PHILADELPHIA, Pa. (April 8, 2002) – After National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a series of legal actions against National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU) Local 308, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled the union must pay $13,900 to non-union employees who had been denied payment for working overtime.
The case arose when NPMHU officials reached a settlement for overtime reimbursements for work done at the Philadelphia Air Mail Center in 1996 and 1997. But, union officials had refused to submit the names of non-union employees to be paid for their work. When questioned about the payments by non-union members, union officials used stalling tactics and reacted with hostility.
“It is amazing to think that anyone would trust the postal union brass after the way they treated the workers at this facility,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “They tried to deny people their wages since they would not submit to the union’s authority.”
Union officials were also found to have abused the rights of employees in other ways. As a result of the judge’s ruling, the NPMHU officials must also post a notice alerting all the employees of their right not to join the union, and that NPMHU officials will not fail to represent nonmembers, or any other employees, in a fair and impartial manner.
“The callous discrimination these workers endured points up the injustice of the privileges handed to union officials under federal law,” said Gleason.
Though postal employees are denied their right to bargain individually, they do have the right to refrain from joining or financially supporting a union. Union officials may not discriminate against nonmember employees on the basis of union status. Meanwhile, other employees in Pennsylvania are not protected by a Right to Work Law, thereby allowing union officials to force employees through-out the state to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (April 5, 2002) — Attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have forced Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) Local 108 to drop their vindictive suit against City of Anderson employee Michael Thompson.
In March, union officials filed the suit against Thompson, a non-union member who works in the city’s water pollution control department, claiming that he owed them $609.72 in back dues, including dues the union may have spent for political activities. Once the union realized that Thompson was represented by Foundation attorneys, they dismissed the suit.
To counter the charges brought by UWUA officials, Foundation attorneys showed that Thompson was never provided with the required disclosure of how non-member fees were spent. As a non-member, Thompson may only be compelled to pay for union expenses that are directly related to collective bargaining and contract administration. Under Foundation-won rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, Thompson cannot be forced to pay anything until these First Amendment due-process rights are respected.
“The UWUA never intended to provide a record of how they spent workers’ hard-earned money,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It’s simply pay up and shut up.”
The actions of UWUA officials directly violate the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, which requires unions to provide objecting employees an advance reduction of forced union dues used for politics and other non-bargaining activities. Under Hudson, union officials must provide audited disclosure of their books and justify expenditures made from forced union dues seized from employees who have chosen to refrain from union membership.
Statement from Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
Regarding the home care workers’ class-action lawsuit:
“No American should be forced to support a labor union in order to work for a living. But that is a freedom that officials of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) are attempting to take away, in order to rake in millions of dollars in forced union dues.
“A vast majority of Los Angeles County’s 80,000 home care providers did not vote for and did not want a union to interfere with their employment. Many never knew the union even existed, until they were chagrined to discover their wages being seized by the county and handed over to SEIU Local 434b.
“That’s when the National Right to Work Foundation began receiving calls from the distraught home care providers who requested free legal assistance to protect their First Amendment Rights.
“With the help of Foundation attorneys, these home care workers are fighting back – despite the personal risks involved in opposing a notoriously militant union. It turns out that this new forced unionism scheme, which “magically” turns independent contractors into public employees for collective bargaining purposes only, may well be unconstitutional.
“This appears to be nothing more that a union fundraising scheme to rip off those who care for the elderly and disabled, to say nothing of the millions of taxpayer dollars at stake in Los Angeles County alone; and then there is the rest of California, as well as Washington and Oregon. It’s no wonder that the union bosses are reacting with such hysteria to the class action lawsuit.”
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (April 2, 2002) — After scores of home care providers contacted the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation regarding a class action suit seeking to overturn a new statewide forced unionization scheme, Foundation attorneys filed an amended complaint adding additional plaintiffs and claims against the Services Employees International Union (SEIU) and Los Angeles County.
