AFSCME Council 93 Faces New NLRB Charges Over Alleged Discriminatory Union Practices

NILRRR-AFSCME-Charged-hiring-hall-scheme
September 4, 2026|, , ,

“AFSCME Council 93’s alleged conduct is a textbook example of the coercive union practices NILRR has documented for decades.” — NILRR

AFSCME Council 93 is once again under federal scrutiny. A new unfair labor practice case filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleges that the union and its affiliate, AFSCME Local 1877, engaged in discriminatory and coercive conduct against employees at Spectrum Health Systems in Westborough, Massachusetts.

The case — NLRB Case 01‑CB‑391350 — was filed on July 23, 2026 and remains open in Region 01 (Boston).

Serious Allegations Under the National Labor Relations Act

According to the filing, AFSCME Council 93 and Local 1877 are accused of violating multiple provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, including:

  • § 8(b)(2) — Causing or attempting to cause employer discrimination
  • § 8(b)(2) — Improper union‑security‑related conduct
  • § 8(b)(1)(A) — Coercion and restraint involving union membership, dues, or fees

These allegations typically arise when a union pressures an employer to punish or disadvantage workers who refuse to join or financially support the union — conduct the NLRA explicitly prohibits.

The charging party is represented by Bart Valad and Glenn Taubman of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which frequently assists employees who allege union coercion, retaliation, or forced‑dues violations.

A Pattern of AFSCME 93 Controversies

This case is not an isolated incident. AFSCME Council 93 has appeared in multiple NLRB matters in recent years, including:

  • Spectrum Youth & Family Services (03‑RC‑359837) — Representation case (closed 2025)
  • Boston Medical Center (01‑CB‑195461) — Duty‑of‑fair‑representation case (closed 2017)

The new charges add to a growing record of disputes involving AFSCME 93’s conduct toward workers.

Have Employee Rights Been Ignored?

For employees at Spectrum Health Systems — and for workers across Massachusetts — the outcome of this case could determine whether AFSCME Council 93 has been using its power to pressure employers and restrict employee rights.

For Right to Work advocates, the case highlights ongoing concerns about:

  • Union attempts to force unwanted membership
  • Excessive or coercive dues demands
  • Retaliation against employees who assert their NLRA rights

NILRR.org will continue monitoring Case 01‑CB‑391350 as it moves through the NLRB process.

Additional Notes

Charging Party Legal Representatives:

  • Bart Valad — National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
  • Glenn Taubman — National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Charged Party:

  • AFSCME Council 93 & AFSCME Local 1877

Employer:

  • Spectrum Health Systems, Inc. (Westborough, MA)

Categories

Recent Posts