11 Dec 2006

Employees Hit Kaiser Permanente and OPEIU Union with Federal Charges for Illegally Forcing Union on Workers

Posted in News Releases

**Silver Spring, MD (December 11, 2006)** – Three workers aided by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed federal labor board charges against the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) Local 2 and their employer Kaiser Mid-Atlantic (a component of the national Kaiser Permanente health network) after union organizers entered into a pact with the healthcare giant to impose unwanted unionization on healthcare professionals.

The charges, filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), detail an agreement between OPEIU and Kaiser Permanente in which union officials bargained contract provisions for workers they did not legally represent. Such “pre-recognition bargaining” violates the National Labor Relations Act.

In exchange for a premature contract, Kaiser Permanente executives agreed to abandon even the limited protections offered to employees under a NLRB-supervised secret ballot election and instead impose a coercive “card check” procedure, in which union organizers can browbeat employees individually to sign cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization.

Because of the prevalence of union intimidation tactics directed at employees, card check is controversial for severely curtailing workers’ freedom of choice in deciding whether or not to unionize. Consequently, the organizing scheme has sparked numerous legal cases documenting illegal activities by union organizers, including threats, bribes, and stalking of rank-and-file workers. In this case, OPEIU union officials told employees that raises and benefit increases depended on their signing up for union representation.

The “card check” procedure is part of a larger misnamed “neutrality agreement” designed to assist union organizers in pushing workers into the union’s ranks. Employers agree to give union officials unfettered access to workers on company property, and the home addresses and phone numbers of employees resulting in menacing home visits from groups of union organizers. Also, such agreements usually include a gag rule preventing the employer from commenting on any potential impact of unionization.

Once union officials gain monopoly bargaining power, they can then force all employees to pay dues to the union just to keep their jobs. Union officials hold this power because Maryland is one of 28 states that has not yet passed a Right to Work law, which would mandate that union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary.

“Union officials want to force unionization on these workers from the top down, like it or not,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union officials’ illegal behavior shows that they do not respect the rights of the workers they claim to represent; it’s all about the money and finding new sources of forced union dues revenues.”

15 Nov 2006

An Astounding 35 Groups Sign Briefs Supporting Washington Teachers in U.S. Supreme Court Controversy Over Union Dues

Posted in News Releases

**Washington, DC (November 15, 2006)** – A diverse group of 35 legal foundations, public policy groups, and federal government agencies this week filed supporting briefs asking the nation’s highest court to reverse a novel Washington State Supreme Court decision that found a constitutional “right” for union officials to spend on politics the forced dues extracted from nonunion employees. A failure to overturn the activist Washington ruling might jeopardize America’s 22 state Right to Work laws which ban forced union dues altogether.

The 35 parties from across the country filed 14 amicus (or “friend of the court”) briefs in *Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA)* and *Washington v. WEA*, which are scheduled for oral arguments on January 10, 2007. In the Davenport case, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are representing approximately 4,000 nonunion Washington State teachers. A list of the amici, as well as their underlying briefs, is available on the Foundation’s website.

In addition to asking for a reversal of the Washington State Supreme Court’s novel finding of a constitutional “right” for union officials to spend the compulsory dues of nonunion members, lead counsel Milton Chappell, a 30-year Foundation veteran in assisting union-abused employees, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify that it had never approved a pervasive union procedure designed to force nonunion members to pay full union dues, including hundreds of dollars per employee which are spent for a wide array of activities unrelated to collective bargaining.

While seeking to overturn the Washington State court’s dangerous precedent involving the First Amendment, Foundation attorneys are going on the offensive by asking the High Court to clarify its 45-year-old “dissent is not to be presumed” statement. Union officials have exploited that phrase from a 1961 ruling to force employees who resign union membership to take the additional affirmative step of objecting annually to cut off the use of their forced dues on politics and other non-bargaining functions. A victory on this argument would dramatically increase the impact of previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings won by Foundation attorneys establishing that nonunion employees cannot be lawfully compelled to pay for politics, lobbying, organizing, and a wide array of other non-bargaining activities.

Surprisingly, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation – a longtime proponent of Washington’s well-meant, but ineffective, “paycheck protection” law – argued in its amicus brief that the funds covered by the law were “miniscule… less than ¼ of 1% of the WEA’s total expenditures.” The law only governs a small fraction of union officials’ state and local electioneering expenditures.

