National Right to Work Foundation Files Brief at Michigan Supreme Court Blasting TPOAM Union’s Forced Fee Scheme
Union “fee-for-grievance” scheme unlawfully pressures employees to become union members; Right to Work repeal does not make scheme legal
Lansing, MI (April 21, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus brief at the Michigan Supreme Court, opposing a scheme used by Technical, Professional, and Officeworkers Association of Michigan (TPOAM) union officials that weaponizes the union’s control over the grievance process to force nonmember public employees into paying fees to the union.
The case at issue is Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan (TPOAM) v. Daniel Lee Renner, in which Saginaw County employee Daniel Renner is challenging TPOAM union bosses’ so-called “fee-for-grievance” arrangement. Under it, union officials deprive Renner and other nonmember public employees of any power to file grievances themselves, and instead mandate that they pay fees to use the union’s grievance system – fees which often amount to a sum far greater than union dues.
Both the Michigan Employment Relations Committee (MERC) and the Michigan Court of Appeals have already rejected union officials’ arguments that they can refuse to file grievances for nonmembers unless nonmembers pay union fees. In Renner’s case, union officials demanded $1,290 from him simply to process his grievance to the first stage. Additionally, the union made clear to Renner that if the actual costs were higher as the proceeding continued, he would be responsible for more payments.
The current filing is the second amicus brief that the Foundation has submitted in the case. Notably, it addresses how Michigan legislators’ recent move to repeal the state’s popular Right to Work laws does not save the “fee-for-grievance” scheme from illegality. Michigan’s Right to Work protections prohibit union bosses from forcing workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and remain valid until the repeal takes effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns, which is expected to be sometime in early 2024.
Forcing Nonmembers to Pay into Union Grievance System Violates Free Choice Rights
The brief refutes union arguments that the “fee-for-grievance” scheme does not restrain or coerce Renner or other union nonmembers in violation of their right under Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) to refrain from union activity. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that PERA is based on, has consistently been interpreted “more broadly than simply prohibiting union or employer violence or heavy handed reprisals,” the brief points out.
The brief notes that the 1953 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case Hughes Tool Co. specifically held that a union’s refusal to process a nonmember’s grievance because he did not pay a fee violates workers’ right to refrain from union activity under the NLRA. “The NLRB has consistently reaffirmed these principles and Hughes Tool remains good law today,” the brief says.
In addition to ignoring a long line of NLRB precedents, the brief concludes, “TPOAM cavalierly defends its illegal fee on the basis that Renner made a choice to be a nonmember and he is the one requesting TPOAM assistance.” However, because Renner has a right under Michigan law to abstain from union activity, “[t]he fact TPOAM treated him differently because he exercised that statutory right is evidence it committed an unfair labor practice, not a defense.”
“TPOAM union officials’ scheme forcing nonmember public employees to pay into a union grievance system is illegal, just as it was both before and during Right to Work’s enactment in Michigan,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As the Foundation’s amicus brief shows, TPOAM’s position ignores mountains of precedent and lets union bosses keep mandating fees designed to force dissenting workers into full union membership, in obvious violation of their rights.”
“Michigan public employees should also know that, as per the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision, they can’t be fired for refusal to join or financially support a union,” Mix added.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice to Rutgers Professors Impacted by Union Officials’ Strike Order
Rutgers employees can legally attend work regardless of union boss demands to strike
New Brunswick, NJ (April 13, 2023) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has issued a special legal notice to professors and other employees of Rutgers University. The notice was issued to inform Rutgers employees of their individual rights during the union official-ordered strike currently taking place.
The legal notice is available at the Foundation’s website: https://www.nrtw.org/legal-notice/legal-notice-rutgers04122023/.
On the morning of Monday, April 10, union officials from three Rutgers unions ordered a strike against the university. The officials were from the Rutgers Adjunct Faculty Union (RAFU); Rutgers American Association of University Professors, American Federation of Teachers (AAUP-AFT); and Rutgers American Association of University Professors, Biomedical and Health Sciences of New Jersey (AAUP-BHSNJ).
The legal notice explains that, despite the lack of Right to Work protections in the state of New Jersey, non-union public sector workers still have rights under the First Amendment to abstain from union financial support. These rights are bolstered by the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court ruling.
