National Right to Work Foundation

6 Mar 2026

National Right to Work Foundation Issues Legal Notice to Detroit-Area Corewell Nurses Subject to Teamsters Strike Order

Posted in News Releases

Notice reminds nurses wishing to return to work that they must resign their union memberships to avoid potentially ruinous strike fines

Detroit, MI (March 6, 2026) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for Detroit-area nurses subject to Teamsters Local 2024 union bosses’ potential strike order. The strike order is projected to cover roughly 10,000 nurses across nine different Corewell medical facilities.

The legal notice informs these workers of rights that union officials often do not want them to know. First and foremost, nurses have the right to resign their union memberships and keep working to support their families, thereby avoiding union fines and internal discipline.

“The situation presents serious concerns for nurses who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike and may not want to abandon their patients,” the legal notice reads. “That is why employees confronted with strike demands frequently contact staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines for continuing to work during a strike to support themselves and their families.”

According to reports, one major sticking point during contract talks has been Teamsters officials’ demands that Corewell management impose a forced-dues clause (often misleadingly referred to as a “union security” clause) over the roughly 10,000 nurses in the work unit, and collect dues for the union. Such a clause would require Corewell to fire nurses who refuse to financially support the union. The Foundation’s notice also contains information about what rights nurses have to rebuff union officials’ forced-dues demands, if the contract ends up allowing them to make such demands.

The notice is available at: https://807063.us25.myftpupload.com/corewell/.

Foundation: Resign Union Membership Before Returning to Work to Avoid Fines and Discipline

Most importantly, the notice informs nurses who want to keep working that the safest way to avoid strike fines and other punishment by union bosses is to resign their union memberships before returning to work. “If an employee is not a union member, union officials have no power to fine or otherwise discipline him or her,” the notice says. “Employees who are union members, or are unsure as to what they might have signed, have a legal right to resign their membership at any time.”

The Foundation’s special legal notice provides nurses sample union resignation letters, as well as information on how to exercise their right under the CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision to opt out of paying dues for union politics, if union officials succeed in their push to impose a forced-dues contract. “Due to the recent repeal of Right to Work [in Michigan], Teamsters union officials may try to threaten that they can get workers fired for refusal to pay full union dues,” the notice reads. “This is false…workers even in non-Right to Work states can’t be forced to pay dues for anything unrelated to the union’s bargaining functions.”

The notice also gives workers information on the process to submit a “decertification petition,” in which employees request a workplace election to remove the union.

“Since Michigan legislators foolishly repealed the state’s Right to Work law, union officials across the state have engaged in increasingly aggressive tactics to control workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Teamsters union officials’ potential strike order against Corewell medical facilities is no exception, and many nurses may rightly think that an order taking thousands of nurses away from their jobs is a bad move for themselves, their families, their patients, and the Detroit community as a whole.

“Corewell nurses should know – regardless of what Teamsters officials may tell them – that they have the right to resign their union memberships and rebuff the union strike order, as well as the right to refrain from paying any dues to support the union’s political activities,” Mix added.

5 Mar 2026

St. HOPE Charter School Teachers Win Effort to Remove Union Officials From Power

Posted in News Releases

Having failed to stop decertification vote requested by majority of teachers, Sacramento City Teachers Association union bosses concede defeat and leave

Sacramento, CA (March 5, 2026) – Following an effort in which a majority of teachers demanded a vote to remove the union, charter school educators at St. HOPE Public Schools have successfully ousted Sacramento City Teachers Association (SCTA) union officials from the school system.

Rather than face a union decertification vote that a federal labor board had scheduled to take place on March 11, SCTA union bosses instead disclaimed interest in maintaining their exclusive representation powers over the St. HOPE educators. Now, over 50 teachers from PS7 Elementary School, PS7 Middle School, and Sacramento Charter High School are free of the unwanted union’s control.

St. HOPE teacher Beth Simonton led the removal effort, submitting a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in January requesting a vote to remove the union. The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Private organizations like St. HOPE, even if they operate public charter schools, are often subject to federal labor law as opposed to state labor laws.

