🗞️ Upstart Union Wins the Right to Challenge Steelworkers at Pennsylvania Water Utility
A newly formed independent union won the right to challenge the United Steelworkers for representation of Pittsburgh-area Pennsylvania American Water employees after an NLRB regional director ruled the upstart group qualifies as a lawful labor organization.
Federal labor regulators have ordered a union election at Pennsylvania American Water Company's Pittsburgh-area operations, setting the stage for a rare three-way contest that pits a fledgling independent union against one of the country's largest labor organizations.
On April 22, 2026, Nancy Wilson, the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board's Region 6 office in Pittsburgh, issued a decision directing a secret ballot election at the company's Pittsburgh District facilities. Roughly 130 production, maintenance, and clerical employees spread across locations in Bethel Park, Greentree, Pittsburgh, Aldrich, and Becks Run-Hays Mine will vote May 13 and 14 on whether to remain with the incumbent United Steelworkers Local 1211, switch to the newly formed Pennsylvania American Water Independent Union, or drop union representation altogether.
The case began not in a union hall but with a phone call. Matthew Bails, a pipeline inspector at the company's Greentree office, said he believed the Steelworkers were not adequately representing employees and reached out to John T. Lee, a retired former assistant president of Utility Workers United Association Local 537, which had previously held bargaining rights at the same facility. Lee, in turn, enlisted attorney and treasurer Samuel Pasquarelli to draft a constitution and bylaws for what would become the Pennsylvania American Water Independent Union, organized in late 2025. At the time the NLRB held its hearings in March, the organization had collected no dues, enrolled no formal members, and convened no meetings with workers.
That thin record gave the Steelworkers and the employer grounds to challenge whether the group could lawfully petition for an election at all. Both argued that a union whose officers hold no jobs at the company and whose rank and file has not formally enlisted cannot meet the legal definition of a labor organization under the National Labor Relations Act. The employer also questioned whether Pasquarelli had a conflict of interest, given that he simultaneously serves as counsel for employees suing to invalidate the existing contract between the company and the Steelworkers. The employer further argued the new union was an "alter ego" of a prior labor organization that had previously held bargaining rights at the facility.
Wilson dismissed each of those objections in turn. Citing decades of NLRB precedent, she wrote that the statutory definition of a labor organization has long been interpreted broadly, and that courts and the board have consistently held that what matters is not a union's current activity but its stated intent. The independent union's governing documents declare an explicit purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions for Pennsylvania American Water employees in the Pittsburgh area, which Wilson found sufficient. The identity of the union's attorneys, she wrote, is simply not a factor the board considers when assessing labor organization status.
The decision draws on cases including Coinmach Laundry Corp., 337 NLRB 1286 (2002), and Yale New Haven Hospital, 309 NLRB 363 (1992), which together establish that an organization need not have a constitution, active officers, enrolled members, or a history of negotiating contracts to be treated as a legitimate labor organization. A showing of interest from at least 30 percent of eligible unit employees, which the independent union provided, was enough to clear the threshold.
The upcoming vote is not the first time workers at these facilities have faced a representation choice. In February 2022, the same bargaining unit voted 109 to 1 to certify the Steelworkers over the Utility Workers United Association Local 537, with only three ballots cast for neither union. Whether the independent union can improve substantially on those numbers remains an open question. It has never represented employees anywhere, and its organizing presence on the shop floor, by the record's own account, remains limited. Either party may seek review by the full NLRB board within 10 business days of a final disposition, though any such request will not automatically delay the election.
Key Points
- Approximately 130 employees at Pennsylvania American Water's Pittsburgh District facilities will vote May 13 and 14, 2026 in an NLRB-directed union election
- The ballot will offer three choices: the incumbent United Steelworkers Local 1211, the newly formed Pennsylvania American Water Independent Union, or neither
- The central legal question was whether the independent union, which has no dues revenue, no formal members, and no bargaining history, qualifies as a labor organization under federal law; the NLRB regional director ruled that it does
- Established NLRB precedent holds that a union's stated intent to represent employees is sufficient, even without a membership roll or negotiating track record
- The Steelworkers and the employer argued the new union lacked sufficient employee involvement and that its attorney had a disqualifying conflict of interest; both arguments were rejected
- The same bargaining unit voted 109 to 1 in favor of the Steelworkers in a 2022 election against a rival union
- The independent union's attorney also represents unit employees in ongoing federal litigation seeking to void the current collective bargaining agreement
Primary Source Author: Nancy Wilson, Regional Director, NLRB Region 06
Primary Source: Pennsylvania American Water Company and Pennsylvania American Water Independent Union, Case 06-RC-382228, Decision and Direction of Election (April 22, 2026)
Primary Source Link: NLRB Case 06-RC-382228
