Starbucks Employee’s Constitutional Challenge to Labor Board Structure Fully Briefed at DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Trump recently removed a Biden NLRB appointee relying on constitutional arguments first raised by NY Starbucks workers’ lawsuit against the NLRB
Washington D.C. (February 24, 2025) – New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have filed the final brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their landmark lawsuit asserting that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) violates the U.S. Constitution.
The case, which is being litigated by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, is especially notable after the Trump Administration asserted the very same legal arguments in its efforts to reform the NLRB. President Trump on January 28 fired NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, criticizing the same removal protections that Cortes and Karam’s first-in-the-nation lawsuit targeted for violating the Constitution.
The Foundation lawsuit, initially filed by Cortes, and later joined by Karam, states that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the president. The appeal challenges a District Court decision that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack legal standing. That decision did not address the underlying claim regarding whether the Labor Board’s structure complies with the requirements of the Constitution.
With the case now fully briefed, oral arguments are expected soon. A ruling in favor of Cortes and Karam could help cement making the Board more accountable to independent-minded employees and their rights.
Case Filed After NLRB Denied Starbucks Employees Right to Vote Out Unwanted Union
On April 28, 2023, Cortes submitted a petition, supported by a majority of her colleagues, asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election at her Buffalo-area “Del-Chip” Starbucks store to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials’ bargaining powers over workers. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification request.
Similarly, Karam filed a decertification petition seeking a vote to remove the union at his Buffalo-area Starbucks store. Like Cortes’ petition, NLRB officials refuse to allow the vote to take place, citing claims made by SBWU officials. As a result the workers remain trapped under union “representation” they oppose.
“This case demonstrates the direct harm caused to workers rights by unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats that have stifled attempts to remove unwanted union representation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “NLRB officials may not like it, but federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law in the land, the Constitution.”
“We are proud that the very legal arguments first made by Foundation attorneys in this case have now been utilized by President Trump to rein in the biased Biden NLRB,” added Mix. “The NLRB’s refusal to process these workers’ decertification petitions, paired with its unchecked authority, exemplifies why reform is overdue.”
Eaton Employee Forces IAM Union Bosses to Abandon Illegal Termination & Fine Threats
Worker’s legal team still pressing labor board to prosecute union officials for threatening workers who opposed union membership
St. Louis, MO (February 21, 2025) – Robert Jacobs, an employee of power management firm Eaton Corporation at its Troy, Illinois, facility, has forced International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials to back off their threats to fire him unless he paid hundreds in illegal fees they imposed on him after he exercised his right to end his union membership.
Jacobs filed federal charges in January challenging the union’s so-called “reinstatement fee” threats at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). He received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
In states like Illinois and Missouri that lack Right to Work protections for their private sector workers, union officials have the privilege to enforce contracts that require every employee in a unionized workplace to pay at least a portion of full union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, as per the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), private sector workers have an absolute right to abstain from formal union membership, a right that was affirmed by landmark Supreme Court decisions such as General Motors v. NLRB.
Federal law further spells out that neither employers nor union officials can compel private sector workers to participate in union activities, which includes imposing retaliatory fees or fines tied to membership. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are fully voluntary and the choice of each individual employee.
Jacobs and many other Eaton employees resigned their IAM union memberships after a strike order in October 2024 which many workers disagreed with. His federal charge reported that, after the strike, IAM union officials hit him and others who had ended membership with threats of termination if they “fail[ed] to pay a $306 ‘reinstatement fee’ by January 2025.”
Faced with federal charges and an NLRB investigation, IAM union officials quickly sent him a letter taking back the threat, claiming that the whole situation was actually due to an error made by Eaton’s Human Resources department in monthly union fee collections.
Federal Labor Board Urged to Investigate Union’s Post-Strike Threats
Despite the quick reversal, Jacobs’ Foundation-provided attorneys have asked the NLRB to continue the investigation against IAM officials, as demanding membership “reinstatement fees” from workers on pain of termination is an illegal practice that goes beyond simply sending workers an invoice for what union officials believe they owe in monthly fees. By formally prosecuting the IAM for these clear-cut violations of federal labor law, the NLRB could also require IAM officials to notify all workers of their legal rights, including the fact that they have the right to resign their formal union membership and that nonmembers cannot be required to pay any reinstatement fees.
