Michigan Worker Hits UFCW Union Officials with Charges for Illegally Demanding Forced Union Dues
Labor Board charge: Despite Right to Work law, UFCW is illegally attempting to force Rite Aid employee to pay union dues
Grand Rapids, Michigan (October 1, 2018) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys a Michigan pharmacy worker has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 951 union for illegally forcing her to pay union dues.
Worker Kolby Klopfenstein-Snyder exercised her right to resign her membership from Local 951. However, as her charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) states, UFCW union officials have rebuffed her attempts to stop payments of union dues. The same charge was filed with the NLRB against Rite Aid, for continuing to collect union dues at the behest of UFCW officials.
Michigan’s Right to Work law makes it illegal to require union membership or payment of any union dues or fees as a condition for employment, thus permitting employees to choose for themselves whether to join or financially support a labor union. Despite the law, UFCW union bosses continue to insist that Klopfenstein-Snyder pay dues even after she resigned her membership.
The union dues deduction card UFCW officials are attempting to enforce only obligates a worker to pay as a result of union forced dues clause in a union monopoly bargaining contract or as a result of the UFCW’s internal union constitution. This means that even if the card’s language was legal, it doesn’t obligate nonmembers like Klopfenstein-Snyder to pay any dues, because Michigan’s Right to Work law bars contracts that include mandatory payments, and nonmembers are not subject to the terms of a union constitution.
This NLRB charge is not the first time that Local 951 officials have run afoul of protections for workers who choose not to join or support the union. Foundation staff attorneys assisted Rite Aid pharmacy technician Laura Fries with filing NLRB charges against UFCW Local 951 in November 2015.
According to her charge, which NLRB investigators found meritorious, Local 951 union officials threatened to have Fries fired unless she joined Local 951 and paid back union dues. Only after the NLRB issued a formal complaint against the union did UFCW officials quickly settle the case in April 2016 to avoid federal prosecution.
“Once again, rather than work to secure the voluntary support of the workers they claim to represent, UFCW union bosses have resorted to coercive tactics to attempt to stuff their pockets with forced union dues,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “As the dozens of cases Foundation staff attorneys have filed for Michigan workers demonstrate, Michigan union bosses continue to attempt to systematically undermine workers’ protections under Michigan’s popular Right to Work laws.”
“Fortunately for Michigan employees, the National Right to Work Foundation will continue defending their rights as long as union bosses continue attempting to illegally force them to pay union dues,” added Mix.
Since Michigan’s Right to Work protections were passed in late 2012, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have filed more than 100 cases for hundreds of Michigan workers to enforce their legal rights.
Three Michigan Workers Win Settlements from Union Officials in Cases to Enforce Michigan Right to Work Protections
MEA officials forced to relinquish claims for back dues after resignations, Teamsters forced to refund dues seized in violation of state law
Michigan (September 19, 2018) – In three separate legal victories, Michigan workers succeeded in defending their rights under Michigan’s Right to Work laws. All three workers resigned their union membership and sought to end any union dues payments, only to have union officials continue seizing dues.
Two of the cases involved the Michigan Education Association (MEA). After Michigan’s Right to Work law covering government employees went into effect, school district employees Ryan Woodward and Susan Junak each submitted union membership resignations and dues authorization revocations to the MEA union, only to have their revocations blocked and MEA officials threaten to collect the dues with lawsuits.
Mr. Woodward informed union officials of his resignation both verbally and twice via e-mail. Despite his repeated notifications, the MEA filed a collection lawsuit against him in Michigan state District Court in an attempt to collect more than $800 in dues for the period after his resignation. In a similar situation, Ms. Junak resigned her MEA membership by way of certified mail, but MEA officials disregarded the notice and sent her a collection notice for over $600 in dues. In both instances, MEA officials alleged that the back dues were a debt owed to the union, which could then be used to damage the workers’ credit ratings.
Both settlements required the MEA to officially recognize the resignations and end attempts to collect the dues from the period following the resignations. Additionally, the settlement requires the MEA to take proactive steps to bear the costs of restoring the credit of both school employees, because the unauthorized dues collection attempts may have improperly damaged both of their credit scores.
