Teachers File U.S. Supreme Court Appeal of Ruling Granting Union Officials Right to Nonmembers’ Dues

**Washington, DC (June 14, 2006)** — Responding to a 6-3 Washington State Supreme Court ruling striking down a state law requirement that union officials obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending mandatory union dues for politics, the National Right to Work Foundation filed an appeal yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.

Foundation attorneys – working jointly with Steven O’Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry of Seattle – originally filed the suit, *Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA)*, for more than 4,000 Washington teachers who are not union members, but nonetheless forced to pay union dues or fees. Thurston County Superior Court Judge Daniel Berschauer ruled that the teachers had an implied right of action under Initiative-134 to recover the fees the WEA had used – without their authorization – for political purposes. The trial court also certified the case as a class action for the thousands of nonmember teachers.

But a long-awaited ruling in Davenport by the State Supreme Court in mid-March upheld an appellate court’s decision to overturn the trial court – thereby striking down the last remaining union dues provisions in I-134, Washington’s troubled “paycheck protection” law.

The State Supreme Court’s ruling directly conflicts with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, noted Justice Richard B. Sanders’ three-member dissent. Justice Sanders said: “The majority turns the First Amendment on its head. . . . [T]he suggestion that a legislative choice to protect dissenting nonmembers by requiring affirmative authorization before using their agency shop fees to influence an election . . . violates the First Amendment . . . ‘borders on the frivolous.’”

Though the Foundation believes the decision is wrongheaded, the ruling brings into focus how difficult the paycheck protection regulatory approach is, and how ineffective it has been in protecting employees laboring under forced unionism. Even if the Supreme Court had reinstated the Thurston County court’s rulings, I-134 would still only result in individual refunds of $10 per year, on average. Substantially greater relief is available to teachers under a settlement of a First Amendment lawsuit brought earlier by Foundation attorneys. Under that settlement, nonmember teachers may annually object and reclaim more than $200 each. Ultimately, however, only the passage of a Right to Work law in Washington would ensure that union dues are not misused.

“The real solution is to attack forced unionism at its root, rather than try to regulate its ill effects,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The Foundation has no choice but to help mop up the damage to the First Amendment being caused by courts responding to these ‘paycheck protection’ laws.”

Seattle, WA (March 16, 2006) — Responding to today’s 6-3 Washington State Supreme Court ruling striking down a state law requirement that union officials obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending mandatory union dues for politics, the National Right to Work Foundation announced that its legal team is preparing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Foundation attorneys – working jointly with Steven O’Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry of Seattle – originally filed the suit, Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA), for more than 4,000 Washington teachers – who are not union members but who are forced to pay dues or fees – in Thurston County Superior Court. Judge Daniel Berschauer ruled that the teachers had an implied right of action under Initiative-134 to recover the fees the WEA had used, without their authorization, for political purposes. The trial court also certified the case as a class action for the thousands of nonmember teachers. But the long-awaited ruling today in Davenport upheld an appellate court’s decision to overturn the trial court – thereby striking down the last remaining union dues provisions in I-134, Washington’s troubled “paycheck protection” law. But, the State Supreme Court’s ruling directly conflicts with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, noted Justice Richard B. Sanders in his three-member dissent. “The majority turns the First Amendment on its head…The suggestion that asking people to check a box once a year unduly interferes with the speech rights of those contributors borders on the frivolous…There is no indication that any state has been held to have violated union members’ rights by foreclosing mandatory collection of fees from nonmembers.” “While there is hope that the law can be salvaged, this situation shows how so-called paycheck protection laws are ineffective in halting the practice of forcing employees to function as ATM machines for union political operatives,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to ensure employees are protected is to strip Washington union officials of their legislatively granted power to seize union dues as a job condition.” Even though the WEA admits it spends millions of dollars each year on political activities, the much-hyped paycheck protection law has ultimately offered no relief to teachers. Even if the Supreme Court had reinstated the Thurston County court’s rulings, the law would still only result in individual refunds of $10 per year, on average, under I-134. Substantially greater relief is still available to teachers under a settlement of a First Amendment lawsuit brought by Foundation attorneys in recent years. Under that settlement, nonmember teachers may annually object and reclaim more than $200 each.

