NY Starbucks Barista Asks Federal Labor Board to Restore Employees’ Right to Vote Out SBWU Union Officials
SBWU union bosses prevented worker-requested union removal vote by filing unverified charges, never demonstrated link to worker effort
Niskayuna, NY (September 12, 2025) – Starbucks barista Nadia Kuban is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to overturn federal policies that are preventing her colleagues from having a vote to remove unwanted Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace. Kuban is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Kuban’s effort to remove SBWU from the Niskayuna Starbucks began in February, when she submitted a petition backed by her colleagues asking the NLRB to hold a decertification vote at their store. Despite Kuban’s petition containing enough employee signatures to trigger a vote under NLRB rules, regional NLRB officials dismissed her petition and denied her colleagues their right to vote on the union’s continued control.
Kuban’s latest NLRB filing challenges the dismissal of her decertification petition. Regional NLRB officials issued the dismissal due to alleged unfair labor practice charges that SBWU bosses filed against the Starbucks Corporation at the national level. Her Request for Review argues that the NLRB violated employees’ due process rights by tossing her petition without a hearing into whether the allegations had anything to do with workers’ desire to oust the union at her location. It also contends that the NLRB’s Rieth-Riley precedent – which lets union bosses manipulate such allegations (also known as “blocking charges”) to derail worker-requested decertification votes entirely – is inconsistent with federal law.
Starbucks Employee Challenges NLRB Policy That Lets Union Bosses Block Votes
The NLRB’s Rieth-Riley decision in 2022 permits the agency to make so-called “merit-determination” dismissals of decertification petitions. Such dismissals let NLRB officials stop union decertification elections entirely – and invalidate already-cast ballots – based on union boss-filed “blocking charges” that haven’t even been litigated yet. Kuban’s brief explains that the ruling is at odds with federal labor law, which mandates that the NLRB conduct an election if employees submit a valid decertification petition.
“This is inconsistent with the plain language of [National Labor Relations Act] Section 9(c), which states what the NLRB ‘shall’ do, a nondiscretionary term,” the brief says. “The Board…should overturn Rieth-Riley’s merit-determination [ruling]….”
The Request for Review also explains that even under existing NLRB cases – including Rieth-Riley – the dismissal of Kuban’s decertification petition is not justified. NLRB case law doesn’t allow the dismissal of employees’ decertification petitions unless there is an outright refusal by an employer to negotiate with union officials, the brief says, which is not the case in Kuban’s situation. Furthermore, the NLRB’s Saint Gobain decision, won by Foundation staff attorneys, holds that “an evidentiary hearing is required when a union alleges that an employer’s unfair labor practice caused disaffection with the union.” Kuban never got such a hearing in her case, meaning she “has been significantly disadvantaged in defending her petition, to the point of being denied due process of law,” the brief says.
Trump NLRB Can Use Case to Defend Workers’ Freedom
Earlier this year, Rayalan Kent, a Foundation-backed asphalt worker in Michigan whose union decertification effort was stifled in the Rieth-Riley case, submitted a brief to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This brief defended his employer (Rieth-Riley Construction Company) in a case over its refusal to negotiate with International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) officials. IUOE bosses had dredged up years-old unfair labor practice charges to cancel the counting of Kent and his coworkers’ already-cast election ballots in 2022. Kent is now urging the Sixth Circuit to use the current case against his employer to undo the disastrous “merit-determination” doctrine, and order the NLRB to finally count his colleagues’ ballots.
“The NLRB’s so-called ‘merit-determination’ dismissal policy serves no purpose other than letting union officials block workers’ right to make a free decision on whether they want union monopoly ‘representation’ in their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Kuban speaks for countless independent-minded workers across the country in seeking to eliminate this unfair policy. Upon confirmation, President Trump’s new appointees to the NLRB should prioritize cases like hers, and defend workers’ freedoms from union bosses’ attempts to gain more control over their working lives and pocketbooks.”
