Full Foundation Action July/August 2024 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the May/June 2024 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- California Farmworkers Fight Back Against Lie-Ridden Union ‘Card Check’
- Dependable Highway Express Workers Successfully Oust Teamsters Union Officials
- Foundation-Backed Workers Push Back Against UAW Bosses’ Coercive Tactics
- Security Guard Wins Groundbreaking ‘Janus’ Religious Accommodation
- MI, OH Kroger Employees Challenge UFCW Forced-Dues-For-Politics Schemes
- MIT Grad Student Charges ‘Marxist’ Union with Illegal Forced Dues for Politics
MIT Grad Student Charges ‘Marxist’ Union with Illegal Forced Dues for Politics
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Five other MIT students also filed religious discrimination charges against radical UE
More clouds are gathering over at MIT as yet another graduate student targets the university with federal charges. She maintains the GSU union and MIT administration are illegally funneling student money into union politics.
BOSTON, MA – Following five Jewish students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) filing federal religious discrimination charges against the same union, the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU-UE, an affiliate of the United Electrical Workers union) is now facing new federal unfair labor practice charges from civil engineering graduate student Katerina Boukin.
Under a series of controversial National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings, graduate students at private universities like MIT are treated as “employees” of the university who can be subjected to forced union “representation.” Boukin’s charges, filed at the NLRB with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, maintain that union officials are unlawfully seizing money from her research compensation to support union political activities she abhors.
Extremist Union Politics Foisted on Graduate Students
“GSU union officials are going above and beyond what is legal and are forcing me to pay for their political activities, including their opposition to Israel and promotion of Leninist-Marxist global revolution, that I find deeply offensive,” commented Boukin. “The 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.”
Boukin’s charges seek to enforce her rights under the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. This landmark ruling established that even in states like Massachusetts that lack Right to Work protections, union officials cannot legally compel individuals to pay for union expenses unrelated to bargaining activities, like union boss political activities.
According to Boukin’s charge, GSU union officials are violating the law by claiming she cannot exercise her rights under Beck because she missed a union-created annual “window period.” However, her charge asserts this restriction is blatantly illegal.
In fact, the GSU union was already forced to settle a prior Beck case, agreeing there to properly process students’ attempts to exercise their Beck rights. Boukin’s charges against the union argue that the union may be violating not only her rights but also the settlement it made with the NLRB.
GSU Union Bosses Also Charged for Illegal Religious Discrimination
MIT graduate student Will Sussman, along with fellow students Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky, and Adina Bechhofer, have also filed religious discrimination charges against the GSU union with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). They’ve also obtained free Foundation legal help.
The students, who are Jewish, oppose the union’s advocacy for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) anti-Israel movement. Despite asking union officials for legally-required religious exemptions from union dues payment, GSU officials denied their requests and even attempted to explain in letters how the students didn’t truly understand their faith.
As of this article, those EEOC charges remain pending against the GSU, with a federal lawsuit likely the next step if the union refuses to stop its illegal discrimination.
“Freedom of association is apparently a foreign concept to GSU union officials, who are flouting layers upon layers of federal law to compel students to fund their radical political agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “However, both this case and Foundation attorneys’ cases for the five Jewish MIT graduate students show on a deeper level that the choice to provide support to a union should rest solely with workers, who may have sincere religious, political, or other objections to funding any or all of a union’s activities.”
MI, OH Kroger Employees Challenge UFCW Forced-Dues-For-Politics Schemes
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-backed workers battle union seizures of PAC money, confusing dues forms
President Biden has worked hard to give UFCW bosses and other union officials across America drastically more coercive power over workers. So it’s no wonder UFCW officials are trying to illicitly funnel employee money into union PACs.
DETROIT, MI – Union bosses in states without Right to Work laws are granted the extraordinary legal power to demand that workers pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs. But this perk doesn’t stop many union chiefs in those states from going beyond what is legally permitted to funnel more worker cash into their political activities or other agenda items.
Two recent cases National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are litigating for Kroger Grocery employees Roger Cornett, who works just outside Detroit, Michigan, and James Carroll, who works at a store in Fairfield, Ohio, represent just the latest examples of union officials’ tactics designed to require employees to pay for union political activities without obtaining legally-required consent.
