Jewish CUNY Professors’ Groundbreaking Bid at Supreme Court Challenging Forced Union Association Fully Briefed
Profs challenge NY law forcing them under ‘representation’ of anti-Semitic union officials; seek First Amendment ruling against union coercion of public employees
Washington, DC (December 23, 2024) – The final brief has been submitted urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear six City University of New York (CUNY) professors’ First Amendment case challenging the monopoly representation powers of Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union officials. The professors, five of whom are Jewish, want to dissociate completely from PSC based on public statements and other actions the professors find highly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, but New York state law forces the professors to accept the union’s so-called “representation.”
The professors, Avraham Goldstein, Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Fairness Center. The lawsuit challenges aspects of New York State’s “Taylor Law”, which grants union bosses monopoly bargaining power in the public sector. This gives union bosses the power to speak and contract for public workers, including those that want nothing to do with the union. In addition to opposing the union’s extreme ideology, the professors oppose being forced into a “bargaining unit” of instructional staff who share the union’s objectionable beliefs or have employment interests diverging from their own.
The professors’ original petition for writ of certiorari, filed in July, points out that the High Court has, for decades, recognized how public sector monopoly bargaining burdens workers’ First Amendment freedom of association rights. In 1944, the Supreme Court’s decision in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. recognized how rail union bosses were manipulating their powers over the workplace to discriminate against African-American railway workers. The Supreme Court restated its concerns most recently in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, calling monopoly bargaining “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.”
In the latest filing, Foundation attorneys continue attacking PSC lawyers’ theory that the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight – a case that dealt with the unrelated topic of whether public employees who had abstained from union membership had a right to attend union meetings – should dictate an unfavorable outcome for the professors in this case.
“This case squarely presents the question whether it violates the First Amendment for a state to prohibit individuals from dissociating from a union’s representation to protest that union’s expressive activities.… As the Professors stated in their complaint and briefs, by compelling them to remain under the yoke of PSC’s representation, PSC and CUNY quash the Professors’ ability to express their revulsion with PSC’s advocacy. They should be free to completely dissociate themselves from that advocacy group.”
Law Forces Jewish CUNY Professors to Associate with Anti-Israel PSC Union
The professors’ original complaint recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a host of discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents, including a June 2021 union resolution that the professors viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel.”
The complaint said Prof. Michael Goldstein “experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family.” Goldstein has needed a guard to accompany him on campus, the complaint noted.
Prof. Lax, the complaint explained, already received in a separate case a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “that CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” Prof. Lax “has felt marginalized and ostracized by PSC because the union has made it clear that Jews who support the Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, are not welcome,” said the complaint. As their petition of certiorari notes, these conflicts have significantly increased since October 7, 2023.
SCOTUS Asked to Overturn Laws Imposing Union Power on Public Workers
The petition asks the Supreme Court to take up the case and stop CUNY and the State of New York from letting PSC union bosses impose their “representation” on the professors. It also demands that the Court declare unconstitutional Section 204 of New York’s Taylor Law to the extent that it compels the professors under union power.
University faculty and students across the country are increasingly seeking out Foundation legal aid to counter union coercion within the academic sphere – especially coercion relating to anti-Semitic or anti-Israel agendas that union bosses are pushing. In August, five Jewish Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate students won favorable settlements after pro-BDS Graduate Student Union (GSU-UE) officials tried to force them to pay for the union’s activities despite their requests for religious accommodations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A mathematics Ph. D. student at Dartmouth is pursuing a similar religious discrimination case with Foundation aid.
“No public worker should be forced to associate with union officials who denigrate their culture and identity. But unfortunately this is exactly what New York State’s Taylor Law and many similar laws around the country allow,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court has expressed concerns with monopoly bargaining for decades, and it’s high time that the justices finally acknowledge the First Amendment protects government employees from being forced to accept ‘representation’ they adamantly oppose.”
National Right to Work Foundation Offers Free Legal Aid to Amazon Workers Who Seek to Rebuff Teamsters Strike Order
Notice: Amazon Employees and Amazon Delivery Service Partner employees impacted by strike should resign their memberships before returning to work
Washington, DC (December 20, 2024) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a legal notice to Amazon employees and drivers for Amazon Delivery Service Partners (DSPs), informing them that they have options to continue working and providing for themselves and their families in the face of a strike order issued by Teamsters union officials.