King Soopers Employees Hit Union Officials with New Federal Charges for Illegal Strike Fine Threats
Charge: UFCW Local 7 once again violating federal law with fines against non-union employees who wouldn’t abide by a union boss-ordered strike
Denver, CO (September 8, 2025) – Two King Soopers grocery workers have filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 union in response to union officials illegally threatening to fine the workers, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike. These cases, filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), follow a series of similar charges against UFCW union officials for issuing retaliatory fines against King Soopers employees in 2022. Both employees are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
According to the charges, Local 7 union bosses illegally retaliated against Ryan Lamb and Lucas Martin by assessing presumptive fines and scheduling “trials” for each of them, despite the union having no authority to punish non-members. The charges note that attempts to discipline the workers for post-resignation conduct violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Union-Ordered Strikes Don’t Mean Workers Have to Stop Providing for Their Families
UFCW officials demanded that workers strike against King Soopers grocery stores for more than a week in February 2025, affecting more than 10,000 employees. In response to the high profile strike, the Foundation issued a legal notice informing the impacted workers of their rights that union officials often hide, including the right to continue working to support their families.
“Despite often-misleading language in union contracts, no employee is actually required to be a member of a union,” the notice reads. “And if an employee is not a member of a union, union officials have no power to fine or discipline him or her.”
In the cases of Lamb and Martin, both employees ensured they took the proper actions to avoid being legally subjected to internal “union discipline.” In other cases, union officials illegally attempted to issue ruinous fines against workers who declined to participate in union strike actions, with some fines reaching tens of thousands of dollars per employee.
“Union officials shouldn’t be telling me I can’t earn a living just so they can make a point,” commented Lamb. “We have the right to keep working and not abide by their rules, and it’s ridiculous that the union officials think they can punish us for exercising that right,” added Martin.
Repeat-Offender Union Has a History of Ignoring Workers’ Rights
This isn’t the first time UFCW Local 7 officials are alleged to have violated federal law. In 2022, after the UFCW ordered a strike, several employees filed charges against Local 7 officials for hitting them with fines despite being non-union members.
In two cases where the employees received free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, union enforcers backed down from their fines rather than face discipline from the NLRB.
“Once again UFCW bosses are demonstrating their willingness to steamroll the legal rights of rank-and-file workers, just because those workers won’t toe the union line,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Kings Soopers employees have beaten back these illegal fines in the past, and while it shouldn’t take a team of attorneys to ensure workers can exercise their legal rights, we are dedicated to ensuring all King Soopers workers can freely make the choice that is best for them.”
California Nurse Adds New Claim in Federal Labor Board Case Against United Nurses Association of California
Charge: union officials illegally demanded nurse join union, plus maintain illegal policy that restricts right to cut off funding for political spending
Woodland Hills, CA (September 5, 2025) – Sarah Warthemann, a nurse at Kaiser Permanente, has just filed new charges in her ongoing case against the United Nurses Association of California (UNAC) union challenging union officials’ illegal demands that she pay full union dues or be fired. Warthemann’s charges were filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Her original charges, filed in July, stated that UNAC union bosses illegally threatened her with termination of her employment at the hospital if she did not formally join the union. Now, the amended charges also challenge union policies that require nonmembers to opt-out of paying for union political and ideological activities.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees. The charges allege UNAC union bosses are violating Warthemann and all other nurses’ NLRA Section 7 right to refrain from participating in or supporting union activities.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections, UNAC union bosses can impose union monopoly bargaining contracts that force employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. By comparison, in neighboring Right to Work states like Arizona and Nevada, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, under Communications Workers of America v. Beck, a landmark Foundation-won Supreme Court case, even where forced dues are authorized, union officials cannot compel workers to fund activities unrelated to union bargaining, like union political activities. The charges note that UNAC officials have “repeatedly demanded payment from [Warthemann] for non-chargeable political and ideological expenditures without [her] affirmative consent” and argue that these demands represent illegal coercion under the NLRA.