In both cases, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials demanded employees agree to formal union membership and to pay full union dues to keep their jobs, which decades-old Supreme Court cases forbid even in non-Right to Work states. In fact, Cornett states in his federal charges against Kroger and the union that UFCW union officials lack a legal basis to demand money from any worker at all.
Neither situation is helped by the fact that Kroger, a supermarket company with a long history of being complicit when union officials violate its employees’ rights, not only did nothing to defend the rights of its employees but actually threatened the employees for not going along with union schemes.
Union Socks Away Worker Cash for PAC, Despite No Legal Authority
Cornett’s charges recount that he asked Kroger officials in February if there was an updated version of the union contract that would require him and other nonmembers to pay dues as a condition of employment in light of the repeal of Michigan’s Right to Work law. Neither UFCW nor Kroger provided Cornett with such a contract in response to his request.
The lack of a contract eviscerates the UFCW’s ability to demand any money from workers. Under longstanding federal law, even in a state without Right to Work protections, union officials can only require employees to pay dues as a condition of employment if there exists a contract with a valid forced-dues clause.
Union officials also told Cornett and other workers that it was a condition of employment for employees to become union members, authorize direct deductions of union dues from their pay, and “sign all or part of the three-part Union membership application and checkoff form” — the latter of which included a page authorizing deductions for the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC).
The Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision forbids union officials from forcing nonmember workers to pay money for any expenses outside the union’s core bargaining functions, while federal law prevents union bosses from requiring workers to authorize payroll deductions of union dues (as opposed to less intrusive methods) or to pay money to a union PAC used to fund union boss-backed political candidates.
Cornett says in his charges that he decided to sign the three-part form in order to keep his job, but Foundation attorneys are fighting to ensure he will be vindicated for each and every violation by union officials and Kroger.
Ohio Worker Duels UFCW Over Illegal ‘Dual-Purpose’ Membership Form
In Ohio, Kroger employee James Carroll has charged UFCW union bosses with coercing him into signing an illegal “dual-purpose” membership form, which seeks only one employee signature for authorization of both union membership and dues deductions.
Federal labor law requires that any authorization for union dues deductions be voluntary and separate from a union membership application, as workers have the right to abstain from forced union membership even in non-Right to Work states where some fees can be required. In his case, Carroll is also battling Kroger’s continuing deduction of full union dues from his paycheck at UFCW chiefs’ behest, despite his lack of consent.
“Not only did UFCW bosses present me with a form that clearly violates federal labor law, but they also threatened that I would lose my job if I didn’t sign it,” commented Carroll. “This only serves to show me that UFCW bosses don’t care about my rights and are simply interested in getting union dues out of me, and it’s sad to see my employer going along with this as well.”
Right to Work Protects Worker Freedom Where Federal Law Doesn’t
“Even where Right to Work isn’t in effect, federal law protects the right of workers not to be forced into formal union membership that includes support for union politics. But union bosses regularly seek to exploit their power to demand payments that go beyond what the law allows,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “We’re proud to help Mr. Carroll and Mr. Cornett defend their rights, but ultimately Ohio and Michigan workers need the protection of Right to Work so union financial support is fully voluntary and employees have a clear right to say ‘no’ to any union demand for payment.”
Security Guard Wins Groundbreaking ‘Janus’ Religious Accommodation
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
À la Janus, religious objector to union affiliation is free from all forced payments
The landmark Janus SCOTUS case, argued by Foundation Legal Director William Messenger, profoundly strengthened public employees’ First Amendment rights. But it appears the impact of the case is just beginning.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have been trailblazers in scoring legal protections for independent-minded workers who oppose joining or paying dues to a union on religious grounds. Over the years, Foundation attorneys have helped workers from a variety of faiths secure religious accommodations to forced-dues payment.
Earlier this year, Foundation attorneys achieved a breakthrough in this area of the law. In their case for Thomas Ross, a San Francisco-based employee of security company Allied Universal who sought a faith-based exemption from paying dues to a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate, Foundation attorneys won an unprecedented settlement. It not only frees Ross from any requirement to pay dues or fees to the union, but also frees him from any obligation to pay an amount equivalent to dues to a charity, which has been the dominant form of accommodation in the past for religious objectors.
