Michigan Employee Asks NLRB to End Policy Permitting Employers and Union Bosses to Coerce Dues Payments Even in Absence of Union Contract
In attempt to protect coercive powers over workers, CWA union lawyers now making last-minute attempt to intervene and delay case
Detroit, MI (September 9, 2020) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have just filed their brief on the merits in Michigan-based employee Veronica Rolader’s case charging AT&T officials with illegally deducting dues from her paycheck at the behest of Communications Workers of America (CWA) union bosses. The case seeks to overturn a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) precedent from 1979 that grants union bosses the power to limit to a narrow “window period” when workers may revoke their dues deduction authorization forms.
According to Rolader’s brief, in January 2000 she signed a form authorizing AT&T to deduct union dues from her paycheck and remit them to CWA bosses. Eighteen years later, in April 2018, the contract between AT&T and CWA officials expired. In June 2018, Rolader attempted to exercise her right under federal law to end her union membership and cease dues deductions from her paycheck, as union officials have no legal power to coerce dues from individual workers when there is no contract in effect.
Acting at the behest of CWA bosses, AT&T rejected this request by Rolader, writing that her request was “untimely” and that dues would continue to be deducted from her paycheck. Rolader tried again in December 2018, only to have her request denied as “untimely” once more the following January. Neither response apprised Rolader of the period in which union officials or AT&T would consider her request valid. On top of that, both of her letters to the union were submitted well before CWA brass and AT&T officials finalized a new monopoly bargaining contract in August 2019.
Rolader’s case challenges the NLRB’s 1979 decision in Frito-Lay, in which a 2-1 union boss-friendly NLRB majority ruled that union bosses can limit to a “window period” when an employee can revoke his or her dues checkoff, even during a contract hiatus. Her brief points out that the Labor Management Relations Act clearly declares that workers may revoke their dues checkoffs any time “beyond the termination date” of a union contract, and argues that the NLRB’s decision in Frito-Lay flies in the face of the statute’s plain text.
Rolader’s brief also relies on the fact that her 2018 attempts to cease dues deductions came after Michigan’s Right to Work law had gone into effect. Right to Work protections ensure that no worker can be fired for refusing to pay dues or fees to a union. Because Rolader only agreed to the dues deductions in 2000 when she was compelled to pay as a condition of employment, the brief maintains that she should have been allowed to revoke her dues deduction authorization at will once Michigan enacted its Right to Work law.
The brief additionally contests the other obstacles to revocation in the CWA policy that AT&T enforced. Those obstacles include failing to tell employees when their requests would be considered valid and petty rules requiring requests to cut off dues to be sent only by certified mail in individual envelopes.
Although CWA union officials earlier backed down from further litigation in this case by settling after the NLRB had moved to prosecute the union, they now seek to intervene in the case between Rolader and AT&T in an attempt to prevent or delay the NLRB from overruling the pro-union boss Frito-Lay decision. Foundation staff attorneys earlier this month filed a brief in opposition to the union’s belated motion to intervene, arguing that “the Union should not be allowed to hijack and delay this CA case at the midnight hour,” especially after they had already voluntarily opted-out of the case by settling.
“It’s outrageous that the NLRB’s forty-year-old decision in Frito-Lay continues to grant union bosses the privilege to keep siphoning dues out of the pockets of dissenting workers, even when the underlying ‘justification’ for the dues payments no longer exists,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The NLRB should overturn Frito-Lay and ensure that no worker can be trapped into funding a union against their will when there is not even a valid contract in effect between a union and employer.”
NLRB Cases Challenge Coercive ‘Neutrality Agreements’ Used to Impose Forced Unionism
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Housekeepers demand NLRB block unionization resulting from back-room “Card Check” deals
From left, housekeepers Lady Laura Javier, Cindy J. Alarcon Vasquez, and Yesica Perez Barrios are charging hotel officials and union bosses with illegally corralling workers into union ranks with a corrupted “Card Check” recognition.
