Gaffney, S.C. (August 12, 2005) – Facing embarrassing prosecution by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for unlawfully blocking an employee wage increase to coerce Gaffney-based Freightliner/Daimler-Chrysler workers to support unionization, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union and Freightliner today agreed to end the unlawful practices.

UAW and Freightliner officials inked the settlement agreement with the NLRB after the NLRB’s General Counsel issued a formal complaint in response to unfair labor practice charges brought by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for Freightliner employees. The NLRB issued a consolidated complaint earlier this week against both the union and Freightliner which was followed by the issuance of subpoenas that might have uncovered additional evidence of illegal union and company collaboration.

The settlement requires company and union officials to post conspicuous notices throughout the Gaffney facility that union officials will not accept unlawful assistance from Freightliner in future unionization attempts, and that no future wage increases will unlawfully be withheld at the behest of union officials.

“UAW officials raced to cover their tracks once they realized that the government was serious about holding them to account for coercing employees,” stated Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union and company officials have worked hand in glove to try to turn Freightliner workers into union dues payers.”

Freightliner employees David Roach and Mike Ivey originally asked their Foundation attorneys to file charges in 2003 after UAW officials vetoed the long-scheduled and promised pay increase, and effectively required a freeze on pay raises at the Gaffney plant, apparently until such time as the employees agreed to unionization. The UAW union and Freightliner had a so-called “card check” or “neutrality” agreement that required the company to actively assist the UAW in its efforts to obtain signatures from employees on union authorization cards.

In their charge found to be meritorious by the NLRB General Counsel, employees alleged that they “have been and are being threatened that they will get no raises unless and until they agree to unionization by the ‘company union’ known as the UAW,” even though the union enjoys little support from rank-and-file workers.

In fact, approximately 70 percent of the plant’s employees had even signed and submitted a petition stating that they reject union affiliation and prefer to negotiate directly with company officials over wages and benefits.

The NLRB complaint alleged that the company and union engaged in unlawful and coercive conduct that interfered with employees’ rights to refrain from concerted union activity. NLRB prosecutors alleged that not only was the withholding of a pay increase unlawful, but also that the granting of the pay increase at a later time after telling the employees that it had been authorized by the union was similarly unlawful.

Washington, DC (August 10, 2005) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation recently joined the battle to keep private airport security screeners free from compulsory unionism by filing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Union lawyers are attempting to persuade the federal labor board into taking the controversial step of allowing the forced unionization of screeners.

The brief responded to a June ruling by the NLRB to reconsider a decision by one of the agency’s Regional Directors to apply the National Labor Relations Act to private airport screeners working for a firm called Firstline Transportation Security operating at the Kansas City International Airport.

In creating the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, the federal government also created a pilot program involving private airport security screeners at five airports throughout the country. All other airport screeners are federal employees, and TSA officials have, citing national security concerns, exercised their discretion not to grant union officials monopoly bargaining power over any of these federal employees.

“This new union scheme is really about raising more forced union dues revenues,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Aside from violating workers’ freedom of association, history tells us that interjecting forced unionism into such sensitive areas could have severe ramifications for Americans.”

Foundation attorneys argue that granting the Security, Police and Firefighters Professionals of America (SPFPA) union officials the special privilege to force the 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 points out in its brief that since wages, training, supervision, and working conditions of private screeners are overseen by TSA officials, no traditional “collective bargaining” could take place.

Additionally, the brief lays out the heightened possibility of national security breaches, such as illegal strikes and the potential for terrorist infiltration of the union. Sixty years ago, the courts and Congress learned that Communist operatives had infiltrated numerous unions and manipulated those organizations for subversive purposes – including orchestrating strikes against defense-related plants at the behest of the Communist Party. More recently, Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) cited concerns about “an increasing number of instances” where American institutions are being infiltrated by radical Islamic forces.

The brief also documents that government union officials have a long history of ignoring strike prohibitions and engaging in illegal strikes with tragic consequences. For instance, firefighter union strikes have resulted in dozens of deaths, strikes ordered by teacher union officials have led to hundreds of thousands of students being forced out of classes, and illegal so-called “blue flu” job actions (where employees simultaneously call in sick) orchestrated by police union officials have endangered lives.

Gaffney, S.C. (August 10, 2005) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel has decided to prosecute the United Auto Workers (UAW) union for unlawfully blocking a wage increase, thereby coercing Gaffney-based Freightliner/Daimler-Chrysler workers to support the union during a unionization campaign.

