15 Nov 2024

Flight Attendant Defends Win Against Union, Southwest, for Illegal Firing

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Union and airline seek to overturn District Court ruling & verdict targeting discriminatory union firing

Despite going head-to-head with the well-funded legal teams of Southwest Airlines and the TWU union, Charlene Carter and her Foundation legal team led by staff attorney Matt Gilliam (right) have fought — and won — crucial victories in her case.

NEW ORLEANS, LA – In 2017, Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter filed her lawsuit against the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and Southwest Airlines for their respective roles in her termination after she spoke out against the TWU’s political activities.

Now, seven years later, despite winning a multimillion dollar jury verdict and a ruling ordering that she get her job back after the company’s and union’s efforts to fire her, Carter’s battle remains ongoing. Recently, Foundation staff attorneys were at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for oral arguments to defend her District Court victory against appeals by TWU and Southwest.

“Southwest and TWU union officials made Ms. Carter pay an unconscionable price just because she decided to speak out against the political activities of union officials in accordance with her deeply held religious beliefs,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Yet rather than comply with the jury’s decision and a District Court order, Southwest and TWU union bosses have decided to attempt to defend their blatant retaliation against a vocal union critic.”

Foundation Attorney: Evidence Shows Carter Was Fired Over Religious Exercise

During oral arguments at the Fifth Circuit, which took place before a three-judge panel this June, Foundation staff attorney Matt Gilliam rebutted specious union claims that there was no direct evidence that Carter’s religious beliefs played any role in the decision to fire her.

Gilliam told the panel that a Southwest agent “specifically admitted that he considered Carter’s religious beliefs in his termination decision” and reminded the judges that, under Title VII, an employee’s religious beliefs “can’t be any factor” in making such a decision.

“Southwest just admitted to this court that they fired her because of conduct. Well, what was the conduct? It was religious conduct,” said Gilliam.

Carter’s Story Reveals Pro-Union Boss Bias of Federal Labor Law

Carter resigned from union membership in 2013 but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. The Railway Labor Act (RLA), the federal law that governs labor relations in the airline and railroad industries, permits firing employees who refuse to pay union fees and preempts the protections that state Right to Work laws provide.

However, the RLA does protect employees’ rights to resign from union membership. It also has free speech protections that cover the right to speak out against a union and its leadership and to advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.

In January 2017, Carter learned that then-TWU Local 556 President Audrey Stone and other Local 556 officials used union dues to attend the Women’s March in Washington, DC, which was sponsored by Planned Parenthood, an activist group she deeply opposed.

Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, sent private Facebook messages to Stone challenging the union’s support for ideological positions that were contrary to Carter’s beliefs and expressing support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message emphasizing her commitment to a National Right to Work law after the union had sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.

After a meeting at which Southwest officials confronted Carter about private Facebook messages protesting the union’s positions, the company fired Carter. In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit challenging the firing as a clear violation of her rights under two federal laws. She maintained that she lost her job because of her religious beliefs and her criticism of union officials’ spending employees’ dues and fees on ideological causes.

Ultimately, after a six-day July 2022 trial, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with Carter and her Foundation staff attorneys. During the trial, Foundation attorneys unearthed and introduced bombshell email communications showing TWU union militants advocated for “targeted assassinations” of union dissidents.

“We are proud to defend Ms. Carter throughout this prolonged legal case to vindicate her rights,” stated Messenger. “However, her case should prompt policymakers to pare back union bosses’ coercive, government-granted powers over workers. Even if Charlene attains total victory in her case, the RLA will still force her and airline employees across the country to pay money to union officials as a condition of keeping their jobs, which is why policy change is needed.”

13 Nov 2024

Long Island Healthcare Employee Charges Union Officials With Illicit Attempt to Prevent Workers from Voting Union Out

Posted in News Releases

Brief: 1199SEIU officials engaged in backchannel communications with federal labor board to block vote; same union is facing ouster effort by NJ workers as well

Long Island, NY (November 13, 2024) – Laura Gallo, a Senior Patient Representative at Sun River Health, Inc., has successfully reversed an attempt by United Healthcare Workers East (an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union) officials to snuff out a petition in which she and her coworkers are requesting an election to remove the union from Long Island workplaces. Gallo, who submitted the union decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on her own in August, is now receiving 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. Gallo and her coworkers are seeking a vote that, if successful, will end the 1199SEIU union’s control over nearly 230 Sun River Health workers across Long Island, including nutritionists, nurses, call center employees, and others.

