Phoenix, AZ (December 23, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five employees from different Fry’s Food Stores locations have filed federal charges challenging their employer’s and a local union’s efforts to block them from stopping the seizure of union dues from their paychecks.

Disgusted with recent union strike threats, large numbers of employees withdrew from the union, but union officials are now retaliating by refusing to honor their legal rights and getting Fry’s management to deduct and forward the union dues money anyway.

Shirley Jones of Mesa, Karen Medley and Elaine Brown of Apache Junction, and Kimberly Stewart and Kristy Dickenson of Queen Creek – acting for other similarly situated employees – filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union bosses and Fry’s.

In the midst of a well-publicized UFCW Local 99 union-threatened strike in November 2009, the employees resigned from the UFCW union and revoked their dues deduction authorizations during a time in which the UFCW union did not have a contract at their workplaces. Under Arizona’s popular Right to Work law no worker can be required to join or pay any money to a union, and under federal labor law, if there is no longer a bargaining agreement in effect between union officials and an employer, employees can revoke their dues deduction authorizations at any time.

Dues deduction authorizations are used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks. Despite the employees’ best efforts to halt the dues seizures, Fry’s continues to illegally collect from the employees union dues for the UFCW union hierarchy.

The charges will now be investigated by the NLRB regional director in Phoenix, who can prosecute the union officials and the company for violating the employees’ legal rights.

“Despite repeated requests, UFCW Local 99 and company officials have ignored workers’ attempts to exercise their right to stop paying union dues” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We intend to make sure that UFCW operatives play by the rules and stop extracting union dues from workers who want nothing to do with this unaccountable union.”

Denver, CO (December 23, 2009) – After years of litigation, the 10th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals has upheld a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling ending a discriminatory Teamster union workplace policy. Kirk Rammage, the victim of union officials’ discriminatory policies, received free assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation during his extended legal battle.

Rammage, an Interstate Bakeries employee of Ponca City, Oklahoma, was involved in the consolidation of two separate corporate divisions in 2005. Part of one division was staffed by a single nonunion sales representative – Rammage – who had put in more time with Interstate Bakeries than any of his coworkers at the office where he worked. Company officials wanted to ensure he retained his seniority during the merger, but union officials from Teamster Local 523 insisted that union members receive preferential treatment, discriminating against Rammage despite his workplace tenure.

After reviewing the facts of the case, the NLRB concluded that the union hierarchy had broken the law by treating employees differently based on their union membership status. However, union officials did not comply with the NLRB’s decision and refused to allow the employer to reinstate Rammage’s seniority.

Teamster lawyers subsequently challenged the NLRB’s decision at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that union officials may discriminate against nonunion workers’ seniority rights when they are merged with unionized employees. However, the 10th Circuit ruled that the union’s conduct violates the National Labor Relations Act, which requires union officials to treat all workers equally, regardless of union membership.

“Union bosses despise those who choose not to unionize, so they try to make an example out of them,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, this type of abuse will continue until Big Labor’s government-granted special privileges are eliminated.”

Washington, DC (December 17, 2009) – In five new cases before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), union lawyers are asking the NLRB to overturn a landmark 2007 decision which gave new protections to workers swept into union ranks through card check forced unionism.

In Dana Corporation, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys won new rights for employees intended to counteract the employee intimidation and harassment waged by aggressive union operatives that frequently occurs during controversial card check organizing campaigns.

The Dana decision granted employees the ability to file a decertification petition and demand a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer recognizes a monopoly bargaining agent by card check. This important (though modest) check gives workers some ability to stop union organizers from gaining monopoly control over a workplace without even the support of a majority of the employees.

The very Foundation attorneys who originally won the landmark Dana case are providing free legal assistance to Todd Fields, an ARAMARK Uniform and Career Apparel employee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Mike Lopez, an employee of Lamons Gasket Company in Houston, Texas, in two of the five cases before the NLRB. These two cases seeking to overturn Dana were pressed by Service Workers United (SEIU) and United Steelworkers union lawyers.

In each of these cases, more than 30 percent of the employees at each employer asked for a secret ballot election to decertify the newly installed union, and union lawyers asked for the election petitions to be dismissed. Union lawyers argue that giving the employees a secret ballot election is a “radical departure” from established law.

“The fact that many employees corralled into a union through the card check scheme have almost immediately thrown the union back out through a private ballot vote demonstrates card check’s unreliable and coercive nature,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Because the Dana election process inherently undermines Big Labor’s case to permanently end secret ballot elections, union lawyers are determined to undo this modest check on union intimidation.”

In the Dana ruling, the NLRB majority pointed out, “card checks are less reliable because they lack secrecy and procedural safeguards… union card-solicitation campaigns have been accompanied by misinformation… workers sometimes sign union authorization cards…to get the person off their back.”

