21 Mar 2017

National Right to Work Foundation Files Brief in Defense of Pennsylvania Homecare Providers

Posted by in Blog

Yesterday the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in the case David Smith & Donald Lambrecht v. Wolf currently before the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. The brief is filed in support of homecare providers challenging an executive order signed by Gov. Wolf forcing providers across the state into union monopoly bargaining ranks.

The brief argues that Gov. Wolf exceeded his executive powers by creating, by fiat, a new forced unionism mandatory bargaining system for homecare providers in Pennsylvania. The brief explains that Gov. Wolf’s executive order is illegal and beyond the Governor’s authority because, among other reasons, the Pennsylvania Public Employee Relations Act (PERA) establishes the parameters of permissible bargaining with regards to the Commonwealth.

The executive order in question, 2015-05, is nearly identical to a 2010 executive order by former Gov. Rendell that was rescinded after a court challenge. Both executive orders sought unilaterally to force an entire class of private employee which is paid in part through Medicaid type programs into a forced unionism situation by mandating a monopoly bargaining “representative.”

To view a copy of the brief please click here.

21 Mar 2017

Worker Advocate Files Brief with Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Defense of Wisconsin Right to Work Law

Posted by in News Releases

National Right to Work Foundation brief responds to Big Labor attempt to overturn longstanding Right to Work protections against forced union fees

Chicago, IL (March 21, 2017) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a legal brief for six Wisconsin workers with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of Wisconsin’s Right to Work law. The brief was filed after union lawyers appealed a district court judge’s decision to dismiss a challenge by union officials to Wisconsin’s Right to Work law.

Union officials have asked that the lawsuit be heard before an en banc panel of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judges because a three judge panel on the same appeals court previously upheld Right to Work laws as constitutional in 2015 in a similar union boss challenge to Indiana’s Right to Work law. The attempt to have this en banc hearing is part of a nation-wide strategy by union officials to have Right to Work protections for workers struck down.

Union lawyers are claiming that Right to Work laws, which simply allow an individual to work without being forced to pay dues or fees to a union boss, should be overturned. First, union lawyers claim that they are constitutionally entitled to a portion of each worker’s paycheck. Second, union lawyers argue that despite decades of precedents to the contrary, section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which gives individual states the ability to pass Right to Work laws, was never intended to allow workers to stop paying union fees and should be completely reinterpreted.

Foundation staff attorneys argue in the workers’ brief that union bosses do not have a ‘constitutional right’ to a worker’s paycheck and that Section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act has been correctly interpreted for the past 70 years to allow states to pass Right to Work laws that prohibit any requirement that workers pay union fees as a condition of their employment. The brief further argues, to the extent that U.S. labor laws create a “taking” it is union bosses using the forced unionism provisions in federal law to seize mandatory union fees from workers without Right to Work protections.

Additionally, Foundation staff attorneys point out that the National Labor Relations Act compensates unions by granting them immense workplace power to impose one-size-fits-all union contracts on all employees – union and nonunion alike – in union-controlled bargaining units.

Right to Work laws have withstood intense legal scrutiny for over 60 years, having never been struck down by a federal court or state appellate court. Foundation staff attorneys have also defended newly-enacted Right to Work laws in Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and West Virginia from various union legal challenges.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented, “It is outrageous that union officials are once again advancing this dubious legal theory that Right to Work protections that give workers choice over handing over a portion of their paycheck to a union somehow constitute an ‘illegal taking’ of union resources. Workers in non-Right to Work states are the ones having something taken from them. The Seventh Circuit should uphold Right to Work as constitutional as it did in 2015 and toss out this legal challenge.”

17 Mar 2017

In the News: Foundation Defends Uber & Lyft Drivers Against Seattle Forced Unionism Scheme

Posted by in Blog

On March 10th, a group of independent drivers gathered national media attention when they filed a lawsuit against the City of Seattle, seeking to block the City Council bill instituting forced unionism on independent driver contractors. The drivers’ lawsuit argues that the Council bill is an infringement on their First Amendment rights as well as being preempted by the federal National Labor Relations Act.

