1 Sep 2005

Right to Work Foundation Sparks Unprecedented DOJ Suit Against State of Ohio for Religious Discrimination Against Public Employe

Posted in News Releases

Columbus, Ohio (September 1, 2005) — The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed an unprecedented lawsuit in federal court against the State of Ohio and a State agency for systemic discrimination against employees who object to union affiliation and the payment of dues on religious grounds. DOJ filed the suit after National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys brought repeated civil rights violations by State agencies to the attention of federal prosecutors.

An earlier charge, filed by Foundation attorneys on behalf of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) employee Glen Greenwood had already led to a finding by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that the OEPA and Ohio Civil Service Association (OCSA) union were guilty of religious discrimination against Greenwood who has sought to redirect his union dues to a charity and away from a union he believes to be involved in immoral activities. Despite the EEOC finding, the State’s agencies and OCSA union have maintained their practice of denying religious objections to the payment of forced dues from employees who are not members of certain State-approved churches.

The DOJ suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio names the State of Ohio, the OEPA, the Ohio State Employment Relations Board, the OCSA union, and the Ohio Department of Administrative Services as defendants.

Citing Greenwood’s case, the DOJ determined that the policies of Ohio represent a “pattern or practice” of religious discrimination against State employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under Title VII, employees may not be forced to financially support a union if doing so violates the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs. To avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral, the law requires union officials to accommodate the employee – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to accept the funds.

“The unprecedented involvement by the United States Justice Department in a case of this nature demonstrates the seriousness of the abuse that Ohio employees face when they make conscientious objections to union membership,” stated Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason.

As a devout Presbyterian, Greenwood believes that supporting this union violates his sincerely held religious beliefs because of the union’s support for abortion on demand and special rights for homosexuals.

However, in March 2004 Greenwood received a letter from the General Counsel of the Department of Administrative Services denying his request on the basis that he did not belong to a “qualified” church that had a specific doctrine against union affiliation by church members.

31 Aug 2005

Right to Work Experts Available to Comment on Union Issues Around Labor Day

Posted in News Releases

Springfield, VA (August 31, 2005) – Spokesmen from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation will be available for comment and interviews on and around Labor Day about the recent AFL-CIO dispute, politics, workers’ rights, union organizing, and other issues relating to organized labor. The Foundation is a non-profit, charitable organization that provides free legal aid to victims of compulsory unionism abuse

Foundation spokesmen have been interviewed frequently on national television and radio programs, including The O’Reilly Factor, Special Report with Brit Hume, CNBC’s Closing Bell, and CNN. Their writings frequently appear in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Investor’s Business Daily, and numerous other publications. They are prepared to comment on or debate any issues related to the following:

  • How the recent dispute among Big Labor officials during and after the recent AFL-CIO convention may signal an ominous new threat to employees’ freedom of association;
  • Big Labor’s war on the secret ballot election process for choosing whether to unionize, increasing use of coercive “card check” organizing campaigns against workers, and “corporate campaigns” against nonunion companies;
  • How Big Labor’s political agenda is out of step with many rank-and-file workers’ views;
  • How union officials seeking to unionize private airport security screeners may undermine national security while reversing Bush administration policy;
  • The growing support for job-producing Right to Work laws that make union membership strictly voluntary;
  • Examples of abuse resulting from forced union membership, union violence, violations of religious freedom, and other violations of employee individual rights;
  • How teacher union officials have contributed to a decline in public education quality while blocking efforts at reform.

To schedule an interview or for information, call Justin Hakes at 703-770-3317.

18 Aug 2005

Michigan Appellate Court Reverses Labor Commission’s Precedent-Setting Ruling Allowing Forced Unionization of Religious Schools

Posted in News Releases

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan (August 18, 2005) – A Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with arguments made by lawyers for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation that imposing monopoly collective bargaining on Brother Rice High School, a private Catholic school, would entangle labor laws with the religious freedoms of the teachers and the school itself.

Three judges issued a joint “per curiam” opinion this week overturning a precedent-setting Michigan Employment Relations Commission’s (MERC) ruling that Catholic schools somehow fall under Michigan’s compulsory collective bargaining laws. If the MERC had not been overturned, union officials were expected to forcibly unionize numerous other religious institutions.

The dismissal of the claim by the Michigan Educators Association (MEA) is a victory for both religious independence and teacher freedom. The MEA was targeting teachers at the Brother Rice High School for forced unionization. The Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief for the Acton Institute, a religious liberty public policy group, in support of Brother Rice.

