Philly-Area Manufacturing Employees Triumph Over UAW Intimidation Campaign
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
UAW bosses now required to attend federal training after trying to fire non-striking workers
Despite an active federal corruption investigation, UAW President Shawn Fain and his underlings continue to push a radical political agenda using workers’ dues money while ignoring the rights of the rank-and-file employees union bosses claim to “represent.”
PHILADELPHIA, PA – It’s not particularly difficult to see why United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials are having trouble convincing workers that the union has their best interests in mind.
The union’s upper echelon is still reeling from a federal probe that hit about a dozen top union bosses with prison sentences for embezzling workers’ dues, and to this day it appears that UAW President Shawn Fain — a so-called “reformer” — is being scrutinized by federal monitors for manipulating his position to secure personal benefits.
But the corruption within the UAW goes far beyond the union’s top executives. Throughout 2024, National Right to Work Foundation-backed workers for auto accessory manufacturer Dometic fought illegal UAW demands that they strike or be fired.
UAW Union Used Mass Texts, Social Media to Bully Workers
In March 2024, seven Philadelphia-area Dometic employees filed unfair labor practice charges against the UAW Local 644 union, detailing that UAW bosses had ordered a strike and threatened to get fired anyone who decided to keep working.
Despite the employees’ resignation of their union memberships, UAW officials began internal proceedings against each of them soon after the strike began. Federal labor law forbids unions from imposing internal discipline on those who abstain from union membership.
The Dometic workers didn’t back down. With free Foundation legal aid, all the workers won settlements in October 2024 that fully vindicated their rights. UAW officials must now make postings correctly informing workers of their right to abstain from union activities, and the settlement even requires union chiefs to undergo mandatory training on the limits of “a union’s right to impose internal discipline,” among other topics.
As the workers’ legal battle dragged on, the Dometic workers continued to expose ugly details of the UAW’s intimidation campaign surrounding the strike. In April 2024, Dometic employee Mario Coccie filed a second round of charges against UAW Local 644 for a mass text message that threatened all Dometic employees — not just those who had filed charges against the union — with termination if they didn’t strike.
“The information in this text reveals union officials’ real intentions, which is to hurt anyone willing to stand up for themselves,” said Coccie at the time. “What is happening in this case is completely unjust.”
UAW officials also refused to respect Coccie and his coworkers’ rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which prohibits union officials from requiring workers to pay for the union’s political expenditures just to keep their jobs. Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UAW bosses can force workers to pay union fees as a condition of employment, but must abide by Beck.
Legal Privileges Enable UAW Corruption
In addition to the notice postings and required training, the Foundation-won settlement orders union officials to delete social media posts threatening workers who refused to strike.
“We’re proud to have helped Mario Coccie and his coworkers vindicate their rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “But it has become all too clear that union corruption — which can take the form of anything from stealing millions in worker dues to intimidating workers to join a picket line — is only made easier when union bosses are granted more legal privileges.
“Policymakers need to protect workers’ freedom to cut off funding for union bosses who don’t serve their interests, and to fully abstain from union activities that individual employees do not see as in their own best interest,” Semmens added.
Foundation Op-Ed: ‘Biden’s Labor Board Wants to Trap Workers in Unions they Oppose’
In an op-ed for The Hill published on Labor Day (September 5, 2023) entitled “Biden’s labor board wants to trap workers in unions they oppose,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix highlighted the coercive pro-union boss policies being pushed by Biden-majority National Labor Relations Board to the detriment of the rights of independent-minded workers:
Big Labor bosses have a problem: Despite their vitriolic rhetoric and a small number of loud online activists, most workers want nothing to do with unions.
A Gallup poll released last Labor Day spotlighted the issue: A strong majority of nonunion workers in the U.S. (58 percent) say they are “not interested at all” in joining a union, whereas just 11 percent say they are “extremely interested.”
