Buffalo Starbucks Worker Files Groundbreaking Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of NLRB Structure
Regional NLRB blocked employee and her coworkers from voting out union majority disapproved of, new lawsuit challenges agency’s authority
Buffalo, NY (October 4, 2023) – Buffalo “Del-Chip” Starbucks employee Ariana Cortes has hit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with a federal lawsuit, arguing that the federal agency’s current structure violates the separation of powers. The lawsuit, filed with the District Court for the District of Columbia, follows Cortes’ challenge to an NLRB Regional Director’s dismissal of her and her coworkers’ petition seeking a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their store.
Cortes is receiving free legal aid in both proceedings from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The lawsuit contends that, because NLRB Board Members cannot be removed at-will by the President, the NLRB’s structure violates Article II of the Constitution.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law which established the Board, restricts a president’s ability to remove Board members except for neglect of duty or malfeasance. The complaint argues that “[t]hese restrictions are impermissible limitations on the President’s ability to remove Board members and violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. Thus, the Board, as currently constituted, is unconstitutional.”
“The Supreme Court made clear in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) and Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) that under Article II of the Constitution, the President must be able to remove federal officials who exercise substantial executive power,” the complaint states. “The five-member NLRB exercises substantial executive power because it issues binding rules, adjudicates unfair labor practices and representation disputes, issues subpoenas, and decides whether and how to direct and conduct elections in representation cases.”
Regional NLRB Dismisses Starbucks Employees’ Request to Vote Out Union
On April 28, Cortes filed a petition, backed by the majority of her coworkers, that requests the NLRB conduct a decertification election at her workplace to end the monopoly bargaining power of SBWU union officials. NLRB Region 3 dismissed Cortes’ petition based on unfair labor practice charges SBWU union officials filed against Starbucks, despite there being no proven connection between those allegations and the decertification petition.
Cortes’ Foundation-provided attorneys filed a Request for Review with the Board challenging this dismissal order. That appeal contrasted the standard the NLRB often applies to petitions to certify unions, which usually proceed with little to no delay, with the standard the NLRB applies to petitions to decertify unions, which are often hamstrung and delayed.
New Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Temporarily Enjoin Unconstitutional Proceedings
Cortes’ new federal lawsuit seeks a declaration from the District Court that the structure of the NLRB as it currently exists is unconstitutional, and an injunction halting the NLRB from proceeding with her decertification case until her federal lawsuit is resolved.
“For too long the NLRB, especially the current Board, has operated as a union boss-friendly kangaroo court, complete with powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As the story of Ms. Cortes shows, the NLRB’s unchecked power creates real harms for workers’ rights, especially when workers seek to free themselves from the control of union bosses they disagree with.”
National Right to Work Foundation Files SCOTUS Brief Defending Alaska’s Protections Against Forced Union Dues
Alaska facing ASEA union lawsuit over arrangement which requires union bosses to obtain affirmative consent from employees before deducting dues
Washington, DC (September 29, 2023) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Alaska v. Alaska State Employees Association. The brief supports the State of Alaska’s attempt to safeguard public sector workers’ First Amendment right to refrain from paying dues to a union they disapprove of. This right was first recognized in the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, which was successfully argued at the High Court by Foundation Legal Director William Messenger.
In the 2018 Janus decision, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects public sector employees from being forced to pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. The High Court further recognized that unions must obtain a worker’s freely given waiver of his or her Janus rights before deducting union dues or fees from his or her paycheck.
In an attempt to ensure his state wasn’t violating its employees’ constitutional rights, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued an executive order to protect workers’ Janus rights: The order requires the state to obtain consent from workers each year to deduct union dues from their paychecks. This arrangement ensures that the “freely given consent” element of Janus is satisfied, while also preventing union bosses from continuing to deduct money from a worker’s wages based on a “yes” given years ago.
However, Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA) union bosses sued the State of Alaska over its Janus protections, and were able to get the state’s highest court to block the arrangement. Even worse, as Foundation staff attorneys point out in the amicus brief, “five Circuit Courts have now held that states and unions can constitutionally seize payments for union speech from dissenting employees without proof they waived their constitutional rights.”