Despite Gallo’s decertification petition containing enough employee signatures to satisfy instructions provided by an NLRB agent, an NLRB Regional Director dismissed her petition in October without giving her an opportunity to address what were alleged deficiencies with her filing. The dismissal also contradicted an NLRB agent’s earlier declaration that the decertification petition was valid.

After Gallo enlisted the help of Foundation attorneys, they quickly filed a brief challenging NLRB Region 29’s dismissal of the petition, which additionally pointed out that the dismissal may have occurred as the result of illicit backchannel communications between NLRB Region 29 and 1199SEIU officials.

Now, following the Foundation’s filing, NLRB Region 29 has agreed to reconsider the petition.

Gallo and her coworkers are based in New York, which lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees. As a result, union bosses can legally enforce contracts that require workers 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 union financial support are the free choice of each individual worker.

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, including those who oppose the union’s presence.

Brief: Federal Labor Board Officials Unilaterally Blocked Workers’ Petition Based on Secret Union Filing

Gallo’s brief argues that NLRB Region 29 “cannot unilaterally dismiss” Gallo’s petition because doing so would “strip Petitioner and her fellow workers of their [rights under federal labor law] to seek a representation election once they have raised a question of representation and the relevant Regional Office has approved [the petition’s signatures].”

The brief further asserts that NLRB Region 29 dismissed the petition based on documents that 1199SEIU officials covertly filed in clear violation of the NLRB’s notice requirements. “Here, the Region approved the [petition’s signatures] on August 9, 2024, and allowed the petition to proceed to a hearing all while conducting a clandestine investigation at the request of the Union without any opportunity to challenge [the regional NLRB’s determination],” says the brief. Whether rejection of the petition took place at the behest of the union or not, the brief explains, there was no legal basis for such action.

Clara Maass Medical Center Employees in NJ Also Seek to Remove 1199SEIU

The 1199SEIU union is currently facing opposition from other New York City-area healthcare workers. Foundation-backed registered nurses at Clara Maass Medical Center in Belleville Township, NJ, recently filed a union decertification petition seeking a removal vote against the same union. Despite having the requisite number of signatures to prompt a vote, the NLRB is preventing the nurses from voting due to unproven allegations of misconduct that 1199SEIU union officials are leveling at hospital management. Recent rulemaking by the Biden-Harris NLRB permits such allegations, also known as “blocking charges,” to stymie worker-requested decertification elections.

“Officials of 1199SEIU clearly value power far above the will and rights of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Gallo stepped up on behalf of her coworkers at Sun River Health and filed a petition in which many of them expressed a desire to vote the union out. But 1199SEIU officials conducted shady proceedings behind her back to scuttle her petition and maintain their control over the workplace, likely thinking Gallo didn’t have the formal legal knowledge to fight back.

“While Foundation attorneys have scored a victory against 1199SEIU’s shameful attempt to strip Ms. Gallo and her coworkers of their right to vote on whether the union deserves to stay in their workplace, they’re unfortunately not the only employees that 1199SEIU is attempting to disenfranchise,” Mix added. “Healthcare workers in the New York City metro area and beyond should reach out to the Foundation for free legal aid in obtaining a vote to remove unwanted union officials – especially in the wake of Biden-Harris Administration rulemaking that makes it much easier for union officials to block worker-requested votes.”

7 Nov 2024

Portland–Area Fred Meyer Employees Slam UFCW Union with Federal Charges for Illegal Threats Linked to Strike

Posted in News Releases

UFCW union bosses begin dropping fines against workers, but union faces investigation on federal charges

PORTLAND, OR (November 7, 2024) – Two employees of a Portland-area Fred Meyer grocery store have 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 their requests to resign union membership during a union strike and are unlawfully retaliating against the workers by seeking to fine them for exercising their right to disagree with union boss strike orders and go to work.

The employees, Coyesca Vasquez and Reegin Schaffer, filed their charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. 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, each of the employees exercised their right to resign union membership, and return to work. However, on September 24, 2024, UFCW union officials notified Vasquez, and on October 14, 2024, UFCW union officials notified Reegin Schaffer, that the union had started internal proceedings against them and 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 are attempting to impose on Vasquez and Schaffer. In such internal discipline tribunals, union bosses frequently levy punitive fines against workers amounting to thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.

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 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 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 Right to Work during a UFCW 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.”