Since it takes a majority of workers in a given workplace to support a union before monopoly union representation can be imposed, union organizers face a basic math problem — one that explains why only 6 percent of private-sector workers are unionized today.
Yet rather than consider ways of making unionization more attractive to rank-and-file workers, politically-connected union bosses have a different plan: Rig the rules to force more workers into their ranks, willing or not.
President Biden, who campaigned on being “the most pro-union president in American history” and is counting on Big Labor’s multi-billion-dollar political machine again in 2024, is unleashing his administration to the benefit of his favorite special interest.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), stocked with Biden appointees and former union lawyers, has been busy doing just that. If workers won’t voluntarily vote unions in, Biden’s NLRB, whose rules cover most private sector workers, wants to take their vote away.
That’s why the NLRB, at the end of August, effectively mandated the “card check” unionization process by bureaucratic fiat. Never mind that numerous union-backed measures in Congress to require this abuse-prone unionization process have failed to pass into law.
Card-check drives occur when employers, usually in the face of union-applied political and economic pressure, waive workers’ right to a secret ballot election. During these drives, union officials are allowed to demand union authorization cards directly from workers using coercive tactics that would be unlawful during a secret ballot vote.
Union organizers can show up at workers’ homes over and over again demanding signatures, in some instances requiring workers to call the police to get organizers to leave. Workers report being misled about the true implications of signing the cards, and some have been told they would be fired if they didn’t sign just before the union successfully took over.
Some workers even face threats of violence. In one SEIU organizing drive, a worker reported being told that the union would “come and get her children” and “slash her tires” if she didn’t sign a union card…
Read the rest of Mark’s piece on the website of The Hill here.
Former Connecticut State Trooper Wins Over $250,000 in Political Discrimination Suit
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
CSPU union upended trooper’s career after he refused to fund union politics
Joseph Mercer fought back with free Foundation legal aid when the CSPU union blocked his promotion because he challenged union political activities and told others about their rights.
HARTFORD, CT – In 2015, then-Connecticut State Trooper Joseph Mercer received a promotion to Operations Sergeant of the Emergency Services Unit, a position that gave him significant responsibility over emergency services training and field operations. Mercer gained this prestigious position through his seventeen years of experience as a trooper, which included a tense situation with an armed suspect barricaded in a hotel.
But behind the scenes, Mercer was a target of Connecticut State Police Union (CSPU) officials, who resented Mercer because of his resistance to funding union politics with his own money. After CSPU President Andrew Matthews filed two baseless grievances against Mercer, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) demoted him to a position that offered fewer overtime opportunities and involved less time in the field.
Mercer slammed CSPU and DESPP officials with a federal lawsuit in 2016 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, accusing police union officials of retaliating against him for exercising his right to stop funding union politics.
This April, Foundation attorneys forced CSPU and DESPP to back down and settle the case. Both parties must now pay $260,500 as a condition of ending the suit.
CSPU Union President Targeted Dissident Trooper Immediately After Promotion
Just a month after Mercer received his promotion, CSPU President Matthews filed a grievance over Sergeant Mercer’s appointment.
Matthews’ grievance claimed that there had been no “selection process” to fill the position, despite the fact that none of Sergeant Mercer’s union-member predecessors had undergone any particular kind of selection process before they got the job. Matthews also filed a second baseless grievance, alleging Mercer had mismanaged the incident involving the armed suspect barricaded in a hotel. State police officials had never expressed dissatisfaction with how Mercer handled the situation.
In October 2015, after meeting in private with the union president, then-DESPP Commissioner Dora Schriro transferred Mercer out of his Operations Sergeant position to an administrative post. Prior to this demotion, Mercer had received no warnings, reprimands, or other disciplinary actions regarding the incident referenced in Matthews’ grievance. Mercer filed his lawsuit with Foundation aid in February 2016.
Mercer’s Foundation attorneys cranked up the heat on both the union and DESPP officials in May 2022, when a District Court judge ordered DESPP Commissioner James Rovella, who had replaced Schriro, to turn over additional documents that might provide insight into the circumstances surrounding Mercer’s firing.