Simonton’s petition, which she submitted in January with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, contained signatures from the majority of her colleagues – well over the threshold needed under federal law to trigger a union decertification vote. On February 25, NLRB Region 20 rejected arguments by the union and ordered a union decertification election to take place among the St. HOPE educators.

Then, only days before the scheduled election, SCTA union officials sent correspondence announcing that they were ending their monopoly bargaining control over the facility, likely in an attempt to avoid an embarrassing lopsided loss at the ballot box. St. HOPE teachers are now free of SCTA union bosses’ power to dictate their contract terms and work rules.

“I’m truly grateful that my colleagues and I were able to band together and send SCTA union officials on their way,” commented Simonton. “So much of their activity at St. HOPE involved pitting teachers against each other and finding ways to bend the rules so they could maintain their control. They did not represent the interest of the educators at St. HOPE, and we look forward to being independent from the union. We are FAMILY!”

NLRB Order: CA Charter Schools Aren’t Exempt From Federal Labor Law

As litigation over the scheduled vote went on, NLRB Region 20 notably rejected arguments from SCTA union lawyers that the St. HOPE system is a “political subdivision” subject to the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and not the NLRB. Union officials prefer operating under the PERB, where rules are rigged against workers seeking decertification, effectively letting union legal tactics trap employees in union ranks for years even when a majority is on record as wanting the union removed.

In rejecting the union’s argument, NLRB officials turned to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County v. NLRB, under which an employer is a “political subdivision” only if it was directly created by the state, or if it is administered by individuals who are accountable to the public or public officials.

Applying this standard, NLRB Region 20 found that a private individual founded St. HOPE, and that public officials have little, if any, control over St. HOPE’s board of directors. For those reasons, the Regional Director ruled that “[St. HOPE] is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the [National Labor Relations Act] and is not exempt under the test set forth in Hawkins County.”

While SCTA union officials fled St. HOPE Public Schools before the NLRB-ordered vote could take place, NLRB Region 20’s ruling could be significant going forward for employees of other California charter schools who wish to decertify unions in their workplaces. Foundation attorneys have helped charter school employees in a number of other states in efforts at the NLRB to remove unwanted unions, including in Missouri and New York.

CA Charter School Teachers Have More Options to Escape Unions

“Ms. Simonton and her fellow St. HOPE educators should be commended for their success in breaking free from SCTA union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But their effort – which also included attempts years ago to vote SCTA out – exposes how focused California labor law is on solidifying union boss power, even in the face of clear evidence that workers want a union gone.

“Bureaucrats on the California PERB blocked the St. HOPE teachers from ousting the union for years on end, simply because SCTA union bosses filed unsubstantiated charges of employer misconduct,” Mix added. “These charades forced Simonton and her coworkers to resort to an entirely different agency in the hopes of finally making their voices heard.

“No workers should have to face challenges like this simply to vote a union out,” Mix continued. “But, following St. HOPE educators’ success, charter school educators across the Golden State should know they have more options for seeking a union decertification election, and should not hesitate in contacting Foundation attorneys if they want to exercise this important right.”

2 Mar 2026

National Labor Relations Board Schedules Vote for St. HOPE Charter School Teachers Seeking to Remove SCTA Union

Posted in News Releases

Despite union’s legal attempt to block vote, NLRB schedules election for March 11 in response to majority-backed petition from teachers to decertify union

Sacramento, CA (March 2, 2026) – In response to a petition from the majority of St. HOPE Public Schools educators requesting such a vote, a federal labor board has ordered an election to remove Sacramento City Teachers Association (SCTA) union officials from the school system to take place on Wednesday, March 11. The vote will take place among over 50 teachers from PS7 Elementary School, PS7 Middle School, and Sacramento Charter High School.

In January, St. HOPE educator Beth Simonton submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asking the federal agency to administer a vote to end SCTA union bosses’ exclusive representation powers over her and her colleagues. The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Private organizations like St. HOPE that operate public charter schools are generally subject to federal labor law.

