Foundation Blasts Biden NLRB’s Proposed Rule to Trap Workers in Unions
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Former union lawyers target Foundation-backed reforms easing removal of unpopular unions
In its comments to the NLRB, the Foundation emphasized its leading role in defending workers’ right to vote out unwanted unions. Above are just a few workers whom Foundation attorneys have aided recently in decertification efforts.
WASHINGTON, DC – Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that over 90 percent of American workers have chosen not to affiliate with a union, and recent polling by Gallup shows non-union workers are overwhelmingly “not interested at all” in unionization. This isn’t a surprise considering modern day union officials’ overwhelming focus on politics, the way that monopoly “representation” often disadvantages the best employees, and union bosses’ “pay up or be fired” demands leveled at workers in non-Right to Work states, among other reasons.
The National Right to Work Foundation helped create an easier path for employees to vote out union officials they oppose by filing comments in support of the “Election Protection Rule,” which the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) adopted in 2020. The Foundation-backed Rule eliminated several non-statutory NLRB policies that union officials manipulate to block any attempt by employees to vote them out of a workplace.
Now, former union lawyers Biden appointed to the NLRB are repaying the President’s union boss political allies by moving to eliminate the Election Protection Rule, thus restoring to union officials several coercive methods used to trap workers in unions they oppose by making it more difficult for employees to successfully petition for a decertification election.
The Foundation slammed the plan in February comments filed with the NLRB, maintaining that the rule change will trample workers’ statutory right to vote out unions they oppose while entrenching unpopular union officials. Foundation attorneys followed up with reply comments in March, which refuted several arguments union officials and Biden’s NLRB General Counsel put forth in comments supporting the Election Protection Rule’s elimination.
Biden NLRB Will Again Let Union Officials Weaponize Unproven ‘Blocking Charges’
The Foundation’s comments explain that, if the Election Protection Rule is tossed, union officials will again be able to exploit often-unproven allegations of employer unlawful behavior to delay employee-requested union decertification votes. Prior to the 2020 reforms, union officials could often stall a decertification vote for months or even years by filing these so-called “blocking charges.”
The 2020 Election Protection Rule overturned the blocking charge policy, so workers are currently allowed in most cases to cast ballots in a decertification vote before the NLRB deals with any allegations surrounding the election. This procedure eliminates the incentive outright deception. Once recognized via this card check process, under the NLRB proposal there will be a year-long non-statutory bar, during which unions are immunized from decertification attempts.
The Election Protection Rule gives employees the opportunity to challenge the union’s claim of majority support during a 45-day window period beginning upon notice of recognition. If workers collect a sufficient showing of interest for an election and file it during the 45-day window, the NLRB will hold an election in that bargaining unit. This provides a check against the most egregious card check campaigns. Barring these worker-submitted union decertification petitions “only shields what may well be a minority union from challenge” and “destroys employees’ [statutory] rights,” the Foundation’s comments say.
Worker Majority Support Doesn’t Matter for Union Elites
The comments also oppose the Biden NLRB’s plan to let union officials subject construction workers to monopoly union so-called “representation” without providing evidence of any individual worker’s support for such control, let alone a majority.
“The move to eliminate the Election Protection Rule will re-impose arbitrary policies that trample workers’ rights and allow union bosses to maintain power despite the overwhelming opposition of rank-and-file workers,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“The Biden NLRB, now stocked with former union lawyers, is putting on full display that its priorities lie with top D.C. union brass, not rank-and-file American workers.”
Anaheim Assa Abloy Worker Seeks Federal Court Order Against IBEW Union for Instigating Illegal Termination
Federal law prohibits conditioning employment on union membership, yet IBEW bosses demanded firing after worker refrained from joining union
Los Angeles, CA (June 16, 2023) – An Anaheim-based employee of automated door manufacturer Assa Abloy is hitting the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 441 union and his employer with federal charges, maintaining that union officials unlawfully instigated his firing because he abstained from union membership. The worker, Jaime Zambrano, filed his charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 21 in Los Angeles with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
California’s lack of Right to Work protections grants union officials the power to get workers fired for refusing to pay dues or fees to the union. However, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) forbids union officials from conditioning employment on formal union membership, even in non-Right to Work states. Zambrano maintains that, despite his paying the required amount of union dues to stay employed, Assa Abloy management terminated him at union officials’ behest after he didn’t fill out a union membership form.
