Harrisburg, PA (September 30, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, citizen activist Simon Campbell has bested teacher union bosses in state court over his right to inform Pennsylvania’s nonmember teachers of their constitutional rights regarding union membership and dues payment.

Several years ago, Simon Campbell of Bucks County founded a group dedicated to the goal of making sure all public school children in the state have the legal right to a strike-free education after his own children were forced out of school in the wake of a debilitating union boss-instigated strike.

More recently, Campbell has requested that public school districts disclose the mailing addresses of teachers who have refrained from formal union membership with the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) union, but are still forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment because Pennsylvania does not have Right to Work protections for its workers.

Campbell wanted to advise the teachers about their rights under National Right to Work Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent, such as their right not to subsidize union boss activities other than collective bargaining and contract administration and their right to challenge the union hierarchy’s calculations regarding the amount of forced dues charged to nonmember teachers.

PSEA union officials sued the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records to block Campbell’s requests. Last week, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania rejected the PSEA union lawyers’ case. Campbell has now again begun the process of obtaining the mailing addresses he sought.

“Plain and simple, all Pennsylvania teachers deserve to know their constitutional rights,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “And many independent-minded teachers would greatly benefit from Simon Campbell’s efforts to inform them of their rights upheld under various Foundation-won Supreme Court precedents.”

“However, the best way to protect the rights of Pennsylvania’s teachers, and all workers in the Keystone State, is for Pennsylvania to pass a Right to Work law making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary,” added Semmens.

Boca Raton, FL (September 16, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Mardi Gras Gaming employee has won the right to proceed with a lawsuit aimed at halting a backroom deal in which his employer pledged to assist union organizers and agreed to a coercive card check organizing drive. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overruled a prior District Court decision that held Martin Mulhall lacked standing to sue the Unite Here Local 355 union and Mardi Gras Gaming.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, Mulhall originally filed suit against Unite Here in 2008 for agreeing to support Mardi Gras Gaming’s efforts to obtain a gambling license in return for organizing assistance. In exchange for over one hundred thousand dollars in union dues spent on a gambling ballot initiative and a union guarantee not to picket, boycott, or strike against the facility, Mardi Gras Gaming agreed to assist organizers’ efforts to push workers into union ranks. Company officials promised union operatives they would hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union officials access to Mardi Gras facilities for the purpose of organizing, and refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees actually wanted to unionize.

However, the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) explicitly prohibits employers from giving “any money or other thing of value” to unions. This rule is intended to prevent union operatives from agreeing to undermine workers’ rights in exchange for concessions from management. In his lawsuit, Mulhall argues that the company’s concessions to Unite Here are of substantial monetary value because they made the union organizing process easier and less expensive. The suit also alleges that Unite Here’s 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.

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. Armed with employees’ home addresses and access to company facilities, union officials frequently harass and cajole workers on and off the job until they agree to sign cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization.

Although the District Court claimed that Mulhall’s suit could not proceed because he was in no danger of “imminent injury,” the Court of Appeals’ decision recognized that the union’s deal could infringe on employees’ rights to free association by forcing them to accept union monopoly bargaining. The ruling remanded the lawsuit to United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for it to decide Mulhall’s complaint on the merits.

“Unite Here operatives agreed to a corrupt bargain that advanced union boss interests at the expense of individual workers’ rights,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “We’re happy to report that Martin Mulhall’s efforts to challenge this backroom deal will now go forward.”

Philadelphia, PA (September 14, 2010) – After a two year organizing campaign aimed at forcing Hahnemann University Hospital nurses into union ranks, the California Nurses Association (CNA) union abruptly ceased its efforts to unionize the facility last month. The union’s organizing drive was marked by a legally-questionable agreement between CNA operatives and hospital management challenged by nurses represented by the National Right to Work Foundation.

Under a so-called “neutrality agreement” between hospital and union officials, CNA organizers were given preferential access to hospital facilities and Hahnemann supervisors were gagged from truthfully responding to nurses’ inquiries related to unionization. Despite these provisions, the union lost a consent election in July 2009.