SEATTLE, WA – Housekeeper Gladys Bryant was granted an appeal by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel in her case challenging the use of a so-called “neutrality agreement” between UNITE HERE union officials and her employer to impose a union on the hotel’s workers.
Meanwhile, four Boston housekeepers have filed similar NLRB charges against their employer Yotel Boston and UNITE HERE Local 26, alleging that union officials violated federal law by imposing union representation on workers through a coercive “Card Check” drive with their employer’s assistance.
General Counsel Finds That UNITE HERE “Card Check” Unionization Was Tainted
Bryant filed the unfair labor practice charges after the UNITE HERE Local 8 union was installed at the Embassy Suites hotel in May 2018 through an oft-abused “Card Check” drive which bypassed the NLRB’s secret ballot election process.
As part of its so-called “neutrality agreement,” Embassy Suites agreed to give union organizers access to the hotel to meet and solicit employees. The agreement also provided union officials with a list of all employees’ names, jobs, and contact information to assist the union in collecting authorization cards from employees.
After NLRB Region 19 officials declined to prosecute the union or employer for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), Bryant appealed the case to the NLRB General Counsel in January 2019. The NLRB General Counsel agreed with Bryant’s Foundation attorneys that Embassy Suites provided UNITE HERE’s organizing campaign with more than “ministerial aid” and thus violated the NLRA.
The NLRB has long held that an employer taints employees’ efforts to remove a union if it gives the employees support such as providing a list of bargaining unit employees or use of company resources. Bryant’s appeal successfully argued that the “ministerial aid” standard must also apply when an employer aids union officials’ efforts to gain monopoly bargaining power over workers.
Boston Housekeepers Argue Union “Card Check” Must Be Overturned
Faced with a similar situation, Boston-area housekeepers Cindy J. Alarcon Vasquez, Lady Laura Javier, Yesica Perez Barrios, and Danela Guzman filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB. With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, the housekeepers argue that UNITE HERE union officials violated federal law by imposing union representation on workers through a coercive “Card Check” drive with the assistance of their employer, Yotel Boston.
As in the Seattle case, they charge that Yotel Boston company officials provided UNITE HERE’s organizing campaign with more than “ministerial aid” and therefore illegally tainted the union’s installation as the employees’ exclusive representative in the workplace. The housekeepers charge union officials with violating the NLRA by requesting and accepting the illegal assistance, and the hotel for providing it.
“It is long past time that the NLRB put an end to this biased double standard that allows union bosses to abuse workers’ rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse. “The General Counsel is correct to finally recognize that what qualifies as more than ‘ministerial assistance and support,’ and thus violates the National Labor Relations Act, cannot depend on whether the employer is helping outside union organizers impose unionization on workers or assisting workers in exercising their right to remove an unwanted union.”
“These cases represent another breakthrough in the Foundation’s challenges to the pro-forced unionism skew at the NLRB,” added LaJeunesse.
National Right to Work President Emphasizes Worker Freedom, Coming Challenges in Labor Day 2020 Statement
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 2020:
On this Labor Day, as our country strives to reopen and recover, we should all remember the sacrifices that America’s working men and women – including shelf stockers, delivery drivers, nurses, and other frontline workers – continue to make so our country can get through these uniquely challenging times. Many will pay lip service to honoring workers, but it will ring hollow absent a commitment to respect workers’ individual rights and trust each worker to decide for themselves what private organizations, including labor unions, to associate with or subsidize.
Thankfully, in the past decade America’s workers have seen significant advances in that field. The United States Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, argued and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, safeguarded the First Amendment right of every public worker to choose for themselves whether or not to fund a labor union. And since 2012, five new states have enacted Right to Work laws – meaning a majority of states now protect that same fundamental freedom for private sector workers. Not since the 1950s have we seen such a large expansion of state Right to Work laws in one decade.
Meanwhile, at the urging of workers represented by Foundation staff attorneys, the National Labor Relations Board continues to eliminate policies that trap workers in unwanted union ranks for months or even years, even when an overwhelming majority wants the union out of their workplace. These are significant advances in employee freedom, but there remains much more to do.