Rather than follow through with the judge’s discovery order and continue the fight against Mercer, CSPU and DESPP reversed course and settled the case in April 2023. The settlement categorizes the vast majority of the $260,500 payout as “compensatory damages” due directly to Mercer.
Settlement Underscores Importance of Public Servants’ Janus Rights
“We are proud to have defended Sergeant Mercer’s rights and secured him a settlement that vindicates his free association,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “However, it’s disgraceful that CSPU union officials targeted Mercer, a dedicated public safety officer, with such a retribution scheme in the first place. Public servants should not have to endure multi-year lawsuits just so they can refrain from supporting union politics they oppose.”
“Situations like these demonstrate why the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided while Mercer’s case was ongoing, is so important,” Messenger added. “As demonstrated in Mercer’s case, unelected union officials often wield their enormous clout over government to serve the union’s self interests over the public interest and employee interests. That’s why it’s vital that public employees can exercise their First Amendment Janus right to cut off all financial support for union officials this way.”
Busted: Kroger Worker’s Card Illegally Altered to ‘Authorize’ Forced Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Employee’s UFCW union card indicating objection to financial support changed without her knowledge
Jessica Haefner clearly exercised her rights under Texas’ Right to Work law. Foundation attorneys will get to the bottom of who faked her consent to dues deductions and restore her rights.
HOUSTON, TX – Supermarket clerk Jessica Haefner began her job at a suburban Houston Kroger store in August 2022. She attended a mandatory meeting for new employees run by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) local union agents. Despite the union’s hard-sell at the meeting, she knew her rights under Texas’ Right to Work law: Union bosses couldn’t force her to pay any dues or fees to the union to keep her job.
During the meeting, Haefner followed a union representative’s instructions to indicate on a union form that she did not want to be a part of the union or pay dues or fees. But she was shocked to discover just weeks later not only that union dues were coming out of her paycheck, but also that the union form she was required to sign had been altered to indicate she consented to those deductions.
Haefner, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, slammed UFCW officials and Kroger with federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The charges state that UFCW bosses’ and Kroger’s actions violate her rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees American private sector workers’ right to abstain from any and all union activities.
“I was lied to . . . and my rights were not only violated as an employee but as an American citizen,” said Haefner.
Employee’s Dues Form Was Altered, Forced Dues Deductions Began
According to Haefner’s charges, a UFCW agent passed out a union membership application and a dues checkoff on a single form that he claimed was mandatory for meeting attendees to complete. Another piece of onboarding literature stated that Kroger management had the “opinion that you should participate and be active in the Union.”
When Haefner asked how she could exercise her right to refrain from joining the union or paying union dues, the union agent instructed Haefner to write “$0” in the field marked “union dues” on the form.
Haefner followed these instructions. But after discovering later that union dues were indeed coming out of her paycheck, Haefner quickly obtained a copy of the form on which Kroger and UFCW officials based their dues deductions. She saw that someone had changed the dues deduction amount in the field she marked “$0” to a dollar amount to induce dues deductions from her paycheck.
UFCW Chiefs Illegally Seizing Dues from Grocery Workers Across Country
UFCW’s violation of Haefner’s rights is not an isolated incident. In Pennsylvania, Foundation staff attorneys are also representing Giant Eagle supermarket cashier Josiah Leonatti, who charges UFCW Local 1776KS union officials with refusing to accommodate his religious objections to union membership (see page 3). King Soopers grocery employees from Colorado are also receiving free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys in opposing illegal UFCW strike fines, some of which are as high as about $4,000 per worker.
“Jessica Haefner knew her rights under Texas’ popular Right to Work law and actively asserted them, yet UFCW union officials still brazenly took her money against her will,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“As cases brought for workers with free Foundation legal aid show, UFCW bosses have a long and documented history of violating workers’ rights, whether through thousands of dollars in illegal strike fines, illegal religious discrimination, threatening teenagers’ jobs, and now by altering a worker’s dues authorization,” Mix added.
