Hundreds of Lufthansa Technicians at Rafael Hernandez International Airport Secure Vote to Remove IAM Union
Majority of technicians signed petition demanding union ouster vote; IAM officials used allegations against employer in unsuccessful attempt to block vote
Para leer este artículo en español, haga clic aquí.
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (August 12, 2025) – Eric Matos, an airplane technician at Lufthansa Technik’s facility at Rafael Hernandez International Airport, has secured an opportunity for him and roughly 200 of his colleagues to vote International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials out of their workplace. Matos’ success comes after the General Counsel of the National Mediation Board (NMB) in Washington, DC, rejected IAM union bosses’ attempt to block the employees from voting, and scheduled the vote to occur via mail ballot between August 21 and October 16, 2025. Matos is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in defending his and his coworkers’ right to vote.
The NMB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal law in the air and rail industries, a task which includes ordering and administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Under NMB rules, to obtain a vote to decertify a union, workers must submit a petition indicating that at least 50% of similar workers across a “craft or class” under the union’s control want to have such a vote. Matos submitted a petition containing signatures from a majority of his colleagues in order to trigger the decertification election.
The Lufthansa Technik technicians are under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), the federal statute that governs labor relations in the air and rail industries. This means that union bosses have the power to enforce contracts that require payment of union dues or fees as a condition of employment, regardless of a state’s or territory’s Right to Work status (Puerto Rico currently lacks Right to Work protections). For that reason, rail and air employees must vote union officials out of their workplaces to avoid pay-up-or-be-fired demands.
“The union has only seen us as a dollar sign from the very first day and they know very well that having us intimidated and divided while feeding us misinformation is an open path for them to obtain that dollar,” commented Matos.
IAM Union Bosses Denied Request for Immunity From Worker Vote
Despite Matos’ submission of a majority-backed decertification petition, IAM union officials made a number of dubious arguments in an attempt to not only stop the technicians from voting, but to immunize the union for a whole year from any employee attempts to eject the union. IAM bosses asked the federal agency to extend by one year the two-year “certification bar” that prevents efforts to oust a union right after it is established at a workplace. The NMB very rarely grants such remedies.
Foundation attorneys argued in a May 2025 brief that the union’s allegations of employer interference – which concerned a supposedly illicit pay raise that Lufthansa gave the technicians – weren’t tested in a federal court. For that reason, the brief said, the allegations couldn’t support the union’s argument that the election should be blocked. In its recent decision, the NMB tossed the union’s request to block the vote and extend the “certification bar,” ruling that “[b]arring extraordinary circumstances, the Board does not take action on allegations of interference until the end of an election voting period.
“[E]ven in cases where election interference is found to have occurred, the remedies the Board imposes to eliminate the taint of any such interference are limited…they do not include the kinds of relief the IAM seeks here,” the ruling continues. In this case, the IAM made the request to block the vote before an election was even approved.
Trump Admin Should Examine Union Election Standards Across the Board
“The NMB was right to reject union bosses’ attempt to prevent Mr. Matos and his colleagues from exercising their right to vote on the IAM’s presence in their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While this case has worked out in the Lufthansa technicians’ favor, this case shows the kind of legal tactics and maneuvers that union bosses will attempt to frustrate the will of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’ just so they can collect forced union dues.
“The Trump Administration, which is still staffing its federal labor agencies, needs to focus on eliminating barriers to worker free choice, whether those exist in policies at the NMB or at other federal labor boards, like the National Labor Relations Board,” Mix added.
San Fernando Valley Kaiser Permanente Nurse Hits UNAC Union With Federal Charges for Forcing Nurses to Fund Union Politics
UNAC union officials stated she would be fired if she refused formal union membership and dues payments for political expenditures
Los Angeles, CA (July 18, 2025) – Sarah Warthemann, a nurse at Kaiser Permanente’s branch in Woodland Hills, has just filed federal charges against the United Nurses Association of California (UNAC) union at her workplace. She maintains that UNAC officials threatened that she would lose her job if she did not formally join the union, and have ignored her attempt to exercise her legal right to opt out of paying for union political expenses. Warthemann filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes adjudicating labor disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects workers’ right to refrain from participating in or supporting union activities.
Warthemann’s charge concerns her rights under CWA Union v. Beck, a Foundation-won case in which the Supreme Court ruled union bosses could not require those abstaining from union membership to fund union ideological activities just to keep their jobs. The General Motors v. NLRB Supreme Court decision also forbids union officials from requiring formal membership as a condition of employment.