News reports indicate that Teamsters bosses’ strike order claims to apply to thousands of employees (including employees of Amazon contractors) at Amazon facilities in New York, NY; Skokie, IL; Atlanta, GA; San Francisco, CA; and Southern California. Amazon management disputes whether Teamsters union officials have legal authority at all over those employees, in part because of legally suspect organizing tactics Teamsters officials have employed.
The legal notice informs any impacted employees of their rights, including their right to resign union membership and continue working as the strike is ongoing. The notice discusses why workers across the country frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in such situations.
“The Foundation wants you to learn about your legal rights from independent sources. You should not rely on what self-interested union officials tell you,” the notice reads. “Foundation staff attorneys have directly assisted Teamster-represented workers in numerous cases over the years, including multiple recent victories challenging illegal coercion from Teamsters officials.”
The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/Amazon.
Legal Notice: Amazon Workers Who Wish to Work Should Resign From Union Before Returning
The notice outlines the process that Amazon and DSP employees should follow if they want to exercise their right to return to work during the strike and ensure they avoid punishment by union bosses, complete with sample union membership resignation letters. The notice reminds workers that Teamsters union officials have no disciplinary power over workers who are not union members, and advises employees who wish to work during a strike to resign their memberships before returning to work.
“Union officials can (and often do) fine actual union members who work during a strike,” the notice says. “So, you should seriously consider resigning at least one day BEFORE you return to work during a strike, which is the best way to avoid these union fines and discipline.”
Foundation attorneys have a long history of defending employees in cases against the Teamsters. Currently the Foundation is assisting trucking and warehouse workers across the country with obtaining votes to remove Teamsters union officials, including most recently in Northern Ohio where hundreds of employees across multiple facilities just voted to eject the union.
“Teamsters union officials used a number of legally questionable tactics to claim control over several Amazon workplaces, including in Staten Island where the Teamsters effectively purchased a previously independent union’s suspect claim to power,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In that location, the union didn’t even know the identities of the Amazon employees they claimed to represent, and even sought to have the federal government push Amazon to provide a list to the union earlier this year.
“Many drivers and warehouse workers may be shocked to learn that Teamsters officials believe they have the power to discipline workers for simply continuing their work and not striking,” added Mix. “Regardless of how the legal disputes between Amazon and the Teamsters shake out, federal labor law has always been clear on these points: Workers have a right refuse union membership or resign at any time, and union officials cannot legally subject such nonmember employees to fines or other internal discipline for choosing to work instead of participating in a strike.”
Ruling in Favor of Vanderbilt Grad Students’ Privacy Protections Prompts UAW Affiliate to Abandon Unionization Effort
Separately, Dartmouth and MIT graduate students charge UE affiliates with demanding union dues from them in violation of SCOTUS precedent
Nashville, TN (December 19, 2024) – Following three Vanderbilt University graduate students’ privacy-related legal challenges to the union’s efforts to gain monopoly bargaining privileges on campus, United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials have withdrawn their campaign at the school. The three students, who are identified in legal documents as “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” and “Jane Doe 1,” received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in protecting their private information from UAW union officials.
The students invoked their rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which generally prohibits universities from disclosing students’ personal information to third parties without their consent. UAW union bosses sought this information from the three Foundation-represented students and thousands of others as part of the union campaign to place Vanderbilt graduate students under UAW union monopoly bargaining control. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued subpoenas for that info.
UAW Union Organizers Demanded Private Info Over Student Privacy Objections
In October, two students identified as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 moved to intervene in the NLRB case, arguing that FERPA’s language permits students to seek “protective action” if a university receives a subpoena seeking their personal information, as in this case. Several other graduate students also submitted less-formal objections urging the agency not to enforce a subpoena divulging their private information. Despite the students’ concerns, a regional NLRB official ruled on October 18 that Vanderbilt had to comply with the UAW-requested subpoenas.
Foundation attorneys submitted an emergency appeal for John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 to the NLRB in Washington, DC, emphasizing that the students needed an opportunity to “address[] the serious privacy issues raised by the Region’s subpoena.” Foundation attorneys additionally filed an updated motion to intervene that included Jane Doe 1 as another student seeking to intervene in the case.