7 Nov 2024

College Park MOM’s Organic Employees Demand Vote to Remove UFCW Local 400 Union Officials

Posted in News Releases

Earlier this year DC-area Union Kitchen workers voted 24-1 to remove Local 400, but union lawyers continue fighting to block certification & overturn result

Washington, DC (November 7, 2024) – Employees from MOM’s Organic Market’s College Park, MD, location are petitioning a federal labor board for an election to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 union officials from power at the store. MOM’s employee Maria Sanya Dobbins, who is leading the effort, submitted the petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at the beginning of the month with free legal assistance 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. Dobbins’ 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 Dobbins’ petition, the workers’ requested vote should take place among “[a]ll full-time and regular part-time MOM’s team members” at the grocery store’s College Park branch.

Because Maryland lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW union officials can legally enforce contracts that require Dobbins and her coworkers at MOM’s to pay union dues or fees as a condition of staying employed. 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 voted against the union’s presence or otherwise oppose it.

“I have been working for MOM’s for 19 years,” commented Dobbins. “We have an understanding management team that has always been there for us and our families. We do not need a union to come and take money out of our paycheck when we have the best management team.”

DC-Area Union Kitchen Employees Also Seek to Boot UFCW Local 400 Union Officials

This isn’t the first time that DC-area grocery employees have banded together to remove UFCW Local 400 union officials. In January, workers from five locations of regional grocery concept Union Kitchen voted 24-1 to kick out UFCW Local 400, following employee Ashley Silva’s submission of a majority-backed decertification petition.

That effort began amid aggressive union boss-ordered pickets and boycotts against Union Kitchen Grocery locations, which sometimes escalated to the point that police intervention was needed. Despite that overwhelming ouster vote, UFCW union officials have so far successfully blocked the vote from being certified as they seek to cling to power by overturning the workers’ near unanimous vote to remove Local 400.

Biden-Harris NLRB Making It Harder for Workers to Oust Unwanted Unions

Dobbins and her coworkers may face similar stonewalling from UFCW bosses in their case, and unfortunately may face headwinds from the NLRB as well. 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.

Now, under rules that took effect in late September, union officials have a nearly unlimited ability to manipulate unproven allegations against an employer (also known as “blocking charges”) to stop workers from exercising their right to vote out a union. The new rules also end the ability of workers to hold decertification elections as a way to challenge a union’s ascent to power via “card check.” Card check is an unsecure, abuse-prone process that bypasses the protections of a traditional secret-ballot election.

“UFCW Local 400 officials have a track record of stifling the will of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’ and the Biden-Harris NLRB’s cynical policy shifts have unfortunately given them more ways to do that,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While such cases show why workers need more freedom to have secret ballot votes to eliminate union officials that they disapprove of, they also demonstrate the importance of Right to Work protections – workers who find themselves under the control of a union they oppose should never be forced to pay for that ‘representation.’”

7 Nov 2024

Foundation Exposes Union Boss Coercion & Discrimination Before Congress

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

U.S. House relies on Foundation for insight on ‘card check’ and forced-dues-for-politics

“The Law Has Failed Me”: This was MIT Ph.D. student Will Sussman’s response when asked by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) whether current federal labor law protects union dissenters. Sussman recommended nationwide Right to Work protections.

WASHINGTON, DC – Within the past few months, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys and recipients of free Foundation legal aid have appeared multiple times before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, revealing the anti-freedom tactics union bosses use to sweep workers under their power and prop up their radical political agenda.

In May, U.S. House members called Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger as an expert witness in a hearing named “Big Labor Lies: Exposing Union Tactics to undermine Free and Fair Elections.” The hearing was designed to probe how current federal labor policies are letting union bosses deprive American workers of even the basic protection of a secret ballot election when union organizers target their workplace for monopoly unionization.

In July, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Ph.D. student Will Sussman, who received free Foundation legal aid in filing federal anti-discrimination charges against union bosses on his campus, appeared before the U.S. House to recount his battle against MIT Graduate Student Union (GSUUE) officials. GSU union bosses demanded Sussman, who is Jewish, fund union activities despite his repeated and forceful objections to the union’s anti-Israel pursuits.

The July hearing, called “Confronting Union Antisemitism: Protecting Workers from Big Labor Abuses,” also featured testimony from veteran Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman, who is providing free legal representation to Sussman and other MIT graduate students challenging forced-dues demands from GSU.

