Chicago, IL (December 10, 2010) – Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (CRCC) union bosses have dropped a lawsuit against an unemployed carpenter for working to provide for himself and his family after union officials had no work for him.

After he lost his full-time job, Richard Crenshaw – who specializes in door carpentry – was hired by a friend who was a contractor. Up until then, Crenshaw was working as a handyman to make ends meet.

A CRCC union official discovered Crenshaw was working at his friend’s jobsite and union officials initiated internal disciplinary proceedings against him. The union hierarchy levied a fine of $201,250 and filed a civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County.

CRCC union bosses dropped the lawsuit after attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation took up the case for Crenshaw providing free legal representation.

“It is unconscionable for union bosses to attempt to drive unemployed workers into the poorhouse in vicious retaliation for providing for their families,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Confiscatory fines and kangaroo courts are just some of the disturbing, yet increasingly-used tactics of union boss intimidation that are all too common in states like Illinois where there is no Right to Work law on the books.”

Chicago, IL (December 13, 2010) – A group of home-based personal care providers have filed a federal appeal against Governor Pat Quinn and union officials for their agreement to force Illinois’s home-based personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, the personal care providers filed their appeal with the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after a district court judge ruled against them.

The appeal stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by the providers after Quinn signed an executive order designating 4,500 home-based personal care providers who care for individuals with disabilities as “public employees” and susceptible to unwanted union boss political “representation.”

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses have been competing to force their monopoly control over the workers, even having out-of-state union organizers making “home visits” attempting to organize the providers through coercive “card check” unionization tactics. Not coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses’ political endorsement and support during his closely-contested primary campaign earlier this year.

Quinn’s executive order mirrored one issued by disgraced former-Governor Rod Blagojevich, later codified, in which over 20,000 personal care providers were designated as state workers for the purpose of granting union bosses monopoly “representation” and forced dues privileges over them. Quinn’s executive order expanded Blagojevich’s to cover the additional 4,500 providers who were not included in the first executive order.

In a mail-in vote, the providers soundly rejected union membership by a two-to-one margin. However, per Quinn’s executive order, the home-care providers may again be subject to further forced unionization efforts.

Pam Harris and several other home-care providers filed the federal suit on behalf of all of Illinois’s providers, challenging the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.

“My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son,” said Harris, who provides personal care for her adult son and is the lead plaintiff in the suit. “Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with.”

“This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In effect Governor Quinn is picking the lobbyists of Illinois’s personal care providers, all in exchange for the union bosses’ support and political contributions.”

Sacramento, CA (December 20, 2010) – A Sutter Roseville Medical Center healthcare professional has filed federal labor charges against a local union for coercing her and her colleagues into paying forced union dues.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Mary Massen filed the unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board regional office in San Francisco.

Because California does not have Right to Work protections for its workers, Massen, who elects to refrain from formal union membership, is still forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. However, because of a National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck, she cannot be compelled to pay the portion of union dues used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities. 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.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers – West union officials refuse to provide the Center’s nonmember employees with the disclosure Beck requires. SEIU United Healthcare union officials also require the workers to annually object, a tactic designed to force workers into paying full union dues. Foundation attorneys defeated the annual objection requirement of another union before the NLRB earlier this year.

Additionally, this union requires employees who choose not to join the union to provide their social security numbers to refrain from supporting the union officials’ non-bargaining expenses, further discouraging workers from exercising their rights.

The use of social security numbers by union bosses to retaliate against workers who refuse to toe the union line is not without precedent. In an ongoing case, Foundation attorneys are assisting 16 employees in North Carolina whose social security numbers and other personal information were publicly posted by union officials in apparent retaliation for exercising their right to not join the union.

“It is unconscionable for union officials to require employees to give away sensitive personal information for no other reason than to discourage them from exercising their constitutional rights” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “California needs a Right to Work law to protect workers from these forced unionism abuses in the future.”

Washington, DC (January 10, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation, which provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide, is urging Congress to investigate a recent rule change at the National Mediation Board (NMB) that dramatically increases the power of union officials to organize workers in the airline and railway industries. Foundation President Mark Mix submitted letters to Representatives John Kline, John Mica, and Darrell Issa on Wednesday, encouraging them to open an immediate investigation into the NMB’s new election procedures.

Last year, the Board hastily implemented new union certification procedures over the objections of NMB Chair Elizabeth Dougherty. Foundation attorneys currently represent five Delta employees who are challenging the NMB’s rule change in federal court.