Full Foundation Action March/April 2023 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the March/April issue of Foundation Action are now on the website.
In this issue:
- San Francisco Security Officer Battles Illegal SEIU Union Boss Discrimination
- With Foundation Aid, Mayo Clinic Nurses Defeat Forced Union Dues Requirement
- Northwest Ohio Employees File Suit to Knock Down Another Janus Restriction
- Illinois Security Officer Defends Janus Rights Amidst Union Discrimination
- Mark Mix’s Fox News Op-Ed: “Union bosses get away with things you or I wouldn’t. Supreme Court should roll back special privileges”
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
With Foundation Aid, Mayo Clinic Nurses Defeat Forced Union Dues Requirement
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Nurses’ ultimate goal is to end Steelworkers union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’ completely
Austin, MN, Mayo nurse Erin Krulish and her coworkers hope to soon join Mankato, MN, Mayo nurses (above) in removing unwanted union “representation” from their facility.
AUSTIN, MN – Nurses at the Mayo Clinic Health System in Austin, Minnesota, recently voted overwhelmingly in a deauthorization election to end the power of United Steelworkers (USW) union officials to require nurses to pay up or be fired. The workers filed the deauthorization petition with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 18 with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
“We are so happy with the way the election turned out,” Mayo Clinic Austin nurse Erin Krulish commented. “I think it really shows that all of us came together to show the union that we don’t want to keep paying them when they are doing nothing for us.”
Krulish filed the deauthorization petition for her coworkers seeking to end the so-called “union security clause” that authorizes USW union bosses to have nurses fired for refusing to financially support union activities. The request seeking the vote to end United Steelworkers union officials’ forced-dues powers at Mayo Clinic Austin was signed by 49 of the 66 workers, well over the number required to trigger the NLRB-supervised election.
Ending Forced Dues Comes as Nurses Wait for Vote to Formally Remove Union
Minnesota is not a Right to Work state, meaning all workers in a unionized workplace can be required to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, federal law does allow workers to hold deauthorization votes to end union officials’ legal authority to force workers to “pay up or be fired,” although winning such a vote can often be an uphill battle as independent workers have to take on professional forced-dues-funded union organizers.
The overwhelming 49-17 vote against mandatory union payments came as the nurses wait for the opportunity to end USW officials’ so-called “representation” at the facility completely, a process known as decertification. “We plan to decertify come next December when our contract is up and we are ready for another fight!” Krulish said following the deauthorization victory.
Currently, the non-statutory NLRB-invented “contract bar” doctrine blocks workers from holding a decertification vote to remove a union’s monopoly representation powers for up to three years when a union boss-imposed contract is in effect. Consequently, a deauthorization vote, which isn’t limited by the contract bar, was the nurses’ only option. If the nurses at the Austin Mayo Clinic do decertify as they plan, they will join Minnesota nurses at Mayo Clinic Mankato and Mayo Clinic St. James who voted to oust union officials from their hospitals in the last six months.
“No worker anywhere should be forced under so-called union ‘representation’ they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “So while we’re pleased Ms. Krulish and her coworkers were victorious against the Steelworkers union, this case also shows why it is past time to end the NLRB-sanctioned ‘contract bar’ which traps workers in union ranks they oppose for years at a time.”
“Ultimately, Minnesota needs a state Right to Work law to ensure that every individual worker has the freedom to decide whether or not to financially support a union, even those who can’t overcome the hurdles required to successfully navigate the complicated deauthorization process,” added Mix.
Foundation to High Court: Time to End Union Boss Vandalism Exemptions
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Case asks if Teamsters are immune from liability for property destruction during strike
Rod Carter sought Foundation help after he was stabbed and beaten by Teamsters militants in 1997. The Foundation still fights union violence and opposes union bosses’ attempts to dodge property damage lawsuits.
