The Daily Labor Report (subscription only) recently reported on an important win for National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court:

Upholding the National Labor Relations Board's January 2006 decision against Studio Transportation Drivers Local 399 of the Teamsters, the appeals court found that the union, which used the arbitration awards for nonrepresentational purposes such as political and charitable contributions, should exclude the money from its calculation of agency fees rather than use it to reduce its reported nonrepresentational expenses.

By spending the arbitration award money on nonrepresentational rather than representational expenditures, the union in effect increased the agency fees owed by the objecting nonmember for representational expenses, Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the appeals court.

The win is important because it prohibits cooking the books to overcharge nonmembers who are forced to pay dues to union officials as condition of employment.

It is now even more clearly illegal for union officials to funnel revenue from sources other than union dues to pay for "non-chargeable" items – like politics, lobbying and members-only activities.   Using this scheme, union officials try to get away with charging a higher percentage of the remaining activities to forced-dues-payers.

You can be certain that as long as union officials can force employees to pay dues they will continue to develop schemes to maximize the amount of the dues they extract from unwilling workers.  Thanks to National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, at least this particular method of union discrimination is clearly illegal.

This weekend the Chicago Tribune featured a story about secret deals that union officials are cutting with certain targeted employers to corral employees into the union's ranks.

In exchange for the company's assistance in unionizing employees (almost always by green-lighting a coercive card check drive and often by actively promoting the chosen union), union officials promise all sorts of things -- ranging from promises not to badmouth the company anymore, to agreeing to drop demands for higher wages and health care benefits, to concessions in other bargaining units.

Not surprisingly, union bosses do their best to hide these agreements from the very employees they seek to represent, and even a few union officials are critical of the deals.

In a rare moment of candor, one union boss spilled the beans that these backroom deals are also kept secret to avoid lawsuits brought by employees with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation:

Hurd added that unions also like to keep a lid on such agreements to avoid embarrassment if they don't succeed. Plus, they are concerned that other unions might want to join the bandwagon if they learn that the company has signed on to a neutrality agreement. And they want to avoid lawsuits from right-to-work groups challenging the agreements, he added.

For more on these secret deals and the legal challenges by individual employees enjoying assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, see our special page on Top Down Organizing.

The National Right to Work Foundation's letters calling for an investigation of the SEIU union's apparently illegal scheme to coerce "donations" for its Political Action Committee (PAC) prompted this excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

Now that editorial has caused a local union official to blow the whistle in this letter to the editor. Aside from cheering the Foundation's efforts, her letter alludes to another problematic aspect of the SEIU union's dirty political fundraising scheme.

Marlene Jones, a registered nurse who is also the head of her Pennsylvania-based SEIU local, writes the following:

I have been a member of the Service Employees International Union (1199P) for 27 years. I am the president of a local nurses union in Pennsylvania. Every day I experience the pressure for our local nurses union to have all of our members contribute to the Political Action Committee fund. SEIU even goes as far as telling its locals that if a percentage of its members contribute, they will receive 1% of their high union dues back to the locals.

[emphasis added]

So on top of the SEIU constitutional amendment penalizing SEIU locals by seizing dues money when they don't hit PAC fundraising goals, Ms. Jones says top SEIU bosses are promising conditional kickbacks of certain union dues seized from workers and sent to the International affiliate. But those kickbacks apparently do not occur if the local union fails to meet the SEIU's PAC fundraising mandates. This could be yet another way SEIU bosses are in violating federal law by securing PAC "contributions" with the threat of financial reprisals.

Nurse Jones ends her letter with the following plea:

When will it end? Good luck with the investigation. Our members do not want to contribute to the PAC fund.

Last time we wrote about Wilma Liebman -- National Labor Relations Board Member and unabashed promoter of compulsory unionism -- she was trashing freedom of choice for employees during hearings before Congress.

This time the NLRB Member has taken her activism to a new forum to complain about what she considers an over emphasis on individual rights. In an article in the Journal of Labor and Society, Liebman concentrates her shrill rhetoric on what she sees, God forbid, as a shift in favor of an "individual rights regime."