Simonton’s petition, which she submitted with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, contained signatures from the majority of her colleagues – well over the threshold needed under federal law to trigger a union decertification vote. Following a hearing conducted January 26-28, NLRB Region 20 issued an order on February 25 ordering an election to be held.

“SCTA union officials have been extremely divisive and have not had a positive impact on teachers, students, or the St. HOPE community as a whole,” commented Simonton. “They’ve spent much more time trying to demonize school leadership than simply standing up for our interests. I’m proud to represent the majority of educators at St. HOPE who are standing up and saying ‘enough is enough.’”

NLRB Rejects Union Argument That St. HOPE is Exempt From Federal Labor Law

NLRB Region 20’s election order notably rejected arguments from SCTA union lawyers that the St. HOPE system is actually a “political subdivision” under the jurisdiction of California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and not subject to the NLRB. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County v. NLRB that an employer qualifies as such a “political subdivision” only if it was directly created by the state, or if it is administered by individuals who are accountable to the public or public officials.

The election order points out that a private individual founded St. HOPE and that public officials have little, if any, control over St. HOPE’s board of directors. “I find that [St. HOPE] is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the [National Labor Relations Act] and is not exempt under the test set forth in Hawkins County,” the NLRB Regional Director’s decision reads. “Accordingly, I am directing an election among the employees in the agreed upon appropriate unit.”

The Foundation has aided numerous charter school employees over the years in opposing unwanted union hierarchies. Elsewhere in California, charter school teachers at Gompers Preparatory Academy in San Diego sought Foundation aid in obtaining a vote to remove San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union officials from the school. After two such efforts to remove the union (one in 2019 and another in 2023) and much litigation over SDEA union bosses’ delay tactics, the educators finally voted the SDEA out in 2023.

“We at the Foundation are proud to assist St. HOPE educators in finally getting a chance to exercise their right to vote SCTA union officials out of power at their schools,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But it’s ridiculous that it took a herculean effort and several years for St. HOPE teachers just to get to this point. Biased bureaucrats at the California PERB blocked them from having a union removal vote for several years based on dubious allegations of employer misconduct – and St. HOPE educators are hardly the only workers in California that PERB has subjected to such stonewalling.

“We hope that Ms. Simonton’s effort is not only the first step in St. HOPE educators freeing themselves from SCTA union chiefs, but also the first step toward freeing California educators from the oppressive California labor bureaucracy,” Mix added.

25 Feb 2026

Cannabis Workers Send UFCW Union Packing at Holistic Industries Monson Facility

Posted in News Releases

Majority of workers at plant requested vote to remove union, UFCW bosses fled facility after attempts to block the vote failed

Springfield, MA (February 25, 2026) – Packaging associates and delivery drivers at cannabis company Holistic Industries’ Monson plant have successfully removed United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials from their workplace. The victory comes after a majority of Holistic employees backed a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to administer a vote to remove the UFCW union from the facility (also known as a union “decertification” vote).

Scott Browne, a Holistic packaging associate, submitted the petition with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, a task that includes holding votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions.

Rather than face a potentially lopsided loss at the ballot box, UFCW union officials instead submitted correspondence February 20 disclaiming interest in continuing their exclusive “representation” powers over the Holistic Industries workers.

Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UFCW officials were empowered to require Browne and his colleagues to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary and the choice of each individual worker.

However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union bosses’ government-granted exclusive representation powers let them control the working conditions of all workers in a unionized workplace, even those who voted against or otherwise oppose the union. Browne and his colleagues are now free from UFCW bosses’ forced-dues demands and exclusive representation powers.

UFCW Union Officials Filed Specious Charges to Block Ouster Vote

Browne’s petition, which he submitted in June 2025, contained employee signatures well in excess of the necessary threshold to trigger the decertification election, but UFCW union officials filed so-called “blocking charges” with the NLRB in July 2025 in an attempt to block the vote and cling to power.

