Posts tagged Request for Review
NY Starbucks Barista Asks Federal Labor Board to Restore Employees’ Right to Vote Out SBWU Union Officials
September 14, 2025 // SBWU union bosses prevented worker-requested union removal vote by filing unverified charges, never demonstrated link to worker effort. 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.
Hammond poultry facility employee asks board to allow workers to vote union officials out of workplace
August 2, 2025 // Hally's request says that he submitted a petition early this month with signatures from more than 50% of his 550-person unit demanding a vote to oust the union. Normally, NLRB policy only requires 30%. “Region 15 dismissed Hally’s petition consistent with the Board’s contract-bar doctrine,” the Request for Review says. “This bar contradicts the Act’s well-established ‘bedrock principles of employee free choice and majority rule’…because it grants monopoly bargaining status…even in the face of objective evidence proving the union has lost majority support."
WV Homecare Worker Asks Federal Labor Board to Stop Gambit by SEIU and Employer to Destroy Ballots in Vote to Remove Union
March 24, 2025 // After continued delays from NLRB officials that prevented the ballots from being counted, Reeves sought to intervene in the union’s unfair labor practice case. Reeves wanted to demonstrate that there was no connection between the union’s accusations of employer wrongdoing and his and his colleagues’ desire to vote the union out, and thus no reason existed for regional NLRB officials to continue blocking a vote count. But the regional NLRB denied him this request. In January 2025 – six months after Reeves and his colleagues had voted – Commission officials and SEIU union bosses entered into an agreement to settle the union’s unfair labor practice charges. Even though the regional NLRB never proved that the employer’s alleged malfeasance had any effect on the decertification effort and the Commission never admitted to such malfeasance in the settlement, the regional NLRB approved a unilateral decision by the employer and union to dismiss the decertification petition and “not entertain a new decertification for a…period of four months.”
WV Homecare Worker Asks Federal Labor Board to Stop Gambit by SEIU and Employer to Destroy Ballots in Vote to Remove Union
March 21, 2025 // In January 2025 – six months after Reeves and his colleagues had voted – Commission officials and SEIU union bosses entered into an agreement to settle the union’s unfair labor practice charges. Even though the regional NLRB never proved that the employer’s alleged malfeasance had any effect on the decertification effort and the Commission never admitted to such malfeasance in the settlement, the regional NLRB approved a unilateral decision by the employer and union to dismiss the decertification petition and “not entertain a new decertification for a…period of four months.” “[The regional NLRB] dismissed Reeves’ decertification petition because the Employer settled an unfair labor practice case, even though the settlement contained no ‘admissions clause,’ and therefore the Union’s allegations were unproven and speculative,” Reeves’ Request for Review reads.
Starbucks Barista Asks Labor Board to Overturn Regional Official’s Decision to Continue Blocking Vote to Remove Union
November 21, 2024 // Smith’s appeal challenges the regional NLRB’s refusal to reinstate her decertification petition, which it is still stonewalling despite the resolution of SBWU union officials’ charges against Starbucks that were ostensibly the justification for blocking the workers’ petition for a vote to remove the union. Smith argues that the decision is inconsistent not only with the Board’s past reasons for holding up the petition, but also with workers’ right under federal labor law to promptly have an election to remove a union they do not want.
Seattle Mariners Retail Employee Challenges Seattle NLRB Officials’ Refusal to Certify Overwhelming Vote Against Union
October 23, 2023 // Following an overwhelming workplace vote to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials, Seattle Mariners MLB retail employee Tami Kecherson filed a Request for Review defending the election result at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC. The Request for Review comes after NLRB Region 19 officials in Seattle refused to certify the 50-9 vote result, and instead permitted UFCW union officials to “disclaim” interest in the bargaining unit and avoid restrictions on regaining control over the employees that normally apply to unions that lose elections. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are providing free legal aid to Kecherson in her effort to defend the election victory. The Request for Review recounts that, after the worker-requested union decertification vote finally took place, UFCW union officials filed “blocking charges” against Mariners management in an attempt to delay the certification of the vote. “Blocking charges” contain unverified and often groundless allegations of employer interference in a union election.
