Labor Day Media Round Up: National Right to Work Commentaries Highlight Injustices of Forced Unionism
On Labor Day, the National Right to Work Foundation generated significant coverage in both national and local media outlets, especially on newspaper opinion pages. Foundation President Mark Mix wrote a number of pieces for outlets around the country highlighting the injustices of compulsory unionism and what can be done to protect workers freedom.
Mix wrote for USA Today that no American should be forced to pay union dues just to get or keep a job and highlighted the prevalence of compulsory unionism despite Right to Work laws gaining ground:
Twenty-seven states have now enacted and implemented right-to-work laws, with five joining in the last eight years.
And on June 27 of last year, the U.S Supreme Court handed down one of the most significant employee rights legal victories in the history of the right-to-work movement with the Janus decision, which ended the forced payment of union dues or fees for millions of government workers nationwide.
Unfortunately, there are more private sector American workers in the 23 non-right-to-work states and others in the railway and airline industries who still work under compulsory unionism.
Mix also wrote a column for the Detroit News arguing that no worker should ever have to fear union violence just because they disagree with union tactics or thuggish strong-arming:
Violence, the threat of violence and the wrongful non-violent use of fear and intimidation by union thugs should be illegal. No exceptions.
The spreading UAW corruption scandal shows that union bosses often act as though they are above the law.
For the Lexington Herald-Leader, Mix wrote about how Kentucky’s Right to Work law benefits the state, and why they need to protect it from the attacks of Democrat and gubernatorial candidate Attorney General Andy Beshear, who wants to give power back to union bosses should he be elected to replace Governor Matt Bevin a friend of Right to Work:
Beshear wants to return the Commonwealth of Kentucky to the days of workers being forced to hand over a portion of their hard-earned paychecks to the union boss elites to get or keep a job. Meanwhile, the Bevin Administration has spearheaded record economic growth after passing Right to Work here in Kentucky.
Even putting that enormous economic growth aside, the fact is that one candidate favors allowing Big Labor to extract money from workers’ paychecks, and the other candidate has worked tirelessly to protect Kentucky workers’ right to hold onto their paychecks without union boss interference.
And for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Mark wrote how Right to Work laws have benefitted Nevada’s workers and families for more than half a century, causing noticeable effects for the state’s economy:
There is a reason Tesla’s Gigafactory is located in Nevada and not California. A nationwide 2017 survey of business leaders conducted by Chief Executive magazine found that, by a 2-to-1 margin, CEOs prefer adding jobs in right-to-work states over other states.
Business owners correctly view states that have passed right-to-work laws as being more welcoming and business-friendly than high-tax, forced-dues states such as California. That is why federal Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that from 2013-18, factory employment growth in Nevada was more than three times greater than in Western forced-union states such as Colorado, Oregon and Montana.
Just a few days after Labor Day, the Daily Caller published a timely op-ed from Mix regarding the Trump Administration’s rules to make it harder for union officials, like those implicated in the unfolding UAW scandal, to spend worker’s money on themselves or fuel their corruption:
At the end of May, the Trump Labor Department unveiled a rule that, as a contemporaneous news account filed by the Law360 legal news service explained, imposes “financial disclosure requirements for certain trusts that unions set up, scrutiny the agency says will ‘deter fraud and corruption.”
The proposed rule would reestablish the Form T-1, which until it was scuttled by union-label Obama administration bureaucrats in 2010 blocked officers of unions with $250,000 or more in annual revenue from using trusts supposedly created to benefit rank-and-file members to circumvent the federal reporting requirements for such unions that Congress instituted in the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
In addition, Mix wrote two op-eds, one for Right to Work states and the other for non-Right to Work states, which were sent out across the country and printed in local newspapers. They highlight the benefits of Right to Work laws and the problems that forced unionism causes.