“While there may now be nearly universal agreement that the underlying campaign finance statute has been ineffective, all agree that it is indefensible to use it as a springboard to create an even larger problem – a perversion of the long-standing interpretation of the First Amendment,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The Washington ruling cannot be allowed to stand because of the collateral damage it is already causing to employee rights nationwide. Only weeks ago, a Colorado court relied on it in a similar ruling.”

Foundation attorneys and Steven O’Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry of Seattle filed Davenport in 2001 for more than 4,000 Washington teachers who are not union members, but are still forced to pay dues or be fired. In recent days, Washington Attorney General Robert McKenna also filed arguments for the state in a related case, *Washington v. WEA*.

Key Legal Documents

Merits brief filed by National Right to Work Foundation Staff Attorney Milton Chappell and Steve O’Ban (Davenport v. WEA)

Merits brief filed by Washington State Attorney General Robert McKenna (Washington v. WEA)

*Amicus* Briefs

13 Public Policy Groups (Evergreen Freedom Foundation,Cascade Policy Institute, Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy, Excellent Education for Everyone, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Georgia Public Policy Foundation, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Nevada Policy Research Institute, Pacific Research Institute, Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, Small Business Hawaii & Competitive Enterprise Institute)

Association of American Educators

American Legislative Exchange Council

Cato Institute, Reason Foundation & Center for Individual Freedom

States of Colorado, Alabama, Idaho, Ohio, Utah & Virginia

Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Religious Objector Members of the Northwest Professional Educators & Pacific Justice Institute

Pacific Legal Foundation

Institute for Justice

National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation & James Madison Center for Free Speech

United States Solicitor General, US Department of Labor, US Department of Justice & Federal Election Commission

Campaign Legal Center

Mountain States Legal Foundation

10 Nov 2006

Right to Work Attorneys Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Bar Unions From Forcing Nonunion Employees to Affirmatively Object to Stop Funding Union Politics

Posted in News Releases

**Washington, DC (November 10, 2006)** – In their opening brief filed last night, a group of teachers receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to bar union officials’ pervasive national practice of forcing nonunion employees to affirmatively object to stop the use of their forced dues for union politics.

Foundation attorneys filed the arguments in their pending U.S. Supreme Court appeal challenging a Washington State Supreme Court ruling which gave union officials a constitutional “right” to spend forced dues to promote political causes with which teachers may disagree. In September, the nation’s highest court granted review of the ruling that voided a campaign finance law seeking to limit the misuse of mandatory dues for certain political activities. Oral argument is January 10, 2007.

Lead counsel Milton Chappell, a 30-year Foundation veteran in assisting union-abused employees, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the controversial decision of the Washington State Supreme Court which somehow found a constitutional “right” for union officials to spend compulsory dues on certain politics after seizing those dues from employees who are not union members. The novel finding was the basis used by the court to strike down Washington’s ineffective state campaign finance law – often called “paycheck protection” – which sought to regulate a small fraction of the mandatory union dues union officials actually spend on political and ideological activity.

Importantly, the teachers’ brief asked the High Court to clarify that the court had never approved a pervasive union procedure designed to force nonunion members to pay full union dues, including hundreds of dollars per employee which are spent for a wide array of activities unrelated to collective bargaining. A victory on this argument would dramatically increase the impact of previous Supreme Court rulings won by Foundation attorneys establishing that nonunion employees cannot be lawfully compelled to pay for politics, lobbying, organizing, and a wide array of other non-bargaining activities.

If allowed to stand, the Washington State Supreme Court decision in *Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA)* and *Washington v. WEA* – which, as Justice Richard B. Sanders’ three-member dissent pointed out, “turns the First Amendment on its head” – could open the door for union attorneys to try to undermine America’s 22 state Right to Work laws, which make union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary.

While seeking to overturn this dangerous precedent, Foundation attorneys are opening up the offensive line of attack by asking the High Court to clarify its 45-year-old “dissent is not to be presumed” statement. Union officials have exploited that phrase from a 1961 ruling to force employees who resign union membership to take the additional affirmative step of objecting annually to cut off the use of their forced dues on politics and other non-bargaining functions.

