**Seattle, WA (July 13, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Safeway employee won a judgment this week against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials forcing them to drop their discriminatory policy intended to deter workers from exercising their religious freedoms.

Daniel Gautschi, manager in a Safeway meat department, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in early May after UFCW Local 81 union officials set forth conditions that forced him, if he should ever have an employment grievance, to affiliate with – and pay additional money to – a union that conflicts with his religious beliefs.

Shortly after Gautschi filed his charges, the union hierarchy, governing Safeway stores in King and Kitsat counties, backtracked. Because federal law grants union officials many coercive privileges over employees, including the power to force their “representation” on workers who do not even want it, union lawyers recognized the union could not act discriminatorily toward nonunion members.

The union hierarchy therefore adopted a policy that all costs associated with grievance and arbitration processing of any employee – including religious objectors – are to be paid out of the union’s general treasury, which includes the forced union dues collected under its monopoly bargaining agreement. The settlement stipulates that union officials must refrain from further retaliation against Gautschi or any other employee who seeks to assert his or her legal rights to religious freedom.

Union officials allowed Gautschi to divert his forced union dues (paid as a condition of employment) to a charity – an accommodation previously won by Foundation attorneys – before Gautschi filed his lawsuit. However, they continued to maintain an illegal scheme intended to deter employees from exercising their right to assert religious objections in the first place. The discriminatory scheme forced only employees who assert religious objections to pay the union all costs associated with use of grievance procedures under the bargaining agreement – even though union officials tightly control the process, and employees are totally barred from filing grievances on their own.

As a devout Christian, Gautschi believes that supporting the UFCW union violates his sincerely held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals.

“This victory stalls UFCW union officials’ all-out offensive on employees’ right to freedom of religion in this part of Washington,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “However, employees of faith should not have to take legal action simply to force union officials to honor their fundamental rights.”

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 employee’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 employee – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to receive the funds.

**Phoenix, AZ (July 12, 2006)** – A federal judge has cleared the way for a lawsuit against Dex Media, the official publisher of phone books, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1269 union by denying motions to dismiss by union and company lawyers.

Five Dex Media employees filed a federal racketeering lawsuit last September with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. Filed in U.S. District Court, the lawsuit alleges an elaborate scheme in which the employer, the IBEW union local, and two IBEW union agents working for Dex engaged in systematic violations of company policy and collective bargaining agreements in order to give preferential treatment to union officials at the expense of rank-and-file employees.

The workers allege that union agents have not only used their power to create labor strife for their own personal profit, but they have also cheated other workers out of earnings through the manipulation of a complex performance-based pay system used for workers selling advertising in Dex’s publications. In effect, the ill-gotten commissions the union agents improperly received raised the bar against which the other workers’ compensation packages were determined.

The suit also alleges that by knowingly aiding the union agents as they repeatedly broke company rules to increase their performance-based pay, Dex effectively bribed the union agents to act against the workers’ interests. Some of the methods used to increase the union agents’ compensation include reassigning to the union officials lucrative accounts that should have been assigned to other workers, giving the union agents “double commissions” for sales made by other workers, and allowing the union officials to regularly sell “group ads” allowing their customers to have better ad placement than would normally be warranted, all practices explicitly forbidden by Dex written policy.

Because of the pattern of illegal activity by Dex, the Local 1269 IBEW union, and the union’s agents, the suit lists five counts for violating the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and two counts for violating the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The RICO statutes are best known for having been used to prosecute criminals for Mob and gang activities.

“This clears the path for these employees to seek justice from these union officials who have been stealing from the very workers they claim to represent,” said National Right to Work Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason.

Now that District Court Judge Murguia has denied the motions to dismiss, proceedings can continue so that the wronged employees can have their day in court. After the case was originally filed, Dex Media was acquired by RH Donnelley for a reported $9.5 billion. Plaintiffs’ attorneys may amend the complaint to include any post-merger racketeering that has occurred under RH Donnelley’s watch.

**Lexington, KY (July 7, 2006)** – In response to a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by seven nonunion Lexington firefighters with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 526 union officials have temporarily backtracked and asked Lexington city officials to cease the seizure of forced union dues from the firefighters’ paychecks.

The suit against the IAFF Local 526, filed June 22 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. The firefighters had asked the court to enjoin IAFF officials from seizing mandatory dues from any nonunion employee forced to be “represented” by the union officials until they provided the legally required notice and procedures. Local 526 officials backtracked to head off an embarrassing court order.