During the organizing campaign, Right to Work attorneys helped Hahnemann nurses file legal challenges against the union’s abusive organizing strategy. When union officials threatened Kimberly Hummel with “private arbitration” for opposing the CNA’s presence, the Right to Work Foundation helped her file a complaint against the union’s heavy-handed threats with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Undeterred by their July 2009 election loss, CNA officials filed a series of election “objections” against the hospital for harassing union organizers. Union operatives also managed to convince hospital officials to agree to disregard the results and hold another unionization election. With the help of Foundation attorneys, another nurse stepped forward in January 2010 to file charges against CNA officials and Hahnemann for staging another unionization drive over the wishes of a majority of hospital employees.

Finally, CNA officials realized they did not have majority support and quietly withdrew their NLRB election petition in late August.

The Hahnemann University Hospital organizing campaign isn’t the first time CNA officials have faced legal challenges for suspicious organizing tactics or walked away when independent-minded nurses fought back. Several Houston-area medical professionals filed unfair labor practice charges against the union for crafting a similar “neutrality agreement” in Texas.

“Despite their best efforts to gag independent-minded nurses and cajole them into union ranks, CNA operatives have finally realized they aren’t wanted at Hahnemann University Hospital,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Coercive tactics and secret organizing pacts violate workers’ rights, so union officials’ loss is a win for employee freedom.”

Washington, DC (September 5, 2010) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, released the following statement regarding this year’s Labor Day holiday.

“This Labor Day, as we celebrate working men and women across the nation, union officials are mounting an unprecedented effort to expand their coercive powers over America’s employees and employers. Their goal is to expand the number of workers forced to pay union dues or fees and accept mandatory union representation just to keep their jobs.

“Union officials’ ambitious agenda goes beyond the scope of previous years. By their own admission, Big Labor officials are gearing up for their most aggressive midterm election political blitz ever. And regardless of the outcome, they are focused on a series of unprecedented power grabs and pay backs sure to send shivers up any independent-minded worker’s spine.

“Statements from key congressional leaders and union officials indicate a high probability of a post-election lame-duck Congressional session, where they will try to breathe life into coercive ‘card check’ legislation, which would shove millions of unwilling workers into unions and force struggling job-providers to knuckle-under government-imposed contracts. Meanwhile, the rights-infringing, budget-busting Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill, which threatens America’s first responders with federally-mandated monopoly unionization, still lurks in the shadows of the Senate. The National Right to Work Committee continues to mobilize its 2.6 million members to combat these draconian bills.

“Throughout the U.S., more than 12 million American workers are already compelled to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. Millions more are required by law to accept a union’s so-called ‘representation,’ even if they never asked or voted for it. And for the first time ever, a majority of government employees nationwide work under monopoly unionism.

“Sadly, many workers feel they have no choice but to pay for organized labor’s extensive political activities, while others are still unaware of their right to object. That’s why the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is providing free legal aid to thousands of employees nationwide.

“American Federation of Labor founder Samuel Gomper’s famous adage that ‘No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion’ is as relevant as ever this Labor Day. This Labor Day, we commend all workers brave enough to stand up to union intimidation, harassment, and even violence as they defend their cherished freedoms. And we look forward to the day when no American is forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union.”

Obama Labor Board Launches Assault on Workers’ Right to Secret Ballot to Remove Unwanted Union

NLRB’s decision to revisit pro-worker precedent highlights Board Member Craig Becker’s refusal to recuse himself despite massive conflicts of interest

Washington, DC (September 1, 2010) – In a decision dated August 27 but only released yesterday, three members of the National Labor Relations Board granted review of a landmark 2007 case in which the federal labor board granted employees the right to demand a secret ballot election to remove an unwanted union within 45 days after the union obtained monopoly bargaining status through the coercive card check process.

In late 2009, union lawyers initiated a strategy to overturn the Dana Corp. decision won by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. In a series of cases nationwide, union lawyers asked the NLRB to revoke the new protections to workers swept into union ranks through card check forced unionism, and now three members of the Board – all former union lawyers themselves – have agreed to consolidate two of those cases in a review of Dana.

