Long Beach Worker Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Structure of Biden Labor Board as Unconstitutional
New lawsuit challenges that National Labor Relations Board’s structure unconstitutionally shields both board members and judges from accountability
Washington, DC (August 22, 2024) – Nelson Medina, a Long Beach, CA-based employee of transportation company Savage Services, has just filed a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenging the Board’s makeup as unconstitutional. Medina, who is represented for free by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, argues that the composition of the NLRB violates separation of powers doctrines enshrined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution because it shields NLRB bureaucrats from being removed by the President.
Medina’s case now joins three other constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure from Foundation-backed rank-and-file workers, including the first ever such lawsuit which Foundation attorneys filed on behalf of Buffalo, NY-based Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam.
Medina’s lawsuit points to recent Supreme Court rulings, including Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen, which emphasized that the President should have direct authority to remove executive officials who exercise significant authority. Medina 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 even though they exercise significant executive authority.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, joins a similar suit at the same court from Medina’s colleague, Victor Avila. Both Avila’s and Medina’s lawsuits stem from unfair labor practice charges they each filed with Foundation aid against Teamsters union officials in their workplace, which dealt with illegal threats of violence against workers for not supporting the union and unlawful demands for dues payment, respectively. Both Avila and Medina argue they are entitled to have their cases heard by Board officials whose appointment complies with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Challenge to Constitutionality of Federal Labor Board Targets Board Members and Administrative Law Judges
Medina’s lawsuit is unique in that it contests the NLRB’s removal protections on both Board members and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The suit argues that Board members exercise significant executive branch authority, yet are unconstitutionally protected from at-will presidential removal. ALJs, the suit argues, are subject to a removal process controlled by multiple layers of federal bureaucrats whom the President can’t remove at will, a structure prohibited by the Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB Supreme Court decision.
Board members are responsible for both creating NLRB policy and reviewing federal labor cases decided by regional NLRB offices, while ALJs conduct hearings in cases where the NLRB has chosen to prosecute a union or employer for violating the law.
Similar Lawsuits Crop Up Among Workers Nationwide
Beyond Savage Services, Foundation-backed Starbucks employees are also pursuing cases challenging the constitutionality of the structure of the NLRB. These employees have attempted to hold decertification votes to remove unwanted Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace, but NLRB officials blocked their cases based on unproven union allegations of employer meddling.
Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two Starbucks employees from New York, recently filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their lawsuit. They are appealing a District Court judge’s ruling that they lacked standing to bring their challenge. The ruling didn’t address the core constitutional arguments their lawsuit raised. Another Starbucks employee, Reed Busler, filed another similar lawsuit that is currently pending in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
“For too long, independent-minded employees who challenge union boss coercion that violates federal law have had to pursue their claims with unaccountable NLRB bureaucrats who exercise power in violation of the Constitution,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The National Labor Relations Board should not be a union boss-friendly kangaroo court run by powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution, yet for too many workers, including those bringing these legal challenges, that is what the Labor Board has become.”
Jewish MIT Graduate Students Force Anti-Israel Union to Abandon Discriminatory Demands for Dues Payment
Settlement includes requirement that GSU union inform 3,000+ students of their right to refrain from paying for radical union political activities
Boston, MA (August 21, 2024) – Several Jewish graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have prevailed in their legal cases to cut off financial support to the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU), an affiliate of the United Electrical (UE) union. The students, all of whom received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, objected to GSU union officials’ anti-Israel activities, particularly their support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections that make union membership and financial support voluntary, union officials at unionized private colleges like MIT can force graduate students to financially support a union under threat of losing their academic positions and work. However, this power is subject to limitations under federal anti-discrimination law and some Supreme Court decisions.
Foundation staff attorneys litigated federal charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March for William Sussman, Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Adina Bechhofer, and Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky, each of which stated that the union had demanded full dues payments even after they had each stated their religious objection to funding the union and asked for an accommodation as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such accommodations vary, but often take the form of letting the objector divert the dues from the offensive union to a 501(c)(3) charity instead.
