Foundation Brief to Court of Appeals: Lower Court’s Decision Conflicts with SCOTUS’ Janus Ruling
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in Littler v. OAPSE with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Cincinnati, Ohio (April 6, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 5. The brief was filed in Littler v. OAPSE, brought by plaintiff Christina Littler. She attempted exercise her right to withdraw union membership and financial support, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, only to be denied by union officials.
In the Foundation-won and argued Janus case, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment protects government employees, like Littler, from being forced to fund union activities, and further that dues may only be deducted with the affirmative consent of an employee.
Littler is a school bus driver who, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Janus, notified the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) that she resigned her union membership and revoked her dues deduction authorization. Rather than honor Littler’s timely request to stop paying union dues, union officials had her government employer continue to seize full dues from her paycheck. This prompted Littler to file a lawsuit to recover the dues OAPSE seized from her in violation of her First Amendment rights.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, however, ruled the union was not liable for violating Littler’s constitutional rights. According to the court, the First Amendment did not apply to the union because the union supposedly did not engage in a state action when it caused a government employer to seize union dues from Littler’s wages.
The Foundation’s brief specifically counters this holding. The brief states “the lower court’s decision that a union does not violate the First Amendment when it has a government employer seize payments for union speech from a nonmember without her consent, because that union supposedly is not a state actor, conflicts with Janus and imperils employees’ right to not subsidize union speech that they oppose.”
The brief goes on to say that the “lower court has effectively given unions a free pass to infringe on employees’ speech rights under Janus without fear of liability” and that “it is important that the [Sixth Circuit] reverse the lower court’s erroneous state-action holding because it frees unions from constitutional constraints when they collaborate with government employers take union payments from employees.”
The case is one of many where union officials have sought to justify seizing dues from employees against their will. For example, in the Foundation-backed Savas case currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, Jonathan Savas and other California lifeguards are suing the California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency union for enforcing a “maintenance of membership” requirement that compel dissenting lifeguards to remain union members and to pay union dues for the four-year duration of the contract.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently scheduled the Savas petition for certiorari to be conferenced on April 21.
“While the Foundation is proud to assist workers in enforcing their constitutionally protected Janus rights, the increasing number of cases similar to Savas and Littler just highlight the lengths union bosses will go to in order to extract dues payments from workers against their will,” commented Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “These cases show why it has become unfortunately necessary for the Supreme Court to again weigh in on this issue to disabuse union officials and lower courts of the notion that public employees’ First Amendment rights can be so callously ignored and restricted.”
Seneca Foods Employees Send Teamsters Union Officials Packing
Wisconsin food processing workers oust Teamsters Local 695 after a majority of employees vote to remove the union
Oakfield, WI (April 3, 2023) – Seneca Foods employees in Oakfield, Wisconsin, have overwhelmingly voted to free themselves from the unwanted so-called “representation” of Teamsters Local 695. Andrew Collien, a warehouse employee at Seneca Foods, kick-started the decertification process that led to the workers’ vote to remove the union. Collien received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Collien and his coworkers filed the petition for a decertification vote with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in late February. In the petition, Seneca Foods workers formally requested a vote to determine whether or not the union should be removed.
On March 30, the NLRB regional office conducted a secret ballot election at the plant, resulting in a 17-10 vote to remove the union. Union officials have seven days to file objections to seek to overturn the workers’ vote. Otherwise, the results will become final.
Teamsters Local 695, which also controls the company’s truck drivers, maintenance, processing, and janitorial employees, originally had a five-year union contract with Seneca Foods, running until May 2025. With the results of the workers’ decertification election, however, the Teamsters’ contract was terminated two years early, sparing workers from the remainder of the agreement.
The Seneca Foods employees were fortunate to cast their votes just more than one month after filing their petition. However, this is not always the case for many workers around the nation who seek to remove unions they oppose.
A major issue workers face in decertifying unpopular unions is how prone the NLRB’s decertification process is to union boss-created roadblocks. These roadblocks can include often-baseless “blocking charges” brought by union officials against employers with the intention of delaying or even blocking employee-led decertification elections entirely.
Right to Work Foundation-backed “Election Protection Rule” reforms the NLRB issued in 2020 have helped make it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials by limiting some of the ways union lawyers manipulate blocking charges. However, the Biden NLRB is currently engaged in rulemaking to roll back these protections and make it much more difficult for workers to decertify an unpopular union. If the Biden-appointed NLRB is successful, it could take months or even years for workers to hold a decertification election.
Seneca Foods employees are just one example of workers looking to remove unions exercising excess control over them. Worker interest in removing controlling unions is growing nationwide. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys are fielding numerous requests for free legal assistance in decertification cases, such as Collien and his coworkers’ case against Teamsters Local 695.
In fact, the NLRB’s own data shows that a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.
“We congratulate Mr. Collien and his coworkers in successfully exercising their right to vote to free themselves of unwanted union so-called ‘representation,’” observed Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These workers knew the union well and decided, rather than having two more years of the union-imposed contract, they would be better off without the union.”
