Michigan Security Guards Fight to End Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Worker blasts state Right to Work repeal: ‘Now… [we] must join or lose our jobs’
Freedom Fighter: Security guard James Reamsma is disappointed that the Right to Work repeal re-imposes forced-dues payments, but he and his coworkers still have a shot to restore their liberty.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI – In February, Big Labor allies in the Michigan Legislature and union partisan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer saw their plans to enrich union bosses at the expense of workers come to fruition. The repeal of the state’s Right to Work law — which Whitmer and state legislators backed despite polling showing that 70% of Michiganders wanted the law to remain in place — became effective that month.
Michigan’s Right to Work law, which took effect in 2013, was popular for a reason: It protected the state’s private sector workers from being forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Michigan then experienced substantial economic gains while the law was effective. Now that union bosses can again force Michigan workers to pay dues or be fired, it’s no surprise that National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are seeing worker backlash to the change.
Despite Repeal, Western MI Guards Can Still Restore Worker Freedom
In a rebuke to the Right to Work repeal, security guards from government buildings across Western Michigan in February backed a “deauthorization petition” that will kick off a process that could strip union officials of the United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) of their forced-dues powers. In a non-Right to Work state, deauthorization is the only option that workers have to remove union bosses’ forced-dues power apart from voting the union out in a decertification election.
Similar to the decertification process, workers who petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a deauthorization vote must obtain signatures from 30% or more of their colleagues to trigger a vote. James Reamsma, the security guard who submitted the deauthorization petition with free Foundation legal aid, had signatures far beyond this threshold.
“UGSOA union officials have threatened to have everyone who does not join the union fired,” commented Reamsma. “Many of us are retired police officers, or military, working part time, supplementing our income by providing security for government buildings across Michigan.
“When Right to Work was in place, guards were never forced to join the union. Now part-time guards are expected to pay the same high dues as full-time guards and all guards must join or lose our jobs,” decried Reamsma.
According to the petition, the requested deauthorization vote will take place among “all full-time and regular part-time security guards . . . performing services for the Company . . . in and around the cities of Alena, Cadillac, Petoskey, Traverse City, West Branch, Flint, Bay [C]ity, [Big] Rapids, Ludington, Mount Pleasant, Owosso, Saginaw, Escanaba, Houghton, Ironwood, Marquette, Sault Ste. Marie, Grand Rapids, Holland, and Muskegon, Michigan.”
In addition to providing free aid to Wolverine State workers like Reamsma and his colleagues who are taking legal action to counter forced dues, the Foundation also issued a legal notice in February to all Michigan workers explaining the new legal landscape.
In New Anti-Freedom Environment, Foundation Keeps MI Workers Informed
The notice explains that while union bosses again have forced-dues power in the private sector, private sector workers can still object to paying dues for union political purposes as per the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, or end forced dues in their workplace entirely by decertifying or deauthorizing the union.
As for public sector workers, the Foundation’s 2018 victory at the Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME ensures that their freedom from forced dues is still protected by the First Amendment despite the cynical Right to Work repeal.
“Within weeks of Michigan’s Right to Work repeal, we see the harm Big Labor’s coercive policy agenda inflicted on rank-and-file workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Reamsma and his colleagues, who will be providing security to Western Michigan’s government buildings during what is likely to be another turbulent election year, don’t deserve to be forced into financially supporting a union they disapprove of, nor does any Michigan private sector employee.
“While union boss powers have greatly expanded since the Right to Work repeal, workers still have some rights to resist union boss coercion, and Foundation attorneys stand ready to help them exercise those rights,” Mix added.
DC-Area Transdev Driver Takes Case Regarding Union-Instigated Assault to Federal Appeals Court
Biden Labor Board claims ATU union did not violate law even after worker experienced slap and termination attempt from union officials
Washington, DC (July 1, 2024) – Thomas McLamb, a Hyattsville, Maryland-based driver for transportation company Transdev, is appealing his National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case charging Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) officials with assaulting him to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. McLamb, whose case concerns retaliatory actions taken against him for being a union dissident, is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
McLamb filed charges with the NLRB in November 2021 and January 2022 against ATU for the retaliatory behavior, which in addition to being slapped by an ATU union steward also included a union-instigated termination attempt. McLamb argues that engaging in legally-protected action opposing the union hierarchy – including petitioning for an NLRB-supervised vote to remove the union – made him a target of union officials and adherents.