The screed contains much whining about a series of NLRB decisions in which Liebman dissented from the majority, but ultimately only on the last page of her article are her true motivations clearly revealed:

[A]n exclusive orientation toward an individual-rights regime could have troubling political and social consequences.Workers may view the employment relationship in purely individual terms and may fail to grasp common economic interests and the potential of collective action at work, as well as in the public sphere. Collective action at work encourages engagement in the community and in politics. Without a functioning collective bargaining system, fundamental economic issues are placed off the table: distribution of wealth, control, and direction of economic enterprises. What institution will be as effective in efforts to minimize the randomness of fortune of democratic capitalism? And without a strong independent trade union movement, what institution will stand effectively as a counterweight in our democracy to the growing political influence of corporations? What institution will speak for working people—indeed for the middle class—as effectively?

So there you have it. Liebman's real motivation is politics pure and simple. Liebman, one of only two members currently on the five-member Board, wants to promote forced unionism over individual rights as a means to a political end (in her case that end would seem to be socialist economic policies).

She believes our nation's labor laws should be further contorted to promote what she claims are employees' "common economic interests." Nevermind that a group of workers for a single employer -- let alone the entire "middle class" -- will never all have the same interests or values, making it impossible for any institution to speak for them all.

All this raises a fundamental issue in that Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents have affirmed the free speech right of employees to refrain from union politics. If, as Liebman asserts, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) collective bargaining scheme is about promoting politics -- or as she calls it "collective action... in the public sphere" -- then the entire NLRA is not compatible with the Constitutional free speech and freedom of association rights of workers (which would certainly explain her disdain for any emphasis on individual rights).

Unfortunately for employees hoping to have their individual rights protected, Liebman will be on the Board at least until 2011.

NLRB General Counsel Orders Prosecution of SEIU Union Officials for Illegally Threatening Non-Striking Nurses

Union bosses threatened Pomona Valley nurses with arrests, jail time, and financial penalties for refusing to abandon their patients

Los Angeles, California (May 27, 2008) – National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Ronald Meisburg has granted an appeal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for union-abused nurses at the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center. The federal government will now prosecute Service Employee International Union (SEIU) Local 121 RN union officials for threatening nurses with financial penalties and arrest for refusing to abandon their patients during a union-ordered strike.

In October of 2007, SEIU Local 121 RN officials ordered a general strike after the nurses’ collective bargaining agreement with the hospital expired. In an effort to intimidate nurses into toeing the union line, SEIU officials told nurses that refusal to strike could result in financial penalties or even arrest – citing an unenforceable California state law. Nurse Carole Jeane Badertscher, a non-union member, subsequently contacted the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal assistance and filed class action unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB Regional Director.

After the NLRB Regional Director declined to prosecute, Foundation attorneys filed an appeal with the NLRB’s General Counsel. Following a lengthy review process, the General Counsel found merit to the charges, determined that union officials violated the nurses’ legal rights.

An NLRB administrative law judge will now evaluate Ms. Badertscher’s twin charges: The first alleges SEIU union officials misled nurses by suggesting that nonunion employees would continue to owe compulsory union dues after the nurses’ collective bargaining agreement expired. The second alleges that SEIU officials illegally threatened nurses for refusing to participate in a union-ordered strike.

“It’s outrageous for union officials to suggest that nurses could be financially penalized or even sent to jail for continuing to care for their patients,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While we’re pleased that SEIU bosses will be prosecuted for breaking the law, this type of abuse will continue until California employees have the protection of a Right to Work law that makes union membership and dues-payment strictly voluntary.”

Bush Labor Board Authorizes Congressmen to Issue Union “Certifications” Intended to Deceive Employees

Labor Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ) conducted televised sham union “certification” at union hall just days before the real vote

Atlantic City, NJ (June 3, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a controversial and ground-breaking ruling that gives Congressmen and other public officials the green light to stage fake “certification” ceremonies that give the misimpression of official government recognition of a union during “card check” organizing drives.

The case dismissed objections to the conduct of Congressman Robert Andrews (D-NJ) and other government officials who participated in a televised sham union “certification” ceremony and public announcement that workers had selected a union immediately prior to a NLRB certification election last summer at the Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City.

The NLRB’s ruling raised the burden of proof requirements for arguing that conduct tainted a certification election. Earlier Board law did not require challengers to present incontrovertible evidence that many employees were actually aware of the objectionable conduct – only that it was likely that many were.

In addition to filing a brief supporting Trump Plaza’s request that the Board set aside the election, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed unfair labor practice charges and a House Ethics Committee complaint.