Regional NLRB officials blocked the vote for months at union bosses’ behest. Foundation attorneys filed a Request for Review with the NLRB in Washington, DC, arguing that the NLRB’s current policy surrounding blocking charges allows unsubstantiated and unrelated claims of employer interference – like those in the charges UFCW chiefs filed – to block workers’ right to vote on a union. The filing requested that the blocking charge policy be overturned.

“The blocking charge policy allows the Board to arbitrarily refuse to process an election, which undermines employees’ statutory rights and free choice,” Browne’s Request for Review read.

However, after litigation between Holistic Industries management and UFCW officials over the blocking charges wrapped up this month, UFCW union bosses disclaimed interest in Browne’s unit, likely aware that they would not win the decertification election.

“We at the Foundation are proud to have helped Mr. Browne and his colleagues escape the monopoly power of UFCW union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But there’s no reason that UFCW bosses should have been able to delay this result for the better part of a year.”

“The current NLRB’s ‘blocking charge’ rules, created during the Biden-era NLRB, allow union officials to use unsubstantiated and unrelated claims of so-called unfair labor practices to trap workers in union ranks,” added Mix. “Trump’s new appointees to the NLRB must work swiftly to reform the agency’s standards to better protect the rights of workers to remove unions as they wish.”

23 Feb 2026

Four Colorado Safeway Workers Slam UFCW Union Officials With More Federal Charges for Illegal Strike Fines

Posted in News Releases

Charge: UFCW Local 7 unlawfully subjected nonmember employees to ‘internal disciplinary’ fines for not abiding by a union boss-ordered strike

Denver, CO (February 23, 2026) – Four employees at three separate Safeway grocery stores located near Denver have filed federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 union.

The workers’ charges were filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in response to union bosses illegally threatening the workers and their colleagues with fines for choosing to exercise their right to work despite a union boss-ordered strike action. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.

Claire Jordan, who works at Safeway in Greeley, Rebecca White, who works at Safeway in Longmont, and Dustin Mattos and Rebecca Lawless-Mattos, who both work at a Lakewood Safeway location, are demanding that NLRB Region 27 investigate and prosecute UFCW Local 7 union bosses for violating their rights under the NLRA.

According to the charges, after the workers validly resigned their union membership in June 2025, union officials informed the workers around January 9, 2026 that they would be subject to “internal union charges…for, among other things, crossing the picket line while being a union member.”

The workers resigned their memberships in order to continue working after UFCW Local 7 union bosses ordered grocery workers at more than 40 Safeway stores and a distribution center in Colorado to strike in June 2025. Longstanding law says union bosses cannot impose “union discipline,” which frequently means four- or five-figure monetary fines, against workers who are not voluntary union members.

In addition to retaliating against nonmember workers, the charges say that UFCW Local 7 union officials have failed to comply with federal law by not providing the workers with the required financial disclosures under the Foundation-won Beck decision, which allows nonmember workers to withhold the portions of their forced dues that go to the UFCW’s political activities.

Colorado is one of the 24 states that lack Right to Work protections for workers, which allows UFCW union bosses to impose monopoly bargaining contracts that force employees to pay union fees as a condition of employment. By contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Arizona, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, union membership and union financial support are strictly voluntary.

The Safeway strike order came months after UFCW Local 7 had similarly ordered a strike at 79 King Soopers grocery stores in February 2025. As happened following the Safeway strike, King Soopers employees also turned to the National Right to Work Foundation for assistance in filing charges against the UFCW, in response to union officials issuing illegal fine threats against nonmembers for exercising their right to work during a strike.

The Foundation has seen a growing number of workers seeking aid in cases involving illegal retaliation from UFCW union bosses. Foundation attorneys assisted nonmember King Soopers employees targeted following a 2022 strike, and have secured numerous victories against UFCW, including for illegal strike fine threats during a union-ordered strike against Stop & Shop stores in New England.

“Once again, UFCW Local 7 union bosses are turning to threats and intimidation tactics against workers who chose to rebuff union strike orders and work to support themselves and their families,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation will continue to assist grocery workers defending themselves against these recidivist UFCW union bosses.”