These drivers are being represented by staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Freedom Foundation. Below is a selection of media coverage about the Foundation’s efforts to protect the individual liberty of all the ride-sharing workers. To read the full article please click on the hyperlinked title of each publication. To read the Foundation’s press release about the lawsuit please click here.

Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal

Law 360 – Eleven independent drivers sued the city of Seattle in federal court Friday claiming its new ordinance allowing for-hire drivers for Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing apps to unionize is unconstitutional and unfairly forces all drivers to comply with terms set by designated unions just to use the app.

Seattle Times – In a federal lawsuit, the drivers are seeking a temporary restraining order barring the city from enforcing the law — the first of its kind in the country — saying it goes against federal labor and privacy laws, as well as violates their rights to free speech and association.

Wall Street Journal –Seattle also is a crucial test case for millions of so-called gig economy workers who make deliveries, run errands and perform other freelance tasks as contractors. Uber and startups like delivery company Postmates Inc. and errands service TaskRabbit Inc. have withstood pressure to treat their contract workers as employees, thereby avoiding payment of full benefits or compensation for expenses like gasoline.

Reuters – The 11 drivers, represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Seattle on Friday that the city’s law violates their rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by forcing them to join a union in order to work, and is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.

KIRO TV – “It’s freedom, it’s the way of life these days if you want to be entrepreneur and own your own business. Be your own boss, manage your own life,” said driver Tianna Williamson.

Forbes – The Seattle ordinance also raises fundamental questions about the nature of work and employment, and the fairness of labor laws forged in the industrial era when they are applied to gig-economy workers.

17 Mar 2017

Indiana Worker Hits Union Bosses with Federal Unfair Labor Practice Charges for Refusing to Follow the Law

Posted by in News Releases

Union Officials Seize Union Dues Despite Worker’s Resignation

Indianapolis, IN (March 17, 2017) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, an Indiana worker has filed federal unfair labor practice (ULP) charges against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union Local 135 for continuing to deduct dues from his paycheck despite his resignation from formal union membership and revocation of his dues check-off authorization.

The worker, Allen Sizemore, works at Builders First Source in the lumberyard. In December 2016, Sizemore resigned his formal union membership and revoked his dues check-off authorization within the “window period” permitted by the union. In spite of this, Teamsters union bosses continue to accept dues deducted from Sizemore’s paycheck in clear violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Recently, the same union, IBT Local 135, was hit with federal charges for a similar action against another worker, Daryl Mitchell, also at Builders First Source. Indiana’s Right to Work law clearly provides that a worker has the right to resign and stop paying forced dues to a labor union, as does the NLRA in Right to Work states.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented, “It is maddening that Indiana union officials continue to illegally seize forced dues from a hard-working Hoosier they claim to ‘represent.’ No worker should be forced to jump through all these hoops just to exercise their rights under the law.”

Indiana became the 23rd Right to Work state to end union officials’ power to have a worker fired solely for refusing to pay union dues or fees in early 2012. Since then Michigan (2012), Wisconsin (2015), West Virginia (2016), Kentucky (2017) and Missouri (2017) have joined the ranks of states with Right to Work protections.

13 Mar 2017

Foundation-Backed Worker Joins Battle to Defend West Virginia Right to Work Law

Posted by in Newsletter Articles

Check out this article from the January/February 2017 newsletter. To read the full newsletter and to sign up for your free copy, please click here.

Greenbrier employee files Motion to Intervene to oppose forced unionism

Since its establishment in 1968, one of the most critical missions of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has been defending state Right to Work laws from the never ending Big Labor legal attacks. Inevitably, soon after a new Right to Work law is passed union officials sue with the intent of overturning, or at least delaying the worker freedom protections offered by Right to Work.

West Virginia, which passed the nation’s 26th Right to Work law in early 2016, is no exception. Even before the law took full effect, union lawyers for the AFL-CIO and a coalition of other unions initiated a challenge to the law in state court.