The third case concerns a similar situation between Gordon Alger and Teamsters Local 214. Alger, a building maintenance worker, filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) when the Teamsters union continued to deduct dues from his paycheck after he revoked his deduction authorization. The settlement requires the Teamsters officials to refund $300.
Michigan is a Right to Work state, which protects workers’ freedom to join a union and outlaws forced dues and fees as a condition of employment. All three settlements were made possible by the state’s Right to Work protections.
“These three cases show the importance of Right to Work protections in ensuring that worker rights are not abused by union officials,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Clearly, Big Labor bosses will reject or deliberately ignore resignations of their members just to keep extracting every penny of dues from workers. Thanks to Michigan’s Right to Work law, these workers are able to stand up to greedy union bosses and enforce their legal rights.”
Original Janus Plaintiff Moves to Intervene in IL Union Lawsuit Seeking More Power to Discriminate Against Nonmembers
Worker’s motion: Illinois AG Madigan fails to present adequate legal arguments against union lawsuit challenging state bargaining law
Chicago, IL (September 14, 2018) – An Illinois state employee has filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit brought by an International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) local that seeks to expand union officials’ ability to use their government-granted monopoly bargaining powers to discriminate against workers who exercise their constitutional right to refrain from union membership and not pay union dues. Accompanying the motion to intervene is a motion asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the IUOE lawsuit.
Brian Trygg, an engineer with the Illinois Department of Transportation and one of the original plaintiffs in Janus v. AFSCME, filed the motion to intervene in the lawsuit with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. Trygg was a plaintiff with Mark Janus in the Janus case, until being removed from the lawsuit on a technicality because he had previously sought relief from union fees on different grounds.
n a memorandum accompanying Trygg’s motions, his Foundation staff attorneys argue that IUOE officials “seek to ‘have their cake and eat it, too’” by taking advantage of their choice to represent all employees, even union nonmembers, in their bargaining unit while claiming they should also be free of longstanding legal doctrine prohibiting them from using their monopoly representation to discriminate against nonmembers.
IUOE officials filed the lawsuit in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Janus case, which was briefed and argued by Foundation staff attorneys and ended in a ruling that compulsory union dues and fees for government employees violate the First Amendment. Trygg seeks to intervene to dismiss the IUOE case, or alternatively, to file an amicus curiae brief to support the state defendants’ motion to dismiss.
His filings cite Trygg’s compelling interest in the case that, if IUOE’s suit is successful, he would be unable to negotiate with his employer by virtue of the union’s monopoly bargaining status while the union would have the power to discriminate against him and ignore the legal doctrine known as the “duty of fair representation.” That duty was created by the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent overt discrimination by union officials against nonmembers and others.
Trygg’s briefs also note that Defendant Attorney General Lisa Madigan has failed to protect his interests, as her legal representation in the case “is inadequate and bordering on malpractice” with incomplete responses to IUOE’s claims and failure to cite binding authority. Trygg argues that Madigan has conflicts of interests through her opposition to and strong criticism of the Janus ruling and her actions to limit its application to Illinois public employees.
The filings also highlight that the union appears to be calling for the overturning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Steele v. Louisville and Nashville Railway Co. precedent, a 1944 case which challenged union officials’ attempt to use their monopoly bargaining privileges to discriminate against black workers. That decision observed that monopoly bargaining would be unconstitutional absent a legal limitation on union officials using their monopoly bargaining power to discriminate.
Trygg’s filings also argue that the union lawsuit is fundamentally flawed because, even if union claims were valid, the solution would be eliminating union monopoly bargaining powers over nonmembers, not giving union officials wider berth to discriminate against those who exercise their First Amendment rights protected by the Janus decision.
“The root of Big Labor’s coercion has always been its government-granted power to impose its so-called ‘representation’ on workers who don’t want it and never asked for it,’” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This lawsuit demonstrates that, despite Big Labor’s claims, union officials’ ultimate desire is to keep their extraordinary monopoly powers over workers and then to wield them to discriminate against any worker who refuses to toe the union line.”