While IAFF union officials have ceased the illegal dues collections, they have not yet addressed the firefighters’ demands for restitution for past violations of their constitutional rights, including refunds of all forced dues seized improperly since the collective bargaining agreement went into effect in June 2005. However, this apparent admission of wrong-doing marks a reversal 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.”

“Apparently only a federal lawsuit will persuade these union officials to begin to respect long standing law and the constitutional rights of the very firefighters they claim to ‘represent’,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case demonstrates how vulnerable employees are in Kentucky, since there is not yet a Right to Work law on the books making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary.”

The firefighters’ lawsuit will continue until IAFF Local 526 union officials address all the constitutional violations raised in the complaint.

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.

**Santa Ana, CA (July 6, 2006)** – A Western Medical Center nurse has filed class action unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against his employer and the California Nurses Association (CNA) union to stop an illegal scheme designed to push unwanted unionization on him and his fellow registered nurses.

Sherwood Cox filed the charges at the NLRB Region 21 office in Los Angeles, against the CNA union and Western Medical Center in Santa Ana with assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Cox’s charges seek to protect the nurses’ right to choose freely whether or not to unionize. The charges detail how CNA union officials illegally bargained with the nurses’ employer over their wages and working conditions despite the fact that the nurses have not chosen to unionize. Included with Cox’s charges is a copy of a 26-page “neutrality agreement” negotiated by union officials with the medical center that describes how the employer will assist the union in organizing the medical center’s registered nurses, and it details specific collective bargaining concessions, including terms for wages and health benefits, that the medical center will receive in exchange.

The traditional process requires that the NLRB hold a secret ballot election to determine if a majority of workers support unionization, but the pact – misleadingly dubbed the “Election Procedures Agreement” – outlines a system by which union officials can organize the nurses without even demonstrating true majority support. With monopoly bargaining status, union officials could then force all the nurses to pay dues to the union just to keep their jobs. Union officials hold this power because California 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 optional.

“Union officials have violated long standing Supreme Court and NLRB precedent in their push to sweep these nurses into their forced dues-paying ranks,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Instead of allowing employees to exercise free choice in deciding if they want a union to represent them, CNA officials are determined to push unionization on these nurses from the top down – like it or not.”

Under the Supreme Court’s International Ladies Garment Workers v. NLRB decision, a union cannot become the monopoly bargaining representative of workers without the support of a majority of all employees. Furthermore, in the NLRB’s Majestic Weaving Co. decision, the board recognized that allowing union officials to engage in pre-recognition bargaining with an employer is a violation of worker rights.

The NLRB Region 21 Director will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint and prosecute the CNA union and the Medical Center.

**Washington, DC (June 29, 2006)** – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that airport security screeners employed by private government contractors fall under the agency’s jurisdiction, and therefore can be subjected to forced unionization. The ruling resulted from the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) refusal to back previous Bush Administration policy against granting monopoly bargaining privileges to union officials over airport security screeners, citing national security concerns.

The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in the controversial NLRB case at issue, known as Firstline Transportation Security, in which union lawyers sought to unionize screeners employed by private firms working under the direction of the TSA. The Foundation’s brief asked the Board to reconsider a lower decision to apply the National Labor Relations Act to private airport screeners working at the Kansas City International Airport.

A 2003 directive from TSA head Admiral James Loy made the Bush Administration’s position clear, stating union officials may not obtain monopoly bargaining privileges over federal screeners employed by TSA due to national security concerns. And yet, TSA would not take a clear position in the NLRB case opposing the forced unionization of screeners employed by private companies, even though such screeners are trained and supervised by the TSA, and serve exactly the same function as federal screeners.

“Aside from violating workers’ freedom of association, history tells us that interjecting forced unionism into such sensitive areas could have severe ramifications for Americans,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “The TSA bureaucracy’s refusal to uphold Bush Administration policy left the door open for the NLRB to put the interests of union officials above national security.”

Foundation attorneys argued that granting Security, Police and Firefighters Professionals of America (SPFPA) union officials the special privilege to force airport screeners into union collectives and, ultimately, to collect compulsory union dues, would both undermine national security by destabilizing security screeners’ work environment and infringe on workers’ freedoms.

