockton, MA – Home healthcare staff at Brockton Visiting Nurse in Brockton, Massachusetts have filed a petition seeking the removal of Service Employees International Union Local 1199 from their workplace. The workers’ decertification petition was filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 1 with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Brockton Visiting Nurse employee Ann Pircio filed the decertification petition for her coworkers who want to oust the disliked union. Massachusetts is not a Right to Work state, meaning all workers in a unionized workplace can legally be required to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. If the workers’ vote is upheld by the NLRB, SEIU union officials will be stripped of their monopoly “representation” powers used to impose forced union dues.
Under federal law, when at least 30% of workers in a bargaining unit sign a petition seeking the removal of union officials’ monopoly bargaining powers, an NLRB-conducted secret ballot vote whether to remove the union is triggered. If a majority of workers casting valid ballots do not vote for the union, the union is stripped of its government-granted monopoly “representation” powers. Those powers let union officials impose contracts on all workers in the workplace, even workers who are not union members and oppose the union.
The election for Brockton Visiting Nurse staff is scheduled as a mail-in vote. All ballots will be mailed by the NLRB to eligible voters who must mail back their votes. Workers’ votes must arrive by close of business on June 2, 2022, to be counted.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have recently assisted workers in numerous successful decertification efforts across the nation, including for workers in Indiana, Illinois, and New Jersey. Foundation-backed reforms to the rules for decertification elections that the NLRB adopted in 2020 have curtailed union officials’ abuse of so-called “blocking charges” used to delay or block workers from exercising their right to decertify a union. Such charges are often based on unproven allegations made against an employer, completely unrelated to workers’ desire to free themselves of the union.
“Workers everywhere should know they can turn to the Foundation for free legal aid to help enforce their right to free themselves from unwanted union so-called ‘representation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No matter the outcome of this decertification vote, the many workers at Brockton who are opposed to the union should never have been required to fund the activities of union officials with whom they want nothing to do. That is why Massachusetts workers deserve the protection of a Right to Work law that makes union financial support strictly voluntary.”
At Ninth Circuit, Las Vegas Police Officer Defends First Amendment Right to Stop Funding Unwanted Union
Legal briefs filed for veteran officer rebut union attorneys’ arguments attempting to justify union dues seizures that violate clear Supreme Court precedent
Las Vegas, NV (April 22, 2022) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys just filed the final brief in a Las Vegas police officer’s federal lawsuit defending her First Amendment right to abstain from union dues deductions. The case is now fully briefed and ready to be decided by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officer Melodie DePierro is challenging an “escape period” enforced by officials of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) union as an infringement of her constitutional rights recognized in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. DePierro ended her PPA membership in 2020.
The High Court in Janus ruled that forcing public sector workers to subsidize an unwanted union hierarchy as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. It also declared that union officials can only deduct dues from a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
DePierro’s Foundation staff attorneys argue in her reply brief that PPA union officials’ “escape period” policy, which forbids her for over 90% of the year from exercising her First Amendment right to cut off union dues deductions, is a blatant violation of Janus.
Further, Foundation attorneys point out that, even though DePierro was a union member years ago, she never consented to being controlled by the “escape period,” which union and police department officials added to the contract without her knowledge. The policy was also absent from the union membership card she signed.
“That a 20-day escape period restriction on employees’ right to revoke was added to a subsequent [contract] does not mean LVPPA can enforce such limitation without first seeking employees’ affirmative consent. DePierro’s First Amendment right against compelled speech and union subsidization would have been protected had LVPPA bothered to seek such consent from her in advance,” Foundation staff attorneys argue.
PPA Union Officials Try to Impose on Officer Contract Provision She Never Knew About
According to DePierro’s complaint, she began working for LVMPD in 2006 and voluntarily joined the PPA union at that time. Her response explains that in 2006 the union monopoly bargaining contract permitted employees to terminate dues deductions “at will.”
In January 2020 she first tried to exercise her Janus rights, sending letters to both union officials and the LVMPD that she was resigning her membership. The letters demanded a stop to union dues being taken from her paycheck.
Her complaint reported that union and police department agents rejected that request because of a union-imposed “escape period” restriction previously unknown to DePierro that limits when employees can exercise their Janus rights. Union agents rebuffed her again after she renewed her demands in February 2020. When she filed her lawsuit, full union dues were still coming out of her paycheck.
DePierro’s most recent filing in the case refutes a number of union arguments, notably contending that her past union membership did not give the union and police department free reign to create new restrictions on her rights. It also criticizes the lower court for ruling that it was “immaterial” that DePierro never consented to the restrictive revocation period.
“DePierro’s membership form is not a blank check for LVPPA and LVMPD to invent and impose new revocation restrictions against her will, resulting in the forceful seizure of hard-earned wages in violation of her First Amendment right not to bankroll a union,” the brief says.
Vegas Police Officer Seeks to Force Union to Return Dues Seized in Violation of Her Rights
DePierro demands that the U.S. Circuit Court declare the “escape period” scheme unconstitutional, forbid PPA and LVMPD from further enforcing it, and order PPA and LVMPD to refund with interest all dues that were unlawfully withheld from her pay since she tried to stop the deductions.