In early December, Foundation staff attorneys moved to intervene in the case on behalf of Reginald Gibbs, asking the circuit court that Gibbs be made a party to the case so he can defend his rights under the Right to Work law. In his motion, Gibbs adopts the arguments made in two amicus briefs filed by the National Right to Work Foundation, arguing why the court should reject Big Labor’s attempt to overturn or delay the law.

Reginald Gibbs is a slot machine technician at the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. As an employee of the Greenbrier, Gibbs is currently under a monopoly bargaining contract with a union forced dues clause, requiring him to pay dues or fees to the union or be fired.

The motion to intervene argues that if the law is overturned or blocked by a judicial order, Gibbs would continue to be forced to continue to pay dues and fees, despite his objections. Although the State of West Virginia is already defending the law in the case, the motion notes that Gibbs has special interests in defending his Right to Work as an employee affected by the law, which is distinct from the interests of the state whose duty is to defend the constitutionality of the law.

“Like clockwork, instead of accepting the decades of precedent upholding Right to Work protections, union officials are once again spending forced dues to attack worker freedom of choice in court,” said Ray LaJeunesse, Vice President and Legal Director for the Foundation. “We’re proud to offer assistance to Mr. Gibbs in defending the legal protections he stands to gain from West Virginia’s popular new Right to Work law.”

Gibbs further argues in his motion that as a worker currently employed under a compulsory unionism agreement, he will suffer direct harm if the law is overturned. The court will be considering the motion with the next hearing scheduled for early 2017.

West Virginia is not the only state where Foundation staff attorneys have responded to union boss legal attacks on Right to Work. Foundation staff attorneys have also filed briefs in similar cases in Federal Court in Idaho and Wisconsin, as well as in a Wisconsin State Court.

With the possibility of new Right to Work laws in Kentucky, Missouri and New Hampshire in 2017, the Foundation stands ready in 2017 to defend worker freedom in those states from the inevitable attacks by Big Labor operatives.

10 Mar 2017

Eleven Ridesharing Drivers File Federal Lawsuit to Block Seattle’s Forced Unionism Ordinance Targeting Uber & Lyft

Posted by in News Releases

Lawsuit says scheme to impose Teamsters union on independent contractors violates drivers’ First Amendment rights & federal labor law

Seattle, WA (March 10, 2017) – Today, eleven independent drivers are filing a federal lawsuit to block the Seattle City Council’s controversial ordinance designed to impose forced unionism on independent for-hire and ride-sharing drivers. These drivers use the popular Uber and Lyft apps to pick up customers. Dan Clark, lead plaintiff in the suit, is an independent driver who picks up riders through both Uber and Lyft.

The drivers are filing suit against the City of Seattle in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington with free legal representation by staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Washington state-based Freedom Foundation. The drivers’ federal lawsuit argues that the Seattle ordinance is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and that imposing union representation and forced dues on them violates their First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.

Over 9,000 independent drivers in the Seattle area collect riders through the Uber and Lyft apps, accounting for tens of thousands of rides daily across the Emerald City area. Last week Teamsters union officials, who pushed for passage of the first-in-the-nation Seattle ordinance subjecting ride-sharing drivers to forced unionism, filed papers with the city formally declaring their intent to unionize drivers who work with Uber and Lyft, as well as Eastside Town Car and Limousine, LLC.

“Teamsters union bosses are attempting to impose their 1920s era forced unionism model on a 21st-century workforce,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Polls consistently show Americans overwhelmingly oppose workers being forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of working.”

“Expanding forced unionism to independent drivers is not only wrong, it is a violation of federal law and the First Amendment rights of drivers who never asked for and don’t want union officials’ so-called ‘representation,’” Mix continued. “Big Labor’s one-size-fits-all, top down model is the very antithesis of ride-sharing which attracts drivers by connecting them with consumers and providing them the freedom to decide when to work and through which app to find customers.”