Amicus Brief: Lower Courts and States Are Letting Unions Seize Dues Without Workers’ Consent
The Foundation’s amicus brief maintains that, after the Janus decision, at least seventeen states either “amended their dues deduction laws…to require government employers to enforce restrictions on when employees can stop payroll deductions of union dues,” or “enforced restrictions on stopping payroll deductions under preexisting state laws.” 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, have misinterpreted Janus to not require public employers to notify public workers of their Janus rights before collecting dues, which dips below the “waiver” standard mandated by the decision. Additionally, the amicus brief 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.
“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. “The Court should not tolerate this resistance to its holding in Janus.”
“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.”
Foundation-Backed Workers Notch Victories Over Dues-Hungry UAW Bosses
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
UAW caught using threats and coercion to illegally seize workers’ dues
Ford employee Shiphrah Green excoriated UAW bosses in the Louisville Courier Journal over their blatant disregard for her rights. Foundation attorneys are helping her and others battle the notoriously corrupt union.
LOUISVILLE, KY – United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials have a well-deserved reputation for looking out for their own interests while throwing rank-and-file workers under the bus. The most prominent recent example is the corruption and embezzlement scandal, in which federal investigators revealed that UAW officials had siphoned millions of dollars in workers’ money to fund opulent golf vacations in luxury condos and private villas, spa and amusement park visits, $60,000 cigar-buying sprees, and much more.
But the federal corruption probe that led to eleven top UAW bosses pleading guilty, including former union presidents Gary Jones and Dennis Williams, is hardly the only time greedy UAW bosses abused their government-granted monopoly bargaining powers.
In a series of recent cases brought by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys against the UAW, workers are utilizing the Foundation’s free legal aid to vindicate their rights in the face of illegal dues demands by UAW officials.
Foundation-won Settlements Force UAW to Return Money to KY, IA Workers
Shiphrah Green, an employee of Ford Motor Company’s Louisville Assembly Plant, prevailed over UAW Local 862 bosses with free Foundation legal aid in April. UAW bosses were forced to settle and return money they had unlawfully taken from Green’s pay.
Green’s federal charges against the union maintained not only that UAW officials had made her jump through unnecessary hoops to exercise her right to cut off union dues, but also that UAW bosses made threats against her job when she tried to resign, with one union official warning her “if it were up to me, you’d lose your job for leaving the union.” Green’s settlement also forced UAW officials to refrain from such illegal threats in the future.
Meanwhile in Iowa, four employees of air filter manufacturer Donaldson won a recent settlement in which UAW officials were required to return over $1,000 in illegally-seized dues.
In each Donaldson worker’s case, UAW bosses had either refused to stop dues deductions despite producing no original documentation showing the workers had consented to such deductions in the first place, or had kept seizing money after an employee resigned union membership and revoked authorization to deduct dues, which should have been effective in stopping the flow of dues.
Because Ms. Green and the Donaldson workers reside in Right to Work states, the Foundation-won cases mean they will be free from all union financial support going forward.
Philly Public Defender Hits UAW with Charges
Even in non-Right to Work states where union officials have the power to compel workers to pay some fees under threat of termination, UAW bosses still go far beyond what is legal in their greedy forced-dues demands.
For example, Foundation staff attorneys recently filed a case for Philadelphia public defender Brunilda Vargas. Vargas, a vocal opponent of the UAW’s unionization drive, was told by UAW organizers that the union would reduce her and her coworkers’ wages if they did not grant the union the power to automatically deduct union dues directly from their paychecks.
Not only is the threat illegal, but further, employees can never be required to authorize automatic dues deductions from their paychecks under long-established federal law. This is true even in a state like Pennsylvania where workers lack the protection of a Right to Work law. Vargas’ charge, filed in June, is now being investigated.
“American workers likely have a plethora of reasons for wanting nothing to do with UAW union officials, including but not limited to the dizzying corruption in the union that has led to so many union officials going to prison,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “As Foundation attorneys have experienced, UAW officials will often resort to clearly illegal methods to squeeze money out of dissenting workers in violation of federal law.”
“Union bosses who cannot convince workers to pay union dues voluntarily should not be allowed to seize union dues under threat of termination,” Semmens added.
