Philly-Area Dometic Employees Slam UAW Union with Federal Charges for Illegal Threats Linked to Strike
Union steward threatened to fine and terminate any employee who chose to work during strike, seized money illegally from workers
Philadelphia, PA (March 11, 2024) – Seven employees of auto accessory manufacturer Dometic’s Philadelphia-area factory have filed federal charges against the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 644 union, maintaining that union officials ignored their requests to resign union membership during a strike, and are now unlawfully imposing internal union discipline on them. The workers, Nancy Powelson, Eric Angell, Joseph Buchak, Mario Coccie, Md Rasidul Islam, James Nold, and Robert Haldeman, filed their charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 4 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. Under the NLRA, American private sector workers have a right to refrain from union activity, and the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in General Motors v. NLRB the right of employees to resign union membership during a strike.
All seven workers report in their unfair labor practice charges that a union steward told each of them during a September 8, 2023, meeting that a strike would begin the following week and any employee who crossed the picket line during the strike would be subject to internal union charges, fined, and ultimately terminated.
In October, each of the seven employees exercised their right to resign union membership, and returned to work shortly after doing so. However, on December 10, 2023, UAW union officials notified each worker that the union had started proceedings against them and their presence would soon be required at an internal union trial.
“The Union’s act of summoning Charging Party to attend an internal Union trial for post-resignation conduct interferes, restrains and coerces Charging Party in the exercise of…[NLRA] Section 7 rights, in violation of Teamsters Local 492 (United Parcel Service)…and Section 8(b)(1),” the employees’ charges explain.
After Threatening Illegal Discipline, Union Bosses Seized Money Illegally from Workers
According to the employees’ charges, UAW union bosses’ illegal behavior continued into the new year. Between October 2023 and January 2024, each worker invoked their right under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, asking the UAW to reduce their dues payments to only the amount that the union claims goes toward bargaining.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, union officials can impose contracts that force workers who have refrained from formal union membership to pay fees to the union as a condition of employment. However, as per Beck, this fee must exclude any money that funds a union’s political or lobbying activities, and can only include bargaining-related expenses. Beck also requires union officials to provide financial disclosures to workers who send a Beck notice.
Each charge states that “the [u]nion failed to respond or provide the required [Beck] financial disclosures for itself and its affiliated unions,” which is a violation of the NLRA.
UAW Union Officials Seek to Expand Power Despite Controversies
“The UAW is a repeat offender when it comes to union officials prioritizing their own power over the freedoms and well-being of workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re happy to help these Pennsylvania employees of Dometic, it’s likely the case that many more workers under UAW control across the country face similar illegal threats and rights violations.
“The UAW, which was also entangled in a years-long federal probe for embezzling workers’ money as recently as 2022, is currently spending millions to attempt to expand their monopoly bargaining power over additional workers,” Mix added. “Workers targeted by UAW officials for unionization have plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the union hierarchy’s motives and should seek Foundation aid in learning about and defending their rights.”
Tennessee AT&T Workers Force Unwanted CWA Union Bosses Out of Workplace Following Union ‘Card Check’
After union lawyers’ attempt to get the NLRB to block the vote failed, union bosses backed down and departed workplace rather than face workers’ vote
Tennessee (March 5, 2024) – Denis Hodzic, an In Home Sales Expert of AT&T Mobility Tennessee, and his coworkers have successfully pushed unwanted Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials out of power.
The union ouster follows Hodzic’s submission of a “decertification petition” backed by his fellow employees, which asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove (or decertify) the union for AT&T Mobility In Home Sales Experts throughout Tennessee. Hodzic received 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 votes to certify and decertify unions. Hodzic, who collected signatures from a majority of his coworkers (more than enough to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules), filed his decertification petition in December 2023 to challenge a so-called “card check” unionization scheme by CWA union bosses.
Last month, an NLRB Regional Director rejected union officials’ objections to the petition and ruled that a decertification election should go forward. However, before the vote could occur, CWA union officials filed paperwork disclaiming interest in continuing their control over the workers – likely to avoid an embarrassing rejection by employees at the ballot box.
Had Hodzic and his coworkers’ effort not succeeded, NLRB documents indicate that they would have been integrated into a nationwide bargaining unit comprised of thousands of employees, which would have made decertifying the union virtually impossible.