Knoxville, TN (February 3, 2006) – In a significant procedural victory, the Supreme Court of Tennessee has cleared the way for a circuit court trial in a case in which a Tennessee teacher is asserting that full union members have the right to withhold union dues spent on ideological activity without losing their right to vote on the collective bargaining agreements that bind them. With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Dewey Esquinance filed suit against the Polk County Education Association (PCEA) and Tennessee Education Association (TEA) unions, affiliates of the National Education Association (NEA), in April 2003 in the Circuit Court of Polk County. After the Court of Appeals of Tennessee agreed with arguments made by Foundation attorneys that the trial court improperly dismissed the lawsuit, the state’s highest court rejected a union petition for review – clearing the way for a full investigation and trial. As a result, Esquinance will be able to make his case in the Tennessee Circuit Court of Polk County that teachers statewide have the constitutional right to remain full union members and withhold dues spent on union political activities with which they disagree. Union officials currently require teachers to exercise their rights under Tennessee’s Right to Work law to resign from union membership in order to stop the use of their dues money for objectionable political activities. In doing so, however, those teachers are barred by union officials from voting on ratification of collective bargaining agreements that determine the terms of their employment, control sick bank donations, and affect access to teacher training. “This ruling shuts down teacher union officials’ desperate, last-ditch attempt to prevent a full investigation into their practice of spending teachers’ dues on politics,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. In September 2002, Esquinance joined the PCEA union and began paying full union dues, even though he objected to the NEA union’s political agenda. When Esquinance notified union officials that he wanted to remain a full union member but only pay for union expenses related to collective bargaining, union officials informed him that his union membership was terminated and that there was no appeals process. Like many educators, Esquinance objects to numerous aspects of the union’s agenda for religious and political reasons, including the NEA’s stances promoting abortion, gun control, and special rights for homosexuals. Every year, the NEA and its affiliates spend tens of millions of dollars in compulsory dues in support of political views and candidates that many teachers find objectionable. Esquinance is challenging union membership dues based on the rights established by the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Under Abood and subsequent rulings, employees have a constitutional right to refuse to pay for union non-collective bargaining activities, such as politics.

Sacramento, California (November 4, 2005) – Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, made the following statement in response to this morning’s U.S. District Court ruling not to extend previous injunctive relief to protect roughly 27,000 California government employees from financing union political activities. At the same time, to avoid a preliminary injunction as to the 8 named plaintiffs, union officials agreed in court today to give the entire forced dues increase back to those individuals. “In declining to take swift action to protect 27,000 forced-dues-paying nonmembers of the California State Employees Association (CSEA) union, the ruling will, for now, permit union officials to spend those workers’ forced dues on politics over their objections and without their permission. “In their lust to preserve and expand their power, union officials are thumbing their noses at employee rights and basic fairness. No employee should have to get a lawyer simply to protect their freedom of speech. “Unfortunately, current California law stacks the deck against individual employees objecting to union activities. As a matter of practice, union officials force employees to jump over a series of hurdles designed to discourage employees from objecting. “Today’s ruling forces roughly 27,000 California state employees to endure an ongoing violation of their most basic constitutional rights while their class action suit winds through the legal system. “While the Court has chosen not to immediately stop the ongoing violation of CSEA nonmembers’ constitutional rights, we are confident that the public servants fighting for their rights will ultimately win their legal case. Supreme Court precedents are on their side. “No one should have to pay dues to an unwanted union, especially when union officials continually abuse that government-granted special privilege.”

