NLRB Advice Memoranda, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1433 (First Transit Inc.), National Labor Relations Board, (Jan 7, 2026)

The Region submitted this case for advice regarding whether the Union's use of a quasi-dual purpose membership application and dues checkoff authorization form violates Section 8(b)(1)(A). We conclude that, even assuming Section 10(b) would not preclude litigation of the submitted issue, the Region should not pursue this unalleged theory of violation because it lacks merit.

Briefly, the Charging Party was employed by First Transit, Inc. (Employer), which has a collective-bargaining relationship with Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1433 (Union) covering certain employees at facilities in Arizona, a right-to-work state. On ​     ​ the Charging Party filled out and signed both portions of the Union's Application for Membership. The form is a single page document. The upper portion of the form contains union authorization and membership application language followed by an area for employee contact information and a signature line. The lower portion contains the terms of the dues checkoff authorization followed by another signature line and witness signature line. The Union stopped using this form in ​     ​ 2020, replacing it with a two-page form that separates the authorization and membership component from the dues checkoff authorization.

On ​     ​ 2022, the Charging Party sent a letter requesting to resign from the Union and end automatic payroll deduction of dues. The Union responded on ​     ​, 2022, accepting ​     ​ membership resignation but stating that ​     ​ was outside the revocation window under the terms of the checkoff authorization agreement. ​     ​ on July 21, 2022, the Charging Party filed the instant charge, which does not presently allege that the form was unlawful. The Charging Party successfully revoked ​     ​ dues checkoff authorization on ​     ​ 2023.

We conclude that, even assuming Section 10(b) would not preclude litigation of this issue, the Region should not pursue the submitted allegation because it is not meritorious. Dues checkoff authorizations must be made voluntarily and employees have the Section 7 right to refuse to sign such an authorization. Electrical Workers IUE Local 601 (Westinghouse Electric Corp.), 180 NLRB 1062, 1062 (1970). Union conduct that coerces an employee in exercising this right violates Section 8(b)(1)(A). Id. Where a membership application and checkoff authorization appear in separate parts of a union form or card and each has a separate signature line, such a form or card is lawful absent evidence that employees were required to sign both. Luke Construction Co., 211 NLRB 602, 604 (1974).

In this case, the Union's discontinued form did not coerce employees. In this regard, it is notably similar to the revised membership card and checkoff authorization that the Board found did not violate the Act in Luke Construction. In that case, components were “physically located on a single piece of paper or card …, but they appear[ed] on separate parts of the paper or card, they [were] severable from each other by a perforation, and they require[d] separate signatures ….” 211 NLRB at 604. Like the revised form in Luke Construction, the membership application and checkoff authorization in the Union's discontinued form appear on separate parts of a single piece of paper and they require separate signatures. Here, employees could freely exercise their right to refuse to sign checkoff authorization cards by leaving the lower portion of the discontinued form blank. The Charging Party did not present evidence of any statements or conduct suggesting that checkoff was anything but voluntary. Furthermore, the absence of any evidence suggesting that employment was conditioned on union membership makes this case distinguishable from cases in which the Board has found a dual-purpose card or form violated the Act. Cf. Mine Workers District 50 (Ruberoid Co.), 173 NLRB 87, 87 (1968) (“[E]mployees were given no opportunity to comply with the union-security clause … unless they signed the card which [also] authorized the deduction of dues. Accordingly, an employee had no alternative and no choice but to authorize the checkoff or lose his job, and hence its use was coercive.”). In any event, we find that the title “Application for Membership” at the top of the form did not implicitly coerce employees into accepting checkoff. Given the clearly stated purposes of the upper portion of the form (“I hereby apply for membership in the … Union”) and the lower portion (“I hereby assign to [the Union] … my periodic dues …”) and their respective signature lines, an employee would not reasonably read the checkoff authorization as a required predicate for membership. Indeed, the checkoff authorization's only mention of Union membership serves to further decouple checkoff from the membership application: “I understand that the [sic] Union membership is not a condition of this authorization and that this authorization will remain in effect irrespective of my membership status in the Union.”

Accordingly, the Region should not issue complaint alleging that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by utilizing or enforcing the membership application and dues checkoff authorization form executed by the Charging Party.

​     ​

National Labor Relations Board

Division of Advice

1015 Half Street, Fourth Floor

Washington, DC 20570

​     ​

Please be aware that this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or other authorities, though exceptions may apply for certain case-related information, personal privacy, and other matters.