Union Demanded Religious Worker Violate Faith, Breaking Federal Laws
Ross is a Christian who opposes union affiliation on religious grounds. Ross informed both the SEIU union and Allied Universal when he was hired in 2020 that his religious beliefs disallowed union membership and that he needed an accommodation. In addition to ignoring that request, in 2022 his employer told him that union membership was mandatory and “demanded that [he] sign a payroll deduction, join the [union], and pay union dues,” according to filings in his case.
Ross fought back by filing federal discrimination charges against the union and Allied Universal at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as by filing unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires unions and employers to accommodate religious objections to union payments. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits mandatory union membership, even in non-Right to Work states like California.
Ross’ Foundation-backed legal battle against SEIU and Allied Universal continued into 2023, when Foundation attorneys appealed a specious NLRB decision which attempted to dispose of the issue as a mere administrative error on the employer’s part. Finally, in 2024, the SEIU and Allied Universal backed down and settled the case, conceding a full religious accommodation to Ross.
The terms of the settlement state that Allied Universal and SEIU “will not enforce the collective bargaining agreement’s union membership and fee provisions against Ross . . . [and] will not force Ross to pay any union fees while he is employed by Allied Universal.”
In an article in the Baylor Law Review following the settlement, Foundation attorneys Bruce Cameron and Blaine Hutchison argue that, in light of the Foundation’s landmark 2018 Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME, religious accommodations like Ross’ should be the standard for future cases involving religious objectors to union membership and dues payment. In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits forcing public sector employees to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.
Janus Shows Right Way to Accommodate Religious Employees
The article points out that the Supreme Court in Janus knocked down the so-called “free-rider” and “labor-peace” arguments that union lawyers typically use to justify forcing religious objectors to pay dues money to a charity. In Janus, the article explains, “The Court showed that nonmembers need not pay fees to compensate the union or to prevent labor unrest.”
The payment-to-charity scheme simply “punishes individuals for following their faith,” the article says. “Janus shows the proper solution: religious objectors need not pay any forced union fees.”
“Mr. Ross fought bravely with help from Foundation attorneys, and has opened up a new horizon for religious employees across the country,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The idea that union officials can force religious objectors to make any kind of payment clearly runs counter to America’s core ideals of freedom of religion and freedom of association, and it’s high time that courts recognize more robust protections for those rights.
“However, it’s important to recognize that, regardless of whether an employee’s objection to union affiliation is religious in nature or not, no American worker should ever be forced to subsidize union activities they oppose,” Mix added.
Foundation-Backed Workers Push Back Against UAW Bosses’ Coercive Tactics
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
New Jersey ouster of UAW comes as union bosses wage aggressive nationwide campaign
Fain’s Bane: Michael Oliver and his Nissan parts distribution coworkers ousted UAW officials even after they’d tried to force a new contract on the workplace. UAW President Shawn Fain had no response after Oliver’s victory.
SOMERSET, NJ – United Auto Workers (UAW) union bosses this April and May continued marching forward their multi-million-dollar campaign to get auto workers from traditionally nonunion plants under their control. They’ve met with only mixed success — most recently a union election at Mercedes-Benz’s large plant in Vance, Alabama, saw nearly 600 more workers vote against UAW control than for it.
Meanwhile, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys helped a large group of New Jersey employees oust the UAW after they’d seen the union’s agenda up close. Michael Oliver and his coworkers successfully exercised their right to vote UAW bosses out of a Nissan parts distribution plant in Somerset, New Jersey. Nearly 70% of the workers who participated in the “decertification vote” at the Nissan facility voted to send the Detroit-based union packing.
“UAW union officials were far more concerned with hoarding power in the workplace than communicating with or listening to workers,” Oliver told The Detroit News of his and his colleagues’ effort. “They kept us completely in the dark about contract negotiations, and treated anyone in the workplace who opposed their agenda or questioned their leadership with a huge amount of arrogance, contempt, and even intimidation.”