NLRB Region 5 in Baltimore issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing on May 11, 2021, stating that the slap and an attempt by an ATU shop steward to get McLamb fired both constituted violations of federal labor law. An NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision declaring that the firing attempt was illegal, but the Biden NLRB reversed, claiming that the union did not violate the law at all.
McLamb is now asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review and overturn the decision of the Biden NLRB.
ATU Union President Ordered Adherents to “Slap” Dissenters
In a statement filed in November 2021, McLamb said that the ATU Local 689 president, Raymond Jackson, told other union officers to “slap” employees who were opposing his agenda. McLamb later reported in a federal charge that he had been physically assaulted by ATU shop steward Tiyaka Boone. Both incidents occurred while McLamb was campaigning against the incumbent officers to serve on Local 689’s board.
McLamb reported in another federal charge that, shortly after this incident, ATU official Alma Williams requested that Transdev management fire him over his criticisms of the union steward that assaulted him.
Biden NLRB Decision Claims Physical Assault Was Personal
The Biden NLRB’s decision reversing the ALJ decision against the union claims that Boone’s assault on McLamb was motivated by “personal reasons” and not McLamb’s legally-protected opposition to the union’s chiefs. However, both McLamb’s Foundation attorneys and even the NLRB General Counsel showed the ALJ during trial a video of Jackson, the ATU president at the time, telling employees to slap other workers who spoke out against him.
The NLRB decision also defends Alma Williams’ asking the employer to fire McLamb, claiming that she was merely asking for Boone and McLamb to be disciplined “equally” for their conduct during and leading up to the assault.
“Workers should not have to face violence or retribution in exchange for criticizing or challenging union leadership, and the fact that Mr. McLamb has had to fight for years to defend his right to be free of such retaliation is outrageous,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We believe that this decision by the Biden NLRB is wrong, and is yet another example of how the current administration defends scofflaw union bosses that steamroll employee rights in pursuit of greater power.
“Even worse is the fact that McLamb works in the non-Right to Work state of Maryland, where union officials are legally empowered to require dues payments as a condition of keeping one’s job,” Mix added. “No worker should be forced to fund a union hierarchy they disapprove of, let alone one that is actively fighting the worker in court.”
IBEW Union Bosses Back Down after Attempting to Trap Chicago 911 Operator in Forced Dues in Violation of First Amendment
Facing state prosecution for violating City employee’s rights under 2018 Janus US Supreme Court ruling, IBEW stops dues seizure & issues refund
Chicago, IL (July 1, 2024) –Rhonda Younkins, a 911 operator employed by the City of Chicago, has just prevailed in her months long legal effort to exercise her right under the First Amendment to stop all union dues payments to IBEW Local 21 union officials. Younkins had repeatedly attempted to end dues payments, as is her right under the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, only to have IBEW union officials ignore her or make other demands.
After Ms. Younkins’ requests to stop dues were repeatedly rebuffed by union officials, she contacted the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, whose attorneys won and argued the Janus case at the U.S. Supreme Court. Foundation staff attorneys filed charges against IBEW Local 21 on Ms. Younkins behalf at the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB), which oversees labor law for government employees in Illinois.
When it became clear that ILRB officials would be issuing a complaint against IBEW 21 for violating Younkins’ legal rights, union officials backed down by agreeing to stop dues collections. They also agreed to refund past dues.
“I decided to leave IBEW 21 because for some time now I believed that IBEW 21 was not acting in the best interest of its members,” stated Younkins. “Be it a new job title that senior employees were deliberately misinformed about, to breach of contract on my employer’s part, to having to navigate the police and court alone after being threatened at work, IBEW 21 was either ineffective or absent.”
Regarding her extended legal ordeal to force union officials to respect her legal rights, Younkins commented: “Verbal communication is ill advised when dealing with IBEW 21’s [officials], it’s best to get everything in writing, even then you may still get double talk and word salad. Faith and trust in IBEW 21 were lost a long time ago.”
Younkins’ long sought victory occurred just as the 6th anniversary of the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court victory approached. That case, won by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys in June 2018, affirmed that public employees like Younkins have a First Amendment right not to fund union activities.