“As the facts of this case demonstrate, the NLRB needs to step up to protect workers from being trapped into paying full union dues, including the portion used for union political activism,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses are not above the law, they cannot be permitted to threaten and bully workers into paying dues that go towards union political activities that many workers find objectionable.”
Employee Advocate Supports Repeal of Biden-Backed Union Power Scheme Over Temporary Agricultural Workers
National Right to Work Foundation comments: Biden DOL lacked authority to impose pro-union boss regulation over temporary agricultural workers
Washington, DC (September 4, 2025) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has submitted comments supporting the Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposal to scrap a Biden-era rule that lays the groundwork for giving union bosses monopoly bargaining powers over temporary agricultural employees. The Biden DOL rule, misleadingly titled “Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States,” also contained provisions that would have given union officials nearly unrestricted power to enter farmers’ private property.
The Foundation’s comments argue that the repeal is justified because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that lets union bosses gain monopoly bargaining power over most private sector workplaces, specifically exempts agricultural workers from its strictures. Such workers, who often are in the country on H-2A visas, are subject to state agricultural laws. The Biden Department of Labor’s rule, the comments say, is effectively an attempt to override Congress’ exclusion of agricultural workers from the NLRA.
“As now recognized by DOL and various courts considering the Final Rule’s provisions, DOL not only lacks Congressional authorization to take this action, it is defying Congress’ intent to exclude agricultural employees from the…NLRA,” the comments say.
Biden DOL Rule Gives Workers No Power to Resist Unwanted Union Intrusions
The Foundation’s comments also explain that the Biden DOL rule should be repealed because it grants union officials enormous power to enter private farm property to engage in agitation or other disruptive union activities – even over the objections of both workers and employers. Notably, the Biden rule goes well beyond giving union bosses who are invitees of agricultural workers the power to enter private farms, and opens the door to “nearly unrestricted harassment by ‘potential guests’ or unwanted guests of other employees,” the comments state.
The comments further contend that the Biden-era rule on temporary agricultural workers is impracticable because it lacks any kind of enforcement mechanism, and lacks protections for temporary agricultural workers who want to abstain from union affiliation. “If Congress had intended DOL to regulate the ability of agricultural employees to unionize, it would have created an enforcement mechanism within DOL and provided sufficient funding for enforcement,” the comments detail.
Foundation staff attorneys are providing free legal aid to agricultural workers around the country, especially in efforts to challenge state agricultural labor regimes that deny them basic rights of free choice. Employees in California and New York are engaged in federal lawsuits attacking labor laws that let union officials sweep them into dues-paying union ranks without a vote, impose union monopoly bargaining contracts over worker and employer objections, or deny workers the right to file unfair labor practice charges against union officials.
“The Biden DOL rule was a slapdash attempt by federal bureaucrats to give union officials massive new powers over workers in an area that is solely the domain of state law – the agricultural labor sector,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Of course, while claiming to care about temporary agricultural workers, the Biden Labor Department’s rule denied them any kind of right to resist unwanted union campaigns or to file charges against union officials who violate their rights.
“It’s obvious that this union boss power grab lacks any sort of legal underpinning. But it’s important to remember that, outside the agricultural sector, workers all over the country are subject to the National Labor Relations Act’s broken monopoly bargaining system, where union officials in a unionized workplace can impose their will over dissenting workers and often force those employees to pay them union dues or fees,” Mix added. “American workers in all sectors deserve the right to choose freely whether or not union representation is right for them.”
Missouri Shangri-La Dispensary Workers Officially Free of Unwanted UFCW Union Boss “Representation”
Labor Board certifies workers’ victory in case to remove UFCW after union officials disclaim representation and walk away
Columbia, MO (September 2, 2025) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued an order that officially removes United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 655 as the exclusive “representative” of a unit of Shangri-La dispensary workers. The order makes official the workers’ victory in their legal effort to remove UFCW union officials from their workplace.