Following a rising tide of student opposition, the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee issued a ruling on November 22 temporarily releasing Vanderbilt from its obligation to comply with the NLRB subpoenas. On December 12, UAW union officials announced they were withdrawing their petition to unionize Vanderbilt graduate students, meaning the union campaign has ended and the subpoenas seeking student information are effectively moot.
“Many of my colleagues and I simply want to pursue our academic studies, and oppose not only UAW organizers having our private contact information, but also being forced to associate with a union at all in order to earn our graduate degrees,” commented one of the Foundation-assisted Vanderbilt graduate students, identified as Jane Doe 1 in the legal filings. “The withdrawal of UAW organizers’ petition seeking a vote to unionize us against our will is a welcome victory for us in our defense of our rights and the rights of our fellow graduate students.”
Dartmouth, MIT Grad Students File New Cases Challenging UE Union’s Dues Seizures
Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys are assisting graduate students at Dartmouth and MIT with fighting attempts by United Electrical (UE)-affiliated unions to demand dues payments from students against their will and in violation of their rights. Kara Rzasa, a Dartmouth graduate student, and Michael Fernandez, an MIT graduate student, have each hit UE local and national affiliates with charges for illegal polices UE officials are utilizing nationwide when demanding forced dues payments.
Fernandez’s charge slams the UE for violating federal law, including the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court precedent, in how the union calculates the amount of fees it can require the students to pay. The charge notes UE union officials are using out of date, incomplete, and unaudited financial statements to attempt to extract more mandatory fees than can be legally justified.
Rzasa’s charge challenges the UE’s nationwide “window period” policy that blocks graduate students from opting out of full dues, including the portions that go to union activities UE officials admit are explicitly political. The charge notes this violates the National Labor Relations Act, the Beck decision, and other federal limits on union officials’ monopoly representation powers.
Separately, Foundation attorneys are assisting Dartmouth Ph.D. student Ben Logsdon in his effort to seek a religious accommodation that would exempt him from being “represented” by UE union officials. Logsdon objects on religious grounds to the ideological stances of the UE union and wants nothing to do with that union.
“While we’re happy that the private information of Vanderbilt grad students is now secure from prying union eyes, it’s clear from both that case and many other cases that Foundation attorneys are litigating for grad students around the country that union monopoly bargaining power has no place in the academic sphere,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses were able to get a foothold at colleges and universities as the result of biased rulings from the NLRB under Obama and Biden, which has jeopardized not only academic freedom, but also religious freedom, and federal protections that students rely on for privacy and security.
“While no one in America should be forced to accept the control of a union boss hierarchy they oppose, courts and federal agencies in the new year should look to these cases as prime examples of why the union monopoly bargaining model should never have been extended to graduate students at all,” Mix added.
Hundreds of Northern Ohio Workers Vote Against Teamsters Union Boss Control
Toledo-area scrap metal employees and Wooster Frito-Lay warehouse workers get union ‘decertification votes’ certified over union bosses’ objections
Ohio (December 12, 2024) – Hundreds of employees from across Northern Ohio have voted in favor of removing Teamsters union control at their workplaces. The elections, both certified this month by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), occurred at Wooster, OH, Frito-Lay warehouses and scrap metal firm Omnisource’s Toledo, OH, facility, which are under the control of Teamsters Local 52 and Teamsters Local 20, respectively.
Frito-Lay employee Dusty Hinkle and Omnisource employee Daniel Caughhorn submitted petitions in October 2023 and August 2024 respectively, asking the NLRB to hold union decertification elections among their coworkers at their facilities. Hinkle and Caughhorn both received free legal aid in filing their petitions from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Both Hinkle’s and Caughhorn’s petitions contained a sufficient number of signatures to trigger a vote under NLRB rules. Despite workers voting in both elections against Teamsters union control, Teamsters union officials filed objections against Frito-Lay and Omnisource management in an attempt to overturn the election results.
However, in both cases regional NLRB officials tossed the union objections and certified the workers’ votes. Barring an attempt by Teamsters Local 20 officials to file a Request for Review to the NLRB in Washington, DC, within the next few days, both the Omnisource and Frito-Lay employees – over 430 in total – will have cut all ties with the Teamsters unions.
Because Ohio lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Teamsters officials enforced contracts that required Hinkle, Caughhorn, and their colleagues to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary. Now that the Frito-Lay and Omnisource employees have voted out the Teamsters, they are free both of union bosses’ forced-dues demands and their ability to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on the workplace.