Prior to Janus, millions of government workers in Illinois and elsewhere were required as a condition of employment to pay dues or fees to union officials. Immediately after the ruling, an estimated 450,000 public employees immediately stopped payment to unions, and since then Foundation-backed litigation has helped defend the rights of tens of thousands of other government employees.
“Six years ago, the Janus U.S. Supreme Court landmark victory affirmed the rights of public employees like Rhonda Younkins to funding the activities of union officials they oppose,” stated Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, this situation demonstrates how union officials continue to resist Janus and refuse to accept that individual public employees are now free to decide whether or not a union boss deserves their financial support.”
“It shouldn’t take months of back and forth, not to mention a state labor board charge, just to force union officials to comply with the First Amendment,” added Mix. “This case against the IBEW shows why our Foundation exists, and we encourage others seeking to exercise their Janus rights to contact Foundation staff attorneys for free legal aid right away.”
MIT Grad Students Slam Union with Federal Discrimination Charges
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union hierarchy forcing students to pay dues, deny legally-required religious exemption
When Will Sussman declared his religious beliefs forbade him from supporting a union engaged in anti-Israel causes, GSU officials shamelessly (and illegally) went on demanding his money.
BOSTON, MA – “First, no principles, teachings, or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union . . . Secondly, the statements in your letter demonstrate that your objection to paying dues is based on your political views and not your religious belief.”
This was the brazen response of United Electrical (UE) union officials to five Jewish graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who sought legally-required religious accommodations to the forced payment of dues to the Graduate Student Union (GSU, an affiliate of UE). The students, William Sussman, Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Adina Bechhofer, and Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky see funding the union as a violation of their Jewish faith due to, among other reasons, the union’s vocal support for the anti-Israel “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) movement.
GSU Union, MIT Failed to Provide Religious Accommodations
“Jewish graduate students are a minority. We cannot remove our union, and we cannot talk them out of their antisemitic position — we’ve tried,” explained Sussman in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the situation. “That is why many of us asked for a religious accommodation. But instead of respecting our rights, the union told me they understand my faith better than I do.”
The students are now fighting back with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. In March, they each filed federal discrimination charges against UE and GSU with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), declaring that the union is “discriminating against me based on a failure to accommodate my religious beliefs and cultural heritage” and “discriminating against me based on national origin, race, cultural heritage, & identity.”
Because MIT officials are involved in enforcing GSU union bosses’ forced-dues demands on the students, Foundation attorneys also sent a letter to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, notifying her of the EEOC charges and warning that the university will face similar charges if it does not promptly remedy the situation.
The graduate students are only subject to the union’s forced-dues demands as a result of a controversial Obama National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling, now being enforced by the Biden Labor Board, that deems graduate students at private universities to be “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act. As a result, the MIT graduate students are subjected to the GSUUE’s monopoly union control.
Foundation Attorneys Have Track Record of Defending Religious Objectors
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections, union officials in the private sector (which includes private educational institutions like MIT) generally have the power to compel those under their monopoly bargaining power to pay union dues or fees. However, as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious accommodations to payment of dues or fees must be provided to those with sincere religious objections.
For decades, Foundation staff attorneys have successfully represented religious objectors in cases opposing forced dues. While religious accommodations in these cases have varied, all of them forbid union bosses from demanding the worker pay any more money to the union.
Union Already Conceded Some Illegal Dues Practices
Sussman already dealt a blow against GSU officials in late February, when he forced union officials to settle federal charges he filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning the union’s dues demands. In those charges, Sussman asserted his rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which prevents union officials from forcing those under their control to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions.
While the settlement required GSU union officials to send an email to all students under their control stating that they would now follow Beck, Sussman and his fellow students’ current EEOC charges seek to cut off all financial support to the controversial union, as is their right under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“GSU union officials appear blinded by their political agenda and their desire to extract forced dues,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Their idea of ‘representation’ apparently includes forcing Jewish graduate students to pay money to a union the students believe has relentlessly denigrated their religious and cultural identity.
“GSU union bosses’ refusal to grant these students religious accommodations is as illegal as it is unconscionable, and Foundation attorneys will fight for their freedom from this tyrannical union hierarchy,” Mix added.