The civil rights class action suit challenges, on constitutional grounds, the entire scheme that arbitrarily deems private care providers as “public employees for collective bargaining purposes only” and imposes forced union representation and forced union dues as a job condition.
Even if the scheme were found to be constitutional, Foundation attorneys have discovered that SEIU Local 434B union officials have failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and have been seizing dues (from 80,000 home care providers to elderly and disabled citizens) in amounts well in excess of its own agreement with Los Angeles County.
“This compulsory dues rip-off scheme is a slap in the face to working people who just want to work without union interference,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Those who want to be affiliated with a union should have that right, but a vast majority of the 80,000 home care providers never voted in favor of a union.”
The additional named plaintiffs include Carla West (a single African-American parent who cares for her elderly mother), Eden Rosen, and Brenda Davis. They are joining a suit originally brought by Janos Hummel against the AFL-CIO-affiliated Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 434B, the Personal Assistance Services Council (PASC) of Los Angeles County, and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, along with several other California officials.
Foundation attorneys will soon file for a preliminary injunction to stop union fee seizures from non-members.
The AFL-CIO has hailed the forced unionization of the 80,000 home care providers as organized labor’s single largest organizing victory ever. Sacramento and San Diego counties and, more recently, Oregon and Washington state, have since adopted virtually identical schemes.
The class-action lawsuit asks that SEIU Local 434B’s entire contract with PASC, and as well as its ability to collect forced dues from independent home care providers, be revoked as an unconstitutional infringement on workers’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are also demanding all illegally seized union dues be returned to the plaintiffs.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (March 28, 2002) — With the help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, two Sacramento city employees, Hewett Hesterman and Michele Rudek, have filed a federal suit against the city of Sacramento and the Western Council of Engineers (WCE) union for forcing the illegal firing of workers who refuse to pay full union dues, including dues spent for politics.
Foundation attorneys also filed for a temporary restraining order against the city in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
“Hesterman and Rudek should not have their careers destroyed for opposing the union’s agenda,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “How can union officials claim to be on the side of workers when they thwart their ability to make a living?”
The situation arose last month, when WCE officials demanded that non-union employees pay an agency fee equal to full union dues or face termination from their jobs. In response, Hesterman and Rudek asked for a written account of how the union spends workers’ dues and asked for a reduction in the fee because they were not union members. In violation of the employees’ constitutional and due-process rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court, WCE officials rejected both of these requests and had Hesterman fired last Friday, March 22. Rudek has been notified she will be fired on April 4 if she refuses to pay the full agency fee.
Since the union officials have flagrantly violated the employees constitutional rights, Foundation attorneys are seeking a court order to reinstate Hesterman to his job and to prevent Rudek from being fired, in addition to having their dues demands reduced to an amount that covers only expenses that directly relate to collective bargaining. Hesterman is also demanding all back pay he would have earned had he not been illegally dismissed.
The actions of WCE officials directly violate the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, which requires unions to provide objecting employees an advance reduction of forced union dues used for politics and other non-bargaining activities. Under Hudson, union officials must provide audited disclosure of their books and justify expenditures made from forced union dues seized from employees who have chosen to refrain from union membership.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 25, 2002) – In a stunning 11-0 reversal of its previous unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the new nationwide rule of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that union officials may force 7.8 million employees to pay for union organizing drives as a condition of employment.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation immediately announced it will appeal today’s ruling – authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt (a former union attorney and former executive committee member of the Democratic National Committee) – to the U.S. Supreme Court. In recent years, the Ninth Circuit has been overturned by the High Court more frequently than any other federal appellate court.
“No worker should be forced to fund the recruitment of supporters to a private ideological cause,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This ruling is an outrageous affront to employee freedom and previous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
In its original 3-0 ruling issued early last year, the Ninth Circuit overturned the NLRB for abusing its discretion when it parted with Supreme Court precedent establishing that employees cannot be compelled to pay for union recruitment activity. Unless overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, today’s en banc ruling will compel 7.8 million American employees who work in compulsory union shops under the National Labor Relations Act to pay union organizing expenses or lose their jobs. Organizing expenses often exceed 20-30% of a union’s budget.