“Whether it’s union officials seizing power in a workplace without giving employees a chance to vote, or using graduate students’ money to fuel radical protests and other unrest on college campuses, these outrageous activities all have one thing in common — union boss privileges heavily ingrained in federal labor law,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “No organization in the country has been more active than the Foundation in countering these coercive practices on behalf of rank-and-file workers.

“As the Biden Administration ramps up its attacks on worker freedom, we are honored and gratified that U.S. representatives look to Foundation attorneys and Foundation-backed workers for perspectives on how to defend worker freedom.”

Foundation Legal Director: ‘Card Check’ Permits Union Boss Tyranny

At its hearing in May, the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce listened to William Messenger testify regarding union bosses’ two favorite tactics for gaining power: “card check” drives and censorship of speech critical of the union.

Card check is a process that lets union bosses gain power in a workplace without giving employees a chance to vote in secret on whether they want a union. Union officials can gang up on workers and even harass them to obtain signatures on union authorization cards, which are later counted as “votes” for the union. This process opens workers to intimidation and threats, something not found with secret balloting.

Union Censorship Exposed by Foundation

As if that weren’t bad enough, Messenger testified how the Biden-Harris NLRB “operates the most repressive regime of government censorship in the nation” by censoring employees’ ability to hear basic truthful information from employers that union officials don’t want workers to hear.

“Just imagine if the ruling party of a third-world nation decided to use such a process instead of having secret-ballot elections for political office,” Messenger testified. “Instead of having elections, the ruling party would go around to people’s homes and workplaces and collect ‘votes’ for the party. Instead of free speech, only the ruling party would be allowed to campaign.

“I submit this process is nothing like a democratic process,” Messenger declared. “Yet the Biden NLRB is . . . mandating card check with its Cemex decision, under which it’s now an unfair labor practice . . . for an employer to refuse to recognize a union based on cards.”

At the July hearing, Will Sussman detailed the harrowing story of how GSU union bosses continued demanding dues payments from him and other Jewish MIT graduate students even after they had informed the union of their religious objections and requested religious accommodations due to their beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires union officials to accommodate those that have religious objections to subsidizing union activities; in practice this usually entails letting the employee pay an amount equivalent to dues to a charity.

MIT Grad Student Recounts Union Discrimination, Calls for Right to Work

But Sussman explained that the union blew off this legal duty, and legal action by the Foundation’s attorneys was needed: “The union denied my request, telling me in a letter that ‘no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union’ . . . In other words, UE thinks it understands my faith better than I do.

“This Congress should pass the National Right to Work Act, so that unions have to earn their dues and think twice before discriminating against minorities,” Sussman added.

1 Nov 2024

Austin Worker Files Federal Constitutional Challenge Against Biden-Harris Labor Board

Posted in News Releases

National Labor Relations Board facing numerous worker-brought lawsuits citing unconstitutional structure

Fort Worth, TX (November 2, 2024) – Dallas Mudd, an employee of Aunt Bertha (d/b/a FindHelp), has launched a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the grounds that the agency’s structure violates the U.S. Constitution. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys representing Mudd filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The lawsuit joins a string of cases challenging the NLRB’s structure on separation of powers principles.

Mudd’s case comes on the heels of his own employer’s suit against the NLRB. In that case, a federal district court judge ruled in favor of FindHelp and granted an injunction to halt proceedings against the company.

Mudd filed a decertificiation petition with the NLRB back in September, requesting a vote to remove the Office & Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) from his workplace. Instead of allowing the vote to proceed, NLRB officials blocked the election, leaving the workers indefinitely trapped in a union they oppose. Mudd is appealing that decision to the full Board in Washington DC.

Mudd’s federal lawsuit argues he is entitled to have his appeal adjudicated before a federal agency that is accountable to the president. The case joins four other constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure from Foundation-backed rank-and-file workers, including the first-ever such lawsuit challenging NLRB Board Member removal protections, which is currently being briefed at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals by Foundation attorneys representing Buffalo, NY-based Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam.

Mudd’s lawsuit points to recent Supreme Court rulings, including Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen, which emphasized that the President has direct authority to remove executive officials who exercise significant authority. Mudd argues that the NLRB’s structure, as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), places unlawful limitations on the president’s power to oust NLRB officials who exercise significant executive authority.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, joins a similar suit at the same court from Reed Busler. Similar to Mudd, Busler, a Starbucks employee, filed a petition asking the NLRB to hold a vote to remove the incumbent Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union, only to have the vote blocked by NLRB officials. In all the cases the employees argue they are entitled to have their cases heard by Board officials who are not exercising powers in violation of the Constitution.