Healthcare Workers at HRI Hospital Win Campaign to Remove Unwanted SEIU Union Bosses
SEIU 1199 officials concede defeat after a majority of employees sign petition backing Federal Labor Board-run decertification election
Brookline, MA (June 24, 2024) – Employees at HRI Hospital, Inc in Brookline, MA have won their freedom from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1199, which also calls itself the “United Healthcare Workers” union. HRI Hospital employee Veronica Kpodo filed a petition on behalf of a majority of the 100 healthcare workers seeking a vote to remove the union. The decertification petition was filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Kpodo filed the petition on June 17 with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Kpodo’s petition contained support from a majority of employees in the bargaining unit made up of registered nurses, mental health workers, unit secretaries, dietary, utility servers, and switchboard workers.
Rather than contest the election, which had the backing of a majority of employees who would have been eligible to vote, SEIU union officials conceded defeat days after the decertification petition was filed by announcing their intention to disclaim recognition. Soon after, on June 24, 2024, the NLRB officially recognized that the SEIU was no longer the monopoly bargaining representative of the employees, meaning Kpodo and her colleagues had won their campaign to remove the union.
Massachusetts is not a Right to Work state, meaning that union officials have the power to force employees, like those at HRI Hospital, to pay fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, 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. To end that forced representation, workers can choose to exercise their right under federal law to decertify a union they oppose.
“We are glad to hear these employees successfully exercises their right to cut ties with unwanted SEIU union bosses,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Obviously SEIU officials saw the writing on the wall, which is why they quickly conceded defeat and walked away.”
“This is just the latest example of the growing demand among workers across the country for Foundation assistance in exercising their legal rights to remove unwanted unions from the workplace,” added Mix. “We encourage other workers who want to learn about their workplace rights, including the right to decertify an unwanted union, to contact the Foundation for free legal information and assistance.”
Hear Ye, Hear Ye: Medieval Times Performers Are Union-Free
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Performers banished union officials after they pushed unpopular, divisive strikes
Hail Queen Dean, Vanquisher of Unwanted Unions: Michelle Dean and her fellow Medieval Times performers ousted AGVA union officials, who had ordered employees on a lengthy and unproductive strike.
WASHINGTON, DC – Medieval Times, a nationwide chain of dinner theater “castles” in which a four-course meal is served while knights spar for Queen Doña Maria Isabella’s favor, provides guests a fun and captivating trip back in time.
But, at the castles in Buena Park, CA, and Lyndhurst, NJ, a more sinister plot was unfolding among the hardworking performers. Officials of the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA) union had ordered or were pressuring employees to go on strike, an unpopular move which caused division in the workplaces. At the California location, AGVA bosses issued an edict forcing many performers off the job for roughly nine months.
Majorities of Performers Backed AGVA Removal
Sensing that their fellow performers had had enough of AGVA’s attempts to control them, Artemisia Morley and Michelle Dean — who play the Queens at the New Jersey and California castles respectively — sought free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Both women filed petitions backed by their coworkers asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold votes at their workplaces on whether to banish AGVA union officials.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Majorities of performers at both castles backed the petitions — far exceeding the 30% threshold needed to trigger an election under NLRB rules.
Rather than face a secret ballot vote of the workers they claimed to “represent,” AGVA union chiefs filed “disclaimers of interest” and fled both castles before either election could take place — likely sensing that the majority-backed petitions signaled a defeat was coming.
Even after Morley had filed a decertification petition indicating the majority of her coworkers wanted a vote to decertify AGVA, union bosses tried to cling to power at the New Jersey castle. They attempted to block the vote by filing “blocking charges,” which are often-unrelated allegations against management meant to derail a vote.
The tide substantially turned against AGVA union officials in New Jersey after Morley’s Foundation attorneys successfully challenged a decision from an NLRB Regional Director that halted the decertification vote based on union officials’ “blocking charges.” Filings in Morley’s case indicated that the performers’ discontent with the union had nothing to do with Medieval Times management and was rather due to “secretive, self-interested, and divisive” behavior by union bosses and their insistence on a strike.
‘Secretive, Self-Interested’ Union Boss Behavior Led to Performers’ Revolt
Meanwhile, in California, AGVA union officials called off a roughly nine-month-long strike at the Buena Park Medieval Times just before Dean filed her decertification petition, likely aware of the tension the strike was causing and the growing number of performers who supported ejecting the union.