Because Tennessee is a Right to Work state, CWA union officials never had the power to force Hodzic and his colleagues to pay union dues or join the union as a condition of employment. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can still force their one-size-fits-all contracts on all employees in a work unit, even those who oppose the union. A successful decertification election ends this monopoly bargaining power.
Biden NLRB Cracking Down on Employees’ Right to Vote in Secret on Union ‘Representation’
Under a card check, union officials can bypass the secret-ballot election process, which is the most secure and reliable way to determine if employees want to unionize. During a card check drive, union officials can engage in face-to-face interactions with employees and demand they sign union authorization cards, making the process a breeding ground for coercive and intimidating tactics. Even AFL-CIO organizing guidelines admit that employees often sign cards during a card check to “get the union off my back.”
Though union officials successfully gained control via card check, Hodzic was able to petition for a decertification vote to overturn the result thanks to the Right to Work Foundation-backed 2020 reforms to NLRB rules.
Collectively referred to as the “Election Protection Rule,” the reforms permit employees to submit decertification petitions within a 45-day window after the finalization of a card check. The Election Protection Rule also prevents union officials from manipulating charges they file alleging employer misconduct to block workers from casting ballots in a decertification election, among other things.
Unfortunately, the NLRB in Washington, DC, has begun rulemaking to undo the Election Protection Rule, which will make it much harder for employees to challenge card check drives. This is just one of several aggressive moves by the Biden NLRB to give union officials greater power to corral workers into unions, while limiting workers’ rights to get rid of unpopular unions.
Recently, the NLRB issued the Cemex decision, which gives union officials greatly expanded power to overturn elections that don’t go in their favor if an employer requests such an election to challenge a card check.
“Despite claiming to speak for workers, union bosses and their allies in the Biden NLRB seem to be intent on further constricting workers’ ability to have secure, private votes on whether union bosses deserve to have control over their working lives,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Hodzic and his coworkers’ victory should serve as a reminder that ‘card check’ is not a reliable indicator of employee support for a union, and that giving this process priority over secret ballot elections will trap more workers under union boss control against their will.”
Albany Starbucks Employees Seek Vote to Kick Out SBWU Union
“This isn’t what we signed up for” says NY worker who joins Starbucks partners across the country in demanding union ousters
Albany, NY (March 1, 2024) – A partner of the Stuyvesant Plaza Starbucks in Albany has filed a petition with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 3, asking the federal agency to hold a vote at her workplace to remove (or “decertify”) the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union. The employee, Rayghan Dowey, received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in submitting her petition.
“This isn’t what we signed up for, a new team has started to come in [to the Stuyvesant Plaza Starbucks] and we want to make sure that the voice that was once heard is still being heard two years later,” commented Dowey regarding the union. “We want to bring the inclusivity, community, and culture back. The culture we once had, that we were promised to get back, we never got to see.”
Dowey’s petition contains signatures from enough coworkers at her store to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. Because New York lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SBWU union bosses can enter into contracts that compel Dowey and her coworkers to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials in a unionized workplace are empowered by federal law to impose a union contract on all employees in a work unit, including those who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of that power.
Amid Growing Requests to Remove SBWU, Starbucks Workers Also Challenge NLRB Authority
Dowey and her colleagues join Starbucks partners and other coffee company employees across the country in banding together to vote out SBWU union officials. In the past year, Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY; two Buffalo, NY locations; Pittsburgh, PA; Bloomington, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; Greenville, SC; Oklahoma City, OK; San Antonio, TX; and Philadelphia, PA, have all sought free Foundation legal aid in filing or defending decertification petitions at the NLRB. Foundation attorneys have helped employees at independent Philadelphia coffee shops Good Karma Café and Ultimo Coffee successfully oust Workers United union officials, who are affiliated with SBWU.
Many employees of Starbucks or other coffee establishments are requesting decertification votes from the NLRB roughly one year after union bosses attained power in their workplaces, which is the earliest opportunity afforded by federal law to do so. Starbucks employees in particular were the targets of a multi-year, aggressive unionization campaign by SBWU, in which the union spent millions on paid union agents – including “salts” who obtained jobs at Starbucks locations with the covert mission of installing union power.