Sacramento, California (November 3, 2005) – Acknowledging irreparable harm to government employees’ constitutional rights, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order from the bench late Wednesday against the State of California and the California State Employees Association (CSEA) union, halting the use and further collection of a mandatory dues increase for politics from eight nonmember state employees. At the same time, Morrison C. England Jr., U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of California, scheduled a hearing tomorrow morning to consider an immediate statewide injunction that would bar union officials from seizing forced dues for politics from roughly 37,000 similarly situated CSEA nonmembers who are not already named plaintiffs in the case. The civil rights complaint, filed by nine state government employees (union members and nonmembers) on Tuesday with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, seeks a ruling that would require union officials to give over 100,000 union members and non-members due process, including proper financial disclosure, a formal notice that they may reclaim the forced dues spent for electioneering, and rebates, plus interest, to all who request it. Since September 30, CSEA (Local 1000, Service Employees International Union) officials have been collecting a 25-36 percent (or more) mandatory dues increase earmarked to influence this year’s special election. The “Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund” was imposed on government employees for a broad range of political and other non-collective bargaining activities. Union officials openly admit the “Fund will not be used for regular costs of the union,” but for political advertising, direct mail, and get-out-the-vote activities. According to the California Secretary of State, the CSEA union and affiliates have forwarded more than $22 million to various ballot proposition committees. A related suit, filed by Foundation-assisted teachers in September, forced California Teacher Association (CTA) union officials to allow forced dues paying nonmembers to reclaim a $60 dues increase. Similar claims on behalf of actual members of the teacher union are still pending before the court. CTA union officials, like the CSEA union, implemented their dues increase to fund electioneering to defeat several of Governor Schwarzenegger’s propositions on the November 8 ballot. “This ruling shows that these forced dues seizures are occurring in violation of the law – and it raises questions as to the legality and legitimacy of Big Labor’s entire political campaign,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Union officials are fleecing public employees to finance a political agenda with which many disagree, while fighting tooth-and-nail to keep these employees in the dark about their rights.” In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, the high court ruled that public employees have due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to be notified of how their forced union dues are spent, and how to prevent the spending of their dues for union political activities. However, CSEA union officials have not given public employees any opportunity to object to the dues increase. A hearing on the statewide injunction will occur tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento, in Courtroom Three.

Sacramento, California (November 1, 2005) – A group of California government employees filed a statewide class-action lawsuit in federal court today against the California State Employees Association (CSEA) union seeking a ruling that would require union officials to give over 100,000 employees financial disclosure and an opportunity to reclaim a significant forced dues increase which is earmarked to influence this year’s special election. Filed with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, the civil rights suit seeks a preliminary injunction to halt the use and further collection of a 25-36 percent (or more) mandatory dues increase imposed by CSEA (Local 1000, Service Employees International Union) union officials on members and nonmembers of the union, and an order that every member and nonmember be issued a notice and allowed to obtain a refund, plus interest. A similar suit, filed by Foundation-assisted teachers in September, forced California Teacher Association (CTA) union officials to allow forced dues paying nonmembers to reclaim the $60 dues increase. Similar claims on behalf of members of the teacher union are still pending before the court. CTA union officials, like the CSEA union, implemented their dues increase to fund electioneering to defeat several of Governor Schwarzenegger’s propositions on the November 8 ballot. Since September 30, CSEA union officials have imposed an “Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund” for a broad range of political and other non-collective bargaining activities. Union officials openly admit the “Fund will not be used for regular costs of the union,” but for political advertising, direct mail, and get-out-the-vote activities. According to the California Secretary of State, the CSEA union and affiliates have forwarded more than $22 million to various ballot proposition committees. Like many public servants, the nine named plaintiffs (union members and nonmembers) object to paying for union political activities with which they disagree. They seek an order certifying their suit as a class action for all CSEA members and nonmembers. “Public employees should not have to take legal action for union officials to stop the use of their forced dues for politics,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “However, as long as public employees labor under a system of forced unionism, such abuses will inevitably continue.” In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, the high court ruled that public employees have due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to be notified, as potential objectors, of how their forced union dues are spent, and how to prevent the spending of their dues for union political activities. However, CSEA union officials have failed to give public employees any opportunity to object to the dues increase. To prevent further violation of their fundamental rights, the public employees ask that the forced dues be placed into escrow, because, as Foundation attorneys note in the employees’ complaint, they “have a First Amendment right to prevent the increase in their union dues…which conflict[s] with their own personal preferences.”

