Oklahoma Sysco Employees Boot Unpopular Teamsters Bosses from Warehouse
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union officials too afraid of results to hold a vote after majority of workers sign petition against union
Sysco employee Henry Weilmuenster and a majority of his colleagues backed two petitions which sought to eject unpopular Teamsters officials from their warehouse.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Sysco Oklahoma warehouse employee Henry Weilmuenster and his coworkers have successfully removed an unwanted Teamsters union from their workplace.
Weilmuenster and his coworkers achieved their victory by taking advantage of the rights won by Foundation staff attorneys in the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) 2019 Johnson Controls decision. In Johnson Controls, the NLRB ruled that an employer can withdraw recognition from a union if it receives a majority-backed employee petition opposing the
union within 90 days of a monopoly bargaining contract expiring. Union officials then have a 45-day window to contest such a withdrawal of recognition, but only by requesting a secret-ballot vote among the employees in the workplace on whether the union should stay.
In December 2019, Weilmuenster submitted both a petition to the NLRB for a secret-ballot vote to remove the union and a petition to Sysco asking that it withdraw recognition of the Teamsters union at the first available opportunity. Both requests were supported by a majority of his coworkers.
Though NLRB Region 14 officials in January blocked Weilmuenster and his coworkers’ request for a decertification vote in response to dubious “blocking charges” from Teamsters officials, Sysco ultimately withdrew recognition from the Teamsters union based on the showing of majority employee support for withdrawal in Weilmuenster’s petition. Under Johnson Controls, Teamsters honchos had a 45-day window to file for a secret-ballot election to reinstall the union, but did not do so — apparently because they feared an election loss. After that, the union was gone for good.
“This case demonstrates why Johnson Controls is so important,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Union bosses should not be allowed to maintain monopoly power over workers through legal maneuvering when there is clear evidence that a majority of workers want the union out of their workplace.”
Foundation Defends New Rules Protecting Right to Remove Unwanted Unions
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
AFL-CIO kingpins suing to overturn NLRB rules slashing barriers to decertification votes
Over the past few years, the Foundation has provided free legal aid to workers
across the country who were blocked by pro-union boss NLRB rules from voting
out an unwanted union. Above are just a handful of them.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new rules, designed to safeguard the right of workers to remove an unwanted union hierarchy in their workplace, went into effect on July 31. The policies, which were finalized in April, closely followed comments submitted by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys and petitions sent by thousands of Foundation supporters.
The policies specifically curtailed the non-statutory “blocking charge” and “voluntary recognition bar” policies used to trap workers in unions they oppose, and also eliminated a scheme used by union bosses in the construction industry to impose unionization without any evidence of worker support.
Less than a month before the reforms went into effect, union lawyers with the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit against the NLRB in an attempt to reimpose these coercive restrictions on workers. Foundation attorneys are primed to defend the reforms and counter the wild claims AFL-CIO legal operatives make in the lawsuit.
New Rules Designed to Shield Workers from Unwanted Unions
The new rules are meant to eliminate virtually all union “blocking charges,” which are filed by union bosses to prevent rank-and-file employees from exercising their right to vote to remove a union.
Under the NLRB’s new policy, union charges cannot indefinitely stall the employees’ vote from taking place, and in most instances the vote will occur without delay. Additionally, as the Foundation advocated in comments, the NLRB modified its original proposed rule so that after employees vote, the ballots will be tallied and the vote announced in most cases instead of being impounded for months or even years while “blocking charges” are resolved.
The NLRB also reversed an Obama-era ruling imposing the so-called “voluntary recognition bar” policy. Under that policy, workers were blocked for up to a year from requesting a secret-ballot election to challenge a union which was installed as their monopoly bargaining agent through an abuse-prone “Card Check” drive, which bypasses the NLRB-supervised secret-ballot election process. In reversing the Obama NLRB, the current Labor Board reinstated a precedent won by Foundation staff attorneys for workers in the 2007 Dana Corp NLRB decision.
Under the Dana Corp. system, employees subject to “Card Check” drives and so-called “voluntary recognition” can promptly file for a secret-ballot election to contest the installation of a monopoly representative at their workplace.