Labor Board Rules UAW Violated Ford Worker’s Legal Rights by Unlawfully Accepting Union Dues Deducted from Paycheck
NLRB orders union officials to reimburse funds seized after employee resigned his union membership and revoked authorization to deduct any further dues
Washington, D.C. (September 4, 2019) – Ford Motor Company employee Lloyd Stoner won an important legal victory at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free litigation aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys after union officials violated his legal rights.
An NLRB three-member panel unanimously affirmed a ruling by an administrative law judge that United Automobile Workers (UAW) Local 600 union officials violated Stoner’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRB ordered the Dearborn, Michigan-based union local officials to reimburse Stoner for union dues unlawfully deducted from his paycheck after he attempt to exercise his legal right to revoke his dues checkoff authorization.
Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas ruled in February that UAW Local 600 engaged in unfair labor practices under the NLRA by accepting union dues deducted from Stoner’s wages for two-and-a-half months after he resigned union membership and revoked his authorization to deduct dues. The union also failed to refund any of the dues taken without Stoner’s consent for nearly five months after his revocation.
Stoner had already won a favorable settlement in January from the Ford Motor Company, which was charged for deducting the unauthorized dues from his paycheck.
In addition to refunding dues unlawfully deducted from Stoner’s paycheck, the NLRB ordered union officials to honor any requests of employees to resign from membership and revoke their dues checkoff authorizations. UAW union officials must refrain from coercing workers from exercising their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Board added.
“By standing up for his rights, Lloyd Stoner has won a clear victory for himself and his colleagues against abusive union practices,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Board is absolutely right that union bosses cannot keep accepting money deducted from a worker’s paycheck even after an employee resigns his union membership and tells the union he no longer wishes to pay dues.”
“It is outrageous that union officials thought they could get away with an obvious violation of the National Labor Relations Act,” Mix added. “Scandal ridden UAW bosses may claim to represent rank-and-file workers, but their actions repeatedly show they are really just out for power and money.”
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice for California Workers Impacted by Possible UFCW Union Boss Strike
Foundation staff attorneys recently assisted workers whose rights were violated by UFCW officials during high profile Stop & Shop Strike
Washington DC (September 5, 2019) – Today the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for workers affected by a potential strike at several grocery chains in central and southern California called for by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials.
According to news reports, the UFCW threatens to strike against Albertsons, Vons, Pavilions and Ralphs grocery stores, impacting over 45,000 employees. The special legal notice informs these affected workers of the rights union officials won’t tell them, including that they have the right to continue to work to support their families despite the union boss-ordered strike.
“The situation raises serious concerns for employees at potentially affected stores who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “Which is why workers frequently contact the Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and other vicious union discipline for continuing to report to work to support themselves and their families.”
The National Right to Work Foundation’s special legal notice informs workers of their right to continue to work at their job during union-demanded strikes. It also highlights workers’ rights to resign union membership and their rights to revoke their union dues check-offs which take money from their paychecks. The notice also provides helpful information for removing an unaccountable union from a workplace, including how to use a decertification petition to obtain a secret ballot election to do so.
Importantly, the notice gives workers who want to exercise their right to work information on how to avoid fines and punishment from union officials. The National Right to Work Foundation is the nation’s premier organization exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employee victims of forced unionism abuse.
The full notice can be found at https://www.nrtw.org/ufcw-ca/
Foundation staff attorneys assisted several grocery workers during and after a recent UFCW-initiated strike in New England against the Stop & Shop grocery chain. Two workers have already filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the union for illegal conduct by UFCW union officials.
“Workers always have the right to continue to work during a strike, despite what union bosses may tell them or try to pressure them into,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “This legal notice reflects the Foundation’s decades-long commitment to offering free legal aid to workers to protect themselves from union bosses’ coercive tactics which regularly go hand-in-hand with union strike demands.”