Millions of Americans can still be fired for refusing to pay union bosses they don’t want and never asked for. Plus, even where the law protects workers from forced union dues it often takes vigilant legal enforcement to get union officials to respect those rights. Meanwhile millions more American workers are forced to accept the one-size-fits-all “representation” of these union bosses, even if they think they would be better off without it.
And Big Labor’s top officials in their shiny multi-million-dollar headquarters continue to double down on compulsion. Instead of earning the voluntary support of those whom they claim to represent like private organizations, union bosses continue to look to government to grant them more special powers to compel workers to associate with unions against their will.
This is especially demonstrated by the overwhelming forced-dues-funded support from top union bosses for Joe Biden, whose platform includes wiping out every state Right to Work law by federal fiat, authorizing federal bureaucrats to impose forced dues contracts over the objections of both businesses and individual workers, and by mandating the abuse-prone “card check” process so union bosses can corral millions of workers into unions without even a secret-ballot vote.
But the American people know this is not the future workers want or deserve – they overwhelmingly agree with the Right to Work principle that no employee should be forced to join or support a union as a condition of keeping their jobs.
So this Labor Day, and come November, think back to the hardworking individuals who served you throughout the pandemic and remember: They deserve a choice. Let’s celebrate American workers by being vigilant for attempts to undercut their freedoms.
In the News: “Foundation Sues to Give Public Employees Their Right Not to Pay Union Dues”
The National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision allows public employees to stop paying dues or fees to a union at any time they choose. Janus affirmed that the First Amendment protects government workers from supporting a union against their wishes.
But ever since the Janus decision in June 2018, many union bosses have refused to comply with the High Court’s decision. So Foundation staff attorneys have filed dozens of cases across the country to enforce the Janus decision and compel union bosses to respect the First Amendment rights of the workers they claim to “represent.”
Journalist Mark Tapscott recently reported on a number of these cases for The Epoch Times, including a newly filed case for a police officer serving on the front lines in Las Vegas:
Las Vegas Police Officer Melodie DePierro is the latest in a growing line of public sector employees suing in federal court to demand recognition of their rights under a 2018 Supreme Court decision.
DePierro’s action was filed in the U.S. District Court for Nevada against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and the local Police Protective Association (PPA) union.
In Janus v American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) decided by a 5-4 vote in June 2018, the high court ruled that public sector employees cannot be forced to pay union dues in the form of agency fees without being given a chance to consent or refuse the deduction.
DePierro noted in her suit that the department’s monopoly bargaining agreement with the union only allowed a 20-day window of opportunity to request agency fee refunds and that she had never agreed to the deduction in the first place.
Right-to-Work advocates cheered Janus as a landmark decision that would prompt millions of employees at all levels of government to demand an end to hundreds of millions of dollars in agency fees that helped fund partisan union political activities with which they disagreed.
…
“Instead of respecting her First Amendment Janus rights, PPA union bosses have decided to keep imposing an unconstitutional policy on her just to keep her hard-earned money rolling into their coffers,” NRTWLDF President Mark Mix said in a statement announcing the suit.
“The High Court made perfectly clear in Janus that affirmative consent from employees is required for any dues deductions to occur. Yet PPA union bosses are clearly violating that standard here,” Mix said.
…
A week before the DePierro filing, NRTWLDF attorneys issued a special notice to more than 28,000 Ohio state employees advising them of their right not to pay agency fees. The notice was part of a settlement of the foundation’s suit against the state government and the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11 (OCSEA).
Other Janus suits currently working their way through the courts include NRTWLDF actions against the Chicago Teachers Union, the Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA), the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), California Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE) union and the University of California, and the Township of Ocean Education Association (TOEA), New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and the National Education Association (NEA) unions. The latter suit has reached a federal appeals court.
Read the entire article online at The Epoch Times here.
Delaware Poultry Worker Charges UFCW Brass with Illegal Dues Deductions, Threats
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.