Background: Teamster-Backed Seattle Law Attempts to Expand Forced Unionism to Ride-Sharing Independent Drivers

In 2015, the Seattle City Council passed an ordinance that targeted independent drivers, such as those who contract with Uber and Lyft, for compulsory unionization. The bill authorizes unionization through the coercive and unreliable card-check system as opposed to a secret ballot vote and allows union officials to make payment of union dues or fees mandatory, even for drivers who oppose union representation. Under ‘card check,’ cards solicited and collected from individuals by professional union organizers are counted as ‘votes’ for unionization, despite numerous examples of workers signing the cards as a result of being pressured, misled, threatened or even bribed.

The ordinance further mandates that companies turn over private personal contact information for drivers to union organizers, even for drivers who have shown no interest in unionization or actively oppose the union. In addition, should the Teamsters successfully “organize” drivers through a card check, city administrators are empowered to impose a union contract on the drivers and companies if an agreement isn’t reached within 90 days of the unionization certification.

The ordinance was passed by the Seattle City Council in September 2015 after heavy lobbying by Teamsters union officials who sought to take advantage of independent drivers and force them to pay dues to the union as a condition of picking up riders through the apps. Shortly after the bill was passed, the National Right to Work Foundation issued a special legal notice to Seattle independent driver contractors, notifying them of their rights and offering free legal aid. A number of concerned drivers then reached out to the Foundation for help.

After the bill became law in December 2015, the ordinance was put on hold until January 2017 while the Seattle Department of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS) finalized the unionization process. The final rule defines ‘qualifying drivers’ who are eligible to vote on unionization as drivers who have completed 52 rides beginning or ending in Seattle in the last 90 days, regardless of whether or not a driver wants anything to do with a union.

These so-called “qualifying drivers” will be the only drivers eligible to vote on union representation, despite the fact that all drivers who contract with these companies will be subject to the forced unionism terms. Effectively, Teamster cards collected from a small fraction of all drivers could result in the unionization of more than 9,000 drivers in Seattle, plus any future drivers.

On March 7, 2017, officials from Teamsters Union Local 117 filed a notice of their intent to unionize drivers associated with Uber and Lyft, as well as Eastside Town Car and Limousine, LLC. The three companies now have until April 2 to turn over to the union the personal contact information for the fraction of total drivers who are designated by the City as eligible to vote on unionization. These drivers are filing their lawsuit now because they have a limited window before their personal information will be forcibly delivered to union officials against their wishes.

To view a copy of the filed complaint please click here.

9 Mar 2017

New York City Preschool Teachers and Other Employees Vote to End Unwanted UFT Union ‘Representation’

Posted by in News Releases

Birch Family Services Manhattan Early Childhood Center pre-K providers vote to remove the UFT from their school

New York City, NY (March 9, 2016) – Employees of the Birch Family Services Manhattan Early Childhood Center in Washington Heights, Manhattan have voted overwhelmingly to remove the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) union from their workplace and end the UFT’s designation as their monopoly bargaining representative.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, private-sector employees in unionized workplaces have the right to initiate a decertification election to remove a union. Recently, employees in the Birch Family Services Manhattan Early Childhood Center signed and submitted a decertification election petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The employees who voted to remove the union included teachers, teachers’ aides, teaching assistants, nurses and other employees.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys provided free legal advice to employees seeking to remove the union, including on how to navigate the often-complicated NLRB process for successfully getting a vote to remove the union officials as the school employees’ NLRB-designated monopoly bargaining representative, a process known as decertification.

Relying on that advice from Foundation staff attorneys, the employees collected signatures from their coworkers in support of the decertification vote and submitted the petition to the NLRB, resulting in a decertification vote that was held on February 28, 2017. At the end of the vote, the tally stood 37-15 in favor of decertifying the UFT and removing them from the workplace.

“The Foundation is committed to helping workers like these New York City preschool employees assert their right to remove union officials whom they feel are a detriment to their school and their students,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to continue defend and protect these educators’ choice if there is union boss retaliation.”

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are prepared to defend the workers’ choice should union officials attempt to overturn the results of the vote.

6 Mar 2017

Foundation Expands Outreach to Charter School Teachers

Posted by in Newsletter Articles

Check out this article from the January/February 2017 newsletter. To read the full newsletter and to sign up for your free copy, please click here.