“IAM bosses knew this wasn’t right, and that’s why they’re now scrambling to explain themselves,” commented Jacobs. “While my coworkers and I are unfortunately required by Illinois law to pay some union fees, there’s nothing in the law that lets union bosses threaten us like this over membership, and I think the NLRB should hold union bosses accountable for the sake of our whole workplace.”
Foundation attorneys have recently assisted other employees nationwide in challenging IAM union bosses’ influence, including last August in Dover, Ohio, and Petaluma, California, where employees at two different Ford dealerships successfully voted out IAM Local 1363 and IAM Local 1596 union officials, respectively. Foundation attorneys also successfully attacked an illegal dues scheme imposed by IAM union officials on Boeing engineer Don Zueger, which incorrectly calculated the amount of money he could be required to pay to the union as a condition of employment.
“We’re encouraged that Mr. Jacobs’ legal action has caused IAM bosses to back off a clearly illegal threat they imposed on him. But IAM union officials thought it was appropriate to threaten workers who exercised their limited workplace rights with either huge fines or outright termination. That is a disturbing revelation, and taking such action is more than enough to trigger a formal NLRB complaint against the IAM,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As cases like this show, American workers need security for their freedom to affiliate or disaffiliate with unions as they choose, which is why workers deserve Right to Work protections to make all union affiliation and financial support completely voluntary.”
Cincinnati UPS Employee Slams Teamsters Local 100 With Federal Charges for Seizing Dues Illegally From Paycheck
Union officials took money for union expenditures – including union politics – without informing worker of their rights
Cincinnati, OH (February 19, 2024) – A seasonal employee of UPS’ Gest Street Hub in downtown Cincinnati, OH, has just filed federal charges against the Teamsters Local 100 union, maintaining that union bosses seized full union dues payments from their paycheck without their consent and without informing them of their rights to refrain from union membership.
The worker, who has requested anonymity, filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The worker additionally hit UPS management with federal charges for their role in funneling dues from their paycheck to the union.
As the U.S. Supreme Court held in its 1963 NLRB v. General Motors decision, all private sector employees are free to refuse formal union membership, even in non-Right to Work states like Ohio where union officials can demand dues payments from both formal union members and nonmembers. Ohio’s lack of Right to Work protections means that union officials can legally enforce contracts that mandate the firing of workers for not paying union dues.
This forced-dues power is limited, however, by the Foundation-won 1988 Communications Workers of America (CWA) v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which held that workers who refrain from union membership can only be forced to pay dues for what union bosses claim are bargaining-related expenditures – not for extraneous expenses like union political activities. In contrast, in Right to Work states like nearby Kentucky, all union financial support is strictly voluntary and the choice of each individual worker.
Teamsters Skimmed from Worker’s Salary Without Written Authorization
The worker’s charges detail that Teamsters officials never informed them of their rights under General Motors or Beck, and deducted full union dues directly from their pay without obtaining a dues “check-off” authorization from them. In general, union officials can enforce forced-dues requirements against workers by direct deduction only if they’ve obtained written consent for that method from a worker (as workers can pay dues by mail or through other methods).
“Charging Party does not believe that [they] ever signed a union membership form or a dues check-off authorization,” the charges read. “To the extent [they] did sign such documents, the Union has failed to provide Charging Party with copies of them despite [their] written request that it do so.”
Although the worker eventually discovered their Beck rights independently and requested that the union reduce their dues burden in accordance with that decision, their charges state that Teamsters officials never did so and also failed to provide certain financial disclosures that union bosses must provide objecting employees under Beck.
Workers Around Country Pushing Back Against Teamsters Control
Foundation-backed workers in Ohio and across the country are rejecting Teamsters union bosses’ control. At the end of 2024, hundreds of workers across Northern Ohio voted in favor of removing Teamsters union officials from power at their workplaces. That followed efforts to similarly boot out Teamsters bosses from trucking employees in Georgia, California, Virginia, and New Jersey.
“In case after case Teamsters union officials are being caught red-handed violating the rights of the very rank-and-file workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These cases show why every worker in America deserves the protection of a Right to Work law, so he or she can decide for themselves whether or not to join a union and fund union activities.
“Otherwise, as this case and others show, union bosses like Teamsters President Sean O’Brien will continue to abuse their powers to attempt to require employees to fund union expenses beyond what is legal, including by forcing employees to fund union officials’ political spending designed to expand those very coercive forced-dues powers,” Mix added.