Zambrano’s charge also seeks his immediate reinstatement via a 10(j) injunction against both his employer and the union. Under Section 10(j) of the NLRA, the NLRB General Counsel can seek a federal court order immediately stopping particularly egregious violations of federal law.
IBEW Union Officials Made Illegal Membership Demand, Gave Worker No Timeline
Zambrano began paying union dues to the IBEW union in September of 2022. In the spring of 2023, union officials sent him paperwork, including a union membership form. No indication was given of when union officials expected the paperwork to be completed and returned.
Zambrano discovered in late May that Assa Abloy officials were terminating him at IBEW bosses’ request because they had not received the membership form from him. While firing a worker for refraining from union membership is a clear infringement of federal labor law, Zambrano’s charge also says that union officials’ not providing him a timeline of when the paperwork should be completed is a “fail[ure] to comply with the requirements of Philadelphia Sheraton,” an NLRB case that requires union officials to inform workers of exactly what their obligations are.
“Because of these egregious and bad-faith acts, the Charging Party demands that the General Counsel seek 10(j) relief seeking his reinstatement,” reads Zambrano’s charge.
“IBEW union officials are playing outrageous games with Mr. Zambrano’s livelihood and potentially the livelihoods of many other workers who simply don’t want to affiliate with the IBEW,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Getting a worker thrown off a job merely for refusal to join a union is a violation of black letter federal labor law – union officials who can’t get workers to join voluntarily certainly shouldn’t be able to compel such membership by threatening to upend the careers of those who dissent from the union.”
“But even if IBEW officials were acting fully within the bounds of California and federal labor law, Mr. Zambrano would still be forced to pay dues to the union just to keep his job because of California’s lack of a Right to Work law,” Mix added. “This kind of forced association has no place in America, and all American workers deserve Right to Work protections that ensure that union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.”
Starbucks Worker Asks Labor Board to Review Order Denying Vote to Remove Unwanted Union
Request for Review to full National Labor Relations Board says Regional Director erred in dismissing workers’ petition
Buffalo, NY (June 12, 2023) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C. This requests asks the Board to reverse a Regional Director’s order dismissing a workers’ petition for a decertification election on whether to remove the so-called Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union, an affiliate of Service Employee International Union (SEIU). The request is part of a case that began when Ariana Cortes, a Buffalo Starbucks worker, filed a petition with the NLRB requesting the decertification election be held at the “Del Chip” Starbucks location where she works.
Cortes’ decertification petition, which was filed on April 28, has support from a majority of her coworkers who also want to remove the union from their workplace. After her initial filing, Cortes began receiving free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
“They have treated us like pawns, promising us that we could remove them after a year if we no longer wanted their representation, and are now trying to stop us from exercising our right to vote,” Cortes said in a statement about why so many of her coworkers support removing the union. “It’s obvious they care more about power and control than respecting our individual rights.”
Under federal law, workers can trigger an NLRB-supervised decertification election with the signatures of 30% or more of the employees in a workplace. After receiving the petition, NLRB officials should then promptly move to schedule an election. However, on May 25, the NLRB Region 3 Regional Director issued an order dismissing the decertification petition.
In response to this order, Cortes’s Foundation staff attorneys filed the request for review with the four member NLRB in Washington, DC. The filing emphasizes the wishes of the employees to continue with the decertification process to remove the monopoly union representation that lacks the support of a majority of the workers, which is a fundamental principle of the National Labor Relations Act that the NLRB is charged with enforcing.
The brief also observes that the grounds for blocking the vote is contradicted by the NLRB allowing union-backed certification elections to proceed. The result is that the SEIU is like a roach motel, easy to enter but impossible to leave.