“Independent-minded workers should not be forced to depend on biased agencies staffed by bureaucrats, that exercise power in violation of the Constitution, just to free themselves of unwanted union affiliation,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Constitution does not permit a powerful federal agency to operate as the judge, jury, and executioner without oversight, and these legal challenges seek to ensure that the Labor Board functions within the law, for the sake of all workers.”

1 Nov 2024

Trucking Company Employees Force Out Teamsters Union Bosses in Virginia, Similar Ouster Could Soon Come in New Jersey

Posted in News Releases

Efforts come in the face of anti-Right to Work push by Teamsters bosses and Teamster-backed Biden-Harris Labor Board rule change to disenfranchise workers

Washington, DC (November 1, 2024) – In two recent efforts by trucking employees across the Eastern Seaboard to free their workplaces from Teamsters union officials, a group of Virginia workers has successfully forced out Teamsters Local 322, while a similar effort by Philadelphia-area workers against Teamsters Local 500 continues.

Nelson Chilson, a truck driver for NAPA Transportation in Richmond, VA, submitted a petition earlier this month in which the majority of his coworkers asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove Teamsters Local 322 union bosses. Just days earlier, a group of Philadelphia-area Penske Logistics truckers led by Shawn Shute also filed a petition demanding the same kind of NLRB election to oust Teamsters Local 500. Both Chilson and Shute are receiving 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. Both Chilson’s and Shute’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).

All truck drivers from each facility are eligible to vote in each union decertification election. However, in Chilson’s workplace it appears that Teamsters Local 332 officials are attempting to flee the workplace ahead of a worker vote, as they’ve filed a “disclaimer of interest” renouncing their desire to continue their power over the Virginia workers, perhaps to avoid a ballot-box embarrassment.

As for the Philly-area Penske Logistics workers, their continued effort is higher stakes because they are based in New Jersey, a state that lacks Right to Work protections. In such states, union officials can enforce 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 Virginia, 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 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.

Pro-Union Boss Shifts in NLRB Policy Will 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. Now, 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.

The policy shift comes as Teamsters union officials push a vehemently anti-Right to Work political agenda, despite nearly 80% of current union members expressing support for the idea that workers should never be forced to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment, according to a recent Rasmussen Media Group poll.

“Despite union boss rhetoric touting ‘solidarity,’ there has never been more evidence that union officials – Teamsters officials especially – are pushing an agenda out of touch with the rank-and-file,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Whether it’s continued worker attempts to decertify Teamsters unions, the Teamsters hierarchy ignoring the rank-and-file’s preferences regarding policies and candidates, or worker-filed unfair labor practice charges against Teamsters militants, employees are growing wise to the fact that the chiefs of their union may prize power and influence far above their individual rights.

“The Foundation’s cases for Mr. Shute and Mr. Chilson are just a couple examples of workers declaring their independence from unwanted union officials, and Foundation attorneys will stand with them and many other workers even in the face of opposition from both union chiefs and hostile federal bureaucrats,” Mix added.

31 Oct 2024

Mark Mix Op-ed: “When Alabama workers fought for years to escape the UAW ‘Roach Motel’”

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

To inform Alabama Mercedes-Benz workers of their rights and the availability of free legal aid as United Auto Workers (UAW) union bosses targeted them with an aggressive unionization campaign, Foundation staff got this opinion piece from Mark Mix published in The Center Square this May. The workers ended up voting against installing the UAW at their workplace.

May 16, 2024 | Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation

Although the upcoming vote of Alabama Mercedes-Benz employees over whether or not to affiliate with officials from the Detroit-based United Autoworkers union has been billed as a historic first for the state, in fact it isn’t.

Based in Hamilton, Ala., workers at NTN-Bower, which manufactures roller bearings used in vehicle wheels, were subject to UAW representation from 1976 until the workers kicked the union out in 2015 after a protracted legal fight.

In Hamilton, UAW bosses ordered a divisive, prolonged strike at the plant. When some employees decided to defy union orders and exercise their right to return to work despite the strike, they faced aggressive harassment from UAW partisans, including tacks dropped to flatten tires and even racial slurs.

“Someone had to stand up for families like mine who simply couldn’t risk going on strike,” said Ginger Estes, who would go on to lead a petition to “decertify,” or remove, the UAW. “It didn’t take me long to see firsthand how the UAW was putting the plant at risk.

