Worker Advocate Issues Statement on Judge’s Ruling Dismissing Union Lawsuit Against Kentucky’s Right to Work Law
Frankfort, KY – Today, at the Franklin County Circuit Court, three Kentucky workers with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys successfully defended the Blue Grass state’s Right to Work law against spurious legal arguments from union officials attempting to retain their forced dues powers.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement in response to today’s ruling:
“We welcome today’s ruling by the Franklin County Circuit Court upholding Kentucky’s Right to Work law, which simply ensures that union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. Right to Work laws have long been upheld by appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, so it comes as no surprise that union bosses’ arguments against Kentucky’s Right to Work law were rejected in this case. Rather than wasting tax dollars and workers’ dues money continuing this frivolous legal attack on Right to Work, Kentucky union bosses ought to be working to ensure that the representation they claim to provide is actually a service Kentucky employees will voluntarily pay for.”
The ruling can be found here.
Dealership employee discovered insurance had been canceled by union after he exercised right to resign his union membership and filed an NLRB charge challenging union practices
Chicago, IL (January 12, 2018) – A Chicago-area auto mechanic has filed an unfair labor practice charge against International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Local 701 with free legal assistance from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The charge, filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), describes how union bosses wrongfully terminated the worker’s health insurance in retaliation for him exercising his right to resign union membership.
Mike Vallaro is employed at Gerald Subaru, Inc. in Naperville, IL. He exercised his right to resign from the union after IAM Local 701 union officials demanded that he and his co-workers abandon their jobs and join a union-initiated strike in August 2016. By resigning prior to the union-ordered work stoppage, Vallaro could continue working and not legally be subjected to IAM internal “union discipline.”
Despite this, union officials sent him a letter threatening a disciplinary trial for working during the strike. They claimed that, if he was found guilty by the union tribunal, Vallaro would be forced to pay a monetary fine. In similar situations around the country, union officials have levied fines in the tens of thousands of dollars against workers who defied strike demands.
Understanding his rights, Vallaro turned to Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for free legal aid and filed the unfair labor practice charge. After National Right to Work Foundation’s involvement, IAM Local 701 notified Vallaro that its trial had been canceled. However, NLRB proceedings in the case continued.
The mechanic thought that was the last of IAM Local 701’s illegal intimidation, until he went into the doctor’s office for a medical procedure, only to find that his medical insurance had been canceled. Under the monopoly bargaining contract between the IAM and his employer, all employees are entitled to health insurance. The union controls and selects the insurance plan that covers the employees irrespective of whether they are a union member or not. Additionally, because Illinois is not a Right to Work state, Vallaro is still forced to pay fees to IAM Local 701 officials each month.
Vallaro never received prior notification that his health insurance had lapsed. After conferring with his co-workers he discovered that he was the only worker in the monopoly bargaining unit to have his insurance canceled, making it clear it was in retaliation for his previous resignation and unfair labor practice charge.
In response Vallaro again turned to Foundation staff attorneys, who assisted him in filing another unfair labor practice charge against IAM officials, this time for illegal retaliation and discrimination by violating their monopoly bargaining contract to cancel Vallaro’s insurance. Both charges are now being investigated by the NLRB Region 13 office in Chicago.
Meanwhile, Vallaro faces mounting medical bills as a result of his insurance being canceled. Fortunately, for now, his employer Gerald Subaru is assisting Vallaro with the bills that would have been covered had IAM union officials not wrongfully canceled the coverage.
“Mr. Vallaro simply wanted to continue working to support himself and his family instead of engaging in a union boss-ordered strike. Now, because he exercised his protected rights under federal law, he is facing a relentless campaign of illegal union intimidation,” said Mark Mix president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Union bosses’ willingness to cancel the health insurance of a worker they still claim to ‘represent’ just when he needs to rely on that insurance, is another ugly example of union officials abusing their monopoly forced dues powers to attack workers who refuse to toe the union line.”
