Houston, Texas (April 3, 2009) – National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) prosecutors have filed a complaint this week against Tenet Healthcare Corporation after it entered into a backroom deal with union officials designed to force nurses into union ranks at multiple Houston-area hospitals.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Houston-area nurses, Esther Marissa Cuellar, a nurse at Tenet’s Cypress Fairbanks Medical Center, and Linda D. Bertrand, a nurse at Tenet’s Park Plaza Hospital and Medical Center, filed unfair labor practice charges alleging that an “Election Procedures Arrangement” (EPA) Tenet and California Nurses Association (CNA) union officials secretly established violates employees’ rights.

The unfair labor practice charges also allege that Tenet officials provided CNA union operatives with unlawful organizing assistance in violation of federal statutes: In Tenet healthcare facilities, outside union organizers are given free reign to aggressively push for a union presence; but Tenet nurses who oppose unionization, on the other hand, are forbidden from using Tenet facilities to express their views.

The NLRB regional office in Fort Worth consolidated the two nurses’ charges and filed a formal complaint against Tenet Healthcare Corporation. Trial proceedings in the case are scheduled to take place before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge at the NLRB Courtroom in Houston on May 26.

“CNA union bosses and complicit Tenet Corporation officials must be held accountable for this scheme to push nurses into union ranks,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “CNA union bosses are pursuing a coercive organizing campaign – making it more difficult for employees to resist the CNA’s professional union organizers – to force unwilling nurses across the state of Texas and our country into forced-dues-paying union ranks.”

To date, CNA union organizers have successfully obtained monopoly bargaining privileges at one Houston-area Tenet healthcare facility under similarly controversial circumstances and have expanded their coercive organizing efforts in Tenet facilities nationwide. Recently a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-area registered nurse, with help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, filed similar unfair labor practice charges against Tenet and CNA union officials.

Morgantown, WV and Goshen, IN (March 17, 2009) – In response to unfair labor practice charges filed by National Right to Work attorneys, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint that seeks nationwide remedies against steelworker union officials for violating employees’ rights.

Nonunion employees of Chemtura Corporation in Morgantown, West Virginia and Cequent Towing Products in Goshen, Indiana are currently forced by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW) officials to annually opt-out of paying dues unrelated to workplace bargaining. Because neither Indiana nor West Virginia has passed a Right to Work law making union dues fully voluntary, nonunion workers are forced to fund union workplace negotiations. However, under Supreme Court precedents secured by National Right to Work attorneys, workers cannot be forced to pay dues for union activities unrelated to bargaining.

After reviewing the union’s annual objector policy, the NLRB General Counsel agreed with Foundation attorneys’ arguments and issued a nationwide complaint to end the union’s onerous opt-out requirements. The case will now be heard by an administrative law judge.

Under federal labor law, union bosses cannot arbitrarily discriminate against nonunion employees as a condition of maintaining their government-granted monopoly bargaining privileges. At Chemtura and Cequent Towing, nonunion workers are forced to annually repeat their objection to union dues unrelated to workplace bargaining, whereas union members are not required to annually renew their union membership.

The NLRB General Counsel is now seeking a remedy that requires USW bosses to rescind any and all annual opt-out requirements and post public notices informing workers across the country of their right to permanently withdraw financial support from union activities unrelated to collective bargaining

“This Byzantine opt-out process is little more than a scheme to ensure more unwilling workers pay tribute to USW bosses,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union officials are only interested in making nonunion workers jump through bureaucratic hoops, particularly when forced-dues dollars are involved. Until workers in West Virginia and Indiana have the protection of a Right to Work law that makes union membership and dues payment truly voluntary, these illegal schemes will persist.”

Atlanta, GA (March 12, 2009) – National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix called upon Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue to defend Georgia’s cherished Right to Work law that is in danger of becoming a dead letter as a result of a sloppy Georgia appellate court ruling and an Attorney General who has so far refused to defend the law.

“On behalf of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the union-abused Georgia employees it is assisting, I urge you to use the power granted to you by the laws of the State of Georgia to ensure that Georgia’s longstanding and popular Right to Work law is enforced,” Mix urged Governor Perdue.

“Moreover, in this time of economic crisis, the last thing workers in Georgia should have to worry about is being forced to pay money to self-interested union bosses as a condition of getting or keeping their jobs. And the last thing Georgia needs is for union bosses to flex their muscles and scare away new job opportunities,” continued Mix in the letter.

Attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation are providing free legal aid to eleven dockworkers at the port of Savannah who are forced to pay a significant portion of their paychecks to Longshoremen union bosses as a condition of obtaining employment. Longshoremen Local 1414 union bosses have demanded that the eleven nonmember employees pay so-called “fees” – as much as $1.33 per hour worked – just for obtaining jobs through a union-controlled hiring hall.

But Georgia’s longstanding and popular Right to Work law unambiguously states that “[n]o individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment to pay any fee, assessment, or other sum of money whatsoever to a labor organization.”

Nonetheless, in late January, the Georgia Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court ruling, took the surprising and arbitrary ruling that the Georgia Right to Work law does not apply to a hiring hall scenario, and federal labor law somehow does not permit states to prohibit unions from forcing workers to pay monies to an exclusive union hiring hall. Foundation attorneys have pointed out that the Peachtree State’s Right to Work law unambiguously prohibits any mandate on employees to pay a union for the privilege to work, and state Right to Work laws cannot be preempted by federal law in this regard.

The case, Perry v. International Longshoremen Association 1414, is currently on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys asked Attorney General Thurbert Baker to intervene to defend the Right to Work law before the Georgia Supreme Court and to criminally enforce the Right to Work law at the port of Savannah (violations of the Right to Work law are misdemeanor offenses under Georgia law). Thousands of Georgians have also written to the attorney general, but he has taken no action to defend the law.

The download the full text of the letter, click here.

Right to Work Foundation Urges Department of Labor Not to Trash Union Disclosure Rules

Obama Administration seems primed to make it easier for union bosses to hide lucrative perks from rank-and-file workers

Washington, DC (March 9, 2009) – Prompted by a Rahm Emanuel directive on Inauguration Day, the U.S. Department of Labor seems ready to discard new union disclosure rules developed over two years by the previous administration.

In response, the National Right to Work Foundation has submitted comments urging the Department to maintain or strengthen rules aimed at curbing union boss corruption.

In late January, the Department of Labor announced that it was considering changes to recently revised LM-2 disclosure guidelines, which require unions to list the specific compensation – financial or otherwise – of individual union officers and to name all parties involved in any union-related transactions. Unions routinely spend millions of dollars on staff compensation, purchases unrelated to collective bargaining, and lavish perks for top union officials. The disclosure requirements are intended to ensure that dues-paying workers have some idea what they’re paying for . . .

—

Click here to read the entire release. The Foundation submitted comments opposing any rescission of existing disclosure regulations, which are available here (.pdf). 

Washington, DC (March 9, 2009) – Prompted by a Rahm Emanuel directive on Inauguration Day, the U.S. Department of Labor seems ready to discard new union disclosure rules developed over two years by the previous administration.

In response, the National Right to Work Foundation has submitted comments urging the Department to maintain or strengthen rules aimed at curbing union boss corruption.

In late January, the Department of Labor announced that it was considering changes to recently revised LM-2 disclosure guidelines, which require unions to list the specific compensation – financial or otherwise – of individual union officers and to name all parties involved in any union-related transactions. Unions routinely spend millions of dollars on staff compensation, purchases unrelated to collective bargaining, and lavish perks for top union officials. The disclosure requirements are intended to ensure that dues-paying workers have some idea what they’re paying for.

Although Right to Work litigators have previously criticized LM-2 guidelines for not going far enough (the regulations still allow union officials to obscure questionable expenditures through a glaring secrecy loophole), the Foundation recognizes that some financial disclosure is better than none.

As Right to Work President Mark Mix noted in the Foundation’s formal comments, union members and workers forced to pay union dues have the right to know where their money is going:

“Does the Secretary believe that hardworking Americans would be better off if embezzlement and self-enrichment is made easier for men such as these? Isn’t it better to err on the side of a little more disclosure, than to allow crooks another place on the LM-2 to hide millions of hard-earned dollars?”

Moreover, the Department of Labor only solicited outside comments on the LM-2 revisions for an extremely short 30 day period. The Department also refused the Foundation’s request to extend the window for public comments from workers, unions, and other concerned organizations.

“The Administration is threatening to scrap two years of public comment, deliberation, and carefully crafted disclosure guidelines simply because Big Labor wants them to,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Such an action would betray Obama’s promise to increase transparency and only serves union bosses, not workers.”

