How Trump’s new labor board could play role in decertifying St. Hope teacher union
A teacher pushing to decertify the union within St. Hope Public Schools has asked a federal agency to call for the election despite such actions usually falling under California’s jurisdiction.
At the center of the labor dispute is not just whether the teachers union will continue to cover St. Hope teachers, but whether charter school employees should be considered public or private in the eyes of the law.
Transitional kindergarten teacher Beth Simonton, one of the few St. Hope teachers employed there for more than three years, has retained the help of a legal organization associated with the National Right to Work Committee, a nonprofit that is “dedicated exclusively to combatting the evils of compulsory unionism” and receives funding from right-wing groups.
Simonton and her legal representation say that her petition was supported by the majority of her fellow teachers.
This is the second concerted effort to decertify the union since it was voted in by teachers in 2017. In 2021, a petition for a decertification vote was halted by the California Public Employment Relations Board after the teachers union filed complaints about the tactics used to file the petition.
But the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is not seeking a vote through PERB. Instead it filed with the National Labor Relations Board — a federal agency that enforces labor law in the private sector.
The board features a Republican majority recently installed by President Donald Trump, set to implement an agenda that will likely be much less favorable to unions than that of the previous administration, according to Reuters.
The question is: Are charter school employees public or private employees? For once, the teachers union and St. Hope’s lawyers are on the same page about the answer.
Public versus private: charter schools
Labor disputes in California charter schools have rarely been brought to the NLRB, but this is not the first time the board will consider a charter school dispute.
Patrick Semmens, vice president of the group providing legal assistance to Simonton, said that case law suggests the National Labor Relations Act (which applies to private sector employees) covers charter school teachers.
“It’s pretty clear in our opinion that the NLRB is the labor regime that applies to St. Hope,” he said.
The NLRB asserted jurisdiction over two union decertification votes at New York City charter schools, arguing that the federal law covers charter schools as employers. The NLRB cited the Supreme Court-established Hawkins test which asks whether the employer was created directly by the state or if it was administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or to the general electorate.
Two unlikely parties have found themselves on the other side of this debate.
Both the Sacramento City Teachers Association and St. Hope Public School’s lawyers, historically at odds over contract bargaining disputes, are advocating against the federal agency taking ownership of this issue.
James Young of Young, Minney and Corr, an education law firm specializing in charter school legal representation, wrote a letter to the NLRB on behalf of St. Hope urging them to defer Simonton’s petition to PERB.
“We contend that, under California law, the Legislature has conclusively determined that charter schools such as SHPS are public schools and are properly considered as political subdivisions of the state,” he wrote.
Young argues that the California charter schools satisfy the second prong of the Hawkins test because charter schools are subject to control by state officials and “extensive oversight” by Sacramento City Unified, the county office of education and the state department of education. California charter schools are also subject to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act. He noted that private schools in California are subject to none of these legal requirements.
Vanessa Cudabac, SCTA vice president, is further concerned about the implications that classifying St. Hope teachers as private employees could have in other areas of the law. In an email to St. Hope teachers, Cudabac warned against the petition filed by a “far right anti-labor organization,” saying that being classified as private employees could be “disastrous” for the school.
Cudabac contends that this classification could put St. Hope’s funding and teachers’ public pension plans at risk, and increase tension with governing school district Sacramento City Unified when the board is already skeptical of St. Hope’s operations.
She said that the committee has an agenda to undermine union organization in California, making St. Hope a pawn in a larger political game that has nothing to do with the school’s well-being.
“The Right to Work Committee has no vested interest in the compensation, benefits, or workplace conditions of St. Hope employees,” she wrote. “Their interest is in bringing that legal battle from Washington DC to Sacramento regardless of the impact on students, teachers, and other employees.”
Cudabac said that she is not worried about a potential election because she believes the union has the support to remain in St. Hope.
Implications for St. Hope teachers
Semmens has brushed these arguments aside, saying that just because a charter school can be considered a private employer under the NLRA doesn’t mean it will be considered private in other areas of California law.
“The question of PERB versus NLRB jurisdiction has no effect on that in respect to the rest of California law,” he said.
He suspects that the union opposes the petition going to the NLRB because it would be more difficult to block there than at the generally pro-union PERB.
“They want to be at PERB where they can basically block this election from taking place,” he said.
Stanford Law professor William Gould IV, a former chair of the NLRB, was conflicted about whether the agency asserting jurisdiction over St. Hope teachers could affect whether they are considered public or private employees in other areas of the law.
He said that the NLRB has taken on cases for what they considered to be private employees, but the state considered to be independent contractors for tax classification purposes.
He said that there is a chance the classification could affect the teachers’ access to CalSTRS pensions, which are limited to public school employees.
Labor tensions
Labor tensions at St. Hope have heated up as the school and union have come closer to securing a contract, the first in eight years since the union was ratified.
According to Young’s letter, the parties have tentatively agreed to about a dozen articles. Cudabac said that among the tentative agreements include 100% coverage of health benefits, credential cost reimbursement and a pathway toward permanent employee status.
Both union members and those against the union report a sense of division among campus in recent months, with some longer term St. Hope employees alleging manipulative tactics by the union. On the other side, many St. Hope teachers have gone on the record to talk about the retaliation they’ve faced from administrators and fellow staff members for their participation in the union.
Simonton, the teacher who filed the petition, initially agreed to an interview but then directed The Sacramento Bee to the National Right To Work’s public relations department.
She publicly spoke against the union at a Sacramento City Unified board meeting in October.
“The first word that comes to mind is ‘negative,’” she said. “Every time I get any form of contact from the union, I get a pit in my stomach. It’s negative. It’s hurtful. It’s unnecessarily rude.”
Simonton alleged that the union was lying about the benefits that they would secure for teachers and about the former superintendent ’s alleged support of eliminating performance-based pay, which St. Hope uses to give raises instead of a standard salary schedule.
This story was originally published January 28, 2026 at 5:00 AM.