Because California is not a Right to Work state, UNAC chiefs can enforce union monopoly bargaining contracts that require Warthemann and her fellow nurses to pay union dues to keep their jobs, but Beck limits this amount to only the portion of dues that UNAC officials use for bargaining functions. In contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Arizona and Nevada, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
“The radical political agenda promoted by the UNAC union is something I do not—and should not—be compelled to support,” Warthemann commented. “While I’m required to pay union dues to remain employed at the hospital, that obligation should not include funding extreme political activities. It is both unethical and, in my view, illegal.”
UNAC Union Bosses Snub Both Federal Law and Recent Settlement
Warthemann reports in her charges that a UNAC representative emailed her a union membership form in June, insisting that she “fill this out ASAP. It is a condition of employment.” Warthemann also notes that UNAC bosses have been ignoring her request to exercise her rights under Beck, and have persisted in demanding she pay full union dues. According to the charges, the union flouted other requirements mandated by the Beck decision – including that union officials provide nonmember employees with a financial breakdown of how the union spends employees’ money.
The UNAC union’s failure to follow Beck is especially flagrant in light of an NLRB-approved settlement union bosses recently reached with another Kaiser Permanente Woodland Hills nurse, Jillian Clausi. Clausi also accused the union of Beck violations, and the settlement in her case contains declarations by the union that it will “not charge Beck objectors the full amount of union membership dues,” among other things. This appears to be exactly the misbehavior Warthemann is describing in her new charge.
“It’s no surprise that UNAC union officials – who spent millions of dollars to influence the 2024 California elections – are trying to keep nurses in the dark about their right to stop their money from enriching the union’s political machine,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But workers’ right to say ‘no’ to funding union boss agendas shouldn’t be limited to just politics. No worker should be forced to fund a union hierarchy that has been abrasive or just flat out incompetent while claiming to ‘represent’ workers.
“Ms. Warthemann’s case is Exhibit A in why all American workers deserve Right to Work protections. Union officials must rely on voluntarism – not government-backed force – to gain worker support,” Mix added.
Comfort Systems USA Pipefitters and Welders Win Two-Year Battle to Escape Steamfitters Local 52 Union
Union officials made dubious charges concerning pipefitter who collected worker signatures opposing union, but charges were dropped just before hearing
Montgomery, AL (July 15, 2025) – Brandon Davis and his fellow pipefitters and welders at Montgomery-based HVAC company Comfort Systems USA Mid-South have successfully removed Steamfitters Local 52 union bosses from their workplace. Davis, who spearheaded the nearly two-year struggle to oust the union, received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Davis’ effort kicked off in March 2023, when he filed a petition backed by his coworkers asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a workplace vote to remove (or “decertify”) the union. The NLRB is the federal agency in charge of enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes adjudicating labor disputes and administering elections to install or remove unions.
While Davis’ petition contained more than enough employee signatures under federal law to trigger a union decertification election, he had a backup plan: To avoid any attempts by union officials to use litigation to hold up or cancel the election, he also submitted a copy of his petition to his employer. Under the 2001 Levitz Furniture Co. NLRB precedent, employers can legally withdraw recognition from union bosses as the “exclusive representative” of their employees upon receiving a petition that shows the union does not enjoy majority support among workers – which Davis’ petition did.
Because Davis and his coworkers work in the Right to Work state of Alabama, state law barred Steamfitters union officials from enforcing contracts that required union membership or dues payments as a condition of employment. However, in Right to Work states and non-Right to Work states alike, union officials still have the ability to impose their “exclusive representation” on every worker in a unionized facility, even those who vote against or otherwise oppose the union.
Steamfitters Union Bosses Sought Order Compelling Workers Under Union Control
Comfort Systems stopped recognizing the Steamfitters union in March 2023 based on Davis’ petition. Unfortunately, Steamfitters union officials still tried to trap Davis and his coworkers under their control. Steamfitters union bosses filed a number of unfair labor practice charges against Comfort Systems management in an attempt to elicit an order from the NLRB that would force the company to submit to bargaining with the union – despite the petition showing that the union no longer enjoyed majority support from the workers. One union boss charge even accused Davis of being a manager or being put up to seeking an election, alleging his collection of worker signatures was part of an illegal company plot.