Workers Across Country Reject Teamsters ‘Representation’ and Coercive Political Positions
Foundation attorneys have recently assisted a number of workers from across industries in obtaining votes to eject Teamsters union officials. Within the last two months, truck drivers from Georgia, California, Virginia, and New Jersey have successfully booted out Teamsters union officials or initiated removal efforts with Foundation aid.
Beyond Teamsters-controlled workplaces, NLRB data indicates an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years. Despite that, Biden-Harris NLRB bureaucrats recently repealed key reforms (known collectively as the “Election Protection Rule”) that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections. Now, union officials have substantially more power to stop workers from even obtaining an election to remove a union, and can also stop workers from requesting decertification elections to challenge a union’s ascent to power via “card check,” an unsecure process that bypasses the traditional secret-ballot vote process.
“Teamsters union officials continue to lose support from the very workers they claim to ‘represent’, and these cases demonstrate yet again why every worker, in Ohio and nationwide, deserves the protection of a Right to Work law so they can decide for themselves whether or not to financially support union officials’ activities,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re glad these workers have succeeded in freeing themselves from unwanted unionization, it should not require months of litigation and overcoming attempts by union lawyers to overturn the workers’ votes.
“This case shows yet again that despite what local and national Teamsters union bosses claim, they don’t actually speak for the rank-and-file they claim to ‘represent’ and in fact have no qualms about attempting to disenfranchise those workers to trap them in union ranks they oppose,” added Mix.
California and Georgia Truck Drivers Petition for Votes to Remove Teamsters Union Bosses
Efforts come in the face of Teamsters-backed Biden-Harris Labor Board rule designed to disenfranchise workers
California and Georgia (December 9, 2024) – Two sets of trucking employees have filed petitions seeking elections to remove International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters) union officials from power in their workplaces. Stockton, CA-based PepsiCo driver Edward Kilgore and Georgia-based BFI Waste Services driver James Shiflett submitted decertification petitions to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Edward Kilgore, a truck driver for PepsiCo Beverages North America in Stockton, CA, submitted a petition in December, in which the majority of his coworkers asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove Teamsters Local 439 union bosses. Soon after, a group of Georgia-area BFI Waste Services, LLC truckers led by James Shiflett also filed a petition demanding the same kind of NLRB election to oust Teamsters Local 728. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions.
Both Kilgore’s and Shiflett’s decertification petitions contain employee signatures well in excess of the threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). If a majority of Kilgore’s and Shiflett’s coworkers vote against retaining the Teamsters union officials, they will lose their monopoly bargaining powers in the workplace.
For the California workers, their continued effort is especially critical because they are based in a state that lacks Right to Work protections. In such states, union officials can impose union contracts that require workers to pay dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states like Georgia, union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work jurisdictions, union bosses can use their monopoly bargaining privileges to subject all workers in a unionized facility to one-size fits-all contracts – even those workers who voted against the union or otherwise oppose it. A successful decertification election ends union officials’ forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers in a workplace.
“My coworkers and I are not just opposed to Teamsters officials so-called ‘representation’ but especially offended that currently the union has the power to enter into a contract that forces us to fund the very union we oppose,” said Edward Kilgore, who filed the petition against Teamsters Local 439. “This is about giving workers the power to make their own decisions.”
Pro-Union Boss Shifts in NLRB Policy Disenfranchise Workers
Despite an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years, Biden-Harris NLRB bureaucrats recently repealed key reforms (known collectively as the “Election Protection Rule”) that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections. Under the Teamsters-backed change, union officials can manipulate often-unproven allegations against management (also known as “blocking charges”) to stop workers from exercising their right to vote out a union, and can also stop workers from requesting decertification elections to challenge a union’s ascent to power via “card check,” an unsecure process that bypasses the traditional secret-ballot vote process.
“Workers across the country are rejecting union officials top-down agendas both inside and outside the workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While Teamsters bosses like Sean O’Brien are advocating for more power over rank-and-file workers, including by advocating for the elimination of Right to Work protections nationwide, America’s working men and women are increasingly seeking to vote out union officials that don’t serve their interests.”