The two NMB members who voted to approve the new rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA). Both unions were a major part of an AFL-CIO-led coalition that prompted the NMB to discard its previous election procedures, which had remained in force for 75 years under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

Foundation attorneys state that the procedural changes “stack the deck” in favor of forced unionization. Under these new rules, the threshold for unionization is lowered to a standard that would allow a minority of workers to certify a union as the monopoly bargaining agent for all employees in a given workplace.

Foundation attorneys believe that the new rule is unconstitutional because it violates workers’ rights of freedom of association and due process. The rule change is particularly troubling because the procedure for workers to eject an unwanted union in the rail and airline industries is lengthier and more complicated than in other industries.

“A hastily-implemented rule change shepherded through by two former union officials is about to deprive thousands of workers of their right to free and fair workplace elections,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “We urge Congressmen Issa, Kline, and Mica to immediately launch an investigation into this gross violation of employee rights.”

Washington, DC (January 13, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation is urging the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to promptly resolve four cases almost identical to one decided last year by the Board as independent-minded workers wait for a resolution.

The Foundation – the nation’s premier advocate on behalf of workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – scored a legal victory in August 2010 for workers who were subjected to a burdensome machinist union boss policy requiring employees to annually renew their objection to supporting union politics and other non-bargaining expenses or be converted back to paying full union dues.

The NLRB in Washington, DC determined that the machinist union’s annual objection requirement for workers who choose to refrain from union membership is illegal under Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent upheld in Communications Workers v. Beck (1988). Under Beck, nonmember employees in states without Right to Work laws cannot be compelled to pay for union politics, lobbying, and member-only events.

In a letter penned by Foundation Vice President & Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse to the NLRB, the Foundation asks that the Board apply their August 2010 decision to four virtually identical cases still pending before the Board.

In the pending cases individual employees, represented by Foundation staff attorneys, are challenging annual objection policies of the United Steelworker (USW), United Autoworker (UAW), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and Communications Workers of America (CWA) unions. The case involving the UAW union has been languishing in the NLRB bureaucracy for eight years.

Additionally, NLRB Regional Directors are withholding action on other similar cases awaiting the national Board’s actions.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Given that the NLRB decided the key legal issues last summer, their refusal to swiftly apply the precedent to other unions is shameful.”

“While the Board delays, independent-minded workers across the country continue to be abused by burdensome requirements and restrictions from union hierarchies they want nothing to do with.”

Union Bosses, School District Face Federal Suit for Illegal Forced Union Dues Scheme

School employees challenge unconstitutional union dues confiscation

Cincinnati, OH (January 21, 2011) – A group of Cincinnati Public Schools employees today filed a federal lawsuit against a local union and the city school district for illegally confiscating union dues from their paychecks in violation of their constitutional rights.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, providing the employees with free legal aid, filed the suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The school district carpentry shop employees, who have exercised their right to refrain from formal union membership with the Greater Cincinnati Building & Construction Trades Council union (GCBCTC) and its affiliates, ask the federal court to protect their Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson.

Read the entire release here.

Worker Asks Federal Appeals Court to Overturn Backroom Deal Between Union and Company Officials

Union organizers obtained workers’ personal information as part of a quid pro quo with the company to force employees under union control

Hollywood, FL (February 3, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Mardi Gras Gaming employee is taking his case against local union officials and his employer to a federal appeals court.

In 2008, Unite Here Local 355 and Mardi Gras Gaming officials entered into an agreement in which union officials agreed to spend over one hundred thousand dollars in workers’ forced union dues on a gambling ballot initiative and guaranteed not to picket, boycott, or strike against the facility.

In return, Mardi Gras officials promised they would hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union operatives access to company facilities for the purpose of organizing through a coercive card check campaign, and refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees actually wanted to unionize.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall filed a lawsuit against Unite Here in 2008, arguing that the company’s concessions to the union are of substantial monetary value because the company made the union organizing process easier and less expensive.

Read the entire release here.

Cincinnati, OH (January 21, 2011) – A group of Cincinnati Public Schools employees today filed a federal lawsuit against a local union and the city school district for illegally confiscating union dues from their paychecks in violation of their constitutional rights.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, providing the employees with free legal aid, filed the suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The school district carpentry shop employees, who have exercised their right to refrain from formal union membership with the Greater Cincinnati Building & Construction Trades Council union (GCBCTC) and its affiliates, ask the federal court to protect their Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson.