“Ultimately, if union bosses find their obligation not to discriminate against nonmembers under their ‘representation’ so burdensome, they can simply relinquish their government-granted monopoly bargaining powers over nonmembers like Brian Trygg,” added Mix.
National Right to Work in the News: “It’s Labor Day, Not Union Day” Edition
On and around Labor Day, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix was featured in news outlets nationwide, discussing worker freedom, the Janus case, and the Foundation’s work to defend employees’ legal rights and end the continuing injustice of compulsory unionism. Here is a selection of his op-eds which were published in dozens of news outlets coast-to-coast.
“On Labor Day, celebrate workers’ First Amendment rights under Janus” was published in the Washington Examiner:
This Labor Day, at least five million public sector workers across the country can celebrate having the freedom to choose whether or not a part of their paycheck goes toward supporting a labor union as a condition of their employment.
In the Janus v. AFSCME decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to force government employees to pay union dues or fees to get or keep a job. Agreeing with the National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney who argued on behalf of Illinois state employee Mark Janus, the high court finally recognized that forcing workers to subsidize any union speech directed at the government violates the First Amendment.
Every public school teacher, police officer, firefighter, and civil servant in the nation now has the freedom to decide as an individual whether or not union officials deserve their financial support. This means government employees can withhold financial support from union officials that are corrupt or hold institutional interests that conflict with the individual’s personal views.
“It’s Labor Day, not Union Day,” which appeared in The Daily Caller and nearly 20 other outlets, reminded readers that Labor Day should not be hijacked by union officials seeking to expand their coercive power over workers:
This Labor Day, when most Americans pause to celebrate workers and their contributions to our nation, union bosses will again attempt to hijack the holiday to promote their agenda of coercive power over America’s workers.
Despite the union boss talking points, there is still much to celebrate this Labor Day. Workers coast to coast have made substantial gains for workplace freedom in recent months.
If union membership, representation, and dues payment were strictly voluntary, union officials would have to earn workers’ support, and officials would need to be accountable and responsive to the rank-and-file or else face a loss of revenue. Instead, workers pay billions each year to union bosses simply because they would lose their jobs if they did not.
Perhaps this Labor Day, union officials should take a step back and reexamine how reliant they are on government-granted compulsory powers…and how this causes millions of American workers to view them as out of touch with those they seek to “represent.”
Meanwhile a commentary in The Hill makes the point that voluntary, not coercive, unionism respects American values:
Americans regularly join and form clubs, civic associations, church groups, and countless other organizations that rely on little more than the enthusiasm and support of their members.
But one type of private organization doesn’t play by the same rules. Union officials can force private sector employees across the country to pay union dues and accept union officials’ monopoly bargaining privileges over wages and working conditions. This coercive power over employees, many of whom want nothing to do with a union, flies in the face of America’s traditions of voluntarism and free association.
Right to Work protections bring the spirit of voluntarism back to the American workplace. In Right to Work states, employees are still free to form, join, and pay dues to a union. However, no worker can be forced to join or pay dues against his or her will. Right to Work simply requires that unions start playing by the same rules as every other private organization.
“On Labor Day, consider injustice of forced union dues” was published by the Duluth News Tribune and by other outlets in states without Right to Work protections for workers:
As you shop for back-to-school supplies or food for a Labor Day cookout, consider this: The clerks, shelf stockers, truck drivers, and factory workers who make that possible all can be legally forced to pay money to a union or be fired.
Why? Because Minnesota is one of 23 forced-unionism states in America. In Minnesota, a union official can legally have a worker fired for not paying union dues or fees.
It is no surprise that a growing number of states are eager to cast off Big Labor’s chokehold, free their workforces, and realize the economic opportunity of right-to-work legislation. In recent years, five states, including Michigan and Wisconsin, joined the right-to-work ranks.
As you celebrate Labor Day, consider the benefits of right-to-work. Consider your neighbor that might land a newly created job. Consider the new manufacturing plant that might open its doors. Consider what you might do with an extra $2,200 of spending power in your pocket.