As the dissenting Board members point out, workers across the country have already used Dana decertification elections to kick out unwanted unions, demonstrating the unreliability of card check instant organizing campaigns. Workers frequently sign union authorization cards due to union organizers’ intimidating tactics or even outright lies about what signing a card means. To remove the limited protection of the secret ballot in these cases – as the Obama NLRB appears set to do – would deny workers the ability to vote according to their conscience and remove an unwanted union from their workplace.

Read the full press release.

Washington, DC (September 1, 2010) – In a decision dated August 27 but only released yesterday, three members of the National Labor Relations Board granted review of a landmark 2007 case in which the federal labor board granted employees the right to demand a secret ballot election to remove an unwanted union within 45 days after the union obtained monopoly bargaining status through the coercive card check process.

In late 2009, union lawyers initiated a strategy to overturn the Dana Corp. decision won by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. In a series of cases nationwide, union lawyers asked the NLRB to revoke the new protections to workers swept into union ranks through card check forced unionism, and now three members of the Board – all former union lawyers themselves – have agreed to consolidate two of those cases in a review of Dana.

As the dissenting Board members point out, workers across the country have already used Dana decertification elections to kick out unwanted unions, demonstrating the unreliability of card check instant organizing campaigns. Workers frequently sign union authorization cards due to union organizers’ intimidating tactics or even outright lies about what signing a card means. To remove the limited protection of the secret ballot in these cases – as the Obama NLRB appears set to do – would deny workers the ability to vote according to their conscience and remove an unwanted union from their workplace.

The Board’s decision to reconsider Dana highlights concerns over one member’s ethics and impartiality. President Obama’s radical recess appointee Craig Becker joined in the decision to revisit Dana despite his own participation as a lawyer for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) in that very case.

In response to over a dozen motions for recusal brought by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Becker agreed to recuse himself in a case that serves as a sequel to Dana because he coauthored a brief jointly filed by the AFL-CIO and United Auto Workers (UAW). However, he refused to recuse himself from two of the cases (AT&T Mobility and Aramark) in which union lawyers are seeking to overturn Dana because “[n]either of [his] former employers is a party or represents a party” in those cases.

But that’s only true if one accepts Becker’s shaky distinction between the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and its local affiliate unions (Aramark involves the Service Workers United union, an affiliate of the SEIU). Foundation attorneys have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether Becker’s participation in cases involving SEIU local unions violates his ethics pledge.

As Foundation attorneys point out, while Becker contends the national and local unions are “separate and distinct legal entit[ies],” the SEIU itself considers locals to be “constituent subordinate bodies.” Moreover, in 2009 over 85 percent of the SEIU’s receipts came from a per capita tax on the locals’ membership dues and fees. The national union even has the power to assume control over its locals if they do not conform to International policies.

The Obama NLRB’s decision to revisit Dana even appears designed to sidestep Becker’s ethics problem. Even though Aramark is also pending, the Board only consolidated two challenges to Dana, neither of which involves the SEIU or its affiliates. That means Becker could overturn the Dana precedent even though he participated as a union lawyer in the original Dana case and even though doing so would directly benefit his former employer in another pending case.

“While President Obama and members of Congress continue to push for a federal bill that would end the secret ballot in workplace unionization drives, an obscure federal agency stacked with former union lawyers is poised to eliminate the private vote for workers who have been subjected to unreliable and coercive card check campaigns,” explained Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“This is just the beginning of the Obama NLRB’s assault on freedom in the workplace, and individual employees are the ones who will pay the price,” continued Mix.

Kansas City Nurse Challenges Backroom Union Deal to Silence Employees Who Oppose Unionization

Research Medical Center nurse files federal unfair labor practice charges against secret “neutrality agreement” that gives union organizers preferential treatment

Kansas City, MO (August 12, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Kansas City nurse has filed unfair labor practice charges against two unions and her employer for signing a “neutrality agreement” that gives union organizers preferential access to Research Medical Center.

Mary Hill and many other nurses oppose unionization at Research Medical Center. Despite these reservations, HCA, Inc., Research Medical Center’s parent company, agreed to help organizers from two collaborating unions impose monopoly bargaining on Hill and her colleagues.