29 Jun 2025

Foundation-Backed Starbucks Baristas Support Trump’s Firing of Biden NLRB Member

Posted in Blog

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Starbucks employees’ challenge to agency power boosted by firing of Biden Board Member

It may not look like much, but this Starbucks store in downtown Buffalo, NY, is the place where barista Ariana Cortes started her trailblazing legal battle against both the SBWU union and a hostile NLRB bureaucracy.

WASHINGTON, DC – President Trump isn’t the only person seeking reform in the federal government. Several National Right to Work Foundation-backed workers have advanced lawsuits in federal courts challenging the constitutionality of a federal agency.

Two upstate New York Starbucks baristas (Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam), represented by Foundation staff attorneys, filed the first case in the nation challenging NLRB members’ removal protections. Their case advanced a revolutionary argument that the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) removal protections for NLRB members — which protect them from presidential removal during their entire terms except in very rare cases — let them exercise executive power in violation of separation of powers doctrines in Article II of the Constitution.

This power is plain to see — unelected NLRB members have the power to decide who can vote in union elections, adjudicate disputes between employers and unions, impose one-size-fits-all union “representation” on employees who don’t want it, and much more. Showdown Over Removal of Biden Appointee Headed for SCOTUS President Trump utilized the same arguments when he announced he was ousting Biden-appointed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox (a former SEIU union lawyer) for issuing radical decisions that “vastly exceeded the bounds” of federal law.

Wilcox’s lawyers sued Trump over the removal, arguing — wrongly — that NLRB members’ removal protections are valid and prevent the President from doing virtually anything to stop NLRB members who have gone rogue. The case between President Trump and Gwynne Wilcox has now joined Cortes and Karam’s suit in being considered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As this issue goes to print, the Supreme Court has ordered Wilcox off the NLRB while it decides whether Wilcox should remain off the NLRB while the case is ongoing. Foundation attorneys submitted a legal brief on behalf of Cortes and Karam backing the President’s contentions. Cortes and Karam’s brief focuses on how the Board’s powers to enforce federal labor law, lack of technical expertise, and the partisan nature of its membership are not characteristics of a federal agency where removal protections might be appropriate under Supreme Court caselaw.

The brief also argues that reinstating Wilcox would cause chaos because it would let her participate in deciding cases before the NLRB while her continued presence on the Board is still the subject of litigation.

“Cortes and Karam have a vital interest in the outcome of this case, and not only because it concerns the constitutionality of [NLRB member removal protections],” the brief says. “Cortes and Karam do not want an individual the President properly removed from the Board because of her unsound rulings — Gwynne Wilcox — to decide their pending NLRB cases.”

Because of the weighty constitutional matters at stake, many have already predicted that this question will likely receive final consideration from the U.S. Supreme Court. Cortes and Karam’s lawsuit is fully briefed at the D.C. Circuit Court, and a hearing is scheduled for May. Their case was spurred by NLRB bureaucrats’ decision to block the baristas and their coworkers from exercising their right to vote to decertify (or remove) Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials.

NLRB Region 3 rejected petitions in which a sufficient number of coworkers from both Cortes’ and Karam’s upstate New York Starbucks locations requested such elections. Regional NLRB officials cited unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation as the reason for barring the votes. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification requests.

Starbucks Baristas’ Battle Promotes Liberty for Workers Across Country

“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam spoke up on behalf of untold numbers of independent-minded workers nationwide when they filed their federal lawsuit challenging the NLRB’s constitutionality,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.

“The NLRB regularly stops workers from exercising their rights to push back against union influence for any reason union bosses dream up. Board members’ ability to do this without fearing any accountability to the elected President has effectively turned the agency into a fourth branch of government.

“We hope the Starbucks baristas’ lawsuit, boosted by the President’s efforts to reform the government, eventually results in lasting change to the Board that protects worker freedom,” Semmens added.