Charter school employees increasingly are targets for forced unionization

Springfield, VA– The National Right to Work Foundation is stepping up its efforts to inform charter school teachers and other employees of the legal rights they have to refrain from compulsory unionism. As part of the effort, Foundation staff attorneys attended charter school conferences in Ohio and Louisiana in December.

Sending Foundation attorneys to these charter school conferences is part of a growing initiative of the Foundation’s legal information program to ensure charter school employees are fully aware of their rights and are able to make an informed decision in regards to unionization. In 2016 Foundation staff attorneys attended half a dozen conferences across the country to promote the Foundation’s legal aid program for charter school employees.

Union bosses have historically been steadfastly opposed to the existence of charter schools because they see them as a threat to their monopoly over students and teachers. However, as charter schools continue to expand across the country and grow in popularity, teacher union organizers have been increasingly targeting charter school employees as new sources of forced dues to fill their depleting coffers.

Foundation Aids Charter Teachers in Removing Unwanted Union

Foundation staff attorneys recently assisted charter school employees in New York State in arranging a decertification election to decertify a union the employees did not want. Even after a majority voted to decertify the union, union bosses appealed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a desperate attempt to keep the employees in their forced dues grasp. Foundation staff attorneys stood by the employees every step of the way and successfully convinced the NLRB to deny the appeal.

“Teachers and students alike are flocking to charter schools in part because they are largely free of the teacher union monopoly that puts union boss power ahead of what is best for teachers, students and their communities,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented. “Sending Foundation staff attorneys to these conferences in addition to assisting individual employees is a crucial part of our charter school initiative to ensure charter school employees are able to make informed decisions about union representation in an atmosphere free from union boss threats, harassment, coercion, or misrepresentation.”

3 Mar 2017

Postal Union Bosses Forced to Return $1.1 Million Stolen from Rank-and-File

Posted by in Newsletter Articles

Check out this article from the January/February 2017 newsletter. To read the full newsletter and to sign up for your free copy, please click here.

Union officials outrageously claimed legal right to take additional $7.5 million

Washington, D.C. – In the culmination of a two year long fight, US Postal Service workers receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation have won their battle with the American Postal Workers Union (APWU), forcing the union officials to disgorge over one million dollars taken by the union from money intended for the workers.

Workers File Federal Charges to Challenge Union Boss Money Grab

In December 2014, over seven thousand USPS workers were awarded a lump payment of back wages as part of an arbitration award. To the workers this was a windfall victory, but to the officials at the APWU, this was an opportunity to pad union coffers. Steven Raymer, an APWU national director involved with the arbitration, colluded with the Postal service to divert over one million dollars from the total award of 8.64 million dollars into the coffers of the APWU.

In April 2016, two postal workers, Louis Mazurek and Scott Fontaine became aware of the award and filed separate NLRB charges against the APWU in NLRB Region 5.

In an affidavit filed with the NLRB during the proceedings, union official Raymer went to some length to attempt to justify his decision to divert that sum from the money intended for the very workers he claimed to “represent.”

Raymer even admitted that he had considered taking more of the funds away from the workers. “I had thought briefly about keeping the entire amount…I think I would have been justified in keeping it all…” His testimony showed that his concern was not for the workers the APWU claimed to represent, and that had he thought he could get away with it, he would have diverted more money away from the workers.

“This battle just emphasizes the disconnect between the workers, and union brass,” said Mark Mix, President of the Foundation. “Sadly, the only reason that these workers saw any money at all was fear of getting caught, not genuine concern and care for the workers.”

As the case proceeded Fontaine and Mazurek approached the Foundation because they were concerned with what would happen to their case in the NLRB. Foundation staff attorneys assisted them in the hearings that were scheduled between the NLRB and union lawyers. A full hearing before an administrative law judge was scheduled for early November.

APWU Officials Forced to Disgorge $1.1 Million in NLRB Settlement

Less than 24 hours before the hearing, the NLRB came to the rescue of the union officials and issued a settlement in the case sparing union officials’ another round of embarrassing testimony about their sellout of the rank-and-file.

