MO Right to Work supporters object to deceptive proposed constitutional amendment language approved by former Secretary of State
St. Louis, MO (May 24, 2017) – A group of Missouri workers have a hearing today in their lawsuit challenging the deceptive ballot language on a set of constitutional amendments that would effectively repeal Missouri’s popular new Right to Work law. The three Missourians are represented by a staff attorney from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Seeing the writing on the wall for passage of a Missouri state Right to Work law making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary, Mike Louis, the Missouri AFL-CIO’s top official, submitted to the Missouri Secretary of State ten proposed amendments to the state constitution. Each of the proposals seek to overturn Missouri’s Right to Work law enacted in February.
The workers’ lawsuit challenges the summary statements and ballot language for the amendments as confusing and misleading. The language was approved by outgoing Secretary of State Jason Kander who ran a failed U.S. Senate campaign that was funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars in union contributions. He approved the ballot language just hours before vacating office, ignoring the fact that none of the petitions even mentioned the Right to Work law that they are designed to nullify. The amendments would appear on the 2018 ballot if union organizers obtain a sufficient number of signatures.
If any of the Big Labor-backed constitutional amendments are put on the ballot and approved by the voters, they would repeal the new Right to Work law and block future passage of any state legislation to protect workers from mandatory union fees. Any future attempt to pass Right to Work would first require another amendment of the state constitution.
In late March, in response to the lawsuit filed by three pro-Right to Work employees with free legal representation provided by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Judge Beetem of the Cole County Circuit court ruled that the proposed language was “unfair and insufficient.” He ordered that the ballot language be rewritten to be more balanced and clearly reflect that the proposed constitutional amendments would repeal Right to Work in Missouri.
The workers then filed a technical appeal so that they can defend the Circuit Court’s decision from union lawyers’ efforts to overturn it and reinstate the misleading language. The hearing in the appeal will be in the Western Division of the Missouri Court of Appeals’ courthouse in Kansas City at 1:30 p.m. Central Time.
“Big Labor continues to resort to any tactic in an attempt to block Missouri’s new Right to Work law,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Big Labor knows that the citizens of Missouri believe it is wrong for an employee to be fired simply for refusing to pay union dues or fees to a union boss. That’s why the union bosses are so intent on confusing voters about their goal of restoring their forced dues powers.”
The workers have also filed a lawsuit opposing the language proposed for a Right to Work law repeal referendum filed by the AFL-CIO. That lawsuit alleges that the approved language of the repeal referendum, which would put Missouri’s Right to Work law on hold pending a statewide vote, amazingly, includes grammatical errors and does not meet the statutory requirements that govern the process.
Union Officials Hit with Federal Labor Charges For Blocking Oklahoma Worker’s Right to Leave Union, End Dues Payments
Charge states UFCW union officials deliberately violating protections for workers who want to resign their union membership
Guymon, OK (May 23, 2017) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a local worker has filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Food and Commercial Workers District Union Local 2 (UFCW).
Santos Muz Pu is an employee of Seaboard Foods, LLC, in Guymon, Oklahoma. The UFCW Local 2 has a monopoly bargaining contract with Seaboard Foods at the Guymon facility. In early 2017, Muz requested a copy of his union dues check-off authorization from the UFCW union office in Guymon, but officials refused to honor his request.
On February 13, Muz resigned from the UFCW and revoked his dues check-off in a certified letter to the Wichita, KS office after the local union office refused to tell Muz where to send his resignation and dues check-off revocation. However, Muz’s letter was returned due to an undisclosed change in the union’s address.
When Muz contacted the Guymon UFCW office again for assistance, UFCW officials refused to provide any information and threatened him, saying that he would lose his insurance, overtime pay, and paid holidays and vacation days if he left the union.
In late March, Muz was informed in a letter from the Bel-Air, KS, UFCW office that his dues-checkoff revocation was being rejected. That letter alleged that Muz’s check-off revocation was untimely and had not come at the proper time, as well as being submitted to the wrong UFCW office. UFCW bosses continue to seize dues from his paycheck.
In April, Muz reached out to the National Right to Work Foundation for assistance. With free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, Muz has now filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the UFCW for obstructing and interfering with his resignation and revocation attempts. The charges will be investigated by the NLRB Region 14 office in Tulsa, OK.
“In their desire to maintain their forced dues monopoly, union bosses have given this worker the runaround and refused to accept his resignation and check-off revocation,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Rather than attempting to attract the voluntary support of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’ we frequently see union officials attempt to trap workers into dues payments with bureaucratic hurdles and illegal schemes, even in Right to Work states where union membership and financial support are voluntary.”
“Cases like this show that, even in Right to Work states, protections for workers against forced unionism must be vigilantly enforced or else union officials will simply ignore the law and illegally threaten employees,” concluded Mix.
Operating Engineers union bosses continue to demand forced dues in defiance of the National Labor Relations Act
Milwaukee, WI (May 23, 2017) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a Milwaukee-area worker has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 139 for refusing to accept his dues checkoff revocation and threatening him with termination unless he paid union dues in conduct that violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The worker, Anthony Arnold, is employed at United Rentals in Brookfield, Wisconsin. On August 15, 2015, Arnold sent the union a letter resigning his formal union membership and objecting to paying full union dues. About the same time Arnold also sent a letter to the union revoking his dues checkoff authorization.
When union officials failed to respond and grant his requests, Arnold sent an additional letter to the union in December 2016 stating that he previously had sent letters expressing his right to resign and revoke his dues checkoff authorization. Additionally, he asked for the exact amount of union fees he was required to pay each month and explanation of a mysterious deduction that only said “139 App & Pen.”