Shortly after those filings, Foundation staff attorneys also filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Katerina Boukin, who objected on political grounds to the GSU’s ideological activity and sought to exercise her rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision. In Beck, the Court ruled that union officials cannot force those who opt out of formal union membership (like Boukin) to pay dues or fees for union expenses not directly related to collective bargaining, even in a non-Right to Work state. GSU bosses denied Boukin’s Beck request on the specious grounds that she had missed a short union-concocted “window period” in which such an objection would be accepted.
Settlement Blocks Union Bosses from Using Student Money to Support Extremism
The students have now won a favorable NLRB settlement, and a favorable outcome of the EEOC charges, that fully vindicate their rights. The students who voiced religious objections (Sussman, Fried, Gordon, Bechhofer, and Zhitomirsky) have obtained accommodations under which they will pay no money to the union and will instead pay money to charities of their choice, despite initial pushback from union bosses. The charities include American Friends of Magen David Adom and American Friends of Leket.
Foundation attorneys scored for Katerina Boukin a settlement that will require GSU bosses to inform the entire MIT graduate student body of their rights to invoke the Beck decision. GSU bosses must declare by email that they will not restrict the ability of those who resign their union memberships to cut off dues payments for political expenses and pay a reduced amount to the union. This email notice will go out to approximately 3,000 MIT students.
The Jewish students’ efforts to assert their rights put on display the radicalism of GSU union officials. The students who asserted religious objections to supporting the union initially received form letters as responses to their requests, which callously claimed that “no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union” and that no religious conflict existed because the founder of GSU’s parent union was himself Jewish. Through the Foundation-backed litigation, the students’ religious objections to supporting GSU were accommodated.
MIT Students Expose GSU Misdeeds to Congress & Nation
Both Will Sussman and Katerina Boukin publicly commented on how the GSU union’s public image was synonymous with political extremism and had little to do with academics. Boukin stated that she was deeply offended by the union’s “opposition to Israel and promotion of Leninist-Marxist global revolution” and that “[t]he GSU’s political agenda has nothing to do with my research as a graduate student at MIT, or the relationships I have with my professors and the university administration, yet outrageously they demand I fund their radical ideology.”
In July, Will Sussman appeared before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce to reveal even more details about his and his colleagues’ distressing experience with the GSU union. As Sussman testified, after the October 7 attacks on Israel, GSU union representatives voiced support for Hamas’ bloody “rebellion” and the GSU Vice President was even arrested for her behavior at an anti-Israel protest. “She was banned from campus but remains on [dues-funded] paid ‘union leave,’” Sussman stated.
“The Foundation-backed MIT graduate students who fought these legal battles have earned well-deserved victories. But defending basic free association rights shouldn’t require such lengthy litigation, and meaningful reforms are necessary to ensure union support is truly voluntary,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Forcing GSU union officials to abandon their blatantly discriminatory dues practices is only the tip of the iceberg: Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections, GSU still has the power to force the vast majority of MIT graduate students to subsidize some portion of their activities.
“Foundation attorneys are continuing to provide legal aid for all those who challenge the imposition of radical union agendas at places such as the University of Chicago, Dartmouth, and Johns Hopkins, and they are doing so for adherents of both Judaism and Christianity. But this ordeal at MIT should remind lawmakers that all Americans should have a right to protect their money from going to union bosses they don’t support, whether those objections are based on religion, politics, or any other reason,” Mix added.