“It would be unconscionable to force religious schools to bargain with union officials who have an agenda that runs afoul of the teachings of the Catholic Church,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “At the same time, teachers should not be forced to accept the representation of union officials whose agenda they may believe to be morally reprehensible.”

The Foundation brief demonstrated that Catholic Church doctrine and the ideology of the MEA union are incompatible, and that Michigan state law was not written in a way to include Brother Rice in the jurisdiction of union representation and state regulation.

Ultimately the appeals court agreed that Michigan state law should be interpreted so that parochial schools are not placed under the jurisdiction of state labor laws.

Foundation attorneys argued that giving MERC oversight of collective bargaining agreements could lead to the MEA using collective bargaining to highjack the religious teaching process and allow the MEA’s radical political agenda to influence the religious instruction given by Brother Rice teachers. Additionally, because hiring practices at the school necessarily involve religious beliefs, an MEA victory would have meant that the state would be forced to pass judgment upon church doctrine to determine whether the school’s refusal to bargain over certain terms of employment is legitimately based on religious belief.

17 Aug 2005

TSA Bureaucrats Reverse Bush Administration Policy On National Security Implications Of Airport Screener Unionization

Posted in News Releases

Washington, DC (August 17, 2005) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix today wrote to President Bush expressing “deep concern” over the bureaucratic reversal of Administration policy regarding the forced unionization of airport screeners under Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) oversight.

Until recent days, the Bush Administration had long been on the record against granting monopoly bargaining privileges to union officials over airport security screeners, citing national security concerns.

Mix’s letter to President Bush questions the new position taken by TSA in a leading National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case considering whether privately employed security screeners under a pilot TSA program may be forcibly unionized under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Chief Counsel of TSA pointedly wrote that the Aviation Transportation Security Act “does not prohibit privately employed screeners from engaging in collective bargaining” and wrote that “TSA does not take any position” as to whether union officials should be granted monopoly bargaining power under the NLRA.

Mix urged President Bush to correct the TSA bureaucracy’s sudden change in policy, explaining that it not only opens the door to violations of employee freedom of association, illegal strikes, and even the possibility of terrorist infiltration of unions, but it also contradicts TSA’s earlier directives.

A 2003 directive from TSA head Admiral J.M Loy made the administration’s position clear, stating that he would not allow union officials to engage in monopoly bargaining over screeners employed by TSA due to national security concerns. And yet TSA pointedly refuses to take a position as to whether screeners employed by private companies, but supervised by TSA, may be subjected to the monopoly bargaining of union officials.

The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief this month in the controversial NLRB case at issue, known as Firstline Transportation Security, in which union lawyers are attempting to persuade the Board to allow the forced unionization of screeners. The Foundation’s brief responded to a June order by the NLRB to reconsider a decision by one of the agency’s Regional Directors to apply the National Labor Relations Act to private airport screeners working at the Kansas City International Airport.

Foundation attorneys argue that granting Security, Police and Firefighters Professionals of America (SPFPA) union officials the special privilege to force airport screeners into union collectives and, ultimately, to collect compulsory union dues, would both undermine national security by destabilizing security screeners’ work environment and infringe on workers’ freedoms. The Foundation points out in its brief that, because wages, training, supervision, and working conditions of private screeners are overseen by TSA officials, no traditional “collective bargaining” could take place.

The Foundation also chronicled threats to national security from illegal strikes, work slowdowns, or even terrorist infiltration of a union to allow a bomb or hijacker to be sneaked aboard a plane.

12 Aug 2005

Federal Labor Board Urged Not to Jeopardize National Security by Imposing Unionization on Airport Screeners

Posted in News Releases

Washington, DC (August 10, 2005) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation recently joined the battle to keep private airport security screeners free from compulsory unionism by filing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Union lawyers are attempting to persuade the federal labor board into taking the controversial step of allowing the forced unionization of screeners.

The brief responded to a June ruling by the NLRB to reconsider a decision by one of the agency’s Regional Directors to apply the National Labor Relations Act to private airport screeners working for a firm called Firstline Transportation Security operating at the Kansas City International Airport.

In creating the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, the federal government also created a pilot program involving private airport security screeners at five airports throughout the country. All other airport screeners are federal employees, and TSA officials have, citing national security concerns, exercised their discretion not to grant union officials monopoly bargaining power over any of these federal employees.