WASHINGTON, DC – Unions and union officials already have an enormous number of special privileges under the law enjoyed by no other private organization or individual. Yet those special powers — including forcing workers under monopoly “representation” and union dues payments they oppose — haven’t stopped union lawyers from arguing for even more special exemptions.
In a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justices are set to decide whether the Washington State Supreme Court was correct when it granted Teamsters union officials immunity from lawsuits filed under state law. The lawsuit in this case concerned vandalism and property damage against an employer that occurred during a union boss-ordered strike.
Union Chiefs Want Blank Check to Target Workers with Property Damage
In Glacier Northwest Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174, a construction company sued the Teamsters union over property damage deliberately caused as part of a strike, only to see the Washington Supreme Court overturn the lower court and agree with union bosses’ argument that unions were exempt from such lawsuits.
With the issue now before the nation’s highest court, the National Right to Work Foundation filed a brief in the case arguing that creating such a carve-out is wrong under the law. The Foundation brief says this exemption is dangerous not only to businesses but first and foremost to independent-minded workers, and that union officials’ abundance of government-granted powers should be pared back, not extended. Oral arguments are set for January 10, 2023.
The Foundation explains in the amicus brief that “states’ interest in protecting life, limb, and private property must be respected under principles of federalism” because federal courts usually don’t offer relief for crimes like vandalism and property damage, making state courts the only place where lawsuits can be filed for such behavior. Far from being a concern only for employers who face union strike efforts, the Foundation argues, employees are often targeted by hostile or violent strike behavior and state courts often are the only forum in which they can receive justice.
“For example, in Clegg v. Powers, employees sought damages in state court for union violence and property damage during a strike,” the brief says. “Cases like Clegg demonstrate that the Court should limit” unions’ ability to dodge being sued in state court, it continues.
Foundation: Union Officials’ Special Legal Privileges Shouldn’t Be Expanded
The Foundation’s brief then points out that the Teamsters bosses’ attempt to gain this new legal privilege should be shut down given “the extraordinary privileges and exemptions already granted to unions” by Congress and courts all over the country.
These include, but are not limited to, an exemption from federal law prohibiting extortionate violence, the power to force employees in non-Right to Work states to pay union dues or fees just to stay employed, and the privilege to foist monopoly “representation” over workers against their will — powers no other private entity or individual has.
“This Court should treat unions like all other citizens or entities, clarifying that they can be liable for damages in state courts under ‘the common law rule that a man is held to intend the foreseeable consequences of his conduct,’” the brief concludes.
Unions Shouldn’t Get More Rights Than Regular Citizens
“Union officials’ theory that they should be off the hook in state court for damaging or vandalizing property is outrageous on its face. The law already has plenty of carve-outs and privileges for union hierarchies that no other private organization or citizen gets to enjoy, least of all the workers union bosses claim to ‘represent,'”” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“Union officials regularly force millions of workers to pay union fees or be fired, and force their ‘representation’ on millions of workers who bitterly oppose it. The Supreme Court should reject this new ploy seeking another union-only exemption to regular laws, and begin to scrutinize and ultimately roll back the many existing union boss special powers.”
Full Foundation Action September/October 2022 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the September/October issue of Foundation Action are now on the website.
In this issue:
- Foundation Client Wins $5.1 Million Verdict After Union Boss-Instigated Firing
- ATU Union Facing Prosecution After Agent Physically Assaults Bus Driver
- Foundation Helps Healthcare Workers Remove Unwanted Unions
- Foundation in the News: Exposing the Injustices of Forced Unionism
- IAM Union ‘Becks’ Down in Boeing Technician’s Case Over Unlawful Dues Deductions
- Kentucky Worker Hits Steelworkers Union with Complaint for Violation of Right to Work Law
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
IAM Union ‘Becks’ Down in Boeing Technician’s Case Over Unlawful Dues Deductions
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
IAM bosses charged arbitrary higher amount in violation of Foundation-won Beck precedent
IAM union bosses’ illegal fee scheme faced headwinds when Boeing technician Don Zueger defended his rights with Foundation legal aid – and won.