“This case underscores why no American worker should be coerced into paying any dues to an unwanted union in the first place,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the Foundation. “Union officials have placed immense burdens on workers to ‘recover the stolen loot’ since the absence of a Right to Work law allows the theft in the first place.”

Foundation attorneys filed the suit, *Davenport v. WEA*, in 2001 for more than 4,000 Washington teachers who are not union members, but are still forced to pay dues or be fired. The Washington State Attorney General Robert McKenna also filed supporting arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court in his related case, *Washington v. WEA Union*, on behalf of the state.

Download the Davenport Petitioners’ Merits Brief

For more information visit the Foundation’s Davenport v. WEA case page

10 Nov 2006

Employees Considering Appeal of Cryptic Ruling Dismissing Federal Racketeering Suit Against Freightliner and UAW Union

Posted in News Releases

**Charlotte, NC (November 10, 2006)** – Five employees of Daimler-Chrysler subsidiary Freightliner, LLC are considering an appeal of a federal judge’s cryptic and illogical dismissal yesterday of their federal racketeering lawsuit against the United Auto Workers (UAW) union and Freightliner. The employees filed the lawsuit in January with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.

“To get the company’s help in coercing thousands of workers into union ranks and to obtain at least $1 million in annual dues revenues, UAW officials sold out the very workers they sought to represent,” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason. “The ruling uses circular reasoning, is incorrect as a matter of law, and is ripe for an appeal.”

Filed in the U.S District Court for the Western District of North Carolina under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practice Act (RICO), the class-action lawsuit challenges an agreement intended to install a sweetheart “company union,” alleging a pattern of violations of longstanding federal law that bars employers from delivering “things of value” to unions in an effort to co-opt the union.

The autoworkers’ complaint outlines a secret quid pro quo arrangement between Freightliner and the UAW in which union officials agreed in advance to significant bargaining concessions at the expense of the Freightliner workers at its nonunion facilities in North Carolina in exchange for valuable company assistance in organizing those workers.

Specifically, Freightliner and the UAW union expressly agreed to limitations on wages, cancellation of employee profit sharing bonuses, an increase in health care costs shouldered by employees, and other concessions before union officials even had the right to bargain for employees. UAW officials outlined their lengthy list of concessions in a once-secret document titled “Preconditions to Card Check Procedure.” In a related case, the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel found the preconditions to be illegal.

In return, Freightliner promised to provide valuable organizing assistance outlined in a document titled “Card Check Procedure,” including holding compulsory “captive audience” meetings during which union organizers could propagandize employees, granting wide access to employees at home and at work, and not making any negative comments about unionization. Freightliner also denied employees secret ballot elections to choose whether to unionize. The “Card Check Procedure” also required Freightliner to automatically recognize the union when presented with the requisite number of signed authorization cards. In such Top Down organizing drives, employees are frequently coerced, browbeaten, or misled into signing such cards, which are then counted as “votes” in favor of unionization. Workers have also complained that signed cards are difficult to revoke.

Yet, the district court dismissed the suit in a cryptic and illogical four-page order in which the secret quid pro quo agreement is somehow equated with card check agreements that occur without such sweetheart provisions. Additionally, the ruling illogically suggests that finding such a quid pro quo arrangement reached prior to the negotiation of an actual collective bargaining agreement to violate criminal prohibitions of federal labor law would be tantamount to “criminalizing all collective bargaining agreements.”

The suit lists four counts of RICO violations regarding the enforcement of these corrupt arrangements against the employees of certain Freightliner facilities. The employees seek financial restitution to all employees at the Mount Holly, Gastonia, and Cleveland, North Carolina facilities in the form of treble damages for all dues seized and earnings lost as a result of the unlawful pact. Additional Freightliner plants known to be covered by the secret agreement are located in High Point, North Carolina and Gaffney, South Carolina.

Visit the Foundations Freightliner Top Down Organizing page for more information.

6 Nov 2006

Teamsters Union Slammed with Federal Charges for Threatening to Have Workers Fired for Resisting Formal Union Membership

Posted in News Releases

**Tacoma, WA (November 6, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a local group of mail equipment inspectors filed federal charges against the Teamsters Local 117 union today after union officials unlawfully misinformed them about their rights to refrain from formal union membership – and then threatened to have them fired for exercising those rights.

