West Virginia Worker Wins Settlement from Steelworkers Union after Receiving Threats for Exercising Rights
USW union officials violated federal law by threatening seniority and overtime when Petersburg worker moved to resign her union membership
Petersburg, West Virginia (January 8, 2019) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a West Virginia worker has won a settlement against the United Steelworkers (USW) Local 1017 after she filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge against the union with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Tammy Hedrick, an employee of Adell Polymers in Petersburg, West Virginia, originally brought the federal charge against the union after she was threatened with the stripping of her seniority at the behest of union officials, a violation of federal law.
When West Virginia passed its Right to Work law in 2016, Hedrick attempted to exercise her right to resign her union membership and cut off dues payments, as had been explained to her by her employer. Her contract, however, was grandfathered in, as it had been enacted before the passing of the law. In retaliation, union officials sought to strip Hedrick of her seniority and overtime pay.
The settlement agreement requires union officials to end attempts to demote Hedrick or any other employees, or otherwise punish employees, for exercising their legally protected rights. Union officials are also required by the settlement to post notices informing all of Adell Polymer’s employees of their legal rights and the end of union officials’ efforts to remove Hedrick’s seniority.
In addition to Hendrick’s settlement, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are fighting to defend West Virginia’s Right to Work law in state court. Foundation staff attorneys have filed amicus briefs in West Virginia AFL-CIO, et al. v. Governor James C. Justice, et al., urging the Kanawha County Circuit Court and the West Virginia Supreme Court to uphold the state’s Right to Work protections.
“Tammy Hedrick has halted these illegal threats by union bosses against her for seeking to exercise her rights as protected by federal law,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “The outcome of this case should serve as a reminder to all Mountain State workers that under federal law they have the right to refrain from union membership, and that union officials cannot legally retaliate against workers who choose to exercise these protected rights.”
“Any worker who needs assistance in exercising these rights, or who like Tammy Hedrick is threatened for doing so, should know they can always turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal assistance,” continued Mix.
U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Case Challenging Forced Union Affiliation as Violation of First Amendment
Minnesota home-based personal care providers argue being forced under SEIU union monopoly ‘representation’ violates their freedom to associate
Washington, D.C. (December 13, 2018) – Today, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a group of Minnesota home-based home care providers filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case challenging a Minnesota state law used to force tens of thousands of home care providers under union monopoly “representation.” The providers, who work at home caring for disabled family members as part of a state-run Medicaid program, oppose union affiliation.
The case’s lead plaintiff, Teri Bierman, filed the suit with seven other home care providers to challenge a 2013 Minnesota state law used by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Minnesota to force home care providers to associate with it as a condition of providing care under the state Medicaid program.
Teri Bierman and the other home care providers provide critical care to their family members who receive state assistance to help pay for their care. Bierman provides care at home for her daughter, who suffers from cerebral palsy and requires care throughout the day. The other plaintiffs in the case care for children diagnosed with severe autism, epilepsy, Rubenstein-Taybi syndrome, or other significant disabilities. Like the other plaintiffs, Bierman receives aid from a Minnesota program similar to Medicaid, which provides funds to families to care for disabled relatives.
On August 27, 2014, the SEIU “won” a controversial mail-in unionization vote for Minnesota caregivers. Even though only 13 percent of the state’s 27,000 home care providers indicated support for SEIU affiliation, that was enough for the state to impose the union’s monopoly representation onto every provider, because of the small number of ballots returned. Caregivers who didn’t vote or voted against the union were then forced to accept the SEIU’s “representation.”
Bierman v. Dayton asks the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s free association guarantee the unions’ monopoly bargaining privileges, by which a union forces its representation on individuals receiving state funds who do not consent to the representation.
By asking the Court to declare monopoly bargaining a violation of the First Amendment, Foundation staff attorneys seek to build off two recent Foundation-won Supreme Court decisions. In the 2014 Harris v. Quinn decision, the Court applied exacting First Amendment scrutiny to rule that providers like the Bierman plaintiffs cannot be required to pay union fees.