Many labor law experts agree that the Ninth Circuit’s decision directly violates previous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Under the Court’s 1988 ruling in Communications Workers v. Beck, a case brought by Foundation attorneys, employees may not be forced to pay for union political activities and other activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract negotiation, or grievance adjustment. In the Foundation-won precedent Ellis v. Railway Clerks, the High Court determined that union organizing expenses were clearly unrelated to collective bargaining, and thus employees who are not members of a union could not be legally forced to financially support this activity.
In establishing the nationwide precedent, the Court of Appeals decided against grocery store employee Phillip Mulder and five other employees, who originally filed the case (with the help of Foundation attorneys) against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union.
Court Won’t Hear Challenge to State Law Allowing Union Officials to Pass Judgment on Religious Views
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that California professors may not challenge the new state law that allows state and union officials to determine the acceptability of religious beliefs when employees seek an exemption from the requirement to pay union dues.
The union initially sent a notice to 14,000 non-union professors that a religious accommodation could be obtained only if they were a member of an approved church – as stated in the statute.
But later, California Faculty Association (CFA) union lawyers filed a sworn declaration with the court that despite its previous statements to 14,000 professors, the CFA union does not apply the statute as actually written – or as advertised to this very day on the union’s web site. Based on that declaration filed with the court only, the court ruled that the professors do not have standing to challenge the law even if it violates employees’ freedom of association under the First Amendment.
“It is outrageous that union officials and state bureaucrats try to play God and decide which religions are approved and which are not,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “If someone has a sincere religious objection to supporting a union thought to be immoral, his or her rights should be respected.”
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the class-action suit, Baird v. CFA, in February 2000 against the CFA union and the State of California on behalf of 14,000 non-union California State University (CSU) professors who must now pay $8.5 million annually in forced dues seized under a sweeping law signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999.
The lead plaintiff, Dr. Charles Baird, distinguished professor of economics at CSU Hayward and a practicing Roman Catholic, had filed an objection to supporting the CFA union since his religious views did not allow him to support an organization that promotes conflict and uses coercion to achieve its goals. But the union’s officials denied his objection.
Meanwhile, Professor Baird filed a charge at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in which the EEOC issued a decision finding cause to believe that the union had not properly accommodated Dr. Baird’s religious beliefs. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employees who have a sincere religious objection to supporting a union – regardless of church affiliation – may divert their compulsory union dues to a charity instead.
The plaintiffs are considering an appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
PALO ALTO, Calif. (March 11, 2002) — Ending a year-long union legal assault and harassment campaign against a nurse who refused to abandon her critically ill patients during a strike at Stanford Hospital, the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, has dismissed a union-levied $2,500 fine.
The Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA) union levied the retaliatory $2,500 fine on nurse Barbara Williams when she would not walk off the job in a June 2000 strike. With the help of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, Williams beat the fine by arguing that it was arbitrarily assessed, and the union’s own bylaws did not allow it.
“Rather than punish Barbara Williams, she should have been rewarded as a hero and a credit to her profession,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “She had the courage to put her patients needs first rather than the union officials’ agenda.”
In addition to the protracted legal battle with the union, Williams has faced extensive harassment by union activists in the hospital since she refused to walk off the job.
Asked by a local newspaper why she worked during the strike, Williams answered, “I am a professional and I cannot abandon my patients. I think it is wrong, morally and ethically. I don’t want to be a part of any organization that promotes this.”
The case points up the growing trend of abuse in the health care industry that results from increasing unionization of nurses and other medical professionals.