Bus Driver Asks National Labor Relations Board to Overturn “Merger Doctrine” Used by Union Bosses to Block Worker-Requested Votes
By “merging” smaller individual bargaining units into mega-units, union officials block workers’ right to escape unwanted “representation” and forced dues
Battle Ground, Washington (February 14, 2025) – Theresa Hause, a school bus driver for First Student Inc. in Battle Ground, Washington, has just filed an appeal asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to overturn the so-called “merger doctrine” that is being used to block Hause and her colleagues from holding a vote to end forced union dues at their workplace. Hause’s Request for Review was filed with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB’s non-statutory “merger doctrine” allows union officials to “merge” employees in a smaller bargaining unit into much larger one. This legal tactic prevents rank-and-file employees exercising their rights under federal law to hold votes to remove unions (known as “decertification elections”) or to end forced-union dues requirements (known as “deauthorization elections”).
Because employees are suddenly part of a much larger and frequently geographically-dispersed “bargaining unit” with workers they have never met and likely don’t even know the names of, once “merged” it becomes effectively impossible for employees to ever reach the 30% threshold of signatures needed to trigger decertificiation or deauthorization elections.
Teamsters and other union officials frequently use non-statutory “merger doctrine” to trap workers in union ranks, forced-dues payments
In previous First Student cases, the “merger doctrine” was wielded by Teamsters officials to block votes at multiple locations on the grounds the workers there were actually part of one massive bargaining unit with over 22,000 drivers in over 100 locations in 33 different states. In another example, a group of less than 10 Wisconsin workers filed a majority-backed petition to remove (i.e. “decertify”) the Teamsters as soon as allowed by federal law, only to be stymied by the “merger doctrine” because they had been secretly “merged” into a multi-company unit of around 24,000 workers.
Hause’s request to end the non-statutory “merger doctrine” follows a decision by a NLRB Regional Director applying the doctrine to her request for a deauthorization election to end Teamsters Local 58 union officials power to require all drivers to pay fees or else be fired. Such a vote is necessary because Hause and her colleagues work in Washington State, which lacks Right to Work protections that make union financial support strictly voluntary.
Hause collected signatures from over 30% of First Student drivers at the facilities in Battle Ground and Hockinson, which is the unit originally organized by Teamsters Local 58 before First Student was even the employer. Rather than let the vote take place, Teamsters lawyers invoked the merger doctrine to disenfranchise the drivers. The Teamsters lawyers argued Hause and her coworkers are only a tiny fraction of First Student drivers under a “National Master First Student Agreement” involving Teamster affiliates across the country.
After the Regional Director sided with the Teamsters to block the workers from voting, an appeal was filed to the five-seat National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC. Currently the NLRB lacks a quorum to act because there are only two Board members. However, President Trump could appoint three new Members who could then rule on Hause’s request for review once they are confirmed by the United States Senate.
“This case shows how Teamsters bosses, aided by biased NLRB-concocted rules, disenfranchise workers and trap them in union ranks and forced dues payments, effectively in perpetuity,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s time for the NLRB to overhaul the arbitrary rules, including the so-called ‘merger doctrine,’ that are being used to eviscerate workers’ statutory rights under the National Labor Relations Act to hold a vote to remove a union opposed by a majority of employees or vote to end forced-dues requirements.”
“Quickly ending the ‘merger doctrine’ would be an excellent way for the incoming Trump NLRB majority to signal that, instead of prioritizing coercive union boss power as the Biden NLRB did, the Trump Labor Board will be putting employee rights and freedoms front and center,” added Mix.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice for Colorado King Soopers Workers Impacted by UFCW Strike
Despite union boss-ordered strike, all 10,000 affected King Soopers employees are free to exercise their right to return to work
DENVER, CO (February 10, 2025) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for workers affected by a strike at the King Soopers grocery chain in Colorado ordered by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials.
According to news reports, the UFCW has ordered around 10,000 workers to strike against King Soopers grocery stores. The Foundation’s legal notice informs these workers of the rights union officials often hide, such as that the workers have the right to continue to work to support their families.
Importantly, the notice gives workers who want to exercise their right to work information on how to avoid fines and punishment that could be imposed by union officials.
“The situation raises serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “That is why workers frequently contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and other oppressive union discipline for continuing to report to work.”
The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights workers’ rights to resign union membership and their right to revoke their union dues check-offs. The notice also provides helpful information for removing union by using a decertification petition to obtain a secret ballot election.
