NY Starbucks Baristas File Amicus Brief Opposing Reinstatement of Biden-Appointed NLRB Member Removed by President Trump
Starbucks employees have pending federal lawsuit challenging NLRB structure as unconstitutional, argue they could be harmed if member’s removal is blocked
Washington, DC (March 11, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has just filed an amicus brief at the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals for two upstate New York Starbucks baristas in a federal case that could determine the constitutionality of the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The case, Wilcox v. Trump, concerns whether President Trump properly exercised his executive authority when he removed the Biden-appointed former chair of the NLRB, Gwynne Wilcox. Trump Administration lawyers argue, as baristas Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have in their own pending lawsuit at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, the federal law authorizing the NLRB) violates the Constitution because it prevents the president from removing board members.
Cortes and Karam now join the Administration’s legal team in asking the D.C. Circuit Court to stay a lower court’s ruling that Wilcox be reinstated. Their brief notes that they, and others, could be directly harmed if Wilcox participates in an NLRB decision without being properly accountable to the President.
Cortes and Karam work at two separate Starbucks locations in the Buffalo, NY area. They both submitted petitions on behalf of their coworkers in 2023 with sufficient support to prompt the NLRB to hold votes to “decertify,” or remove, the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from each of their stores. However, NLRB officials indefinitely delayed those union decertification elections on the basis of unproven charges leveled at the Starbucks Corporation by SBWU union officials. This led Cortes and Karam to file their own federal lawsuit – the first in the nation challenging the agency’s structure as unconstitutional as a whole.
The same issue regarding the NLRB’s constitutionality was fast-tracked in federal courts following President Trump’s firing of Biden-appointed NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, which she challenged as a violation of the NLRA’s board member removal protections. Trump Administration lawyers countered with arguments parallel to those in Cortes and Karam’s lawsuit, contending that NLRB members’ removal protections permit them to exercise substantial executive authority while being immune to presidential removal for the duration of their terms, something forbidden by U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Seila Law v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen.
NLRB’s Hyper-Partisan Nature and Unique Powers Make Removal Protections Inappropriate
Cortes and Karam’s brief focuses on how the Board’s powers to enforce federal labor law, lack of technical expertise, and the partisan nature of its membership place it outside the Supreme Court’s concept of a federal agency where removal protections might be appropriate. It also argues that reinstating Wilcox would cause chaos because it would let her participate in deciding cases before the NLRB while her continued presence on the Board is still the subject of litigation.
“Cortes and Karam have a vital interest in the outcome of this case, and not only because it concerns the constitutionality of [NLRB member removal protections],” the amicus brief says. “Cortes and Karam do not want an individual the President properly removed from the Board because of her unsound rulings—Gwynne Wilcox—to decide their pending NLRB cases.”
“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam’s amicus brief points out what many workers who have litigated cases before the NLRB have learned the hard way – that the NLRB is a hyper-partisan agency often beholden to the interests of union bosses, yet masquerades as an impartial arbiter of workers’ rights,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “While the issue of the NLRB’s constitutionality is likely to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court, Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam speak for many independent-minded workers around the country by urging the D.C. Circuit Court to bar Gwynne Wilcox from participating in Board decisions until this is fully sorted out.”
Cincinnati-Area Kroger Employee Wins Federal Case Against UFCW, Grocer for Illegal Union Dues Deductions
Kroger and union must reimburse unlawfully seized dues as worker transfers to store in Right to Work Kentucky to block any future forced dues
Fairfield, OH (March 4, 2025 ) – Kroger Grocery employee James Carroll has prevailed in his federal case against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 75 union and corporate grocery conglomerate Kroger. The resolution comes after charges were filed against UFCW for threatening Carroll with termination for refusing to sign an illegal union dues deduction form and against Kroger for unlawfully deducting union dues from his paycheck.
To avoid prosecution, Kroger and UFCW agreed to a settlement that requires them to reimburse Carroll for unlawfully seized dues and post a public notice informing employees of their rights. Carroll received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Carroll’s charges at Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Cincinnati explain that the form UFCW union bosses forced him to sign is 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. Additionally, Supreme Court precedents like General Motors v. NLRB recognize the right of workers to refrain from formal union membership.
In contrast to neighboring Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, Ohio lacks a state Right to Work law. This means UFCW union officials to have the power to force Carroll and his coworkers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping a job, even if they are nonmembers. However, even without Right to Work, union officials must obtain employees’ consent before instructing an employer to deduct union dues directly from a worker’s paycheck, and forced-fee amounts cannot include money that goes toward a union’s political activity, as established in the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
In addition to securing a victory in his case, Carroll took the additional step of transferring to a Kroger store in Right to Work Kentucky to avoid any future union threats demanding payment. Under Right to Work, all payments to the union are strictly voluntary, meaning Carroll cannot be forced to fund the very UFCW officials who violated his rights.
On Illegal Dues Practices, Kroger and UFCW Are Repeat Offenders
This isn’t the first time Foundation attorneys have aided Kroger employees facing illegal dual-purpose membership forms pushed by UFCW union bosses. In February 2023, Houston, TX-area Kroger worker Jessica Haefner filed federal charges against the UFCW for presenting her with such a dual-purpose form, and for altering her writing on the form to show she consented to union dues deductions when she was actually trying to exercise her right under Texas’ Right to Work law to abstain from dues payment.
In 2024, Foundation attorneys also assisted a Portland-area grocery store employee Reegin Schaffer, who filed and won federal unfair labor practice charges against a UFCW union there. In that case, union officials ignored her requests to resign union membership during a union strike and then unlawfully retaliated against her by seeking to fine her for exercising her right to rebuff union boss strike orders and go to work.