“AGVA union officials treated each Medieval Times castle as their own personal fiefdom, but their actions led to an uprising of the rank-and-file they purported to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “While the wishes of the Medieval Times performers have finally been obtained, it should be remembered that workers all over the country are subjected to union control they oppose, and they face fierce union and bureaucratic battles to secure secret ballot decertification votes.”.
Louisiana ADT Security Services Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Remove Communication Workers of America Union from Workplace
ADT employees across Pelican State vote nearly 2 to 1 in decertification election to boot CWA union officials
Baton Rouge, LA (June 17, 2024) – Employees at ADT Security Services across Louisiana have overwhelmingly voted to remove the Communication Workers of America (CWA) union from their workplace. ADT Security Services employee Jonathan Rentrop filed the decertification petition with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Rentrop filed the petition on May 7 with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Rentrop’s petition contained support from a majority of employees, more than enough to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
The election was held on Wednesday, June 12, and Thursday, June 13, at ADT Security Services locations in Shreveport, Lafayette, New Orleans (St. Rose), and Baton Rouge. According to the official NLRB vote tally, 30 employees voted for removal of the union, while just 17 votes in favor of keeping CWA union officials as their monopoly bargaining representative.
Because Louisiana is a Right to Work state, union officials can’t force employees like those at ADT Security Services to join the union or pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, non-Right to Work states let union officials push for terms that force workers to pay dues as a condition of employment.
However, 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. A successful decertification election strips union officials of that monopoly power over all employees in the bargaining unit.
“This vote is the latest example of workers across the country exercising their right to remove unwanted unions, with the NLRB’s own statistics showing more decertification elections held last year than in any year since 2017,” said Foundation President Mark Mix. “Louisiana’s popular Right to Work law provides fundamental protections for employees in the Pelican State against being forced to fund a union they oppose, but, right now, that law does not override federal law that forces workers under a union’s so-called ‘representation’ against their will.”
“While we are proud to assist workers in exercising their right to vote out unwanted unions in decertification elections, ultimately the choice of whether or not to be ‘represented’ by union officials should rest with each individual employee,” added Mix.
Foundation Fires Back Against Biden NLRB ‘Card Check’ Mandate
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief challenges Labor Board’s attempt to expand coercive, anti-employee organizing scheme
New ‘card check’-friendly Biden NLRB rules could lock workers at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga, TN, production plant under union power without even a secret ballot vote, Mark Mix warned on Chattanooga’s local NBC station in February.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Union-label bureaucrats at the Biden National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have pulled out all the stops in their attempt to foist union monopoly control on more workers. But perhaps no move from the Biden Labor Board has been as radical as its October 2023 ruling in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific.
In response, Foundation staff attorneys recently filed a brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, exposing the NLRB’s sweeping power grab as a ploy to erode workers’ right to vote in secret on union representation. The Foundation is urging the Court of Appeals to overturn the NLRB’s controversial Cemex ruling.
In the August 2023 Cemex decision, the Biden-appointed NLRB majority gave union officials massive new powers to bypass a secret ballot vote among workers when trying to install union control at a workplace. The new standard effectively requires employers to accept a union’s claim to represent workers based on the coercive “card check” process.
Seattle Mariners Employee’s Case Reveals Unreliability of Card Check
Card check is a process that uses “authorization cards” solicited and collected by union organizers as a substitute for workers’ votes in a secret ballot election. The card check process lacks the security of a secret ballot vote and exposes workers to pressure tactics and intimidation from union officials who seek to secure enough authorization cards. Under the Biden Board’s new policy, employers’ options to insist on a secret ballot vote are limited and can be blocked by a union-requested ruling against the employer.
The Foundation’s brief discusses the struggle of Tami Kecherson, a Seattle Mariners retail employee who received free Foundation legal aid during her fight to remove a union in 2023, as a glaring example of card check’s unreliability in gauging workers’ true desires. Kecherson works in one of two retail shops that were under the control of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union up until last year. UFCW union officials gained power over her work unit through a card check, but were then voted out by an overwhelming 50-9 margin once a secret ballot election Kecherson requested was held.
Kecherson was able to request a vote to challenge UFCW’s card check scheme under the auspices of the Election Protection Rule (EPR), a set of Foundation-supported reforms 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.