Foundation Op-Ed: ‘Public Employees Never Waived Their 1st Amendment Rights’
Recently, Newsmax published an op-ed by National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix, highlighting a case from Alaska pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case the State of Alaska seeks protect the First Amendment rights of public employees under the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, by requiring an affirmative waiver before state agencies deduct any union dues:
If you’ve ever watched a television show featuring law enforcement, you probably know these words by heart, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…”
Such a “Miranda” warning ends the following way, “Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
Police “Mirandize” suspects because, although a citizen can waive a constitutional right they have, the government cannot assume that such a right has been waived.
Miranda warnings protect citizens’ Fifth Amendment rights, but the principle applies to any constitutional right. (See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 1966).
The State of Alaska has recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case about Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s attempt to apply this principle to protect the First Amendment rights of state employees.
Five years ago, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys argued and won the landmark Janus v. AFSCME case at the U.S. Supreme Court.
That decision established that the First Amendment prohibits government unions from requiring that public employees pay union dues and fees without their explicit and informed consent.
In the wake of Janus, the State of Alaska was among the first jurisdictions to proactively enforce the decision.
Citing Janus, Gov. Dunleavy issued an executive order directing state officials not to deduct union dues from the paychecks of public employees, unless the state has clear evidence that a worker has knowingly waived their First Amendment Janus rights.
Dunleavy set up a system that required such proof be submitted annually as a condition of the state continuing to deduct union dues.
The state cannot assume state employees want to waive their rights indefinitely: Talking to a police officer voluntarily years ago is not evidence of waiving Fifth Amendment rights in perpetuity.
Despite the straightforward justification, not to mention the fact that Dunleavy’s order doesn’t prevent a single worker from having dues deducted voluntarily, government union bosses in Alaska were livid…
Find the rest of the op-ed online on the website of Newsmax here.
NJ Medieval Times Employees Appeal to National Labor Relations Board in Ongoing Joust with Union Officials
Majority of Lyndhurst Medieval Times cast members signed petition asking Labor Board for election to remove union, but union is stalling vote
Newark, NJ (September 21, 2023) – Artemisia Morley, a cast member at the Lyndhurst, NJ, location of Medieval Times, has submitted a Request for Review to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., defending her and her coworkers’ right to vote unwanted officials of the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA) union out of the workplace. Morley is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Morley’s Request for Review challenges NLRB Region 22’s hurried dismissal of a petition she filed on behalf of her coworkers seeking an election to remove the AGVA union (also known as a “decertification election”). Her petition contained the signatures of a strong majority of her coworkers, but the Regional Director dismissed it “without any hearing, and without citing any evidence that there was a ‘causal nexus’ between the Employees’ disaffection from the Union” and unproven allegations that union officials had levied against the employer.
Because New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, AGVA union officials have the power to force Morley and her coworkers to pay union fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in states with Right to Work laws, union bosses can’t enter agreements with employers that force employees to fork over a portion of their paychecks to the union just to get or keep a job.
“Secretive” and “Self-Interested” AGVA Union Officials Tried to Stifle Worker-Requested Vote
The Request for Review notes that AGVA union officials were “secretive, self-interested, and divisive,” and “regularly advocated that the [Medieval Times] employees go on strike, something that had no support among the unit employees.” After waiting out the statutory one-year bar on union elections that follows a union’s certification, Morley filed the petition requesting a union decertification vote.
According to the Request for Review, instead of processing the petition as NLRB rules dictate, NLRB Region 22 issued a complaint against the employer and dismissed Morley’s petition based on unproven “blocking charges” AGVA union officials filed against Medieval Times management. The Request for Review argues that the hasty dismissal violated NLRB election rules, the Administrative Procedure Act, and well-established NLRB precedent requiring a hearing to demonstrate whether union allegations of employer misconduct actually caused employee discontent with the union.
“None of the alleged unfair labor practice allegations…concern the Employees’ collection of the decertification signatures or the Employer’s domination of the Union. Thus…an election should be held and the votes immediately counted,” the Request for Review contends. “Even if the Board determined the allegations warranted consideration under [NLRB rules], its plain terms prohibit dismissing a petition prior to an election.”