Employees at Petaluma, CA, and Dover, OH, Ford Dealerships Successfully Force Out Unwanted IAM Union Officials
Efforts in Ohio and California come as Biden-Harris NLRB tightens restrictions on workers voting out unions
Petaluma, CA & Dover, OH (August 20, 2024) – Employees at auto dealership Hansel Ford of Petaluma have successfully forced unwanted International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local Lodge 1596 union officials out of their workplace. The victory comes after about 80% of Hansel Ford workers signed onto a petition seeking a vote to oust the union. Hansel Ford employee Gustavo Pena submitted the petition to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 20 in San Francisco with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Pena’s decertification petition contained well over the 30% threshold of employee signatures needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. However, before the NLRB could schedule a union decertification vote among Pena and his coworkers, IAM union officials filed paperwork disclaiming interest in continuing their control over the workplace.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, IAM union officials had the legal power to enforce contracts that required Pena and his colleagues to pay dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
Now that Pena and the other Hansel Ford workers have forced the IAM union out, they are free of both union officials’ power to contract and speak for all employees in the work unit (including the majority who opposed the union) and the union’s power to force them to pay dues to support their activities.
Technicians at Ford Dealership in Ohio Also Force Out IAM Union Bosses
Foundation staff attorneys also assisted technicians at Parkway Ford in Dover, OH, in requesting a decertification election to remove IAM Local 1363 union officials from their workplace. The worker who submitted this petition, Ryan Graham, also obtained signatures from a majority of his coworkers, well in excess of the 30% needed to prompt a vote.
Before NLRB Region 8 officials could schedule a vote at Graham’s workplace, however, IAM union bosses filed paperwork disclaiming interest in continuing their monopoly bargaining power over the workplace. This may have been to avoid an embarrassing rejection by employees at the ballot box.
Ohio is also not a Right to Work state, meaning that IAM union officials had the power to compel Graham and his fellow technicians to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. While Supreme Court precedents like General Motors v. NLRB and the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck prohibit union officials from forcing workers to formally join a union or pay for its non-bargaining-related activities (such as politics), many workers may prefer to decertify an unwanted union that does not respect those rights.
In nearby Michigan, Foundation-assisted mechanics from Brown Motors, a Ford dealership in Petoskey, recently voted in a “deauthorization election” to end Teamsters union officials’ forced-dues power over them. A “deauthorization election” is the only way outside of decertifying a union to end forced-dues demands in a non-Right to Work state and is petitioned for in a way similar to a decertification vote.
The new efforts come as decertification petition filings have gone up over 40 percent since 2020 (according to NLRB data) and worker interest in joining a union is at a historic low. Despite workers’ desire to get away from unions that don’t serve their interests, the Biden-Harris NLRB has just issued a final rule which will make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose. One part of the new rule lets union officials prevent decertification votes from going forward by filing unverified “blocking charges” alleging employer interference.
“The employees from Ford dealerships in California and Ohio are just the latest examples of the many workers across the country who want to exercise their right to dissociate from union officials that they disapprove of,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That the Biden-Harris NLRB is paring back this right shows that the current administration is interested in giving its union boss political allies more power to siphon money from workers, as opposed to defending those workers’ individual rights.”
Genesys Nurse Hits Hospital, Teamsters Union with Additional Federal Charges for Illegal Dues Deductions
New charges latest example of how union bosses are violating workers’ rights following repeal of Michigan Right to Work law
Flint, MI (August 20, 2024) – Madrina Wells, a nurse at Ascension Genesys Hospital in Grand Blanc Township, MI, has filed additional federal unfair labor practice charges against the Teamsters Local 332 union and her employer for illegally deducting union dues out of her paycheck in violation of federal law. Madrina filed the two new unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Last month, Wells and her coworker filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Teamsters Local 332 union, where they maintained that union bosses threatened to fire them and other nurses if they didn’t sign forms authorizing union officials to deduct dues straight out of their paychecks. The charges for Wells and her coworker Lynette Doyle, were also filed at the NLRB with National Right to Work Foundation legal aid. NLRB agents will now investigate Wells’ multiple charges in addition to the charge filed by Doyle.
The new charges from Wells are the most recent in a flurry of Foundation-backed cases for Michigan workers who are seeking to challenge or escape union bosses’ coercive power in the wake of Michigan’s repeal of its Right to Work law. Since the repeal became effective this February, union bosses have had the legal power to require workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. In states with Right to Work protections, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, even in states like Michigan that lack Right to Work protections and allow for forced-fee requirements, longstanding federal law prohibits union bosses from requiring workers to authorize the direct deduction of union dues from their paychecks. The Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision additionally forbids union bosses in non-Right to Work states from forcing workers to pay money for any activities beyond the union’s bargaining functions, such as political expenditures.