Meanwhile, National Labor Relations Board investigators recently found that CRONA union officials had violated Barbara Williams’ Beck rights. Under Beck, a Supreme Court case that Foundation attorneys argued and won in 1988, workers who are not protected by a Right to Work law may resign from formal union membership and withhold the portion of forced union dues spent on politics and other activities unrelated to collective bargaining.
Washington, D.C. (March 11, 2002) – The National Right to Work Foundation blasted officials of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union for exploiting the war on terrorism for personal gain by shutting down key war production.
Directly from the union play book used during other periods of national crisis, the strike threatens to halt production of the F-22 jet fighter and C130-J military transport planes, which are being used by the military in Afghanistan as part of the war on terrorism. By ordering a strike, IAM union officials are attempting to force workers to put their allegiance to the union ahead of their employer and their country. In the past, workers who have decided to continue working have been the victims of hefty fines, harassment, and union violence.
The Foundation announced it will provide free legal aid to workers seeking to exercise their Right to Work.
“Big Labor’s actions are callous and opportunistic. True to form they are exploiting a national crisis to force acceptance of their excessive demands,” stated Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “This is a perfect example of why workers should be freed from government-backed forced unionism which gives union bosses a virtual stranglehold over workers’ jobs and America’s economy.”
Union officials have a long history of using national crises to expand their power and influence. During the Second World War, Big Labor used strikes and work stoppages to impose forced unionism on hundred of thousands of workers. In the most notorious of these strikes, union officials were able to shut down vital iron mines and ultimately persuaded the federal government to mandate that all mining employees pay union dues as a condition of employment.
By the end of World War Two, over 78 percent of unionized employees were governed by contracts that required them to pay union dues as a condition of employment, an increase by a factor of four.
In addition to the threat of strikes, union operatives have used the terrorist attacks on September 11 to try and advance forced unionism on Capitol Hill. In the days following the attack, union lobbyists attempted to push a bill that would impose forced unionism on police and fire-fighters, but so far have been defeated in their efforts. Union officials have described the bill, which was passed out of Ted Kennedy’s Senate Labor Committee, without even a hearing, as “the largest expansion of labor (union) rights considered by Congress in decades.”
To schedule an interview with a Foundation spokesman contact Dan Cronin at 703-770-3317.
Washington, D.C. (February 28, 2002) – Fearing the White House may be buckling under pressure from union officials, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has delivered more than 57,000 grassroots petitions urging President Bush to appeal a U.S. District Court decision enjoining his executive order that requires federal contractors to inform employees of their right to withhold compulsory union dues spent for partisan politics.
“It is alarming the White House has not decided to fight to ensure that employees are able to exercise their political freedom,” stated Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Union officials are already spending millions of dollars in workers’ forced union dues on this fall’s congressional campaigns.”
Earlier this week, the AFL-CIO decided to hit America’s working families with another mandatory tax to pay for electioneering. This is the latest example of union operatives seizing compulsory dues to fund political activities, even as polls show that 62 percent of unionized employees object to this practice.
The deadline for the Bush Administration to appeal the court’s decision is March 4. The National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, who won the Supreme Court decision (Communications Workers v. Beck) that was the basis for the Executive Order 13201, filed as amicus curiae at the District Court level in defense of the Executive Order, and has promised to do so on appeal as well.
“Appealing the court’s decision is a fight on behalf of working people that the Bush Administration could win – if it has the courage to show up,” said Gleason.
Signed on February 17, 2001, Executive Order 13201 would affect a segment of the 12 million American employees compelled to pay union dues as a condition of employment, as it requires companies with federal contracts to inform workers of their rights under the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Communications Workers v. Beck.
In May 2001, a group of unions filed the case, known as UAW-Labor Employment and Training Corporation et al. v. Chao et al. Judge Henry H. Kennedy of the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia enjoined the implementation of the President’s directive on the grounds that the action was preempted by Congress – despite the fact that Bush’s Executive Order only seeks to enforce the Supreme Court’s interpretation of congressionally enacted law.