The Foundation’s unfair labor practice charge, which has been held in abeyance pending the appeal regarding certification, points out that Congressman Andrews led an extraordinary public event (which was televised and disseminated by other media) and aided UAW union officials in interfering with the free exercise of employee rights in choosing whether to unionize. “Acting under the false imprimatur of NLRB authority,” Andrews counted union authorization cards that were not necessarily intended by employees to be considered formal votes, and he signed and announced a “Certification of Majority Status” for unionization.

Andrews’s participation, given his position as Chairman of House of Representative’s subcommittee that oversees labor issues, made the union’s televised public announcement of its “certification” particularly problematic. Given his prominent role in the creation of federal labor policy, employees could think that the union had already been formally installed, or that the union’s election was a forgone conclusion. As the Foundation’s brief in the case pointed out, Andrew’s actions likely had the effects of suppressing turnout for the election, and inducing employees to vote for a “pre-certified” union, thus disenfranchising employees and destroying the “laboratory conditions” under which NLRB elections are required to take place.

“The Bush Labor Board has just opened the floodgates. Workers will be faced with union officials’ aggressive use of Members of Congress during coercive union organizing campaigns,” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason.

###

A copy of the NLRB's decision can be downloaded here.

The Foundation's amicus brief to the board can be downloaded here.

NLRB To Prosecute CWA Union Local for Illegal ‘Annual Objection’ Policy Designed to Force Workers to Pay Full Dues

CWA officials used bureaucratic requirements to hamstring workers’ rights

Cleveland, Ohio (June 4, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued an official complaint against Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 4309 union officials in response to charges filed by the National Right to Work Foundation on behalf of an AT&T employee.

CWA Local 4309 union officials are accused of committing unfair labor practices by requiring nonunion employees to annually object to mandatory dues payments unrelated to collective bargaining. An NLRB administrative law judge will rule on the federal complaint.

Under the Foundation-won precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonunion employees can be required to pay union dues germane to collective bargaining. But employees who object to paying full union dues have the right to withhold funds attributable to other union activities such as politics, lobbying, or member-only activities. Employees are also entitled to an audited financial breakdown of all union expenditures.

CWA Local 4309 union bosses required nonmember employees to annually object to making full dues payments within a short window period, despite the fact that these employees had already signaled their unwillingness to pay for activities unrelated to collective bargaining by refusing to join the union. Federal labor prosecutors agreed that the annual objection requirement represents an unnecessary burden that frequently results in nonunion workers paying more than they owe.

The case is one of many in which National Right to Work attorneys have helped employees challenge union policies that require workers to annually object to paying for nonrepresentational activities. With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, workers have successfully challenged both the International Association of Machinists’ (IAM) and the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) annual objection policies.

“Union bosses exploit these illegal annual objection requirements to seize even more compulsory union dues,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case demonstrates the injustices workers face every day under forced unionism.”

Today's DC Examiner has an editorial about the Foundation's upcoming US Supreme Court case, Daniel Locke v. Karass.

Here's an excerpt from the editorial:

Locke is one of 20 Maine state employees who found that their compulsory agency fees to the Maine State Employees Association were being used to fund union lawsuits and bargaining in other states via a funding pool administered by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Locke and his like-minded colleagues objected to having to pay the fees because they knew the SEIU aggressively pushes a political agenda outside of Maine, including political campaigning, lobbying government at all levels, litigation against employers, media advocacy and other non-bargaining activities. Every dollar taken from Locke to pay for union litigation outside Maine freed up a dollar to be spent on SEIU’s political agenda.

Sounds like an open-and-shut case, right? After all, Thomas Jefferson said it was “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves.” And just last year, the court ruled that public employee unions must first get permission from individual members before using their dues for political activities. Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember employees.”

But things are never so simple in the nation’s capital. U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement has submitted a brief in the case in which he argues that public employee unions can indeed use agency fees to pay their share of a litigation pool.

But, he says, doing so must further the government’s interest in keeping the peace in the workplace. He also says the union must give reasonable assurance that the pool doesn’t indirectly aid non-litigation activities.

In other words, as long as there is peace in the workplace and wink-winks from the union, President Bush’s solicitor general will be happy. And this president is anti-union?

Read the whole thing here.