“I already had issues with Teamsters bosses’ illegally demanding money from me when Right to Work was in force,” commented Madrina Wells. “Back then, I at least knew that I was defending my right to pay nothing at all to Teamsters bosses I disapprove of. It’s ridiculous that rather than comply with my rights, Teamsters Local 332, now with the assistance of my employer, have violated Federal law once again by deducting dues from my paycheck without my consent.”
Without Right to Work, Michigan Workers Increasingly Having to Take Legal Action Against Union Boss Forced Dues Abuses
In a party-line 2023 vote, Michigan legislators repealed 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 our attorneys have filed for Michigan workers in 2024 is already more than double the 2023 number.
“Emboldened by the partisan repeal of Right to Work, Michigan union bosses are showing once again that their greed for forced dues is more important than the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent,’” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Michigan workers are standing up to defend what rights they still have against union coercion, and the Foundation is proud to assist them.”
“Ultimately though, this flood of legal aid requests from Michigan workers challenging forced dues abuses shows why Michigan workers need the protection of Right to Work, so that union financial support is fully voluntary once again,” added Mix.
Hadley, MA, Trader Joe’s Employees Seek Vote to Remove SEIU-Backed Union Officials from Store
Trader Joe’s employee testified before U.S. House in May about underhanded union tactics and divisive organizing campaign
Hadley, MA (August 12, 2024) – Employees at the Hadley, MA, location of grocery chain Trader Joe’s have submitted a petition seeking a workplace election to remove the Trader Joe’s United union, an affiliate of the large Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Trader Joe’s employee Les Stratford submitted the petition to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 1 in Boston with 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 (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Stratford’s decertification petition contains employee signatures well over the 30% threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. If a majority of Stratford’s coworkers vote against the Trader Joe’s United union, it will lose its bargaining powers in the workplace.
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SEIU union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that require Trader Joe’s employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of their monopoly bargaining and forced-dues powers.
“Officials of this union have sowed division and smeared both our workplace and anyone who dissents from the union’s agenda pretty much from the time the campaign began to unionize the store,” commented Stratford. “This isn’t what I believe the majority of my coworkers want or deserve, and despite the union’s pushback on this effort, we will fight to ensure that our colleagues can exercise their right to vote on whether we want to be represented by this union.”
Employees Widely Report Deceptive and Divisive Tactics by Union Bosses
Trader Joe’s employees who back the union decertification effort have commented frequently on the controversial and deceptive tactics that SEIU-backed agents used to establish the union in the workplace. Michael Alcorn, a worker at the Hadley, MA, store, testified before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce in May that union organizers tried to foist union control of the workplace through “card check” – a process that bypasses the NLRB’s secret ballot election system and lets union officials aggressively solicit “cards” that are later counted as votes for the union – and refused to meet or even talk with workers who were skeptical of the union’s agenda.
Alcorn reported to the Committee that the union’s campaign also included “inaccurate and incomplete press releases creating false narratives about our workplace, to promote [union officials’] own agenda and personal vendettas” and a general message that “if [employees] don’t vote for the union, they don’t care about their coworkers.” Stratford, the Trader Joe’s employee who filed the petition, described the situation similarly, saying that “immediately the workplace dynamic became a ‘two-side’ thing where if you weren’t going to put a [union] pin on…then you were not going to be acknowledged.”
Biden-Harris NLRB Just Finalized Rule Making It Harder for Workers to Eject Unwanted Unions
The Hadley Trader Joe’s workers’ efforts come as the Biden-Harris NLRB has announced a final rule which will make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose, including by letting union officials prevent decertification votes from going forward by filing unverified “blocking charges” alleging employer interference. While the Trader Joe’s employees’ petition will be unaffected by the rule change, the new policy will likely quash or substantially delay similar efforts in the future.
