Greensburg, IN (January 31, 2006) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, nine Printpack workers filed federal charges today against the Graphic Communications Conference (GCC) union, a Teamsters union subsidiary, for illegally collecting forced union dues.

The employees filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) on behalf of themselves and nearly 270 of their colleagues at the packaging materials plant. The NLRB’s investigators will decide whether formally to prosecute GCC union officials for unfair labor practices.

From January 2005 to June 2005, the monopoly bargaining contract between the GCC union and Printpack was temporarily not in effect. But starting December 2005, GCC union officials began to retroactively charge Printpack workers for forced union dues during the contract hiatus – even though they had no legal authority to do so for that period.

Because Indiana is not yet a Right to Work state, employees can be fired from their jobs simply for refusing to pay union dues when a collective bargaining agreement is in effect. However, according to longstanding NLRB precedent, the National Labor Relations Act prevents union officials from collecting forced dues from employees when the union has no contract with the employer.

“GCC union bosses seem more interested in collecting forced union dues money so they can play politics than representing employees at the bargaining table,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The absence of a Right to Work law in Indiana allows this kind of union corruption and abuse.”

Additionally, GCC union officials deliberately failed to inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and pay reduced compulsory union dues. These union actions violate employees’ rights affirmed under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and allow them to reclaim forced dues spent for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.

Foundation attorneys also point out that GCC union officials are charging Printpack employees who file Beck objections for compulsory dues greater than their collective bargaining share, and are illegally collecting dues directly from employees’ paychecks without first providing the workers with information about union expenditures – preconditions to collecting forced union dues.

Lynnwood, WA (January 27, 2006) – To avoid costly and embarrassing federal court litigation for religious discrimination, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3035 union officials begrudgingly agreed to honor the right of a City of Lynwood employee to have his monthly union fees re-directed to charity because supporting the union violates his sincere religious convictions.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Paul Coffelt, a civil engineer with the City of Lynwood, filed religious discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in August, 2005, against the AFSCME union and the city for forcing him to pay dues to the union to keep his job. As a Mormon, Coffelt finds that the manner in which the union deals with his employer is inconsistent with his religious beliefs.

Coffelt filed the religious discrimination charges because, after communicating his objection to the collection of forced dues to the union and the city in February, 2005, AFSCME union officials and his employer failed to provide him with proper accommodation. The settlement, which was recently brokered by the EEOC, confirms Coffelt’s right to re-direct all future forced union dues to a mutually agreed-upon charity. In addition, the estimated $700 in AFSCME forced union dues that were deducted from Coffelt’s paychecks since the date of his objection will also be forwarded to charity.

“It’s outrageous for union bosses to demand that a government employee put allegiance to a radical union hierarchy ahead of his religious faith,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This settlement highlights AFSCME union officials’ general lack of respect for independent-minded workers.”

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 accommodate the employee – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to accept the funds.

Coffelt has chosen to re-direct his forced union dues to the United Way of Snohomish County.

Detroit, Mich. (January 24, 2006) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, five autoworkers from three major facilities today filed a class-action federal racketeering lawsuit against the United Auto Workers (UAW) union and Daimler-Chrysler subsidiary Freightliner LLC. The workers announced the lawsuit this morning at a press conference outside of UAW headquarters in Detroit and allege an illegal scheme to install a “company union” and repeated violations of workers’ rights.

Filed in the U.S District Court for the Western District of North Carolina under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practice Act (RICO), the lawsuit alleges a pattern of violations of longstanding federal law that bars employers from delivering “things of value” to unions. The RICO statutes are used to prosecute criminal enterprises, e.g., organized crime, gang activities, and union corruption.

The complaint outlines a secret quid pro quo arrangement between Freightliner and the UAW in which union officials agreed in advance to significant concessions at the expense of the Freightliner workers at its non-union 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 an employee profit sharing bonus, an increase in the health care costs shouldered by employees, and other concessions. These actions effectively handed certain control of the union over to the company. 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 already found the preconditions to be illegal.

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

“To get 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 National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “It takes tremendous courage for workers to stand up to pressure from both their employer and the union brass, and the National Right to Work Foundation is proud to stand with them.”

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.