Newsmax published “Despite Janus Ruling, Public Sector Bargaining Still Erodes Democracy,” on another harmful facet of forced unionism– union monopoly bargaining powers that violate workers freedom of association:
In June, the National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision ended the racket of public employees being forced to pay money to a union as a condition of working for their own government. Finally, every government worker will have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to financially support a union with a part of their paycheck.
Despite the end of mandatory union payments, public sector union officials continue to wield special government-granted monopoly bargaining powers that subvert representative government. Under laws enacted by the federal government and most states, union officials are given a special seat to determine policy despite being totally unaccountable to the citizenry.
Ending monopoly-bargaining powers for government workers protects the freedom of association of independent-minded public employees and ends the anti-democratic process whereby the voters’ elected representatives are required to cede power to special interest groups over the very issues we elect legislative bodies to decide.
Finally, outlets in Right to Work states, including the Detroit News, published a piece examining the benefits of Right to Work, which should be celebrated each Labor Day:
If you are reading this, chances are you are one of the millions of Americans living in one of 27 Right to Work states. You might not know it from Right to Work opponents’ rhetorical posturing, but Right to Work laws are simple and straightforward, not to mention popular.
A Right to Work law ensures that no employee can be forced to join or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment. This leaves the decision of union membership and financial support where it belongs: with each individual worker.
The connection between Right to Work laws and better economic performance is not a surprise. Business experts consistently rank the presence of Right to Work laws as one of the most important factors companies consider when deciding where to expand or relocate their facilities, where they will create new jobs.
If you are still unsure where you stand on the Right to Work issue, ask yourself a simple question: Why should union officials not play by the same rules as every other private organization? A labor union that genuinely enjoys employee endorsement will continue to thrive with members’ voluntary support. A union that has alienated the rank-and-file or outlived its usefulness will need to adapt in order to survive.
Workplace choice, employee freedom, and better economic performance are part and parcel of the Right to Work package. What is not to like? This Labor Day, citizens of Right to Work states have much more to celebrate than a three-day weekend.
California Court Worker Sues State of California and AFSCME Union for Blocking Him from Exercising Janus Rights
Court employee resigned and attempted to end all union payments, only to have union officials reject his union resignation and court officials continue seizing dues
San Francisco, CA (September 11, 2018) – With free legal assistance by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Mark Smith, an employee of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County in California, has filed a lawsuit against his employer and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 2700 after his requests to resign from the union and stop paying dues were repeatedly rebuffed.
In Janus v. AFSCME, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2018 that mandatory union payments violate public sector workers’ First Amendment rights. Days after that, Mr. Smith moved to exercise his Janus rights. Smith submitted a resignation of his union membership, and told union and court officials they did not have his authorization for deducting union dues from his paycheck. Nonetheless, the court and AFSCME continued to siphon Smith’s hard-earned money without his consent.
When Smith sent his resignation via certified mail, the AFSCME Local 2700 officials left the delivery “unclaimed” according to postal service records. After the union officials’ repeatedly refused to honor Mr. Smith’s resignation requests, Smith filed a federal lawsuit against both his government employer and AFSCME at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for violating his First Amendment rights under the Supreme Court’s Janus precedent.
The lawsuit also will challenge a California law which requires public employers to deduct dues from workers at the union’s request, even if the worker, as Smith did, revokes any authorization for dues. That law was enacted just hours after the Supreme Court ruled in Janus and also blocks public employers from informing employees of their rights under Janus.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME protects public sector workers’ First Amendment right to refrain from being required to subsidize a labor union as a condition of employment. In the landmark case, the Supreme Court agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, who briefed and argued the case for Illinois state worker Mark Janus. In addition to striking down forced union fees, the Justices ruled that any union dues or fees taken without a public employees’ affirmative consent violates a worker’s Constitutional rights.
“As we’re seeing in Mark Smith’s case and others across the country, in their greed for more forced union dues, union bosses are apparently willing to ignore even a landmark Supreme Court ruling like Janus v. AFSCME,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Rather than respecting the rights of the workers they claim to represent, it will inevitably take litigation coast to coast to enforce public employees’ rights under Janus.”