“The situation at the Hadley, MA, Trader Joe’s store shows exactly why workers’ right to vote to remove a union they oppose must be protected,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “During a union campaign, union officials often employ aggressive tactics and ‘us vs. them’ or hate-the-boss rhetoric that cause division and prioritize union bosses’ agenda over workers’ freedoms and individual choices. Workers deserve an opportunity to petition for a vote to oust a union that they feel has unfairly ascended to power or simply isn’t serving workers’ interests.”
Hundreds of AT&T Employees Across California and Texas Petition for Votes to Remove Union Installed Through Coercive “Card Check”
Union bosses bypassed secret ballot election with abuse-prone process, but hundreds of workers in each unit now back election to remove union
Texas & California (August 1, 2024) – Hundreds of In-Home Experts from AT&T Mobility locations across Texas and California have just signed onto petitions seeking elections to remove Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials from power over their workplaces.
Matthew Gonzales, an In-Home Expert for AT&T Mobility, filed a “union decertification petition” with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of his coworkers across 13 AT&T Mobility locations in Southern California. Samantha Cain, a Texas-based In-Home Expert, did the same for her colleagues across at least eight locations in Eastern and Southern Texas. Both Gonzales and Cain received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in filing the petitions.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering votes to certify and decertify unions. Gonzales and Cain each collected employee signatures on their respective petitions far exceeding the 30% threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. Both filed the decertification petitions in July in order to challenge so-called “card check” unionization campaigns that CWA union bosses foisted on their coworkers.
Under card check, union officials can bypass the secret ballot election process, which is the most secure and reliable way to determine if employees want to unionize. During a card check drive, union officials can make face-to-face demands of employees as they seek to collect union authorization cards from a majority of the workplace. This makes the process a breeding ground for coercive and intimidating tactics.
Because Texas has Right to Work protections, union officials can’t force private sector workers like Cain and her coworkers to join or pay money to a union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. That isn’t the case in California. The state’s lack of a Right to Work law lets union officials demand that workers pay union dues or fees just to stay employed. However, in both states, union officials in a unionized workplace enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges, which allow them to contract and speak for every worker in the unit – even those that voted against the union or otherwise oppose its presence.
If the AT&T Mobility In-Home Experts win both decertification elections, well over 800 workers will be free from CWA union officials’ monopoly bargaining power. They will join over 100 In-Home Experts from across Tennessee, who successfully challenged a card check in a similar effort against CWA officials in March. In all three efforts, CWA union officials have tried to “merge” units of AT&T In-Home Experts into a larger unit comprised of thousands of employees, which would effectively trap workers in the union because petitioning for a decertification vote in such a large unit would be virtually impossible.
Biden-Harris NLRB Will Soon Block Workers from Challenging Dubious Union “Card Check” Drives
CWA union officials have already used their card check “victory” to claim monopoly bargaining power over both the California In-Home Experts and Texas In-Home Experts. However, Foundation-backed 2020 reforms to the NLRB’s election rules give both sets of workers an opportunity to challenge the CWA union’s ascent to power.
Collectively referred to as the “Election Protection Rule,” the reforms permit employees to submit decertification petitions within a 45-day window after the finalization of a card check. The Election Protection Rule also prevents union officials from manipulating charges they file alleging employer misconduct to block workers from casting ballots in a decertification election, among other things.
Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris NLRB in Washington, DC, issued a final rule last Friday that will undo the Election Protection Rule and make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose. While the rule change will not take effect in time to stop the AT&T Mobility employees from having the decertification votes they requested, it will likely quash or substantially delay similar efforts in the future.
“If Ms. Cain and Mr. Gonzales had filed their decertification petitions just a few weeks later, hundreds of AT&T Mobility workers across Texas and California would be summarily denied their right to vote out union officials who seized power over them in a hasty and coercive manner,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This is yet another example of the Biden-Harris Administration’s effort to heap legal privileges on its union boss political allies, all at the expense of workers who just want to exercise their free choice when it comes to deciding who should speak for them in the workplace.