“Seneca Foods workers sent Teamsters Local 695 union officials a clear message, and union officials should respect that decision and not seek to disenfranchise these workers by asking the NLRB to overturn their vote,” Mix added.
Connecticut Bus Driver Slams Teamsters Union with Federal Charges for Violating Beck Rights
Teamsters union officials illegally force school bus driver to pay for union political activities
New Milford, CT (March 30, 2023) – Connecticut school bus driver Mary Boland has filed federal charges against Teamsters Local 671 union after union officials violated her rights, as established under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Beck decision, by illegally charging her union dues in excess of what she must pay in order to keep her job. These charges were filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Boland is being represented for free by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
On October 20, 2022, Mary Boland submitted a letter to Teamsters Local 671 exercising her rights to opt out of union membership and pay a reduced union fee. This forced union fee must be verified by an independent audit of union expenditures. Individuals who opt out of formal union membership cannot be fired from their job by refusing to pay for “non-chargeable” union expenditures, like member-only activities or union political and lobbying spending.
Due to Connecticut lacking Right to Work protections, workers who oppose union boss agendas can still be forced to pay union fees as a condition of their continued employment. However, under the Foundation-won 1988 Beck decision, union officials can never require non-members to fund activities not directly related to union monopoly bargaining. Beck has been interpreted by the lower courts, and the NLRB, to require that union officials provide certain union financial disclosures to justify the amount they claim a worker can be required to pay.
However, in a letter to Boland dated November 2, 2022, the union acknowledged she invoked her rights under Beck, but failed to actually reduce those fees or provide the required audit. Union officials have charged Boland full union dues as of the filing of the NLRB charge on March 17, 2023, and have never provided the required audit to justify any dues deductions.
“In their apparent greed to extract as much money as possible from unwilling workers, Teamsters bosses are blatantly disregarding longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” commented Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case shows why Connecticut workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to make all union financial support strictly voluntary.”
“Had Right to Work protections been in place, Mary Boland and other Connecticut workers would have had the freedom to simply cut off all union dues,” Mix added. “Without these Right to Work Protections, however, workers find themselves having to tangle with union lawyers over what portion of union dues they can be legally fired for not paying.”
New Jersey Energy Workers Win Bid to Remove Unwanted Union
So-called ‘SMART’ Local 137 union officials disclaim representation rather than face a decertification vote of rank-and-file workers
Fairlawn, NJ (March 23, 2023) – Calmac Corp employee Carlos Flores and his coworkers have won their effort to free themselves of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation (“SMART”) Local 137 union. The worker’s decertification effort recently became official when the SMART Local 137 union officials preemptively “disclaimed” interest in representing the Calmac Corp workers, rather than face a vote on whether to remove the union.
Flores, during the course of the decertification effort, received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys. The decertification petition, filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), included the signatures of a significant portion of his coworkers.
The Calmac Corp employee petition was filed on March 7, 2023. The petition was quickly followed by a letter from union officials, disclaiming interest in “representing” Calmac Corp workers. Luckily for the Calmac workers, the entire decertification process was completed rather quickly. However, this is not always the case for many workers around the nation who are also working to remove overbearing unions.
For example, the NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to union boss-created roadblocks. That includes “blocking charges”, or charges union officials levy against employers in an attempt to postpone or de-legitimize decertification efforts. These charges often have little to no basis and are used specifically to delay decertification petitions.
Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials, and made it harder for unions to file blocking charges. However, the Biden NLRB is attempting to roll back these protections and make it much more difficult to decertify a union.
Worker interest in removing unwanted unions is growing nationwide, with National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys fielding numerous requests for free legal assistance in decertification cases, with Flores and his coworkers just being one of these cases.
The NLRB’s own data show that, currently, a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.
“While we are extremely satisfied Calmac Corp workers were able to exercise their right to be union-free, had the 2020 Foundation-backed reforms to the NLRB not been in place this could have been a different story with union officials dragging out the process even though they clearly knew any vote would go against the union,” observed Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.
“Should the Biden-appointed NLRB Members be successful in their goal to roll back these reforms, workers like those at Calmac Corp could face enormous hurdles in their decertification efforts and be trapped within union ranks for months or even years,” Mix continued.
Federal Charge: Union Official Threatened Violence Against Concrete Workers Seeking to Vote Out Union
Delaware GFP Mobile Mix Supply driver attacked for opposing the IUOE Local 542 Union
Wilmington, DE (March 20, 2023) – GFP Mobile Mix employee Tanner Bradigan has filed federal charges against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 542 after union officials threatened violent retribution against workers who refused to support the union and later led an effort to remove it. Bradigan and his coworkers are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in this and a related case.
On March 8, 2023, Foundation attorneys filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Bradigan against the union. In the charges, Bradigan stated that IUOE union officials threatened to physically attack every worker who opposed union control in a December union meeting.
