National Right to Work Foundation Files Appeals Court Brief in Support of Trump Order Cutting Federal Union Bosses’ Coercive Power
Brief emphasizes President’s authority under both Constitution and federal law to reduce scope of union monopoly bargaining control
Washington, DC (September 18, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals defending the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce union bosses’ control within the federal government. The Foundation filed its brief in the case NTEU v. Trump, in which National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) officials are attacking President Trump’s March 2025 executive order titled “Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs.” That order ended union officials’ monopoly bargaining privileges over a substantial number of federal agencies, citing union officials’ interference with the President’s national security objectives.
“Since 1968, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., has been the nation’s leading advocate for employee freedom to choose whether to associate with unions,” the brief says. “To this end, Foundation staff attorneys have represented individual employees before the Supreme Court in groundbreaking free speech and association cases.”
The brief explains that Foundation attorneys have represented many federal employees in resisting union bosses’ attempts to impose their agenda in the workplace. Such workers include Department of Justice employee Jeffrey Morrison, whose ongoing case challenging unionization campaigns in various divisions of the Department has been granted and stayed pending the result of NTEU v. Trump.
Lower Federal Court Used Flawed Interpretations of Federal Law to Rule Against Trump EO
The Foundation’s brief argues that a lower federal court was wrong to enjoin President Trump’s cancellation of monopoly bargaining in certain agencies. The brief explains that Article II of the Constitution grants the President wide authority to preserve national security. Furthermore, the brief says, in the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), Congress granted the president specific powers to exempt entire agencies from the obligation to accept union boss bargaining power if national security concerns require it.
“This statutory provision authorizes the President to exclude ‘any agency or subdivision thereof’ if the President determines [CSRA] Section 7103(b)(1)’s conditions are met,” the brief says. “The President’s determination that certain agencies or their subdivisions satisfy Section 7103(b)’s criteria is not subject to judicial review.”
The amicus brief also contends that the Trump Administration was justified in reconsidering which agencies should be exempt from monopoly bargaining requirements, primarily due to union officials’ unabated attempts to undercut Trump’s policy goals. “The District Court found the President’s exclusions under Section 7103(b) to be invalid because they supposedly were motivated by NTEU’s and other unions’ resistance to the administration’s policies,” the brief explains. “However, this proposition supports a finding that the President acted reasonably when determining that being forced to deal with NTEU as an exclusive bargaining agent at certain federal agencies would interfere with national security considerations.
“[T]he President does not have to tolerate unions abusing their powers under [federal law] to stymie his agenda when it may implicate national security,” the brief states.
Unaccountable Union Bosses Should Not Wield Special Influence Over Government Policies
“President Trump’s executive order rightly stops union officials from using their government-granted monopoly bargaining privileges to undermine the national security objectives that voters put President Trump into office to accomplish,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The DC Circuit Court should not let union bosses commandeer the levers of the executive branch in violation of both the Constitution and longstanding federal law.
“However, Trump’s executive order should be the first step toward eliminating union bosses’ monopoly bargaining privileges throughout the whole federal government,” Mix added. “Such power gives unelected union bosses control over the services that American citizens fund with their taxes and elect representatives to oversee. It also forces federal employees – many of whom have never even voted for the union in their workplace – to accept workplace ‘representation’ from union bosses that they may bitterly disagree with.”
Right to Work Foundation Urges Ninth Circuit to Reject CA Law Granting Union Bosses Massive Power Over Cannabis Industry Workers
Amicus brief: “Labor peace agreement” mandate violates federal law and subjects workers to coercive union organizing tactics
San Francisco, CA (October 8, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Ctrl Alt Destroy v. Elliott, arguing that California’s regulatory regime imposing so-called “labor peace agreements” on the cannabis industry violates federal law.
These so-called “agreements,” which cannabis companies must adhere to in order to maintain a license under California law, rig the law against workers opposed to union control by censoring speech critical of unionization. They also mandate that employers grant union campaigners access to employees.
