🗞️ Federal Labor Board Orders Union Election at Tucson Charter School Network, Rejecting Bid for Government Exemption

On May 1, 2026, NLRB Regional Director Cornele A. Overstreet issued a Decision and Direction of Election ordering a union representation election at the City Center for Collaborative Learning, a Tucson-based nonprofit that operates City High School and two Paulo Freire Freedom School campuses serving roughly 250 students. The election is scheduled for May 19, 2026.

The petitioning union, the Arizona Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff, AFT Local 6627, announced its organizing campaign in December 2025 and filed a petition for election that same month. The school's governing board declined to voluntarily recognize the union and retained the national employment law firm Littler Mendelson to contest the proceedings, arguing in part that the NLRB lacked jurisdiction to oversee the election at all.

The case drew broader attention because of the legal theory the employer advanced. Because Arizona law classifies charter schools as public schools, the employer argued it qualified as a political subdivision of the state and therefore fell entirely outside the reach of the National Labor Relations Act. Had the Regional Director accepted that argument, it would have placed the organizing rights of employees at Arizona charter schools in legal doubt statewide, potentially affecting workers at BASIS Tucson North, which ratified the state's first charter school collective bargaining agreement in August 2025 after teachers voted to unionize in April 2023.

The Jurisdiction Question

The central legal question before the Regional Director was whether City Center for Collaborative Learning, operating under a contract with the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools, should be treated as a government entity immune from NLRB oversight.

The answer turned on a 1971 Supreme Court decision, NLRB v. Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County, which established a two-part test: an entity is exempt from federal labor law only if it was either created directly by the state as a governmental arm, or administered by individuals who are accountable to public officials or to the general electorate.

City Center cleared neither standard. The school was incorporated in 2002 by three private individuals, including the school's current interim executive director Brett Goble. The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools subsequently granted the school a contract to operate and exercises significant oversight over its finances, curriculum, and regulatory compliance, with authority to revoke the operating contract for material violations. The Regional Director concluded, however, that regulatory oversight of that kind does not amount to the state having created the school or controlled its governance.

Under City Center's bylaws, the board of directors appoints its own members. The Charter Board has never appointed or removed a director, and the record contained no evidence that it holds authority to do so. The Charter Board's role is narrower: it can require the employer to submit paperwork confirming that a prospective new director holds valid fingerprint clearance and lacks financial conflicts of interest, but the appointment decision rests with the school's own board throughout. As the Regional Director noted, this distinction between regulatory oversight and actual governance is well-established in NLRB precedent. The Board has consistently held, citing Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School, 364 NLRB 1118 (2016), that heavy state regulation of a privately governed nonprofit does not convert it into a government entity. A state's ability to revoke a charter school's contract does not make the charter school a political subdivision, just as state contracting requirements do not make a private vendor a government agency.

The employer also contended that because its employees are subject to certain state laws applicable only to public schools, including Arizona's open-meeting requirements, eligibility for the public school tax credit program, and participation in the state retirement system, the board of directors should be considered accountable to public officials. The Regional Director rejected that argument as well, finding no legal authority linking regulatory compliance obligations to governance accountability under the Hawkins County test.

The Dean of Students Question

A secondary dispute concerned whether Dean of Students Jessica Janecek should be included in the bargaining unit or excluded as a statutory supervisor under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act.

The employer argued she met the definition of a supervisor. The union argued she did not. The Regional Director agreed with the employer.

Janecek administers the Advisory Program at City High School, a structured curriculum she designs independently, distributes weekly to the school's approximately 16 teachers, and requires them to implement during four class periods per week. She trains Advisors, monitors whether they complete assigned tasks, and is accountable to the principal if the program falls short. The Regional Director found her role constituted both assignment of work and responsible direction of employees, each carried out with independent judgment rather than pursuant to detailed instructions from above.

The discipline question was more limited. During the regular school year, Janecek has no independent authority to discipline staff; she can document concerns and report them to the principal, who makes final decisions. During the four-week summer school program, however, Janecek serves as the de facto on-site administrator. She can issue documented verbal warnings, send staff home for egregious conduct such as reporting to work under the influence of alcohol, and reassign teachers between classes at her discretion. Because she exercises supervisory authority over unit employees during a period representing roughly 10 percent of her annual work time, and because her supervisory and non-supervisory duties overlap in the same workplace during that period, the Regional Director found that she met the "regular and substantial" threshold that governs part-time supervisors under Board precedent.

Janecek's role in hiring did not rise to the same level. While she participates actively throughout the hiring process alongside the principal and a third staff member, the principal holds final hiring authority and the record did not establish that Janecek's recommendations are acted upon without independent review by others.

As a result, Janecek is excluded from both bargaining units.

Key Points

• The election is set for May 19, 2026, at two Tucson locations, covering roughly 41 employees divided into professional and non-professional voting groups.
• The school's jurisdictional defense, asserting that it is a government entity exempt from federal labor law, was rejected based on its private origins and self-perpetuating board structure.
• The decision follows a line of NLRB and federal court rulings holding that privately governed nonprofit charter schools are generally subject to federal labor law, regardless of the degree of state regulatory oversight.
• If employees vote in favor of representation, City Center would become only the second charter school in Arizona to unionize, following BASIS Tucson North, which ratified its first collective bargaining agreement in August 2025.
• Because the employer's legal theory, if accepted, would have removed NLRB jurisdiction from Arizona charter schools broadly, the ruling carries potential consequences for employees across the sector.
• The employer retains the right to request review of the Regional Director's decision from the full NLRB in Washington before or after the election.

Primary Source Author: Cornele A. Overstreet, Regional Director, NLRB Region 28

Primary Source: Decision and Direction of Election, City Center for Collaborative Learning, Case 28-RC-377822 (May 1, 2026)

Primary Source Link: NLRB Case 28-RC-377822

Supplemental Sources:

• Arizona Luminaria — Charter Schools City High, Paulo Freire say they will unionize (Dec. 2025)
• Arizona Luminaria — Union challenge could affect charter school workers statewide (Jan. 2026)
• Arizona Luminaria — Teachers say union vote stalled by board (Feb. 2026)
• Tucson Sentinel — Teachers at BASIS Tucson North secure union contract (Aug. 2025)
• Arizona Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff, AFT Local 6627
• NLRB Edge — When Is a Charter School Public Enough to Evade NLRB Jurisdiction? (Apr. 2025)
• Norton Rose Fulbright — NLRB Asserts Jurisdiction Over State Charter Schools
• NLRB v. Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County, 402 U.S. 600 (1971)