The workers’ charge, filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), details how Teamsters officials illegally informed over 90 Alan Ritchey, Inc. employees that they would be fired if they did not become formal union members and sign dues deduction cards that authorize the union hierarchy to seize full dues from their paychecks. These actions fly in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in *Pattern Makers v. NLRB* and *Communications Workers of America v. Beck*, a case won by Foundation attorneys. These rulings affirmed the right of private sector employees to refrain from formal union membership and pay a reduced amount of forced dues.

The workers argue that, due to the Teamsters union officials’ campaign of coercion and misrepresentation, not a single employee at the Auburn, Washington facility can be considered a voluntary member of the union. Their charges seek that all union memberships and dues deduction cards be voided until union officials provide the workers with correct information regarding their rights, as well as retroactively refund all dues seized under their illegal threats.

“These shameful tactics demonstrate that the Teamsters union hierarchy is more concerned with collecting forced dues than the interests of the employees they claim to ‘represent,’” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “So long as Washington State employees labor without the protections of a Right to Work law, which makes union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary, these unfortunate abuses are bound to continue.”

Despite Teamsters officials’ deliberate attempts to keep Alan Ritchey employees in the dark, a group of workers did send the union hierarchy objection letters asserting their right to pay a reduced forced dues amount that covers only the union’s proven collective bargaining costs – their right under *Beck*.

Union officials responded by declaring the reduced dues amount to be 98.7 percent of full union dues, but then failed to provide legally-mandated financial disclosure to support their forced dues demands. Teamsters officials also instructed the employees to renew their objections in April, and then annually thereafter during a union-imposed “window period.”

Foundation attorneys contend that such annual objection requirements also violate worker protections outlined by Beck.

30 Oct 2006

Turtle Bay Resort Employee Files Federal Charges Against UNITE-HERE Union for Illegal Scheme to Seize Forced Dues for Politics

Posted in News Releases

**Honolulu, HI (October 30, 2006)** – Challenging actions by union officials to seize compulsory union dues spent for political activities, an employee at the Turtle Bay Resort in Hawaii has filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the UNITE-HERE Local 5 union.

The charges, filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, detail how UNITE-HERE union officials have ignored U.S. Supreme Court precedent by refusing to acknowledge objection letters sent by employees exercising their right to refrain from paying any more forced dues than the amount proven to cover collective bargaining costs.

In the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed employees’ right to object to paying forced union dues not used for collective bargaining, such as politics, lobbying, and organizing. Additionally, the NLRB has outlined a procedure where employees can exercise their Beck rights by sending an objection letter to union officials.

However, instead of recognizing the employees’ Beck objections, the UNITE-HERE Local 5 union hierarchy set up a series of illegal bureaucratic hurdles to discourage workers from exercising these rights. Such hurdles include forcing employees to annually renew their objections during a short window period and refusing to accept Beck objections during periods while a collective bargaining contract was not in place.

“In their rush to line their political coffers, UNITE-HERE union officials are violating the rights of the very employees they claim to ‘represent,’” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason. “This bullying highlights how workers are mistreated in states without Right to Work protections that would make union dues-payment strictly voluntary.”

The NLRB Regional Director will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint against the union local.

This is not the first time that UNITE-HERE Local 5 union officials have violated the rights of rank-and-file workers. In March 2005, an electrician at the Hilton Hawaiian Village resort filed charges at the NLRB after union officials illegally forced nonunion workers to pay money into a union strike fund that was then used to support UNITE-HERE work stoppages in other industries, including outside of the United States in Guam and Saipan. Foundation attorneys forced UNITE HERE union officials to settle that case in July and stop illegally siphoning nonunion employees’ forced dues into the general strike fund.

“Ultimately, only ending forced unionism will allow workers to hold union officials accountable,” said Gleason.

Read the NLRB charges

17 Oct 2006

Thomas Built Buses Employees Appeal Ruling in Suit Against Federal Labor Board for Denial of Constitutional Rights

Posted in News Releases

**High Point, NC (October 17, 2006)** – Today, a group of Thomas Built Buses employees filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit challenging a District Court decision to dismiss their lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for denial of their constitutional due process rights after union representation was forced upon them.

The lawsuit, originally filed in April with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, alleges that the NLRB improperly refused to allow workers to challenge the results of a tainted union election that granted United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials monopoly bargaining power over roughly 1,200 employees at the Thomas Built facility.