“The United States Supreme Court has held that nonmembers of a public-sector union have a First Amendment right not to pay any union fees or dues, unless they have freely waived their First Amendment rights,” the notice reads. “A union has the burden of proving employees waived their First Amendment rights by ‘clear and compelling’ evidence.”
In regards to union members, the Foundation’s notice informs workers that they maintain the right to resign from union membership at any time. The notice also suggests, if employees wish to continue working during the strike and avoid union discipline such as fines, that current union members resign their union membership at least one full day before returning to work.
“It is Foundation attorneys’ best legal opinion that public sector employees have the right to resign their membership in a union at any time. At least two federal district courts have reached that conclusion,” mentions the notice. “If you are now a union member and want to work during the strike, you should seriously consider resigning your union membership at least one day, if not more, BEFORE you return to work during the strike.”
“By initiating a strike that affects thousands of Rutgers employees, these union bosses are not only threatening the education of students, but are also potentially upending the livelihoods of countless families,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Rutgers professors should know that they have the right to reject union boss strike orders and can continue working.”
“Unfortunately union misinformation and intimidation tactics are all too common during union boss-ordered strikes, which is why rank-and-file Rutgers employees must be on alert and should immediately contact the Foundation for free legal aid if they believe union officials may be violating their legal rights,” added Mix.
Worker Advocate: NLRB Erred in Decision That Will Put 270 Nonunion Charleston Port Employees Out of Work
Amicus brief in Fourth Circuit case opposes ILA union bosses’ hostile bid to gain control over all jobs at Leatherman Terminal in South Carolina
Charleston, SC (April 11, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief opposing the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) union’s gambit to gain control over all jobs at Charleston’s Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal. The brief argues that if ILA union bosses’ power grab succeeds, it will “cause grievous harm to 270 State port workers and their families.”
The case involved is South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA) v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In the case, the SCPA is challenging the Biden NLRB’s recent ruling permitting ILA union bosses to file lawsuits against any cargo carrier that docks at Leatherman until the union gains control of crane lift equipment jobs at the facility. That work is currently performed by state employees free from the union’s control, and those state employees have performed this work for the SCPA for many decades.
The Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that provides free legal aid to workers facing compulsory unionism abuses, notes in the brief that it has “a strong interest in this case because the inevitable result of the National Labor Relations Board’s erroneous 2-1 decision will be devastating to Charleston, South Carolina port workers who have chosen to work as non-union employees for the State of South Carolina or its Port Authority.”
The Foundation “submits this brief to provide a voice for the otherwise voiceless non-union State employees, and to give the Court a unique perspective on the stakes involved for those workers and their families,” the brief says.
Union’s Aggressive Pursuit of Monopoly Power Will Lead to Hundreds Losing Their Jobs
The brief spells out the dire consequences of the ILA union’s maneuver for Leatherman’s 270 state employees, who are protected by state law from monopoly union control. It explains that South Carolina spent over $1 billion to develop the terminal, but because of the ILA’s aggressive attempts to enforce its alleged monopoly at the port, “the only way for South Carolina’s $1 billion Leatherman Terminal to be usable would be for the State to turn the facility over to a private employer with an ILA contract and discharge the 270 State employees.”
The devastating effects for current employees wouldn’t stop there if the ILA is victorious in the case, the brief argues. The brief points out that, even if fired state workers were to seek new employment at Leatherman with a private contractor under the union’s control, the ILA would prioritize those workers far below existing union members because of union seniority provisions and hiring hall referral rules.
ILA Union Has History of Malfeasance and Exploitation
The brief finishes by noting that South Carolina public employees likely want to avoid associating at all costs with the ILA because of the union’s “storied history of exploitation, resulting in a litany of federal prosecutions and civil litigation.” The New York Daily News reported in 2022 that ILA chiefs negotiated deals by which mob-linked longshoremen in the New York/New Jersey area could get paid for 27 hours of “work” per day. The ILA hierarchy organized such arrangements while trying to shut down ports like Leatherman which merely allow both unionized and union-free workers to work side-by-side.