Oliver submitted a decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in early April, asking the federal agency to hold a vote at his workplace to remove the union. The petition contained signatures from enough of his coworkers to trigger a vote under NLRB rules. The vote took place on April 24.
Even in the midst of widespread worker opposition, UAW officials tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to manipulate NLRB processes in order to remain in power at the Nissan parts distribution plant. Shortly after Oliver submitted the decertification petition, UAW union officials announced that they had ratified a new union contract with Nissan management.
The NLRB’s dubious “contract bar” allows union bosses in many cases to quash decertification efforts for generally up to three years while a union contract is in effect. However, the contract bar didn’t stop Oliver and his coworkers’ requested election, because union officials weren’t able to reach a monopoly bargaining agreement with Nissan before Oliver filed his petition.
Shawn Fain Lost for Words After Nissan Workers Oust UAW Union
Oliver and his coworkers’ endeavor caught UAW President Shawn Fain off-guard. Fain told The Detroit News “I don’t have a response, because that kind of happened under the radar” and claimed that the company somehow played an illicit role in influencing the workers to kick out the union. However, there’s no evidence to support that claim, and UAW officials filed no objections to the election despite having ample time to do so.
Philly-Area Dometic Workers Fight Illegal UAW Strike Threats
Meanwhile, UAW chieftains at the Philadelphia-area plant of auto accessory manufacturer Dometic are facing new worker-filed federal charges for sending a mass text to employees illegally threatening their employment if they exercise their right to continue working during a strike.
These new charges come after several Dometic employees already hit the UAW with charges accusing the union of imposing unlawful disciplinary procedures on them simply because they resigned membership in the union.
Mario Coccie, the Dometic worker who filed the latest round of federal charges against the UAW with free Foundation legal aid, was also in the group of workers who initially charged the union with illegally penalizing workers who resign membership. “The information in this text reveals union officials’ real intentions, which is to hurt anyone willing to stand up for themselves,” commented Coccie. “What is happening in this case is completely unjust.”
“With UAW union bosses spending millions of dollars to expand their influence to nonunion facilities around the country, it’s important to remember that workers who have experienced UAW officials’ ‘representation’ often end up resenting it,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Nissan employees in New Jersey and Dometic workers in Pennsylvania are prime examples of this, and their situations demonstrate above all that workers must have more leeway in disaffiliating with or completely voting out union bosses whose agendas harm the workers.”
Dependable Highway Express Workers Successfully Oust Teamsters Union Officials
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
California workers claim victory in vote to remove Teamsters after union threat-mongering
Teamsters Trucked Out: John Cwiek didn’t give up the fight after Teamsters union officials tried to threaten him after he revealed info on union boss salaries. He rallied his coworkers, who sent the union packing.
ONTARIO, CA – In a victory for workplace freedom, employees at Los Angeles-based transportation company Dependable Highway Express have won their fight to remove Teamsters Local 63 union officials from their workplace. The campaign for removal was spearheaded by employee John Cwiek, who obtained support from a majority of his coworkers on a petition that sought a vote to remove the union. Cwiek received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation throughout his legal fight to remove the union he and his coworkers opposed.
Teamsters Walk Away
The initiative began when Mr. Cwiek filed a union decertification petition in March of this year, asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a secret ballot vote to strip Teamsters union officials of their monopoly bargaining power over Dependable Highway Express employees. Eventually, when it became clear the vote would be held, Teamsters officials conceded defeat and walked away from the bargaining unit rather than contest the decertification election.
Because Cwiek and his fellow employees work in non-Right to Work California, Teamsters officials were empowered to enforce contracts that forced employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment. With the union gone, Dependable Highway Express workers are free from both the union’s forceddues demands and the unwanted monopoly bargaining power.
The decertification effort came after the Foundation assisted Cwiek in filing unfair labor practice charges against Teamsters union officials for retaliating against him because he revealed truthful but unfavorable information about union officials to his coworkers.
Union Bosses Threatened Worker for Revealing Union Boss Salaries
In January, Cwiek sent letters to his coworkers containing details about union boss salaries — information Cwiek pulled from the Teamsters union’s public filings with the U.S. Department of Labor. In retaliation for Cwiek sending the letters, a union official appeared at Cwiek’s workplace the next day, made accusations against him, and threatened that Cwiek wouldn’t be working at Dependable Highway Express by the next contract period.