The NLRB officials decreed that employees may not intervene to assert their rights and challenge union representation election results because they lack standing. The precedent-setting decision contradicts the notion that the National Labor Relations Act establishes rights for employees, rather than simply empowering union officials. Foundation attorneys point out that the ruling violates workers’ procedural due-process rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The NLRB’s procedural decision whitewashed the illegal eleventh hour intervention of Thomas Built to assist its hand-picked union in winning monopoly bargaining representation over the employees. In June 2005, one day before a union representation election, Thomas Built officials issued a surprise memo to all High Point workers, announcing that employees would have to pay higher health insurance premiums if they remained nonunion.

Working in tandem, UAW union operatives immediately circulated copies of the memo around the facility with “DID YOU SEE THIS” THE COST OF BEING NON-UNION JUST WENT UP!” written at the top. Employees opposing unionization report that this intervention by the company swung a large number of votes in favor of the union.

Under longstanding NLRB practice, such conduct requires that the election be set aside because it taints the employees’ vote. Union and company officials, however, wanted the same election result and did not file objections. When a group of employees tried to object to the tainted vote, NLRB officials refused to recognize them. The UAW union was then certified as the monopoly representative because, according to an NLRB regional director, “no timely objections have been filed.”

“Thomas Built employees must be allowed to challenge this unlawful last-minute intervention that clinched an election victory for the UAW union – or workers’ rights under the law will be sharply undercut,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “When the NLRB becomes a rubberstamp for union-employer collusion, it seriously undermines the credibility of a federal agency that is supposed to protect the rights of rank-and-file workers.”

Facing prosecution by the NLRB in early 2005, UAW union and Thomas Built officials agreed to cancel outright a company-wide sweetheart deal in which union officials had unlawfully bargained to limit workers’ wage demands and made other concessions in exchange for the company’s assistance in organizing the workers. After the union was forced out of the plant, however, UAW union officials petitioned for the election at issue in this case.

5 Oct 2006

Firefighters Force Union Officials to Settle Civil Rights Lawsuit by Agreeing to Refund Illegally-Seized Forced Union Dues and H

Posted in News Releases

**Lexington, KY (October 5, 2006)** – International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 526 union officials have settled a federal civil rights lawsuit against the union for illegally seizing forced union dues from seven nonunion Lexington firefighters. The firefighters brought the lawsuit with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys.

According to the settlement, IAFF union officials have refunded with interest all forced dues seized improperly since the collective bargaining agreement went into effect in June 2005. Each of the firefighters received approximately $150 in refunded dues and interest.

The victory for the nonunion firefighters contradicts earlier denials of any wrongdoing by Local 526 union official Mark Blankenship who was quoted in news reports immediately following the lawsuit’s filing claiming, “we follow all of the federal and state rules.”

“The fact that these firefighters had to file a federal lawsuit to get union officials to stop violating their basic constitutional rights shows how little the union bosses truly care about ‘representing’ workers,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case demonstrates how vulnerable Kentucky employees are without a Right to Work law on the books making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary.”

The suit, filed June 22 against the IAFF Local 526 by the firefighters in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, also named Lexington Mayor Teresa Isaac, and other top city officials, for signing and enforcing an agreement with the union that resulted in the unconstitutional acts.

Under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, before seizing any forced dues, union officials must first provide an independent audited disclosure of the union’s expenses. Such audits are intended to ensure that forced union dues seized from nonunion public employees do not fund union activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities. Unsurprisingly, IAFF union political operatives recently endorsed Isaac’s mayoral campaign.

In addition to the refunds, as a result of the settlement union officials cannot seize any future dues from nonunion firefighters until the union follows constitutionally-required procedures recognized by the Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Hudson decision. However, until Kentucky workers are protected by a Right to Work law, union officials will have the power to force employees to pay union dues or fees just to get or keep their jobs.

26 Sep 2006

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Appeal of Controversial Ruling Granting Union Officials a ‘Right’ to Forced Union Dues for Politics

Posted in News Releases

**Washington, DC (September 26, 2006)** — A group of teachers receiving free legal help from the National Right to Work Foundation today persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case in which Washington State’s high court struck down a state law intending to limit the misuse of mandatory union dues for certain political activities. The Washington State Attorney General also joined in the appeal.