“ILA union officials, aided and abetted by the Biden NLRB, are directly attacking the rights and livelihoods of hundreds of Charleston port employees simply because they work free of union monopoly control,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must reverse the Biden NLRB’s erroneous ruling letting this union gambit move forward, bearing in mind that the real victims here are the nonunion port workers that ILA officials are seeking to have terminated.”
Las Vegas Plumbing Designer Wins Case Against Union Over Illegal Retaliatory Fines by UA Union Bosses
In apparent retaliation for participating as an observer in a Labor Board election, union officials attempted to fine Universal Plumbing and Heating employee $4,999
Las Vegas, NV (April 7, 2023) – David Webb, an employee at Universal Plumbing and Heating Inc. has won his legal battle against United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry (UA) Local 525, after UA union officials illegally attempted to fine him.
Webb exercised his right to participate as an election observer during a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)-sanctioned election at his workplace, only to be subjected to the fine attempt by UA officials. In response, Webb, with the assistance of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, filed federal unfair labor practice charges at National Labor Relations Board Region 28 against the UA for violating his rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
Unions cannot lawfully discipline nonmembers. Since 2017, Webb has not been a union member and has not paid any dues. Universal Plumbing and Heating Inc. is also not a unionized company. Despite this, UA union officials initiated internal union disciplinary charges against him, attempting to levy a fine of $4,999 for exercising his right to participate in an NLRB-conducted election, including as an official election observer. Union officials apparently initiated the illegal fine attempt after Webb’s coworkers voted against bringing the union into their workplace while Webb served as an election observer.
The charges National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed against the UA union for Webb explained that, because Webb was a non-member since 2017, he could not legally be subject to discipline by the union. Further, the charges noted that the fine was illegal retaliation for his protected NLRA activity in serving as an election observer.
Just 10 days after Foundation attorneys filed Webb’s unfair labor practice charges against the UA, the union capitulated, sending Webb a letter acknowledging they lacked the legal basis for the fine because he was not a union member, and that therefore he was not subject to the fine or any other sanction from the UA Local or national affiliate.
Although union bosses often initiate internal union discipline against voluntary union members, longstanding precedent protects workers who are not union members from being subjected to such retaliatory fines. Further, workers cannot legally be fined by union officials for exercising their protected rights under federal labor law, including participating in an NLRB-supervised election to decide whether or not union officials become the monopoly bargaining “representative” of workers in a given workplace.
Nevada is a Right to Work state, meaning workers cannot legally be required to join or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials who have obtained monopoly bargaining control in a workplace are granted the power to impose one-size-fits-all union contracts on all workers, including those who opt out of union membership and would prefer to negotiate their own terms of employment. In the election that triggered the illegal retaliatory fine against Webb, workers voted against granting UA union bosses such monopoly bargaining powers.
“This case was open and shut: Union officials know workers can exercise their rights to participate in an NLRB-sanctioned election and they were caught red-handed violating Webb’s rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Although the fine has officially been dropped, Foundation attorneys remain ready to protect all workers’ right to refrain from union activities.”
“Other workers in Nevada and nationwide facing similar backlash from union officials should know they can reach out to Foundation staff attorneys for free legal assistance in challenging union officials who violate their rights,” added Mix.
Foundation Brief to Court of Appeals: Lower Court’s Decision Conflicts with SCOTUS’ Janus Ruling
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in Littler v. OAPSE with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Cincinnati, Ohio (April 6, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 5. The brief was filed in Littler v. OAPSE, brought by plaintiff Christina Littler. She attempted exercise her right to withdraw union membership and financial support, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, only to be denied by union officials.
In the Foundation-won and argued Janus case, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment protects government employees, like Littler, from being forced to fund union activities, and further that dues may only be deducted with the affirmative consent of an employee.
Littler is a school bus driver who, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Janus, notified the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) that she resigned her union membership and revoked her dues deduction authorization. Rather than honor Littler’s timely request to stop paying union dues, union officials had her government employer continue to seize full dues from her paycheck. This prompted Littler to file a lawsuit to recover the dues OAPSE seized from her in violation of her First Amendment rights.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, however, ruled the union was not liable for violating Littler’s constitutional rights. According to the court, the First Amendment did not apply to the union because the union supposedly did not engage in a state action when it caused a government employer to seize union dues from Littler’s wages.