Sacramento, California (October 25, 2005) - The cash-strapped California Teacher Association (CTA) union will not accept an offer by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to pay for a $250,000 statewide mailing to all of the union’s members informing them of their constitutional right to cut off the use of their forced union dues to influence the upcoming November special election. CTA union chief Barbara Kerr did not accept the offer made in an open letter by a group of teacher union members and nonmembers, sent last Thursday and published in Sunday’s Sacramento Bee. In their letter, the teachers demanded that union officials notify all CTA members of how they can refrain from paying for the union hierarchy’s $60 million political campaign by resigning their formal union membership and objecting. In response to a class action lawsuit filed by teachers with free legal help from Foundation attorneys, CTA officials were forced to send a notice on October 15 to nonmembers informing teachers that they have a right to stop and immediately reclaim the $60 per teacher dues increase earmarked for political electioneering. Nonmembers, including teachers who resign their membership and object, can also reclaim an additional $300 per year that the CTA and its affiliates routinely spend on non-bargaining activities. The open letter, signed by over two dozen California teachers, asked union officials to cooperate in informing union members of their same limited rights to cut off the use of their forced dues for politics. The proposed mailing would have been processed by a third party mail shop. It required the cooperation of CTA officials who possess the only mailing list of union members. “Obviously, the union brass intend to keep rank-and-file teachers in the dark about their most basic rights,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of National Right to Work Foundation. “Teachers are to serve as blank checks to finance CTA officials’ radical political agenda.” In court proceedings, CTA controller Carlos Moreno filed a sworn declaration disclosing that CTA officials had already spent all $60 million in anticipated revenues from the three-year compulsory dues increase and that union officials were in negotiations for an additional $40 million credit line. If the union is unable to obtain the additional credit, Moreno stated that a $20 million loan could be recalled and services cut back. “We recognize that many teachers will not want to subject themselves to your discriminatory policies of denying nonmembers the right to vote on union contracts, as well as access to liability insurance. However, our member colleagues should at least be allowed to make this choice,” the teachers wrote in their letter to Kerr. Ultimately, the U.S. District court may order the union to notify, at its own expense, union members of their due-process rights. A copy of the open letter can be viewed at www.nrtw.org/california/kerrltr.pdf.

Sacramento, California (October 20, 2005) – In an open letter to California Teacher Association (CTA) union chief Barbara Kerr, a group of teachers today demanded that union officials notify all CTA members how they can refrain from paying for its $60 million political campaign. The teachers have lined up $250,000 in funding from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a charitable legal-aid organization, to pay for a mailing to 335,000 CTA union members, if union officials cooperate. In response to teachers’ statewide class action lawsuit, CTA officials sent a notice on October 15 to nonmembers informing teachers that they have a right to stop and immediately reclaim the $60 per teacher dues increase earmarked for union political electioneering. However, the union has flatly refused to inform union members of the same limited rights, and it takes the position that members are not entitled to such information. “Since when do members of an organization have even fewer rights than nonmembers' Do you believe union members are not deserving of basic disclosure of their union’s activities or their legal rights' Do you consider teachers to be open checkbooks to stuff your political coffers' Union members’ voices have been silenced, and their rights have been ignored,” the teachers wrote. Carlos Moreno, the CTA union’s accountant, recently filed a sworn declaration in the class-action lawsuit stating that union officials have already spent all revenues anticipated from the three-year compulsory dues increase. He further said that CTA officials are currently negotiating with a bank for an additional $40 million credit line. “We expect that in light of the CTA union’s extraordinary spending spree, you will cry poverty (despite the additional $40 million you are currently borrowing) to avoid your legal and moral responsibility. That’s why the Foundation, at our request, has offered to pay for the proposed mailing’s entire cost, estimated at $250,000,” the teachers explained. Like the notice sent to nonmembers in response to the lawsuit, the mailing to members would disclose that the entire $60 annual dues increase is being spent for politics. It would also alert teachers to their constitutional right to resign from union membership and to object and reclaim all dues spent for political and other non-bargaining activities. “We recognize that many teachers will not want to subject themselves to your discriminatory policies of denying nonmembers the right to vote on union contracts, as well as access to liability insurance. However, our member colleagues should at least be allowed to make this choice,” the teachers wrote. “Ultimately, the court may order you to observe members’ due process rights. However, with the election less than three weeks away, time is of the essence...Will you cooperate?” the teachers asked. A complete copy of the teachers’ open letter – which asks for a response by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 25 – can be viewed at www.nrtw.org/california.