Full Foundation Action September/October 2024 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the September/October 2024 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- Professors Launch Landmark SCOTUS Bid to End Forced Union Association
- Chicago 911 Operator Successfully Defends Janus Rights Against IBEW
- Post-Right to Work Repeal, MI Workers Vote to Cancel Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
- Mark Mix in The Center Square: Escaping the UAW “Roach Motel”
- Foundation Exposes Union Boss Coercion & Discrimination Before Congress
- Flight Attendant Defends Win Against Union, Southwest, for Illegal Firing
Portland–Area Fred Meyer Employee Wins Dispute with UFCW Union Local 555 Over Illegal Union Threats
UFCW union bosses backed down after facing federal charges for threatening workers who wouldn’t join union strike
PORTLAND, OR (November 25, 2024) – Reegin Schaffer, a Portland-area Fred Meyer employee, has prevailed in her dispute with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Local 555. Schaffer filed charges against the union alleging that union officials broke federal law by ignoring her requests to resign union membership during a union strike and by unlawfully retaliating against her by seeking to fine her for exercising her right to disagree with union boss strike orders and go to work. Schaffer is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Foundation attorneys’ actions forced UFCW Local 555 to quickly drop its internal disciplinary proceedings against her. These proceedings, which could have resulted in punitive fines, were initiated after Schaffer resigned her union membership and returned to work.
Charges: UFCW Union Bosses Made Illegal Fine Threats
Schaffer and co-worker Coyesca Vasquez filed charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that governs private sector labor relations in the United States.
As detailed in the charges, on August 30, 2024 the employees exercised their right to resign union membership and return to work. However, on September 24, 2024, and October 14 2024, respectively, UFCW union officials notified Vasquez and Schaffer that the union had started internal proceedings against them and that their presence would soon be required at a union “trial,” which is the first step towards imposing fines.
If an employee is not a voluntary union member, he or she cannot be legally subjected to internal union discipline like the kind UFCW union officials attempted to impose. In such internal discipline tribunals, union bosses frequently levy punitive fines against workers amounting to thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.
Once UFCW union officials dropped their attempt to fine Schaffer, Foundation staff attorneys asked the NLRB to end the case. Meanwhile, Coyesca Vasquez’s charge remains pending with the agency, which is investigating UFCW officials’ actions against Vasquez.
UFCW Officials Were Previously Caught Illegally Imposing Massive Strike Fines Against Workers
Workers have faced similar unlawful fines, during past UFCW–instigated strikes. In 2022, union officials illegally levied fines against King Sooper’s 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 filed multiple cases against the UFCW, ultimately resulting in union bosses rescinding the unlawful fines.
“That Reegin Schaffer ultimately prevailed and forced UFCW bosses to drop their illegal threats does not erase the troubling pattern of behavior by UFCW union officials, who have repeatedly sought to undermine workers’ protected legal rights through retaliatory fines,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Employees should not have to file federal charges just to have their rights respected, and we look forward to continuing to assist Coyesca Vasquez in her case against UFCW union bosses’ ugly retaliation tactics.”
Starbucks Barista Asks Labor Board to Overturn Regional Official’s Decision to Continue Blocking Vote to Remove Union
With original case cited as grounds for blocking vote settled, worker pushes for decertification election to oust SBWU
Oklahoma City, OK (November 20, 2024) – Starbucks employee Amy Smith has filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., asking the agency to review a regional NLRB order tossing her petition seeking an election to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from her Oklahoma City store. Amy Smith, who works at the Nichols Hills Starbucks location, is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Smith’s appeal challenges the regional NLRB’s refusal to reinstate her decertification petition, which it is still stonewalling despite the resolution of SBWU union officials’ charges against Starbucks that were ostensibly the justification for blocking the workers’ petition for a vote to remove the union. Smith argues that the decision is inconsistent not only with the Board’s past reasons for holding up the petition, but also with workers’ right under federal labor law to promptly have an election to remove a union they do not want.
Starbucks Employee Challenges Labor Board’s Unreasonable Stalling
In October 2023, Smith filed a petition asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election so she could vote to remove SBWU from her workplace. Her petition had enough of her coworkers’ signatures to meet the 30% threshold necessary to trigger a decertification vote. However, at SBWU union officials’ request, the NLRB dismissed the petitions “subject to reinstatement” until the unfair labor practice case Starbucks Corporation (01-CA-305952) was resolved. That case has now been settled, and the NLRB closed the case.
