16 May 2017

Unwanted Union Ousted a Year After Pennsylvania Workers Overwhelmingly Voted to Reject USW

Posted in News Releases

Workers rejected USW union officials, but union continued collecting forced dues for an additional year by stalling outcome with appeals

Pittsburgh, PA (May 16, 2017) – After a year-long battle, the workers at a Unifirst Corp. facility in Pittsburgh have finally ejected an unwanted union from their workplace. The workers were assisted by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Homer Suman is a worker at a Unifirst Corp. laundry in north Pittsburgh, PA. Suman and the other workers at the laundry were forced into a monopoly bargaining contract with the United Steelworkers Union (USW). On April 28, 2016, the workers participated in a decertification election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), with the workers rejecting the USW’s representation.

However, the USW union officials refused to accept the decertification election’s clear outcome, and filed a number of objections with the NLRB, seeking to preserve their forced unionism powers over the workers. Because Pennsylvania is not a Right to Work state, workers can legally be forced to pay union dues or fees to union officials as a condition of employment.

Assisted by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Suman has fought the USW official’s objections for a full year. During this time, all Unifirst Corp. workers under the USW monopoly bargaining contract have been forced to continue paying dues and fees to the USW despite the results of the 2016 decertification election.

Suman and other Unifirst employees filed and won a prior decertification election in 2014, only to have that victory snatched away by a divided NLRB. USW officials filed objections to that election, and the NLRB accepted the union boss arguments and continued to force these workers to pay dues to the USW.

In early May 2017, over a year after the landslide vote, the NLRB overruled the objections filed by USW officials and certified the results of the decertification election. This ruling finally vindicates Suman’s fight, and removes the USW from his workplace, freeing him and his coworkers from the forced dues shackles of the USW.

“It is outrageous that the NLRB allowed USW officials to play games with the system and drag these proceedings out for a year,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These workers had already spent years fighting to be free of compulsory unionism, and the NLRB delays forced these workers to remain in an unwanted contract and pay dues and fees for a year. This case is another reason why Pennsylvania needs a Right to Work to protect the right of workers to choose whether or not to support a union.”

15 May 2017

Sign Up for Foundation Updates and Newsletter

Posted in Blog

Please fill in your information below to sign up for free updates from the Foundation.

Receive updates

Sign up for Foundation Action Newsletter

Please sign up here for your free copy of the bi-monthly newsletter of the National Right to Work Foundation to be mailed directly to you.
9 May 2017

Teamsters Local Faces Complaint for Blocking UPS Worker from Exercising Right to Work

Posted in News Releases

Union officials are violating federal law by failing to provide worker with paperwork to end the collection of union dues from his paycheck

El Paso, TX (May 9, 2017) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Region 28 has filed a complaint against Teamsters Local 745 for violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The complaint states that Teamsters union officials have continuously refused to provide a worker with basic information necessary to exercise his workplace rights.

The worker, Sal Olivas, is a driver for the United Parcel Service UPS (NYSE: UPS) in El Paso, Texas. On January 9, 2017, with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Olivas resigned his formal union membership and sent a letter to Teamsters Local 745 union officials seeking a copy of his dues checkoff authorization form, the steps to needed to revoke his dues checkoff authorization, and the specific “window period” in which he has to do so. Union officials did not respond to his initial letter or an additional letter he sent a week later.

Even though union officials have not provided Olivas with his requested checkoff and information about the “window period,” because of the legal assistance provided by Foundation staff attorneys union officials have ceased collecting forced dues from him. However, by failing to provide Olivas with the requested information, union officials have violated the NLRA.

The NLRB Regional Director for Region 28 has issued a complaint against the union for continuously stonewalling Olivas’ requests for his dues checkoff authorization and information about the “window period.” As a result, a hearing before an NLRB administrative law judge is scheduled for August 1 in El Paso.

“It is outrageous that Teamsters union bosses are stonewalling this worker’s simple request,” National Right to Work President Mark Mix commented. “This case is another reminder that even in a Right to Work state like Texas, where union dues and fees are supposed to be strictly voluntary, enforcement of the statutory employee protections are vital. Otherwise the law is just words on paper.”

3 May 2017

Michigan State Court of Appeals Upholds Ruling Striking Down MEA Union “Window Period” Restrictions on Resignations

Posted in News Releases

Decision upholds the right of Michigan Employees to leave a union at any time

Detroit, MI (May 3, 2017) –The Michigan State Court of Appeals has upheld the Michigan Employee Relations Commission’s (MERC) ruling that affirmed the right of Michigan employees to leave a union at any time. The case was brought by public school employees with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. The Appeals Court decision comes in response to union lawyers’ challenge of MERC’s ruling that so-called “Window Periods” limiting to only a few weeks the time when an employee can resign from a union are an illegal restriction of employees’ rights and violate Michigan’s Right to Work law.