“I am deeply troubled by the blatant retaliatory actions taken by officials at Teamsters Local 63 in response to expressing the views of myself and several other hard-working drivers at Dependable Highway Express,” Cwiek commented at the time. “We will not be deterred by their bullying tactics and the baseless accusations they levy against myself and others.”
“Mr. Cwiek’s battle and the struggles of other transportation workers across Southern California show exactly why Right to Work protections are so necessary,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Workers obviously shouldn’t be forced to pay a union that engages in illegal activity, and ideally they should have full control over whether or not union officials get a cut of their paycheck.”
California Farmworkers Fight Back Against Lie-Ridden Union ‘Card Check’
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
UFW bosses seized power under false pretenses, now stifle any dissent
Maria Gutierrez (left) and Claudia Chavez (right) are battling powerhungry UFW union bosses’ deceptive “card check” unionization drive, which has already stirred huge opposition among their coworkers.
BAKERSFIELD, CA – Most states don’t offer union bosses the legal privilege to force agricultural workers under their monopoly bargaining control. In such arrangements, all employees in a work unit must accept the “representation” of a union regardless of whether they support or voted for the union.
This isn’t the case in California, where the perennially pro-forced unionism legislature has granted union bosses the power to thrust farm employees under union control. Not only that, the state legislature recently handed union bosses the ability to gain power in an agricultural workplace via the so-called “card check” method. Card check bypasses workers’ right to vote in secret on the union and instead relies on union authorization cards collected by union officials, who often use misinformation, threats, or intimidation to obtain card signatures from workers, including in a current National Right to Work Foundation case.
CA Labor Board Blindly Accepts Suspect ‘Card Check’ Results
Card check has glaring flaws. Despite that, if a union submits cards collected from a majority of workers in a workplace, the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) will immediately declare that union to be a monopoly bargaining agent — a status that can only be challenged after the fact.
Claudia Chavez and Maria Gutierrez are two Foundation-represented workers at Wonderful Nurseries’ grapevine nursey in Wasco, CA — the largest grapevine nursery in North America. They are now fighting for their and their coworkers’ rights in a situation that demonstrates the real-life problems that card check creates for worker freedom. In April, they submitted unfair labor practice charges stating that United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials “by artifice, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and/or coercion” got them and many of their coworkers to sign membership cards for the union, and the union falsely “represent[ed] itself as having obtained the support of a majority of the employees” afterward.
UFW Campaign Rife with Misrepresentation and Even Discrimination
“UFW union officials deceived us just so they could gain power in our workplace,” Chavez and Gutierrez commented. “Instead of just letting us vote in secret on whether we want a union, they went around lying and threatening to get cards and now are cracking down on anyone who speaks out against the union. We hope the ALRB listens to us and prosecutes the union for its illegal acts.”
Chavez and Gutierrez’s charges describe multiple lies — and even discriminatory behavior — that UFW union bosses used to get employees to sign authorization cards, including “representing that certain COVID19-related public benefits available to farmworkers required signatures on union membership cards . . . that union membership cards were not, in fact, union membership cards to be used in any UFW organizing efforts . . . presenting to strictly Spanishspeaking discriminatees union membership cards only in English . . . [and] presenting to illiterate discriminatees union membership cards and misrepresenting their content and/or significance.”
Workers Protest Illegal Union Actions Despite Crackdown on Dissent
UFW union officials’ malfeasance isn’t stopping, according to Chavez and Gutierrez’s charges. They contend that UFW bosses are illegally forbidding employees from taking back the fraudulently-obtained cards and are “engaging in a campaign of harassment, libel, slander, and intimidation against [employees who are] exercising their right of free speech and/or protest under [California labor law] to oppose UFW representation.” But it seems Wonderful Nurseries employees haven’t been deterred, as Wonderful Nurseries workers have engaged in multiple outdoor demonstrations against the union, chanting, “We don’t want a union, listen to our voices, don’t ignore us.”