The case started when Travis Hierholzer, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, filed his petition with the NLRB requesting a “decertification” election to remove UFCW union bosses at his workplace. Hierholzer’s petition was signed by nearly all of his fellow workers at the dispensary. The filing of the petition triggered an election process to determine whether the UFCW would remain the dispensary workers’ exclusive representative.
The NLRB is the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal labor law and with adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual workers. Workers are able to initiate an election administered by the NLRB if their petition gathers the signatures of 30% or more of their fellow employees.
The election was close to being scheduled in September among all full-time and regular part-time patient consultants, patient consultant supervisors, and inventory specialists employed at the Columbia, MO, dispensary. However, rather than proceed with the election, UFCW union bosses apparently decided to avoid the embarrassment of a nearly unanimous vote by workers against them, instead “disclaiming” their status and removing the union as the dispensary’s so-called representative.
Missouri is one of the 24 states without Right to Work protections that make union affiliation and dues payment fully voluntary, meaning Hierholzer and his coworkers could have been forced to pay dues or fees to UFCW union officials or else be fired. Now that the union has been officially decertified, union officials lack the authority to impose a forced-dues requirement on the employees.
“Workers across the country, and especially in states where union bosses can force them to pay dues or else be fired, continue to exercise their legal right to free themselves of unwanted union representation,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The National Right to Work Foundation will continue to stand up for American workers wherever they may be, by providing free legal aid to help defend their rights and remove unwelcome union bosses from their workplace.”
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix: Labor Day 2025 Should Be About Restoring Worker Freedom
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee and National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2025:
No one should forget the reason for the festivities on Labor Day: Honoring America’s hardworking men and women, who power the most prosperous and innovative country in the world. Yet too often they’re forgotten by those in the halls of power. Today we should celebrate those workers by respecting their rights, including, critically, their Right to Work: The freedom to decide to join or financially support a union, or refrain from doing so.
The facts are clear. The American public at large, and unionized workers in particular, want a free choice when it comes to affiliating with a union. Around eight in 10 Americans consistently express agreement with the Right to Work principle, and polls of unionized workers show similar sentiment.
The truth is, American workers by and large want to make a living free from coercive union power: Most say that they have “no interest at all” in joining a labor union. American workers thrive on freedom, and policymakers who claim to care about them should be prepared to defend workers’ freedoms.
That means we should reject the cynical attempts by union officials to steal the spotlight on Labor Day to drum up support for their coercive agenda that seeks to impose on workers what they would never individually agree to. That agenda was unfortunately promoted with full force during the Biden Administration, which sought to undermine workers’ rights to reject union affiliation while empowering union bosses to force unwilling employees into union ranks. Union chiefs and their political allies also pushed hard under Biden to require workers to fund their activities – including their politicking – as a condition of keeping their jobs.
Now, on the first Labor Day since voters rejected the dysfunctional and coercive labor policies of the Biden Administration, it’s time to chart a new path for America’s working men and women. Politicians at the state and federal level should pursue policies that give workers the ability to protect their livelihoods – and their paychecks – from union bosses’ attempts to use them as tools to increase their power over America’s government and economy.
Keep Labor Day a holiday dedicated to American workers and their freedoms. Support each worker’s right to decide for themselves whether or not union affiliation is right for them.
Walking Dead Production Driver Defends Victory over Teamsters for Unlawful Discrimination in Rigged “Hiring Hall”
Virginia-based driver asks National Labor Relations Board to order notification and compensation of other victims of Teamsters’ discriminatory scheme
Washington, DC (August 27, 2025) – Terringus Walker, a transportation employee for Virginia-based movie and television productions like Walking Dead, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to uphold the central findings of an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) favorable ruling in his case against the Teamsters union.
Walker charged Teamsters Local 592 union officials with retaliating against employees who previously filed Unfair Labor Charges against the union. Walker is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The ALJ’s ruling validated Walker’s charge that a “hiring hall” arrangement, run by Teamsters Local 592 union bosses, constituted illegal discrimination under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Union bosses failed to use objective criteria for referring production drivers, instead privileging senior union members over junior members and nonmembers.