“Since 1968, the Foundation has been the nation’s leading litigation advocate for employee freedom to choose whether to associate with unions,” the amicus brief reads. “The Foundation has an interest in this case because it concerns whether California can lawfully subject employees of cannabis retailers to union organizing agreements.”
The Foundation’s amicus brief argues in particular that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts California’s “labor peace agreement” statutes. The NLRA is the federal law that governs most private sector labor relations. The four conditions mandated for cannabis companies under California law, “an agreement with a…union, a ban on disrupting union organizing, a ban on union members picketing, boycotting, or striking, and a clause granting union organizers access to employees at work” all concern activity that the U.S. Congress intended the NLRA to deal with – not state law.
CA Statutes Force Employers to Bargain With Union Bosses Their Employees Never Voted For
Notably, the brief explains that California’s labor law requires cannabis employers to bargain with union officials – even if a majority of employees have not expressed that they want a union in the workplace. “California obligating employers to simply bargain with unions over labor peace agreements runs also afoul of [Supreme Court precedent] because the NLRA contains no such obligation,” the brief says. “The NLRA only requires employers to bargain with unions after a majority of employees choose that union to be their exclusive representative, but not before as California’s law does.”
Federal law also preempts California’s mandate that cannabis employers provide union bosses access to workers, the brief contends. The mandate lets union agitators intrude on private property so they can subject employees to campaign activity whether they want it or not. “This requirement unconstitutionally deprives employers of their property rights,” the brief reads. “The requirement also deprives employees who oppose unions of being able to work free from unwanted solicitations by outside union organizers.”
“California and several other states are pushing forward so-called ‘labor peace agreements’ to appease powerful union special interests, while workers and entrepreneurs in the fledgling American cannabis industry are left in the lurch,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While federal labor law certainly has its flaws, California’s statutes and similar ones around the country provide even less protection for workers, and seemingly treat employees’ free association rights as an obstacle to greater control over the industry.
“California’s scheme has no legal underpinning and will cause employees great harm. The Ninth Circuit should invalidate it,” Mix added.
Pratt & Whitney Employee Slams IAM Union With Federal Charges For Imposing Illegal Post-Strike Discipline
Union officials insulted worker for wanting to resign membership and keep working, incorrectly told workers P&W was “closed shop”
Middletown, CT (October 6, 2025) – An employee of jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney’s Middletown facility is filing federal charges against International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local Lodge 700 union officials at the facility. The worker, Christopher Utley, is charging IAM union bosses with unlawfully imposing internal union discipline on him because he exercised his right to resign his union membership and continue working during a May strike. He also details IAM officials telling him that Pratt & Whitney is an illegal “closed shop” in which he needed to maintain union membership or be fired.
Utley filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB is the federal agency charged with enforcing federal labor law in the private sector, a task that includes adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual workers.
Federal labor law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like NLRB v. General Motors forbid union officials from enforcing “closed shop” union contracts that require formal union membership as a condition of employment. Workers who abstain from formal union membership are immune from internal union rules and discipline regarding things like strikes.
Because Connecticut lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, however, IAM union officials can impose contract provisions that require every employee in a workplace (even those who are not union members) to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. In contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary in Right to Work states.
“Instead of letting me exercise my right to leave the union and go back to work during the strike, IAM union bosses just insulted me and kept stonewalling,” commented Utley. “It’s almost like they wanted to trap me in the union just so they could subject me to internal discipline and punish me for daring to disagree with them.”
“Good Luck With That”: IAM Union Officials Ignore Resignation and Threaten Discipline on Worker
According to Utley’s charges, he called IAM Local Lodge 700 President Wayne McCarthy one day before the May strike began and informed him that he wanted to resign from the union. McCarthy “responded with various invectives, refused to identify any process to resign, said ‘good luck with that,’ and hung up the phone,” Utley’s charges say. After trying other methods of resigning, the charges read, IAM Local Lodge 700’s Vice President Chuck Hermann informed Utley that Pratt & Whitney was a “closed shop” and “he would have to be and remain a formal member of the union or face termination from his employment.”
