Washington, D.C. (August 1, 2003) – Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, an employee rights advocacy group, issued the following statement regarding today’s anticipated endorsement of Congressman Richard Gephardt’s (D-MO) presidential candidacy:

“For most observers of politics, this announcement should come as no surprise. In fact, the only people in Washington who actually might be surprised by this announcement may be a few members of the White House political team who have been falling all over themselves to court James Hoffa and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters hierarchy for almost two years.

“This development further demonstrates the foolishness of a strategy pursued by the White House political office to make core policy concessions in exchange for Big Labor’s political support. The union brass have shown their gratitude by continuing to attack Bush and other Republicans and now by endorsing Bush’s opponent.

“Of course, this endorsement will almost certainly mean the commitment of millions of dollars in compulsory union dues to support Gephardt’s candidacy. Yet a large percentage of rank-and-file workers who work under Teamsters union contracts are Republicans and do not support Gephardt’s agenda.”

“By standing up for issues like Right to Work, cutting taxes, and reducing the size and scope of government, the President will earn the support of America’s rank-and-file union members. Indeed, if the President rejects his own principles to curry favor with Hoffa, John Sweeney, or other union bosses, it will ultimately hurt his reelection chances rather than enhance them.”

While Mr. Mix conceded that for the last two years the President has been focused on foreign affairs, Mix cited a long record of concessions by Bush Administration figures made to the Teamsters officials. The Bush Administration has:

1) given Teamsters officials significant influence over selection of nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB);

2) encouraged Congress not to hold hearings on legislation that would be embarrassing to union officials, such as legislation to end compulsory unionism;

3) filed arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court opposing review of a NLRB decision that gutted employee rights not to pay forced union dues spent to support objectionable union activities;

4) agreed to insert a discriminatory union-only project labor agreement into the Alaska energy legislation; and

5) signaled its intention to release the corrupt Teamsters union from federal oversight.

Akron, Ohio (July 28, 2003) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys today filed an unprecedented federal court challenge against Heartland Industrial Partners LLP and the United Steel Workers of America (USWA) union, seeking to overturn an illegal sweetheart arrangement that requires all companies acquired by the Heartland firm to help impose unionization on their employees.

The suit calls into question the legality of a rapidly emerging organizing trend – especially prevalent in the automobile and hotel industries – in which struggling union organizers abandon traditional grassroots-driven unionization drives and instead elicit assistance from companies to impose compulsory unionism on their own employees through highly coercive top-down organizing methods.

Foundation attorneys filed the suit, Patterson et al. v. Heartland Industrial Partners LLP et al., in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of Wanda Patterson, an employee of the Heartland-acquired Collins & Aikman company, an Ohio-based automotive parts manufacturer whose employees had rejected union organizing efforts on several previous occasions.

Under the pact at issue, Heartland forces acquired companies to operate under a so-called “neutrality agreement” that requires company managers to assist USWA union officials in organizing their employees – including denying employees an opportunity to vote in a traditional secret ballot election, giving union organizers employees’ private employment information such as home addresses, and, ultimately, forcing employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment. In return, union officials pour unsuspecting workers’ trust funds into Heartland, promise to stifle employee rights under federal law, and limit employees’ ability to influence their own wages, benefits, and working conditions.

It is believed that this quid pro quo violates civil and criminal provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act enacted by Congress to prevent corruption, conflicts of interest, and sweetheart deals between company and union officials that compromise the interests of rank-and-file employees.

“This backroom deal between Heartland and the Steelworkers union is nothing more than a cynical scheme designed to aggrandize union officials at the expense of employees,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Since employees increasingly reject union affiliation when actually given a choice, union officials are resorting to these new coercive tactics to stem their hemorrhaging membership numbers and slumping compulsory dues revenues.”

In 2001, Heartland bought out the Collins & Aikman Corporation and forced the company to accept a “neutrality agreement” with the USWA union. Employees at the Holmesville, Ohio, Collins & Aikman facility had previously voted on several occasions to reject union representation before unionization was imposed in recent months under the so-called “neutrality agreement.”

The founding partner of the Heartland investment firm is David Stockman, former Director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan Administration.

Fairfield, Calif. (July 23, 2003) — A Fairfield area resident employed on a part-time basis as a weekend lab technician for Anheuser-Busch has filed federal charges against the local chapter of the Teamsters union for failing to properly inform her of her right to refrain from joining the union and the right to refrain from supporting the union’s political and ideological causes.

Obtaining free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Catharine Anderson filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after officials of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 896, charged her excessive union fees, misrepresented her rights, and threatened to have her fired for refusing to comply with the union hierarchy’s illegal demands.