Foundation Prepares to Counter Dubious Claims of AFL-CIO Suit Against NLRB
Unwilling to lose their power to block workers’ efforts to vote them out, the AFL-CIO filed suit against the rules even before they went into effect. The union boss lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the NLRB was misusing the rulemaking process by advancing these protections for independent-minded workers, even though union bosses widely cheered Obama NLRB efforts to use rulemaking to expand union boss power.
Foundation staff attorneys quickly began preparing to counter the AFL-CIO’s lawsuit aiming to reverse these reforms.
“Anyone who is familiar with the tactics of union bosses knows that they will fight tooth and nail to keep government-granted privileges in place that allow them to force their one-size-fits-all ‘representation’ on workers, even when a majority oppose their presence,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Foundation supporters should be proud that their advocacy helped obtain these new protections for workers opposed to unionization, but as the union boss lawsuit shows, the Foundation’s litigation program will continue to be critical to defending the rights of independent-minded workers.”
At Foundation’s Urging, NLRB Eliminates Barriers to Removing Unpopular Unions
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
New rule curtails union boss tactics used to block employees’ right to vote out unions they oppose
The Foundation’s comments helped the NLRB scrap its policy allowing “blocking charges,” which IUOE bosses used to stymie Rieth-Riley worker Rayalan Kent and his coworkers’ right to vote them out.
WASHINGTON, DC – Following two rounds of comments from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and over 8,000 petitions from Right to Work supporters, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued final rules substantially eliminating two pernicious tactics used by union bosses to stop workers from exercising their right to hold a vote to remove an unwanted union.
The NLRB’s new rules, finalized in April, dealt blows to the non-statutory “blocking charge” and “voluntary recognition bar” policies and to forced unionism schemes in the construction industry. All three reforms were encouraged by the Foundation’s initial January comments to the federal agency, which pressed the agency to get rid of all restrictions on decertification elections that are not mandated by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
New Rule Knocks Down Three Rights Restrictions Targeted by Foundation
The new rule essentially eliminates union “blocking charges,” which union bosses file to prevent rank-and-file employees from exercising their right to vote to remove a union. Under the old rule, unions could block workers’ requested votes from taking place for months or even years by making one or multiple allegations against the employer, which were often unrelated to the employees’ decertification petition and frequently unsubstantiated.
Under the new rule, union charges cannot indefinitely stall the employees’ vote from taking place and in most instances the vote will occur without delay. Additionally, as the Foundation advocated, the NLRB modified its proposed rule so that after the employees vote, the ballots will be tallied and released in the vast majority of cases instead of being impounded and not counted.
This is a vast improvement on the NLRB’s original proposal to utilize a “vote and impound” system regarding employees’ decertification votes. Although such a system would have permitted employees to vote despite “blocking charges,” the results could have been withheld for months or years until the underlying “blocking charges” were resolved. Foundation staff attorneys argued against such a system in their January comments, pointing out that it would “frustrate and confuse employees who may have to wait years to see the election’s results,” while leaving the union in power the entire time.
The NLRB also substantially eliminated the so-called “voluntary recognition bar” policy. In the past, union officials had used this policy to block workers from requesting a secret-ballot election after the union had been installed as their monopoly bargaining agent through abuse-prone “Card Check” drives that bypass the NLRB-supervised secret-ballot election process. The Trump NLRB’s new rule reinstates a system secured by Foundation staff attorneys for workers in the 2007 Dana Corp. NLRB decision.
Under the Dana Corp. system, employees subject to “Card Check” drives and so-called “voluntary recognition” can promptly file for a secret-ballot election to contest the installation of a monopoly representative at their workplace. Despite thousands of workers using this process to secure secret-ballot votes after being unionized through “Card Checks,” the Obama NLRB overturned Dana in 2010 over the objections of Foundation staff attorneys in a case called Lamons Gasket.
Additionally, the NLRB made changes advocated by the Foundation’s January comments to crack down on schemes in the construction industry where employers and union bosses are allowed to unilaterally install a union in a workplace without first providing any proof of majority union support among the workers.
Foundation Fights to Enforce Workers’ Right to Remove Unwanted Unions
Foundation staff attorneys are currently providing free legal aid to several workers who are challenging union boss attempts to stymie their right to vote out an unwanted union, even in light of the new NLRB protections.