“This new union scheme is really about raising more forced union dues revenues,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Aside from violating workers’ freedom of association, history tells us that interjecting forced unionism into such sensitive areas could have severe ramifications for Americans.”

Foundation attorneys argue that granting the Security, Police and Firefighters Professionals of America (SPFPA) union officials the special privilege to force the airport screeners into union collectives and, ultimately, to collect compulsory union dues, would both undermine national security by destabilizing security screeners’ work environment and infringe on workers’ freedoms. The Foundation points out in its brief that since wages, training, supervision, and working conditions of private screeners are overseen by TSA officials, no traditional “collective bargaining” could take place.

Additionally, the brief lays out the heightened possibility of national security breaches, such as illegal strikes and the potential for terrorist infiltration of the union. Sixty years ago, the courts and Congress learned that Communist operatives had infiltrated numerous unions and manipulated those organizations for subversive purposes – including orchestrating strikes against defense-related plants at the behest of the Communist Party. More recently, Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) cited concerns about “an increasing number of instances” where American institutions are being infiltrated by radical Islamic forces.

The brief also documents that government union officials have a long history of ignoring strike prohibitions and engaging in illegal strikes with tragic consequences. For instance, firefighter union strikes have resulted in dozens of deaths, strikes ordered by teacher union officials have led to hundreds of thousands of students being forced out of classes, and illegal so-called “blue flu” job actions (where employees simultaneously call in sick) orchestrated by police union officials have endangered lives.

12 Aug 2005

UAW Union and Freightliner Hastily Sign Settlement Agreement After Announced Prosecution for Blocking Workers’ Wage Increase

Posted in News Releases

Gaffney, S.C. (August 12, 2005) – Facing embarrassing prosecution by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for unlawfully blocking an employee wage increase to coerce Gaffney-based Freightliner/Daimler-Chrysler workers to support unionization, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union and Freightliner today agreed to end the unlawful practices.

UAW and Freightliner officials inked the settlement agreement with the NLRB after the NLRB’s General Counsel issued a formal complaint in response to unfair labor practice charges brought by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for Freightliner employees. The NLRB issued a consolidated complaint earlier this week against both the union and Freightliner which was followed by the issuance of subpoenas that might have uncovered additional evidence of illegal union and company collaboration.

The settlement requires company and union officials to post conspicuous notices throughout the Gaffney facility that union officials will not accept unlawful assistance from Freightliner in future unionization attempts, and that no future wage increases will unlawfully be withheld at the behest of union officials.

“UAW officials raced to cover their tracks once they realized that the government was serious about holding them to account for coercing employees,” stated Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union and company officials have worked hand in glove to try to turn Freightliner workers into union dues payers.”

Freightliner employees David Roach and Mike Ivey originally asked their Foundation attorneys to file charges in 2003 after UAW officials vetoed the long-scheduled and promised pay increase, and effectively required a freeze on pay raises at the Gaffney plant, apparently until such time as the employees agreed to unionization. The UAW union and Freightliner had a so-called “card check” or “neutrality” agreement that required the company to actively assist the UAW in its efforts to obtain signatures from employees on union authorization cards.

In their charge found to be meritorious by the NLRB General Counsel, employees alleged that they “have been and are being threatened that they will get no raises unless and until they agree to unionization by the ‘company union’ known as the UAW,” even though the union enjoys little support from rank-and-file workers.

In fact, approximately 70 percent of the plant’s employees had even signed and submitted a petition stating that they reject union affiliation and prefer to negotiate directly with company officials over wages and benefits.

The NLRB complaint alleged that the company and union engaged in unlawful and coercive conduct that interfered with employees’ rights to refrain from concerted union activity. NLRB prosecutors alleged that not only was the withholding of a pay increase unlawful, but also that the granting of the pay increase at a later time after telling the employees that it had been authorized by the union was similarly unlawful.

10 Aug 2005

Federal Labor Board to Prosecute United Auto Workers Union for Blocking Freightliner Workers’ Wage Increase

Posted in News Releases

Gaffney, S.C. (August 10, 2005) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel has decided to prosecute the United Auto Workers (UAW) union for unlawfully blocking a wage increase, thereby coercing Gaffney-based Freightliner/Daimler-Chrysler workers to support the union during a unionization campaign.

Issuing a formal complaint in response to unfair labor practice charges brought by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for Freightliner employees, NLRB’s Region 11 Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, will seek an order against both Freightliner and the UAW for unfair labor practices at an August 22 trial.