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has established a special website, MyJanusRights.org, for public sector employees who have questions about or are looking to exercise their Janus rights.
National Right to Work President on Labor Day: 2018 is ‘A Landmark Year for Workers’ Rights’
Worker freedom from forced unionism is advancing, but there is still much work to be done
Springfield, VA (August 31, 2018) – Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2018.
This Labor Day, National Right to Work is celebrating a landmark year for workers’ rights across the country. As we celebrate this Labor Day, we should remember that there is still work to be done to protect all employees from compulsory unionism’s abuses.
In June, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation won a historic victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME when the High Court declared it unconstitutional to force public sector employees to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment. Because of the ruling, every government employee across the nation can now exercise their First Amendment right to choose whether or not to financially support a union.
The Janus decision has opened doors for independent-minded workers to rise up and challenge union officials’ abuses of their rights. Foundation staff attorneys are helping thousands of government employees in several class action lawsuits reclaim the potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in forced union dues that were seized in violation of their First Amendment rights.
In the private sector, employees in the 23 states that lack Right to Work protections are still forced to hand over a portion of their paycheck to union officials. Millions of workers pay that tribute not because they freely choose to associate with a union, but because government has granted union officials the power to order a worker fired solely for refusing to pay fees. Until every worker in America is freed from forced unionism, our important work must continue.
With the election season swinging into high gear, the fight for freedom in the workplace faces new challenges. Even though polls show union members, like all Americans, strongly support the Right to Work principle that union membership and dues payment should be strictly voluntary, Big Labor is spending millions of dollars collected from rank-and-file employees on campaign contributions, lobbying, and other political activities to undermine Right to Work.
The National Right to Work Foundation remains committed to enforcing worker protections while establishing new precedents. After the Janus decision, the Foundation launched a Janus Task Force designed to connect public sector workers with information about the new precedent and access to free legal aid. Union officials must be held accountable when they abuse employees’ constitutional rights, and Foundation staff attorneys remain vigilant to ensure the Janus precedent is enforced. Meanwhile, the National Right to Work Committee is advocating for legislation to repeal union bosses forced dues powers.
This Labor Day, as we celebrate hard-working Americans from all walks of life, the National Right to Work community is proud to be working towards the goal of ending forced unionism in America once and for all.
A video version of this statement is available here.
Seattle Housekeeper Asks NLRB to End Obama-Era Policy Blocking Secret Ballot Vote to Remove Union
Trump Labor Board has opportunity to overturn harmful 2011 ruling trapping workers in union after abuse-prone “card check” certification
Washington, D.C. (August 23, 2018) – Today, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys submitted an appeal to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the Board overturn a 2011 Obama-era NLRB decision that is being applied to block a group of Seattle hotel housekeepers from holding a secret ballot decertification vote to remove a union they oppose. Foundation staff attorneys are representing the Embassy Suites employee who filed the petition for a vote to oust the union which the workers never voted into their workplace.
The UNITE HERE Local 8 union was installed at the hotel through an oft-abused “card check” drive, which bypasses an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election. Gladys Bryant, a housekeeper at the hotel, led a group of other employees to petition the NLRB to hold a decertification vote and remove the union, which was never voted in.
However, the election petition was dismissed by an NLRB official using a controversial Obama-era ruling that bars workers from having a secret ballot decertification vote to remove a union from their workplace.
In Lamons Gasket, an Obama-selected NLRB overturned the 2007 National Right to Work Foundation-won Dana decision that gave workers the opportunity to challenge a card check union drive with a secret ballot vote. Under the Dana precedent, workers can collect signatures to request a secret ballot election during a 45-day window following notice that they have been forced into union representation via card check.
The Dana ruling provided an important, though limited, protection for workers against the coercive practices frequently associated with card check, which allows organizers to mislead employees into signing cards that are then counted as “votes” toward unionization—which is precisely what happened to Gladys Bryant. When the Dana precedent was overruled with Lamons Gasket, it meant no matter how many workers signed a petition seeking to oust a union, they could be barred for at least one year before they could file for a secret ballot vote.