However, rather than respect the choice of workers opposed to the union, SBWU union officials are attempting to prevent Starbucks workers nationwide from exercising their right to decertify the union with charges against Starbucks management that are currently holding up the elections. Currently, Foundation staff attorneys are representing workers in about a dozen Starbucks stores seeking decertification votes.
NLRB Request for Review: Region Violating Starbucks Workers’ Rights by Blocking Vote
In fact, Foundation attorneys just filed a request for review with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC, for Indya Fiessinger, a Starbucks employee at a Salt Lake City-area location who filed a petition for a decertification vote. The brief argues an NLRB Regional Director incorrectly applied federal law to block the decertification election requested by the workers at the store, and refused to even hold a hearing on the matter.
Foundation attorneys are also representing Buffalo, NY, and San Antonio, TX, Starbucks workers in challenging the NLRB as an unconstitutionally-structured federal agency. In two federal lawsuits now at the district court level, Starbucks employees argue that NLRB bureaucrats’ removal protections shield them from accountability in violation of separation of powers doctrines in the Constitution.
“Despite the wave of Starbucks workers who want to exercise their right to free themselves from unwanted union representation, SBWU union officials are twisting the law to trap workers under the union’s influence against their will,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Federal labor law should protect workers who want to exercise their free choice rights, not power-hungry union bosses, and Foundation attorneys are proud to represent Ms. Dowey and other Starbucks workers who oppose SBWU officials’ coercive reign.”
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.”
Foundation Asks Supreme Court to Take on Widespread Janus Violations
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief: Pending case should be used to underscore need to obtain workers’ consent to dues
In 2019, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy took proactive steps to protect Janus, but dues-hungry ASEA union bosses fought his actions all the way up to the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Right to Work Foundation’s victory in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case set a monumental First Amendment precedent. In Janus, the Justices recognized that no public sector worker can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and that unions cannot deduct union dues from a public sector worker’s wages unless that worker waives his or her Janus rights.
Now the Foundation is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to, five years after Janus was issued, take another case to clarify and fortify the Janus precedent against numerous misinterpretations by greedy union officials, union-backed state politicians, and, most worryingly, some lower court judges.
Alaska Takes Lead on Janus Rights Only to Face Union Boss Resistance
The Foundation’s brief asks the Supreme Court to weigh in on an Alaska lawsuit that started when union officials sought to nullify Alaska state officials’ attempt to fully protect the First Amendment rights of public employees. Union officials challenged the state’s arrangement which ensured that the state didn’t deduct dues from any public employee who had not knowingly waived their rights under Janus.
After the Janus decision, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued an executive order requiring the state to obtain proof of consent from workers each year to deduct union dues from their paychecks. The requirement was designed to prevent union bosses from deducting dues money from the wages of a worker who didn’t fully understand their legal rights under Janus. Many workers, for example, may have authorized dues deductions years before the Supreme Court recognized that mandatory payments to unions as a condition of government employment violate the Constitution.
Unwilling to comply with even this modest check on their power to deduct union dues directly from government employees’ paychecks, Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA) officials battled the State of Alaska in state court. Eventually, ASEA union lawyers were able to get the state’s highest court to block the arrangement. But the Supreme Court has the ability to fix the Alaska State Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of Janus.
Following the State of Alaska’s petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments in the case, Foundation attorneys filed a legal brief of their own, urging the Justices to uphold Alaska’s safeguards on Janus and correct the misinterpretations of Janus made by an increasing number of courts and state governments around the country.
Brief: States and Courts Are Ignoring Janus, Need to Be Reined In
The Foundation’s argument notes that, after the Janus decision, at least seventeen states either changed their laws to require government employers to enforce union boss-invented restrictions on when employees can stop union dues deductions, or enforced dues deduction restrictions already on the books. Both lead to unacceptable restraints on public sector workers’ Janus rights, the amicus brief argues.
The amicus brief further contends that lower courts, especially the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over Alaska, have misinterpreted Janus by not mandating government employers notify public workers of their Janus rights before taking union dues from their paychecks. For a waiver of one’s rights to be effective, a person must know what those rights are — just as police officers “Mirandize” suspects they arrest by informing them of their “right to remain silent.”