Foundation attorneys assist worker leading effort to oust unpopular union
Employees at the Selbyville, DE, Mountaire Farms plant were subjected to an illegal forced-dues clause by UFCW union bosses, who for months have also tried to block their right to vote on whether union officials deserve to stay.
SELBYVILLE, DE – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Mountaire Farms employee Oscar Cruz Sosa hit United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27 union bosses with federal unfair labor practice charges. The charges assert that union officials violated his and his coworkers’ rights by enforcing an illegal forced-dues provision in the monopoly bargaining contract, and that union bosses threatened him for spearheading a petition for a vote to remove the union.
Cruz Sosa’s charges come after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 5 Director in Baltimore rejected union arguments that the decertification election Cruz Sosa and his coworkers requested should be blocked. Under a controversial NLRB-created policy known as the “contract bar,” employees’ statutory right to hold a decertification vote to remove a union can be blocked for up to three years when a union contract is in place.
However, under longstanding precedent the “contract bar” to decertification does not apply when the monopoly bargaining contract in place contains an unlawful forced-dues clause.
Worker Deflects Union Legal Attack by Exposing Illegal Forced-Dues Clause
Prior to this charge, the NLRB Region 5 Director found that the contract between Mountaire Farms and UFCW union officials illegally required workers to immediately pay union dues upon being hired, instead of providing new hires a 30-day grace period the federal labor statute and longstanding precedent require. Because Delaware lacks Right to Work protections for its employees, Cruz Sosa and his coworkers can be required to pay union fees to keep their jobs.
The NLRB Region 5 Director thus ruled that the vote Cruz Sosa and his coworkers requested should proceed, and scheduled the vote to decertify the union. Cruz Sosa’s unfair labor practice charge, citing that decision’s finding that the forced-dues clause is unlawful, asks the NLRB to order union officials to refund all dues and fees seized from him and his coworkers under the auspices of that illegal clause.
Even after they were unable to block the election with the “contract bar,” UFCW union officials did not give up. In fact, union lawyers have initiated at least three other “blocking charges” against the employer in a last-ditch effort to block the vote, another common tactic used by union bosses to halt or delay workers’ attempts to vote them out.
UFCW union officials’ attempts to stifle the decertification effort didn’t end there. They also asked that any vote be delayed and changed to a“mail-in” vote, even though it had already been scheduled to take place in person on the premises where the workers work every day. In the responses to the union attempts to scuttle the planned vote, Cruz Sosa’s Foundation-provided attorneys argued that the vote should go forward as scheduled, because on-site elections are the NLRB’s preferred method for conducting elections, and the on-site vote was announced to workers weeks ago.
Cruz Sosa also alleged that a UFCW agent came to his house uninvited back in March. The agent warned him “that the decertification process being undertaken was ‘illegal’” and that a court battle was coming, according to his charge filed at NLRB Region 5.
Union Agents Threaten Worker after He Attempts to Exercise Rights
Cruz Sosa’s charge states that this was “threatening” and “coercive behavior” and a clear attempt to restrain him and his coworkers in the exercise of their right under the National Labor Relations Act to vote out an unwanted union.
“The threats and dues deductions in this case show how union bosses regularly trample workers’ rights in order to keep forced dues rolling into their coffers,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “We hope that NLRB Region 5 will immediately prosecute the union for these violations, and ultimately order the union to refund all dues and fees collected from Mountaire Farms workers under the unlawful forced-dues clause.”
Semmens continued: “While UFCW officials were caught red-handed in this case, these types of forced union dues abuses will continue until Delaware workers have the protection of a Right to Work law, which ensures that all union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.”
Delaware Mountaire Employee Submits Brief Urging Labor Board to Scrap Controversial Policy Blocking Votes to Oust Unions
Union lawyers aim to use non-statutory “contract bar” to have workers’ ballots to remove union destroyed and never counted
Washington, DC (August 21, 2020) – Staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have just filed a brief urging the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., to overturn its non-statutory “contract bar” policy. That policy allows union bosses to block workers from exercising their right to vote them out of a workplace for up to three years.