According to the charge, some of the Mobile Mix workers, including Bradigan, went to the union meeting in an attempt to learn more about what union officials were claiming it could obtain for employees at the bargaining table. When they stated that they would not be supporting the union, IUOE union officials became aggressive and began screaming at Bradigan and his coworkers, threatening to fight anyone who refused to support the union.
Vance Pennington, Bradigan’s coworker, later submitted a petition on February 2 to the NLRB requesting a decertification election whether to formally remove the union from their workplace. Their petition included the signatures of more than the enough workers in the bargaining unit to trigger the decertification election.
Threatening opponents of the union with violence isn’t the only tactic IUOE union officials have deployed in their attempt to counter the decertification effort, however. IUOE officials have so far been able to stop the vote from taking place using so-called “blocking charges,” a commonly used union tactic meant to delay or shut down decertification petitions entirely.
Foundation staff attorneys recently responded to the union’s allegations by submitting five affidavits from Mobile Mix workers corroborating that the petition for dismissal was completely unrelated to the allegations in the union’s blocking charges against GFP Mobile Mix, but rather legitimate grievances, like the union official’s threats of violence.
The supply drivers at Mobile Mix are not the only workers who are attempting to remove an unwanted union. The NLRB’s own data show that, today, a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.
Unfortunately, the NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to Board-created roadblocks, with the Mobile Mix workers’ situation being just the latest example. However, Foundation-backed NLRB reforms from 2020 have made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials.
Without these Foundation-backed reforms, workers could have their decertification votes delayed virtually automatically by any unproven union blocking charges, giving union bosses the power to trap workers in union ranks they oppose nearly indefinitely. Under the Foundation-backed reforms most votes will take place promptly, with union blocking claims adjudicated later after the votes have been counted.
“The Foundation will not stop fighting for the workers of Mobile Mix regardless of the malicious union tactics at play in this case,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Workers should never fear retaliation from union bosses for exercising their rights—physical or otherwise.”
“The very fact that IUOE bosses will physically threaten workers who oppose them shows these workers have ample reason, independent of whatever claims union lawyers have made in blocking charges, for wanting to end this union’s so-called ‘representation,’” added Mix.
California Security Employee Appeals NLRB Discrimination Ruling Minimizing Blatantly Illegal Force Union Demands
Labor Board wrongly claimed illegal union membership threats against San Francisco Allied Universal employee were mere clerical errors
San Francisco, CA (March 17, 2023) – Allied Universal employee Thomas Ross filed an appeal after National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officials tried to end his discrimination cases against his employer and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) on the grounds that they are moot. Ross is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in his several cases against the union and employer.
On November 10, 2022, Thomas Ross hit union officials affiliated with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and his employer Allied Universal, with two sets of federal charges for forcing him to join and financially support the union after he told both parties his religious beliefs forbid union support. One set of charges was filed with the NLRB for violating his rights under federal labor law, and the other was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), where the charges are still pending, for illegal religious discrimination under federal civil rights law.
California, where Ross is employed, lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, allowing union officials the power to force workers to pay them fees or be fired. In Right to Work states, in contrast, no worker can be fired for refusal to financially support a union.
However, under federal law, employees with religious objections cannot be compelled to pay union fees, even in non-Right to Work States. Further, under the National Labor Relations Act, which the NLRB is charged with enforcing, formal union membership cannot be mandatory, nor can dues be deducted from a worker’s paycheck without explicit authorization.
Despite this, Allied Universal demanded Ross join the union and also illegally seized dues from his paycheck without Ross’ consent, which it then sent to SEIU officials. After Ross filed the charges, Allied Universal refunded Ross’s illegally seized dues and claimed that the deduction was simply an “administrative error”. This led the NRLB to dismiss the case on the basis of the supposed “error” being resolved.
Foundation Attorneys and Ross have ample evidence to demonstrate the dues seizure was not a mere clerical error. In the appeal filed with the NLRB on March 13, 2023, Foundation attorneys highlighted that “it was established company policy that all employees are required to sign the checkoff and membership forms to work at Allied’s ‘union-only’ locations.”
The appeal also showcases several threats made to Ross by Allied Universal, even after receiving written notice of his religious objection. The correspondence in the case “show[s] employer agents reiterating several times that Mr. Ross must sign the membership forms in order to work at a ‘union site,’ or he can find a new job.”
“The Foundation is proud to assist Mr. Ross in his brave fight against religious discrimination and union boss coercion in his workplace,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Apparently at the behest of the SEIU, Allied Universal repeatedly and blatantly violated Mr. Ross’ legal rights. The NLRB should not sweep those under the rug as supposed ‘clerical errors’ because the clear violations of longstanding law financially benefitted union officials.”
“Additionally, it’s important to note that regardless of whether an individual employee’s objection to union affiliation and dues payment is religious in nature or not, ultimately no worker should be forced to pay dues to a union under threat of losing their livelihood,” Mix added.