Full Foundation Action July/August 2019 Newsletter Now Online
In this issue:
- Supreme Court Asked to Uphold First Amendment Rights of Childcare Providers
- Stop & Shop Strike Fallout: Grocery Worker Hits UFCW with Two Federal Charges
- Foundation Staff Attorney Testifies Before Congressional Hearing on Labor Law
- Feds Close Obama-Era Loophole Sanctioning Big Labor Medicaid Skim
- Airline Workers Contest Union ‘Opt-Out’ Requirement for Political Dues
- UConn Professor Receives Over $5,000 in Post-Janus Settlement
To view other editions or sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail, click here.
Final Briefs Filed at Appeals Court in Continuation of Janus v. AFSCME
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation seeks first-in-nation appellate court ruling to order non-member dues refunded
Veteran Foundation staff attorney William Messenger, seen here speaking to reporters after Supreme Court oral arguments in Janus, leads the Foundation’s Janus enforcement task force.
CHICAGO, IL – Although Janus v. AFSCME secured a landmark victory at the U.S. Supreme Court for government employees’ First Amendment rights, Mark Janus’ case is not over because AFSCME union bosses have refused to return the funds taken from him in violation of the First Amendment.
Janus’ attorneys from National Right to Work Foundation and Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center have completed briefing with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of whether union officials can keep money they seized from non-members in violation of their constitutional rights. The case is likely to mark the first time an appellate court will rule on the issue, potentially establishing a precedent that could result in the return of hundreds of millions of dollars seized by union bosses in violation of the Janus precedent.
Janus Secured Workers’ First Amendment Rights
Mark Janus was an Illinois child support specialist whose case was successfully argued at the Supreme Court by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger.
The Supreme Court’s June 27, 2018, decision in Janus’ favor found that any union fees taken from workers like Mark Janus – who was not a member of AFSCME – without the workers’ affirmative and knowing consent violate the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that compulsory fees “[violate] the free speech rights of non-members by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.”
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts to determine, among other things, whether Janus is entitled to all the union fees he was forced to pay since March 23, 2013.
Janus’ appeal comes after a district court judge ruled that union officials are not required to refund forced fees seized from non-member workers prior to the Janus decision.
“Just like a thief would not be allowed to keep the money he stole, union bosses must be forced to return funds unlawfully seized from workers,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse. “It would be a massive injustice to deny workers victimized by Big Labor the refunds to which the Supreme Court made clear they are entitled.”
Seventh Circuit Likely First Appeals Court to Rule on Non-member Refunds
Janus will likely be the first case in which an appellate court will evaluate the so-called “good faith” defense that union lawyers have asserted in response to worker lawsuits seeking refunds, arguing that union officials should be allowed to keep funds seized prior to the Janus decision.
This contention has generally succeeded in lower courts despite the Supreme Court asserting that union bosses have been “on notice” for years that mandatory fees likely would not comply with the heightened level of First Amendment scrutiny articulated in the Supreme Court’s earlier Knox v. SEIU decision, also won by Foundation staff attorneys.
Mark Janus is asking the Seventh Circuit to rule that he is entitled to refunds of approximately $3,000 in fees he was forced to pay since March 23, 2013, as the statute of limitations permits. In addition, the case has significant implications for dozens of other cases being litigated around the country for hundreds of thousands of other workers seeking the return of forced fees seized unlawfully by union officials.
Janus Refund Efforts Continue Nationwide
Foundation staff attorneys are currently litigating over a dozen such cases that collectively seek over $120 million in refunds for non-members forced to pay union fees before Janus. Other ongoing lawsuits and potential cases could result in half a billion dollars or more returned to government workers from union treasuries.
“The Janus case is a milestone of worker freedom, but union bosses continue to block workers from exercising their rights and deny workers refunds for dues and fees seized against their wishes,” said LaJeunesse. “We hope the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will follow the clear logic of the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus and establish that union bosses cannot profit from violating workers’ First Amendment rights.”
National Right to Work President Urges Voluntary, Not Coercive Unionism on Labor Day 2019
“America must do more to protect the dignity of every American worker against the injustices of compulsory unionism.”