Union officials, who negotiated exclusive hiring contracts for certain productions, have denied Walker work since 2020. The ALJ decision now under review by the NLRB agreed with Walker that union officials violated the NLRA by operating a hiring hall in an arbitrary manner without objective criteria, ignoring their duty of fair representation to all unit members.
In a separate filing, Walker asked the NLRB to extend the ALJ’s compensation order to all workers the Teamsters discriminated against, and ensure all affected workers are properly notified of the ruling. Despite acknowledging that the hiring arrangement maintained separate, discriminatory lists that affect hundreds of workers, the ALJ ruling puzzlingly ordered compensation only for Walker himself, ignoring NLRB precedent.
Union Officials Use Suspect Legal Arguments to Attempt to Justify Discrimination
Teamsters Local 592 lawyers have filed their own documents asking for the NLRB to overturn the ALJ decision largely on the grounds that union officials were, somehow, not responsible for the discrimination and retaliation, even though it occurred within the union’s exclusive hiring hall.
Walker’s newest filing refutes the union’s claim. The Teamsters union officials argue that they did not discriminate against Walker, but evidence presented during the trial shows that they and hiring managers used various excuses and false pretenses to string Walker along without ever bringing him back to work, even while other employees quickly gained work.
Union officials are also attempting to pass all responsibility to the production companies. But union officials built the hiring and referral process. It was their duty to include objective criteria in the referral process, which they failed to do.
Foundation staff attorneys have recently aided several groups of workers in efforts to challenge malfeasance by Teamsters union officials or vote the union out completely. These include movie transportation workers in Texas, truck drivers in California and Georgia, Frito-Lay warehouse workers in Ohio, metalworkers in San Diego, nurses in Michigan, and many more. Across the country, workers’ desire to exercise their right to vote out unpopular union bosses is increasing: Worker-filed petitions seeking union decertification votes are up more than 50% from 2020, according to NLRB data.
“Teamsters officials have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to discriminate against workers who don’t subject themselves to union officials’ rules, as well as those who expose their unfair practices,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Production drivers like Mr. Walker who are ready, willing, and able to help bring stories to the silver screen shouldn’t be ignored for exercising their right to free association, or for holding unions accountable to their duty of fair representation.
“We’re humbled by Mr. Walker’s courage to stand up for his rights and encouraged by his victory before the administrative law judge. Further, we are eager to defend that victory and fight for his fellow workers who don’t play by the Teamsters’ illegal and unfair rules,” added Mix.
Florida Imperial Bag & Paper Workers Vote to Remove Teamsters but Union Officials Seeking to Overturn Election Result
Teamsters officials trying to disenfranchise Orlando-area workers who voted to end union representation
Orlando, FL (August 27, 2025) – Teamsters union officials are moving forward in their attempt to overturn a vote by the majority of Orlando-area paper and plastic company employees to remove the union. Imperial Bag & Paper Co. employee Lionel Powell spearheaded the effort to oust International Brotherhood of Teamsters officials.
In early July of this year, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Powell submitted a petition signed by enough of his peers to prompt the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to carry out a “decertification” vote amongst his coworkers. Foundation attorneys will now defend the vote of Powell and his coworkers at the NLRB against Teamsters bosses’ attempt to disenfranchise them.
The NLRB, the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal private-sector labor law and with adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual workers, administered the vote among Powell and his Imperial Bag & Paper Co. coworkers on August 7, in which the employees voted against the union’s representation.
The election was held among all full-time and regular part-time drivers and shuttle drivers employed at the Orlando, FL, facility. A majority voted to remove Teamsters union officials as their monopoly bargaining “representative.”
Florida’s popular Right to Work law means workers cannot be fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can impose exclusive bargaining control upon all workers within a workplace, even those who oppose the union.