Illinois Homecare Assistants Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case Seeking Ruling That First Amendment Is Violated When Union Dues Are Seized Without an Individual’s Consent
Providers denied refunds of $32 million in union fees which the High Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn were seized in an unconstitutional scheme
Washington, DC (January 9, 2018) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to hear a case that could determine whether individuals’ First Amendment rights can be limited by union opt-out procedures. In the case, thousands of homecare providers are being denied refunds of over $30 million seized by union officials without their consent.
The case stems from an executive order issued by former Governor Rod Blagojevich that classified more than 80,000 individuals who receive state subsidies to provide in-home care to disabled persons as “public employees” solely for the purpose of the providers being unionized and required to pay union fees. As a result, these in-home care givers, many of them parents caring for their own children, were unionized through an SEIU “card-check” union organizing drive.
Staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Foundation assisted eight of these providers in filing a federal class-action lawsuit challenging the forced dues seizures. The High Court took the case and, on June 30, 2014, it ruled that SEIU’s forced dues scheme imposed by Governor Blagojevich is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of the in-home care providers.
After the Supreme Court’s June 2014 ruling in Harris v. Quinn – now designated Riffey v. Rauner – the case was remanded to the District Court to settle the remaining issues, including whether SEIU would be required to return more than $32 million in dues confiscated from nonmembers through its unconstitutional scheme.
In June 2016, the District Court ruled that, despite the Supreme Court ruling in Harris, the SEIU did not have to repay these funds on a class-wide basis. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where Foundation staff attorneys argued the case in May 2017. The Appeals Court ruled that even though these workers never consented to their money being taken for forced dues, their First Amendment Rights were not violated. Foundation staff attorneys now ask the Court to determine whether the “government inflicts a First Amendment injury when it compels individuals to subsidize speech without their prior consent.”
The petition can be found here.
“The Supreme Court’s Harris decision ruled that forcing homecare providers to subsidize union speech violates their First Amendment rights,” stated NRTW President Mark Mix. “This petition asks the High Court to further clarify its Harris ruling, by making it clear that individuals who have never joined a union cannot be required to take affirmative steps just to protect those Constitutional rights.”
“An individual’s First Amendment rights should never be limited by bureaucratic opt-out procedures,” continued Mix. “With the Supreme Court considering the Constitutionality of mandatory union fees for all public employees next month in the Foundation’s Janus case, this issue could be critical in protecting the freedom of speech of millions of Americans.”
Springfield, VA – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has issued a Special Legal Notice for all temporary workers during the Holiday Season who may be unaware of the rules and laws surrounding forced unionism and forced union dues.
Often times, union officials mislead individuals about their legal rights to refrain from union membership and payment of union dues or fees. This is especially true when it comes to temporary or seasonal employees. Under federal law, workers cannot be forced to pay any money to a union during their first 30 days of employment.
When employees are misinformed about their rights, they can end up paying their entire paycheck to union officials as one National Right to Work Foundation-aided worker found.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement regarding this legal notice:
“Each year during the Holiday Season, union bosses play the role of Grinches by seizing the paychecks of temporary workers trying to earn some extra money for themselves and their families around the holidays. ”
“Temporary workers should be wary of deceitful tactics used by union officials, and even some employers, designed to fill union coffers with dues money that workers cannot be required to pay. All temporary workers should read the Foundation’s legal notice to ensure their legal rights are not being violated and contact our Foundation attorneys for free legal aid if they suspect their rights have been infringed upon.”
Please read the Foundation’s Special Legal Notice for temporary workers here.
Worker Files Opening Brief in Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court Case Seeking to Strike Down Forced Union Fees
Worker Advocate: It is time for the Court to recognize that the First Amendment protects public employees from being forced to subsidize union speech
Washington, DC (November 29, 2017) – Today, attorneys for Illinois public servant Mark Janus filed the first merits brief in the Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME. The brief asks the High Court to recognize that the First Amendment protects public workers from being required to make payments to union officials as a condition of working for their own government.
Plaintiff Mark Janus is an Illinois child support specialist who filed the challenge with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center. Janus is currently required to pay union fees to AFSCME union officials even though he opposes many of the positions union officials advocate using his money and feels he would be better off without the union’s so-called representation.