“The bully tactics used by the Teamsters hierarchy are despicable,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, so long as union officials are given compulsory unionism privileges, workers will continue to suffer such abuse.”

In addition, Anderson is charging that Teamsters union officials not only failed to notify her and her fellow workers of their right to refrain from union membership, but repeatedly threatened to fire them for refusing to pay full union dues.

By doing so, Teamsters union officials violated worker protections recognized in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Communications Workers of America v. Beck, a case argued and won by Foundation attorneys. Under the Beck ruling, workers have the option to refrain from full membership, and pay only those costs to the union that are related to collective bargaining.

Teamsters union officials have also charged Anderson a “hiring hall” fee, even though she was not hired through, and never used, the hiring hall. Anderson is demanding that the union return all of the money she was illegally charged as the “hiring hall” fee.

El Monte, Calif. (July 23, 2003) — A local Rite-Aid Corporation pharmacy intern has filed federal charges against a local affiliate of the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) union for failing to inform him of his right to refrain from formal union membership, disregarding his objection to paying full dues, having him suspended, and threatening to have him fired for failure to pay full dues.

With free legal assistance from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, intern Olaf Dominguez filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when UFCW Local 1428 union officials pressured his employer to suspend him for a week without pay for refusing to pay full union dues.

Though Dominguez never joined the UFCW union or received any information about it, he received a letter after working for Rite-Aid for three months “welcoming” him to the union and demanding that he pay $280 in initiation fees and dues. Dominguez paid that amount under protest to save his job, but he is now seeking reimbursement for his lost wages and illegally seized dues.

“Union officials want professionals like Olaf Dominguez to simply shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This shows that union bosses are more concerned with using workers as their personal ATMs rather than standing up for the interests of those whom they supposedly represent.”

By failing to notify Dominguez and his fellow workers of their right to refrain from union membership, UFCW union officials violated worker protections recognized by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, a case Foundation attorneys argued and won. Under Beck, workers have the option to refrain from formal union membership and may be forced only to pay an agency fee to cover the union’s collective bargaining costs.

Furthermore, under U.S. Supreme Court precedents, union officials must provide non-member workers an independent audit of union expenditures to ensure they are not funding activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as politics. UFCW union officials never provided Dominguez or his fellow workers with such an audit.

“No one should be forced to pay dues to an unwanted union just to get or keep their job,” stated Gleason. “This is especially true when union officials don’t even bother to observe workers’ limited due process protections.”

Tulsa, Okla. (July 22, 2003) – In a victory for workers across Oklahoma, Judge David Peterson of the Oklahoma State District Court for Tulsa County ruled to uphold Oklahoma’s Right to Work Law, rejecting a clever union legal attack.

The decision came in the case of Eastern Oklahoma Building and Construction Trades Council v. Ralph Pitts, where union lawyers challenged the Right to Work amendment on grounds that it violates the Oklahoma constitution. In issuing his decision, Judge Peterson denied motions filed by the union lawyers and granted defendant intervenor Stephen Weese’s motion for summary judgment, thereby upholding the Right to Work amendment.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys represented defendant intervenor Stephen Weese, an employee of Oklahoma Fixture Company in Tulsa. As such, Foundation attorneys were allowed to file briefs and make oral arguments defending employees’ direct financial and liberty interests at stake in the preservation of the Right to Work amendment.

“This is an encouraging development for workers across Oklahoma,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the Foundation. “It’s an outrage that union bosses are so hell-bent on destroying the freedom and prosperity that Oklahomans have begun to enjoy since the Right to Work amendment took effect.”

Filed quietly on May 13, 2003, in Oklahoma State District Court for Tulsa County, the suit challenged the Right to Work constitutional amendment on grounds that it somehow violates the Oklahoma constitution. When pressed, the plaintiff’s lawyer later admitted publicly that the suit was a “friendly suit,” meaning that both parties (union and employer) opposed the state’s Right to Work law.

Legal documents show that the employer defendant, electrical contractor Ralph Pitts, was represented by an attorney who has previously represented International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 584, a member of the plaintiff trades council and the “real party in interest” in this lawsuit. This attorney filed only a perfunctory “opposition” to the union’s motion for summary judgment.

A legal challenge filed on separate grounds is still pending at the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

On September 25, 2001, Oklahoma became a Right to Work state when voters enacted State Question 695, a constitutional amendment which bans the widespread practice of forcing workers to join an unwanted union or pay any union dues as a condition of employment. Since the Right to Work amendment took effect in Oklahoma, the state has led the nation in creation of new jobs – despite a struggling American economy.