“The Region dismissed her petition and disenfranchised her and her fellow employees of the right to choose their representative—the same right that has been granted over 350 times to employees seeking certification,” the brief states.
So far, workers at three different Starbucks locations in New York State have filed decertification petitions. In addition to the Del Chip store, Foundation staff attorneys also represent the petitioner in the Starbucks Roastery case, where a majority of workers also support the decertification effort.
The Foundation has also issued a legal notice to all Starbucks employees, offering free legal aid to any worker who may be interested in removing SBWU’s so-called “representation” from their workplace: www.nrtw.org/starbucks
“Workers have a statutory right to decertify a union they oppose, and it is outrageous that the Regional Director has so callously moved to disenfranchise these workers of that right,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB must reverse course and cease acting like its mission is simply to protect incumbent union officials against workers who are opposed to unions’ so-called representation.”
San Diego Gompers Preparatory Academy Charter School Educators Vote Out SDEA Union
Gompers teachers sought to remove union as early as 2019, but union bosses stymied last attempt with unproven allegations and pressure from elected officials
San Diego, CA (June 8, 2023) – Teachers at Gompers Preparatory Academy, a public charter school in the Chollas View neighborhood of San Diego, have successfully voted to remove San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union bosses from the school. The educators received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
While Gompers teachers have been seeking to exercise their right to free themselves from the SDEA union’s control as early as 2019, the current effort began in March 2023 after a majority of Gompers educators signed a petition asking the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to hold an employee vote on whether to oust the union (known as a “union decertification vote”). After collecting ballots from Gompers educators from May 10 to June 6, PERB yesterday announced a majority of teachers voted to remove the union.
Union Tactics Delayed Earlier Efforts to Vote Out Unwanted Union
The initial union decertification effort took place not long after SDEA officials gained power at the school in January 2019 via “card check,” a process that bypasses the traditional secret-ballot vote system to install a union. Gompers made an impressive transition to being a union-free charter school in 2005 after years of being plagued by unresponsive union bureaucracies, violence, and poor academic achievement, so many teachers and parents viewed the reinstallation of union monopoly power at the school with suspicion. Some accused SDEA agents of actively sowing division at the school, including by supporting anti-charter school legislation and needlessly disparaging the school’s leadership.
Gompers teachers’ first effort to eliminate the SDEA union stemmed from an October 2019 petition that had the backing of the requisite number of teachers to prompt the PERB to hold a decertification vote. However, SDEA union bosses attempted to avert the election by filing so-called “blocking charges” containing allegations of employer misconduct.
Union officials often manipulate “blocking charges” at the PERB and other state and federal labor relations agencies to stifle worker attempts to eliminate unpopular union “representation.” Despite the PERB never holding a hearing into whether SDEA union bosses’ claims had any merit or whether they were related to the workers’ dissatisfaction with the union, PERB officials denied a decertification election to Gompers educators in October 2020.
Foundation attorneys’ case defending the first petition to remove SDEA union agents from the school also sought to overturn PERB Regulation 32752, which requires PERB agents and attorneys to accept union bosses’ “blocking charge” allegations as true – a stipulation almost guaranteeing union defeat of any worker attempt to vote a union out.
“I chose to work at a school that didn’t have a union and now they’ve come in and they’re running everything about my contract and my work,” Kristie Chiscano, then a Gompers chemistry teacher and proponent of the decertification effort, said at the time.
Union Agents Targeted Teachers Who Led Effort to Vote Out Union
Even worse, shortly after the PERB’s ruling halting the original decertification effort, Chiscano and another Gompers educator filed charges maintaining that SDEA agents targeted them on social media for opposing the union hierarchy. California law makes it illegal for union officials to intimidate or retaliate against employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership.
Union boss-aligned state legislators even chimed in to pressure Gompers management to give in to union demands. In a letter to Gompers management, then-Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (now an AFL-CIO president) attacked the National Right to Work Foundation for simply providing legal aid to Gompers educators as they sought to exercise their right to hold a decertification election. Gonzalez was best known during her tenure for authoring AB5, a California law that drastically reduced opportunities for freelance workers and independent contractors across the state.