Secret Ballot Vote Leads to Union Ouster 50-9
The Foundation’s legal brief points out that Cemex will create more outrageous situations like Kecherson’s, where union bosses seize power over workers who would reject them if they had a chance to vote: “[UFCW’s] claim to majority support, based on authorization cards the union collected, was totally refuted when tested in the crucible of a secret ballot election.
“Yet under Cemex, the NLRB will routinely impose compulsory union representation on employees based on card checks and without a secret-ballot election,” the brief argues.
Foundation Warns Workers They Could Be in Crosshairs of Cemex
Union bosses may soon use the Cemex standard to overturn elections in which workers reject unionization, or deny workers opportunities to vote in secret entirely. United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials, who are waging a number of aggressive card check-based unionization campaigns at auto factories primarily in the South, already seem to be laying the groundwork for capturing these workplaces using Cemex.
For example, UAW union officials are trying for the third time in a decade to unionize Volkswagen’s (VW) large production plant in Chattanooga, TN. They’ve already filed four unfair labor practice charges against VW management that the NLRB could use as rationales for tossing an employee vote if the election doesn’t go the union’s way. The UAW’s aggressive campaign appears to be employing similar tactics at other non-union facilities, including some run by Tesla and Mercedes-Benz.
Cemex Is a Disgrace to Worker Freedom
The Foundation issued a legal notice to Chattanooga VW workers in February, warning them that UAW bosses can manipulate Cemex to nullify their vote, and that employees have the right to revoke any union cards they might have signed during the card check drive.
“The NLRB’s ruling in Cemex is an insult to American workers, all of whom should have the unfettered right to vote in secret on whether union bosses deserve to have control over them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “It’s clear from Ms. Kecherson’s situation and many other Foundation cases that the ‘card check’ process pushed by Cemex is merely a tool to expand union ranks.”
California Transportation Worker Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of National Labor Relations Board
Lawsuit joins challenges by three other employees against NLRB on grounds that structure of agency violates Article II of the Constitution
Los Angeles, CA (June 14, 2024) – On Tuesday, Victor Avila, an employee of Savage Services Corporation in California, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Avila is receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Avila filed Unfair Labor Practice charges with the NLRB against the Teamsters Local 848 union in August 2023. On February 9, NLRB Region 21 in Los Angeles issued a complaint against Teamsters Local 848 on the grounds that the union violated Avila’s rights when the Teamsters, through an agent, had “threatened unit employees with physical violence for not supporting the Union.”
This week a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge began hearing that case. Soon after that hearing began, Avila’s federal lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where the NLRB is based. The lawsuit raises fundamental constitutional concerns regarding the removal power vested in the President under Article II of the Constitution. Avila contends that the NLRB, composed of five members with limited removal authority, infringes upon the President’s constitutional prerogative to oversee and remove executive officials who wield substantial executive power. The complaint states that “Avila is entitled to have a constitutionally structured Board, properly accountable to the President, adjudicate his case and rule on his unfair labor practice charge.”
Avila’s lawsuit points to recent Supreme Court rulings, including Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen, which underscored the necessity for presidential control over executive officials exercising significant authority. Avila argues that the NLRB’s structure, as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), places impermissible limitations on the President’s removal power, thereby violating the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.
Starbucks Employees Also Challenging Federal Labor Board Structure in Two Federal Lawsuits
Avila’s case is not the only federal lawsuit filed by employees challenging the structure of the NLRB as unconstitutional with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Three Starbucks employees, each of whom has had their attempt to hold decertification votes to remove unwanted Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace blocked by NLRB officials, have made similar arguments in federal lawsuits.
Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two Starbucks employees from New York, recently filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their lawsuit. They are appealing a District Court judge’s ruling that they lacked standing to bring their challenge. The ruling didn’t address the core constitutional arguments their lawsuit raised. Another Starbucks employee, Reed Busler, filed another similar lawsuit that is currently pending in the Northern District Court in Texas.
“Labor law cannot and should not be immune from the requirements of the U.S. Constitution and Mr. Avila is entitled to have his case adjudicated by a constitutionally accountable body,” said Foundation President Mark Mix. “Too often the Biden NLRB has operated like a taxpayer-funded arm of the AFL-CIO, and this case is just one of many where employees are seeking to defend their rights against a biased agency that acts as if it’s power has no limits.”