The Foundation also chronicled threats to national security from illegal strikes, work slowdowns, or even terrorist infiltration of a union to allow a bomb or hijacker to be sneaked aboard a plane. Writing in dissent to the NLRB decision, Board member Peter Kirsanow agreed with Foundation attorneys’ arguments stating that, “National security is the trump card, and it has been played; the Board should fold its hand.”

In August 2005, Foundation President Mark Mix wrote to President Bush expressing “deep concern” over the bureaucratic reversal of Administration policy regarding the forced unionization of airport screeners under TSA oversight. Mix urged President Bush to correct the TSA bureaucracy’s sudden change in policy, explaining that it contradicted TSA’s earlier directives. Responding to public criticism, the TSA filed a “clarification” of its position in the case, but the NLRB majority felt it fell short of a reversal.

**Hartford, CT (June 28, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a group of employees at the Hartford Marriott Downtown Hotel are seeking to intervene in a dispute between their employer and the UNITE HERE union to prevent union officials from short-circuiting the traditional government-supervised process for deciding whether to unionize.

The union hierarchy is waging a coordinated pressure campaign against Marriott to force union monopoly bargaining on all employees through the coercive “card check” unionization process rather than the less-abusive secret ballot election process supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Because of the prevalence of union intimidation tactics directed at employees, card check is known to severely curtail workers’ freedom of choice in deciding whether or not to unionize.

The motion, filed by the employees with the full NLRB in Washington, DC, makes it clear that they do not support UNITE HERE officials’ push for the coercive card check privileges. The motion reminds the agency that examining the situation without allowing employee input would turn labor law “on its head.” Specifically, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states that employees, not employers or union officials, solely have the right to choose whether or not to unionize.

As the Marriott employees detail in their motion, union organizers often bully or mislead workers into signing authorization cards during these card check drives which then are counted as “votes” in favor of unionization. Many workers report that union officials set up complex procedures making later rescission of such cards nearly impossible.

Under many so-called “neutrality agreements” between bullied employers and union officials that usually precipitate such card check drives, union officials are given unfettered access to workers on company property, and the home addresses and phone numbers of employees. Employees are then subjected to workplace harassment and menacing home visits from groups of union organizers. Also, such agreements usually include a gag rule preventing the employer from commenting on the potential impact of unionization.

But the Marriott employees make clear in the declarations being filed with their motion, that they want to be able to hear both arguments for and against unionization, and they do not want their employer to give UNITE HERE officials their personal information or to have union officials approach them while working. Additionally, they point out that UNITE HERE union officials “never asked employees of the Hotel if [they] want such a ‘neutrality agreement’….”

“UNITE HERE union officials have shown disdain for even the most minimal worker protections in their charge to corral workers into their forced dues-paying ranks,” said Stefan Gleason, National Right to Work Foundation Vice President. “Rather than building support for unionization from the ground up, union officials are trying to impose unionization on these employees from the top down – like it or not.”

*Read the Employees’ Motion to the NLRB*

*For more information on the abusive “card check” scheme, visit our Spotlight on Top Down Organizing*

**Washington, DC (June 27, 2006)** — With free legal help from the National Right to Work Foundation, a WTTG-TV (Fox 5) producer filed federal charges against the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) union after its officials threatened to have her fired for refusal to support the union. The union brass violated the producer’s rights by making these threats while failing to inform her and her coworkers of their right to refrain from formal union membership and payment of certain dues.

The Fox 5 production employee filed the class-action charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after AFTRA officials failed to provide her and her coworkers with a legally-mandated audit of the union’s expenditures, demanded that they pay union initiation fees, and insisted that she sign a dues “check off” card authorizing the automatic deduction of forced dues from her paycheck.

However, union officials unlawfully failed first to notify the employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and withhold forced dues spent on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities.

After she refused to pay, the union hierarchy – by letter dated April 17, 2006 – unlawfully threatened her that “without tender of initiation and dues, you may not be employed in AFTRA’s jurisdiction.”

“Union officials are unlawfully retaliating against employees for refusing to toe the union line,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These heavy-handed tactics demonstrate how far union officials will go to keep a steady stream of forced union dues flowing into union coffers.”

Under numerous U.S. Supreme Court precedents, including Patternmakers v. NLRB, workers have the right to resign their formal union memberships at any time.