The Foundation’s brief specifically counters this holding. The brief states “the lower court’s decision that a union does not violate the First Amendment when it has a government employer seize payments for union speech from a nonmember without her consent, because that union supposedly is not a state actor, conflicts with Janus and imperils employees’ right to not subsidize union speech that they oppose.”
The brief goes on to say that the “lower court has effectively given unions a free pass to infringe on employees’ speech rights under Janus without fear of liability” and that “it is important that the [Sixth Circuit] reverse the lower court’s erroneous state-action holding because it frees unions from constitutional constraints when they collaborate with government employers take union payments from employees.”
The case is one of many where union officials have sought to justify seizing dues from employees against their will. For example, in the Foundation-backed Savas case currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, Jonathan Savas and other California lifeguards are suing the California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency union for enforcing a “maintenance of membership” requirement that compel dissenting lifeguards to remain union members and to pay union dues for the four-year duration of the contract.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently scheduled the Savas petition for certiorari to be conferenced on April 21.
“While the Foundation is proud to assist workers in enforcing their constitutionally protected Janus rights, the increasing number of cases similar to Savas and Littler just highlight the lengths union bosses will go to in order to extract dues payments from workers against their will,” commented Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “These cases show why it has become unfortunately necessary for the Supreme Court to again weigh in on this issue to disabuse union officials and lower courts of the notion that public employees’ First Amendment rights can be so callously ignored and restricted.”
Phoenix CenturyLink Employee Wins Federal Case Charging CWA Union with Illegal Dues Seizures
CWA officials illegally refused worker’s membership resignation and request to stop dues deductions
Phoenix, AZ (April 6, 2023) – CenturyLink Communications employee Adrianna Delatorre has forced Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 7019 union officials to back down in her federal case, in which she charged them with seizing dues money illegally from her wages. Delatorre, who filed charges against both the CWA union and her employer at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in May 2022, received free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Delatorre asserted in her charges that CWA union bosses violated her rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by rejecting her clear notice that she was resigning union membership and ending union dues deductions from her paycheck. The NLRA guarantees American private sector employees the right to “refrain from any or all” union activities, with some restrictions not applicable to Delatorre.
Delatorre’s right to cut off financial support to the CWA union she opposes is fully protected by Arizona’s Right to Work law, which prohibits union bosses from mandating union membership or any dues payment as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in non-Right to Work states like Colorado or New Mexico, union officials have the power to force workers to pay union fees just to stay employed.
A Foundation-won settlement now requires CWA union officials to pay back to Delatorre all illegally-taken dues, and to refrain in the future from illegally rejecting employees’ requests to stop dues deductions.
CWA Union Blatantly Ignored Worker Request
Delatorre submitted letters to CWA union officials and CenturyLink management in March 2022, informing both that she was terminating her union membership and revoking any dues deduction authorization document. Both union and company officials denied this request and CenturyLink management continued to seize money from Delatorre’s pay at the union’s behest. Delatorre hit her employer and the union with federal unfair labor practice charges in May 2022.
Notably, the dues deduction authorization document (or “checkoff’) that Delatorre revoked did not specify any time limits on when employees could cut off dues, nor did it provide that dues deductions were handled separately from union membership. Delatorre’s Foundation-provided attorneys argued that, on those grounds, Delatorre’s demand to stop union financial support should have been effective as soon as she submitted her letter ending her membership.
CWA union officials have now backed down and settled the case. In addition to paying back to Delatorre all money unlawfully taken from her paycheck since the date she resigned her membership, CWA union officials must also post a notice in Delatorre’s CenturyLink Tower workplace stating that they will not “cause or attempt to cause an employer to deduct union dues from an employee’s paycheck without having a valid dues deduction authorization signed by the employee.” As part of the settlement, CenturyLink must also not “render unlawful assistance and support to the Union.”