“American workers don’t deserve to be stripped of this freedom, and those who are prevented from voting out unwanted union bosses due to this cynical rule change should not hesitate to contact the Foundation to explore their legal options,” Mix added.
Grand Rapids GE Worker Slams UAW Union Officials with Federal Charges After Being Terminated for Refusing Membership
In months following repeal of Michigan Right to Work law, workers across the state are standing up to oppose union coercion
Grand Rapids, MI (July 30, 2024) – Richard Howard, an employee at General Electric (GE) Aviation Systems’ Grand Rapids facility, has slammed his employer and United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 330 union officials with two sets of federal charges. He maintains that union officials illegally instigated his termination after he refused to become a formal union member.
Howard’s charges come as Michigan workers increasingly seek to challenge union bosses’ legal powers in the wake of Michigan’s repeal of its Right to Work law. The repeal, which became effective this February, re-granted union officials the privilege to demand workers pay union dues or fees just to keep a job. So far this year, Foundation staff attorneys have already filed more than twice as many cases to defend Michigan workers’ rights than through all of 2023.
Howard filed his federal Unfair Labor Practice charges at Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Detroit with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Because Howard’s reasons for wanting to dissociate from the union stemmed from his Christian beliefs, something he had made clear when objecting to demands that he sign a union card, he also filed anti-discrimination charges against the UAW and GE with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Howard’s charges state that, after the Right to Work repeal became effective, both GE and UAW agents told Howard and his colleagues that “they had 60 days to become Union members, sign dues checkoffs, and pay full dues to the Union.” Howard knew that union membership couldn’t be compulsory even in a non-Right to Work environment, but many conversations he had with officials of the union and GE about other options proved fruitless.
The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law in the private sector. Even in states like Michigan that lack Right to Work protections, and allow for forced-fee requirements, longstanding federal law under cases like General Motors v. NLRB prevents union bosses from requiring workers to become formal union members. The Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision additionally forbids union bosses in non-Right to Work states from forcing workers who refrain from union membership to pay money for any activities beyond the union’s bargaining functions, such as political expenditures.
For religious objectors to union activity, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires union officials to attempt to accommodate such workers. While Title VII accommodations take different forms from case to case, they generally eliminate any obligation the worker has to pay dues money directly to the union. One common accommodation is permitting a worker to pay an amount equivalent to dues or fees to a charity.
“I have repeatedly voiced my objections to the UAW and everything they stand for, including my religious objections to the union’s political activity. My rights may be limited due to the repeal of Michigan’s Right to Work law, but the union has acted like they don’t exist at all,” Howard said. “It is shameful that rather than respect my religious freedom and other workplace rights, the union instigated my firing.”
GE, UAW Wrongly Told Worker Membership Was Required
Howard’s charges describe how union and company officials stonewalled him when he asked about what options he had to opt out of the union: “Everyone he spoke to in both the Employer’s management and the Union told him that he was required to sign the union membership and dues deduction authorization card or he would be terminated and that he had no other options.” Even offers by Howard to pay a reduced amount of union dues as a nonmember (as per Beck) or pay money to a charity as a religious objector were rebuffed.
Finally, during an April meeting Howard had with GE and UAW agents, both parties threatened that he would be fired if he did not sign a union membership form and dues deduction authorization form within six days. Six days after the meeting, GE terminated Howard, and UAW union officials refused to file a grievance for him challenging the termination.
Worker Seeks Federal Injunction After Unlawful Union-Instigated Firing
Howard’s NLRB charges argue that the employer’s and union’s threats to fire him and the firing itself violated his right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to refrain from union activity. The charges also contend that UAW officials never informed him in writing of exactly what his obligations were before demanding his firing, a violation of the NLRB’s Philadelphia Sheraton Corp. precedent. The NLRB charges finally request that the NLRB seek a federal court order telling GE and UAW to immediately cease the illegal activity, something known as a “10(j) injunction”.