NUPD sergeant and sergeant detectives vote to be represented by a union
September 28, 2023 // On Sept. 8, the university filed a request for review of the NLRB’s decision and direction of election, citing that the regional director of the case “either misunderstood the evidence, misrepresented it, or simply ignored it — or a combination of all three — and misapplied the law.” The university reiterated its original arguments in opposing the election, saying the sergeants and sergeant detectives have independent judgment when issuing disciplinary and supervisory actions which would disqualify them from unionizing. On Sept. 15, the American Coalition of Public Safety filed a brief in opposition to the request for review, arguing that the university did not meet its burden of proof to show sergeants had supervisory status. Employees with supervisory status, or the ability to impose disciplinary actions and direct other employees using ‘independent judgment,’ are not protected under the National Labor Relations Act.
NJ Medieval Times Employees Appeal to National Labor Relations Board in Ongoing Joust with Union Officials
September 21, 2023 // he Request for Review notes that AGVA union officials were “secretive, self-interested, and divisive,” and “regularly advocated that the [Medieval Times] employees go on strike, something that had no support among the unit employees.” After waiting out the statutory one-year bar on union elections that follows a union’s certification, Morley filed the petition requesting a union decertification vote. According to the Request for Review, instead of processing the petition as NLRB rules dictate, NLRB Region 22 issued a complaint against the employer and dismissed Morley’s petition based on unproven “blocking charges” AGVA union officials filed against Medieval Times management. The Request for Review argues that the hasty dismissal violated NLRB election rules, the Administrative Procedure Act, and well-established NLRB precedent requiring a hearing to demonstrate whether union allegations of employer misconduct actually caused employee discontent with the union. “None of the alleged unfair labor practice allegations…concern the Employees’ collection of the decertification signatures or the Employer’s domination of the Union. Thus…an election should be held and the votes immediately counted,” the Request for Review contends. “Even if the Board determined the allegations warranted consideration under [NLRB rules], its plain terms prohibit dismissing a petition prior to an election.”
New Flyer Employee Slams CWA Union with Federal Charges, Claims Union Lied to Employees to Attain “Majority Status”
August 10, 2023 // Mabrey’s charges explain that CWA union officials gained power in his workplace through a process called “card check,” which bypasses the NLRB’s standard secret ballot election process for installing a union. Under card check, employees are denied the right to vote in private on whether they want the union in the workplace, and union officials can instead claim majority status by demanding union authorization cards directly from workers. The card check scheme’s lack of privacy exposes workers to a variety of coercive behaviors from union officials who are seeking to collect cards from a majority of employees in a work unit. Workers often report being told signing the card only requests “more information” about the union or serves some other purpose, even though the card will be equivalent to a “vote” in favor of union representation. Workers have also experienced threats and unwanted home visits during card check campaigns.
Seattle Mariners Retail Employees Vote Out UFCW Union, Defeat Union Boss Attempt to Block Election Using “Card Check”
July 27, 2023 // Over the objection of UFCW union officials, the NLRB Regional Director in May ordered a union decertification election at the request of the Seattle Mariners’ retail employees. Union bosses subsequently filed a Request for Review at the NLRB in Washington, D.C., seeking to halt the election. They argued that a so-called “voluntary recognition bar” should be imposed to block the Mariners’ employees from exercising their right to vote on the union’s removal. However, the NLRB denied the union’s Request for Review on July 25. After NLRB Region 19 certifies the 50-9 vote result, the Seattle Mariners’ retail employees will finally be free from the unwanted UFCW union. The retail workers were able to challenge union officials’ card check drive thanks to the Election Protection Rule (EPR), a reform to the election rules enacted by the NLRB in 2020 following Foundation advocacy. While union officials pre-EPR were able to manipulate the so-called “voluntary recognition bar” to block employees from voting out a union for at least a year after an employer recognized a union’s supposed card check victory, the EPR granted employees a 45-day window in which to petition for a secret ballot election to challenge the card check result.