In Michigan, NLRB Region 7 officials stifled Rieth-Riley Construction Company employee Rayalan Kent’s decertification petition that he submitted for his coworkers. Region 7 officials told him that the election would be held up “pending the investigation” of charges filed by Operating Engineers (IUOE) union bosses against Rieth- Riley, but never explained to him why IUOE bosses’ allegations were significant enough to affect their right to vote.
Foundation staff attorneys in April submitted a request for review for Kent and his coworkers to the NLRB in Washington, D.C., asking that the Board immediately permit them to exercise their right to vote to remove the unpopular IUOE union.
“While this NLRB still has much more to do, the long-awaited new rules represent significant steps towards fully protecting the statutory right of employees under the NLRA to remove a union opposed by a majority of workers,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The ‘blocking charge’ policy that is finally being modified has always been particularly odious in its treatment of employee rights, for it allows union allegations against an employer to be grounds for blocking the statutory rights of employees who are not accused of any wrongdoing.”
“Foundation supporters, who deluged the NLRB with demands to safeguard the right of rank-and-file employees to vote, free of coercion, on whether or not union bosses are worthy to speak for them in the workplace, should be proud that their voices helped spur these important reforms,” Semmens added.
Workers Win Over $30K After Challenging Teamsters Forced-Dues Scheme
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Cases demonstrate Teamsters union bosses’ widespread use of illegal coercive tactics
Notorious union boss James Hoffa heads the Teamsters union, which is subjecting workers nationwide and across industries to illegal schemes.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, workers have won multiple settlements after Teamsters union bosses refused to respect their legal rights not to support a union as a condition of employment.
In one settlement, Minnesota employees James Connolly and Charles Winter won $30,000 in back pay from their former employer after they were illegally fired for choosing not to formally join the Teamsters Local 120 union.
Meanwhile, Milwaukee factory employee Tyler Lewis secured a settlement with Teamsters “General” Local Union No. 200. Union officials had denied his right under Wisconsin’s Right to Work Law and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to not financially subsidize a union.
Two Minnesota Employees Obtain $30,000 in Back Pay
Connolly and Winter each filed unfair labor practice charges against both the Teamsters and their former employer, building materials company OMG Midwest, after they were unlawfully fired.
The two workers charged that company and union officials falsely told them several times that union membership was required as a condition of employment. Both men charged that the misinformation about membership and their firings violated Section 7 of the NLRA, which protects the “right to refrain from any or all” union activities.
In addition to winning $30,000 in back pay from their former employer, the settlement stipulates that OMG Midwest take additional action. The company must “remove all references to the termination” from the two employees’ personnel files, post notices at OMG’s facility in Belle Plaine, Minnesota, and distribute those notices individually to all employees. The notices will explain that workers cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.
In a later settlement, Teamsters bosses were ordered to refrain from telling “employees or applicants that union membership is a condition of employment” and to inform employees “of their right to be non-members.” Additionally, the Teamsters will reimburse any employee who worked at OMG Midwest who chooses to become a non-member for the difference between full union dues and the portion payable by non-member objectors under the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in CWA v. Beck.
“It is good news that Mr. Connolly and Mr. Winter have won these settlements which require their former employer and Teamsters union bosses to make reparations for violating longstanding worker protections. But such instances of abuse will continue unless Minnesota legislators pass Right to Work protections for their state’s private sector employees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “This case demonstrates, yet again, why Teamsters bosses have a well-earned reputation for using coercive tactics against workers who refuse to toe the union line.”
Milwaukee Worker Receives Refund of Union Dues in Foundation-Won Settlement
Under the terms of the settlement for Lewis, Teamsters Local 200 officials agreed to repay union dues, plus interest, seized from Lewis’ paycheck after he resigned his union membership and revoked his dues deduction authorization.
After he was hired to work at Snap-on Logistics Company, a union official told Lewis that he must become a union member and authorize the deduction of union dues from his paycheck. That union demand violated longstanding law dating back to 1963.
In September 2019, Lewis resigned from the union and revoked his authorization of dues deductions. But union bosses refused to honor Lewis’ request to stop union dues deductions and continued to seize dues from his paycheck.