Washington, DC (Aug 29, 2019) – Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2019:
On this Labor Day, many American workers are enjoying a well-deserved extra day of rest and relaxation with their families. And while we should celebrate all they do for this nation, we must also recognize that even as we make advances, America must do more to protect the dignity of every American worker against the injustices of compulsory unionism.
When it comes to freedom versus compulsion in the workplace, Samuel Gompers, founder of the AFL-CIO union, said it best: “I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty – the principles of voluntarism. No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion.” And where Gompers’ advice has been followed and voluntarism reinforced, workers and economic opportunity have flourished.
The United States Supreme Court’s decision last year in Janus v. AFSCME, won and argued by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, secured the First Amendment rights of millions of public sector workers to choose individually whether or not union bosses deserve their financial support. Similarly, state Right to Work laws in place in 27 states protect millions of private sector workers from being fired simply for refusing to pay tribute to union officials.
Yet every day, millions of Americans are still forced to subsidize union boss activities or else lose their job. Meanwhile millions more are forced to accept forced union representation even when they oppose such representation and believe they would be better off without it.
Now, as the 2020 election looms, the American people are presented with two starkly different visions for the freedoms of America’s workers. The National Right to Work Act, currently pending in Congress would build on the Janus decision and state Right to Work laws by expanding workers’ freedom to decide the whether or not to join and financially support a labor union.
Meanwhile, Big Labor is wielding a multi-billion dollar forced dues-funded political war chest to expand union coercion over rank-and-file workers. Their top priority, the so-called ‘PRO Act,’ would expand union boss power to force workers into their ranks and also wipe out every state Right to Work law to give union officials the power to have millions of additional workers fired for not paying union dues or fees.
While that expanded regime of workplace compulsion may appeal to union bosses and the politicians whose campaigns are backed by Big Labor’s political machine, fortunately it is completely out of step with rank-and-file workers and the American people who overwhelmingly back the Right to Work principle that union membership and financial support should be strictly voluntary.
So this Labor Day, we should take Gompers’ words to heart and be on guard for attempts to undermine workers’ individual freedoms. And we should honor American workers by trusting each one to decide for him or herself whether or not to affiliate with a labor union.
Ohio Public Employees File Lawsuit Against AFSCME Union, State of Ohio Challenging Unconstitutional Restrictions on Stopping Union Dues
Class action lawsuit names Governor DeWine for state’s role in enforcing opt-out requirement that violates U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME precedent
Columbus, OH (August 27, 2019) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have just filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, challenging the State of Ohio’s enforcement of illegal restrictions created by AFSCME Council 11 union officials to limit state employees’ First Amendment rights to stop union dues payments. The lawsuit is being filed for five state employees who are receiving free legal aid from the Foundation.
The complaint seeks to ensure that Ohio state workers can freely exercise their constitutional rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision, which struck down mandatory union fees as a violation of the First Amendment rights of government employees. The Supreme Court recognized 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 of them.
The lawsuit challenges union-created restrictions which block workers from exercising their rights under Janus outside of a brief “escape period” once every three years at the expiration of the union monopoly bargaining contract. AFSCME Council 11 is enforcing such First Amendment restrictions against tens of thousands of state workers.
The lawsuit seeks to end those restrictions and ensure that state workers only have union dues deducted from their paychecks if they have affirmatively opted-in to such payments. Because the state is seizing the dues from workers’ paychecks and enforcing the restriction, Governor DeWine and another state official are named as defendants in the complaint.
“Over a year ago the US Supreme Court ruled that public employees’ financial support of union activities must be completely voluntary, but the state of Ohio continues to enforce illegal union policies that violate the clear standards laid out in the Janus decision,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Governor DeWine and Attorney General Yost should move quickly to stop this widespread violation of the First Amendment rights of Ohio public sector workers and cease collecting union dues from any worker who has not affirmatively consented to pay dues.”
The Ohio government employees’ lead Foundation staff attorney is William Messenger, who argued the Janus v. AFSCME case at the U.S. Supreme Court. Foundation staff attorneys are currently litigating dozens of cases to enforce the Janus decision for workers from coast-to-coast.