Teachers’ Union Decertification Efforts Expose Massive Power of California Public Sector Unions
Gompers educators submitted the March 2023 petition at the earliest time permitted by California labor regulations, which immunize union officials from employee-led decertification efforts for all but a tiny window while union contracts are active. Now, nearly four years after their original effort began, Gompers educators have finally voted to free themselves from union control. Gompers teachers and Foundation attorneys are still prepared to fight any objections the union files in an attempt to throw out the result.
“Gompers educators witnessed that SDEA union officials were not acting in the best interests of the students or the school community at large, and fought courageously for years to bring back the independent environment that made Gompers a success,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we at the Foundation are proud to have helped them win the fight, the hardship these teachers faced just to vote out a union they disapproved of should raise serious questions about union officials’ privileges under California law.”
“Gompers teachers endured years of legal roadblocks just to exercise their rights, and that’s to say nothing of the retaliation they faced from union officials and even pressure from union-label policymakers,” Mix added. “No special interest group in California, or in America, should wield this kind of power over teachers and the public education system.”
National Right to Work Foundation Blasts FLRA Ruling Trapping Blue Ridge Parkway Employees in Union
FLRA merged two work units at union officials’ behest with no worker input, now cites merger to deny worker request for vote to remove union
Washington, DC (June 6, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation today blasted a Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) ruling barring a group of National Park Service (NPS) employees from exercising their right to vote American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union officials out of power at their workplace. The FLRA dubiously cited its top-down “merger” of two preexisting work units of NPS employees into one unit as a reason for why the vote shouldn’t proceed.
The affected employees are Blue Ridge Parkway employee Lauren Labrie and her coworkers, who in 2021 backed a petition with enough employee support to prompt the FLRA to hold an election on whether to oust AFGE union officials. Labrie and her colleagues are receiving free legal aid from the Foundation.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix criticized the FLRA’s ruling:
“The Biden FLRA has abandoned all pretense of defending employees’ right to freely choose who will speak for them in the workplace with this ruling. Instead of just allowing Blue Ridge Parkway workers to vote on whether they support AFGE, the FLRA has effectively announced to all federal employees that agency bureaucrats can shield union bosses from workers’ will by merging multiple units of employees.
“This is another attempt by Biden Administration officials to expand the influence and power of their political allies within federal and other government unions, all to the detriment of rank-and-file workers who want to exercise their individual rights. Every individual worker should get to decide for him or herself whether or not to affiliate with a union – not have federal bureaucrats thrust union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’ on them against their will, and without even the ability to hold a prompt vote to remove an unwanted union.”
FLRA “Consolidated” Units at Union Behest, Then Stopped Workers from Voting on Union
AFGE union officials petitioned to consolidate Labrie’s work unit and another unit of NPS employees in 2021. A regional FLRA official approved the move in September 2021, without giving employees an opportunity to vote on whether they actually wanted the merger.
Labrie and her coworkers submitted their petition to decertify the union in December 2021. A regional FLRA official dismissed the petition in March 2022, claiming it was blocked by a 12-month “certification bar” stemming from the top-down consolidation of the work units, and that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute permits such a restriction.
Park Employee’s Brief: Blocking Election Stifles Employees’ Free Choice Rights
After requesting review from the FLRA in Washington, Foundation attorneys argued in a brief that applying a bar to employee-requested elections after agency-imposed unit consolidations violates federal employees’ free choice rights, which the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute was meant to protect.
“In passing the Statute, Congress’ intent was to promote secret ballot elections and employees’ freedom to choose their representative under the Statute,” the brief said. “Not allowing employees to exercise their free choice because the Authority administratively combined two bargaining units undermines Congress’ goal of promoting the right of employees to select their own agent.”
Despite there being no precedent or statutory authorization for blocking employee-requested decertification elections after a top-down unit consolidation, the FLRA in Washington issued a May 2023 decision relying on its own “discretion to regulate representation proceedings” and ruled that a “certification bar” blocked Labrie and her coworkers’ requested vote.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are determining the next steps for Labrie and her coworkers. While, according to the FLRA, Labrie and her coworkers can currently be forced to accept the “representation” of AFGE officials, they and all public sector American employees have a First Amendment right under the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision to cut off financial support to a union they oppose.