On September 19 – months after the strike had concluded – Utley learned that IAM union bosses were “processing internal union disciplinary charges against him” for continuing to do his job during the strike. The charge argues that union officials calling Utley before a union tribunal, after he exercised his right to end union membership, violates his rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
“Instead of convincing workers to voluntarily support their agenda, IAM union officials are trying to turn Mr. Utley into an example of what happens when workers defy them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Federal labor law unambiguously permits workers to decline formal union membership and to continue to work during union-ordered strikes. But IAM bosses misled Mr. Utley about his rights so they could attempt to subject him to their illegal retaliation.
“Foundation attorneys stand ready to provide legal aid anywhere in the country to defeat union bosses’ attempts to discipline workers for making decisions about their own livelihoods,” Mix added.
Texas Workers at Multiple Workplaces Latest to Successfully Free Themselves from Unwanted Teamsters Union ‘Representation’
Dallas-based workers at two companies petitioned the NLRB for decertification elections to remove Teamsters Local 745 bosses
Dallas, TX (October 3, 2025) – Two successful union decertification efforts have freed workers from the control of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 745 Union bosses in Dallas, Texas. Both Dallas-based delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. and employees at FCC Environmental Services in Dallas filed decertification petitions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees. When employees are dissatisfied with union officials and want to remove the union from their workplace, they may file a “decertification” petition with the NLRB.
Union bosses often try to block elections with charges of unfair labor practices, and vigorously campaign to keep workers under their control. In both of these cases, workers ultimately were able to remove the union.
Teamsters Local 745 Can’t Win Decertification Efforts
Local Teamsters officers tried to block a decertification election at FCC Environmental Services last year, filing numerous charges of unfair labor practices, but despite these stalling attempts, the employees were successful in their effort to remove the union. The union ultimately withdrew all of their objections but one, which the NLRB Regional Director dismissed as it had no bearing on the election itself in which a majority opposed union affiliation.
Meanwhile, Local 745 officials couldn’t even put up a fight against delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. After workers filed a decertification petition at the NLRB in April, a decertification election was set for September. Only three days before the election was scheduled to take place, union officials themselves decided not to contest it, and instead disclaimed any further interest in representing the employees, who are now free from their control.
Workers Fleeing Teamsters Union Nationwide
These successful decertification efforts are part of a larger trend across the country. For four years, the Foundation has seen increasing demand for assistance from groups of workers seeking votes to remove unions. This trend has disproportionately affected the Teamsters Union, as NLRB statistics for the past 12 months show that one of every five decertification cases involved the Teamsters union.
“More and more, American workers across the country are deciding they are better off without Teamsters union bosses who prioritize their own interests over that of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These successful decertification efforts demonstrate what happens when courageous and independent-minded workers assert their rights.”
“Union bosses often do not speak for the workers under their so-called ‘representation,’ and statistics show that over 90% of employees have never had a chance to vote on the union that purports to represent them,” Mix added. “That one in five decertification petitions filed last year involved the Teamsters only drives home the point that workers are increasingly rejecting the union’s coercive agenda.”
Builders FirstSource Workers Join Other KY Construction Industry Workers in Ending Teamsters Local 89 ‘Representation’
Majority of workers backed petitions calling for Teamsters removal as second workplace ejects Teamsters Local 89 bosses in recent weeks
Louisville, KY (October 2, 2025) – Kenneth Moore, an employee of Builders FirstSource, and his coworkers have been freed from the hold of Teamsters Local 89 union bosses after Builders FirstSource ended its recognition of the Teamsters as the workers’ “representative.” The employer took this decision following a petition signed by a majority of the workers demanding that Builders FirstSource end the recognition of the Teamsters.
This development comes after Moore filed a petition last month at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a decertification election to remove the union from his workplace. Moore filed his petition at the NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Moore and his colleagues now join Chris Smith and other IMI – Irving Materials drivers who were successful in removing the Teamsters Local 89 in Scottsville, KY last month.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
Thanks to the 2019 Right to Work Foundation-won Johnson Controls NLRB decision, workers seeking to remove unwanted union bosses can also do so by submitting a majority-backed petition asking their employer to stop recognizing the union. If there is a dispute about the petition, the NLRB can administer a secret-ballot vote to assess the employees’ opposition to the union.