Next, in the June 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, the Court declared that forced union fees for all public sector employees violate the First Amendment and opened the door to further cases seeking to uphold workers’ rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. In his opinion for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court that “designating a union as the employees’ exclusive representative substantially restricts the rights of individual employees.”
Both Harris and Janus were argued by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger, who is also the lead attorney in Bierman v. Dayton. Bierman now asks the Supreme Court, for the first time, to apply the same First Amendment standard to forced association as it has already applied to forced subsidies of union speech.
“If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Bierman, these home care providers will be one step closer toward ending an unconstitutional scheme that forces them to associate with a union they oppose as a condition of state assistance in providing care for their sons and daughters,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Forcing individuals under union monopoly representation flies in the face of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association. This case gives the High Court the opportunity to apply to Big Labor’s coercive exclusive representation powers the legal standards it laid out in Janus and Harris.”
Hospital Employee Challenges “Contract Bar” and Other Restrictions on Employees’ Right to Hold Vote to Oust SEIU Union
NLRB board agent: wrong to rely on NLRB website for advice
Washington, D.C. (November 15, 2018) – Today, a hospital employee in California filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C. to overturn a Regional Director’s decision to invalidate his petition to remove the SEIU union from his workplace with a secret ballot vote. The worker, Andrew Brown, received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys in filing his Request for Review.
In October, Brown, a surgical buyer at USC-Verdugo Hills Hospital in Glendale, California, petitioned for a vote to remove the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) – United Healthcare Workers West union as monopoly bargaining agent for him and his coworkers. Despite having followed the NLRB website’s instructions on union decertification petitions, including collecting signatures from over 30 percent of his colleagues as required, union officials claimed Mr. Brown’s decertification petition was untimely.
In a decision dated October 25, the Director of NLRB Region 31 in Los Angeles agreed with the union. She held that the NLRB’s “contract bar” rules, with their confusing “window periods” that limit when employee petitions can be filed – 60-90 days before a contract expires in most workplaces but 90-120 days in healthcare settings – governed. The director held that Brown’s petition was two days late under these confusing rules. She also ruled that he was wrong to rely on the NLRB’s website for advice on calculating his filing dates. Brown, who did not have an attorney at the time, had followed instructions on the NLRB’s website and actually waited to file his petition based on what he understood was the first day he was allowed to do so.
The Request for Review asks the NLRB to overturn the Regional Director’s decision and permit Brown and his coworkers to vote on whether to oust the union. Brown not only argues that the decision to block his vote misapplied existing NLRB policies, but also asks the NLRB to end the existing policy restricting decertification petitions to a limited 30-day window.
In the Request for Review, Brown and his Foundation staff attorneys argue that the so-called “contract bar” rule is contrary to the stated purpose of the National Labor Relations Act which the NLRB is charged with administering, because the rule results in workers trapped in union monopoly ranks even when a majority of them oppose unionization. As Right to Work attorneys note, the “contract bar” is not authorized or even mentioned in the National Labor Relations Act.
The Request for Review also argues that the petition for a vote should be processed because Brown followed the advice on the NLRB website as best he could and still missed the purported deadline by fewer than 48 hours. The Request for Review argues that arbitrary rules, such as the “contract bar” rule cited by union officials to block Brown’s petition, create contradictory and confusing guidelines for rank-and-file workers to follow, and allow union officials to game the system to prevent workers from escaping from forced unionism ranks, even when a significant majority would vote a union out.
“It’s long past time for the NLRB to fundamentally reform its arbitrary rules used to trap workers in union forced dues ranks, even when a majority of workers oppose unionization,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “The so-called contract bar, like the other arbitrary limitations that are used to stop workers from even holding a vote to oust an unpopular union, has no basis in law—it’s simply a relic of past NLRB bureaucrats who put the power of union bosses ahead of the rights of workers that the National Labor Relations Act is supposed to protect.”
