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.”
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.”
Massachusetts Trader Joe’s Employees Battle Divisive Union Organizing Campaign
Trader Joe’s workers demand vote to oust union, blast union bosses in Congress and media
Trader Joe’s employees Les Stratford (left) and Michael Alcorn want to restore the fun and independent work environment that existed in the store before union officials sowed discord.
HADLEY, MA – Union bosses and Big Labor-allied media cheered when the Hadley, MA, branch of supermarket chain Trader Joe’s became the first unionized location in the country in 2022. But what all their celebration concealed was the fact that union officials had swept to power at the location through a deeply deceptive campaign that demonized both the company and many employees. Now many of the Hadley-based Trader Joe’s employees are fighting to kick the union out.
“Officials of this union have sowed division and smeared both our workplace and anyone who dissents from the union’s agenda pretty much from the time the campaign began to unionize the store,” Trader Joe’s employee Les Stratford told Supermarket News about the situation.
Michael Alcorn, another Hadley Trader Joe’s worker who simply wanted to have a conversation with his coworkers about the ramifications of unionizing, said that union militants “weren’t going to have a meeting with us…immediately it was like ‘you either accept the union, or you don’t, and we’re not going to talk about it all together because if you don’t accept it, we don’t trust you.’”
Now, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Stratford, Alcorn, and many other Hadley Trader Joe’s employees are backing an effort to vote the union out of power at the store. Stratford in August submitted a union decertification petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold an election among his coworkers on whether to remove the union, which contained well over the support needed to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, the union has the legal privilege to enforce contracts that require Trader Joe’s employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs.
In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. A vote by the majority of Hadley Trader Joe’s employees against the union would free them from both the union’s forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers.
Trader Joe’s Employee Exposes Union Tactics on Capitol Hill
In May, Alcorn brought the concerns many of the Hadley Trader Joe’s employees had directly into the halls of Congress when he was called by the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce to testify about coercive tactics union bosses use to gain power and stay in power.
In addition to describing the union’s vilification of any skeptical employee, he noted that union organizers tried to foist union control of the workplace through “card check” — a process that bypasses the NLRB’s secret ballot election system and lets union officials aggressively solicit “cards” that are later counted as votes for the union.
Union organizers also “made inaccurate and incomplete press releases, creating false narratives about our workplace to promote their own agenda and personal vendettas,” Alcorn said.
Workers Need More Freedom to Oust Abrasive Union Bosses
The Hadley Trader Joe’s workers’ efforts come as the Biden-Harris NLRB announced a final rule which will make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose. The final rule, among other things, lets union officials prevent decertification votes from going forward by filing unverified “blocking charges” alleging employer interference.
While the Trader Joe’s employees’ petition will be unaffected by the rule change, the new policy will likely quash or substantially delay similar efforts in the future. “The situation at the Hadley, MA, Trader Joe’s store shows exactly why workers’ right to vote to remove a union they oppose must be protected,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Legal Director and Vice President William Messenger.
“During a union campaign, union officials often employ aggressive tactics and ‘us vs. them’ or hate-the-boss rhetoric that cause division and prioritize union bosses’ agenda over workers’ freedoms and individual choices.
“That the Biden-Harris Administration stripped workers of what few rights they had to challenge union officials that perpetrate these acts shows they are on the side of Big Labor, not individual workers,” Messenger added.
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.