In the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education case, a divided High Court ruled that public employees could not be required to subsidize many political and ideological union activities; however the court left in place forced fees used to subsidize union monopoly bargaining with the government. In a series of cases in the last five years the Supreme Court has begun to question the theory underpinning Abood.
In the National Right to Work Foundation-won Knox v. SEIU (2012) and Harris v. Quinn (2014) cases, the Supreme Court made clear that mandatory union payments invoke the highest level of First Amendment protection. In Janus, Mark Janus asks the Supreme Court to apply this heightened scrutiny to all mandatory union payments required of government employees.
If the High Court rules in Janus’ favor, over 5 million public school teachers, firefighters, police officers and other government employees who currently are forced to pay money to union officials just to keep their jobs would be free to decide individually whether or not to make voluntary union payments. Oral arguments in the case are now expected to occur in late February.
“Forced union fees remain the largest regime of compelled speech in the nation,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Forty years ago in Abood, the Supreme Court erroneously left forced fees in place citing the artificial distinction between union officials’ ideological activities and union bargaining with the government that inherently seeks to alter public policy.”
“Now that the Janus case is being briefed for argument at the High Court, we are hopeful that in the coming months the Supreme Court will correct this anomaly in First Amendment jurisprudence by striking down all mandatory union payments for public workers,” continued Mix. “Americans shouldn’t forfeit their First Amendment protections just to work for their own government.”
“Government workers like Mark Janus shouldn’t have to pay for union politics just to keep their jobs,” said Jacob Huebert, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center. “The First Amendment gives everyone the right to choose which political groups they will and won’t support with their money.”
Public-Sector Worker Files Lawsuit Challenging Forced Union Dues Payments as Violation of First Amendment Rights in Puerto Rico
P.R. Aqueduct and Sewer Authority employee’s lawsuit against union officials and Governor’s office for illegal forced dues seizures
San Juan, PR (November 28, 2017) – Utilizing free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) employee in San Juan, PR has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of public sector union officials’ forced dues powers.
The case argues that Puerto Rico’s labor law requiring the plaintiff employee to join the union and pay union dues as a condition of government employment violates his First Amendment rights. Reynaldo Cruz is a PRASA plant operator who has been forced to pay union dues despite attempting to exercise his right to resign from Unión Independiente Auténtica De Los Empleados De La Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados union (UIA) last year.
Late last year, Cruz sent letters to UIA and PRASA resigning his union membership and objecting to the payment of the portion of forced dues that are used for UIA’s political and ideological activities. Cruz cited his First Amendment rights under the National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court case Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, including the right to pay reduced dues.
UIA officials responded rejecting his request, informing Cruz that if he wished to cease his union membership and stop paying dues, then he must end his employment with PRASA or seek a position outside their monopoly bargaining unit. Union officials and PRASA bosses continued deducting money from Cruz’s paycheck for full forced union dues as a condition of employment.
On April 4 of this year, Cruz’s Foundation-provided staff attorney sent union and PRASA officials a notice requesting back pay for dues illegally taken as well immediate cessation of all dues deductions from Cruz’s paycheck. UIA officials and PRASA administrators denied Cruz’s requests, citing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s statutes authorizing “all-union agreements” and “maintenance of membership agreements.”
In response, Cruz is suing UIA officials and PRASA administrators for infringing upon his rights recognized by the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent. Because Cruz is challenging the constitutionality of PR statutes, he has also named the Governor of Puerto Rico in his suit.
In addition to asking the union to respect his rights under the Hudson precedent, Cruz is also asking the court to rule that forced payment of any union dues or fees violates his First Amendment rights. That issue is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-backed Janus v. AFSCME case. Janus was filed for an Illinois government employee, Mark Janus, who is forced to pay dues to AFSCME union officials.
Janus is expected to be argued in January, with a decision likely by the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June. Cruz’s case joins six other ongoing Foundation-backed cases challenging mandatory union payments for government employees as a violation of the First Amendment.
“This case shows the lengths to which union officials will go to extort every last cent from workers they claim to ‘represent’, even in clear violation of long-standing Supreme Court precedent,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Every American worker, whether in the 50 states or in Puerto Rico, should have Right to Work protections that ensure that union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary.”