Right to Work Attorneys Intervene to Stop NLRB General Counsel from Blocking Union’s Ejection from Narricot Industries

Case highlights legal bias that pushes employees into union ranks and entrenches union despite employee opposition

Norfolk, Virginia (June 6, 2008) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, employees at fabric manufacturer Narricot Industries have filed a motion to defend their decision to throw the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Union Local 2316 out of their workplace. After workers overwhelmingly supported decertification, union officials moved to block the employees’ wishes.

Prior to filing a decertification petition, only one quarter of employees in the collective bargaining unit were dues-paying members of the unpopular union, the majority having exercised their rights under Virginia’s Right to Work law to opt out of union dues.  And 64 percent of employees signed a petition to remove the union as their collective bargaining agent.

In an effort to undo the employees’ decision, Carpenters union lawyers filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  Under federal labor law, Carpenters union officials would have to prove that any unfair labor practices committed by the employer incited employees to support decertification. Because employee discontent with union representation predates union officials’ accusations against Narricot, the Carpenters union’s attempt to nullify the decertification petition is unlikely to succeed.

Unfortunately, the NLRB General Counsel moved for a court order that forces employees back into the union for as long as the union’s charge is under consideration. If such an injunction is granted, the Carpenters union will regain its monopoly control of workplace representation until the Board rules upon the validity of the unfair labor practice charges, regardless of the employees’ desires to be free of union representation.

To stop workers from being forced back into union ranks, employees represented by Foundation attorneys filed a motion to participate in the injunction hearing. Foundation attorneys contend that employees freely chose to leave the union, and that it would be unfair to force them back into the union against their will.

“It is abundantly clear that the company’s actions had nothing to do with widespread employee dissatisfaction with the union,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB should respect workers’ clear desire to remove the union.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has set the date for oral argument in Locke v. Karass, which was brought to the High Court by Foundation attorneys on behalf of a group of Maine state employees.

Arguments will be at 11am on October 6, 2008 - the opening day of the the Supreme Court's session.

The case deals with the criteria for determining what workers can be forced to pay to a union as a job condition. For more on the Locke case stay tuned for an upcoming video.

Danielle Cookson made the news in San Diego last year when then 16-year-old girl (she's now 17) took on UFCW union officials who were illegally demanding that she join the union or lose her part-time job. Danielle told a local news reporter:

"I don't want to join because I don't want to have to pay the fees since I'm saving up money for college... [The union is] not going to do anything for me. I'm sixteen with a part-time job and they just want my money."

Refusing to be bullied, Foundation attorneys helped Cookson file unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board against the UFCW Local 135 union officials. Many of the issues of the case have already been settled, with UFCW bosses having backed off some of their illegal demands.

But UFCW officials persist in demanding that Cookson pay more than can be legally required under the Foundation-won Beck U.S. Supreme Court case.

Cookson's case recently had a positive development when the Office of the General Counsel of the NLRB ordered its regional officials to further investigate union bosses' improper attempts to force Cookson to pay for overhead expenses for activities not related to collective bargaining. (The letter asking for more information can be downloaded here [pdf].)

Here's video of Cookson talking about her case:

North Carolina AT&T Employees File Suit against Union Officials for Exposing Sensitive Personal Data

Union boss intimidation campaign against nonmember employees led to vindictive release of social security numbers

Burlington, NC (June 13, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed a lawsuit in North Carolina state court for 16 AT&T employees against Communication Workers of America (CWA) union officials for the illegal release of confidential personal information.

The complaint, filed late Wednesday in Gaston County, alleges widespread union violations of the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act by CWA union officials, who are accused of illegally posting nonunion employees’ personal information – including workers’ social security numbers – in a public area. The plaintiffs were also subjected to an extended union campaign of workplace harassment and intimidation.

Around November of 2007, union officials posted nonmember employees’ personal information. The spreadsheet that contained employees’ personal data was sent via e-mail from union official Judy Brown to other CWA officials with instructions to “. . . forward this information to your affected locals.” CWA officials proceeded to post the spreadsheet on a public bulletin board and likely disseminated the information through e-mail and other means.

By posting the information, union officials left employees vulnerable to identity theft and credit fraud. Foundation attorneys now seek a jury trial for the assessment of statutory and punitive damages.

North Carolina is one of 22 states with Right to Work protections that ensure employees are not forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. At the time the notice was posted, all 16 plaintiffs had exercised their Right to Work and were not formal dues-paying union members. The employees believe their personal information was posted in retaliation for exercising their legal rights, and a recent National Labor Relations Board investigation substantiated these allegations.

The case highlights the fact that, even in Right to Work states, union officials have extraordinary power over nonmember employees who have been forced to accept a union’s “representation.” Union officials are able to dictate nonunion workers’ terms of employment and have access to employees’ private and confidential information.

“By releasing the personal and confidential information of employees who exercised their legal right, CWA union bosses were trying to send a message that workers who refuse to support the union will face retribution,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

On Sunday, Denver Post columnist Al Lewis asked with skepticism "Where are the victims of unions?"