Employees Slap Teamster Union Officials with Federal Charges over Illegal Forced Dues Policy

Union officials fail to provide adequate disclosure to nonunion employees, then threaten the workers with termination

Philadelphia, PA and Baltimore, MD (December 16, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four workers forced to pay fees to a regional Teamsters union council have filed unfair labor practice charges against the union for providing inadequate financial disclosure and illegally threatening to have workers who didn’t pay fired.

Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonmember employees can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment, but they cannot be compelled to pay for politics, lobbying, and member-only events. Union officials are also legally obligated to inform workers of these rights and to provide workers with an independently verified audit of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses.

Graphic Communications Conference/International Brotherhood of Teamsters, District Council 9, union bosses have exclusive representation power over employees at Perfecseal, Inc. in Philadelphia, PA, and Standard Register in Salisbury, MD, but have not provided nonmember employees with the level of disclosure Beck requires. Nonmembers’ “agency fees” paid to the union council have increased by a greater percentage than corresponding increases in dues amounts for union members, and union bosses are demanding that the nonmembers pay the increased fees or be fired without providing an adequate breakdown of expenditures.

Click here to read the full release.

Philadelphia, PA and Baltimore, MD (December 16, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four workers forced to pay fees to a regional Teamsters union council have filed unfair labor practice charges against the union for providing inadequate financial disclosure and illegally threatening to have workers who didn’t pay fired.

Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonmember employees can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment, but they cannot be compelled to pay for politics, lobbying, and member-only events. Union officials are also legally obligated to inform workers of these rights and to provide workers with an independently verified audit of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses.

Graphic Communications Conference/International Brotherhood of Teamsters, District Council 9, union bosses have exclusive representation power over employees at Perfecseal, Inc. in Philadelphia, PA, and Standard Register in Salisbury, MD, but have not provided nonmember employees with the level of disclosure Beck requires. Nonmembers’ “agency fees” paid to the union council have increased by a greater percentage than corresponding increases in dues amounts for union members, and union bosses are demanding that the nonmembers pay the increased fees or be fired without providing an adequate breakdown of expenditures.

Additionally, the union maintains an illegal policy requiring nonmembers to renew their objection annually or be converted to full union member status and thus be forced to pay full union dues. The National Labor Relations Board Regional Directors in Philadelphia and Baltimore will now investigate the charges and decide whether to prosecute the union before an administrative law judge.

“If Pennsylvania and Maryland adopted Right to Work laws banning forced unionism, independent-minded employees would be able to defend their freedom of association,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to stop future abuse is to make all union dues voluntary.”

The charging parties are Michael Lee Jones at Standard Register and Awa Ereforokuma, Huan Tang, and Thomas Wells at Perfecseal for themselves and other similarly situated employees.

Honolulu, Hawaii (December 15, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Honolulu hotel employees have obtained a federally-mandated settlement from union officials with UNITE HERE! Local 5 and its national affiliate.

Brenda Lee Orr, a nonunion employee of Turtle Bay Resort, and Grant Suzuki, a nonunion employee of Hilton Hawaiian Beach Resort and Spa, filed federal charges against UNITE HERE! Local 5 last year, accusing union officials of illegally forcing nonunion employees to pay dues for activities unrelated to workplace bargaining. Suzuki also alleged that union officials failed to provide him with a federally-mandated breakdown of all union expenditures.

Because Hawaii does not have a Right to Work law, union officials can require nonmember employees to pay certain dues. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion workers may not be charged for activities unrelated to collective bargaining. The Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson also requires union officials to provide nonmember employees with an audited financial breakdown of union expenditures.

Following a preliminary investigation of the charges by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), union officials agreed to a settlement that refunds all dues unrelated to workplace bargaining taken from Orr and Suzuki since April 1, 2007. The settlement also requires union officials to post workplace notices informing workers of their rights to obtain an audit of union expenditures and to opt-out of certain union dues.

Foundation attorneys estimate that union officials must now return approximately 60% of all dues collected from Orr and Suzuki under the agreement.

“After a lengthy legal battle, Brenda Lee Orr and Grant Suzuki have finally reclaimed a significant portion of their hard-earned salaries from these scofflaw union bosses,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, many Hawaiian workers are still unaware of their rights, so union officials will continue to collect more forced dues dollars from unwilling employees. Ultimately, making dues payment strictly voluntary through passage of a Right to Work law is the best way to end these abuses.”

Michigan Worker Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Halt UAW Policy of Religious Discrimination

Right to Work attorneys challenge union officials’ violation of worker’s civil rights

Washington, DC (December 15, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a western Michigan auto worker is asking the U.S. Supreme Court today to review a United Auto Workers (UAW) union policy intended to stymie workers’ religious objections to the union bosses’ agenda.