Feds Close Obama-Era Loophole Sanctioning Big Labor Medicaid Skim
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-backed rule clarification takes aim at SEIU’s illicit $100 million per year money grab
In the 2014 Harris case, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited union officials from requiring the diversion of Medicaid payments from providers like Susie Watts (center), pictured at the High Court with her Foundation attorney William Messenger (left) and Foundation President Mark Mix (right).
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Spurred by National Right to Work Foundation supporters, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule in May, making it clear that the diversion of Medicaid payments from home healthcare providers to union bosses violates federal Medicaid law.
This Foundation-backed rule change closes an illegal loop-hole created by the Obama Administration to provide union officials with legal cover to siphon hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid funds into union political and lobbying activities.
As a giveaway to the Obama Administration’s political backers, in 2014, the Obama HHS created a regulation to give legal cover to ongoing schemes by the SEIU and other unions that siphoned off over $1 billion in Medicaid funds.
However, the Medicaid law was clear that taxpayer-funded Medicaid money must go directly to healthcare providers, many of whom care for their own family members in their own homes, and cannot be diverted to third parties. The Obama rule was issued as Foundation staff attorneys were shining the spotlight on the illegal scheme in federal court.
The 2014 Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Harris v. Quinn decision held it is unconstitutional for states to force homecare providers paid through Medicaid programs to pay union fees. In Harris, the Court ruled that a scheme imposed by the State of Illinois, in which more than 80,000 individual homecare providers were forced to pay union fees out of the state funding they receive, violated the providers’ First Amendment rights.
Rather than fold up the scheme as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, Obama operatives chose to skirt the law.
The Obama Administration helped Big Labor continue to skim over $100 million per year from healthcare providers by authorizing states to “assign” a portion of providers’ funds directly to union officials.
“The Harris decision, won by the Foundation in 2014, made it illegal for states to require these providers to pay fees to union officials,” said National Right to Work Vice President Patrick Semmens. “But with the help of the Obama Administration, union bosses attempted to undermine that ruling by scheming to continue deducting union dues from Medicaid payments, even from providers who never knew they could not be required to pay.”
When the new administration took office in 2017, a window of opportunity opened to reverse Obama’s giveaways to Big Labor. In 2017, the Foundation formally brought the illegal-dues skim scheme to the attention of the Trump Administration.
Soon after Foundation President Mark Mix personally raised the issue again at a White House meeting in 2018, the Trump Administration issued the proposed rule to make it clear that states cannot allow union bosses to intercept tax dollars intended for Medicaid recipients.
By the August 2018 public commenting deadline, the Foundation filed detailed comments on how the scheme violates the law and how the Trump Administration should fix it. The Foundation also rallied thousands of supporters to petition the Trump Administration to enforce the Medicaid statute by ending the illegal diversion of Medicaid funds into Big Labor coffers.
“This long-overdue rule is another important step forward in protecting the rights of homecare workers from greedy union bosses,” added Semmens. “While the rule will still need to be robustly enforced and Foundation staff attorneys are already preparing to do just that, this decision by the Department of Health and Human Services is encouraging.”
Foundation Staff Attorney Testifies Before Congressional Hearing on Labor Law
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Current labor law is ‘antithetical to American values of free speech and free association’
Veteran Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman testified before Congress that current labor law allows union bosses to violate the rights of workers and urged Congress to make union dues payments and association voluntary.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman recently testified at a U.S. House of Representatives committee hearing, urging reform of current labor law that hinders American workers from exercising their rights under the U.S. Constitution and National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Taubman has represented hundreds of workers in cases before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and in federal court as a veteran Foundation staff attorney.
Given his expertise on labor law, Taubman was asked to be the sole pro-Right to Work witness, testifying before the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions at its hearing on “The Need for Labor Law Reform.”