The workers’ petition to Builders FirstSource managers provided the company with proof that the majority of their employees do not support the Teamsters presence at their facility. In compliance with the Johnson Controls decision, the employer withdrew the Teamsters’ recognition.
Moore and his Builders FirstSource colleagues are amongst the most recent workers who have made strides to remove the Teamsters from their workplaces. According to the NLRB’s owns statistics, over the past 12 months over 20% of all decertification cases involved the Teamsters union.
Kentucky is one of the 26 states with a Right to Work law that protects workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can still impose monopoly bargaining control upon all workers within a workplace, even those who oppose the union.
“These two groups of Kentucky workers are the latest to come to the conclusion that the interests that Teamsters bosses are pursuing are at odds with the wishes of the rank and file,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation will continue to assist workers in their efforts to free themselves from the Teamsters or any other unwanted so-called ‘representation.’”
IBEW Local 16 Folds in Case Concerning Illegal $1.29 Million Retaliatory ‘Fine’ Threat Against Local Electrician
Union bosses imposed illegal limitations on resigning union membership, told electrician he would be fined for starting new business unless he signed with the union
Evansville, IN (September 30, 2025) – Brian Head, an Evansville-based electrician, has vindicated his federal labor rights against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 16 union. Head filed federal charges after IBEW union officials threatened him with a $1.29 million internal disciplinary fine even though he had validly resigned his union membership. He filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The settlement requires union officials to rescind all fines against Head, expunge all records of them, and refrain from interfering with workers who exercise their right to resign their union membership in the future. The union is also required to notify other workers of their legal right to resign their union membership without restriction, and be free of any attempt to impose internal union fines post-resignation.
Fine Threats Came After Electrician Refused to Hand Over Business to Union Power
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees. Head’s charges document that he had resigned his IBEW union membership on March 27, 2025, in a notarized letter that IBEW officials acknowledged receiving. However, the union’s reply letter claimed that “[i]t is a six-month process before the resignation is finally effective.”
The NLRA forbids restricting the right of workers to resign their union memberships. Section 7 of the NLRA enshrines workers’ right to refrain from union membership. Furthermore, union bosses cannot impose discipline or fines upon nonmember workers.
IBEW Local 16 union officials began retaliating against Head after he resigned his union membership and announced he was purchasing a non-union electrical firm. Head refused to sign an IBEW Letter of Assent, which would have likely forced his employees under union control without any kind of worker vote.
Following Head declining to hand over his business to a union he was no longer legally affiliated with, IBEW Local 16 officials sent Head correspondence on May 1 demanding he appear before a union tribunal. Head later received a letter from IBEW Local 16 bosses on June 9 finding him “guilty” of violating the union’s constitution and imposing a “$1.29 Million dollar fine” as a penalty.
Foundation-Won Settlement Forces IBEW to Inform Workers of Rights
An NLRB Regional Director reviewed Head’s charges against IBEW union officials’ overreach, and made a merit determination in his favor, finding that the IBEW Local 16 union officials violated Head’s rights under the NLRA. IBEW union officials quickly decided to back down and settle rather than go to trial against the NLRB and Head’s Foundation lawyers. In addition to expunging their million-dollar-plus retaliatory fine, the settlement details that IBEW bosses must stop informing workers that there are restrictions on the right to resign one’s union membership. Additionally, they must inform all their members of their rights under the NLRA, and post the settlement on the union’s website.
“The Foundation is pleased to have assisted Mr. Head as he challenged IBEW union bosses’ attempt to illegally extort him after he had followed all legal procedures necessary to break free from the union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “IBEW union bosses’ use of strong-arm tactics demonstrates that they value maintaining control over Indiana electricians far above respecting those electricians’ individual rights.
“Whenever union bosses violate the rights of any American worker, Foundation attorneys are ready to assist in their defense,” Mix added.