Union Bosses Value Dues-Funded Politicking Over Public Servants’ Rights
The amicus brief also points out that the Ninth Circuit has issued decisions that free public employers from any obligation to prove that union bosses obtained authentic consent from workers before dues are taken from their wages — opening the door for forged or fake dues deduction cards.
“Unless the Court grants review and breathes new life into Janus’ waiver requirement, unions and their government allies will continue to severely restrict the right of millions of employees to stop subsidizing union speech,” the amicus brief concludes.
“Public sector union bosses, who prize their own dues-funded political influence far above the individual rights of the employees they claim to ‘represent,’ have tried everything in their power to dodge the Janus ruling and keep siphoning money from workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The Supreme Court
has an opportunity in the State of Alaska’s case to set the record straight and ensure that workers’ free association rights can’t simply be molded according to their own schemes.”
Right to Work Foundation SCOTUS Brief: Workers Exercising Right to Oppose Unions Isn’t “Harm” to Be Eliminated
In case to be heard by Court, Foundation argues NLRB wrongly asserts that independent-minded opposition to unions can justify injunctions
Washington, DC (February 29, 2024) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief in Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney, a case set to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court later this term that has major implications for the rights of workers who oppose union power in their workplaces.
In the brief, Foundation staff attorneys argue that federal courts should reject National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requests for preliminary injunctions when the Labor Board claims employee discontent with a union is a “harm” that should be redressed. These injunctions, called 10(j) injunctions, are frequently used by the NLRB to force employers into certain union-demanded behavior, despite the NLRB not having fully adjudicated the underlying union allegations.
The brief points out that an employee’s decision not to support a union is not a harm that needs to be addressed, but rather a “legitimate choice employees have a right to make” under both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the First Amendment to the Constitution.
“Only if the NLRB can prove an employee was coerced by an employer to oppose a union against his or her will can that employee’s lack of support for the union be considered any sort of a harm to be redressed,” the brief says. “If the NLRB cannot muster such evidence, then the fact that employees are exercising their statutory and constitutional rights…provides no basis for [an] injunction.”
Foundation: Courts Shouldn’t Accept NLRB’s Assumption that Workers Want to Join Unions
In the Starbucks v. McKinney case, the NLRB sought an injunction at the behest of Starbucks Workers United (SBWU-SEIU) union officials against Starbucks for unfair labor practices the company allegedly committed at a location in Memphis, Tennessee. A major reason cited by the NLRB for the requested injunction was the fact that workers may choose to oppose the union if the injunction isn’t issued.
The case presents the question of what standard courts should use when evaluating whether to grant NLRB-requested injunctions under the NLRA. The Foundation brief opposes the lax standard that the NLRB and union officials are urging courts to use when deciding whether to issue injunctions.
That standard asks only whether alleged unfair labor practices could potentially coerce workers into not supporting a union. Foundation attorneys argue that “the Court must require the NLRB to prove employees were unlawfully coerced not to support a union because, absent such proof, employees have every right to make that choice” (emphasis added).
Foundation-Backed Starbucks Workers Disprove Specious NLRB Theory
Foundation staff attorneys are currently representing Starbucks employees at several locations across the country who seek to vote out (or “decertify”) the SBWU union. In the brief, Foundation attorneys point out that the NLRB in a similar case (Leslie v. Starbucks Corp.) cited a Foundation-backed union decertification case as a reason that an injunction should be issued against the company – despite the fact that the workers themselves say their opposition to the union had nothing to do with the conduct the union was challenging in that case.
“In taking this position, the NLRB has created a self-satisfying ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ dynamic for itself,” the brief reads. “Evidence that employees support a union is taken to mean they want to support the union. Evidence that employees oppose a union is taken to mean their employer must have wrongfully caused the employees not to support the union. All evidence conveniently leads to the conclusion desired by current NLRB leadership: employees should support unions.”
The case is set to be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 23, with a decision expected by the end of the High Court’s term in June.
“The Biden NLRB is working hand in glove with unions to advance a standard that treats worker dissent from unions as a harm to be eradicated, rather than a decision made by competent adults,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court in Starbucks v. McKinney must reject the idea that NLRB bureaucrats can simply twist evidence of legitimate worker discontent with unions into a tool to aid union bosses in gaining leverage over businesses and employees.”