The National Right to Work Foundation is the nation’s premier organization exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employee victims of forced unionism abuse. The full notice can be found at: https://www.nrtw.org/KingSoopers/
The Foundation has a long history of providing legal assistance to workers in such situations. In fact, when UFCW bosses last ordered a strike against King Soopers, Foundation staff attorneys helped several King Soopers employees defend themselves against illegal attempts by UFCW officials to fine the workers for exercising their right to rebuff union strike demands.
“Workers always have the right to continue to work during a strike, despite what union officials may tell them or try to pressure them into doing,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “This legal notice reflects the Foundation’s decades-long commitment to offering free legal aid to workers to protect them from union bosses’ coercive tactics that regularly go hand-in-hand with union strike demands.”
“Foundation attorneys have assisted King Soopers employees in the past against illegal UFCW retaliation, and are here to assist employees facing unlawful retaliation during this latest strike as well,” added Mix.
Fourth Fred Meyer Grocery Employee Hits UFCW Union with Federal Charges
Unfair Labor Practice Charge: Union Bosses illegally threatening strike fine against nonmember worker
PORTLAND, OR (February 6, 2025) – Portland-area Fred Meyer grocery store employee Robert Wendelschafer has filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Local 555. The charges state that union officials broke federal law by ignoring his request to resign union membership during a union strike and are unlawfully retaliating against the employee by demanding nearly $1000 from him because he exercised his right to rebuff union boss strike orders and go to work.
Robert Wendelschafer has joined co-workers Sandra Harbison, Coyesca Vasquez, and Reegin Schaffer in filing charges against the UFCW with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. All four took legal action to challenge unlawful retaliation by union officials after the workers rebuffed union strike orders last year.
As detailed in his charge, on August 30, 2024 Wendelschafer exercised his right to resign union membership and return to work. Despite this, on December 18 union officials sent him a letter stating they had found him guilty of violating internal UFCW rules by crossing the picket line and as a result ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of $992.
If an employee is not a voluntary union member, he or she cannot be legally subjected to internal union discipline, like the fine UFCW union officials are attempting to impose on Wendelschafer, Harbison and Vasquez. UFCW union officials backed off their illegal discipline tactics in Shaffer’s case nearly immediately after her charges were filed in November, but the other charges are still pending with the agency.
UFCW Officials Were Previously Caught Illegally Imposing Massive Strike Fines Against Workers
During past UFCW–instigated strikes, workers faced similar unlawful fines, which union officials claim can only be disputed at internal union courts. In 2022, union officials illegally levied fines against King Soopers grocery chain workers in Denver, Colorado, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike.
The unlawful fines issued by union bosses against the workers were more per day than the workers earned in a day of work, in one case totaling nearly $4,000 throughout the 10 day strike. In that instance Foundation staff attorneys won multiple cases against the UFCW, ultimately resulting in union bosses rescinding the unlawful fines.
“UFCW union officials are again displaying their penchant for using strikes to consolidate power, by threatening rank-and-file workers who exercise their legally-protected right to work despite a union boss-ordered strike,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Workers have a clear legal right to resign from union membership and return to work without facing illegal fines or disciplinary actions, and Foundation attorneys stand ready to assist other Fred Meyer employees that have been subjected to illegal UFCW fines and threats.”
20 Wonderful Nurseries Farmworkers Seek to Join Federal Challenge to Biased Pro-Union Boss California Agricultural Labor Law
Filing: UFW union-backed law sweeps workers into union via coercive ‘card check’ scheme and imposes forced dues in violation of First Amendment
Bakersfield, CA (February 5, 2025) – A group of 20 employees of food and drink company Wonderful Nurseries’ Wasco, CA, facility have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging a California law that will force them under the control of United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials, to whom they have strenuously objected. The employees, who last year were subject to an aggressive “card check” unionization campaign from the UFW, are receiving free legal aid in their effort to defend their rights from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The federal lawsuit the workers seek to join was filed by Wonderful Nurseries against the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), and challenges the ALRB’s “mandatory mediation and conciliation” (MMC) process, which follows the ALRB’s highly-suspect certification of the UFW as the monopoly bargaining representative of the workers. The workers were denied intervention in Wonderful Nurseries’ state court lawsuit challenging the card check certification last July, one week before the court enjoined further proceedings based upon the certification. That lawsuit contends that UFW union agents claimed majority support by submitting to the ALRB union authorization cards that they had fraudulently obtained from workers.