Howard’s EEOC charges state that both UAW and GE officials have failed to accommodate him or even consider his religious objection (as required by Title VII) and have ignored or shot down every attempt by him to seek an accommodation.
“The flurry of new cases that Foundation staff attorneys are litigating for Michigan workers shows that, post-Right to Work repeal, union bosses aren’t stopping at re-imposing their forced-dues legal power on workers. They seem to view the repeal as a license to force workers to associate with them in any way possible,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As these recent cases demonstrate, Michigan workers deserve more freedom from union boss coercion – not less – and Michigan workers aren’t going to let their freedoms go without a fight.
“Workers may have any number of reasons for wanting to withhold their money from a union – religious reasons, financial reasons, or just because they believe union officials aren’t doing a good job,” Mix added. “That’s why the voluntarism of Right to Work is so important, and why every American worker deserves such protections.”
CUNY Professors Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Forced Association with Antisemitism-Linked Union
NY law forces professors to be represented by hostile union bosses, but SCOTUS ruling could free public workers nationwide from unwanted union power
Washington, DC (July 22, 2024) – Six City University of New York (CUNY) professors are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their federal civil rights lawsuit charging Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union officials with forcing them to accept the union’s so-called “representation” in violation of their First Amendment rights. The professors, five of whom are Jewish, oppose the PSC union’s public statements and other actions as being strongly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.
The professors, Avraham Goldstein, Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Fairness Center. The lawsuit challenges aspects of New York State’s “Taylor Law”, which grants union bosses monopoly bargaining power in the public sector. This permits union bosses to speak and contract for public workers, including those that want nothing to do with the union. In addition to opposing the union’s extreme ideology, the professors oppose being forced into a “bargaining unit” of instructional staff who share the union’s objectionable beliefs or have employment interests diverging from their own.
The professors’ petition of certiorari points out that the High Court has recognized for decades how public sector monopoly bargaining burdens workers’ First Amendment freedom of association rights. In 1944, the Supreme Court’s decision in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. recognized how rail union bosses were manipulating their powers over the workplace to discriminate against African-American railway workers. The Supreme Court restated its concerns most recently in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, with the majority calling monopoly bargaining “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.”
The petition also counters lower courts’ mistaken assertions that the Supreme Court’s 1984 Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight decision disposes of the CUNY professors’ case. As the petition points out, Knight only dealt with public employees’ ability to participate in union meetings and not with the professors’ legal argument that being forced to accept the bargaining power and “representation” of union officials is a violation of First Amendment free association rights. With lower courts so frequently misinterpreting Knight, the petition argues the Supreme Court is needed to clarify the issue, and apply the proper First Amendment analysis to the New York laws’ forced-representation scheme.
“The core issue in this case is straightforward: can the government force Jewish professors to accept the representation of an advocacy group they rightly consider to be anti-Semitic? The answer plainly should be ‘no,’” the petition begins. “The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals, and especially religious dissenters, to disaffliate themselves from associations and speech they abhor.”
“Knight did not sanction a state forcing Jewish faculty members who are ardent Zionists to accept the representation of a union that supports policies they consider anti-Israel,” the petition continues. “The Court should grant this petition to clarify Knight and make clear that the First Amendment protects individuals’ right to dissociate themselves from advocacy groups that support policies contrary to their deeply held beliefs.”
Law Forces Jewish CUNY Professors to Associate with Anti-Israel PSC Union
The professors’ original complaint recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a host of discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents, including a June 2021 union resolution that the professors viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel.”
The complaint said Prof. Michael Goldstein “experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family.” Goldstein has needed a guard to accompany him on campus, the complaint noted.
Prof. Lax, the complaint explained, already received in a separate case a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “that CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” Prof. Lax “has felt marginalized and ostracized by PSC because the union has made it clear that Jews who support the Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, are not welcome,” said the complaint. As their petition of certiorari notes, these conflicts have significantly increased since October 7.