In February 2025, NLRB Region 15 issued a complaint finding merit to the union’s unfair labor practice charges, including the claim that Davis was a member or agent of management. Davis’ Foundation attorneys quickly sought to intervene in the case between the Steamfitters union and Comfort Systems to rebut the union’s allegations. “Should Mr. Davis be denied Intervenor status, an unfavorable determination in this case could destroy the impact of the decertification petition he prepared, i.e., the lawful withdrawal of recognition by his Employer,” read the motion to intervene.
Under pressure from Davis and his Foundation-provided legal team, the NLRB abandoned the allegations that threatened to reimpose the union and agreed to settle all others just three days before a hearing was scheduled to take place. With no remaining challenges to the company’s withdrawal of recognition, Davis and his colleagues are finally free of the Steamfitters union’s control.
“We’re proud to help Mr. Davis and his fellow Comfort Systems employees escape the clutches of Steamfitters union bosses who weren’t standing up for the employees’ interests, but their legal battle should have never lasted this long,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As the Trump Administration selects new NLRB members, it should seek members who will eliminate policies that let union officials seize forced ‘representation’ powers over workers on the basis of unproven allegations. The Board should instead plan to defend equally workers’ right to associate or disassociate with a union as they please.”
Cornell University Graduate Student Files Federal Charges Seeking End to Union Boss Control Over Graduate Students
Student case attacks Obama-era federal labor board ruling that exposed graduate students to union boss power
Ithaca, NY (July 14, 2025) – Russell Burgett, a Ph.D. candidate in chemical physics at Cornell University, has just launched a groundbreaking federal labor case challenging the Cornell Graduate Student Union’s (an affiliate of United Electrical) authority to maintain exclusive representation powers over him and his fellow graduate students.
Burgett, who opposes the union and is not a member, filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law. Burgett’s case is a direct challenge to the Obama NLRB’s 2016 Columbia University ruling, which overturned longstanding precedent and permitted union bosses to gain monopoly bargaining powers over graduate students at private universities like MIT, Columbia, and Cornell.
While union monopoly bargaining schemes in academia were already controversial at the time of the Columbia University ruling, student opposition to the policy has spiked in recent years as union officials have pursued increasingly radical and divisive ideological activities on campuses.
Charges: NLRB Must Reexamine Union Powers Over Students, Including Forced-Dues Mandates
Burgett’s charges assert that Cornell graduate students are not “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act. For that reason, the charges say, CGSU-UE union officials’ attempts to force them to abide by a union contract – including provisions that effectively mandate the students pay union dues or fees to complete essential parts of their graduate programs – violate federal labor law.
Furthermore, Burgett’s charges contend the union contract is illegal because it forbids the university from doing business with students who abstain from union membership or union financial support. Union agreements that require an entity to cease doing business with persons who refuse to associate with the union are a clear violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
“Mr. Burgett’s case is the latest chapter in a continuing saga showing why union bosses’ one-size-fits-all bargaining schemes have no place in academia,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “At America’s elite universities, union bosses empowered by the Obama and Biden NLRBs are coercing dissenting students into funding their political radicalism and constant agitation – including Jewish students who have sincere religious objections to the anti-Israel vitriol that campus unions push.
“Forcing students to choose between completing their graduate degrees or affiliating with an ideological group they find unconscionable is antithetical to principles of academic freedom, and Mr. Burgett’s case directly attacks the Obama NLRB’s and Biden NLRB’s flawed rulings allowing such coercion to happen in the first place,” Mix added.
National Right to Work Foundation Files Legal Brief Defending Wisconsin Act 10 as Union Bosses Seek to Regain Coercive Powers
Amicus brief exposes lower court’s flawed argument that union bosses have “right” to monopoly bargaining powers over workers and government
Washington, DC (July 9, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has submitted an amicus brief to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Abbotsford Education Association v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. The case, which is on appeal from the Dane County Circuit Court, is a challenge by a cadre of labor unions against Act 10, a 2011 state law that set important restrictions on public sector union officials’ ability to control Wisconsin public services and public workers.
Act 10, among other provisions, prevents unelected union bosses from enforcing monopoly bargaining contracts that would let them dictate key aspects of work and compensation for large portions of state government – even over the objections of public workers themselves and their managers. It also requires union officials to periodically submit to employee votes (or “re-certification”) to ensure that they still enjoy majority employee support in public workplaces where they are in power. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional in 2014, but union officials believe that the changed ideological makeup of the Court gives them a new opportunity to get the law overturned and regain power.