As part of their motion to intervene in this new federal suit, the workers have also filed a proposed intervenors’ complaint detailing even more rights violations by the ALRB. The employees’ filing points out that the Wonderful Nurseries workers must be allowed to vindicate their own rights, which are inherently impacted by the lawsuit.
California labor law mandates that the ALRB should immediately certify a union as monopoly bargaining agent if it submits union cards from a majority of workers, even if there are objections as to how the cards were collected. “Card check” denies workers their right to vote in secret on whether they want a union, and instead allows union officials to demand union authorization cards directly from workers. Past Foundation-backed legal action by Wonderful Nurseries employees at the ALRB detailed the threats and discriminatory behavior that union agents used to obtain the cards.
The Wonderful Nurseries employees’ complaint and motion to intervene, filed by Foundation staff attorneys, joins Wonderful Nurseries’ challenge to the “mandatory mediation and conciliation” provisions of California labor law. Those provisions would force UFW officials and Wonderful Nurseries management to finalize a union contract that will almost certainly subject the workers to UFW union boss control for three years and payment of forced union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs.
“[T]he Employees seek this Court’s immediate intervention to protect their fundamental liberty interests, especially their freedom of association between and amongst themselves, and with their employer, and their rights to be free from State-compelled monopoly representation by a labor organization not legitimately chosen by a majority of employees, and from State-mandated payment of union dues or fees,” the complaint reads.
Radical CA Labor Law Violates First Amendment Janus Decision by Imposing Government-Mandated Forced-Dues Contracts on Workers
The complaint points out that state imposition of such a contract on the Wonderful Nurseries farmworkers would harm their First Amendment rights, as spelled out in the landmark Foundation-won Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME. “[Janus] barred state-mandated and –enforced forced-unionism schemes,” reads the complaint.
In the 2018 Janus decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government-enforced union contracts that required state employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs are a violation of First Amendment free association principles. In this case, Foundation attorneys argue, the State of California would be compelling Wonderful Nurseries and the UFW union to impose a similar contract over farmworkers – one which would require them to subsidize the union or be fired. For that reason, the state government would be violating the First Amendment in the same way as happened in Janus, Foundation attorneys contend.
Employees: UFW Union Created Atmosphere of Intimidation, Discrimination During Union Campaign
Wonderful Nurseries employees Claudia Chavez and Maria Gutierrez, who are part of the current effort, sought to intervene in this case before the ALRB, following the agency’s certification of the UFW’s dubious claims of majority support. In unfair labor practice charges before the ALRB, Chavez and Gutierrez described multiple fabrications – and even discriminatory behavior – that UFW union bosses used to get employees to sign authorization cards, including “representing that certain COVID-19-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 Spanish-speaking discriminatees union membership cards only in English…[and] presenting to illiterate discriminatees union membership cards and misrepresenting their content and/or significance.”
“UFW union officials deceived us just so they could gain power in our workplace,” Chavez and Gutierrez commented after filing charges. “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.”
“Wonderful Nurseries workers, who are desperately trying to defend their freedom from an unwanted UFW union, are finding themselves fighting not only UFW lawyers, but also the full weight of California’s top-down, draconian labor policy,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “By granting union bosses the authority to sweep workers under their control with suspect ‘card check’ campaigns, then having the government impose a forced-dues contract over the objection of both workers and businesses, California legislators have created an environment where workers’ individual rights are being crushed to promote raw, unchecked union boss power.”
Dartmouth, MIT, Vanderbilt Graduate Students Challenge Forced Unionism
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-backed students defend rights as union bosses seek more power at universities
Ben Logsdon is a Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth College. But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that union officials’ refusals to accommodate his religious objections just don’t add up.
HANOVER, NH – Just weeks after National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys triumphed in anti-discrimination cases for Jewish Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate students who sought to stop forced dues payments to a radically anti-Israel union, union officials began creating other problems for university students.
In nearby New Hampshire, Dartmouth graduate student Benjamin Logsdon sought free Foundation legal aid against Graduate Organized Laborers of Dartmouth (GOLD-UE) union officials. The GOLD union — which is an affiliate of the same United Electrical (UE) union involved in the Foundation’s MIT cases — is forcing Logsdon to accept the union’s monopoly “representation” powers against his will, even after he voiced his religious objections to the union’s radical stances on the conflict against Israel.