Now, the Labor Board has the chance to undo the damage done by the previous NLRB by overturning the Lamons Gasket decision. This is especially important for workers in states like Washington, which does not have Right to Work protections—where workers can then be forced to pay fees to a union they never even had the chance to vote for or against.
“Ms. Bryant’s situation demonstrates the coercive nature of a card-check drive, and why the Trump Labor Board must put an end to the disastrous precedent which reinforces its use,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “The Lamons Gasket decision means that workers can be forced into paying union fees even if the majority of the workplace does not support the union. Workers must be allowed to fight back against this coercive process.”
In addition to her petition for a secret ballot decertification vote, Foundation staff attorneys also filed NLRB unfair labor practice charges for Bryant against the union and hotel management for coercive tactics used in the union card check process. Those charges are still being investigated by the NLRB.
CA State Employee Files Class Action Lawsuit to Reclaim Forced Union Fees under Janus Precedent
Class of 5,000 workers seeks refund of millions of dollars in fees seized by SEIU officials in violation of Supreme Court’s Janus precedent
San Jose, CA (August 16, 2018) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a federal class action lawsuit for a California state employee to reclaim union fees SEIU officials unconstitutionally seized from him and thousands of similarly situated employees. The class action complaint potentially includes approximately 5,000 affected individuals and seeks to enforce the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision, which held that the First Amendment prohibits mandatory union fees for public sector employees.
William Hough, a worker at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), filed the complaint against the VTA, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 521, and the Attorney General and Governor of California. The complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims that by forcing Hough and other state employees to pay union fees without their affirmative consent, the defendants violated their First Amendment rights as protected by the new Janus precedent.
Hough has worked at the VTA since 2005. He exercised his right to refrain from joining SEIU Local 521 because he did not wish to support it in any way. However, he and other non-union member employees were forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment under state law.
In the Foundation-won Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to require government workers to pay any union dues and fees as a condition of employment. Additionally, the Court clarified that no union dues or fees can be taken from workers without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment right not to financially support a labor union.
However, California’s law authorizes SEIU Local 521 and its affiliates to extract union fees from non-union members as a condition of employment. In the lawsuit, Hough claims that the applicable statute, and any other statute that authorizes Local 521 to collect forced union fees from public employees without their affirmative consent, violates the First Amendment. He asks the court to declare those laws unconstitutional.
The complaint requests that the court certify a class that includes all individuals who at any time within the applicable limitations period were forced to pay union fees to SEIU Local 521 and its affiliates without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment rights.
“Independent-minded workers are choosing to stand up for their rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “In the Foundation-won Janus decision, the Supreme Court finally upheld public sector workers’ First Amendment right to choose whether or not to support a union without the threat of being fired. Further, the High Court made is clear that fees cannot be collected without a clear waiver of First Amendment rights, something the SEIU never gave Mr. Hough and his colleagues, which is why the complaint seeks refunds of millions of dollars of fees seized in recent years.”
The Foundation has created a special website, MyJanusRights.org, to assist public employees in exercising their rights under Janus, which was successfully argued by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger.
National Right to Work Foundation Files Comments Asking CMS to Stop Union Bosses from Skimming from Medicaid Funds
Comments: Big Labor’s $100 million a year scheme violates Medicaid statute’s prohibition on diverting payments intended for caregivers
Washington, DC (August 13, 2018) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has today submitted formal comments to the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) in support of the agency’s proposed rule to clarify that the diversion of Medicaid payments from providers to third parties, including unions, violates federal law.
The Foundation’s comments demonstrate how schemes enacted by roughly a dozen states have resulted in well over $100 million per year being diverted from health-care providers to union officials, in violation of federal law. The comments call on CMS to finalize a rule that definitively states that siphoning off union dues or fees from taxpayer-funded payments intended for healthcare providers violates the prohibition on assigning benefits to third parties under Section 1396a(a)(32) of the federal Medicaid statute.