“[T]he Foundation has frequently offered its views as amicus curiae in cases impacting upon important aspects of employee freedom,” the Foundation’s amicus brief reads. “Most importantly here, the Foundation has provided free legal aid to employees in other challenges mounted by unions against various provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.”
Lower Wisconsin Court Ignores Clear Supreme Court Precedent in Flawed Act 10 Ruling
The Foundation’s amicus brief first contends that a state like Wisconsin “can define and limit the parameters of exclusive representation as it sees fit,” and union officials’ public sector monopoly bargaining powers are not a “right” that the U.S. or Wisconsin constitutions require the government to acknowledge.
“The United States Supreme Court recognized this principle long ago” in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, the amicus brief says. The Dane County Circuit Court erroneously called monopoly bargaining a “right” the Wisconsin legislature could not ban in certain public departments but allow in others.
In 2007, Foundation attorneys won a victory at the United States Supreme Court in Davenport v. Washington Education Association that established a similar point to Smith: Union officials have no constitutional “right” to seize money from nonconsenting workers. Wisconsin’s Right to Work law and the Foundation’s Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME continue to protect Wisconsin workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs.
The Foundation’s amicus brief also states that the Dane County Circuit Court failed to consider whether, instead of striking down Act 10 as a whole, it could have expanded the statute’s pro-employee liberty provisions to cover all public departments to correct the alleged imbalances the court perceives in the law. “[T]he Circuit Court could have expanded the protection of Act 10’s re-certification requirements to all public employees in the State,” the brief says.
In addition to Act 10’s benefits for independent-minded public workers, public spending analyses indicate that the law has relieved Wisconsin taxpayers from the enormous financial weight of wasteful union contracts. Some estimates show that Act 10 has saved the state roughly $35 billion since it was enacted.
“Act 10 is a simple recognition that voters and taxpayers – not unelected union bosses – should be in control of how the public services Wisconsinites fund are managed,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But the union boss attempt to nix it is an even more egregious attack on Wisconsin public workers, who under union officials’ proposed regime would be forced to sacrifice to unions the right to freely choose who will speak for them on workplace matters. Even convicted felons have the right to choose their own representation, but union officials seek to deny this right to dissenting public employees.
“The latest attempt to get Act 10 overturned is a power play by Wisconsin union officials that will severely harm the public interest, and no Wisconsin court should be complicit in that scheme,” Mix added.
Evansville Electrician Files Federal Charges Against IBEW Local 16 for Union Bosses’ $1.29 Million Retaliatory ‘Fine’
Electrician validly resigned union membership and left union to purchase a non-union electrical firm, but union used sham proceeding to levy massive fine
Evansville, IN (June 30, 2025) – Brian Head, an Evansville-based electrician, has just filed federal charges against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 16 union for threatening him with a $1.29 million fine after he exercised his right to resign from the union. Head filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
IBEW Union Bosses Threaten Fake Limits on Membership Resignation, Bogus Discipline
Head’s charges to the NLRB, which is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, report that he resigned his IBEW union membership on March 27, 2025, in a notarized letter that IBEW officials acknowledged in an April 3 reply letter. However, the reply letter claimed that “[i]t is a six-month process before the resignation is finally effective.”
Putting such restrictions on workers’ right to resign their union memberships has no basis in law. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Pattern Makers v. NLRB spell out that workers have a right to end union membership and union officials cannot require such membership as a condition of getting or keeping a job (though states that lack Right to Work laws like Indiana’s let union officials force workers to pay dues or be fired). Union officials also may not impose union discipline, like fines, on workers who aren’t members.
In the interim between the two letters, IBEW Local 16 pursued union discipline against Head for “purchas[ing] a non-union electrical contractor and…decid[ing] not to sign a Letter of Assent” that would have likely handed the business over to union control without any kind of worker vote. Notably, the union’s discipline took place after Head’s March 27 union resignation – meaning Head was legally beyond the union’s powers to impose any sort of internal punishment.
Union Letter Imposes Million-Dollar-Plus ‘Punishment’ on Electrician
Nevertheless, IBEW Local 16 officials sent Head correspondence on May 1 demanding he appear before a union tribunal. Head later received a letter from IBEW Local 16 bosses on June 9 finding him “guilty” of violating the union’s constitution and imposing a “$1.29 Million dollar fine” as a penalty.