Grad Students Exposed to Union Coercion & Privacy Violations
Meanwhile, several graduate students at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, are pushing back against an attempt by Vanderbilt Graduate Workers United (VGWU, an affiliate of United Auto Workers) union bosses to impose union control over them and their colleagues. Specifically, three students are seeking to intervene in a federal case in which VGWU union officials are illegally demanding the university hand over the students’ private information to aid in their unionization campaign. Foundation staff attorneys filed motions for intervention for these students in October 2024.
Foundation attorneys are arguing that union officials severely violate students’ rights in both of these cases. However, the reason that union officials are in power on college campuses at all traces back to flawed rulings from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under both the Obama Administration and Biden Administration. These rulings subject graduate students to pro-Big Labor provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which create issues for students’ freedom both inside and outside the classroom.
Logsdon, a Christian Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth, slammed the GOLD union with federal anti-discrimination charges in September 2024 at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to those charges, shortly after the GOLD union finalized its first monopoly bargaining contract with the Dartmouth administration, he sent a letter to United Electrical General Secretary-Treasurer Andrew Dinkelaker explaining that he objected to being affiliated with GOLD on religious grounds and needed an accommodation.
“I sought to be removed from the UE and GOLD-UE bargaining unit as a reasonable accommodation,” Logsdon’s Foundation-backed charges say.
Dinkelaker refused to offer Logsdon an accommodation that “satisf[ied] [his] religious conscience or beliefs,” according to the charges, which violated his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Courts have recognized a variety of Title VII religious accommodations over the years for men and women who have religious objections to union affiliation, including paying an amount equivalent to union dues to a charity instead of union bosses. However, Logsdon seeks a different accommodation: to remove himself from union bosses’ control entirely.
At Vanderbilt, three students who identify themselves in legal documents as “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” and “Jane Doe 1” are contending in their Foundation-backed motions for intervention that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) forbids the Vanderbilt administration from disclosing their personal information to any third parties without their permission, including the VGWU union.
At the union’s behest, NLRB Region 10 has already hit the Vanderbilt administration with a pair of subpoenas demanding personal student info, while ignoring objections from several students expressing concern at the disclosure.
So far Vanderbilt has resisted the NLRB’s subpoenas, and fortunately a federal court has temporarily allowed the university to refuse to comply with them.
The Foundation-backed students’ motions to intervene argue that the subpoenas “are an attempt to violate FERPA’s protections, privileging union interests over the graduate students[’] privacy rights.” It also points out that FERPA allows students to seek “protective action” if a university receives a subpoena seeking their personal information, as in this case.
The Vanderbilt students and their Foundation attorneys are demanding an opportunity to properly defend their privacy interests under FERPA. Foundation attorneys have already filed Requests for Review asking the NLRB in Washington, DC, to weigh in on the matter.
Union Monopoly Power Has No Place at Universities
“Graduate students around the country are discovering that union bosses don’t respect their individual rights and would rather use students as pawns to force their demands on a university administration, or advance an extreme political agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.
“Union monopoly bargaining is a system particularly ill-suited to an academic environment. Indeed, it is wrong for anyone to have a union monopoly imposed on them against their will and then be forced to pay union dues under threat of termination.”
Puerto Rico Police Bureau Employees Foil Anti-Janus Scheme
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Federal court strikes down discrimination against workers at the Puerto Rico Police Bureau who exercised First Amendment rights
Vanessa Carbonell (center) and other employees of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau won big at the Puerto Rico District Court in September 2024. Their Foundation-won decision forces their employer and the union to stop violating their Janus rights.
SAN JUAN, PR – The National Right to Work Foundation’s 2018 victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME opened new horizons for employee freedom across the country. For the first time, the Justices recognized that the First Amendment prohibits union bosses from forcing public sector employees to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment, and that union bosses can only take dues from a worker’s paycheck with their affirmative consent.
Foundation attorneys’ efforts to enforce the landmark decision yielded a big victory this September for a wide swath of civilian employees at the Puerto Rico Police Bureau (PRPB). In a class action federal lawsuit, more than a dozen PRPB employees charged officials of the Union of Organized Civilian Employees with violating their Janus rights by stripping them of an employer-provided health benefit because they refused to join the union.
A recent decision from the District Court of Puerto Rico found in favor of the employees’ arguments, stating that their employer had indeed taken away the health benefit because the employees exercised their right to not join or pay dues to the union.
Scheme Forced Workers to Join Union or Lose Access to Better Healthcare
“This is either retaliation for exercise of non-union members’ post-Janus non-associational rights under the First Amendment under the Constitution or simply discrimination,” said the Court.