To end that monopoly power, workers can petition for and hold a decertification election. Imperial Bag & Paper Co. employees followed those steps, and the union failed to win the vote. But rather than accept the result of the election, Teamsters lawyers filed election objections with the NLRB seeking to cancel the ballot count. Last week, Teamsters union officials also levied new, unproven allegations of employer misconduct in an attempt to stifle the workers’ effort.
“All American workers are entitled to the full protections afforded to them by federal labor law, which include the right to vote out unwanted union officials in a secret-ballot election,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Once again Teamsters union bosses are showing that they are more interested in preserving their own power than respecting workers’ rights and choices.
“Foundation staff attorneys will continue to assist the Imperial Bag & Paper Co. workers until they are freed from unwanted union officials,” Mix added.
Hudson Valley Farmworker Challenges PERB Official’s Dismissal of Employee Petition Seeking Removal of UFW Union Officials
Porpiglia Farms workers have been restrained for almost a year from voting union out of farm, new brief challenges suspect union “blocking charges”
Marlboro, NY (August 25, 2025) – Ricardo Bell, an agricultural worker at Porpiglia Farms in the Hudson Valley, is urging New York’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in Albany to overturn a lower board official’s refusal to process a petition he and his coworkers backed seeking a union removal vote. Bell and his colleagues petitioned the PERB to hold a vote to remove United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials from power at Porpiglia Farms, and are receiving free legal aid in their effort from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The PERB is the New York state agency responsible for enforcing labor law in the agricultural sector, a task that includes administering votes to install (“certify”) and remove (“decertify”) unions. Despite the fact he submitted a petition containing enough of his colleagues’ signatures to trigger a union decertification vote, Bell’s latest filing reports that the PERB’s Acting Director of Private Employment Practices and Representation refused to process his petition on the basis of four unproven claims of wrongdoing that UFW union officials filed against Porpiglia Farms management.
At both state and federal labor boards, union officials often file such allegations (usually called “blocking charges”) to stop workers from exercising their right to vote a union out of power at a workplace – even without evidence showing any connection between the employer’s alleged conduct and workers’ desire for an election. Because New York lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union bosses have the power to enforce contracts that require workers like Bell and his colleagues to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in 26 states with Right to Work laws, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
Farmworker Argues PERB Shouldn’t Let Union Bosses Block Union Removal Election
Bell’s latest filing consists of exceptions to the PERB Acting Director of Private Employment Practices’ decision denying his request to process the petition. It states that the decision is unfounded because nothing in New York’s agricultural labor law or in the PERB’s policy authorizes the use of blocking charges to stop an employee-requested decertification election.
The brief argues that the PERB’s policy “is punitive, punishing the employees for conduct they cannot control… Employees should be free to choose their representative. Blocking charge delays prevent employees from exercising that right to choose.”
Bell’s brief also contends that the Acting Director’s decision violated a basic standard that PERB itself stated in an earlier case involving Bell and his coworkers. In that case – another union decertification attempt that was dismissed on different grounds – the PERB issued a decision explaining that not all charges of employer misconduct justify barring employees from exercising their right to vote out a union, and that if a blocking charge policy were to be applied, union officials must allege conduct that actually harms employees’ ability to choose for or against a union. Now the Acting Director’s dismissal of Bell’s newest decertification petition flies in the face of that standard, Bell’s brief explains, because it “failed to analyze the facts of the four charges” and makes no attempt to show how they might have affected the employees.
PERB Never Gave Employee Opportunity to Respond to Dubious Union Charges
Bell’s brief further points out that the Acting Director dismissed his union decertification petition without holding any formal fact-finding proceedings, and that the PERB agents provided Bell with the union’s blocking charges very late in the game – meaning he was deprived of any meaningful chance to challenge the allegations that blocked his election.
“Whether at the state or federal level, so-called ‘blocking charge’ policies do the exact same thing: Give union bosses the opportunity to stop the workers they claim to ‘represent’ from exercising their right to have an election they have properly requested,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In non-Right to Work states like New York, these delays often mean that union officials can continue to siphon dues money from employees who have already expressed substantial interest in voting them out.
