Employees Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Reinstate RICO Case against UAW Union Organizing Scheme

National Right to Work Foundation urges High Court to allow enforcement of longstanding labor bribery statutes against increasingly common union schemes

Washington, DC (April 21, 2009) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to uphold workers’ challenge to a secret quid pro quo agreement intended to install the United Auto Workers (UAW) union at Freightliner plants in North and South Carolina.

With free legal aid from the Foundation, five employees at three plants operated by Daimler Trucks subsidiary Freightliner filed a class-action federal racketeering lawsuit in 2006 challenging an illegal scheme in which union officials agreed in advance to significant concessions at the expense of the Freightliner workers at its non-union facilities in North Carolina in exchange for valuable company assistance in organizing those workers.

---

Click here to read the full release.  Download a PDF copy of the petition.  For additional background information about the case, click here.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees With Right to Work Foundation: Unions Have No Right to Payroll Deduction

More effective alternative would have been stopping government payroll deduction for all union dues

Washington, DC (February 24, 2009) — The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association that states may prohibit union officials from using payroll deduction to divert government workers’ money into union coffers.

In overturning a Ninth Circuit appeals court decision and upholding an Idaho law banning payroll deduction for union political dues from state and local government employees, the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The lower court had blocked the state from requiring local government bodies to comply with the state law.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys – joining with the Sutherland Institute, Utah Taxpayers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business – successfully argued in their amicus brief (pdf) that unions, in fact, have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct dues from workers’ paychecks.

“The Supreme Court's decision makes clear what should be obvious, that union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”

(Continue reading this news release...)

In a Federalist Society “SCOTUScast” (podcast) last month, Vice President and Legal Director of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Ray LaJeunesse discussed the U.S. Supreme Court case 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, in which the Foundation filed an amicus brief.

In 14 Penn Plaza, the Supreme Court was asked to consider the question of whether a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement can waive an employee's right to a judicial forum for discrimination. Oral arguments for the case were heard by the Court in December.

You can download and listen to the podcast here.  WARNING: This audio involves a highly technical legal discussion that is not suited for all audiences!

Today’s ruling highlights the need for Right to Work laws, which end forced unionism

Washington, DC (January 21, 2009) -- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Maine state employees can be compelled under penalty of losing their jobs to pay into an international union’s litigation slush fund – even where all the litigation expenditures are made outside of their own bargaining
unit.

In doing so, the High Court affirmed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirming a loose standard of protection under the U.S. Constitution for employees forced to pay dues as a condition of employment.

“America’s workers were not well served by this ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court missed an obvious opportunity to apply explicitly the same ‘strict scrutiny’ standard that applies under the First Amendment to other content-based government restrictions on free speech,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which provided free legal aid to the employees asserting their rights.

Read the rest of the Foundation's press release here.

The cover story of the hot-off-the-press November-December issue of Foundation Action recaps the exciting oral arguments of the Foundation's Locke v. Karass case, which was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in early October.

Read the whole story here (pdf) and sign up today for a free print subscription.

To receive the entire issue via email, just type your email address into the box in the top right corner of this page.

This article from the September/October issue of Foundation Action discusses the June 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States Chamber of Commerce v. Jerry Brown.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed arguments, with which the Supreme Court agreed, to overturn a controversial California law that pressured companies to assist in coercive union organizing drives.

Read the whole story here (pdf) and sign up today for a free print subscription.

To receive the entire issue via email, just type your email address into the box in the top right corner of this page.

The September/October issue of Foundation Action reports on the rare U.S. Supreme Court rebuke of Bush Administration lawyers seeking to argue before the High Court in the October 6, 2008 oral arguments of Locke v. Karass.

Foundation attorneys successfully argued that the Bush Administration had no business getting involved in the proceedings.

Read the whole story here (pdf) and sign up today for a free print subscription.

To receive the entire issue via email, just type your email address into the box in the top right corner of this page.

From 11 to noon today the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Locke v. Karass, in which Foundation Staff Attorney Jim Young represented 20 Maine State employees challenging attempts by the SEIU union to charge the nonmembers for union litigation unrelated to their collective bargaining unit.

Here, lead plaintiff Daniel Locke takes questions from reporters flanked (left to right) by Former Maine State employee Mark Turek of UnfairShare.org, Foundation V.P. Stefan Gleason and Foundation Staff Attorney Jim Young:

For background on the case watch our video, which includes an exclusive interview with lead plaintiff Daniel Locke, and also see our Locke case page for all the legal briefs in the case. For a more detailed analysis of the case, this article (pdf) from Labor Watch is highly recommended.

UPDATE:
The transcript of today's Locke argument at the U.S. Supreme Court is now available for download (pdf).

Oral arguments in Locke v. Karass, the Foundation's latest Supreme Court case, occur on Monday, October 6. Just in time, the October issue of Labor Watch features a cover story on the case by Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation:

The U.S. Supreme Court has so far refused to recognize that all compulsory union dues, no matter how they are spent, violate workers’ First Amendment rights and that no compelling state interest exists to justify subverting these rights. However, the Court has concluded that forced union dues for certain union expenditures violates nonmembers’ First Amendment rights. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have established that union officials cannot compel nonmembers to support union lobbying, political activities and other forms of ideological expression.

On behalf of Daniel Locke and 19 other current and former Maine state employees, NRTW Foundation attorneys will argue this month that because litigation is also inherently expressive, unions cannot compel nonmembers to pay for it. Moreover, because litigation regarding a union’s affiliates in another state does not affect the union’s own collective bargaining process, there should be a bright line drawn to ensure that no extra-unit litigation is ever subsidized by objecting nonmembers.

Union lawyers insist workers must pay for litigation activities that unions undertake outside their own bargaining unit using a pooling arrangement that union bosses analogize to insurance. If union bosses get their way, unions will be permitted to seize dues from members and nonmembers alike – even from employees who never wanted a union’s “representation” – and pool them together in a giant slush fund to subsidize Big Labor’s lawsuit machine.

Read the full article online (PDF only).

Yesterday, SCOTUSblog reported on the opposition by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys to the Solicitor General's self-contradictory motion for divided arguments in the Foundation's Locke v. Karass Supreme Court case. (For more background on the SG's unwelcome machinations and the Foundation's principled opposition, read this post.)

The SCOTUSblog post brings to light this new tidbit of news: "Jeremiah Collins, a lawyer for the respondent, said the union did not plan to file an opposition."

Of course he won't. The Solicitor General is making Big Labor's legal arguments. Why not add another lawyer to the union legal team at taxpayer expense?

If the Solicitor General forces his way in, Foundation staff attorneys representing a group of Maine State employees may get 5 fewer minutes to argue their case. Looking at his misguided legal brief (which the union later cited 14 times in its own brief), there can be little doubt that the SG would use the time to make the union officials' case against the employees and the First Amendment.

As the Foundation attorneys' response makes clear, the Administration's interest in the case is extremely tenuous and far fetched, and under court rules it should therefore be barred from participation in oral arguments (as in similar situations in the past).

Welcome to Big Labor's anti-employee legal team, Mr. Solicitor General. Thank you very little.