It must have struck a nerve out there. Only days later he writes a column with quotes from the "scores" of people who wrote in. Here are a few of the responses Lewis received:

• "I don't like the direction they are headed in now... They've drifted from protecting the main interest of the working man into the outskirts of politics."
• "Unions use the same methods as street thugs. They steal the money of hard working people through lies and intimidation."
• "I unwillingly have $44.75 taken out of my pay check every month. My opinion of the . . . union is . . . we are nothing more than a 'cash cow.' "
• "If the union had to earn its money, it would really make them a better union."

Worker Advocate Praises Today’s Supreme Court Decision Overturning California Law Facilitating Coercive Union Organizing

U.S. Supreme Court agrees with National Right to Work Foundation’s arguments

Washington, DC (June 19, 2008) – Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement in response to today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Chamber v. Brown case in which the Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the ultimate outcome.

“In its Chamber v. Brown decision, the Supreme Court correctly reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold a California law which increases pressure on employees to join unwanted unions.

“The law was nothing more than an underhanded attempt by union officials to use public funds to corral California workers into their forced dues-paying ranks, and the High Court was correct to find that the law is pre-empted by federal labor law.

“Had the Ninth Circuit’s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members. Moreover, union organizers would have insisted that the state law entitles them to sweeping access to company facilities, employees’ private personal information, and the power to sidestep the less-abusive secret ballot election process for determining whether employees actually want a union.

“California officials were wrong to use the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies are having trouble persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to coercive tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues.”

An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit had reversed two of its earlier appellate rulings by a vote of 8-3, upholding a state law that would have effectively forced coercive union organizing upon employees of private companies who receive state funds.

### 

The decision can be downloaded here.

In the latest update to Right to Work's YouTube channel, Daniel Locke, lead plaintiff in the Foundation's Locke v. Karass Supreme Court case, discusses why he felt the need to file suit against Maine State Employees Association union officials.

Also in the video, Foundation president Mark Mix explains what is at stake in the case, and another Maine state employee, Mark Turek, discusses his decision to quit his job rather than be forced to pay union dues to a union he disagreed with.

The Locke case is a perfect example of how the National Right to Work Foundation's legal aid program helps workers who have had their rights violated by compulsory unionism. Locke and his coworkers contacted the Foundation when they needed help standing up to union bosses.

Now, by taking the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Foundation attorneys are in a position not only to help Locke and his coworkers, but to help millions of American employees by establishing an important Supreme Court precedent advancing employee freedom.

Ever since the National Labor Relations Board ruled in the Dana/Metaldyne case exactly one year ago yesterday, pro-forced-unionism "scholars" have rushed to decry the decision as "revolutionary." Apparently giving workers more freedom of choice is deeply disturbing to union bosses.

A paper by Anne Marie Lofaso, of the University of West Virginia is a perfect example of hyperbole trumping facts, while posing as academic scholarship. In over-the-top style, Lofaso titles her paper: "September Massacre: The Latest Battle in the War on Workers' Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act." (Despite being published in May, as of August the paper was still the most downloaded Labor/Employment/Benefit paper off the Social Sciences Research Network site, according to the Workplace Prof Blog.)

Here's an excerpt from the paper's section on the Board's Dana Corp decision, a ruling she calls "The 'Massacre' in the September Massacre":

In keeping with a hard-in theme, the Bush Board most notably changed its rules governing voluntary recognition...

In recent years, voluntary recognition has served as an alternative for unions frustrated with the Board’s election rules, which have given employer advantages such as captive-audience speeches. The Board’s modified approach diminishes the value of that alternative and assaults
the principle of majority rule: a decertification petition supported by thirty percent of the employees trumps a card-check agreement supported by seventy percent of the employees,thereby forcing an election.

The problems with her biased analysis are plenty, but the most glaring is that contrary to her claims, unions are actually easy-in and hard-out.

The truth is that even with the Foundation-won protections afforded employees under Dana/Metaldyne, employees face a system drastically skewed to get unions in power and keep them in power. And under "card check," these systemic biases are multiplied exponentially.

First - and most obviously missing from Lofaso's discussion - is the fact that under a card check "voluntary recognition" both the union organizers and the employer favor instituting the union (otherwise the employer would demand a secret-ballot vote).

Similarly, her complaint about "captive-audience speeches" rings hollow because under the current so-called "voluntary recognition" process captive audience speeches are most likely to be used to aid organizers in imposing the union on employees. Take the case of the Johnson Controls, for example.

Finally, Lofaso completely ducks the issue of the deep problems with card check compared to less coercive methods. There have been numerous employee reports of intimidation, half truths, lies and harassment of employees by union organizers during card check drives, where organizers corner workers one on one to pressure them into signing cards that are later counted as "votes" but Lofaso never addresses, or even references, those obvious problems that help provide the basis for the Dana/Metaldyne decision.

Ultimately despite what Lofaso and other pro-Big Labor "academics" say, Dana-Mataldyne does only one thing... give workers an additional right to challenge a union's claim of majority support via a secret ballot election. This important yet modest check represents only a small rebuke against the ability of union organizers to gain monopoly control over a workplace without even the support of a majority of employees.

Only in pro-Big Labor academic la-la land could the granting of that small check to employees be part of a "Massacre on Workers' Rights."