In January 2017 the union responded with a letter saying that they would not terminate his dues checkoff authorization until July 1, 2017. The letter did not provide Arnold with all of the financial information he had requested including information about the “139 App & Pen” charge. Arnold’s checkoff card does not include language stating that he signed it irrespective of union membership, which means that he can revoke it at will, according to NLRA case law.
On April 13, 2017, Arnold received another letter from the union. This letter stated that he was behind sixty days in paying his dues–even though he is not a member of the union and had expressed his right to not pay full union dues–and that if he did not pay these dues by the end of month, the union would seek his termination. Fearing for the loss of his job, Arnold paid the union the fees demanded under protest.
“It is outrageous that IUOE union bosses are blatantly violating the NLRA by extorting payment of union dues through threats against a worker’s employment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These officials’ thuggish tactics against Mr. Arnold shows the importance of vigorous enforcement of the law.”
There are multiple media reports that Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials are ordering all union-represented workers to walk off the job starting at 3:00 PM EST May 19. As a result of numerous legal inquires the National Right to Work Foundation has released a special legal notice to AT&T employees affected by the announcement of a strike by Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials.
Affected AT&T employees need to know they have rights that CWA union officials will not tell them. To learn about these rights please read the special legal notice.
Employees who have additional questions can contact the Foundation for free legal aid.
PA teachers opposed to public sector forced unionism ask court to rule against them to move case toward U.S. Supreme Court
Pittsburgh, PA (May 19, 2017) – Four Pennsylvania teachers have filed a brief in federal court seeking judgment in their case against the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) union. The teachers are represented by staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Fairness Center.
These teachers, led by lead plaintiff Greg Hartnett, are challenging the constitutionality of mandatory union dues and fees for public-sector employees. The teachers are employed by three different school districts and have filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg. Their case joins six other National Right to Work Foundation-litigated cases in other states that seek to win a ruling on the issue from the United States Supreme Court.
Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that public-sector workers can be compelled as a condition of employment to pay union fees. However, in two recent National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court decisions, Knox v. SEIU (2012) and Harris v. Quinn (2014), the High Court suggested it was ready to revisit its 1977 precedent in Abood, expressing skepticism about the constitutionality of public sector union officials’ forced-dues privileges.
In the majority opinion in Knox v. SEIU, which struck down a Service Employee International Union (SEIU) forced dues scheme, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “This form of compelled speech and association imposes a ‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights.’ The justification for permitting a union to collect fees from nonmembers – to prevent them from free-riding on the union’s efforts – is an anomaly.”
The brief filed in Hartnett notes that, because lower courts are bound by past Supreme Court precedents, only the Supreme Court could issue the ruling the teachers seek. The brief therefore asks the district court to grant judgement against the teachers to clear the way for this case to move to the U.S. Court of Appeals and eventually to the Supreme Court.
“Americans overwhelmingly agree that forced dues are wrong. It is an especially egregious violation of the First Amendment for public servants to be required to subsidize union officials’ speech as a condition of working for their own government,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In Knox the Supreme Court majority acknowledged that compulsory union dues create a serious impingement on the First Amendment rights of public employees. That case only challenged an increase in forced fees imposed without notice. In this case, the teachers are simply asking that the High Court apply the same strict scrutiny to all public sector forced union fees.”
Twenty-nine states have laws that protect public school teachers from forced unionism. Public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans and union members support the Right to Work principle of voluntary unionism.
Appeals Court to Hear Illinois Homecare Providers’ Case Seeking More Than $32 Million in Illegally Seized Union Dues
Despite Supreme Court ruling that the SEIU’s dues scheme was illegal, union officials refuse to refund workers’ money
Chicago, IL (May 17, 2017) – Today, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorney Bill Messenger will argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of Illinois homecare personal assistants in Riffey v. SEIU. The case attempts to win back more than thirty-two million dollars in forced dues illegally seized by a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) scheme that the U.S. Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional in the 2014 Foundation-won Harris v. Quinn decision.
The case stems from an executive order issued by former Governor Rob Blagojevich that classified as “public employees” more than 20,000 individuals who provide in-home care to disabled persons receiving state subsidies” which meant that the providers could be unionized. As a result, these in-home care givers, many of them parents caring for their own children, were targets of coercive “card-check” union organizing drives.
Staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Foundation assisted eight of these providers in filing a federal lawsuit challenging the scheme and eventually in petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case. The High Court took the case and, on June 30, 2014, it Court ruled that SEIU’s forced dues scheme imposed by Governor Blagojevich is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of the in-home care providers.
“If we accepted Illinois’ argument” that homecare workers can be forced to pay union dues, wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in the majority opinion, “we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”
After the Supreme Court’s June 2014 ruling in Harris – now designated Riffey v. SEIU – the case was remanded to the District Court to settle the remaining issues, including whether SIEU would be required to return more than $32 million in dues confiscated from nonmembers through its unconstitutional scheme.
In June 2016, the District Court ruled that SEIU did not have to repay these funds. That decision was immediately appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where Foundation staff attorney Bill Messenger will appear today.
“If SEIU union bosses are allowed to keep the millions in unconstitutionally seized dues it would be outrageous and a perversion of justice,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These homecare providers should not have to jump through all these hoops just to get the money that is rightfully theirs after the Supreme Court ruled the dues seizures unconstitutional.”
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.”
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.”
Michigan State Court of Appeals Upholds Ruling Striking Down MEA Union “Window Period” Restrictions on Resignations
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.”