CUNY Professors’ Lawsuit Challenging Forced Association with Antisemitism-Linked Union Continues at Second Circuit
City University professors challenge NY law that forces them to be represented by hostile union hierarchy
New York, NY (June 5, 2023) – Six City University of New York (CUNY) professors have taken their federal civil rights lawsuit against Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union officials to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The professors, Avraham Goldstein, Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, charge PSC union bosses with violating the First Amendment by forcing them to accept the union’s monopoly control and “representation” – “representation” the professors not only oppose, but find extremely offensive and in contradiction to their personal beliefs.
The professors, five of whom are Jewish, are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation and The Fairness Center. They seek to overturn New York State’s “Taylor Law,” which grants public sector union bosses the power to speak and contract for workers, including those that want nothing to do with the union. In addition to opposing the union’s extreme ideology, the professors oppose being forced into a “bargaining unit” of instructional staff who share the union’s beliefs or have employment interests diverging from their own.
The professors’ opening brief at the Second Circuit argues that a lower court’s reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight was misguided. Knight, the brief states, dealt primarily with public employees’ ability to participate in union meetings and not with the professors’ legal argument that being forced to accept the bargaining power and “representation” of union officials is a violation of First Amendment free association rights.
The brief also maintains that the Supreme Court in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision acknowledged that public sector monopoly bargaining is “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.” Other Supreme Court decisions as early as 1944 also recognized problems with monopoly bargaining, the brief notes, including the Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. decision, in which African-American railway workers challenged a rail union’s racially discriminatory hiring and promotion policies.
“If the First Amendment prohibits anything, it prohibits the government from dictating who speaks for citizens in their relations with the government,” reads the brief. “The State Appellees and CUNY thus necessarily infringe on the Professors’ speech and associational rights by forcing them to accept a hostile political group, which they view as anti-Semitic, as their exclusive agent for speaking and contracting with their government employer.”
Lawsuit: Professors Compelled to Associate with Union Even After Bullying and Threats
The professors’ original complaint recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a June 2021 union resolution that they viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel,” and a host of other discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents.
The complaint said Prof. Michael Goldstein “experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family.” Goldstein has needed a guard to accompany him on campus, the complaint noted.
Prof. Lax, the complaint explained, already received in a separate case a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “that CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” Prof. Lax “has felt marginalized and ostracized by PSC because the union has made it clear that Jews who support the Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, are not welcome,” said the complaint.
Suit Seeks Overturn of New York State Law Forcing Union Power on Professors & Damages
The lawsuit seeks to stop the defendants from “certifying or recognizing PSC, or any other union, as Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative without their consent” and “enforcing any provisions…that require Plaintiffs to provide financial support to PSC.” It also demands that the court declare “Section 204 of the Taylor Law…unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent that it requires or authorizes PSC to be Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative…”
“No American worker should be forced to associate with union officials and union members that openly denigrate their identities and deeply-held beliefs,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Yet, New York State’s Taylor Law grants union officials the power to force dissenting workers under the ‘exclusive representation’ of a union hierarchy. As these CUNY professors have experienced, granting union officials the power to nullify public employees’ free association rights in this way breeds serious harm and discord among employees.”
“Not just in Janus v. AFSCME, but in decisions going back decades, the Supreme Court has questioned the constitutionality of union monopoly bargaining,” Mix added. “Federal courts must take action to ensure that government employees can freely exercise their right to dissociate from an unwanted union for religious, cultural, financial, or any other reasons.”
“Our clients want to vindicate their First Amendment rights and win their independence from a union they believe hates them,” commented Fairness Center President and General Counsel Nathan McGrath. “If successful, their lawsuit could transform the relationship between public-sector unions and employees in New York and, potentially, beyond.”