Fort Worth, Tex. (July 18, 2003) – After a lengthy delay, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Regional Office has issued an amended complaint alleging that union officials illegally forced objecting workers to pay compulsory union dues without a proper audit.

With free legal aid from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Billy Lee, a cafeteria worker at Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls, filed unfair labor practice charges against the Laborers’ Local 1168 union, an affiliate of Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA), in 1993. Lee also filed a supplemental challenge in 1997.

In recent days, the NLRB announced that it intends to prosecute the union before an administrative law judge next month. The key issue is whether the local must provide the workers with an audit to justify the seizure of compulsory dues, which local union officials avoided.

“This sort of bureaucratic stonewalling amounts to an effective denial of Billy Lee’s rights,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While it is encouraging to hear the NLRB will finally take up the case, this sort of delay is inexcusable.”

Employees who work on exclusive federal property are not protected by Texas’ highly popular Right to Work law, and therefore they can be lawfully compelled to pay certain union dues as a job condition, so long as the employees’ due process rights are observed.

However, the complaint accuses LIUNA Local 1168 of unfair labor practices against non-union members by failing to provide them with an audit of how they spend workers’ forced dues. Upon resigning from union membership in 1992, Lee was simply provided with a one-page sheet on the local’s expenses. He never received an “audit” of the local bargaining versus non-bargaining expenses.

Under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court ruling Communications Workers v. Beck, workers are entitled, at their request, to an immediate exemption from, and refund of, compulsory union dues that are spent for activities not directly related to collective bargaining, such as politics. In addition to audited disclosure of union expenditures, Lee seeks a refund of all forced dues spent on non-bargaining activities, plus interest, since he resigned from formal union membership.

St. Mary’s, Ohio (July 16, 2003) – Facing an employee revolt against their mandatory union dues requirement, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 officials this week abandoned all claims to represent workers at the St. Mary’s Living Center and stated that it “no longer wishes to be a party” to the collective bargaining agreement they signed last year.

After having successfully fought for monopoly bargaining power from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the union signed a collective bargaining agreement last summer which included a mandatory dues requirement. Once in power, the union proved to be highly unpopular with rank-and-file employees.

Led by Judy Cooper, an employee at the St. Mary’s Living Center owned by Essex Healthcare Corporation, at least 30 percent of the workforce signed a petition to obtain an official deauthorization election, supervised by NLRB officials. If SEIU District 1199 union officials had lost the election, they would have been stripped of the power to seize compulsory dues. In that case they would only have been able to collect dues from employees who voluntarily chose to join the union.

Cooper first sought the deauthorization election when the union hierarchy showed that it was unresponsive to employee concerns, such as ignoring worker grievances. Cooper learned of her rights and received free legal assistance from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. According to Cooper, the union hierarchy would have lost the election overwhelmingly.

“The actions of SEIU officials show they are more concerned with being able to seize money from workers than actually earning their support,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Since workers in Ohio do not yet enjoy the protections of a Right to Work law, a deauthorization election is the only way they can break the grip of compulsory unionism.”

In order to win a deauthorization election, employees need “yes” votes from an absolute majority of workers in the bargaining unit. The requirement for an absolute majority, set by the National Labor Relations Act, makes it more difficult for employees to prevail than under the requirement for certifying or decertifying a union, which requires only a majority of those voting.

Trenton, NJ (July 15, 2003) — In order to protect the rights of non-union government workers to refrain from paying dues to an unwanted union, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed arguments on behalf of Hunterdon County workers attacking the constitutionality of a recently amended state law.

The amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” brief, was filed in Hunterdon County v. CWA, Local 1034 pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division on behalf of Henry Wieczorek and other non-union Hunterdon County employees. The brief challenges the decision by the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) ordering the county to seize compulsory agency fees from all employees in the Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 1034 bargaining unit.

Foundation attorneys argue there is no compelling state interest to justify PERC’s forcing Hunterdon County to collect compulsory dues from non-union members when county officials have already rejected the requirement during the collective bargaining process. In addition, Foundation attorneys charge that if counties are forced to collect the fees, it will strip away safeguards that protect workers from having compulsory agency fees used to support union politics or other activities not directly related to collective bargaining.

“CWA union bosses want to use the county government as their collection agency and strong-arm workers into subsidizing a union that they do not support,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union officials would rather have the power to compel payment of dues than have to earn employees’ voluntary support.”

Until recently, New Jersey’s county and municipal employees who had refrained from union membership could not be compelled to pay so-called “agency fees” unless local government officials had agreed to such a requirement through the collective bargaining process. However, a new statute signed by Governor McGreevey in 2002 gave union officials the power to utilize a new PERC procedure to force county governments to impose the requirement as a job condition.