In response, Lewis filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB with the assistance of Foundation staff attorneys. The favorable settlement secured for Lewis resolves his charge. Lewis’ charge against the Teamsters pointed out that the monopoly bargaining contract was signed after the effective date of Wisconsin’s Right to Work Law. Therefore, the so-called “union security” clause in the contract was illegal and he should never have been forced to pay any amount to the union.
“This settlement for Mr. Lewis is yet another victory for the rights of all Wisconsin workers. However, it should not take federal labor charges for union bosses to acknowledge the basic rights of employees in the Badger State,” said LaJeunesse.
Chicago Educators Hit CTU Union with Federal Lawsuit for Stonewalling Janus Rights
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union bosses using “escape period” schemes to block First Amendment right to cut off dues
CTU bosses tried to block Ifeoma Nkemdi’s First Amendment Janus right to end dues deductions from her paycheck. Now she is fighting back with a federal lawsuit.
CHICAGO, IL – Ifeoma Nkemdi, a second-grade teacher at Newberry Math and Science Academy, and Joanne Troesch, a Technology Coordinator at Jones College Prep, didn’t want to abandon their students during an October 2019 strike ordered by Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) bosses against the city’s public schools.
“I didn’t feel they needed to be away from school, period,” Nkemdi told The Wall Street Journal editorial board about her students. “Time away was going to be detrimental.”
While researching how to exercise their right to keep working despite the union boss strike order, the two women also discovered their First Amendment right to refuse to subsidize the union. The Supreme Court recognized this right in the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, which was argued and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Though they both submitted requests to CTU officials in October 2019 exercising their rights to end union membership and cut off all dues deductions, union bosses notified the two educators that they would continue to seize dues from each of their paychecks for almost another year, citing an “escape period” scheme that purports to limit attempts by educators to exercise their Janus rights to just one month per year.
Suit: Union Bigwigs Never Informed Teachers of Right to Cut Off Dues
Now, with free legal aid from the Foundation, Nkemdi and Troesch are suing CTU and the Chicago Board of Education in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for violating their First Amendment rights as recognized by the Supreme Court in the Janus decision.
In Janus, the High Court struck down mandatory union fees as a violation of the First Amendment rights of government employees. The Court ruled that any dues taken without a government worker’s affirmative consent violate the First Amendment, and further made it clear that these rights cannot be restricted absent a clear and knowing waiver.
“I just want the Janus case to be respected,” Nkemdi said of educators’ First Amendment rights to the Chicago Tribune. “I want people’s constitutional rights, the right to work to be established. I don’t feel like we should be ignoring the Supreme Court on that issue.”
Their suit asks the District Court to order CTU and the Board of Education to stop enforcing the unconstitutional “escape period,” as well as inform bargaining unit employees of their First Amendment right under Janus to stop the deduction of union dues at any time.
The complaint also requests that the court allow workers to retroactively demand back dues seized without their consent by CTU bosses and order refunds of all dues seized under the illegal “escape period” policy from Nkemdi, Troesch and all other educators who submitted requests to cut off dues.
Union Bosses Slammed with Foundation Suits Nationwide
Foundation staff attorneys are continuing to assist public employees around the country in eliminating illegal restrictions on the exercise of their Janus freedoms, resulting already in at least six favorable settlements where union boss schemes were ended and unlawful dues refunded.
In Alaska, Christopher Woods, a Vocational Instructor at the Goose Creek Correctional Center, filed a federal lawsuit in March challenging a similar “escape period” scheme with free Foundation legal assistance. His complaint says that he joined the Alaska State Employees’ Association (ASEA) upon being hired in 2013 “because he was told by a union representative that he had no choice.”
His complaint now asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska to order ASEA officials and the State of Alaska to refund all dues seized illegally under the scheme.
“In non-Right to Work states where politicians have historically granted union bosses the power to force both private and public sector workers to pay them or be fired — such as Illinois and Alaska — union bosses may feel emboldened to keep imposing illegal schemes on public servants to curtail their First Amendment Janus rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, Janus is the law, and the Foundation will file as many lawsuits for public workers as is necessary to ensure that union bosses stop enriching themselves by violating the constitutional rights of the employees they claim to represent.”