Starbucks Worker’s Brief: Proceed with Vote to Remove Union Opposed by Majority of Workers
Labor Board asked to reject union-backed move to disenfranchise majority of workers who petitioned for decertification election
New York, NY (June 2, 2023) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a brief with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 2 asking the NLRB not to dismiss the worker-led decertification effort. The brief is part of the case that began when Manhattan Starbucks Roastery worker Kevin Caesar filed a decertification petition with the NLRB seeking a secret-ballot election to end union officials’ so-called “representation.”
Caesar’s petition, which was filed on May 9, has the support of a majority of his coworkers who want to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) from their workplace. Caesar is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
“We have seen our workplace both with and without the union. We believe that the union is looking out for itself more than it is looking out for Starbucks partners, who do not want forced dues and can advocate for ourselves. That is why a majority of us have decided we would be better off without the union. The fact that the union officials have forced us to go through this decertification process despite the majority of workers stating they do not want to be represented by this union shows how little regard the union has for the will of the workers. We call on union officials to respect our rights and not attempt to fight this vote,” stated Caesar.
Under federal law, workers can trigger an NLRB-supervised decertification election with the signatures of 30% or more of the employees in a workplace. Caesar and his Roastery co-workers’ petition meets the criteria.
However, on May 18, 2023, NLRB Region 2 officials ordered each party to file briefs to determine whether or not to process the decertification petition by the Starbucks Roastery employees. The order suggests that unfair labor practice charge allegations filed by Workers United, an affiliate of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), could stop the petition from being processed. Such claims are often filed with the purpose of completely derailing employee decertification efforts, like the one taking place at the Starbucks Roastery.
In response to this order, Caesar’s Foundation staff attorneys filed a brief, emphasizing the wishes of the employees to continue with the decertification process and the importance of not trapping workers under monopoly union representation that lacks the support of a majority of the workers. This is a fundamental principle of the National Labor Relations Act that the NLRB is charged with enforcing.
“The policy of the Act is not to promote unionism per se; rather, it is to protect employees in their choice of representative,” the brief states. “Dismissing the decertification petition would disregard Petitioner’s and his colleagues protected statutory right to not associate with a union and benefit the Union at the expense of employee rights. Petitioner’s efforts to collect signatures and secure the backing of a majority of his colleagues on his showing of interest should not be so easily disregarded.”
The filing also describes the workers’ reasoning for wanting to exercise their right to remove the union: “Caesar filed a petition to decertify the Union. His petition was supported by a showing of interest indicating a majority of employees no longer want Union representation. Caesar does want to be represented by the Union because, in his opinion, the Union is self-interested, divisive, and unfocused on New York Roastery employees. He does not want to be forced to pay dues and prefers to advocate for himself, rather than have a third party do so.”
The decertification petition at Starbucks Roastery is just the latest employee decertification effort at Starbucks. In just two weeks, three different Starbucks locations in New York filed decertification petitions. Foundation staff attorneys also represent the petitioner in the Buffalo case.
The Foundation has also issued a legal notice to all Starbucks employees, offering free legal aid to any worker who may be interested in decertifying SBWU at their workplace and informs them of their rights in the workplace.
“If union officials cared about the actual wishes of rank-and-file Starbucks Roastery team members they would not be seeking to disenfranchise them by stopping a vote from taking place,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “The workers who oppose the union did nothing wrong, and the NLRB should reject attempts to strip them of their right to vote the union out.”
Foundation Issues Statement on Glacier Northwest SCOTUS Decision
The Supreme Court of the United States has just ruled that union bosses who orchestrate property damage as part of a strike order aren’t immune to liability in state court.
In Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174, an 8-1 SCOTUS majority rejected Teamsters officials’ argument that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prevented Glacier Northwest, a Washington State-based concrete company, from suing the union in state court for ordering cement truck drivers to abandon their trucks and leave copious amounts of cement spoiled and completely unusable.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement on the ruling:
The Supreme Court correctly ruled that union officials should not be granted immunity from state lawsuits over deliberate property damage perpetrated during union strike actions. The issue in Glacier Northwest, however, represents only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to union bosses’ special legal privileges – especially concerning the powers union officials have over rank-and-file workers.