NY Starbucks Barista Asks Federal Labor Board to Restore Employees’ Right to Vote Out SBWU Union Officials
SBWU union bosses prevented worker-requested union removal vote by filing unverified charges, never demonstrated link to worker effort
Niskayuna, NY (September 12, 2025) – Starbucks barista Nadia Kuban is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to overturn federal policies that are preventing her colleagues from having a vote to remove unwanted Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace. Kuban is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Kuban’s effort to remove SBWU from the Niskayuna Starbucks began in February, when she submitted a petition backed by her colleagues asking the NLRB to hold a decertification vote at their store. Despite Kuban’s petition containing enough employee signatures to trigger a vote under NLRB rules, regional NLRB officials dismissed her petition and denied her colleagues their right to vote on the union’s continued control.
Kuban’s latest NLRB filing challenges the dismissal of her decertification petition. Regional NLRB officials issued the dismissal due to alleged unfair labor practice charges that SBWU bosses filed against the Starbucks Corporation at the national level. Her Request for Review argues that the NLRB violated employees’ due process rights by tossing her petition without a hearing into whether the allegations had anything to do with workers’ desire to oust the union at her location. It also contends that the NLRB’s Rieth-Riley precedent – which lets union bosses manipulate such allegations (also known as “blocking charges”) to derail worker-requested decertification votes entirely – is inconsistent with federal law.
Starbucks Employee Challenges NLRB Policy That Lets Union Bosses Block Votes
The NLRB’s Rieth-Riley decision in 2022 permits the agency to make so-called “merit-determination” dismissals of decertification petitions. Such dismissals let NLRB officials stop union decertification elections entirely – and invalidate already-cast ballots – based on union boss-filed “blocking charges” that haven’t even been litigated yet. Kuban’s brief explains that the ruling is at odds with federal labor law, which mandates that the NLRB conduct an election if employees submit a valid decertification petition.
“This is inconsistent with the plain language of [National Labor Relations Act] Section 9(c), which states what the NLRB ‘shall’ do, a nondiscretionary term,” the brief says. “The Board…should overturn Rieth-Riley’s merit-determination [ruling]….”
The Request for Review also explains that even under existing NLRB cases – including Rieth-Riley – the dismissal of Kuban’s decertification petition is not justified. NLRB case law doesn’t allow the dismissal of employees’ decertification petitions unless there is an outright refusal by an employer to negotiate with union officials, the brief says, which is not the case in Kuban’s situation. Furthermore, the NLRB’s Saint Gobain decision, won by Foundation staff attorneys, holds that “an evidentiary hearing is required when a union alleges that an employer’s unfair labor practice caused disaffection with the union.” Kuban never got such a hearing in her case, meaning she “has been significantly disadvantaged in defending her petition, to the point of being denied due process of law,” the brief says.
Trump NLRB Can Use Case to Defend Workers’ Freedom
Earlier this year, Rayalan Kent, a Foundation-backed asphalt worker in Michigan whose union decertification effort was stifled in the Rieth-Riley case, submitted a brief to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This brief defended his employer (Rieth-Riley Construction Company) in a case over its refusal to negotiate with International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) officials. IUOE bosses had dredged up years-old unfair labor practice charges to cancel the counting of Kent and his coworkers’ already-cast election ballots in 2022. Kent is now urging the Sixth Circuit to use the current case against his employer to undo the disastrous “merit-determination” doctrine, and order the NLRB to finally count his colleagues’ ballots.
“The NLRB’s so-called ‘merit-determination’ dismissal policy serves no purpose other than letting union officials block workers’ right to make a free decision on whether they want union monopoly ‘representation’ in their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Kuban is the latest of countless independent-minded workers across the country to seek to eliminate this unfair policy. Upon confirmation, new appointees to the NLRB should prioritize cases like hers, and defend workers’ freedoms from union bosses’ attempts to gain more control over their working lives and pocketbooks.”