The “contract bar” is not provided for in the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which the NLRB administers, but is the result of past Board decisions designed to entrench union bosses. The policy overrides workers’ right, explicitly guaranteed by the NLRA, to hold secret ballot elections to “decertify” ―i.e., remove―a union that lacks majority support.
The brief is the latest development in a case filed by Delaware-based Mountaire Farms poultry processing employee Oscar Cruz Sosa in February 2020. Cruz Sosa filed a petition, signed by hundreds of his coworkers, seeking a vote to decertify the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27 union.
Cruz Sosa also filed federal unfair labor practice charges in April against the UFCW union for illegally seizing dues from his and other employees’ paychecks, and for making an uninvited visit to his house and threatening him after he submitted the petition for a vote to remove the union. He is receiving free legal aid from the Foundation in filing these charges and in defending his and his coworkers’ right to oust the union.
UFCW officials argued after the petition’s filing that the “contract bar” should block Cruz Sosa and his coworkers from even having an election, but the NLRB Regional Director in Baltimore held that the vote should proceed because the union’s contract with Mountaire Farms contains an invalid forced dues clause.
Not content to accept that result and move forward to an election, UFCW union lawyers asked the full NLRB in Washington to review the Regional Director’s decision.
Responding for Cruz Sosa, Foundation staff attorneys urged that the decision allowing a vote should stand, but because the union appealed the decision Foundation attorneys countered that, if the NLRB did decide to review the case, it should reconsider the non-statutory “contract bar” policy.
On June 23, the NLRB in Washington granted the union’s request for a review of the case and also accepted the Foundation attorneys’ argument that the entire “contract bar” doctrine should be reconsidered. The NLRB invited the parties and amici to file briefs. The case should be fully briefed and ready for a decision by early October.
Foundation staff attorneys argue in their latest brief that the “contract bar,” in addition to having no basis in the text of the NLRA, arbitrarily curtails workers’ right under the statute to vote to remove a union that a majority of them oppose. The brief states: “Over many decades the contract bar has trapped countless employees in an unwanted exclusive bargaining relationship and made the union the employees’ master and the employees ‘prisoners of the Union.’ . . . Far from ensuring the NLRA’s neutrality concerning employees’ decision to select a union or be unrepresented, the contract bar entrenches incumbent unions by keeping them in power almost indefinitely.”
The brief also points out that the idea of a “contract bar” was rejected by the NLRB in 1936, shortly after the NLRA was passed, and that the contract bar wrongly shields union officials from accountability when they cannot deliver on the often farfetched assurances union organizers make to gain the support of workers.
The brief emphasizes that the only “bar” explicitly sanctioned by the NLRA is the “election bar,” which immunizes unions from decertification attempts for one year after employees have voted in an NLRB election. In light of that, the brief maintains that, if the NLRB declines to fully eliminate the non-statutory “contract bar,” that bar should be limited to a similar one-year period, and should provide a window for workers to vote quickly after a contract has been executed.
The Board has impounded the ballots from Mountaire workers’ decertification vote, which took place in June and July, pending its decision in the case. If Cruz Sosa and his Foundation staff attorneys prevail before the Board, the workers’ votes will be counted. If the UFCW is successful, the workers’ votes will be destroyed and never tallied.
“Federal labor law, above all else, is supposed to protect the right of workers to freely choose who will be their voice in the workplace. It’s hard to imagine a policy more contrary to that than the ‘contract bar,’” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Blocking workers’ right to vote out an unwanted union for up to three years just because union officials and an employer came to a contract between themselves serves no purpose other than to insulate self-interested union bosses from being held accountable by the rank-and-file workers that the union officials claim to represent. You don’t have to look any further than the growing scandal at the United Auto Workers union to see how this works.”
“We hope that the NLRB will eliminate this coercive policy and free not only Cruz Sosa and his coworkers at Mountaire from the government-enforced grip of unwanted union bosses, but countless other employees across the country who face similar situations,” Mix added.