AFTRA union officials’ actions also violated employees’ rights affirmed in the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision Communications Workers v. Beck. Under Beck, union officials may not compel workers to pay forced union dues for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, and must specifically inform employees of their right to refrain from full dues-paying union membership before seizing any forced union dues from their paychecks.

*This letter to the editor originally appeared in The Olympian*

**Union should have given back money**

The Washington Federation of State Employees union’s spin doctor Tim Welch lied to The Olympian when he claimed that the state workers represented by the National Right to Work Foundation attorneys “settled for a tiny fraction of what they asked for.”

Perhaps higher-ups at the WFSE realized this, because the false statement was quietly removed from the union’s Web site less than a day after it was posted. The state workers settled their suit against the union only because it had been rendered moot by its own success, and WFSE officials were embarrassed into correcting every single violation of constitutional rights addressed in the suit.

Although victorious on every count, there was only so much that could be accomplished by the foundation’s lawsuit. The real lesson here is that until Washington passes a Right to Work law that would make union membership and dues payment strictly optional, union bosses will continue to bully employees into joining the union – and seek further firings.

Union officials should have given back the estimated $10 million in dues seized under their admittedly illegal threats, because it would have been the right thing to do.

Adding insult to injury, state workers are forced to pay the salary of union officials like Welch, who spews his disdain for employees’ constitutional rights to the press.

Justin Hakes
Legal Information Director
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

*This letter to the editor originally appeared in the Detroit News.*

Dear Editor,

In a recent self-congratulatory piece, Teamsters chief James Hoffa proclaimed “Unions practice democracy,” yet he and other union officials strongly oppose workers exercising individual free choice (“Spreading democracy empowers unions,” June 9).

Not only do Hoffa and the Teamsters hierarchy detest right-to-work laws, which make union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary, but they also impose union affiliation on workers in states where right-to-work protections exist.

This week in Las Vegas, Teamsters officials will hold a training rally called “Organizing to Dominate Industries.” The goal is to train union organizers in more “in your face” organizing tactics that further undermine employee free choice.

Chief among these are “card check” drives, under which union officials strong-arm employers into handing over employees’ personal information, and workers are subjected to menacing home visits until they sign cards that count as “votes” in support of unionization. A call to arms in a flier touting the training event urges: “The time has come to deploy our army to achieve Teamster dominance.”

With such militancy, it’s no wonder that droves of workers have mounted legal challenges to these abusive organizing drives with help from the National Right to Work Foundation, as union organizers have targeted many workers with bribery, stalking, and threats during them.

Rather than give us his happy talk about union democracy, Hoffa could start by ensuring that workers are given a free choice when deciding whether to join. Employees might actually be interested if union officials instead focused their energies on improving the product they’re selling.

Justin Hakes

Director of Legal Information
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
Springfield, Va.

**Los Angeles, CA (June 23, 2006)** — With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, hundreds of University of California employees across the state won a major settlement agreement from the University Professional and Technical Employees union, an affiliate of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), Local 9119 union. Under the agreement, CWA union officials agreed to stop violating nonmembers’ rights by illegally seizing forced union dues from their paychecks without due process.

The settlement brings to a close a protracted legal battle in which over 200 University of California research professionals, technical employees, and healthcare professionals filed hundreds of individual unfair labor practice charges at all three of the state’s Public Employment Relations Board regional offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento – and also resolves another 200 employees’ challenges filed with an independent arbitrator.

The employees filed the charges and challenges after the CWA union hierarchy unlawfully deducted forced union dues from their paychecks without proper procedural protections to prevent the monies’ use for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities.

After Foundation attorneys agreed to represent the employees, CWA union officials quickly buckled and inked a settlement agreement under which they agree to end their unlawful practices and honor the constitutional rights of nonmember employees. Consequently, the union hierarchy is forced to refund all of the more than 400 nonmembers’ agency fees paid or deducted between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005, plus interest – an amount estimated to exceed $175,000.

“This victory is an incremental yet important step toward limiting the power of union officials to shake down workers for political contributions,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “As long as California workers labor under a system of compulsory unionism, however, such abuses will inevitably continue.”

The actions of CWA union officials violated First Amendment protections articulated in the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson. Under Hudson, union officials must disclose an independent audit of their expenses – justifying the lawfulness of the disbursements charged to nonmembers – before seizing any forced union dues from employees who choose to refrain from formal union membership.