Last December, in response to demands from CWA Local 1034, PERC ordered Hunterdon County to begin deducting agency fees from all non-union county government employees. Seeking to defend its employees freedom of association, Hunterdon County officials filed suit against the CWA union challenging the commission’s order. A ruling in favor of the county would strike down the McGreevey law.

Tulsa, Okla. (July 15, 2003) – After National Right to Work Foundation attorneys discovered a collusive lawsuit attacking the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s Right to Work amendment, a Tulsa County judge has ruled to allow an employee represented by Foundation attorneys to intervene in the case in order to defend the law.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Drew Edmondson, embarrassed when his previous decision to sit on the sidelines became public, has also now filed a motion to intervene in the case. However, rather than oppose the union’s motion for summary judgment, the attorney general is merely arguing that proceedings in the Tulsa case should be delayed until the State Supreme Court resolves the other pending legal challenge to the Right to Work amendment. Meanwhile, the attorney general has failed to respond to the Foundation’s formal request for internal documents detailing why the attorney general had previously chosen not to defend the law.

Judge David Peterson of the Oklahoma State District Court for Tulsa County ruled to admit Stephen Weese, an employee of Oklahoma Fixture Company, as a “defendant intervenor” in the case of Eastern Oklahoma Building and Construction Trades Council v. Ralph Pitts. As “defendant intervenor,” Weese can file briefs and his attorneys can make arguments in court defending his financial and liberty interests at stake in the preservation of the Right to Work amendment.

Weese argues, in part, that if the union lawyers prevail in overturning Oklahoma’s Right to Work amendment, which prohibits the abusive practice of forcing employees to pay compulsory dues as a job condition, he will suffer direct financial harm.

“By allowing a pro Right to Work employee and his attorneys to enter the case, the court will finally have the opportunity to hear serious arguments opposing this cynical legal attack on Oklahoma’s Right to Work law,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Since the plaintiff union and defendant employer are in cahoots, the court would have only heard one side of the story.”

Filed quietly on May 13, 2003, in Oklahoma State District Court for Tulsa County, Eastern Oklahoma Building and Construction Trades Council v. Ralph Pitts challenges the Right to Work constitutional amendment on grounds that it somehow violates the Oklahoma constitution. Circumstances suggest that the suit is a “collusion suit” intended by both parties (union and employer) to void the state’s Right to Work law quietly without arguments made zealously by a party that sincerely supports the law.

Legal documents show that the employer defendant, electrical contractor Ralph Pitts, is represented by an attorney who has previously represented International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 584, a member of the plaintiff trades council and the “real party in interest” in this lawsuit. This attorney filed only perfunctory “opposition” to the union’s motion for summary judgment.

SEATTLE, Wash. (July 9, 2003) — After a Washington appellate court threw out provisions of the state’s campaign finance law that required union officials to obtain the prior consent of public employees before spending mandatory union dues for politics, attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced they will seek discretionary review on behalf of more than 4,000 teachers at the state Supreme Court.

The ruling dismissing the teacher’s suit, Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA), came in connection with the appellate court’s decision last week to strike down part of Initiative 134, Washington’s so-called “paycheck protection” law, in the related case of Public Disclosure Commission v. WEA.

In that action the Thurston County Superior Court fined the WEA union $400,000 for intentionally violating I-134 and enjoined it from collecting that portion of the agency fee that was used for politics. Despite that ruling, Washington’s so-called “paycheck protection” law, like its counterparts in other states, has proven ineffective in limiting the use of union dues for political activities. In the case of the WEA, the union has actually increased its political resources since the law was passed.

Union lawyers for the WEA had filed an appeal in Davenport after Thurston County Superior Court Judge Daniel Berschauer ruled that the teachers had an implied right of action under I-134 to recover the fees the WEA had used, without their authorization, for political purposes. The trial court also certified the case as a class action on behalf of thousands of non-member teachers.

“These cases just show that so-called ‘paycheck protection’ laws are ineffective in halting the practice of forcing employees to function as ATM machines for union political operatives,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to make sure workers are protected is to strip Washington union officials of their power to seize union dues from employees as a job condition.”

Even though by its own admission the WEA union spends millions of dollars each year on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, the much-hyped “paycheck protection” regulation has offered little relief to Washington teachers. If the state Supreme Court reinstates the Thurston County court’s rulings, teachers will still only be able to reclaim about $10 each per year, on average, under I-134. Greater relief is available under a settlement of a First Amendment lawsuit litigated by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in recent years. Under that case, Leer v. WEA, non-member teachers may annually reclaim more than $175 each.