Last month, Smith had asked the NLRB Regional Directors in Region 14 (covering Oklahoma City) to reinstate her petition so the NLRB can promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ monopoly power at her store. However, instead of reinstating Smith’s petition, regional NLRB officials instead came up with a different unfair labor practice case against Starbucks to scuttle the election again, without even giving Smith a hearing to defend her petition.
“This standard has proved not only to contradict the plain text of [federal labor law], but has failed to appropriately account for the Board’s statutory mandate to conduct an election,” the Request for Review says.
Growing Momentum for Decertification
Oklahoma is a Right to Work state, meaning union payments must be voluntary and cannot be required as a condition of employment. However, under federal law, SBWU officials’ monopoly bargaining powers still allow them to impose a union contract on all employees at the store, even those who are not union members and who oppose SBWU’s so-called “representation.” A successful decertification vote would strip union officials of that extraordinary monopoly bargaining power.
The growing movement among Starbucks partners to eject unwanted union officials from their stores is part of a larger trend, with an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years. Already, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have assisted Starbucks employees in over a dozen stores seeking votes to remove the SBWU union. However, union officials have so far manipulated federal labor law to block any decertification votes from being held.
“Employees like Amy Smith should have the fundamental right to decide who represents them in the workplace, free from unnecessary delays and bureaucratic roadblocks,” commented Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB’s refusal to allow a timely vote is a clear disregard for the principles of employee free choice. We are committed to defending workers’ rights to hold unions accountable and ensuring that workers’ voices are heard.”
Ascension St. Agnes Hospital Nurses Demand Vote to Remove NNOC/NNU Union Officials
Requested vote would take place in unit of roughly 600 nurses; similar efforts also taking place in New York and New Jersey
Baltimore, MD (November 18, 2024) – Nurses at Ascension St. Agnes Hospital in Baltimore are demanding a federal labor board hold a vote to remove National Nurses United (NNU) union officials from their workplace. St. Agnes Nurse Jennifer Delaney submitted a union decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on November 15 on behalf of hundreds of her colleagues. Delaney filed the petition with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Delaney’s decertification petition contains employee signatures well in excess of the threshold needed to trigger a decertification vote under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
According to the petition, Delaney and her coworkers request a vote among all “full-time, regular part-time, and per diem registered nurses” located at Ascension St. Agnes Hospital’s acute care facility in Baltimore. This unit contains approximately 600 nurses.
Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, NNU union officials can enforce contracts that require Delaney and her fellow nurses to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
A successful decertification vote strips union officials of both their forced-dues power and their ability to impose union monopoly bargaining contracts on every employee in a workplace, even those who oppose the union’s presence.
“This union proved itself to be a divisive force as soon as it began campaigning at our hospital,” commented Delaney. “Many of the nurses opposed its agenda from the very beginning, and a year since it gained power it is still making things difficult for both us and our patients. We are confident that a majority of our coworkers will vote to restore the independence we once had in our workplace.”
Employees in Healthcare and Other Industries Seek to Exit Unions
The St. Agnes Hospital nurses aren’t the only healthcare employees seeking to rid themselves of union monopoly control. In the New York City metro area and Long Island, Foundation staff attorneys are currently assisting nurses at Clara Maass Medical Center and a variety of healthcare workers in the Sun River Health, Inc. system to obtain union decertification elections. If these union removal efforts are successful, over 800 employees will be free from United Healthcare Workers East (1199SEIU) union officials’ forced “association” bargaining powers.
Across all industries, workers are increasingly seeking votes to remove union bosses of whom they disapprove. Despite an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years, NLRB bureaucrats recently repealed key reforms (known collectively as the “Election Protection Rule”) that made it easier for workers to request decertification elections.
“Across the country, healthcare workers seem to be discovering that having union bosses in their workplace doesn’t necessarily help them take better care of their patients. We’ve seen many situations where healthcare industry unions needlessly promote union boss priorities ahead of what is best for rank-and-file nurses, or even attempt to force health care providers to abandon their patients during union-instigated strikes,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, union officials often choose to disenfranchise the same workers they claim to ‘represent’ when workers try to exercise their right to vote out a union, a problem made worse by recent Big Labor-backed NLRB rulemaking.
“Regardless, we’ll continue to defend the right of Ms. Delaney, the nurses at St. Agnes Ascension Hospital, and many other healthcare workers across the country to decertify unions they don’t want,” Mix added.