Electric Utility Worker Asks Trump NLRB to Prosecute IBEW’s Restrictive Policies That Compel Workers to Fund Union Politics
Electric utility worker asks NLRB General Counsel to seek Board ruling against union policies that force nonmembers to fund union political spending
Benson, MN (September 23, 2025) – Theresa Klassen, an employee of Agralite Electric Cooperative, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to expedite consideration of Big Labor schemes that force workers to pay dues for union political activities. Klassen has filed an appeal with the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel, asking him to issue a complaint in her case after an NLRB Regional Director let International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union officials off the hook for violating her rights. Klassen is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Klassen originally filed charges against both the IBEW international union and IBEW Local 160 to defend her rights under Communications Workers of America v. Beck. In this Foundation-won landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that union officials cannot force workers who abstain from membership to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s monopoly bargaining functions – including politics.
Even though Klassen successfully resigned her union membership, union bosses continued to demand full dues payments from her – including dues for union political expenditures. When she invoked her Beck rights with assistance from Foundation staff attorneys, union bosses then claimed that she could only opt out of dues payments for politics within a narrow 30-day “window period” each year in the month of November.
Brief: IBEW Union Clearly Violating National Labor Relations Act
Klassen’s appeal argues that it would violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) “for a union to demand payment for any dues beyond what Section 8(a)(3) requires unless that employee affirmatively consented to pay full union dues.” Under the Beck decision, Section 8(a)(3) only permits union bosses to demand dues for union expenses that are directly related to bargaining.
Now, Klassen is asking the NLRB to uphold this interpretation and end all opt-out requirements, so that union officials must obtain explicit permission from employees to take payments for non-bargaining-related functions, including union political and lobbying activities.
Klassen is also asking the NLRB to end window period practices for becoming Beck objectors, as they similarly violate the NLRA by preventing workers from exercising their rights. Window period restrictions on when employees can exercise their Beck rights allow union officials to extract money from workers after they’ve already objected to financially supporting union political activities.
“The IBEW should be respecting my rights, not throwing up roadblocks so they can continue to use my paycheck dollars to fund their own agenda,” said Klassen. “The NLRB needs to recognize that union officials are violating the law; otherwise, these rights are not rights at all.”
Union Officials Use Restrictive Policies to Consolidate Power
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, IBEW union officials can impose contracts that force Klassen and her coworkers to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs, though this amount is limited by the Beck decision. In contrast, in Minnesota’s neighboring Right to Work states, union officials cannot force workers to pay any dues or fees just to keep their jobs.
“Free association is a right of every American, including workers who don’t want to associate with a union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s telling that IBEW officials are using a legally suspect policy to make it needlessly difficult for workers to stop supporting the union’s political activities.
“While the NLRB General Counsel should urge the agency to address these illicit schemes swiftly, ultimately Minnesotans and all Americans deserve Right to Work protections, which would make all union financial support strictly voluntary,” Mix added.
Columbia GRADS (Graduate Researchers Against Discrimination and Suppression) Hit UAW Union With Federal Labor Board Charges
Graduate student group argues union bosses are illegally using bad faith bargaining to demand political concessions from Columbia administration
New York, NY (September 22, 2025) – The Graduate Researchers Against Discrimination and Suppression (GRADS), a group of graduate students at Columbia University, has just filed federal charges against officials of the Student Workers of Columbia, a union on campus affiliated with the United Auto Workers (UAW). GRADS filed its charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The members of GRADS, who have requested anonymity due to widespread harassment stemming from union agitation on campus, are charging the union with abusing its monopoly bargaining powers. They contend that union officials are bargaining in bad faith to extract concessions from the university on a number of radical policy proposals, instead of focusing on improving graduate students’ academic and research environment.
The NLRB’s controversial 2016 decision in Columbia University categorized graduate students at private universities as “employees” subject to federal labor law. In doing so, the Obama NLRB granted union bosses the ability to launch campus unionization campaigns and gain monopoly bargaining power over graduate students. Under monopoly bargaining, every employee in a work unit must accept the workplace “representation” of union bosses, even if they voted against the union or disagree with its agenda.
While federal law conditions union bosses’ monopoly bargaining powers on a nebulous “duty of fair representation,” union officials often ignore this duty and discriminate against those who oppose the union’s control.