28 Jun 2025

NY Healthcare Worker Asks Labor Board to Unblock Vote to Oust SEIU

Posted in Blog

Sun River Health employees’ election abruptly canceled by NLRB officials

Laura Gallo is passionate about the healthcare work she does at Sun River Health to improve the wellbeing of people across Long Island. She’s now using that same passion to win her coworkers a chance to vote out divisive SEIU union bosses.

LONG ISLAND, NY – Laura Gallo, a senior patient representative at Sun River Health in Long Island, NY, thought she’d secured a rare chance for her and her coworkers to vote out the 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East union.

Her goal? Give hundreds of colleagues a chance to escape from unwanted union “representation.” Unfortunately, on February 13, 2025, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 29 Director abruptly derailed her campaign citing a dubious technicality.

Now, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Gallo is battling to reverse the ruling and expose a system that allows union legal trickery to block workers from voting on whether a union deserves to remain in their workplace.

Legal Hurdles Undermine Right to Remove Unwanted Unions

Despite the clear right of employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to petition for decertification elections to free themselves of unwanted union “representation,” numerous NLRB-invented rules and policies give union officials the ability to block or delay employee-requested decertification votes.

In Gallo’s case, not only did she need to collect signatures for the required 30% of the bargaining unit, but because she works in the healthcare industry, NLRB rules require her to file the petition within a short window before the union contract expires. If she missed the window, union officials could have blocked her vote for up to three years under the Board-invented “contract bar” policy.

Despite navigating the complicated process pro se (without formal legal representation), Gallo nailed the timing, submitting her petition with the supporting signatures of her coworkers in August 2024, following instructions from NLRB officials to trigger the vote.

At that point, the decertification was on track, with the company and union agreeing to how the election would be run. Only then did the NLRB Regional Director, possibly due to improper backchannel communications with union lawyers, suddenly cancel the scheduled vote without providing any meaningful explanation to Gallo or Sun River attorneys.

When the full Board in Washington, D.C., was asked to review the case, the Regional official suddenly “clarified” that additional signatures in support of the petition arrived just outside the contract bar window, meaning under a 1993 precedent the decertification election request could be rejected under the contract bar.

In February, having retained National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys to represent her, Gallo filed a Request for Review with the NLRB in Washington, asking that the Regional Director’s decision be overturned. The filing argues that her election should be allowed to go forward because she followed the Board agent’s instructions and, as a pro se petitioner, she should receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to estimating the total number of signatures needed to trigger a vote.

This decertification effort isn’t the only battle Ms. Gallo is fighting against the 1199SEIU union. Laura Gallo is passionate about the work she does at Sun River Health to improve the wellbeing of people across Long Island. She’s now using that same passion to win her coworkers a chance to vote out divisive SEIU union bosses.

Pending unfair labor practice charges Gallo filed against the union show why many workers have likely soured on the union: The charges maintain that SEIU union officials unlawfully interfered with access to the hospital, took pictures of Gallo without her consent as an intimidation tactic, and engaged in other disruptive and coercive behaviors that were so egregious local police were called to end the disruption.

Time to End NLRB’s Rigged Rules that Protect Incumbent Union Bosses

Gallo’s case is one of many where Foundation attorneys are asking the Board to overturn non-statutory barriers that workers face when trying to remove unions they oppose.

“Ms. Gallo’s case pulls back the curtain on how NLRB policies are rigged against individual workers to protect unpopular incumbent union bosses,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.

“She followed NLRB agents’ instructions, navigated the Board-created ‘window’ for filing her petition, and even got an election scheduled, yet the Regional Director blocked the vote and handed SEIU bosses a gift at the expense of Gallo and her coworkers’ rights.

“The NLRA, which the NLRB is supposed to neutrally enforce, only has one limitation on a workers’ right to vote out a union they oppose, which is a previous vote within the last year.” added Messenger. “All the other NLRB-invented policies and bars should be eliminated so workers can fully exercise their right to free themselves of unwanted unions.”

‹1 234 5 ›»