Newark Courthouse Security Guards Win Settlement Forcing Union Bosses to Refund Illegal Dues and Stop Retaliatory Lawsuit
Union bosses filed collection suit illegally demanding dues payments from nonmember employee for period when there was no union contract in effect
Newark, NJ (December 11, 2019) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Newark, New Jersey-based security guards Andrei Bobev and William Sona have won a settlement against United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union bosses, whom they charged with illegally demanding union dues from them while there was no contract in effect between the employer and union. The settlement was approved by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 22 in Newark.
As part of the settlement, UGSOA officials are required to refund to Sona and six coworkers more than $4,000 in dues and fees that were taken from them illegally, and notify Bobev that they will not continue a civil lawsuit they filed against him to force him to pay illegal union dues after he refused to do so. Bobev and Sona are not members of the UGSOA.
Bobev first sought the aid of Foundation staff attorneys after Paragon Systems took over the federal contract for security services at the U.S. Courthouse in Newark. USGOA bosses, who under the old contractor had monopoly bargaining power over the security guards at the courthouse, demanded that employees continue to pay them dues and fees even though a contract had not yet been finalized between the union and Paragon. Bobbev declined to pay the illegally-demanded dues, and filed federal charges with the NLRB against UGSOA officials with National Right to Work Foundation legal aid.
NLRB Region 22 officials dismissed Bobev’s charges, and UGSOA officials shortly after retaliated against him with a civil lawsuit in an attempt to force him into paying the illegal dues. However, the NLRB General Counsel in Washington reversed Region 22’s dismissal and instructed regional officials to prosecute Bobev’s charge.
Sona and other nonmembers were misled by union officials and started paying illegal dues and fees while there was no monopoly bargaining contract in effect between Paragon and the UGSOA union. With the current settlement, he and six of his fellow security guards will receive back all the money that they paid to UGSOA bosses during that period, plus interest.
UGSOA officials are also required by the settlement to post notices at union headquarters and at all of Paragon Systems’ Newark locations. The notices declare that union bosses “will not threaten to cause [the] employer to discharge [employees] for failure to pay dues and/or service fees” when there is no monopoly bargaining contract in effect, and “will not threaten to enforce [the union’s] by-laws and constitution against non-members by threatening to institute civil proceedings” to force them to pay dues or fees.
“Although this settlement finally provides Mr. Bobev, Mr. Sona, and their coworkers with remedies for illegal union boss actions, it is outrageous that UGSOA officials believed they could enforce their coercive bylaws on workers without having legal power over any one of them in the absence of a contract,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “A Right to Work law would stop coercive union boss activity in New Jersey by giving workers the right to voluntarily choose whether or not to join or financially support a union.”
Legal Victory: West Virginia Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Right to Work
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.
Foundation attorneys filed 10 legal briefs defending Right to Work from union boss legal attack
The Foundation added West Virginia to the list of states where it has successfully helped defend Right to Work since 2012. Now the state’s motto, “Montani Semper Liberi” (“Mountaineers are Always Free”) applies to the state’s workers.
CHARLESTON, WV – The West Virginia Supreme Court closed the book on a case brought by union lawyers seeking to overturn the state’s popular Right to Work Law, which protects Mountain State workers from being forced to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment. Foundation staff attorneys filed 10 briefs in defense of Right to Work, including briefs submitted for pro-Right to Work employees who wanted the freedom to cut off financial support for unions in their workplace.
Ultimately, the West Virginia Supreme Court rejected outrageous arguments from union lawyers that union hierarchies have a legal “right” to a portion of a worker’s paycheck because that worker is also forced to accept their so-called “representation.” In their ruling, the justices repeatedly cited the landmark 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that requiring public sector employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment is a First Amendment violation.
In the decision, Justice Evan Jenkins wrote for the majority that West Virginia’s Right to Work Law “does not violate constitutional rights of association, property, or liberty” and that states are “expressly authorized under federal law” to prohibit union bosses from requiring dues or fees as a condition of employment. Justice Jenkins also maintained that Janus provides strong support for the law.