Employee Defended Rights Under AZ Right to Work Law, but Union-Label DC Politicians Plan to Eliminate Right to Work Nationwide
“Foundation staff attorneys are proud to have helped Ms. Delatorre successfully defend her right under federal law and Arizona’s Right to Work law to refrain from sacrificing part of her hard-earned pay to CWA union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, it’s important to remember that there are forces within the NLRB – including General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, previously a top CWA lawyer – and at other levels of the current Administration pushing for full implementation of the so-called ‘PRO’ Act’s provisions. The ‘PRO-Act’ would ultimately eliminate workers’ Right to Work protections by federal fiat, giving union officials the power to extort millions of additional workers for dues money under threat of termination.”
“Right to Work laws let workers like Ms. Delatorre withhold money from union hierarchies, which often pursue agendas completely out of touch with the rank-and-file the union bosses claim to ‘represent.’ This gives individual employees a way to hold union officials accountable for how they wield government-granted monopoly power over workers,” Mix added.
Lucas County Employees Win Back Unconstitutionally Seized Money from AFSCME Union
Employees exercised constitutional right to stop funding union activities, but union-imposed restriction blocked exercise of right for over 90 percent of year
Toledo, OH (April 4, 2023) – Three Lucas County Job and Family Services (JFS) employees have emerged victorious in their federal civil rights lawsuit against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Ohio Council 8 union. The employees, Penny Wilson, Theresa Fannin, and Kozait Elkhatib, charged AFSCME union bosses in December 2022 with seizing money from their paychecks in violation of the First Amendment.
Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib received free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Buckeye Institute. They asserted their constitutional rights recognized in the landmark 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared it a First Amendment violation to force public sector workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. The Court also ruled that union officials can only deduct money from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Now, as part of a settlement, AFSCME Ohio Council 8 must return illegally seized money to each woman, and the union bosses are forbidden from having Lucas County deduct union dues from any of their paychecks going forward. The settlement fully vindicates the employees’ First Amendment Janus rights.
Lucas County Employees Weren’t Informed of First Amendment Right to Abstain from Union Dues
Officials from AFSCME Council 8 and Lucas County JFS enforced a policy against the women which permitted the taking of union dues directly from their wages. According to the policy, employees who wish to stop subsidizing the union have only a handful of days per year in which to do so – an “escape period” that effectively forbids the exercise of their First Amendment Janus rights for more than 90 percent of the year.
AFSCME union officials never informed Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib of this restriction. Union officials also never told the women that they had a First Amendment right under Janus to abstain from dues deductions, or that union dues could only be taken from them if they waived that right.
The employees discovered their Janus rights independently. Each attempted to exercise those rights twice by sending letters to AFSCME union officials stating that they were ending their union memberships and terminating dues deductions. AFSCME union officials denied all three women’s requests, stating that union dues deductions would continue because the letters missed the narrow “escape period” the union imposed.
“Plaintiffs did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waive their First Amendment rights…The restrictions on stopping government dues deductions…are unenforceable as against public policy because the restriction significantly impinges on employees’ First Amendment rights,” read the federal complaint.
Employees Often Must Seek Return of Dues Seized Without Consent
Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib’s win is the latest in a chain of successful Foundation-backed lawsuits defending Ohio public servants’ Janus rights. In 2020, for example, Foundation attorneys challenged a so-called “maintenance of membership” requirement that AFSCME Ohio Council 11 used to lock public employees out of their Janus rights for three years at a time. Rather than face off against Foundation attorneys, Council 11’s union officials backed down and settled the case. As a result, Foundation attorneys freed almost 30,000 Ohio public employees from the onerous arrangement.
“Once again Foundation-backed Ohio public employees have successfully defended their Janus rights against the schemes of AFSCME union officials, who were more concerned with accumulating dues money than respecting the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “America’s public workers should not have to file federal lawsuits to defend their Janus rights. Instead, before taking dues, union officials should inform workers about their Janus rights and honor those rights.”
“It’s heartening that the union has agreed to resolve this dispute by honoring their former members’ wishes; it’s disappointing that a lawsuit was required to reach that common-sense result,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute.