Right to Work-Flouting UAW Bosses Pay Back Thousands to MI Paramedics
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Settlements come in Foundation-supported cases as UAW top brass face massive corruption scandal
Joe Biden promises to increase UAW bosses’ coercive power over workers, even as the criminal probe engulfs the union’s upper echelon. Former UAW President Gary Jones’ house had already been raided by FBI agents when this photo was taken.
FLINT, MI – As a result of a settlement won in a National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation-supported state court case against United Automobile Workers (UAW) Local 708 union bosses, Skylar Korinek, Donald McCarty and 261 other STAT Emergency Medical Services employees received $31,000 in damages. The lawsuit challenged the union’s and company’s violations of Michigan’s Right to Work Law. The settlement is in addition to $26,000 previously won for STAT employees in a separate federal administrative case brought by Foundation staff attorneys.
The victory comes as former UAW President Gary Jones becomes the latest top UAW official to plead guilty in a years-long federal investigation into racketeering and embezzlement among the UAW hierarchy. Court documents say that Jones and other UAW despots misspent millions in union money, much of it forced union dues, on lavish limousine lifestyles, including months-long Southern California luxury golf vacations complete with private villas, custom-made Napa wine and $60,000 in cigar-buying sprees.
Revelations Keep Coming in Sweeping Investigation of UAW Hierarchy
The expanding probe, which has involved FBI raids on UAW officials’ homes where stashes of pilfered cash and luxury items were discovered, has already resulted in the convictions of at least 14 people, including at least 11 UAW agents.
Jones’ guilty plea is expected to be part of a deal that will include his assistance in prosecuting his predecessor, former UAW President Dennis Williams. Further, according to The Detroit News, current UAW President Rory Gamble is under investigation for taking kickbacks from Detroit vendors after awarding them lucrative UAW merchandise contracts.
“The UAW scandal is yet another reminder that compulsory unionism breeds corruption. Even though Michigan’s Right to Work Law should protect workers from being forced to subsidize union boss activities, UAW bosses’ preferred operating model still is extorting workers to pay dues or be fired,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “Even in states like Michigan with Right to Work laws on the books, union bosses will attempt to force workers like Korinek and McCarty to pay dues. Only vigorous enforcement of Right to Work protections through the Foundation’s legal aid program stops them.”
Settlement Nixes Illegal Contract Clause Imposed by Union and Employer
The five-figure settlement won in the Foundation-supported state case supplements an earlier National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) settlement last year that secured Korinek, McCarty and 168 other STAT emergency workers $26,000 in refunds from UAW. That settlement stemmed from NLRB charges filed by Foundation staff attorneys for the two against UAW and STAT for deducting union dues from the workers’ paychecks without authorization.
The state class-action lawsuit for Korinek and McCarty also revealed that STAT and UAW officials had entered into a monopoly bargaining agreement in 2015 that contained a so-called “union security” agreement. That agreement required STAT employees to join and fund UAW or lose their jobs in violation of Michigan’s Right to Work Law, which protects workers from having to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. At that point, the law had been in effect for more than two years.
As part of the settlement approved on May 19, 2020, UAW officials and STAT agreed not to include an agreement that requires workers to join or financially support UAW in any monopoly bargaining contract for as long as Michigan’s Right to Work Law is in effect.
Since Michigan passed its Right to Work Law, which became effective in March 2013, Foundation staff attorneys have brought more than 120 enforcement cases for Michigan workers subjected to coercive union boss tactics.
Ohio Public Employee Asks Supreme Court to Hear Class Action Lawsuit Seeking Return of Forced Union Dues
Lawsuit joins others pending at the Supreme Court seeking refunds of forced union fees seized from nonmembers in violation of Janus v. AFSCME
Washington, DC (October 9, 2020) – Yesterday, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition for certiorari, asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case of Nathaniel Ogle. Ogle is an employee of the Ohio Department of Taxation who, despite never being a member, still had mandatory union fees deducted from his paycheck by officials of the Ohio affiliate of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union.
In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v AFSCME that it is unconstitutional to require public sector employees like Ogle to subsidize union activities. Soon after, Ogle filed his class action lawsuit seeking a return of fees seized before the Janus decision from himself and potentially thousands of other state employees.