“The Supreme Court was perfectly clear in Janus that public employees must affirmatively waive their First Amendment rights before union bosses take dues from their wages,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That PPA union bosses are refusing to give back money they took in obvious violation of this standard is outrageous, and clearly shows that they value dues revenue over the rights of officers they claim to ‘represent’ – including distinguished veterans like Officer DePierro.”
“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should uphold the correct interpretation of Janus. Foundation attorneys will keep fighting for Officer DePierro until her rights are vindicated,” Mix added.
Wesley Manor Workers Vote Overwhelmingly to Remove Unwanted AFSCME Union Officials from their Workplace
Workers free from unwanted union “representation” as Labor Board certifies decertification vote to toss union bosses
Frankfort, IN (April 19, 2022) – Healthcare workers at the Wesley Manor BHI retirement community in Frankfort, Indiana have won a decertification vote, and successfully removed the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 962 union from their workplace. The workers’ decertification petition was filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 25 office in Indianapolis, IN with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The petition was filed by Robin Davis, an employee of Wesley Manor BHI. The request seeking to end AFSCME union officials’ monopoly bargaining powers at BHI was signed by about 50% of the workers in the bargaining unit, well over the legally required 30% needed to trigger an NLRB-conducted secret ballot vote whether to remove the union. The final decertification vote was 27-16 in favor of removing AFSCME union officials from the workplace. The vote was then certified by the NLRB after union officials’ time for filing objections to the election expired.
Indiana is a Right to Work state, meaning workers cannot legally be required to join or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials who have obtained monopoly bargaining control in a workplace are granted the power impose one-size-fits-all union contracts on all workers, including those who opt out of union membership and would prefer to negotiate their own terms of employment.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have recently assisted workers in numerous successful decertification efforts across the nation, including for workers in Illinois, Oklahoma, and Delaware. Foundation-backed reforms to the rules for decertification elections that the NLRB adopted in 2020 have curtailed union officials’ abuse of so-called “blocking charges” used to delay or block workers from exercising their right to decertify a union. Such charges are often based on unproven allegations made against an employer, completely unrelated to workers’ desire to free themselves of the union.
“The Foundation is happy to have helped the workers at Wesley Manor to exercise their right to free themselves of a union they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No worker anywhere should be forced under the so-called ‘representation’ of a union they oppose, and Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to assist other workers wanting to hold a decertification election to oust a union they oppose and believe they would be better off without.”
Conagra Brands Workers Seek to Remove Unwanted UFCW Union Officials from their Workplace
Workers file decertification petition with Labor Board to oust United Food & Commercial Worker union
St. Elmo, IL (April 14, 2022) – Production and maintenance employees at Conagra Brands in St. Elmo, Illinois, have filed a petition seeking the removal of United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 881 from their workplace. The workers’ petition was filed on April 6, 2022, at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 14 based in St. Louis, Missouri, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Michelle Brockett, a long time Conagra employee, filed the decertification petition for her co-workers, supported by the signatures she collected to trigger a NLRB-conducted secret ballot vote whether to remove the union. The workers have asked the NLRB to schedule an in-person secret ballot election on April 26 and 27.
Under federal law, when at least 30% of workers in a bargaining unit sign a petition seeking the removal of union officials’ monopoly bargaining powers, an NLRB-conducted secret ballot vote to remove the union is triggered. If a majority of workers casting valid ballots do not vote for the union, the union is stripped of its government-granted monopoly “representation” powers. Those powers let union officials impose contracts on all workers in the workplace, even workers who are not union members and oppose the union. In Illinois, which lacks Right to Work protections that make union financial support strictly voluntary, union officials use their monopoly powers to mandate that all workers pay money to the union or else be fired.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have recently assisted workers in numerous successful decertification efforts across the nation, including for workers in Illinois, Oklahoma, and Delaware. Foundation-backed reforms to the rules for decertification elections that the NLRB adopted in 2020 have curtailed union officials’ abuse of so-called “blocking charges” used to delay or block workers from exercising their right to decertify a union. Such charges are often based on unproven allegations made against an employer, completely unrelated to workers’ desire to free themselves of the union.
In a previous decertification petition filed against UFCW Local 881 in 2019, prior to the blocking charges reform, union officials used tactics to attempt to block a vote from taking place for Pinncacle Foods Group, ultimately resulting in a delay of the vote for seven months. Although on appeal to NLRB in Washington, D.C., the workers won the ruling that finally let the vote occur, the unjustified delay contributed to union officials prevailing over the workers’ original decertification attempt.
“Thanks to Foundation-backed reforms, UFCW union officials have a much harder time using blocking charges to hinder the rights of workers, so the NLRB should promptly schedule an election for workers at Conagra Brands,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No matter the outcome of this decertification vote, the many workers at Conagra who are opposed to the union should never have been required to fund the activities of union officials with whom they want nothing to do, which is why Illinois workers deserve the protection of a Right to Work law that makes union financial support strictly voluntary.”