Hill states that, facing pressure from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and California Nurses Association (CNA) union organizers, the company signed a secret “neutrality agreement” with officials from both unions.

Click here to read the full release.

Kansas City, MO (August 12, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Kansas City nurse has filed unfair labor practice charges against two unions and her employer for signing a “neutrality agreement” that gives union organizers preferential access to Research Medical Center.

Mary Hill and many other nurses oppose unionization at Research Medical Center. Despite these reservations, HCA, Inc., Research Medical Center’s parent company, agreed to help organizers from two collaborating unions impose monopoly bargaining on Hill and her colleagues.

Hill states that, facing pressure from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and California Nurses Association (CNA) union organizers, the company signed a secret “neutrality agreement” with officials from both unions.

Although the exact terms of this secret pact are unknown, HCA has given CNA and SEIU organizers wide-ranging access to employee break rooms, lounges, and other company facilities. On the other hand, HCA is refusing to grant employees who oppose unionization equal access to its facilities, and has gagged supervisors from discussing unionization with concerned employees.

Although it appears the “skids have been greased” for union officials to gain monopoly bargaining control of employees at Research Medical Center, employees who oppose unionization are thus left at a disadvantage. CNA union officials are already facing charges for using similar tactics during union organizing drives at Philadelphia and Houston hospitals.

Hill’s complaint will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board.

“Caught between union bosses and corporate executives who sell out employees to gain what will likely be very short term union boss favors, Kansas City employees have been stripped of their rights to organize against forced unionism in their workplace,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Medical professionals shouldn’t be subjected to backroom deals that give union operatives preferential treatment at the expense of employees’ workplace rights.”

Boeing Employees Respond to Union Boss Bullying with Unfair Labor Practice Charges

UAW union bosses seek to punish workers who refused to abandon jobs during a union-instigated strike

Los Angeles, CA (August 9, 2010) – Three employees at the Carson Boeing plant have filed federal charges against the United Auto Worker (UAW) union in response to local union officials’ efforts to illegally punish them for exercising their rights to resign from formal union membership.

Before working during a UAW Local 148-instigated strike, the three employees exercised their right, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pattern Makers v. NLRB (1985), to resign from formal, full dues-paying union membership.

The UAW Local 148 union hierarchy began internal union disciplinary procedures against the nonmember employees for refusing to abandon their jobs despite receiving their resignation letters before the union boss-ordered strike. Union officials have no legal power to punish nonmember employees for honoring their commitments to their employer as long as they first resigned their union membership.

Foundation attorneys have represented independent-minded employees across the country who suffered from union boss retaliation for refusing to abandon their jobs during union boss-ordered strikes. In some cases, nonmember employees have experienced sham disciplinary proceedings and even confiscatory fines to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.

Click here to read the full release.

Worker Advocate Asks Attorney General Holder to Investigate Apparent Violations of Obama Ethics Pledge by Labor Board Member

Craig Becker, Obama’s recess NLRB appointee, has rejected requests to recuse himself from pending cases involving his former employer

Washington, DC (August 9, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees, today asked United States Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct an investigation into National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recess appointee Craig Becker’s participation in cases involving his former employer, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Earlier this summer, Right to Work attorneys filed more than a dozen recusal motions against Becker, who served as associate general counsel for the SEIU and AFL-CIO before he was appointed to the NLRB during a Congressional recess. As the SEIU’s in-house lawyer, Becker litigated against Right to Work Foundation clients and developed legal strategies for SEIU local affiliates across the country. His published writings also indicate a strong level of hostility to the Foundation’s employee-oriented legal aid program.

Foundation attorneys asked Becker to step aside from any case involving Foundation-assisted workers, the SEIU, or its subordinate affiliates. Despite these apparent conflicts of interest, Becker has refused to recuse himself in every case but one.

Only the Attorney General or his appropriate designee has the authority under the Executive Order to investigate any violations of the Obama Administration ethics pledge, which Becker signed. The pledge explicitly forbids any appointee from involving themselves with a former employer for no less than two years.

Click here to read the full release.