Sacramento, California (October 17, 2005) - The National Right to Work Foundation today launched a statewide radio advertising campaign with an ad recorded by State Senator Tom McClintock and 5th grade teacher Judy Liegmann, lead plaintiff in the pending class action lawsuit against the state’s largest teacher union. The ad educates the public about the scandalous misuse of compulsory dues for politics and directs employees to www.californiafreedomproject.org, where they may obtain free legal assistance in asserting their constitutional rights. “It takes enormous courage for classroom teachers to stand up to the union bosses. They’re fighting for the right of every one of us to make our own decisions – free from union coercion… And I, for one, am proud to stand with them,” says McClintock in the one minute ad spot. The ad campaign comes on the heels of a recent U.S. District Court ruling not to issue a temporary restraining order to freeze immediately forced union dues seizures from teachers statewide, spent for politics, until due process is given. A class-action lawsuit filed by teachers and faculty with help from Foundation attorneys continues to seek a ruling that union officials must notify union member educators of their right to resign from formal union membership and refuse to pay the mandatory dues increase. A sworn declaration filed by the California Teacher Association (CTA) union’s accountant in recent days reveals that the union has already spent the $60 million raised by the three-year dues increase levied against teachers and is attempting to secure an additional $40 million loan to battle Governor Schwarzenegger’s ballot initiatives. Union officials’ spending of teachers’ forced union dues could approach $100 million before the special election next month. Aside from making a statewide advertising buy, the National Right to Work Foundation has also distributed radio public service announcements across California and established a special web-site that provides teachers with information on how to object and reclaim their dues. Since the educators filed their suit, CTA union officials have already backpedaled and indicated they will now, in fact, allow non-union members to get their $60 back this fall. But, at the same time, union officials stand firm in refusing even to inform their 300,000+ members of their right to resign and object. These rights are nevertheless limited – as resignation from formal union membership results in the union brass barring teachers from voting on union contracts and denying access to liability insurance. An “mp3”-format copy of the radio ad featuring Senator McClintock is available for download at http://www.nrtw.org/california/video/teacherv3.mp3.

San Jose, California (October 5, 2005) – Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, made the following statement in response to this afternoon’s U.S. District Court ruling not to grant a temporary restraining order to immediately freeze forced union dues seizures spent for politics while the class action lawsuit is pending. In declining to issue a temporary restraining order, however, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware invited briefing as to whether the Court should issue a preliminary injunction. The lawsuit filed by teachers and faculty seeks to block union officials’ use of a mandatory dues increase to pay for the unions’ $50 million campaign to influence the November special election. “Since the educators filed their suit, California Teacher Association (CTA) union officials have already backpedaled and indicated they will now, in fact, allow non-union members to get their $60 dues ‘assessment’ back this fall. But, at the same time, they stand firm in refusing even to inform the 300,000+ members of their right to resign and object. “While the Court has failed to take swift action to stop the ongoing violation of CTA members’ constitutional rights while this class-action suit is pending, we believe that the educators will ultimately win their legal case because Supreme Court precedents are on their side. “The Supreme Court has ruled that all potential objectors are entitled to financial disclosure and notice that they can resign from union membership and prevent the use of their forced dues for politics. The CTA has never notified California teachers of these rights. This case shows the injustice of forced unionism in California. Even though we are confident the teachers will ultimately prevail in their case, the results of the November special election influenced by use of their forced dues payments cannot be undone. “California’s teachers should not be forced to serve as ATM machines for union officials, yet last week, the forced dues increase began coming out of their paychecks automatically to pay for partisan union electioneering. CTA officials have also announced their intention to raise $40 million more to influence the November election, and California teachers may foot an even higher bill. “Since the court has chosen not to require that union officials immediately fess up to educators about their legal rights, the National Right to Work Foundation will be committing significant resources in the coming weeks to inform educators of their right to object to funding partisan politics with their forced union dues.”