Foundation-Backed Workers Fighting for Freedom from Unwanted Union Bosses
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Victories come as Biden NLRB advances rule to block worker decertification votes
Seattle Mariners pro shop employees slammed UFCW union bosses out of T-Mobile Park by taking advantage of Foundation-backed rules that make union decertification votes easier. But the Biden NLRB is attacking those reforms.
WASHINGTON, DC – With National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys aiding workers across the country in exercising their right to vote out union officials they don’t want, President Biden’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is moving to undermine such efforts. The Biden NLRB is also fast-tracking policies that let union bosses sweep to power without even giving workers any chance to vote.
The Biden NLRB is pulling out all the stops to mandate the so-called “card check” process while eliminating workers’ ability to ask for a secret ballot vote. Card check lets union officials bypass the traditional union election process and pressure workers into signing union authorization cards that are later counted as “votes” for the union. Workers often report threats, intimidation, unwanted home visits, and union deception about the true meaning of the cards as part of a card check campaign.
The latest attack on workers’ election rights is the Biden NLRB’s pending rule to overturn Foundation backed-reforms to the election process adopted by the NLRB in 2020. The 2020 reforms, known as the Election Protection Rule, give workers a window of opportunity to petition for a secret ballot vote after a union imposes itself on workers without a secret ballot election. Foundation staff attorneys first established this protection in the 2007 Dana Corp case, and workers all over America used it until the Obama NLRB overturned Dana in 2010.
Seattle Mariners Employees Overwhelmingly Vote to Reverse UFCW Card Check
Since the 2020 Foundation-backed reforms reinstated the Dana process, workers have again used it to demand secret ballot elections to challenge union “representation” imposed through coercive card checks. In just the past few months, Foundation attorneys have assisted multiple groups of workers in exercising this freedom, and will continue to do so even in the face of Biden NLRB opposition.
This year, employees of the Seattle Mariners’ MLB pro shop obtained free Foundation legal aid to defend their effort to remove the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union, which had previously been installed through card check.
Regional NLRB officials granted the workers’ petition for a vote to remove the union based on the Election Protection Rule. But union lawyers argued on appeal that the Mariners employees’ election should be thrown out because of the so-called “voluntary recognition bar,” a pre-Election Protection Rule restriction that blocked workers from having a vote for up to a year or more after a card check.
The union’s appeal was dismissed based on the Election Protection Rule, and Mariners pro shop employees voted to send the UFCW packing by well over 80 percent.
California Paramedics Fight with Foundation Aid to Resuscitate Election Rights
Also on the West Coast, Michael Radan and his fellow paramedics and EMTs with the Manteca District Volunteer Ambulance Service in Groveland, CA; and Sonora, CA, petitioned for a secret ballot union decertification election shortly after Steelworkers union officials had swept themselves into the workplace via card check.
In August, Radan and his fellow paramedics and EMTs voted to remove the union. While Foundation attorneys are now defending Radan and his coworkers’ decision from election objections
levied by Steelworkers union bosses, the Election Protection Rule’s safeguards at least permitted the employees to vote.
As Decertifications Increase, Biden NLRB Makes Worker Free Choice Last Priority
Before the Rule, union officials could often use unproven or unrelated allegations of employer wrongdoing (also called “blocking charges”) to halt an election before ballots were even cast.
“That workers petition for secret ballot votes after union bosses make specious claims of majority support via card check shows that a card check isn’t truly reflective of workers’ will. The AFL-CIO’s own organizing manuals admit that workers often sign cards just to get union organizers ‘off their backs,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“All of this points to why the Election Protection Rule is so important — Big Labor should not have the power to subordinate workers’ free choice to union bosses’ thirst for power and dues revenue,” Mix added. “But as the Biden NLRB seeks to confer ever greater powers on union bosses, Foundation staff attorneys will continue to defend workers opposed to unionization, including by challenging the Biden NLRB in federal court.”
Seattle Mariners Employee Fights Biden Labor Board Cemex Decision Upending Right to Vote in Secret on Union ‘Representation’
In amicus brief at Ninth Circuit, employee shows how controversial Labor Board decision undermines rank-and-file workers’ freedom of choice
San Francisco, CA (February 12, 2024) – Tami Kecherson, a retail employee for the Seattle Mariners of Major League Baseball, has filed an amicus brief in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific LLC v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA.