Issuing a formal complaint in response to unfair labor practice charges brought by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for Freightliner employees, NLRB’s Region 11 Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, will seek an order against both Freightliner and the UAW for unfair labor practices at an August 22 trial.

The NLRB issued a consolidated complaint against both the union and Freightliner after the union’s officials failed to sign a settlement agreement that had been proposed by the NLRB.

Freightliner employees David Roach and Mike Ivey originally asked their Foundation attorneys to file charges in 2003 after UAW officials vetoed the long-scheduled and promised pay increase, and effectively required a freeze on pay raises at the Gaffney plant, apparently until such time as the employees agreed to unionization. The UAW union and Freightliner had a so-called “card check” or “neutrality” agreement that required the company to actively assist the UAW in its efforts to obtain signatures from employees on union authorization cards.

In their charge found to be meritorious by the NLRB General Counsel, employees allege that they “have been and are being threatened that they will get no raises unless and until they agree to unionization by the ‘company union’ known as the UAW,” even though the union enjoys little support from rank-and-file workers.

In fact, approximately 70 percent of the plant’s employees had even signed and submitted a petition stating that they reject union affiliation and prefer to negotiate directly with company officials over wages and benefits. The petition stated in part that the undersigned employees “recognize the destructive and self-serving behavior of the UAW, and its documented role in union violence, union corruption, and plant closures caused by featherbedding and other uneconomic union work rules.”

The NLRB’s complaint alleges that the company and union engaged in unlawful and coercive conduct that interfered with employees’ rights to refrain from concerted union activity. NLRB prosecutors allege that not only was the withholding of a pay increase unlawful, but also that the granting of the pay increase at a later time after telling the employees that it had been authorized by the union was similarly unlawful.

“This is just the latest example of UAW and Freightliner officials working hand-in-glove to corral workers into union ranks whether they like it or not,” stated Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Freightliner and UAW officials have a cozy relationship that has resulted in the trampling of employee rights, not only in Gaffney, but also in High Point, North Carolina.”

In neighboring North Carolina, the UAW union’s organizing techniques continue to grab headlines through a high profile controversy at the Freightliner-owned Thomas Built Buses facility in High Point. A group of workers at that facility recently filed a motion with the NLRB in Washington, DC, to allow them to challenge alleged election misconduct by Freightliner that occurred at the last minute.

Albuquerque, N.M. (August 5, 2005) – The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico has approved a settlement of a precedent-setting civil rights lawsuit brought by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys that forces union officials to pay more than $146,000 to 471 non-union City of Albuquerque workers.

The settlement brings to a close one part of a long-running legal battle which resulted in rulings that American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials violated the U.S. Constitution by seizing forced union fees from nonmember City workers without adequately accounting for how the money would be spent.

Settlement discussions began after the court ruled that employees were entitled to compensatory damages and a jury trial on an unprecedented claim for punitive damages. The court had earlier certified the case as a class action for more than 750 current and former blue-collar City employees (471 of whom had been forced to pay union fees through mandatory deductions from their paychecks).

In certifying the case as a class action, the court issued an extraordinary rebuke of the union’s lawyers. The court excoriated the union’s lawyers for citing cases “…out of context under the apparent, and mistaken, impression that the Court would not read the cases cited in their brief.” The court continued, “The credibility of both the Defendants’ counsel and the arguments they make has suffered by counsels’ repeated and deliberate misrepresentation of case law and false statements of law.”

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the workers filed the suit against the City of Albuquerque and AFSCME Local 624, New Mexico AFSCME Council 18, and AFSCME International after they illegally seized the fees from August 1999 to July 2000.

“This victory is an 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. “However, as long as New Mexico workers labor under a system of compulsory unionism, such abuses will inevitably continue.”

The employees sued after the City unlawfully deducted forced union fees from their paychecks without proper procedural protections to prevent the monies’ use for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities. The unlawfully seized fees amounted to roughly $74,000, of which some $23,000 was refunded during the litigation. Under the settlement, AFSCME will repay the balance, with interest, and pay another $95,000 to avoid the jury trial that the Court ordered to determine whether the union must pay punitive damages.

The actions of AFSCME union officials violated First Amendment protections articulated in the Foundation-won 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 fees from employees who choose to refrain from formal union membership.