The West Virginia Legislature passed Right to Work over then-Governor Earl Ray Tomblin’s veto in February 2016, making West Virginia the 26th Right to Work state. The Foundation immediately offered free legal assistance to employees who had questions about exercising their rights.
Foundation Attorneys Spring into Action as Soon as Protections Enacted
The Foundation also created a special task force to defend the West Virginia law, which began applying to collective bargaining agreements that were entered into, modified, renewed or extended after July 1, 2016.
On June 27, 2016, lawyers for several state unions brought a case (later renamed West Virginia AFL-CIO, et al. v. Governor James C. Justice, et al.) in an attempt to overturn the popular law. Polling consistently shows that Americans overwhelmingly back Right to Work laws. A poll of union households even found that 80 percent of union members supported the Right to Work principle that union membership and dues payment should be voluntary and not required as a condition of employment.
Despite decades of precedent upholding such laws, Judge Jennifer Bailey of the Kanawha County Circuit Court issued a February 2017 order at the behest of union lawyers, granting a preliminary injunction that purported to block the law. The union lawyers’ primary arguments in this case for why the Right to Work protections for workers should be overturned had already been rejected by a Federal Court of Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court. They also ran counter to nearly 70 years of legal precedent, including U.S. Supreme Court decisions, upholding the constitutionality of state Right to Work laws.
Foundation staff attorneys filed legal briefs for Reginald Gibbs, who worked as a lead slot machine technician with the Greenbrier Hotel in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, and Donna Harper, who worked as a laundry aide and nursing assistant at the Genesis HealthCare Tygart Center in Fairmont, West Virginia. Harper’s brief explained that because she had exercised her right under the Right to Work protections to refrain from subsidizing the Teamsters union at her workplace, killing those protections would result in her being fired.
Union Boss Attacks on Right to Work in Other States Successfully Turned Back
“The West Virginia Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to safeguard the right to freely choose whether or not one will financially support a union marks a great victory for Mountain State employees,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Workers who disapprove of union boss activities can rest assured that they cannot be terminated for refusing to tender dues to a union, and those who want to support union activities may do so uninhibited.”
In addition to West Virginia, Foundation staff attorneys have successfully pursued legal action in recent years to defend and enforce new Right to Work laws in Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Kentucky, all of which have passed Right to Work protections for employees since 2012.
Las Vegas Police Officer Hits Union with Lawsuit for Seizing Union Dues in Violation of First Amendment Rights
Union officials enforced illegal “escape period” scheme to limit First Amendment right to cut off dues
Las Vegas, NV (August 13, 2020) – An officer of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) is suing both the Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) union and the police department for illegally seizing union dues from her paycheck. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, states that officials of the PPA union and LVMPD illegally curtailed the officer’s First Amendment rights under the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision by making the unlawful deductions. The officer is represented by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
In Janus, which was argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys, the High Court ruled that forcing public sector workers to subsidize a union hierarchy as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. The justices also declared that union dues can only be deducted from a public sector employee’s pay with an affirmative and knowing waiver of his or her First Amendment right not to pay union dues.
According to officer Melodie DePierro’s complaint, she began working for LVMPD in 2006 and voluntarily joined the PPA union at that time. In January 2020 she first tried to exercise her Janus rights, sending letters to both union officials and LVMPD that she was resigning her membership. The letters demanded a stop to all union dues being taken from her paycheck. Her complaint reports that union and police department agents rejected that request, and did so again after she renewed her demands in February 2020. As of the filing of her lawsuit, full union dues are still being seized from her paycheck.
Union officials asserted that the monopoly bargaining contract between PPA and LVMPD only permitted employees to cut off union dues deductions within an “impermissibly narrow escape period between October 1 and October 20 each year,” DePierro’s complaint says. Her lawsuit points out that she “never signed any dues deduction authorization form agreeing to the restrictive escape period of 20 days contained” in the monopoly bargaining contract.