The NLRB issued a consolidated complaint against both the union and Freightliner after the union’s officials failed to sign a settlement agreement that had been proposed by the NLRB.

Freightliner employees David Roach and Mike Ivey originally asked their Foundation attorneys to file charges in 2003 after UAW officials vetoed the long-scheduled and promised pay increase, and effectively required a freeze on pay raises at the Gaffney plant, apparently until such time as the employees agreed to unionization. The UAW union and Freightliner had a so-called “card check” or “neutrality” agreement that required the company to actively assist the UAW in its efforts to obtain signatures from employees on union authorization cards.

In their charge found to be meritorious by the NLRB General Counsel, employees allege that they “have been and are being threatened that they will get no raises unless and until they agree to unionization by the ‘company union’ known as the UAW,” even though the union enjoys little support from rank-and-file workers.

In fact, approximately 70 percent of the plant’s employees had even signed and submitted a petition stating that they reject union affiliation and prefer to negotiate directly with company officials over wages and benefits. The petition stated in part that the undersigned employees “recognize the destructive and self-serving behavior of the UAW, and its documented role in union violence, union corruption, and plant closures caused by featherbedding and other uneconomic union work rules.”

The NLRB’s complaint alleges that the company and union engaged in unlawful and coercive conduct that interfered with employees’ rights to refrain from concerted union activity. NLRB prosecutors allege that not only was the withholding of a pay increase unlawful, but also that the granting of the pay increase at a later time after telling the employees that it had been authorized by the union was similarly unlawful.

“This is just the latest example of UAW and Freightliner officials working hand-in-glove to corral workers into union ranks whether they like it or not,” stated Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Freightliner and UAW officials have a cozy relationship that has resulted in the trampling of employee rights, not only in Gaffney, but also in High Point, North Carolina.”

In neighboring North Carolina, the UAW union’s organizing techniques continue to grab headlines through a high profile controversy at the Freightliner-owned Thomas Built Buses facility in High Point. A group of workers at that facility recently filed a motion with the NLRB in Washington, DC, to allow them to challenge alleged election misconduct by Freightliner that occurred at the last minute.

5 Aug 2005

Albuquerque City Workers Win $146,000 Settlement After Unlawful Seizures of Forced Union Fees

Posted in News Releases

Albuquerque, N.M. (August 5, 2005) – The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico has approved a settlement of a precedent-setting civil rights lawsuit brought by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys that forces union officials to pay more than $146,000 to 471 non-union City of Albuquerque workers.

The settlement brings to a close one part of a long-running legal battle which resulted in rulings that American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials violated the U.S. Constitution by seizing forced union fees from nonmember City workers without adequately accounting for how the money would be spent.

Settlement discussions began after the court ruled that employees were entitled to compensatory damages and a jury trial on an unprecedented claim for punitive damages. The court had earlier certified the case as a class action for more than 750 current and former blue-collar City employees (471 of whom had been forced to pay union fees through mandatory deductions from their paychecks).

In certifying the case as a class action, the court issued an extraordinary rebuke of the union’s lawyers. The court excoriated the union’s lawyers for citing cases “…out of context under the apparent, and mistaken, impression that the Court would not read the cases cited in their brief.” The court continued, “The credibility of both the Defendants’ counsel and the arguments they make has suffered by counsels’ repeated and deliberate misrepresentation of case law and false statements of law.”

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the workers filed the suit against the City of Albuquerque and AFSCME Local 624, New Mexico AFSCME Council 18, and AFSCME International after they illegally seized the fees from August 1999 to July 2000.

“This victory is an important step toward limiting the power of union officials to shake down workers for political contributions,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “However, as long as New Mexico workers labor under a system of compulsory unionism, such abuses will inevitably continue.”

The employees sued after the City unlawfully deducted forced union fees from their paychecks without proper procedural protections to prevent the monies’ use for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities. The unlawfully seized fees amounted to roughly $74,000, of which some $23,000 was refunded during the litigation. Under the settlement, AFSCME will repay the balance, with interest, and pay another $95,000 to avoid the jury trial that the Court ordered to determine whether the union must pay punitive damages.

The actions of AFSCME union officials violated First Amendment protections articulated in the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson. Under Hudson, union officials must disclose an independent audit of their expenses, justifying the lawfulness of the disbursements charged to nonmembers, before seizing any forced union fees from employees who choose to refrain from formal union membership.