Seneca Foods Employees Send Teamsters Union Officials Packing
Wisconsin food processing workers oust Teamsters Local 695 after a majority of employees vote to remove the union
Oakfield, WI (April 3, 2023) – Seneca Foods employees in Oakfield, Wisconsin, have overwhelmingly voted to free themselves from the unwanted so-called “representation” of Teamsters Local 695. Andrew Collien, a warehouse employee at Seneca Foods, kick-started the decertification process that led to the workers’ vote to remove the union. Collien received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Collien and his coworkers filed the petition for a decertification vote with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in late February. In the petition, Seneca Foods workers formally requested a vote to determine whether or not the union should be removed.
On March 30, the NLRB regional office conducted a secret ballot election at the plant, resulting in a 17-10 vote to remove the union. Union officials have seven days to file objections to seek to overturn the workers’ vote. Otherwise, the results will become final.
Teamsters Local 695, which also controls the company’s truck drivers, maintenance, processing, and janitorial employees, originally had a five-year union contract with Seneca Foods, running until May 2025. With the results of the workers’ decertification election, however, the Teamsters’ contract was terminated two years early, sparing workers from the remainder of the agreement.
The Seneca Foods employees were fortunate to cast their votes just more than one month after filing their petition. However, this is not always the case for many workers around the nation who seek to remove unions they oppose.
A major issue workers face in decertifying unpopular unions is how prone the NLRB’s decertification process is to union boss-created roadblocks. These roadblocks can include often-baseless “blocking charges” brought by union officials against employers with the intention of delaying or even blocking employee-led decertification elections entirely.
Right to Work Foundation-backed “Election Protection Rule” reforms the NLRB issued in 2020 have helped make it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials by limiting some of the ways union lawyers manipulate blocking charges. However, the Biden NLRB is currently engaged in rulemaking to roll back these protections and make it much more difficult for workers to decertify an unpopular union. If the Biden-appointed NLRB is successful, it could take months or even years for workers to hold a decertification election.
Seneca Foods employees are just one example of workers looking to remove unions exercising excess control over them. Worker interest in removing controlling unions is growing nationwide. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys are fielding numerous requests for free legal assistance in decertification cases, such as Collien and his coworkers’ case against Teamsters Local 695.
In fact, the NLRB’s own data shows that a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.
“We congratulate Mr. Collien and his coworkers in successfully exercising their right to vote to free themselves of unwanted union so-called ‘representation,’” observed Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These workers knew the union well and decided, rather than having two more years of the union-imposed contract, they would be better off without the union.”
“Seneca Foods workers sent Teamsters Local 695 union officials a clear message, and union officials should respect that decision and not seek to disenfranchise these workers by asking the NLRB to overturn their vote,” Mix added.
Connecticut Bus Driver Slams Teamsters Union with Federal Charges for Violating Beck Rights
Teamsters union officials illegally force school bus driver to pay for union political activities
New Milford, CT (March 30, 2023) – Connecticut school bus driver Mary Boland has filed federal charges against Teamsters Local 671 union after union officials violated her rights, as established under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Beck decision, by illegally charging her union dues in excess of what she must pay in order to keep her job. These charges were filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Boland is being represented for free by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
On October 20, 2022, Mary Boland submitted a letter to Teamsters Local 671 exercising her rights to opt out of union membership and pay a reduced union fee. This forced union fee must be verified by an independent audit of union expenditures. Individuals who opt out of formal union membership cannot be fired from their job by refusing to pay for “non-chargeable” union expenditures, like member-only activities or union political and lobbying spending.
Due to Connecticut lacking Right to Work protections, workers who oppose union boss agendas can still be forced to pay union fees as a condition of their continued employment. However, under the Foundation-won 1988 Beck decision, union officials can never require non-members to fund activities not directly related to union monopoly bargaining. Beck has been interpreted by the lower courts, and the NLRB, to require that union officials provide certain union financial disclosures to justify the amount they claim a worker can be required to pay.
However, in a letter to Boland dated November 2, 2022, the union acknowledged she invoked her rights under Beck, but failed to actually reduce those fees or provide the required audit. Union officials have charged Boland full union dues as of the filing of the NLRB charge on March 17, 2023, and have never provided the required audit to justify any dues deductions.
“In their apparent greed to extract as much money as possible from unwilling workers, Teamsters bosses are blatantly disregarding longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” commented Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case shows why Connecticut workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to make all union financial support strictly voluntary.”