“IBEW Local 16 union bosses’ imposition of this cruel million-dollar-plus ‘punishment’ on a rank-and-file worker shows that their real priority is maintaining cartel-like control over Indiana electricians – not standing up for workers’ rights or freedom,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “IBEW bosses have no legal grounds for this obscene exploitation. But as ridiculous as this situation is, it’s important to remember that union monopoly bargaining is still the law of the land in all 50 states – a power that allows overtly self-interested union bosses like IBEW officials to extend their so-called ‘representation’ over every worker in a unionized facility, no matter how strenuously any worker opposes the union.”
National Right to Work Foundation Submits Comments Opposing Proposed DOL Rule Loosening Union Financial Disclosures
Comments: Rule will let huge number of unions escape meaningful scrutiny over how union bosses spend worker funds while providing no tangible benefits
Washington, DC (July 31, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has just submitted comments regarding the Office of Labor Management Standards’ (OLMS) proposed rule to significantly reduce financial disclosures union officials are required to file with the Department of Labor. The comments warn that the slated rule will deprive millions of rank-and-file workers of vital information on how union officials spend their dues payments, especially spending on union political and ideological activities.
Current financial disclosure rules for unions mandate that unions with $250,000 or more in annual receipts file an LM-2 report with the Department of Labor, while unions with less revenue must only submit less-detailed LM-3 or LM-4 reports, both of which consist of only a few pages. The OLMS’ proposed rule would eliminate the requirement to turn in an LM-2 for all unions except those with $450,000 or more in annual receipts, meaning a large number of unions currently subject to LM-2 reporting would only be required to provide substantially less-comprehensive filings.
“The ‘cost’ of the proposed rule—the information that workers and others will no longer be able to learn about unions—is considerable,” the comments say. “The rule’s ostensible ‘benefit’—reducing union reporting burdens—is not supported by evidence and is insignificant…The costs of the proposed rule greatly outweigh its nonexistent benefits.”
New Rule Will Block Millions of Workers From Seeing Basic Details About Union Spending
The comments emphasize the wide impact of the proposed rule, especially among those who work in states that lack Right to Work protections and for that reason can be forced to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. “OLMS data for the past year…shows over 7,700 filings from unions with receipts under $450,000 that are located in states that lack Right to Work laws,” the comments say. “These unions reported combined annual receipts of over $523 million, annual disbursements of over $514 million, and over 4 million members.
“The lack of more detailed reporting requirements for these unions therefore harms over 4 million workers by denying them meaningful details” regarding how union officials spend their hard-earned money, the comments explain.
Much of this omitted information will include details on how much money union officials spend on overhead and administration as opposed to representational activities in the workplace, not to mention what union bosses are contributing to often-divisive political causes. While LM-2 forms let workers quickly see these figures, the comments say, “[t]he proposed rule will deprive workers of this information about many unions because the LM-3 does not include these reporting categories.”
Knowing less about union political spending will also impede workers’ ability to enforce their rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, the comments point out. Beck blocks union bosses from forcing nonmember workers under their control to pay for union ideological expenses or anything unrelated to representational activities. The comments point to contributions disclosed on LM-2s to groups such as ActBlue, Black Lives Matter, and the Democratic National Committee that would no longer be disclosed to workers if the proposed rule were implemented.
Comments Debunk Union ‘Burden’ Arguments Cited by OLMS
The comments also reveal that the main impetus OLMS cites for pushing this proposed rule – that the regulatory burden for unions is too large – has very little evidence to support it. An estimate that OLMS put out about the number of hours that the proposed requirements would save unions is “out of date, fails to account for modern…software, and is not even an estimate of the time it takes impacted unions to complete LM-2 reports, but rather is an estimate of the average time it takes all unions to complete LM-2 reports,” the comments say.
The comments conclude by asking OLMS to eliminate the current system of graduated filing thresholds and instead require all unions to file LM-2 reports. “The benefit of this change is self-evident: workers, the public, and the Department will receive more information about union finances, which in turn will lead to more informed workers and deter and uncover more union corruption,” the comments explain.
“America’s top union bosses are routinely caught abusing the funds they demand from millions of workers across the country, all while promoting divisive and often radical political causes at every level of government,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Acting in the best interests of workers means providing more clarity on how employee money is spent, not less.
“Make no mistake: The OLMS’ proposed rule will benefit union bosses at the expense of rank-and-file workers. Every worker deserves to know the basic details of how their money is being spent by those who claim to ‘represent them,’ and the slated rule would deprive millions of workers of what little information they already have,” Mix added.