Dismissing the union’s arguments that it was too difficult to prove that its forced-fee demands were correct, Senior District Court Judge C. Leroy Hansen ruled, “accounting inconvenience is an insufficient excuse to allow the union to continue to violate the First Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.” Judge Hansen also likened the AFSCME union’s funneling of forced dues through its affiliates with no explanation to “money laundering.”

1 Aug 2005

Appellate Court Upholds Teacher’s Suit Challenging Union Dues Spent on Politics

Posted in News Releases

Knoxville, Tenn. (August 1, 2005) — The Court of Appeals of Tennessee has given a green-light to a Tennessee educator’s lawsuit challenging union officials’ practice of compelling teachers to support political activities as a condition of union membership.

The appellate court agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys that the trial court improperly dismissed a lawsuit filed on behalf of Polk County teacher Dewey Esquinance. Mr. Esquinance is making a constitutional challenge to a statewide teacher union rule that forces teachers to resign from union membership and thereby sacrifice their voice in workplace matters in order to exercise their political and religious freedoms.

Esquinance, with the help of Foundation attorneys, filed the suit in April 2003 against the National Education Association’s (NEA) affiliates, the Polk County Education Association and the Tennessee Education Association, in the state of Tennessee Circuit Court of Polk County.

The appellate court ruled that the trial court must allow the suit to proceed. If Mr. Esquinance ultimately prevails, teachers will have a constitutional right to remain union members and withhold dues spent by the union on ideological activities. Currently, teachers must resign from union membership under the state’s Right to Work law in order to withhold dues.

However, as non-members, teachers lose several privileges that union members enjoy, including voting on the collective bargaining agreement that binds them to certain terms and conditions of employment, as well as a voice in determining the criteria for teacher evaluations, control of sick bank donations, and access to teacher training. As a non-union member, Esquinance automatically forfeits these benefits.

“It seems that NEA officials are not as concerned with representing employees as they are with shaking them down to finance a radical political agenda,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason.

Like many educators, Esquinance objects to many aspects of the NEA’s agenda for religious and political reasons, including the NEA’s stances promoting abortion, gun control, and special rights for homosexuals. Every year, the NEA spends millions of dollars in compulsory dues it collects in support of political views and candidates that many teachers find objectionable.

Esquinance is challenging the membership dues based on the rights established by the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Under Abood and subsequent rulings, employees have a constitutional right to refuse to pay for union non-collective bargaining activities and ideological activities — such as politics.

26 Jul 2005

Employee Rights Advocate to Spend $2 Million This Year to Help Workers Out of Compulsory Unionism

Posted in News Releases

Chicago, Ill. (July 26, 2005) – As top union officials pulled their unions out of the AFL-CIO, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today announced that it will raise and earmark upwards of $2,000,000 this year to provide free legal assistance to workers seeking to free themselves from unwanted union membership and financial support.

“It’s shameful that while union brass exercise a right to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO, millions of workers across America are being barred from – or even fired for – leaving their unions,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason.

The decision by the Foundation’s leadership comes as news emerged from the annual AFL-CIO conference in Chicago that Service Employees International Union (SEIU) chief Andrew Stern and Teamsters boss James Hoffa are pulling their unions out of the AFL-CIO in protest, complaining of its spending priorities and effectiveness. At the same time, however, most unionized employees in America do not enjoy a similar right to withdraw their financial support from unions in protest of their objectionable activities.

In light of the hypocrisy shown by top union officials, the Foundation announced it will focus its efforts over the next several months in helping workers gain the same rights that these union officials are now openly exercising. Starting with $500,000 over the next 45 days, the Foundation will attempt to assist any worker who wishes to exercise their rights to resign from union membership and pay a reduced fee. The Foundation aims to raise an additional $1.5 million before the end of the year and use it to provide pro bono legal advice and representation.

Union officials enjoy extraordinary coercive privileges under federal law and the laws of many states to force employees to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment. In jurisdictions without Right to Work laws (which prohibit compulsory union dues), employees may formally resign from union membership but can nevertheless be compelled to pay union dues or fees or be fired from their jobs. However, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have established through a series of victories at the U.S. Supreme Court that employees may only be compelled to pay a union’s proven collective bargaining costs, and not for activities such as lobbying or politics. But union officials routinely block workers from exercising these rights.

“Stern and Hoffa are no longer part of an organization they disagree with,” said Gleason. “The Foundation plans to act aggressively until every American worker can say the same.”