AFSCME officials have thus far relied on the so-called “good faith” defense to avoid paying back money they took from nonmembers before the ruling in violation of the First Amendment as Janus recognized. However, in the Janus decision, not only did the Supreme Court not rule out retroactive relief, it also observed that union officials have been “on notice” for years that mandatory fees likely would not comply with the High Court’s heightened level of First Amendment scrutiny articulated in the 2012 Knox v. SEIU Supreme Court decision.
Foundation staff attorneys argue that in addition to there being no valid basis for the “good faith” defense under existing law, AFSCME officials also understood the dubious constitutionality of what they were doing when they extracted payments from nonmembers but still went forward with their legally suspect collection of forced union fees.
Ogle’s case was dismissed by the district court in July of 2019. A three judge panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals later held that the union could avoid paying back its victims, despite the Supreme Court’s assertion that unions had been “on notice,” leading to today’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
Ogle is the fifth dues repayment case the Court is being asked to consider. The other four, including Foundation-backed cases Casanova v. IAM and the Janus case itself, are fully briefed and scheduled to be considered at the Court’s October 9th conference. Foundation staff attorneys are actively litigating about 20 of these cases which collectively seek the return of an estimated $130 million or more in forced union fees seized from workers in violation of the First Amendment.
In a recent supplemental brief in Janus, Mark Janus’ attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation and Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center point out that two of three judges on a panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently opined that the “good faith” defense is invalid, while other federal judges have upheld it. This, they argue, makes it especially vital that the Court hear the case to clear up the confusion among lower courts and ultimately reject this spurious argument allowing union officials to profit from violating workers’ constitutional rights.
“The so-called ‘good faith’ defense, which permits union bosses to continue to ignore an established Supreme Court precedent, has already been rejected by two federal judges. It is vital that the Supreme Court take up this issue to disabuse all lower courts of this flawed argument, and to ensure that the victims of union officials’ First Amendment violations finally get some justice,” National Right to Work President Mark Mix said. “The Court already ruled in Janus that public workers cannot be forced to pay union dues. It is past time for the victims of these First Amendment violations, including Mr. Ogle and his coworkers, to receive justice.”
Interview: Mark Mix Discusses Two Foundation Cases Pending at the US Supreme Court
Recently National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix spoke to WISN’s Vicki McKenna about two cases that could have major implications for public sector workers if the Supreme Court decides to hear them. Janus v. AFSCME and Casanova v. International Association of Machinists both deal with employees seeking refunds of dues unconstitutionally seized before the 2018 Janus decision.
When Janus v. AFSCME was originally decided, the court held that public sector workers can’t be forced to support a union as a condition of their employment, and that nonmembers can’t have dues deducted from their paychecks without their consent. As Mix said in the interview, “When you rule on the first amendment there’s a legal concept called black letter law, which means ‘as if it was the law from the beginning’. These workers ought to be able to go back and get their money back through the statute of limitations.”
He also pointed out that the Supreme Court specifically recognized in Janus that unions have known since the 2012 Foundation-won Knox v. SEIU case that mandatory union fees for public sector employees likely did not comply with the First Amendment.
In the majority opinion in Janus, Justice Alito wrote:
public-sector unions have been on notice for years regarding this Court’s misgivings about Abood. In Knox, decided in 2012, we described Abood as a First Amendment “anomaly.” 567 U. S., at 311. Two years later in Harris, we were asked to overrule Abood, and while we found it unnecessary to take that step, we cataloged Abood’s many weaknesses. In 2015, we granted a petition for certiorari asking us to review a decision that sustained an agency-fee arrangement under Abood. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assn., 576 U. S.___. After exhaustive briefing and argument on the question whether Abood should be overruled, we affirmed the decision below by an equally divided vote. 578 U. S. ___(2016) (per curiam). During this period of time, any public sector union seeking an agency-fee provision in a collective bargaining agreement must have understood that the constitutionality of such a provision was uncertain.
If the Supreme Court takes one of these cases and rules in favor of the workers seeking refunds, it would set a precedent that would result in the return of hundreds of millions of dollars in dues for workers around the country.