SEATTLE, WA – Boeing technician Don Zueger didn’t want to sacrifice a cent from his paycheck to subsidize the activities of International Association of Machinists (IAM) union bosses who currently maintain monopoly bargaining power in his workplace. But, because he works in non-Right to Work Washington State, he can be forced to pay some union fees just to keep his job.
When Zueger found out union officials were calculating his forced fees amount based on financial data from nine other IAM affiliates – not just data from his own district union – he knew something was amiss.
Zueger sought free legal representation from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and filed a federal lawsuit against the IAM union for violating his rights under the 1988 Foundation-won CWA v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Beck, the Court ruled that union officials cannot charge full union dues to objecting private sector workers who have abstained from formal union membership, and can only charge them “fees” which exclude expenses for things like union political activities.
IAM Bosses Use Baseless ‘Formula’ to Seize Excessive Forced Union Fees
Zueger’s lawsuit pointed out that IAM officials’ puzzling scheme imposed a dues amount on him that exceeds the limit that Beck established. Now he has won a settlement that requires union officials to decrease his dues payments and return money illegally taken from his wages.
Washington State’s lack of Right to Work protections mean that union officials can legally demand Zueger pay the reduced Beck amount as a condition of staying employed. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
According to Zueger’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, he submitted a request to IAM union officials in February resigning his union membership and asking for his dues payments to be reduced as Beck requires.
Zueger’s lawsuit noted that IAM officials’ response to his Beck request claimed that, under IAM’s nationwide policy, the portion of union dues he must pay is based on averages of selected audits that in each case include nine other district IAM affiliates and nine other locals. Unsurprisingly, this policy resulted in IAM officials claiming Zueger is required to pay a greater sum than what would be required if union officials only used the audits for the district and local unions Zueger is forced to fund.
His lawsuit sought to force IAM union bosses to return all money demanded in violation of Beck and to properly reduce his future union payments in accordance with Beck.
Rather than attempt to defend their scheme to increase Zueger’s forced fee amount, IAM union chiefs quickly backed down and settled the case.
IAM union officials have now, as the settlement mandates, returned to Zueger the difference between the proper Beck dues amount and the illegal amount the union imposed on him. IAM bosses are also forbidden from demanding any money above the correctly calculated reduced Beck portion in the future, making the settlement a full vindication of Zueger’s Beck rights.
IAM Must Return Dues That Could Have Gone to Union Boss Political Agenda
Zueger’s settlement comes after union bosses spent near-record sums on politics during the 2020 election cycle, and as Foundation attorneys deal with a flurry of worker requests concerning illegal forced dues for politics. According to a report by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released in 2021, public data on union expenses shows about $2 billion in political spending during the 2020 election cycle. Other estimates suggest the actual union spending on political and lobbying activities topped $12 billion during this cycle.
“It’s shameful that union officials continue to invent new ways to violate the decades-old Beck Supreme Court precedent and overcharge workers who clearly want nothing to do with union bosses and their agenda – a big concern as union politicking heats up in advance of midterm elections,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “This scheme to artificially manipulate forced dues calculations is part of the IAM’s nationwide policy, and the Foundation stands ready to assist other workers around the country who are being subjected to this anti-Beck IAM scheme.”
Las Vegas Police Officer Urges Supreme Court to Hear Case Battling Union’s Unconstitutional Dues Scheme
LVMPD officer argues union officials seized her money in violation of First Amendment through restrictive arrangement to which she never consented
Washington, DC (November 21, 2022) – Las Vegas police officer Melodie DePierro has submitted a petition asking the United States Supreme Court to hear her lawsuit defending her First Amendment right to abstain from paying dues to a union she does not support. DePierro is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
DePierro, a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officer, contends in the lawsuit that officials of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) union seized dues money from her paycheck in violation of her First Amendment rights pursuant to a so-called “window period” specified in the union contract. PPA officials’ “window period” scheme prohibits police officers from opting out of union financial support for over 90% of the year. DePierro never consented to – nor was ever informed of – this limitation.