Alphia Snyder, a Battle Creek Public Schools employee, resigned her union membership in April 2013, after the pre-existing monopoly bargaining agreement expired and she became fully covered by Michigan’s public sector Right to Work law. However, Michigan Education Association (MEA) union officials insisted that Snyder could only leave the union during an annual 30 day window period in August. Throughout the fall of 2013, Snyder received several demands from MEA bosses for forced dues, and she filed unfair labor practice charges against the MEA in the spring of 2014.

Similarly, Grand Blanc Community Schools employee Mary Carr resigned her union membership in November of 2013, just as she became fully covered by Michigan’s Right to Work Law. However, MEA officials responded to Carr’s resignation letter by informing her it would not be effective until the following August “window” period. Union officials then sent multiple demands for forced dues, and eventually threatened Carr that if she did not pay the forced dues, they would dispatch debt collectors. Carr also filed unfair labor practice charges against the MEA in the spring of 2014.

Additionally, Mark Norgan, a Standish-Sterling Community Schools employee, resigned his union membership in October 2013 and asked to only pay the part of dues he was forced to pay as a condition of employment as was his right under the Foundation-won Supreme Court case Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, because he was still under a monopoly bargaining contract until June 30, 2015. He was told by the Michigan Education Association (MEA) union that he could only leave the union during the annual 30 day window period, and both of his requests were denied. He also filed unfair labor practice charges against the MEA in the spring of 2014.

“This decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals is a big win for worker freedom in the Wolverine State,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Right to Work simply protects an employee’s right to decide for him or herself whether to join and financially support a union. As the court’s decision makes clear, that freedom of choice cannot be limited to one month a year.”

3 May 2017

Chicago Utility Employee Files Unfair Labor Practice Charges Against Union Officials for Illegal Dues Seizures

Posted in News Releases

Union officials failed to follow Supreme Court precedent providing for disclosure to workers of how forced dues are spent

Chicago, IL (May 3, 2017) – A Chicago worker, assisted by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, has filed federal charges against the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) and UWUA Local 18007. The charges were filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 13 office in Chicago.

Gerald Howard is employed by Peoples Gas in Chicago, Illinois. UWUA Local 18007 has a monopoly bargaining contract in place with Peoples Gas that includes a requirement that workers can be fired for refusing to pay dues or fees to the union. Under federal law, no worker can be forced to formally join a union.

However, because Illinois is not a Right to Work state, workers can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Under the National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck, nonmember workers cannot be legally compelled to pay union dues used for union politics and member-only activities. Workers can also demand a breakdown of the dues and fees paid to see which fees are used for which purpose.

In a letter sent to UWUA Local 18007 on February 18, Howard formally resigned his membership in the UWUA and objected to paying full dues, as is his right under the Beck precedent, but UWUA Local 18007 union officials failed to acknowledge his resignation. A month later on March 15, Howard sent another letter, this time to officials at the UWUA International headquarters in Washington, DC.

In a letter dated April 3, Washington-based UWUA officials finally acknowledged Howard’s resignation and objection to paying full dues as of his February 18 letter. The UWUA official’s letter also claimed that Howard would be required to pay 90% of full union dues, but did not provide explanation for how it arrived at that figure.

To date the UWUA has still failed to provide Howard with the legally required breakdown to justify that non-chargeable activities like union political and lobbying activities only make up ten percent of full dues. Absent those disclosures – as required by the Supreme Court in Beck – union officials cannot legally require Howard to pay any fees, but continue to do so anyway.

“UWUA union bosses are ignoring clear Supreme Court precedent and violating the rights of a worker they claim to ‘represent’ in their grab for forced union dues,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This type of disregard for the rights of rank-and-file workers highlights why Illinois desperately needs a Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments strictly voluntary.”

Twenty-eight states have Right to Work protections for employees. Public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans and union members support the Right to Work principle of voluntary unionism.

26 Apr 2017

Security Guard Union Hit With Federal Charges For Illegal Demand That Worker Be Fired

Posted in News Releases

Union bosses ignore National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent as they demand worker pay up or be terminated

San Francisco, CA (April 26, 2017) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a Eureka-area worker has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the International Union of Security Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) Local 247 for illegally demanding the security guard be terminated.