“Had Right to Work protections been in place, Mary Boland and other Connecticut workers would have had the freedom to simply cut off all union dues,” Mix added. “Without these Right to Work Protections, however, workers find themselves having to tangle with union lawyers over what portion of union dues they can be legally fired for not paying.”
Iowa-Based Donaldson Company Employees Win Refunds in Case Against UAW Union for Illegal Union Dues Seizures
UAW union must now pay back hundreds to workers who charged union officials with rejecting requests to leave union and cut off dues
Cresco, IA (March 29, 2023) – Four employees of air filter manufacturer Donaldson have prevailed in their federal case against United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 120 union officials, whom they charged with seizing union dues illegally from their paychecks. The workers, Troy Murphy, Esther Kuhn, Darren Walter, and Kory Huber, received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys in proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Each of the workers filed federal charges against the company and the union in September or October of 2022, maintaining that union and company officials had rejected their requests to end union membership and stop dues deductions. A Foundation-won settlement now requires union officials to return to the workers nearly $1,000 total in unlawfully taken money, and post a notice declaring that the union will no longer ignore or reject worker requests to opt out of membership or dues deductions.
The four workers charged UAW union officials and company officials with violating their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees the right of private sector workers to refrain “from any or all of” union activities. Iowa’s Right to Work law also forbids union bosses from forcing private sector employees to pay any union dues or fees to get or keep a job. In contrast, in non-Right to Work states, union bosses have the power to compel private sector workers to pay a significant portion of union dues as a condition of employment, even under the provisions of the NLRA.
UAW Union Officials Tried to Trap Workers in Dues Deductions Despite No Legal Authority
Kuhn and Murphy sent letters to their employer and the UAW union in April 2022 and June 2022, respectively, informing both parties that they were ending their union memberships and revoking any authorization they had given to take union dues out of their paychecks. Donaldson officials told both employees that neither could exit the union until the union contract was up in October. Charges are still pending against Donaldson.
Federal labor law provides that direct dues deductions can only occur with written authorization from an employee, and even then the deductions are governed only by the specific language on the authorization form – not by the union contract. Neither Donaldson representatives nor the union produced any documents that Kuhn or Murphy had signed agreeing to union dues deductions.
As for Huber and Walter, both sent notices to union and company officials in July 2022 ending union membership and revoking their dues authorizations. Huber’s and Walter’s federal charges point out that neither man’s “checkoff” authorizing dues deductions “contain[ed] language stating [they] agreed to pay dues or fees irrespective of union membership,” meaning that dues deductions should have ceased immediately after Huber and Walter resigned membership. Nevertheless, the union continued to collect dues from their paychecks after they sent in their resignations.
Settlement Orders UAW Bosses to Return Hundreds in Illegally Seized Dues to Workers
After the four employees hit the union with federal charges, UAW officials backed down and settled the case. Now, the union must pay back each employee all dues money seized in violation of their rights dating back to when each of them resigned union membership. In addition, UAW bosses must post a notice at the Donaldson Cresco facility and at the UAW Local 120 union hall stating they “will not fail or refuse to honor your requests to resign your union membership,” “will not fail or refuse to honor your timely requests to revoke your dues checkoff authorizations,” and “will not collect dues without a signed dues checkoff authorization.”
“All across the country, union bosses believe that they are entitled to the money of the workers they thrust under the so-called ‘representation’ of the union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This is likely the mentality that UAW union bosses had when they continued to siphon dues from Mr. Murphy, Ms. Kuhn, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Huber, even though each employee clearly exercised their rights under federal law, and Iowa’s Right to Work law, to disaffiliate from this union of which they do not approve.”
“UAW chiefs in particular are notorious for playing fast and loose with workers’ money, something apparent after a federal probe has hit at least 11 former UAW executives with jail sentences for corruption and embezzlement,” Mix added. “While Iowa’s legislators have preserved the basic right of their private sector employees to cut off funding for union hierarchies that are corrupt or aren’t serving worker interests, it’s sadly ironic that Michigan – the home of the UAW – has just repealed Right to Work protections for its employees.”