“We are pleased with this legal victory for Mr. Carroll, and that he is now completely free of union bosses’ forced-dues demands because he works in Right to Work Kentucky,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Of course most workers subjected to union bosses’ ‘pay-up-or-be-fired’ threats don’t have the option of commuting to a location in a Right to Work state.
“That’s why, despite the good resolution, though this case shows why workers everywhere need Right to Work protections,” added Mix.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Legal Notice to 10 Roads Express Drivers Subject to Teamsters Strike
Notice reminds workers of major USPS contractor of right to resign union membership and go back to work; comes after company and union butt heads over nationwide bargaining
Washington, DC (February 28, 2025) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for 10 Roads Express drivers subject to Teamsters union bosses’ recent strike order against the company. News reports indicate that the order affects hundreds of drivers across the country, and that 10 Roads Express is one of the largest private contractors for the U.S. Postal Service.
The legal notice informs these workers of rights, albeit limited, that union officials often do not want them to know. First and foremost, drivers have the right to resign their union memberships and keep working 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 union discipline for continuing to report to work.”
The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights workers’ right to resign union membership and their right to revoke their union dues check-offs, with links to sample letters that can be sent to exercise both rights. The notice also gives workers information on how to begin a petition for a “decertification election,” in which employees request a workplace election to remove the union.
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/10roadsexpress/.
The Foundation has provided legal aid several times recently to truck drivers, warehouse workers, and other employees who oppose Teamsters union officials’ agendas. At the end of 2024, hundreds of Foundation-backed 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.
Strike May Be Lead-Up to Creation of National, Inescapable Bargaining Unit Where Workers Can’t Vote Away Teamsters Control
“Teamsters union officials’ propaganda surrounding this strike hides the fact that many workers may simply want to continue working to support themselves and their families, something that they have an absolute right to do no matter what Teamsters bosses may say,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Teamsters officials are also unlikely to acknowledge the fact that they are demanding that 10 Roads Express management bargain with them on a national level and not in individual workplaces, which may very well be a lead-up to the Teamsters thrusting 10 Roads Express drivers into a huge national unit designed to lock workers into Teamsters ranks in perpetuity.
“Such a gambit would also stop 10 Roads Express drivers in a single workplace from asking the federal labor board to hold a vote amongst their colleagues to remove the Teamsters from that one facility, as the work unit would encompass hundreds if not thousands of drivers from across the country who have likely never met each other,” added Mix. “Workers who are interested in continuing to do their jobs and avoid such legal maneuvering by Teamsters bosses in the future should read the Foundation’s legal notice and quickly seek Foundation legal aid if they encounter any obstacles to exercising their rights.”
AT&T BellSouth Worker Slams CWA Local 3122 With Federal Charges for Imposing Illegal Discipline, Dues Demands
Post-strike, union tried to subject worker to internal union punishment despite her ending her formal union membership before the union-ordered strike
Miami, FL (February 27, 2025) – An employee of AT&T BellSouth Telecommunications has hit the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union and its affiliates with federal charges maintaining that union officials are targeting her with internal union discipline for not participating in a strike – despite the fact that she resigned her union membership beforehand.
The worker, Sofia Hernaiz, filed the unfair labor practice charge at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law and investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practices.
Hernaiz’s charge follows a strike ordered by CWA union bosses against AT&T BellSouth, which occurred August 2024. Under federal labor law, union officials can mete out internal strike discipline only on employees who are formal members of the union. A worker, like Hernaiz, who ends her union membership before exercising her right to continue working during a strike action cannot be punished by the union hierarchy.
Hernaiz also states in her charge that, in the process of revoking her membership, she additionally sent communications revoking her union dues “checkoff” authorization, which is a form that permits union bosses to deduct union dues directly from an employee’s paycheck. Despite NLRB precedent requiring the union to do so, Hernaiz’s charges say that CWA union bosses did not provide Hernaiz her dues checkoff, and also did not tell her the time intervals in which she could submit her revocation in order to make it effective. Such a scheme, often known as a “window period” or “escape period” scheme, is frequently used by union bosses to continue taking dues money from the wages of workers who have already expressed their opposition to the union.
Because of Florida’s popular Right to Work law, no worker subject to the NLRB can be forced to pay union dues or fees just to keep his or her job. This is in contrast to forced-unionism states, in which union bosses can require all employees in a workplace, even those opposed to the union, to financially support union activities or else be fired.
However, in both Right to Work and forced-unionism states, union bosses still have the power to impose their one-size-fits-all “representation” over every employee in a workplace, even over employees that voted against or otherwise oppose the union. Even in Right to Work states where legally dues payment must be voluntary, union officials frequently use dues authorization cards to attempt to trap workers in union payments.
Foundation Attorneys Helped Hundreds of AT&T Mobility Workers Escape CWA Control Last Year
Last year, Foundation attorneys helped hundreds of AT&T Mobility workers in California, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas remove CWA union officials who had subjected them to aggressive “card check” unionization campaigns. Under card check, union officials deny workers their right to vote in secret on the union and can instead pressure workers face-to-face into signing union authorization cards which are later counted as “votes.” After AT&T Mobility workers in those states had submitted valid petitions requesting union removal votes, CWA union officials abandoned each work unit before the votes could take place – likely anticipating defeats.
“CWA union officials continue to impose unpopular agendas on the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Hernaiz just wants to exercise her rights under Florida’s Right to Work law to end her union membership and stop financial support to the union because she opposes the union’s agenda. But CWA union officials are trying to concoct ways to punish her for not going along with the union’s strike order and keep her money flowing into union coffers against her will.
“Instead of relying on voluntary worker support to carry out their aims, CWA union officials went for illegal coercion, and our attorneys will defend Ms. Hernaiz’s rights,” Mix added.
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.”
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.”