Under the terms of the settlement, the APWU must disgorge the full 1.1 million dollars that it stole from the workers. 70% is ordered to be paid out immediately to workers with each of the approximately 7,200 employees eligible to receive a pro rata share of $770,804.58.

The remaining 30% of the stolen money, $330,326.70, will be placed in a separate escrow account under the direct supervision of the NLRB Regional director for the next three years. Any funds remaining at the end of this three year period will be divided evenly among the workers who received payments as part of the settlement.

“This is an unprecedented victory for union employees. Never before has a union been caught so dramatically taking this large a sum, and then being forced to return the money to its rightful owners,” said Mix. “The workers are fortunate that they were able to take advantage of the free legal aid offered by the Foundation, else they might not have seen any of this money ever again.”

1 Mar 2017

Wisconsin Nuclear Plant Worker Hits Union Officials with Federal Charges for Retaliation and Discrimination

Posted by in News Releases

Union officials ordered employee removed and banned from travel assignments for exercising rights under Wisconsin Right to Work law

Green Bay, WI (March 1, 2017) – With free legal representation by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a Wisconsin nuclear plant worker has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against his employer, NextEra Energy, IBEW Locals 204 and 2150, IBEW Local System Council U-4, and the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) Local 555 for illegal discrimination and retaliation in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

Clifford Teeter of Augusta, Wisconsin, is employed by NextEra Energy at its Two Rivers facility as a Lead Auxiliary Operator. Currently, the workers at the Two Rivers facility are under NextEra’s union monopoly bargaining contract with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 2150. NextEra also has an agreement with three other IBEW and UWUA union locals to allow NextEra management to send workers on temporary work assignments at NextEra plants in other states.

In July 2016, NextEra and IBEW Local 2150 sent out an email to Teeter and his co-workers asking for volunteers for a month long travel assignment at NextEra’s facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Teeter volunteered for the assignment and was officially selected by NextEra for the assignment.

On September 12, Teeter notified NextEra and Local 2150 that he had resigned his formal union membership and revoked his dues checkoff authorization. Under federal law an employee can resign his formal union membership at any time, and it is illegal for union officials to retaliate against an employee for choosing to exercise this right. In addition, Right to Work laws in 28 states – including Wisconsin and Iowa – give employees the right to cut off all dues and fees to the union, leaving union membership and dues payment completely voluntary.

Soon after the resignation, Local 2150 officials informed Teeter that they were having NextEra remove him from the travel assignment because he was no longer a member in good standing with the Local. NextEra complied with the request, removing Teeter from the assignment and giving his spot to the next most senior union member.

Teeter was later informed by Local 2150 officials that he would only be eligible for future travel assignments if he rejoined the Local. Faced with this discrimination, Teeter reached out to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for free legal aid, and filed federal unfair labor practice charges against NextEra and the four unions involved in the agreement, with the help of Foundation staff attorneys.

The federal unfair labor practice charges allege that the resource sharing agreement discriminates against workers who choose to exercise their right to disassociate from a union. The discriminatory actions of NextEra and the associated union local officials deprived Teeter of overtime, incentive, and bonus pay, as well as other career opportunities that he would have earned by going on the travel assignment.

“Unfortunately, even in states like Wisconsin that have Right to Work protections, union bosses are willing to use any tactic, legal or illegal, to retaliate against workers who exercise their right to resign their membership and cut off dues payments to a union they do not support,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Wisconsin’s Right to Work law is very clear: no worker can be punished for their choice to abstain from union membership. This case shows that vigilance is necessary to ensure that Right to Work protections for employees are vigorously enforced.”

Mr. Teeter’s case is one of many relating to Wisconsin’s Right to Work law, which was enacted in 2015. Foundation staff attorneys have submitted amicus briefs in federal and state court in response to union boss lawsuits attempting to overturn the Right to Work protections for Wisconsin employees. A federal judge upheld the law and the state lawsuit is pending. In addition, since Wisconsin enacted Right to Work, Foundation attorneys have filed 19 actions defending and enforcing Right to Work protections for workers, with 8 actions currently active.