“Mr. Bell and his coworkers’ attempts to vote out the aggressive, politics-obsessed UFW union have been stalled for over a year now, which shows, clearly, how New York’s agricultural labor laws squash workers’ free choice simply to empower union bosses,” Mix added.
Bell and another New York farm employee, Jean Estrame, are also seeking to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging New York State’s agricultural labor law (the so-called Farm Laborers’ Fair Labor Practices Act, FLFLPA) because it lets union officials bypass traditional union certification votes and sweep to power using the coercive “card check” unionization method.
Workers in Missouri and Minnesota Challenge Union Bosses’ Scheme to Coerce Workers into Funding Union Political Activities
Cases against AFSCME, Guards Union, are latest to argue federal law prohibits “window periods” that trap nonmembers in full union dues payments
Kansas City, MO & Bloomington, MN (August 14, 2025) – Tina Delkamp, an employee of Honeywell FM&T in Kansas City, MO, and Meriem LeClair, an employee of Cornerstone Advocacy Center in Bloomington, MN, have each filed federal charges challenging union officials’ policies in their respective workplaces that coerce nonmember workers into funding union political activities. Delkamp and LeClair filed their charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Both charges state that union officials breached federal labor law by demanding that the employees “affirmatively opt-out of paying for political and ideological activities, instead of opting-in to make political and ideological contributions.” Under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, union bosses cannot force workers who have opted out of union membership to pay fees for union political or ideological expenditures.
While the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects workers’ right to abstain from formal union membership, states like Minnesota and Missouri that lack Right to Work laws permit unions to force workers to pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs. However, Beck limits this forced-dues amount to only what union bosses spend on bargaining functions, and these so-called “chargeable expenses” can never include money for union political or ideological activities. In both cases, union officials have attempted to get around Beck by neglecting to inform the employees of their rights.
Unions Can’t Force Funding for Political Activities Automatically
Delkamp’s charges, filed against International Guards Union of America Local 172, state that union officials are unlawfully withholding financial information she needs to verify what she has to pay as a non-member under Beck. Additionally, the charges challenge union officials for telling Delkamp that her inclusion of her employer on emails concerning her Beck rights was somehow a violation of federal law.
“I tried to exercise my right not to fund political activities I oppose, and the union threatened me for it,” said Delkamp. “Union officials shouldn’t be able to take my wages for their partisan activities without asking me first. They need to take responsibility for respecting my rights, instead of making me fight them on it.”
Union officials often neglect to inform workers of their Beck rights, and sometimes don’t even seek worker consent before deducting full dues (including dues for political expenses) from their paychecks. Recent federal charges filed by Delkamp, LeClair, and other workers with free Foundation legal aid give the NLRB an opportunity to enforce a new federal standard that would require union officials to seek clear consent from workers before extracting full union dues payments from their paychecks.
Union Used “Window Periods” to Keep Worker Trapped
LeClair’s charges, filed against AFSCME Council 5, also allege that the union “refused to recognize withdraw of union membership, except during ‘window periods,’” imposing an arbitrary restriction on the exercise of her Beck rights. Union-created “window periods,” in which union members can withdraw membership, are a stonewalling tactic with no basis in federal law.
“I didn’t want my union dues funding political activities I oppose, so I tried to resign my union membership, only for officials to tell me I had to wait,” commented LeClair. “If I have a right guaranteed under federal law, that right should apply all the time, not only on the days and weeks convenient for union bosses.”
“Across the country, Big Labor officials are using legally dubious schemes to force unwilling workers to fund a radical political agenda that is completely contrary to the priorities of most rank-and-file employees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The best way to ensure workers’ freedom is, of course, through Right to Work protections that make all union payments completely voluntary.
“Until Right to Work is the law of the land, the NLRB needs to step up to protect workers from being trapped in full forced dues, including the portion used for union political activism,” added Mix. “Workers who have already declined formal union membership should not have to also navigate arbitrary ‘window periods’ just to ensure they are not funding union boss political spending.”