Case May Be Used to Push Radical Agenda of Biden-Appointed NLRB General Counsel
In 2020, the NLRB adopted Foundation-backed reforms that made it less difficult for workers to eliminate an unwanted union. One reform pared back union officials’ ability to use “blocking charges” to stop worker-requested decertification elections from happening. The reform instead created a process in which charges surrounding an election are litigated after employees have gotten to exercise their right to vote. Instead of applying this rule, NLRB Region 22 dismissed Morley and her coworkers’ requested election.
The Request for Review notes that NLRB Region 22’s complaint, which incorporated AGVA union officials’ unproven allegations against the employer, does not appear designed to help workers “but rather to twist the law and facts beyond recognition in order to aid the current [NLRB] General Counsel’s ideological crusade to overturn decades of settled Board law about bargaining obligations and employer free speech.” Biden-appointed NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a former union lawyer, has thrown her weight behind other recent cases to uproot longstanding NLRB precedent, often to give more power to union bosses at the expense of workers’ freedom.
“Aided by regional NLRB officials, AGVA union officials seem determined to send the individual rights of Medieval Times workers back to the Dark Ages,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “NLRB election rules clearly forbid union officials from using completely unproven charges of employer misconduct to derail workers’ ability to have a vote on whether they want continued union representation.”
“Federal labor law is supposed to protect the fundamental right of workers to freely decide who will speak for them in workplace matters, and Foundation staff attorneys will fight for Morley and her coworkers as AGVA bosses try to turn this commonsense principle on its head,” Mix added.
Foundation Op-Ed: ‘Biden’s Labor Board Wants to Trap Workers in Unions they Oppose’
In an op-ed for The Hill published on Labor Day (September 5, 2023) entitled “Biden’s labor board wants to trap workers in unions they oppose,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix highlighted the coercive pro-union boss policies being pushed by Biden-majority National Labor Relations Board to the detriment of the rights of independent-minded workers:
Big Labor bosses have a problem: Despite their vitriolic rhetoric and a small number of loud online activists, most workers want nothing to do with unions.
A Gallup poll released last Labor Day spotlighted the issue: A strong majority of nonunion workers in the U.S. (58 percent) say they are “not interested at all” in joining a union, whereas just 11 percent say they are “extremely interested.”
Since it takes a majority of workers in a given workplace to support a union before monopoly union representation can be imposed, union organizers face a basic math problem — one that explains why only 6 percent of private-sector workers are unionized today.
Yet rather than consider ways of making unionization more attractive to rank-and-file workers, politically-connected union bosses have a different plan: Rig the rules to force more workers into their ranks, willing or not.
President Biden, who campaigned on being “the most pro-union president in American history” and is counting on Big Labor’s multi-billion-dollar political machine again in 2024, is unleashing his administration to the benefit of his favorite special interest.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), stocked with Biden appointees and former union lawyers, has been busy doing just that. If workers won’t voluntarily vote unions in, Biden’s NLRB, whose rules cover most private sector workers, wants to take their vote away.
That’s why the NLRB, at the end of August, effectively mandated the “card check” unionization process by bureaucratic fiat. Never mind that numerous union-backed measures in Congress to require this abuse-prone unionization process have failed to pass into law.
Card-check drives occur when employers, usually in the face of union-applied political and economic pressure, waive workers’ right to a secret ballot election. During these drives, union officials are allowed to demand union authorization cards directly from workers using coercive tactics that would be unlawful during a secret ballot vote.
Union organizers can show up at workers’ homes over and over again demanding signatures, in some instances requiring workers to call the police to get organizers to leave. Workers report being misled about the true implications of signing the cards, and some have been told they would be fired if they didn’t sign just before the union successfully took over.
Some workers even face threats of violence. In one SEIU organizing drive, a worker reported being told that the union would “come and get her children” and “slash her tires” if she didn’t sign a union card…
Read the rest of Mark’s piece on the website of The Hill here.
Wisconsin Spartek Workers Successfully Force Out UE Union Officials as Labor Board’s Policy Shift Looms
United Electrical union flees Spartek after majority of workers petition against union
Sparta, WI (September 14, 2023) – Employees from metal manufacturing company Spartek have prevailed in their effort to oust United Electrical Workers (UE) Local 1161 union officials from their facility. Following the workers’ submission of a petition asking National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 18 to hold an election in the workplace on whether the union should be removed, UE union bosses sent a letter to Spartek management disclaiming interest in continuing their control over the workplace.