Erie, PA (January 17, 2006) – Ending an illegal union harassment scheme intended to stifle dissent, three employees at The Electric Materials Company (TEMCO) won a settlement against the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) union obligating union officials to honor as continuing one-time objections to compulsory union dues spent for politics and other non-bargaining activities.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) brokered the precedent-setting settlement agreement after National Right to Work Foundation attorneys persuaded the agency to issue one of its first unfair labor practice complaints challenging the common union practice of requiring union nonmembers to annually renew their objections in order to pay an amount less than full dues. The annual objection scheme has been adopted by unions across America to hamstring potential objectors.

The settlement also orders UE union officials to stop charging nonmember objectors for any union expenses that are unrelated to collective bargaining, and the union brass must reimburse the employees and their similarly situated colleagues for all illegally seized dues, plus interest, and post notices in the workplace of the employees’ rights that the union had violated.

“This settlement stalls the all-out offensive of UE union officials against independent-minded workers,” said Stefan Gleason, Foundation Vice President. “Workers should not have to jump over procedural obstacles in order to assert their right not to fuel the union’s political machine with their forced dues.”

The workers employed by the copper products manufacturer had alleged in their unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB that union officials denied employees their right to not subsidize union politics, failed to provide them with a legally-mandated independent audit of union expenditures, and continued to seize full union dues from workers’ paychecks despite formal objections to paying full dues.

Lynn Whelan, Gary Brown, and Miles Kidder obtaining free legal assistance from the Foundation. Beginning in October 2003, the employees informed union officials that they were exercising their right to refrain from paying full union dues. However, union officials not only forced the employees to pay more dues than could be compelled under federal law, but they also demanded that employees reconfirm their objections on an annual basis.

The actions of UE union officials violated rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and their right to not pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.

/video/Gleason-FNC-Jan-9-06.mov

Dayton, OH (January 9, 2006) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, a United Parcel Service (UPS) employee has filed federal charges against a Teamsters local for violating the constitutional rights of workers who have refrained from formal union membership.

Rick Ford filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 9 office in Cincinnati, after Teamsters Local 957 officials improperly deducted forced union dues from Ford’s paychecks without giving him a proper independent breakdown of how his forced union dues are spent. Because Ford has exercised his right to refrain from formal union membership, by law he can only be required to pay the portion of dues that union officials can demonstrate is used for collective bargaining. Ford filed the charges for all similarly situated UPS workers.

“Teamsters union officials are blatantly defying the law in order to stuff their political coffers with even more forced dues,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Union officials are adding insult to injury by forcing non-member workers to foot the bill for their pet political causes when the workers are already forced to pay for monopoly bargaining representation that they may not even want.”

In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision Communications Workers v. Beck, the Court affirmed that workers have the right to resign from formal union membership and halt and reclaim the portion of forced union dues spent on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union politics. Employees also have the right to have an independent third party audit the union expenditures and certify that the percentage of dues that non-members are forced to pay does not include political spending and other non-collective bargaining expenses.

In Ford’s case, Teamsters’ union officials are forcing non-member employees to pay fees at the extraordinary rate of 91.85% of full member dues, and they are doing so without a proper accounting and without providing an adequate process through which non-members can challenge the amount.

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

Despite the hue and cry about the demise of their movement, union officials must be quietly relieved. The AFL-CIO’s breakaway unions are urging the use of aggressive organizing methods, some of them approved by rulings of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Bill Clinton — and others contrary to the law altogether. Meanwhile, the window of opportunity for the Bush administration to reverse this course is rapidly closing.

The five-member NLRB administers the Wagner Act of 1935 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 — collectively known as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA, which governs labor-management relations in the private sector, grants a series of special privileges to union officials; the board administers the law, including the setting of rules for organizing drives and collective bargaining.

In the late 1990s, the Clinton-majority NLRB overturned more than 50 long-standing precedents with activist rulings that, taken as a whole, diminished employer rights and free speech, increased union coercive privileges, entrenched incumbent unions, and sharply undercut the rights of employees who disagree with a union. A full five years into the Bush presidency, however, virtually all of these rulings remain in place, while seats on the NLRB that could be filled with Bush appointees have been left vacant for long periods of time.

Board Chairman Robert Battista says that the agency will not make decisions in “major cases” unless he has a three-member majority, and right now, he only has two votes. As a result, a host of major cases are languishing and important employee freedoms — to choose whether to unionize, or to stop the ongoing abuse of compulsory union dues for union political and ideological activities — are on hold.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that a swift recess appointment right now by President Bush could begin to reverse the damage done to the law during the Clinton years, enabling a three-member majority to issue long-awaited rulings.