The case is a challenge to the Biden NLRB’s radical overhaul of federal labor law that grants union bosses the power to bypass a traditional secret ballot election when trying to gain monopoly bargaining power over a workplace. Kecherson is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Controversial NLRB Decision Lets Union Bosses Quash Secret Ballot Elections
The NLRB issued a decision in Cemex in August 2023 which requires employers to either grant a union’s demand for recognition based on “card check,” or immediately petition for a secret ballot election. Card check is a process that uses “authorization cards” collected by union organizers as a substitute for votes in a secret ballot election. The card check process lacks the security of a secret ballot union vote, and exposes workers to coercion and intimidation as union officials seek to collect authorization cards. Even AFL-CIO organizing guides admit card check drives aren’t representative of how workers would vote in elections, and that many workers sign cards just to “get the union off my back.”
Under Cemex, an employer who declines to recognize a union is required to quickly ask the NLRB to hold a secret ballot election. But the NLRB doesn’t have to grant that request. A union can easily prompt the NLRB to cancel an employee vote (or even overturn an election that doesn’t go in the union’s favor) by filing charges against the company and showing the employer committed an unfair labor practice during the “critical period” leading up to the election.
Seattle Mariners Employee Defends Workers’ Right to Secret Ballot Elections
Kecherson and her coworkers from the Seattle Mariners’ retail shops were the targets of a card check organizing drive by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials in October 2022. Kecherson filed a petition at the NLRB challenging the card check-based imposition of the union and demanding a secret ballot election to test if the union had the support it claimed.
In May 2023, the NLRB Regional Director in Seattle ordered an election over the objections of UFCW union bosses, noting UFCW union officials had not properly informed employees of their right to file for such an election. Kecherson and her colleagues eventually voted by a margin of 50 to 9 to remove the UFCW union.
Kecherson and her colleagues were able to request such a vote under the auspices of the Election Protection Rule (EPR), a set of Foundation-supported reforms that the NLRB adopted in 2020. The EPR gives workers a 45-day opportunity to request a secret ballot vote to challenge a union’s card check-based claims of majority support after the completion of such a campaign. The process by which workers can challenge card check drives was established by Foundation attorneys in the Dana Corp. NLRB case. Though this 2007 decision was overturned in 2010 by the Obama NLRB, “Dana elections” were codified in the EPR – but may soon be nixed due to Biden NLRB rulemaking.
As Kecherson’s amicus brief states, the situation in her workplace (where 85% of workers voted to reject the union despite the union’s claims of majority support via cards) demonstrates how the Cemex decision wrongly promotes union-solicited authorization cards as a reliable alternative to secret ballot votes. “In short, Local 3000’s ostensible claim to majority employee support, which was based on authorization cards the union collected from the employees, was totally refuted when tested in the crucible of a secret ballot election,” Kecherson’s brief says. “Yet under Cemex, the NLRB will routinely impose compulsory union representation on employees based on card checks and without a secret-ballot election.”
“In Cemex, the Biden NLRB is promoting union boss power to the detriment of employee free choice, a right that is supposed be at the center of the National Labor Relations Act,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Kecherson’s story, where she and her colleagues overwhelmingly voted against the union despite union boss claims of majority support, is just the latest demonstration of what countless NLRB decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court, and even unions have admitted: Card check is unreliable and inferior to secret ballot elections where union organizers cannot see how each individual voted.”
“To defend the rights of rank-and-file workers like Tami Kecherson, the court must reject the NLRB’s biased and cynical Cemex framework that undermines the NLRA’s clear statutory preference for secret ballot votes,” added Mix.
Full Foundation Action September/October 2023 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the September/October issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- After Janus, Foundation Continues Fight to Expand Freedom for Public Employees
- Starbucks Workers Nationwide Rising Up Against Union Representation
- Victory: San Diego Charter School Educators Vote Out Teacher Union Bosses
- Mark Mix Labor Day Op-Ed: Biden’s Labor Board Wants to Trap Workers in Unions
- Philly Public Defender Beats Illegal UAW Dues Deduction Scheme
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.