Spartek employee Carl Berg filed the petition with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The petition, which contained signatures from the majority of Berg’s coworkers, exceeded the 30% threshold NLRB rules require to trigger a union decertification vote in a workplace.
Because Wisconsin is a state with Right to Work protections, union officials can’t force private sector employees like those at Spartek to join the union or pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, non-Right to Work states like neighboring Illinois and Minnesota let union officials enter into agreements with employers that compel workers to pay dues as a condition of employment.
But even in Right to Work states, federal law grants union officials the power to impose their “representation” on all workers in a unit, even those who oppose the union or voted against its presence. However, workers can choose to exercise their right to decertify a union they disapprove of.
“UE union officials hadn’t really done anything for us. After making a bunch of promises, they barely showed their faces around the workplace,” commented Berg. “I filed the decertification petition because a majority of my coworkers wanted to remove the UE union, and the fact that the union disclaimed interest so fast probably speaks to the fact that the union officials knew they hadn’t been doing a good job.”
Biden NLRB Seeks to Further Burden Workers’ Right to Decertify Unwanted Unions
In 2020, the NLRB adopted Foundation-backed policy reforms that made the union decertification process less difficult for workers. The reforms, among other things, pared back union officials’ ability to use unverified allegations of employer wrongdoing (also known as “blocking charges”) to stall a worker-requested decertification vote. However, the Biden NLRB has announced that it will soon issue a rule overturning these commonsense reforms.
The repeal of the Election Protection Rule will also let union officials shut down worker attempts to obtain a secret ballot decertification vote for a year after union officials install themselves in a workplace via the so-called “card check” process. This move will be particularly dangerous to workers’ rights now that the Biden-appointed majority on the NLRB has voted to mandate card check recognition. Under the abuse-prone card check process, union officials bypass the NLRB’s traditional secret ballot vote procedures and instead use cards collected directly from workers – often through coercive or intimidating tactics – as “votes” for unionization.
“Workers across the country are successfully exercising their right to kick out unwanted union officials, especially with Foundation aid,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This trend is a threat to the Biden Administration’s union boss political allies, and the Administration has been pursuing a radical agenda to trap workers under unions’ so-called ‘representation’ and increase the influence and dues revenue of its favorite special interest.”
“This agenda is toxic to workers’ individual rights, and Foundation staff attorneys will continue to assist workers in defending their right to decertify a union even amidst this legal and regulatory assault,” Mix added.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice to Infinity Healthcare Employees Amid SEIU Strike Threat
Foundation warns workers that those wishing to continue caring for patients during a strike should resign their memberships before returning to work
Chicago, IL (September 2, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has issued a special legal notice to the approximately 1,000 Illinois nursing home workers who may be impacted by Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU)-Healthcare Illinois union officials’ planned strike order. If SEIU officials order the strike, employees from 11 Infinity Healthcare nursing facilities in the Chicago area will be ordered off the job.
The legal notice informs Infinity Healthcare workers of their rights, including their right to not abandon their patients and to keep working despite the union-ordered strike. The notice discusses why workers across the country frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in such situations.
“This situation raises serious concerns for healthcare employees who believe there is much to lose from a union boss-ordered strike,” the notice reads. “Employees have the legal right to rebuff union officials’ strike demands, but it is important for them to be fully informed before they do so.”
The full notice is available at www.nrtw.org/infinity
The notice outlines the process that Infinity Healthcare workers should follow if they want to exercise their right to return to work during the strike and avoid punishment by union bosses, complete with sample union membership resignation letters. The notice reminds workers that SEIU union officials have no disciplinary power over workers who are not union members, and advises Infinity Healthcare employees who wish to work during the strike to resign their memberships at least one day before returning to work.
“That is the best way to avoid potential union fines and other discipline,” the notice says.
Further, the notice reminds employees of their rights to cut off all union dues payments in the absence of a monopoly bargaining contract with the nursing home company. The notice encourages employees to seek free legal aid from the Foundation if they experience union resistance as they attempt to exercise any of these rights.
“Infinity Healthcare employees are likely aware of the impact this strike may have on the Chicago senior population, and may rightfully question whether the upcoming union-ordered strike is really best for employees, their families, and their patients,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Infinity Healthcare employees should know they unequivocally have the right to reject union strike orders and continue to care for those in need.”