“The union’s leaders were willing to gamble with the livelihoods of hundreds of workers and were actively protecting lazy and incompetent employees who made the rest of us look bad.”

When workers began collecting decertification petitions at NTN-Bower, the harassment ramped up again.

Estes, whose husband and son also worked at the plant, took the threats personally. “During my signature-gathering process, I frequently had harassing phone calls made to my house and even had three of our family dogs die under mysterious circumstances.”

Eventually, Estes and her coworkers collected enough signatures to get the National Labor Relations Board to schedule a decertification election. However, workers soon found out that UAW officials weren’t willing to accept the results when a majority voted to reject the union.

UAW lawyers got the NLRB to overturn the first election’s result. When a rerun election occurred, a majority again voted against keeping the union, but UAW lawyers got that vote thrown out too. In a third election the UAW supposedly “won,” but that vote was disallowed due to obvious vote fraud, as more votes were cast than there were actual eligible voters.

In the fourth election, the UAW got the vote against them overturned. In the fifth and final vote, the largest majority yet voted to remove the UAW. This time, with free representation from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, UAW lawyers were unable to overturn the result.

It took multiple years and five votes for the Alabamians at NTN-Bower to finally overcome UAW tactics designed to disenfranchise them. In the process, they saw how union officials had mistreated workers who questioned the union.

Unfortunately, their story is hardly unique.

Take the recent case of employees at a Nissan North America, Inc. parts distribution center in Somerset, New Jersey. After the previous contract expired, workers expressed frustration with how UAW officials openly ignored their voice and treated rank-and-file workers with contempt.

“UAW union officials were far more concerned with hoarding power in the workplace than communicating with or listening to workers,” observed Nissan employee Michael Oliver, who led the effort to remove the UAW. “They kept us completely in the dark about contract negotiations and treated anyone in the workplace who opposed their agenda or questioned their leadership with a huge amount of arrogance, contempt and even intimidation.”

At the election held last month, 70% of workers voted to remove the union, but the vote almost didn’t happen. UAW officials rushed to impose a contract, seemingly in an attempt to halt the decertification vote for years and/or influence its outcome.

Fortunately, the UAW’s tactics failed. The Nissan workers saw the UAW contract and voted overwhelmingly to send union officials packing.

When workers contact the National Right to Work Foundation for legal assistance with decertification, they frequently report that union organizers told workers that “if you don’t like the union, then you can always vote us out later.”

As experiences of workers at NTN-Bower and Nissan demonstrate, union officials often use underhanded legal tactics to disenfranchise the very workers they claim to “represent.”

That’s why, following her multi-year battle with UAW bosses, Alabama NTN-Bower employee Ginger Estes concluded: “The UAW will make lots of promises to workers during its campaign that it’s under no obligation to keep. But like a roach motel, once you check in to the UAW, it’s difficult if not impossible to check out.”

29 Oct 2024

Hydra-Lock Employees Win Decertification Vote, Oust UAW Union

Posted in News Releases

After corruption scandal and Right to Work Repeal, Michigan workers win their freedom from UAW bosses and forced union dues

Detroit, MI (October 29, 2024) – Production and maintenance employees at Hydra-Lock Corp. a hydraulic tooling company based in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, have voted to remove United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 155 union officials from their workplace. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) conducted the vote following Hydra-Lock employee Keith Woody’s submission of a petition in which his colleagues requested an election to “decertify,” or remove, the union. Woody received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install and remove unions. Woody’s petition contained signatures from the majority of his colleagues in support of having a decertification election, well over the threshold of employee signatures needed to trigger such a vote under NLRB rules.

Michigan legislators’ 2023 repeal of the state’s Right to Work protections went into effect this February, meaning UAW union officials had the legal power to enforce job conditions that required Woody and his coworkers to pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.

The decertification win means Woody and his coworkers are no longer obligated to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and are officially free from UAW union officials’ one-size-fits-all monopoly “representation.”

Michigan Legislators Repealed Right to Work Despite Massive UAW Scandal

In March 2023, a bare majority of Michigan legislators voted along partisan lines to repeal Right to Work at the behest of union special interests, ending workers’ ability to decide for themselves whether or not union officials deserve their dues money. The imposition of union bosses’ power to force employees to “pay up or be fired” came despite polling showing Michiganders, including those in union households, overwhelmingly opposed the elimination of workers’ Right to Work protections.