The worker, Jeffrey Nyquist, works as a security guard at Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. In January 2014, Nyquist sent the union a “Beck letter” stating his request to object to paying anything more than can be required by law and requested an independent financial audit of the union’s expenditures. Under the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck Supreme Court decision, workers have the right to opt out of paying full union dues that include union political lobbying and spending and have the right to see an independent financial audit of the union’s expenditures.

Union officials ignored Nyquist’s letter requesting more financial information and made no further efforts to contact him. Suddenly, more than three years later, on April 10, 2017, union officials sent Nyquist and his employer a letter demanding that he be terminated after 14 days unless he paid full union dues or fees for February through March 2017. The letter came despite the fact that union officials ignored their legal obligations to Nyquist regarding his Beck objections, which supersedes his obligation to pay the union dues or fees.

This isn’t the first time an SPFPA union has been caught violating workers’ rights when it comes to illegal union dues seizures. Just weeks ago, an SPFPA local was ordered to pay back approximately $20,000 in illegally seized dues from Washington D.C. – area workers despite a majority of workers having voted to end the forced unionism clause in their contract through an NLRB deauthorization election.

“It is outrageous that union bosses think they can pick and choose what parts of the law they want to follow on any given day,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No worker should be threatened with termination for simply exercising his rights under the law. This case highlights why California workers need Right to Work protections that would ensure that union membership and dues payment is strictly voluntary.”

22 Apr 2017

Foundation Launches Task Force to Defend New Kentucky Right to Work Law

Foundation staff attorneys prepare to defend and enforce the 27th Right to Work law from union boss attacks

Springfield, VA –The National Right to Work Foundation announced the creation of a special task force designed to defend and enforce Kentucky’s newly-enacted Right to Work law immediately after Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed the bill into law on January 7 to make Kentucky the 27th Right to Work state.

The Foundation is offering free legal aid to Bluegrass State workers seeking to exercise their new rights to refrain from union membership and union dues payments. Foundation staff attorneys are also preparing for lawsuits filed by union officials seeking to overturn or delay the new Right to Work protections for employees.

The law took effect immediately and applies to collective bargaining contracts entered into, extended, or renewed on or after January 7, 2017. Any worker in a contract in effect before January 7, 2017, may still compelled to either pay union dues or fees but employees seeking to exercise their rights should contact the Foundation to explore their legal options.

Unfortunately, union officials often try to stymie independent-minded workers seeking to exercise their rights under Right to Work laws.

“As we’ve seen in recent new Right to Work, union bosses try to make it as hard as possible for workers to exercise their right to refrain from paying any union dues or fees, or resign union membership. Right to Work laws are only words on paper unless they are vigorously enforced, which is why the Foundation has launched this special task force,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“Even if Big Labor lawsuits will ultimately fail to overturn the law, union officials hope a ruling by a friendly judge or just the lawsuit itself will create confusion that results in workers not exercising their new legal protections to cut off all payments to the union. That’s the playbook we’ve seen in Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and West Virginia, and what we are prepared for in Kentucky.”

Enforcing New Right to Work Laws Key Part of Foundation’s Mission

The Foundation has a long history of assisting employees seeking to exercise their Right to Work protections. Defending and enforcing Right to Work protections has long been one of the most critical tasks undertaken by Foundation staff attorneys.

After the passage of a Right to Work law in Indiana in 2012, union bosses sought to wipe out the law with 2 lawsuits in State Court and one in Federal Court. Foundation staff attorneys submitted amicus curiae briefs in both State Court cases and conferred with lawyers about with legal arguments to make for the state of Indiana for the Federal challenge to Right to Work. All three lawsuits were dismissed and Right to Work was upheld.

In Michigan, which passed a state Right to Work law in 2013, foundation attorneys filed amicus curiae briefs in both a Federal lawsuit and a State lawsuit challenging the public sector portion of the Right to Work law. Both lawsuits were eventually dismissed. Additionally, foundation attorneys have filed over 88 actions for Michigan citizens seeking relating to workers seeking to exercise their Right to Work.

In Wisconsin which passed a state Right to Work law in 2015, foundation staff attorney’s submitted amicus briefs in both Federal and State court in response to union boss lawsuits that allege that Right to Work laws constitute an “illegal taking” of union resources. A Federal Judge struck down the Federal lawsuit and the State lawsuit is pending.

The Foundation also has a legal task force in West Virginia helping to assist in defending the Mountain State’s Right to Work law which went into effect last summer and is subject to a dubious union lawsuit at present.