As another part of the nursery workers’ battle against the UFW, Foundation attorneys represented 13 employees in a motion to intervene in Wonderful Nurseries’ separate case challenging the legitimacy of the card check drive, and now represent a total of 20 Wonderful Nurseries employees.
“UFW union officials have treated Wonderful Nurseries workers as pawns to be used in their pursuit of power, deceiving them with no regard for their rights and now engaging in retaliation against those who exercise their free speech rights against the union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Their situation above all shows the significant problems of the ‘card check’ process, in which workers are denied a chance to vote in secret on a union and are left exposed to a multitude of illegal union tactics.”
Full Foundation Action May/June 2024 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the May/June 2024 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- MIT Grad Students Slam Union with Federal Discrimination Charges
- Hear Ye, Hear Ye: Medieval Times Performers Are Union-Free
- Foundation Fires Back Against Biden NLRB ‘Card Check’ Mandate
- Michigan Security Guards Fight to End Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
- Foundation to Justices: Workers Opposing Unions Isn’t ‘Harm’ to be Eliminated
- Tennessee AT&T Workers Avert ‘Card Check’ Catastrophe with Foundation Aid
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
Tennessee AT&T Workers Avert ‘Card Check’ Catastrophe with Foundation Aid
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
CWA union officials tried to lock workers in inescapable unit without vote
President Biden, a longtime ally of radical CWA union officials, has stocked the National Labor Relations Board with ex-union lawyers who are manipulating labor law to give union bosses more options to trap workers in unions without a vote.
TENNESSEE – Over the years, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have successfully represented countless workers across the country who have opposed union officials’ attempts to force them under monopoly bargaining via the coercive “card check” process. Unsurprisingly, workers prefer to cast ballots in secret, as opposed to having that right snatched in favor of a scheme where union bosses can intimidate workers into signing a card “authorizing” union control.
Fortunately, workers can turn to the Foundation for free legal aid in fighting coercive card check unionization. For example, in March, Denis Hodzic and his fellow In-Home Experts from AT&T Mobility locations across Tennessee successfully challenged a card check campaign by Communications Workers of America (CWA) union bosses that would have almost certainly confined them in the union for the rest of their careers with the company.
Union Bosses Tried to Trap Workers, Then Fled When Faced with Actual Vote
CWA agents installed themselves over Hodzic’s work unit — which was comprised of over 100 AT&T In-Home Experts — by card check. Shortly after, however, Hodzic filed a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a “decertification vote” to remove the union. Roughly two-thirds of his work unit signed the petition demanding a secret-ballot vote on the union’s presence.
CWA union officials filed objections in an attempt to stop the election, but an NLRB Regional Director rejected these and ruled that a decertification election should go forward. Before the vote could occur, CWA union officials filed paperwork disclaiming interest in continuing their control over the workers — likely to avoid an embarrassing rejection by employees at the ballot box.
Had Hodzic and his coworkers’ effort not succeeded, NLRB documents indicate that they would have been integrated into a nationwide bargaining unit comprised of thousands of employees, which would have made petitioning for a vote to kick out the union virtually impossible.
Biden NLRB Boosting Card Check Despite Unreliability
Cases like Hodzic’s serve as potent reminders that card check doesn’t represent the true will of workers vis-à-vis bringing in a union. Even AFL-CIO organizing guidelines admit that employees often sign cards during a card check to “get the union off my back.”
Despite this, the Biden NLRB is rapidly increasing union bosses’ ability to corral workers into a union via card check while cutting down workers’ ability to vote in secret-ballot union elections. In the August 2023 Cemex decision, the agency greatly expanded union bosses’ power to overturn elections that don’t go in their favor if an employer requests such an election to challenge a card check.
The Biden NLRB is also conducting rulemaking to overturn the Election Protection Rule (EPR), a set of Foundation-backed reforms that the NLRB adopted in 2020. The EPR permits employees to submit decertification petitions within a 45-day window after the finalization of a card check. This process was originally established by Foundation attorneys in the 2007 Dana Corp. NLRB case. Though this decision was later overturned by the Obama NLRB, “Dana elections” were codified in the EPR.
Hodzic and his colleagues were able to request their election under the auspices of this policy.