In Hudson, the Court, while still allowing the forced payment of certain union fees as a condition of employment, established procedural safeguards to ensure public employees are not compelled to subsidize union activities beyond what union officials can prove is spent on bargaining and contract administration. Union expenditures such as organizing and political activism cannot be legally charged to nonmember public-sector workers.

The Court also ruled union officials must provide public workers with an independently-audited financial breakdown of all forced-dues union expenditures.

GCBCTC union officials are compelling the employees to pay union fees to keep their jobs while refusing to provide the financial breakdown Hudson requires.

The employees are suing to obtain refunds of the amount of forced union dues payments illegally taken from their paychecks and to halt union bosses from further union fee collections until they comply with the workers’ constitutional and civil rights to refrain from full-union-dues payments upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

“GCBCTC union bosses are using state law to take these workers’ civil and constitutional rights to the woodshed” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation legal information director. “Ohio desperately needs a Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments completely voluntary to prevent these types of forced unionism abuses from occurring.”

“Only then will independent-minded employees have the solid foundation they need to take a stand for their rights.”

Hollywood, FL (February 3, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Mardi Gras Gaming employee is taking his case against local union officials and his employer to a federal appeals court.

In 2008, Unite Here Local 355 and Mardi Gras Gaming officials entered into an agreement in which union officials agreed to spend over one hundred thousand dollars in workers’ forced union dues on a gambling ballot initiative and guaranteed not to picket, boycott, or strike against the facility.

In return, Mardi Gras officials promised they would hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union operatives access to company facilities for the purpose of organizing through a coercive card check campaign, and refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees actually wanted to unionize.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall filed a lawsuit against Unite Here in 2008, arguing that the company’s concessions to the union are of substantial monetary value because the company made the union organizing process easier and less expensive.

Federal law aimed at preventing union operatives from agreeing to undermine workers’ rights in exchange for concessions from management explicitly prohibits employers from giving “any money or other thing of value” to unions.

The suit also alleges that union bosses’ willingness to spend over a hundred thousand dollars to lobby on behalf of Mardi Gras Gaming demonstrates just how valuable the agreement is to union officials.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld Mulhall’s standing to vindicate his rights in federal court. Now he asks the appellate court to judge his case on the merits and reverse a lower court’s illogical ruling that management’s concessions are not “things of value.”

“So-called ‘neutrality agreements’ between companies and unions like the one agreed upon by Unite Here operatives and Mardi Gras Gaming give union organizers license to browbeat and intimidate workers into acceding to unionization,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Workers should never be cajoled or harassed into union ranks.”

Washington, DC – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide, sent a letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) protesting the agency’s decision to threaten lawsuits against state ballot amendments aimed at prohibiting ‘card check’ organizing drives but not threaten suits against state laws that aid unions.

The letter, signed by Foundation Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse, points out that this latest move reveals a troubling pattern of forced unionism favoritism at the NLRB, which is charged with overseeing private sector labor and employment law throughout the country.

LaJeunesse notes that in numerous other cases where federal statutes preempt state law, the current NLRB has failed to act if asserting federal prerogatives would mean undermining union officials’ special privileges.

For example, Foundation attorneys currently represent Carol Jean Badertscher, a nurse who was threatened with fines and jail time under California’s draconian ‘anti-strikebreaker’ law for crossing a union picket line. Although the NLRB’s then General Counsel acknowledged that the California law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, the Board declined to declare the anti-strikebreaker law preempted or order notice to California workers about their rights to continue working during a strike.

However, the Board recently threatened four high-profile lawsuits against Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah for enacting laws designed to prohibit recognition of unions without an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election.

Those threats highlight a pattern of forced unionism favoritism that further tars the Board’s reputation for evenhandedness. The most notable example of this trend was the recess appointment of Craig Becker, a former SEIU lawyer, to serve on the Board. Despite the involvement of his former employer in several pending cases, Becker has refused to recuse himself and is now poised to issue rulings that could shape American labor law for decades.

“The Board’s selective interest in asserting federal prerogatives is just the latest example of this Administration’s obvious forced unionism bias,” said Foundation Legal Information Director Patrick Semmens. “The Obama NLRB rushed to intervene when it meant stopping state attempts to limit coercive card check organizing drives. But in cases where federal preemption would mean striking down state laws that push more workers into unions’ forced dues-paying ranks, the Board is conspicuously silent.”