Moreover, if, as expected, these rulings favor workers’ freedom over union power, some union chiefs will be very unhappy. That in turn would give Senate Republicans the leverage they need to force the Democrats — who have favored the current paralysis — to come to the bargaining table to allow the now-pending NLRB nominees Peter Kirsanow and Peter Schaumber to be confirmed.

One critical area involves the process by which unions get the exclusive right to represent employees in a workplace. The NLRA has established straightforward elections as the “gold standard” in determining whether employees want a union. Nevertheless, unions have increasingly used top-down organizing methods like the “card check” and so-called “neutrality agreements” which deny employees a secret ballot.

These methods work by pressuring employers to grant union operatives sweeping access to their workplaces, hand over employees’ personal information, and even hold mandatory “captive audience” speeches in which the employer actually encourages employees to support unionization. Workers are targeted by union operatives — at home or at work — to persuade them to sign union “authorization” cards that are counted as “votes” in favor of unionization.

Well beyond simple peer pressure, card-signing drives frequently involve threats and misrepresentations, sometimes prompting a legal backlash from targeted employees. As a result, last year a narrowly-divided NLRB voted to reconsider the agency’s practice of barring employees who find themselves unionized as the result of the “card-check” process from obtaining expedited secret ballot elections to decertify the union.

The leading “election bar” cases, now in limbo, were brought by employees of automotive suppliers Dana Corporation and Metaldyne, who obtained free legal assistance from my organization. Workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania-based plants, after having unionization imposed on them via “neutrality” agreements, filed decertification petitions to seek secret ballot elections that would determine whether the United Auto Workers (UAW) actually enjoys the support of a majority of employees. Through these cases, the NLRB could overturn its arbitrarily created rule that, once recognized, union officials may bargain with employers for a so-called “a reasonable period of time” — even up to one year — without any employee challenges.

Appearing at a Capitol Hill press conference — in support of legislation to guarantee that employees always have access to a secret ballot election introduced by Rep. Charlie Norwood, Dana employee Clarice Atherholt explained the basic issue: “We’re simply asking for a secret ballot vote so that we can have a say in our future without being intimidated or harassed.”

Nevertheless, top-down organizing methods are increasingly common in hotels, grocery stores, textiles and health care. In 2004 roughly 83% of all newly unionized workers were swept into union ranks without secret ballots. As one high-profile Service Employees International Union official confessed to this newspaper, “We don’t do elections.”

Numerous other important cases are collecting dust at the NLRB. One, pending since 1989, involves the Teamsters union and employees of a cheese processing company called Schreiber Foods in Wisconsin. The employees seek a ruling on whether federal labor law permits forcing workers to fund union organizing activities with mandatory dues. Another long-pending case filed against the UAW on behalf of a Colt Manufacturing employee in Connecticut would determine whether American workers who assert their right not to pay for union political activities must file written objections every single year — or simply once.

It’s time for the White House to get off the dime and install an NLRB majority to tackle these and other important cases. American workers cannot afford another three years of an NLRB that preserves some of the worst aspects of Bill Clinton’s legacy.

Mr. Mix is president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. This Article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, December 31, 2005.

New York, N.Y. (December 23, 2005) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees suffering from compulsory unionism abuses, called on New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer today not to heed union officials’ calls for amnesty as part of the final settlement after those officials ordered the city’s illegal subway strike.

In his letter to Spitzer, Foundation President Mark Mix warned of routine union successes in gaining amnesty after illegal public sector strikes, pointing out that such actions result in even more public services being held hostage illegally to union demands. Mix also urged the Attorney General to enforce the law requiring that TWU officials lose their special privilege to use payroll deduction for union dues, seek enforcement of all fines against the union, seek imprisonment for contempt of court, and ultimately seek the firing of all responsible union officials who hold public employment in New York.

“The TWU has violated State law in a brazen attempt to hold New York City hostage to its self-serving demands,” stated Mix. “The TWU has not only endangered the safety and economic well-being of millions of metro area workers and residents, but it has done so with a blatant disregard for the transit employees it purports to protect.”

