Red cement truck image under Creative Commons license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
published on January 7, 2026 – 11:09 AM
Written by Frank Lopez
Workers at the Fresno operation of Southern California-based construction materials company CalPortland will be able to move forward with a vote to remove union representation from their workplace.
Materials workers with CalPortland and miners employed by The Quartz Corp. in North Carolina both backed petitions asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to administer votes to remove, or decertify, unions from their worksites.
Despite the petitions containing enough signatures to trigger union decertification elections, regional NLRB officials blocked both votes due to NLRB’s current “blocking charge” policy.
On Tuesday, the Teamsters Local 431 union at CalPortland dropped its blocking charge grievances that delayed the union removal vote.
The vote among Fresno CalPortland Ready-Mix drivers will take place on Thursday, Jan. 29, at the employer’s break room at 410 N. Thorne Avenue in Fresno.
The blocking policy permits union officials to stall the decertification process by filing unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB alleging employer misconduct.
Quartz Corp. employee Blake Davis and CalPortland worker Darrell Dunlap recently submitted requests for review to the NLRB in Washington, D.C., asking it to overturn the blocking charge policy and let their coworkers’ requested votes proceed.
“While we welcome this news, we think it also shows the unfairness of the ‘blocking charge’ policy, as in this case the workers had to wait for the union to drop its own charges just so they could have a chance to exercise their right to vote on the union,” said a spokesperson from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a nonprofit based in Virginia.
Dunlap’s request for review argues that the NLRBs blocking charge policy conflicts with the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that the NLRB is responsible for enforcing.
“The blocking charge policy does not just contravene a clear Congressional command, but also offends the entire structure and purpose of the Act: employee free choice,” Dunlap wrote in the petition.