Charges: UAW Union Demands University Take Action Against Israel, Crack Down on Police
GRADS’ charges list a number of outrageous bargaining items from UAW union officials, including: “proposals to force Columbia to limit campus police, security, and NYPD from doing their jobs;” “bargain[ing] over…so-called ‘Boycott, Divest & Sanction’ policies…of the entire university;” “termination of a dual-degree program between Columbia and Tel Aviv University;” and undoing discipline for students who have been suspended for “destroy[ing] campus property and disrupt[ing] the unit’s working conditions for extended periods.”
“These and similar actions constitute bad faith bargaining…and violate the duty of fair representation that respondent union owes to all represented graduate students,” the charges state.
Foundation attorneys are defending a number of other graduate students who seek to resist the radical – and often discriminatory – ways that union officials are wielding their monopoly bargaining powers on campus. Foundation attorneys are currently representing Jewish students at Cornell University in challenging the CGSU-UE union’s failure to respect their rights as religious objectors to union affiliation. Another Cornell student is pursuing a Foundation-backed case attacking union officials’ bargaining powers granted in the questionable 2016 Columbia University ruling.
“Far from facilitating a more harmonious relationship between graduate students and the Columbia administration, UAW union bosses are simply ramping up radical extremism at a university that has already seen more than its share of chaos,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While it’s wrong from the start that any student is forced to accept union boss ‘representation’ they oppose, it’s even less acceptable that UAW union officials are trying to use their monopoly bargaining privileges to enforce their divisive politics on the entire campus, including undergraduate students.”
King Soopers Employees Hit Union Officials with New Federal Charges for Illegal Strike Fine Threats
Charge: UFCW Local 7 once again violating federal law with fines against non-union employees who wouldn’t abide by a union boss-ordered strike
Denver, CO (September 8, 2025) – Two King Soopers grocery workers have filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 union in response to union officials illegally threatening to fine the workers, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike. These cases, filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), follow a series of similar charges against UFCW union officials for issuing retaliatory fines against King Soopers employees in 2022. Both employees are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
According to the charges, Local 7 union bosses illegally retaliated against Ryan Lamb and Lucas Martin by assessing presumptive fines and scheduling “trials” for each of them, despite the union having no authority to punish non-members. The charges note that attempts to discipline the workers for post-resignation conduct violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Union-Ordered Strikes Don’t Mean Workers Have to Stop Providing for Their Families
UFCW officials demanded that workers strike against King Soopers grocery stores for more than a week in February 2025, affecting more than 10,000 employees. In response to the high profile strike, the Foundation issued a legal notice informing the impacted workers of their rights that union officials often hide, including the right to continue working to support their families.
“Despite often-misleading language in union contracts, no employee is actually required to be a member of a union,” the notice reads. “And if an employee is not a member of a union, union officials have no power to fine or discipline him or her.”
In the cases of Lamb and Martin, both employees ensured they took the proper actions to avoid being legally subjected to internal “union discipline.” In other cases, union officials illegally attempted to issue ruinous fines against workers who declined to participate in union strike actions, with some fines reaching tens of thousands of dollars per employee.
“Union officials shouldn’t be telling me I can’t earn a living just so they can make a point,” commented Lamb. “We have the right to keep working and not abide by their rules, and it’s ridiculous that the union officials think they can punish us for exercising that right,” added Martin.
Repeat-Offender Union Has a History of Ignoring Workers’ Rights
This isn’t the first time UFCW Local 7 officials are alleged to have violated federal law. In 2022, after the UFCW ordered a strike, several employees filed charges against Local 7 officials for hitting them with fines despite being non-union members.
In two cases where the employees received free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, union enforcers backed down from their fines rather than face discipline from the NLRB.
“Once again UFCW bosses are demonstrating their willingness to steamroll the legal rights of rank-and-file workers, just because those workers won’t toe the union line,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Kings Soopers employees have beaten back these illegal fines in the past, and while it shouldn’t take a team of attorneys to ensure workers can exercise their legal rights, we are dedicated to ensuring all King Soopers workers can freely make the choice that is best for them.”