The voided Washington law required union officials to obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending their mandatory union dues on a tiny fraction of what the union actually spends on politics. However, in the process of striking down the law, the state Supreme Court fabricated a constitutional “right” for union officials to spend the money of employees who want nothing to do with the union on politics.

If upheld, the Washington State Supreme Court rulings in *Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA) Union* and *Washington v. WEA Union* – which, as Justice Richard B. Sanders’ three-member dissent pointed out, “turns the First Amendment on its head” – open the door for activist court rulings to undermine America’s 22 state Right to Work laws, which make union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary.

Foundation attorneys – working jointly with Steven O’Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry of Seattle – originally filed the suit, *Davenport v. WEA*, in 2001 for more than 4,000 Washington teachers who are not union members, but nonetheless are forced to pay union dues or be fired.

A long-awaited ruling in Davenport by the State Supreme Court in mid-March upheld an appellate court’s decision to overturn a trial court – thereby striking down the last remaining union dues provisions in I-134, Washington’s troubled “paycheck protection” law.

“These ineffective ‘paycheck protection’ laws have unfortunately opened a Pandora’s Box, creating an opportunity for activist courts to award new privileges to union bosses and even to jeopardize state Right to Work laws,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While the underlying law is deeply flawed, the National Right to Work Foundation has a duty to limit the broader collateral damage done to employees’ rights by the court response.”

Though the Foundation believes the State Supreme Court’s decision was wrongheaded, the ruling brought into focus how difficult the paycheck protection regulatory approach is, and how ineffective it has been in protecting employees laboring under forced unionism. Even if Washington’s Supreme Court had reinstated the trial court’s rulings, I-134 would still only result in small individual refunds of $25 per year, on average. This is because the vast majority of union political expenditures are out of reach of the campaign finance regulation.

“Ultimately, Right to Work laws are the way to protect workers from the misuse of their funds. By making membership and the payment of dues entirely voluntary, Right to Work laws allow employees to prevent the theft in the first place,” stated Gleason.

Key Legal Documents:
Foundation’s Cert Petition (Davenport v. WEA)

Foundation’s Reply Brief (Davenport v. WEA)

Davenport v. WEA Cert Petition Appendix

Supreme Court Order Granting Cert

Washington State Cert Petition (Washington v. WEA)

Washington State Reply Brief (Washington v. WEA)

Washington v. WEA Cert Petition Appendix

WEA Brief Opposing Cert

Amicus Brief by 13 Public Policy Groups Supporting Cert
Amicus Brief by Institute for Justice Supporting Cert
Amicus Brief by Pacific Legal Foundation Supporting Cert
Amicus Brief by Campaign Legal Center Supporting Cert

WA State Supreme Court Decision (Majority)
WA State Supreme Court Decision (Dissent)

25 Sep 2006

Western Michigan Auto Worker Hits UAW Union with Federal Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Posted in News Releases

**Detroit, MI (September 25, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a western Michigan auto worker today hit the United Auto Workers (UAW) union with a federal civil rights lawsuit for religious discrimination. In violation of federal labor law, union officials have applied a discriminatory policy that forces the employee to pay to charity fees in place of union dues that are higher than fees paid by nonmembers who object for secular reasons – or face termination.

Jeffrey Reed, a resident of Bridgman who assembles Hummer H2s for AM General, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan after UAW union officials refused to grant him an adequate religious accommodation to paying dues to a union that conflicts with his religious beliefs.

“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 activities,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “But this heavy-handed behavior towards workers who dare dissent comes as little surprise given the UAW bosses’ thuggish history.”

Though Reed prompted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to determine that UAW officials had violated federal law and issue him a “right to sue” letter, the union hierarchy has refused to grant him a proper accommodation.

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. 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, the law requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the worker – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to receive the funds.

In spite of the law, UAW officials have forced Reed to pay to charity a $100 premium over the amount that any secular objecting worker is forced to pay. Reed continues to pay the discriminatory amount under protest to prevent UAW officials from ordering him fired.

As a devout Catholic, Reed believes that 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.

“UAW officials want to single out Jeffrey Reed to make other employees of faith think twice about refusing to toe the union line,” said Gleason. “Employees should not have to take legal action for union officials to respect their fundamental right to religious freedom.”

Reed points out in his complaint that even full UAW members and secular objectors are allowed to pay an amount less than full dues if they want to cut off the use of their mandatory union dues for political activities.