SCOTUS Asked to Overturn Laws Imposing Union Power on Public Workers
The petition asks the Supreme Court to take up the case and stop CUNY and the State of New York from letting PSC union bosses impose their “representation” on the professors. It also demands that the court declare unconstitutional Section 204 of New York’s Taylor Law to the extent that it compels the professors under union power.
Issues with union monopoly bargaining power in the academic sphere came into the national spotlight just this month, when the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on fighting antisemitism in unions. There, Will Sussman, a Ph.D. student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified about how the law forces him and other graduate students across the nation to associate with union bosses that perpetrate divisive protests and denigrate Israel. Sussman, who is Jewish, filed federal discrimination charges against the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU-UE).
“New York’s legal scheme forces these CUNY professors to associate with union officials who insult their identity and create a work environment rife with bullying and harassment. It’s hard to think of a more obvious violation of the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court has expressed concerns with monopoly bargaining for decades, and it’s high time that the justices finally acknowledge the First Amendment protects government employees from being forced to associate with political so-called ‘representation’ they adamantly oppose.”
Nurses at Ascension Genesys Hospital Slam Teamsters Local 332 Officials with Federal Charges for Illegal Dues Demands
In months following repeal of Michigan Right to Work law, workers across the state are standing up to oppose forced dues
Flint, MI (July 19, 2024) – Two nurses at Ascension Genesys Hospital in Grand Blanc Township, MI, have hit the Teamsters Local 332 union with federal unfair labor practice charges, maintaining that union bosses threatened to fire them and other nurses if they didn’t sign forms authorizing union officials to deduct dues straight out of their paychecks. The nurses, Madrina Wells and Lynette Doyle, filed their unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The charges from Wells and Doyle are the most recent in a flurry of Foundation-backed cases for Michigan workers who are seeking to challenge or escape union bosses’ coercive power in the wake of Michigan’s repeal of its Right to Work law. Since the repeal became effective this February, union bosses have had the legal power to require workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. In states with Right to Work protections, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law in the private sector. Even in states like Michigan that lack Right to Work protections, and allow for forced-fee requirements, longstanding federal law prohibits union bosses from requiring workers to authorize the direct deduction of union dues from their paychecks. The Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision additionally forbids union bosses in non-Right to Work states from forcing workers to pay money for any activities beyond the union’s bargaining functions, such as political expenditures.
NLRB agents will now investigate Wells’ and Doyle’s charges. According to both, Teamsters officials threatened them “and similarly situated employees with termination of their employment if they refused to complete and submit a dues check-off authorization by July 12th.”
“I already had issues with Teamsters bosses illegally demanding money from me when Right to Work was in force,” commented Mardrina Wells. “Back then, I at least knew that I was defending my right to pay nothing at all to Teamsters bosses I disapprove of. It’s ridiculous that they now have the power to force me to pay them, but I’ll defend what rights I do have.”
Post-Right to Work, Michigan Workers Battle New Union Boss Privileges
In a party-line 2023 vote, Michigan legislators repealed 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. Foundation-backed workers from MV Transportation in Ypsilanti and Brown Motors in Petoskey just scored victories earlier this week, as NLRB officials certified their majority votes to strip Amalgamated Transit Union and Teamsters union officials respectively of their power to demand dues as a condition of employment. Such a vote, known as a “deauthorization election,” is triggered when 30% of employees in a work unit express support for one on a petition.
Foundation attorneys are also aiding Grand Rapids-based security guard James Reamsma and his coworkers posted at government buildings across Western Michigan with a deauthorization vote against United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union officials. Reamsma expressed that, in the wake of the Right to Work repeal, “UGSOA union officials have threatened to have everyone who does not join the union fired.”
“Michigan union bosses prioritize seizing dues over respecting workers’ individual rights, and have only been emboldened by the legislature’s partisan repeal of Right to Work,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But Michigan workers have been increasingly standing up to defend what rights they still have against union coercion, and it’s important that every worker learn those rights as union officials continue to exploit the new forced-unionism environment.”