According to lead plaintiff Vanessa Carbonell and her colleagues’ original lawsuit, they all exercised their Janus right to opt out of the union at various points after the 2018 Janus decision. They each began noticing that as dues ceased coming out of their paychecks, they also stopped receiving a $25-a-month employer-paid benefit intended to help employees pay for better health insurance.
The lawsuit demonstrated that PRPB officials cut the benefit off to employees who refused union membership — a clear case of discrimination against employees who exercise their First Amendment right to abstain from union affiliation.
Union and Employer Must Stop Discrimination
The District Court’s decision, in addition to declaring that the ploy by PRPB and the Union of Organized Civilian Employees is unconstitutional, orders an injunction to stop PRPB officials from continuing to withhold the benefit from Carbonell and other employees.
“Janus enshrined a very simple First Amendment principle: That union officials need to convince public employees to support their organization and activities voluntarily,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
DOJ Attorney Challenges NTEU Union Bosses’ Attempt to Grab Control Over Justice Department Divisions Ahead of Admin Change
Filings: Federal Labor Relations Authority’s decision to approve unionization attempts in Civil Rights and Environmental divisions violates precedent
Washington, DC (January 17, 2025) – A veteran Department of Justice trial attorney has just submitted two filings challenging a last-minute attempt by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) to gain monopoly bargaining control over attorneys at the Civil Rights Division (CRT) and Environmental and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). The attorney, Jeffrey Morrison, filed these Applications for Review at the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Morrison’s filings come after a unionization campaign during which DOJ management and NTEU union officials unilaterally “agreed” that the CRT and ENRD were work units appropriate for unionization, even though they are not appropriate bargaining units under longstanding FLRA precedent. Morrison’s Applications for Review argue that this and other legal issues with the proposed work units invalidate an FLRA Regional Director’s earlier decision to push forward the unionization process.
“Here, the Regional Director failed to apply established FLRA precedent that precludes finding CRT professional[s] to be an appropriate unit,” Morrison’s Application for Review says. “The Regional Director’s direction of election in this matter was thus in error. The Authority should grant review, stay the certification of the election results, reverse the Regional Director’s decision, and dismiss the petition.”
The FLRA is the federal agency responsible for adjudicating disputes between federal employees, union officials, and agencies within the federal government. The labor law governing federal agencies permits union officials to gain monopoly bargaining power over federal workers, even those who didn’t vote for the union or otherwise oppose it.
Despite 1984 FLRA Decision Rejecting Attempt to Unionize Civil Rights Division Attorneys, DOJ Abruptly Dropped Opposition to NTEU Unionization Attempt Shortly After Election Day
Morrison’s Applications for Review advance several arguments as to why NTEU bosses shouldn’t be able to gain control over the departments at issue. Notably, one brief points out that the FLRA ruled earlier in its Antitrust Division case that CRT lawyers “did not have a separate and distinct community of interest from other DOJ trial attorneys” and for that reason couldn’t stand as a distinct bargaining unit.
“[I]n that case, the Authority determined this very unit to not be an appropriate unit…The Regional Director’s failure to comply with current, binding Authority precedent is in error and must be reversed,” the brief says.
In fact, the brief notes, DOJ management maintained that very same concern about the NTEU’s unionization attempt until roughly three days after federal elections, when DOJ management abruptly reversed course and adopted the NTEU’s position.
Morrison’s applications contend that the FLRA “fail[ed] to conduct an independent investigation into the appropriateness of the unit,” despite the fact that it is required by law to do this before any unionization attempt on federal employees goes forward. “An agency agreeing with a union that a unit is appropriate does not mean that unit is actually appropriate. Agencies, like DOJ here, cannot usurp the Authority’s role in deciding unit appropriateness…” say the briefs.
“In the midst of a change in administration, NTEU union bosses and Biden DOJ officials appear to have colluded to flout longstanding precedent that says Justice Department attorneys cannot legally be unionized division by division,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The FLRA has ignored both standard procedures and established precedent to let this hasty unionization attempt go through, and our attorneys are proud to assist Mr. Morrison in opposing this suspect legal maneuver.
“No worker should be subjected to unionization they oppose, and it is especially egregious that an outgoing Administration would violate the law in an attempt to entrench union bosses at the Justice Department, whose employees are charged with defending and enforcing federal law,” added Mix.