As a gift to the Obama Administration’s political backers, in 2014 that administration promulgated a new regulation to give legal cover to ongoing schemes by the SEIU and other unions that have to date siphoned off over $1 billion in Medicaid funds. However, as the Foundation’s comments to CMS point out, agency rules cannot conflict with the underlying statute, which is why CMS should both repeal the Obama rule and replace it with explicit language to give states notice that continuing to divert payments puts their Medicaid funding at risk.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement about the filing of those comments in response to the CMS rulemaking notice:
“It is long past time that this outrageous attempt to create another exemption in federal law for union officials be ended. We encourage the CMS to expeditiously issue a final rule to stop the illegal siphoning off of funds from Medicaid providers. Despite the wishes of the politicians they back, union officials are not exempt from federal law. All the current proposed rule change would do is close the illegal loophole the Obama Administration attempted to create.
“Our 2014 National Right to Work Foundation-won 2014 Harris decision made it illegal for states to require these providers pay fees to union officials, but the current scheme to deduct union fees from Medicaid payments is part of union bosses’ attempts to undermine that ruling. Nothing in the proposed CMS rule would stop providers from sending truly voluntary dues to union officials with a check or credit card each month. It would merely stop union bosses from using public payment systems to intercept tax dollars intended for providers caring for those in need.”
Background: The 2014 Foundation-won Harris v. Quinn Supreme Court decision held that it is unconstitutional for states to force home care providers paid through Medicaid programs to pay union fees. That case still continues as 80,000 providers seek the return of over $30 million in funds seized from them in violation of their First Amendment rights.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the illegal dues skim has not stopped. That is why in 2017 the National Right to Work Foundation sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services to bring their attention to this issue. Additionally, Foundation President Mix personally raised the issue with Trump Administration officials at the White House earlier this year.
Oregon Civil Servant Wins First Refund of Forced-Fees under Janus Precedent as SEIU Returns Two Years of Fees
SEIU officials forced to settle federal lawsuit and return nearly $3,000 in illegal forced fees as a result of Foundation-won Janus precedent
Eugene, OR (July 30, 2018) – A federal First Amendment lawsuit brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys and the Gibson Law Firm for Oregon public employee Debora Nearman against Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 503 has ended with a settlement agreement that will return nearly $3,000 in forced dues to Nearman. The refund represents the first return of forced fees as a result of the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision, which held that the First Amendment prohibits mandatory union fees.
Nearman, an employee at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, filed the lawsuit in April challenging the constitutionality of mandatory union fees as a condition of government employment. After the Janus decision was issued, the writing was on the wall for SEIU officials, who quickly moved to settle the case and return more than two years of forced fees to Nearman.
In her complaint, Nearman objected to being required to financially support and associate with SEIU Local 503 because the organization actively opposes her personal views, including her religious beliefs and her husband’s public service.
In the 2016 general election, Nearman’s husband, Mike Nearman, successfully ran for State Representative in the Oregon Legislature. During the campaign, the SEIU local union that she was forced to fund spent over $53,000 to run an aggressive campaign against him, including distributing disparaging fliers. Additionally, the complaint noted that the SEIU hierarchy takes positions on political issues that conflict with Nearman’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
The Foundation-won Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision in June overturned the erroneous 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that public-sector workers could be compelled as a condition of employment to pay union fees for bargaining-related purposes. In Janus, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to require government workers to pay any union dues and fees as a condition of employment. Additionally, the Court clarified that no union dues or fees can be taken from workers without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment right not to financially support a labor union.
SEIU officials will return to Nearman over two years of forced fees amounting to nearly $3,000. They also will not collect any dues or fees from Nearman’s future wages unless she affirmatively chooses to become a member of SEIU and authorizes such deductions. In compliance with Janus, SEIU Local 503 and the state of Oregon have also removed their forced fees provision from their collective bargaining agreement.
“This is a great example for the countless public-sector workers across the country who seek to have their First Amendment rights respected in light of the Foundation’s Janus Supreme Court victory,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Nearman’s refund represents the first of what should ultimately be hundreds of millions of dollars or even more returned to public employees for union fees seized from them in violation of the First Amendment.”
The Foundation has created a special website, MyJanusRights.org, to assist public employees in exercising their rights under Janus, which was successfully argued by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger.