“The NLRB Election Protection Rule was essential for us to rely on as we went through the process of seeking resolution to our tricky situation,” Hodzic commented. “The 45-day petition window needs to remain regardless of which group holds the majority position in Washington . . . . [W]e hope that lawmakers see the necessity of having this rule in place, and that both unions and employers abide by the laid-out NLRB processes to ensure fair representation and protection of workers.”
“While Mr. Hodzic’s story had a happy ending, his situation illustrates just how dire things will get once the Biden NLRB’s anti-freedom agenda is fully realized,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “While American union bosses may desire a world in which they can force employees into inescapable work units without even a vote, Foundation attorneys will continue to fight for workers’ right to choose freely whether they want union control or not.”
Foundation to Justices: Workers Opposing Unions Isn’t ‘Harm’ to be Eliminated
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief in Starbucks-related SCOTUS case counters Labor Board attempts to impose union control
With the Supreme Court reviewing the standard used when the NLRB seeks injunctions that cement unions in power, the Foundation told the High Court such injunctions should not be allowed to infringe on workers’ legitimate right, under federal labor law and the Constitution, to oppose unionization.
WASHINGTON, DC – “Heads I win, tails you lose”: That’s how a brief filed by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys with the U.S. Supreme Court describes the Biden National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) argument that worker opposition to a union should count as a reason to impose union bosses’ demands on a workplace. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on this issue in January, with arguments scheduled for late April.
“Evidence that employees support a union is taken to mean they want to support the union,” the brief says. “Evidence that employees oppose a union is taken to mean their employer must have wrongfully caused the employees not to support the union. All evidence conveniently leads to the conclusion desired by current NLRB leadership: employees should support unions.”
The Foundation’s brief before the High Court in Starbucks v. McKinney discusses how NLRB officials use this radical assumption to urge federal courts to hit employers with “10(j) injunctions” that coerce the employers to give into certain union-demanded behavior. As Foundation attorneys explain, the NLRB often tells courts that worker discontent with a union is a “harm” that the courts should rectify with a 10(j) injunction.
Foundation in Starbucks Case: Worker Opposition to a Union is a Basic Right
Foundation staff attorneys push back on this theory in their legal brief, arguing that an employee’s decision to not support a union is not a “harm,” but a “legitimate choice [they] have a right to make” under both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Union bosses and their allies in the NLRB want the U.S. Supreme Court to establish a rule in Starbucks v. McKinney that permits injunctions against employers if their alleged conduct could potentially coerce workers into not supporting a union. Foundation attorneys instead argue that “the Court must require the NLRB to prove employees were unlawfully coerced not to support a union because, absent such proof, employees have every right to make that choice” (emphasis added).
Starbucks Workers Challenging NLRB Constitutionality
In addition to fighting cynical attempts by Biden NLRB bureaucrats to turn worker opposition to unions into a reason to beef up union officials’ coercive power, Foundation attorneys are assisting two groups of Starbucks workers with federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Biden NLRB as a whole.
The newest effort comes from San Antonio, TX-area Starbucks employee Reed Busler and his coworkers. They submitted a petition to the NLRB containing enough employee signatures to prompt a vote to “decertify,” or remove, the SBWU union. But an NLRB Regional Director blocked the vote based on union allegations of employer misconduct that have no proven connection to Busler and his colleagues’ effort to vote out the union. Busler himself noted in an NLRB filing that the move to decertify started “because the Union was a divisive force in our store” and ignored workers.
Busler has filed a federal lawsuit against the NLRB arguing its structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine because NLRB Board Members are insulated from at-will removal. The lawsuit seeks an injunction that halts the NLRB from proceeding with his decertification case until his federal lawsuit is resolved.
“Starbucks is becoming ‘ground zero’ for several key battles over worker freedom,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Underlying a large portion of the drama is the NLRB’s flawed theory that workers’ exercise of their right to oppose unions is an evil to be eradicated, which unions and their allies in the NLRB bureaucracy are trying to use to force down their agenda on workplaces across the country.
“An even bigger issue, however, is the fact that the NLRB has for decades operated as a kangaroo court run by powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution,” Semmens added. “American employees shouldn’t be forced to fight for their rights in such a pro-union boss environment.”