“Big Labor union bosses are never willing to give up their forced-dues powers without a fight. We expect union bosses to try to tie up the law in the courts, but luckily our staff attorneys have a lot of experience defending Right to Work laws, which have always been upheld,” added Semmens.

Any Kentucky worker who has questions about his or her rights, or encounters any resistance or abuse while trying to exercise his or her workplace rights, is encouraged to contact Foundation staff attorneys for free legal aid.

15 Apr 2017

Worker Wins Federal Election Commission Settlement After Money Diverted to Union Political Fund

Foundation-aided truck driver illegally forced to fund Laborers Political Action

Washington, DC – West Virginia worker Jeffrey Richmond finally has closure on a four-year legal battle in West Virginia that began with being forced to contribute to a union boss Political Action Committee and ended with being fired as retaliation. This past fall, in response to charges filed by Foundation staff attorneys against the company and the associated union, the Federal Election Commission assessed Penn Line Services, Inc. of West Virginia a fine as a civil penalty. The company was found guilty of illegally deducting union dues and PAC contributions from Richmond’s paycheck to send to LIUNA union officials and then retaliated against Richmond for objecting to the scheme.

In July 2012, nearly four years before West Virginia passed a Right to Work law, Penn Line hired Jeffrey Richmond as a driver/laborer. At the time, the company had a monopoly bargaining agreement in force with the Laborers International Union (LIUNA), Local 453. Richmond was not a member of LIUNA and did not authorize any form of payroll deduction.

Several months later, Penn Line presented Richmond with a union membership form. On the provided mandatory union membership form was a section for payroll contributions to the LIUNA Political Action Committee. Under federal law, contributions to political action committees or political funds are completely voluntary and workers may refuse to contribute without fear of reprisal. Richmond agreed to join the union, signing the membership portion of the form, but chose not to authorize payroll deductions to the PAC.

However, Penn Line representatives, without authorization, deducted money from Richmond’s paycheck dating back to the date of his hiring so the money could go to the union PAC fund. Shortly after Richmond signed the membership form without the payroll deduction section, a Penn Line official informed him that the form was being returned to him for his authorization of the union PAC deductions. When Richmond refused, Penn Line immediately fired him, even though federal law clearly states that all PAC contributions must be completely voluntary.

NLRB Charges Filed

Richmond reached out to the Foundation, and with the assistance of Foundation staff attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The charges were investigated, and in 2013 Penn Line Service, Inc. was forced to settle. Under the terms of that settlement, Richmond was awarded back pay as damages, as well as reimbursements for items like uniforms.
“This scheme is a blatant example of the illegal confiscation of a worker’s money for union boss electioneering,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the Foundation. “Further adding to the outrage, when this worker objected to the theft he was terminated as retaliation for standing up for his rights.”

Union and Company Officials Hit With FEC Complaint

Foundation staff attorneys also assisted in filing charges with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The charges list the four counts where Penn Line and LIUNA brass violated Richmond’s rights. These counts include the numerous times where Penn Line officials refused to inform Richmond of his right to refuse to contribute to a PAC without reprisal, the failure to notify Richmond of the political purposes and nature of the deductions from his paycheck, and the illegal termination of his position despite his religious objection status.

The FEC investigated the charges against Penn Line, Laborers International Union, and LIUNA Local 453, determining that Penn Line had illegally deducted union dues from workers for political purposes without giving the workers an opportunity to object, violating the workers’ rights. The FEC issued a conciliation agreement in October of last year that fined Penn Line the sum of $5,500. Despite the Foundation’s FEC charges specifically denoting the involvement of LIUNA officials, the charges laid against LIUNA International and the LIUNA Local 453 union officials were dropped.

This is not the first time that FEC charges have been filed against a union for funding political action through illegal dues deductions or mishandling of funds. Following a complaint filed by Foundation staff attorneys in 2007 against Americans Coming together, an SEIU “527” group, the FEC levied record fines albeit not large compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars involved in the case.

“Under Foundation-won court precedent, workers have the right to refuse to pay for political and ideological union activities,” continued Semmens. “This sort of dramatic overreach of power by union officials is what laid the groundwork for West Virginia to become the 26th Right to Work state early last year.”

The Foundation created a special task force last year to defend and enforce West Virginia’s newly-passed Right to Work law. Foundation staff attorneys are offering free legal advice and aid to Mountain State workers seeking to exercise their rights as guaranteed by the Right to Work law to refrain from union membership and union dues payment. In addition, Foundation staff attorneys are currently defending the West Virginia Right to Work law in state court against a lawsuit by multiple union officials seeking to overturn the law ending Big Labor’s power to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees.