After the repeal became effective this February, workers from across the Great Lakes State sought help from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in escaping union bosses’ forced-dues demands. The total cases that Foundation attorneys have filed for Michigan workers in 2024 is already well more than double the number for all of 2023. Foundation-backed workers from across the state have recounted a wide variety of union boss misdeeds since the repeal, including forcing workers with religious objections to join and pay dues, taking dues money directly from workers’ paychecks without their permission, coercing workers into contributing to union Political Action Committees (PACs), and more.

The Michigan Right to Work repeal also came after a years-long federal probe revealed massive corruption within the UAW hierarchy. Over a dozen UAW officials received jail sentences for embezzling and spending millions in workers’ dues money on luxury goods, vacations, and other personal items. A federal monitor is still overseeing the Detroit-based union, and reportedly are investigating current UAW President Shawn Fain for misappropriating union funds and abusing his power.

“Michigan’s repeal of Right to Work left many workers forced to fund union bosses that were ineffective, divisive, or outright corrupt, which is outrageous considering Michigan legislators had just witnessed the implosion of the Detroit-based UAW over corruption and embezzlement,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Hydra-Lock employees, like many others across the state, are nonetheless fighting to regain control of their workplaces from unwanted union hierarchies. We are proud to support their efforts to stand up against union coercion

“Michigan workers should not hesitate to contact National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for free assistance in standing up for what rights they still have in this new legal environment,” Mix added.

29 Oct 2024

Newark-Area Nurses Request Vote to Oust SEIU Union Officials as Federal Labor Board Seeks to Disenfranchise Workers

Posted in News Releases

Federal Labor Board, acting under new Biden-Harris Administration policy, moves swiftly to keep union officials in power despite nurses’ demand for removal vote

Newark, NJ (October 29, 2024) – Registered Nurses at the Clara Maass Medical Center in Belleville Township have filed a petition demanding a vote to remove United Healthcare Workers East (1199SEIU, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union) officials from their workplace. Registered Nurse Nancy Bombaro filed the union decertification petition with Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 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. Bombaro’s decertification petition contains well over the required threshold of employee signatures needed to trigger a decertification vote under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The requested vote would occur among Bombaro’s work unit of “[a]ll full-time, regular part-time, and per-diem Registered Nurses” employed by Clara Maass, but it appears the NLRB is taking action to block the vote at SEIU union officials’ behest.

Because New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SEIU union officials have the legal power to enforce contracts that require Bombaro and her colleagues to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. A successful decertification vote in a non-Right to Work state like New Jersey strips union officials of both their forced-dues privileges and the ability to impose one-size-fits-all contracts across an entire work unit of employees.

Biden-Harris NLRB Rule Change Lets SEIU Union Officials Trap Workers in Unwanted Union

Despite Bombaro’s petition containing more than enough signatures to prompt a union decertification vote, a recent shift in NLRB policy sparked by the union boss-allied Biden-Harris Administration could indefinitely block the nurses from exercising their right to vote out the SEIU. At the end of last month, the NLRB enacted a new policy reinstating so-called “blocking charges,” which are, in many cases, unproven allegations of employer misconduct used by union officials to stop workers from voting to decertify a union. SEIU union bosses are manipulating such charges to stymie the nurses’ effort.

“My fellow nurses and I are not pleased with the performance of 1199SEIU union officials and simply want to exercise our right to vote out this union,” commented Bombaro. “It was enough work to gather signatures and submit the petition asking for the vote. It’s outrageous that NLRB policy now lets union officials stop us from voting as if they know better than us.”

The Biden-Harris NLRB’s new rule overturns the Election Protection Rule, a set of Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 that prevented union boss allegations from stopping a worker-requested decertification election. The reforms also gave workers an opportunity to petition for secret ballot elections after union officials rose to power in a workplace by “card check,” an abuse-prone process which relies on union-solicited “cards” as votes and forbids workers from voting privately.

With the Election Protection Rule gone, union officials again have the power to block worker-requested union decertification votes for months or longer.

“Just weeks after the Biden-Harris NLRB enacted its cynical rule change, union officials are already manipulating it to maintain their own power while crushing the free choice rights of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Bombaro and her fellow nurses are just a few of a growing number of workers around the country who want to declare their independence from unwanted union officials. Rather than side with these workers, the Biden-Harris Administration chose to arrange a blatant power giveaway for its Big Labor political cronies.”