Jeffrey Reed, a resident of Bridgman, Michigan, assembles vehicles for AM General. Because his workplace is unionized, he works under a monopoly bargaining agreement which forces him either to join the UAW or pay compulsory union fees to it in order to keep his job. However, Reed, a devout Catholic, believes financially supporting the UAW union violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals and abortion-on-demand.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the worker’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. The statute requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the worker – most often by redirecting the mandatory union fees to a mutually agreed upon charity – to avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral.

However, because Reed is refraining from full dues paying union membership based on his faith, UAW union bosses forced him to pay a $100 premium and continue to pay 22 percent more than the amount workers who object on non-religious grounds must pay. Both full UAW members and secular objectors are allowed to pay an amount less than full dues if they wish to cut off the use of their union dues for political activities.

(Read the full press release)

Washington, DC (December 15, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a western Michigan auto worker is asking the U.S. Supreme Court today to review a United Auto Workers (UAW) union policy intended to stymie workers’ religious objections to the union bosses’ agenda.

Jeffrey Reed, a resident of Bridgman, Michigan, assembles vehicles for AM General. Because his workplace is unionized, he works under a monopoly bargaining agreement which forces him either to join the UAW or pay compulsory union fees to it in order to keep his job. However, Reed, a devout Catholic, believes financially supporting the UAW union violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals and abortion-on-demand.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the worker’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. The statute requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the worker – most often by redirecting the mandatory union fees to a mutually agreed upon charity – to avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral.

However, because Reed is refraining from full dues paying union membership based on his faith, UAW union bosses forced him to pay a $100 premium and continue to pay 22 percent more than the amount workers who object on non-religious grounds must pay. Both full UAW members and secular objectors are allowed to pay an amount less than full dues if they wish to cut off the use of their union dues for political activities.

In 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined UAW officials violated federal law and issued Reed a “right to sue” letter, but the union hierarchy still refused to grant him a proper accommodation. Foundation litigators then filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and later appealed an unfavorable trial court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Foundation attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decisions which require Reed to be discharged or disciplined before he can challenge the UAW’s practice of forcing religious objectors to pay more than the forced dues paid by nonmembers who refrain from union membership for purely secular reasons. Foundation attorneys also point out in their brief that the nation’s federal circuit courts are equally divided on the issue.

“By maintaining a discriminatory policy, the UAW hierarchy appears to have little regard for those who have deep moral objections to the union and its objectionable activities,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Employees should not have to take legal action for union officials to respect their fundamental right to religious freedom.”

Hudson, OH (December 8, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a local worker has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) Local 791 union. The charges allege that union officials intentionally discriminated against nonunion employees and failed to inform workers of their right to refrain from union membership.

Janet Barlow is a driver employed at First Student, whose contract with OAPSE gives union officials monopoly bargaining privileges in her workplace. Barlow alleges that union officials failed to notify employees of their rights to opt-out of union membership and the payment of full union dues.

Although workers can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment, full union membership is strictly voluntary. Moreover, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay dues earmarked for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, including member-only events and political lobbying.

OAPSE officials are also charged with intentionally discriminating against nonunion workers by circulating a notice stating that full union members do not have to pay dues until September 1, 2010, but nonmember employees must begin payments immediately. As a result of this threat, many employees joined the union who otherwise would not have.

Barlow’s charges seek an end to these discriminatory practices and the return of illegally-seized dues. Her allegations will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Barlow has also filed a formal deauthorization petition with the NLRB to remove the unpopular forced dues clause from the union’s contract.

“OAPSE bosses are forcing workers to pay union dues and using discriminatory practices to shove unwilling employees into union ranks,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Although we hope to help Janet Barlow and her coworkers rectify these injustices, the best way to prevent further abuse of this nature would be for Ohio to pass a Right to Work law, making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary.”

Federal Judge Upholds Injunction Against Teamster Union Bosses for Illegal Dues Scheme

Union officials failed to provide Pennsylvania Turnpike employees with an adequate breakdown of expenditures

Pittsburgh, PA (December 8, 2009) – A judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of seven Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) employees, maintaining a permanent injunction against the Teamsters union and PTC for seizing forced union dues in violation of the employees’ constitutional rights.

With free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, the seven Turnpike workers filed a federal lawsuit in 2007 against Teamsters Local 250, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and the PTC. Exercising monopoly bargaining power over PTC employees, Local 250 officials may collect forced union dues from nonmembers – but only for expenses which union officials can prove are spent on collective bargaining.

Last year, the District Court levied a permanent injunction against Local 250 from seizing forced dues from nonmembers until it complies with the due-process and adequate disclosure requirements in the Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson and Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association line of U.S. Supreme Court cases. Charges must be verified by an independent auditor, and workers must have the opportunity to challenge the fee’s basis.

Read the rest of the Foundation’s press release.