14 Apr 2017

Illinois Grocery Workers Appeal Decision Blocking Vote to Remove Union Despite Unanimous Opposition to UFCW Union

Posted in News Releases

NLRB asked to review Regional Director’s refusal to process decertification petition signed by workers who unanimously want union ousted

Winnetka, IL (April 14, 2017) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a Chicago area worker has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to review a case in which she and her co-workers were denied the right to decertify a union claiming to represent them, despite the fact that every employee in the bargaining unit signed a petition to remove union representation.

The worker, Maureen Madden, is employed at Lakeside Foods. On March 2, 2017 she filed a petition to decertify the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1456 (UFCW). Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), if a decertification petition garners signatures from 30% or more of the employees in a bargaining unit, the NLRB will conduct a secret-ballot election to determine whether a majority of the employees wish to decertify the union. Every single employee in Madden’s bargaining unit signed the petition in support of removing the union.

Even though the decertification petition had one-hundred percent employee support, the NLRB regional director refused to honor it, citing the so-called “successor bar.” The “successor bar” stems from a 2011 NLRB decision that strips away the rights of employees to decertify a union if a new employer has taken over a bargaining unit.

Although a “successor bar” does not appear anywhere in the NLRA, and the Act’s stated purpose is to give employees a choice in their representative, including declining union representation, the NLRB Region used this doctrine as its justification to keep employees under union control for up to three additional years. Furthermore, because Madden and her co-workers work in Illinois, a state that does not provide Right to Work protections, the NLRB Regional Director’s decision allows UFCW to continue collecting forced fees from the employees as a condition of employment.

Madden’s petition points out that so-called “successor bars” are in conflict with decisions of the Sixth and Seventh Circuits and the Supreme Court, all of which hold that a union’s presumption of majority support can be overcome by proof that a majority of employees do not support the union, as has happened in this case.

“It is absolutely outrageous that this NLRB Regional Director dismissed a petition filed by a worker with every single one of her co-workers supporting it,” commented Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Far from being a neutral arbitrator as the NLRB claims to be, the NLRB Regional Director is actively allowing UFCW to continue to collect forced fees from workers although one-hundred percent object to the union and its so called ‘representation.’ This case highlights why Illinois workers need the protections that Right to Work provides.”

11 Apr 2017

Missouri Workers File New Lawsuit to Defend Right to Work Law From Deceptive Repeal Petition

Posted in News Releases

Union officials seek to continue their forced dues powers over Missouri workers through misleading ballot questions

Jefferson City, MO (April 11, 2017) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys three Missouri workers have filed a legal challenge against an AFL-CIO proposed petition that could repeal Missouri’s new Right to Work law and strip away Right to Work protections from them and hundreds of thousands of other Missouri workers. The plaintiffs, police officers Roger Stickler and Michael Briggs, and nurse Mary Hill, are opposed to mandatory union payments. Each has experienced forced unionism abuses in the past, and could again without the protection of a Missouri Right to Work law. Their lawsuit challenges the deceptive ballot language proposed to overturn the law.

Mike Louis, President of the Missouri AFL-CIO has submitted a repeal petition to the Missouri Secretary of State’s office, seeking to delay the enforcement of the recently passed Right to Work bill and submit the issue to the general election ballot in 2018. This petition has been approved by MO Sec. State Jay Ashcroft, and would appear on the 2018 ballot if union organizers obtain a sufficient number of signatures. The workers’ lawsuit challenges the proposed summary statement language as deceptive to voters.

“Once again, rather than be upfront with the Missouri citizens about their intention of restoring their forced unionism powers to have a worker fired for refusing to tender union dues or fees, Missouri union officials are pushing deceptive ballot language,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Right to Work is popular with the people of the state, so Big Labor is hoping to mislead voters into undoing the protections Right to Work provides workers.”

This is not the first legal challenge National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have filed for workers who back Missouri’s Right to Work law that will make union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. Before the Right to Work bill was signed into law on February 6, AFL-CIO top boss Louis also submitted ten state constitutional amendments to kill the law and give forced unionism state constitutional protection.

Those ten amendments were sent to the desk of former Missouri Secretary of State Kander who approved them just hours before vacating his office. These same three workers sued to challenge the deceptive language that Kander approved. On March 24, the Cole County Circuit Court judge ruled that the ballot language was “unfair and insufficient,” and rewrote the language that will appear on the ballot in 2018 if union bosses collect enough signatures. The unions have appealed the ruling, and National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are continuing to defend against the appeal to protect the lower court ruling.