As the Foundation noted in its amicus brief in the case, beyond the issue of deliberate property damage, union officials have vast special powers and immunities that no other private entity or individual enjoys. This long list includes not only forcing workers under union ‘representation’ they oppose and then extorting workers to pay union fees or else be fired, but also a court-created exemption from federal prosecution for extortionate violence if it is pursued for so-called ‘legitimate union objectives.’
Ultimately, this case shows how far courts and lawmakers have to go in order to level the playing field and stop allowing union bosses to play by a different set of rules from those that apply to all other citizens and private entities.
The Foundation’s amicus brief in Glacier Northwest can be viewed here. Mark also penned an op-ed for Fox News explaining the breadth and depth of union boss legal privileges.
Full Foundation Action March/April 2023 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the March/April issue of Foundation Action are now on the website.
In this issue:
- San Francisco Security Officer Battles Illegal SEIU Union Boss Discrimination
- With Foundation Aid, Mayo Clinic Nurses Defeat Forced Union Dues Requirement
- Northwest Ohio Employees File Suit to Knock Down Another Janus Restriction
- Illinois Security Officer Defends Janus Rights Amidst Union Discrimination
- Mark Mix’s Fox News Op-Ed: “Union bosses get away with things you or I wouldn’t. Supreme Court should roll back special privileges”
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Legal Notice to Starbucks Employees as Multiple Locations Seek to Boot Unions
Notice contains details on how employees can petition for union decertification vote, as well as how to resign membership and cut off dues
Washington, DC (May 23, 2023) – After being in contact with multiple Starbucks workers, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today issued a special legal notice to Starbucks employees who are interested in removing union control in their workplace. The legal notice is available at the Foundation’s website here: https://www.nrtw.org/starbucks/.
The Right to Work Foundation is the nation’s premier organization dedicated to defending workers whose rights have been violated by forced unionism abuses. Foundation staff attorneys are already assisting Starbucks employees at the Starbucks Reserve Roastery in Manhattan, NY, in exercising their right to vote unwanted union officials out of their store, and similar efforts are taking place at Starbucks locations in Buffalo, NY, and Rochester, NY. At the New York Roastery location, a majority of the employees signed the petition asking for a vote to remove the union.
“The Foundation wants you to learn about your legal rights from independent sources,” the notice says. “You should not rely on what self-interested union officials tell you.”
In Addition to Seeking to Vote Out Union, Employees Can Take Individual Steps to Resist Union Activity
The legal notice advises Starbucks workers of their right to petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote among employees on whether a resident union should be ousted from the workplace, a process known as a decertification vote. However, it cautions workers that this process is complex and prone to manipulation from union officials, and for that reason workers should consider obtaining Foundation legal aid in navigating the process.
The notice also advises employees of actions they can take as individuals to disaffiliate from the union, including how to exercise their right to resign union membership, revoke cards authorizing direct union dues deductions, and potentially stop funding union activities. The notice provides sample letters to workers interested in exercising those rights.
“If you work in a state that lacks Right to Work protections, union officials with a monopoly bargaining agreement can unfortunately force you to pay some union fees in order to keep your job. However, there are still limitations on how much and under what circumstances you can legally be required to pay,” the notice reads, while counseling such workers of their right to cut off dues payments for union politics as per the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. “If you work in a state with Right to Work protections, you have a right to opt-out of all union financial support.”
“As many Starbucks locations pass the one-year anniversary of unionization, Starbucks employees are now able to hold votes to remove the union, a right many are now seeking to exercise,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “No one who claims to be pro-worker should oppose simply letting these workers hold a secret ballot vote to determine if they oppose union affiliation.”
“Unfortunately, between union officials who prioritize their own power over the wishes of rank-and-file workers, and an NLRB that is actively seeking to make it harder for workers to even hold decertification votes, it is more important than ever that workers fully understand these legal issues,” Mix added. “That’s why workers should carefully read our legal notice and know that they can request free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation for help in protecting their legal rights.”