“Any nursing facility employee who wants to exercise her or her right to rebuff SEIU union officials’ sweeping strike order should immediately contact the Foundation for free legal aid should SEIU bosses violate their legal rights,” added Mix.
Passaic, NJ, Woodworking Employees Win Two-Year Legal Battle to Oust Unwanted Carpenters Union Officials
Patella employees’ ordeal shows how union officials trap workers in unions they oppose, yet Biden NLRB is moving to make union decertification even harder
Passaic, NJ (September 8, 2023) – Following the third attempt by employees of Passaic-based woodworking firm Patella to obtain a vote to remove them, Carpenters Local 252 union officials have backed down and abandoned the facility. The union’s disclaimer of interest, received last week by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 22, caps off a years-long legal battle between Patella employees and recalcitrant Carpenters union officials. The workers ousted the union with free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Patella employee Steve Urso led the effort to vote out the union, which began in July 2021 with the filing of a petition requesting an NLRB-administered vote to decertify the Carpenters union. Union officials used unverified allegations of employer misconduct, also known as “blocking charges,” to derail attempts by Urso and his colleagues to oust the union. Urso filed the most recent decertification petition near the end of August 2023, and instead of seeking to continue their control over the clearly dissatisfied Patella workers, Carpenters union officials finally moved to leave the facility.
Because New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Carpenters union officials had the power to force Urso and his coworkers to pay at least some union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in states with Right to Work laws, union bosses can’t enter agreements with employers that force employees to fork over a portion of their paychecks to the union just to get or keep a job.
Carpenters Union Used Unproven Allegations Against Management to Block Employees from Voting
“Carpenters union bosses completely ignored our wishes for years, and apparently thought violating our rights and continuing to collect dues was better than simply letting us vote on whether we thought they deserved to stay,” Urso commented. “It’s extremely unfair that Carpenters officials were able to manipulate NLRB rules and processes for as long as they did to keep us trapped under union ‘representation’ that we opposed, but we didn’t give up and we’re glad we’re finally out.”
After Urso submitted the first employee-backed decertification petition in July 2021, an election did occur, but the ballots were never tallied after Carpenters officials filed “blocking charges” against the employer. Carpenters union bosses stopped a vote from occurring at all after Urso’s second attempt, again using “blocking charges.” Patella management settled the charges in February, but afterward Carpenters union officials did not request any bargaining sessions with the employer.
The Carpenters union’s disclaimer of interest followed Urso’s third petition. Now that the NLRB has certified the disclaimer, Urso and his colleagues are finally free of the unwanted union.
Biden NLRB Seeks to Empower Union Officials While Undermining Workers Who Seek Votes
Urso and his colleagues’ hard-fought victory comes as the Biden NLRB in Washington, D.C., is attempting to make it even more difficult for workers to obtain votes to remove unwanted unions, while giving union officials more tools to gain power in a workplace without a vote. The NLRB will soon issue a final rule overturning the Election Protection Rule, a Foundation-backed 2020 reform which made commonsense improvements to the decertification process.
The Rule’s repeal will grant union officials even greater power to use “blocking charges” to stop union decertification elections from happening. The repeal will also block workers from seeking a union decertification vote for a year after union bosses attempt to impose unionization by “card check.”
The card check process lets union officials bypass the NLRB’s traditional secret ballot vote procedures and instead allege majority support by collecting union authorization cards directly from workers – often using coercive or intimidating tactics. Foundation attorneys are currently aiding a group of paramedics and EMTs in Sonora and Groveland, California, who were unionized by card check only to vote to remove Steelworkers union bosses a few months later.
“Instead of defending the individual rights of workers across the country who are seeking to vote out union officials they oppose, the Biden NLRB is instead trying to make it harder than ever for workers to obtain an election,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As Mr. Urso, his colleagues, and countless other workers can attest, the NLRB process for workers to remove a union they oppose is already far too difficult.”
“The Biden NLRB’s continued moves to stifle worker decertification efforts demonstrate yet again that they and their union boss allies are focused on gaining greater control over workers and their pocketbooks – not on employees’ freedom of association,” added Mix.