The complaint argues that the 20-day “escape period” imposed by union officials and the police department “caused and continues to cause deduction of and collection of dues from DePierro, who does not consent to paying union dues” and explains that this is “impermissible under Janus.” DePierro is demanding that the US District Court declare the “escape period” scheme unconstitutional, forbid PPA and LVMPD from further enforcing it, and order PPA and LVMPD to refund all dues that were unlawfully withheld from her pay since she tried to stop the deductions, plus interest.
With free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, public servants across the country have successfully challenged and overturned similar “escape period” policies. Just last month, a Foundation-backed lawsuit for four State of Ohio employees resulted in the elimination of such a scheme for almost 30,000 state workers. In nearby California, Ventura County Community College District math professor Michael McCain filed a class-action lawsuit which last year freed both him and his colleagues from another union-created “escape period.”
“Officer DePierro is working hard to keep Las Vegas safe during its reopening. Instead of respecting her First Amendment Janus rights, PPA union bosses have decided to keep imposing an unconstitutional policy on her just to keep her hard-earned money rolling into their coffers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The High Court made perfectly clear in Janus that affirmative consent from employees is required for any dues deductions to occur. Yet PPA union bosses are clearly violating that standard here.”
Michigan Rieth-Riley Workers Submit Second Petition for Vote to Remove IUOE Union Bosses from Power
NLRB Region 7 in Detroit blocked vote for months at union bosses’ behest, but recent “blocking charge” reforms require the vote to move forward
Detroit, MI (August 11, 2020) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Michigan-based employees of the Rieth-Riley Construction Company are again petitioning the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 7 in Detroit for a vote to remove International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 324 bosses from their workplace. The petition comes after Region 7 officials held the employees’ first petition in abeyance based on unproven allegations IUOE bosses made against Rieth-Riley.
Employee Rayalan Kent submitted the new petition with signatures from well over the number of his coworkers required by law to trigger such a vote. Kent and his coworkers hope that new protections from the NLRB in Washington, DC, which became effective at the end of July, will better safeguard from union legal maneuvering their right to vote out the union. Kent’s Foundation-provided attorneys also invoked the reforms in a Request for Review submitted this April in defense of his first decertification petition, which the Board declined to grant.
After Kent submitted his original petition in March 2020, he was told by NLRB Region 7 officials via email that the election would be delayed “pending the investigation” of “blocking charges” filed by IUOE officials against the employer. However, the Region provided Kent no information regarding the charges or why they rose to the requisite level to block the employees’ petition. “Blocking charges” are filed by union bosses against employers to stop decertification votes requested by employees, and generally contain unrelated claims of employer wrongdoing.
However, one of the reforms the NLRB enacted through the rulemaking process (which became effective at the end of July) largely eliminates “blocking charges” as a means for delaying a vote. The NLRB’s new rules acknowledge the inherent unfairness of the previous system, and generally permit employees to immediately vote on whether a union should stay before the Board deals with any charges filed around the election. In the past, union officials could stay in power by blocking workers’ votes for months or even years while often unrelated allegations against employers were litigated.
When it issued the final rule in April, the NLRB dozens of times cited comments the Foundation submitted to it earlier this year. Those comments pointed out that the NLRB’s old “blocking charge” rules served only to keep union bosses in power while forbidding employees from exercising their right to vote to eliminate unwanted unions. They also pointed out the old rules are not required by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that the NLRB is charged with enforcing.
“Mr. Kent and his coworkers have now been fighting to free themselves from IUOE union boss stonewalling for far too long as the workers seek to exercise their right to vote out an unwanted union hierarchy,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “NLRB Region 7 officials should apply the new NLRB rules, and immediately schedule and hold a decertification vote for Mr. Kent and his fellow Rieth-Riley employees.”
Kent and his coworkers are not the only Michigan workers dealing with election delays from NLRB Region 7. Lansing, MI transportation worker Sandy Harris is asking the NLRB in Washington, DC, in an appeal to apply the new rules regarding “blocking charges” to allow a vote to remove Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) bosses to occur at her workplace. As with Kent’s case, the vote was postponed without even a hearing as to whether the union’s charges have merit or if they have a causal connection to the employees’ petition for an election.