You can listen to the entire interview below:
Third Circuit Court of Appeals to Hear New Jersey Teachers’ Class Action Lawsuit against NEA Union to Enforce Janus Rights
Class action lawsuit challenges a NJ law that blocks workers from exercising First Amendment rights outside 10 day “escape period”
Philadelphia, PA (September 29, 2020) – On Wednesday, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will hear arguments in a class action lawsuit brought by two New Jersey teachers against the Township of Ocean Education Association (TOEA), New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and the National Education Association (NEA) unions. The teachers are receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Susan G. Fischer and Jeanette Speck are asking the Court of Appeals to order NJEA union bosses to return illegally-seized dues taken without the teachers’ consent in violation of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME. The teachers will be represented during arguments by Foundation staff attorney William Messenger, who also successfully argued for Mark Janus at the US Supreme Court.
In Janus the High Court ruled it unconstitutional to require public employees to subsidize a labor union. The Court further held that any union dues or fees taken without a public employee’s affirmative consent violate the employee’s First Amendment rights.
In their complaint, Fischer and Speck say union officials continued to collect dues without their consent, even after they resigned their membership in July 2018. Township officials told the teachers they could only stop payments and withdraw their membership during an annual 10-day window.
In May 2018, New Jersey’s legislature created the escape period while the Janus case was pending a decision. The teachers’ suit argues that because the Janus ruling gave public employees the First Amendment right not to financially support union activities, the New Jersey law is unconstitutional and must be struck down. They seek a refund of membership dues for themselves and all other public employees who attempted to resign following Janus but were denied by union officials.
Similar union-created “escape period” schemes have been challenged in dozens of Foundation cases, including the recently concluded Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association. In that case, OCSEA union officials ultimately settled by eliminating the union’s escape period restriction and promising to pay back dues collected from more than 150 state employees who had been blocked from exercising their rights under Janus.
“Once again, rather than work to win the voluntary support of those they claim to represent, union officials are resorting to legal tricks to trap workers in dues payments,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Contrary to the wishes of union bosses and their political allies, civil servants enjoy the protection of the Constitution every day of the year.”
“Neither a union policy nor state law can limit teachers’ or other public employees’ First Amendment rights to an arbitrary ‘escape period,’” Mix added. “The Foundation remains committed to fully enforcing the constitutional rights of Susan, Jeanette, and millions of other public sector workers as guaranteed by the Supreme Court in Janus.”
UGSOA Union Officials Hit With Another Federal Charge for Seizing Forced Union Fees in Violation of Security Guards’ Rights
NLRB Charge: Union bosses illegally failed to disclose financials and restricted workers’ rights to opt out of union political spending
Newark, NJ (October 5, 2020) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, William J. Sona is taking his case against the United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union Local 171 to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The Paragon Systems employee’s federal unfair labor practice charge states that union officials illegally failed to provide a mandated independent audit justifying union fees, and imposed unlawful restrictions on workers seeking to challenge the calculation of the fees workers must pay as a condition of employment.
Because Sona is employed in New Jersey, a forced-unionism state, he can legally be fired for refusing to pay union fees. However, these forced fees cannot be used for union political activities or lobbying. Union officials must comply with certain legal requirements to justify the amount they can force workers to pay as a condition of employment.
Under the precedent established in the Right to Work Foundation-won Beck Supreme Court case and subsequent California Saw NLRB precedent, unions must provide verification of chargeable expenses through an independent audit, provide escrow if workers dispute charges, and provide an independent system for workers to challenge the fees.
Sona’s case against UGSOA charges that union officials failed to comply with any of these requirements. Additionally the charge states union officials illegally required Beck objectors like Sona to file two separate objections to funding union political activity—one to Local 171 and one to the International.
Union officials at UGSOA have a history of illegally seizing dues from workers. Previously, UGSOA union bosses illegally demanded union dues from nonmember workers while there was no contract in effect between the union and the employer.
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Sona and five other Paragon employees won $4,000 in illegally seized back dues. That case was settled in 2019 and formally adopted by the NLRB in August of 2020, but Sona’s new charge says union officials have not stopped violating the law.
“Union brass at UGSOA have demonstrated again that they will violate the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent’ just to stuff their pockets with more forced dues,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“They use their special government-granted privileges to force workers to pay up or be fired, and then refuse to provide the information needed to confirm that at least these forced fees are not being illegally funneled into union lobbying and campaign expenses. If union bureaucrats are afraid of transparency, there’s probably a reason for that.”