Truck Drivers and Dockworkers Fight Back Against Teamster Union Intimidation

Employees seek to throw out union after union bosses’ ugly campaign of harassment and coercion

Seattle, Washington (March 5, 2009) — Employees from nine collective bargaining units of Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. have filed decertification petitions seeking elections to oust the Teamster union as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.

With help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the employees – drivers and dockworkers – filed the decertification petitions with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking secret ballot elections to determine whether the workforce wants to retain the Teamster union as their monopoly bargaining agent.

On September 22, 2008, Teamster union brass called a strike against Oak Harbor Freight. Teamster union operatives picketed Oak Harbor Freight’s clients with the goal of discouraging them from doing business with the company. Teamster union bosses sought publicly to damage Oak Harbor Freight’s reputation and openly celebrated when clients refused to do further business with the company.

Teamster union bosses organized a subsequent campaign of intimidation and harassment of Oak Harbor Freight employees who continued to work during the strike. Teamster union partisans participated in ambulatory strikes, in which they stalked and picketed Oak Harbor Freight drivers on their daily routes.

(Continue reading this news release…)

Seattle, Washington (March 5, 2009) – Employees from nine collective bargaining units of Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. have filed decertification petitions seeking elections to oust the Teamster union as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.

With help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the employees – drivers and dockworkers – filed the decertification petitions with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking secret ballot elections to determine whether the workforce wants to retain the Teamster union as their monopoly bargaining agent.

On September 22, 2008, Teamster union brass called a strike against Oak Harbor Freight. Teamster union operatives picketed Oak Harbor Freight’s clients with the goal of discouraging them from doing business with the company.  Teamster union bosses sought publicly to damage Oak Harbor Freight’s reputation and openly celebrated when clients refused to do further business with the company.

Teamster union bosses organized a subsequent campaign of intimidation and harassment of Oak Harbor Freight employees who continued to work during the strike. Teamster union partisans participated in ambulatory strikes, in which they stalked and picketed Oak Harbor Freight drivers on their daily routes.

“It’s particularly despicable to intimidate workers if they refuse to abandon their jobs in the midst of an economic crisis,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “All workers should be free to support their families, free from harassment by union bosses.”

The Oak Harbor Freight employees work at terminal sites in Auburn, Washington; Burlington (Mt. Vernon), Washington; Olympia, Washington; Pasco, Washington; Spokane, Washington; Wenatchee, Washington; Medford, Oregon; Salem, Oregon; and Boise, Idaho.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees With Right to Work Foundation: Unions Have No Right to Payroll Deduction

More effective alternative would have been stopping government payroll deduction for all union dues

Washington, DC (February 24, 2009) — The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association that states may prohibit union officials from using payroll deduction to divert government workers’ money into union coffers.

In overturning a Ninth Circuit appeals court decision and upholding an Idaho law banning payroll deduction for union political dues from state and local government employees, the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The lower court had blocked the state from requiring local government bodies to comply with the state law.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys – joining with the Sutherland Institute, Utah Taxpayers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business – successfully argued in their amicus brief (pdf) that unions, in fact, have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct dues from workers’ paychecks.

“The Supreme Court’s decision makes clear what should be obvious, that union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”

(Continue reading this news release…)

Washington, DC (February 24, 2009) – The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association that states may prohibit union officials from using payroll deduction to divert government workers’ money into union coffers.

In overturning a Ninth Circuit appeals court decision and upholding an Idaho law banning payroll deduction for union political dues from state and local government employees, the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The lower court had blocked the state from requiring local government bodies to comply with the state law.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys – joining with the Sutherland Institute, Utah Taxpayers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business – successfully argued in their amicus brief (pdf) that unions, in fact, have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct dues from workers’ paychecks.

“The Supreme Court’s decision makes clear what should be obvious, that union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”

“But there was a much more effective way to address this problem. The Idaho legislature should simply have banned all union payroll deductions, not just those for narrowly defined political activities,” continued Gleason. “Unfortunately, the definition of politics covered by such laws is so narrow that union bosses are essentially able to continue business as usual.”

The majority opinion also relied on the unanimous Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Davenport v. WEA victory. In Davenport, Foundation attorneys represented a group of nonunion Washington State teachers.

The three dissenting Justices in Ysursa were troubled by the appearance that the Idaho law targeted only union political speech rather than having a broader objective. Legal experts agree that laws which ban payroll deduction across the board – rather than just monies for certain political speech – would therefore be less vulnerable to legal attack and would better serve the public policy purposes underpinning such laws.