The Taylor Law requires the Attorney General to institute proceedings before the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) – if it does not do so on its own. State law obligates the Attorney General to demand that the PERB order the immediate forfeiture of the TWU’s special privilege to collect fees and dues from employees via payroll deduction.

“Furthermore, you should encourage State Supreme Court Justice Theodore Jones to continue to hold TWU officials in contempt for their unashamed violation of his injunction order, and you should encourage enforcement and collection of all fines that he has already levied upon TWU officials as well as imprisonment of the union officials found in contempt,” Mix wrote.

“In addition, you should urge Governor Pataki to determine through an investigation whether any of the TWU officials who caused, instigated, encouraged, or condoned this unlawful strike are public employees. Governor Pataki should terminate any such union officials from their employment with State of New York, as provided for by law.

“To allow the TWU officials to escape unscathed from their callous and selfish disdain for the law will have dire consequences for the future of labor relations in New York State and will invariably result in more illegal strikes,” Mix concluded.

Mark Mix’s letter to New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer is available here.

San Francisco, Calif. (December 22, 2005) – With help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a grape picker employed by Gallo of Sonoma Wine appealed to the California State Supreme Court to order a counting of ballots cast by over 300 Gallo workers in a union decertification election that occurred nearly three years ago.

While the workers obtained an election to rid their workplace of the unwanted union, United Farm Workers of America (UFW) union officials have put a halt to a counting of the votes by filing unfair labor practice charges alleging unlawful employer interference.

Roberto Parra, a Gallo grape picker, appealed a perfunctory ruling by the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District not to review a decision by California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB). The ALRB had held – in conflict with related federal labor statutes – that minimal employer interference in an election could be grounds to throw out an election without ever ascertaining the employees’ wishes.

In 2003, Parra filed a petition for the decertification election, which would have removed the UFW union as the workers’ monopoly representative. Over 30% of the workers in the bargaining unit signed the petition requesting an election to throw out the unwanted union.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right. UFW union officials should not be allowed to thwart employee free choice because of a few technical violations by their employer,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Many Gallo workers want no part of this union, but UFW officials won’t take no for an answer and are abusing the process to maintain their privileged position.”

Foundation attorneys point out that the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act is modeled after the National Labor Relations Act, which proscribes that employer interference with an employee election must be substantial in order to justify that the result be set aside. While Parra does not dispute wrongdoing by Gallo officials leading up to the election, he cites that such behavior should not negate the exercise of the employees’ free will.

“The sins of the father should not be visited upon the children,” said Gleason.

If the decertification election ballots are counted and a majority of the employees voted against the union, UFW union officials would lose their special privilege to act as the monopoly bargaining representative of over 300 Gallo employees. Those workers then would be free to negotiate their own terms and conditions of employment and could be rewarded on their individual merit.

Pottstown, PA (December 21, 2005) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, two local workers filed federal charges against their employer, the International Chemical Workers Union Council (ICWUC), and its Local 619 chapter, for having them fired in retaliation for returning to work during a union-ordered strike.

David Cameron and Walter Reigner, chemical workers at the Cabot Supermetals factory in Boyertown, were fired in November as part of a union-negotiated strike settlement between Cabot and ICWUC union officials. In the agreement, union officials explicitly demanded that Cameron and Reigner, in addition to two other similarly-situated employees, be discharged for exercising their legal right to resign their formal union memberships and continue working during the strike.

As a result of union officials’ retaliatory demands against the workers who resigned from the union and disagreed with union officials’ dictates, Cabot fired the four employees and handed their jobs over to less skilled and less senior workers. Cameron and Reigner’s Foundation-assisted charges against the ICWUC unions and Cabot Supermetals seek reinstatement and back pay.

“In a shameless unlawful act of retribution, four loyal employees are out on the street,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Union officials are attempting to drive four families into financial straits in order to send a message to all other employees that they had better toe the union line.”

Cameron, Reigner, and their two colleagues exercised their right under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Patternmakers v. NLRB to resign from formal union membership and return to work during a strike. The firings violated the National Labor Relations Act and the duty of fair representation which are supposed to protect employees who exercise their right to refrain from collective union activity without retaliation or coercion.

The National Labor Relations Board will now review the unfair labor practice charges brought against Cabot and the ICWUC union, an affiliate of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, and decide whether to issue a formal complaint.