DePierro seeks to enforce her First Amendment rights recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME case, which was argued and won by Foundation attorneys. The Justices ruled in Janus that forcing public sector workers to subsidize an unwanted union as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. They also held that union officials can only deduct dues from a public sector employee who has affirmatively waived his or her Janus rights.
“[I]f employee consent is not required, governments and unions can, and will…devise and enforce onerous restrictions on when employees can stop subsidizing union speech,” reads the brief.
PPA Union Officials Imposed on Officer Contract Provision She Never Knew About
According to DePierro’s original complaint, she began working for LVMPD in 2006 and voluntarily joined the PPA union at that time. However, in 2006 the union monopoly bargaining contract permitted employees to terminate dues deductions at any time.
In January 2020, she first tried to exercise her Janus rights, sending letters to both union officials and the LVMPD stating that she was resigning her membership. The letters demanded a stop to union dues being taken from her paycheck.
Her complaint reported that union and police department agents rejected that request because of the union-imposed “window period” restriction previously unknown to DePierro that purportedly limits when employees can exercise their Janus rights. As her brief notes, that “window period” restriction was added in the 2019 monopoly bargaining contract between union officials and the police department, despite the fact Janus had already been decided by then.
DePierro never agreed to such a restriction on the exercise of her First Amendment rights, but union agents nonetheless rebuffed her again when she renewed her demand to stop dues deductions in February 2020. When she filed her lawsuit, full union dues were still coming out of her paycheck.
DePierro’s Supreme Court petition argues that, because union officials kept seizing money from her wages under the guise of the “window period,” and never sought her consent to the restriction, they violated the First Amendment. As per Janus, union officials must obtain a worker’s waiver of their Janus rights before deducting dues or fees from their pay. DePierro asks the High Court to declare the “window period” scheme unconstitutional, forbid PPA and LVMPD from further enforcing it, and order PPA and LVMPD to refund with interest all dues unlawfully withheld from her pay since she tried to stop the deductions.
“This Court’s review is urgently needed because the Ninth Circuit’s decision is allowing governments and unions to unilaterally decide when and how to restrict employees’ right to refrain from subsidizing union speech—without the need to secure their affirmative consent to the restriction,” asserts the brief.
Officer Joins California Lifeguards in Asking Justices to Uphold Janus Ruling
DePierro’s petition comes as 21 Foundation-represented Southern California lifeguards are also urging the Supreme Court to hear their case challenging an anti-Janus dues scheme concocted by California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials. That scheme has trapped the lifeguards in union membership and full dues deductions until 2023, despite each of the lifeguards exercising his or her Janus right to abstain from union membership and union financial support.
As in DePierro’s case, the lifeguards were not explicitly informed of the so-called “maintenance of membership” restriction which now confines them in membership and full dues payment. Moreover, union officials never obtained voluntary waivers of Janus rights from any of the lifeguards before subjecting them to this scheme.
“Janus’ First Amendment protections are meant to ensure that workers are not being forced to subsidize union bosses of whom they disapprove, whether based on union officials’ ineffectiveness, political activities, divisive conduct in the workplace, or any other reason,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials’ defense of schemes that siphon money out of unwilling workers’ paychecks sends a clear message that they value dues revenue over the constitutional rights of the workers they claim to ‘represent.’”
“Two parties, here the union and police department, cannot enter into an agreement to restrict the First Amendment rights of an American citizen, yet that is exactly what has happened here to Officer DePierro,” Mix added. “The Supreme Court must defend Janus rights against such obvious violations, and ensure that these unconstitutional schemes are not allowed to stand.”