Taubman told the House Committee on March 26 that union bosses use current labor law to force millions of private sector workers to accept union monopoly representation just to get or keep a job.
“No worker in America should be threatened with discharge from his or her workplace for refusing to pay dues and fees to a private organization he or she may despise,” Taubman testified. “Yet this is the reality for millions of private sector workers today under the compulsory dues and monopoly bargaining regimes of the NLRA.”
Taubman exposed several specific ways that current labor law violates workers’ rights. He explained that “current law makes it easier for employees to form and join a union than it is for those same employees to decertify the union,” adding that a web of bureaucratic red tape blocks countless employees from removing unions opposed by most workers.
Taubman argued forced dues and monopoly bargaining, also known as “exclusive representation,” violate workers’ rights to free speech and free association by forcing them to be represented by and pay fees to a private organization.
Even in states with Right to Work legislation, which protects employees’ right to choose whether or not to subsidize a union, union officials impose obstacles to prevent employees from changing their minds and cutting off union dues.
Taubman urged reform of the standards for financial transparency to expose how union dues are spent, citing recent examples of corruption and abuse of union funds. He also suggested passing several pieces of legislation to safeguard workers from compulsory unionism’s abuses, including the National Right to Work Act, which would give every individual worker covered by the NLRA and Railway Labor Act the freedom to decide whether or not to fund union officials’ activities.
Taubman cited the case of nurse Jeanette Geary as an example. Taubman helped Geary win her landmark case at the NLRB earlier this year while providing her with free legal aid. The NLRB decided favorably for Geary nine years after she first filed her case, ruling that union officials can never charge non-members for lobbying expenses.
The Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Beck decision provides some protection for workers like Geary against being charged for political and ideological union expenditures. Taubman pointed out, however, that union officials still continue spending forced dues for political activity.
“Changes to current labor law are long overdue, but the House Committee majority’s push to make it easier for workers to be forced into union ranks would move the law in the wrong direction,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Reforms to federal labor laws are certainly long overdue, but what is needed is a reorientation towards voluntary unionism.”
Stop & Shop Strike Fallout: Grocery Worker Hits UFCW with Two Federal Charges
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union bosses bullied and illegally threatened to discipline employee who defied strike demands
Ardent forced dues-supporter and former Vice President Joe Biden joined with UFCW bosses on the picket lines during the Stop & Shop strike, even as UFCW officials were violating the rights of rank-and-file workers.
NORTHAMPTON, MA – Stop & Shop employee Matthew Coffey, one of thousands across New England who were ordered to strike by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union bosses in April, has filed two unfair labor practice charges against the union for violating his rights before, during and after the strike.
Coffey charges that UFCW officials lied to him about union membership requirements at the beginning of his tenure with Stop & Shop, misinformed him about his right to continue working during the strike, targeted him with personal slurs when he did decide to keep working and finally tried to illegally discipline him once the strike concluded.
According to his first charge, union officials led Coffey to believe that Stop & Shop is a “closed shop.” As a result, he joined the UFCW when hired in 2017, under the impression that union membership was required to keep his job.
It wasn’t until the April strike that he discovered “closed shops” are illegal under federal law and he had the legal right to refrain from formal union membership.
With this new knowledge, he returned to work and filed his first charge against UFCW Local 1459 with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. That charge detailed union lies about his right to refrain from union membership and resign before the strike.
It also detailed harassment he endured, including personal slurs, because he exercised his right to work during the strike.
After the strike ended, UFCW officials weren’t finished with Coffey. Union agents mailed him a letter, threatening to discipline him for disobeying the strike order and demanding that Coffey appear before a union kangaroo court to defend himself.
Coffey responded by filing a second unfair labor practice charge.
“Matthew Coffey endured bullying and intimidation from UFCW union bosses, simply for choosing to resign his union membership and continue to work and provide for his family,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon story. Union boss-ordered strikes are frequently rife with intimidation and violations of workers’ rights, and the Foundation plays a major role in ensuring workers subjected to such malfeasance have a voice.”