Dismissing the union’s arguments that it was too difficult to prove that its forced-fee demands were correct, Senior District Court Judge C. Leroy Hansen ruled, “accounting inconvenience is an insufficient excuse to allow the union to continue to violate the First Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.” Judge Hansen also likened the AFSCME union’s funneling of forced dues through its affiliates with no explanation to “money laundering.”

Knoxville, Tenn. (August 1, 2005) — The Court of Appeals of Tennessee has given a green-light to a Tennessee educator’s lawsuit challenging union officials’ practice of compelling teachers to support political activities as a condition of union membership.

The appellate court agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys that the trial court improperly dismissed a lawsuit filed on behalf of Polk County teacher Dewey Esquinance. Mr. Esquinance is making a constitutional challenge to a statewide teacher union rule that forces teachers to resign from union membership and thereby sacrifice their voice in workplace matters in order to exercise their political and religious freedoms.

Esquinance, with the help of Foundation attorneys, filed the suit in April 2003 against the National Education Association’s (NEA) affiliates, the Polk County Education Association and the Tennessee Education Association, in the state of Tennessee Circuit Court of Polk County.

The appellate court ruled that the trial court must allow the suit to proceed. If Mr. Esquinance ultimately prevails, teachers will have a constitutional right to remain union members and withhold dues spent by the union on ideological activities. Currently, teachers must resign from union membership under the state’s Right to Work law in order to withhold dues.

However, as non-members, teachers lose several privileges that union members enjoy, including voting on the collective bargaining agreement that binds them to certain terms and conditions of employment, as well as a voice in determining the criteria for teacher evaluations, control of sick bank donations, and access to teacher training. As a non-union member, Esquinance automatically forfeits these benefits.

“It seems that NEA officials are not as concerned with representing employees as they are with shaking them down to finance a radical political agenda,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason.

Like many educators, Esquinance objects to many aspects of the NEA’s agenda for religious and political reasons, including the NEA’s stances promoting abortion, gun control, and special rights for homosexuals. Every year, the NEA spends millions of dollars in compulsory dues it collects in support of political views and candidates that many teachers find objectionable.

Esquinance is challenging the membership dues based on the rights established by the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Under Abood and subsequent rulings, employees have a constitutional right to refuse to pay for union non-collective bargaining activities and ideological activities — such as politics.

Chicago, Ill. (July 26, 2005) – As top union officials pulled their unions out of the AFL-CIO, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today announced that it will raise and earmark upwards of $2,000,000 this year to provide free legal assistance to workers seeking to free themselves from unwanted union membership and financial support.

“It’s shameful that while union brass exercise a right to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO, millions of workers across America are being barred from – or even fired for – leaving their unions,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason.

The decision by the Foundation’s leadership comes as news emerged from the annual AFL-CIO conference in Chicago that Service Employees International Union (SEIU) chief Andrew Stern and Teamsters boss James Hoffa are pulling their unions out of the AFL-CIO in protest, complaining of its spending priorities and effectiveness. At the same time, however, most unionized employees in America do not enjoy a similar right to withdraw their financial support from unions in protest of their objectionable activities.

In light of the hypocrisy shown by top union officials, the Foundation announced it will focus its efforts over the next several months in helping workers gain the same rights that these union officials are now openly exercising. Starting with $500,000 over the next 45 days, the Foundation will attempt to assist any worker who wishes to exercise their rights to resign from union membership and pay a reduced fee. The Foundation aims to raise an additional $1.5 million before the end of the year and use it to provide pro bono legal advice and representation.

Union officials enjoy extraordinary coercive privileges under federal law and the laws of many states to force employees to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment. In jurisdictions without Right to Work laws (which prohibit compulsory union dues), employees may formally resign from union membership but can nevertheless be compelled to pay union dues or fees or be fired from their jobs. However, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have established through a series of victories at the U.S. Supreme Court that employees may only be compelled to pay a union’s proven collective bargaining costs, and not for activities such as lobbying or politics. But union officials routinely block workers from exercising these rights.

“Stern and Hoffa are no longer part of an organization they disagree with,” said Gleason. “The Foundation plans to act aggressively until every American worker can say the same.”

Springfield, Va. (July 25, 2005) – The following is a statement of Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, in response to the announcement by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials over the weekend that the union will leave the AFL-CIO labor conglomerate.

“The rift within the top echelon of the AFL-CIO is more about laying blame and jockeying for control of the union hierarchy than about helping workers. At the end of the day, both sides of the controversy are working toward the same goal of expanding their power and forcing more workers to join unions.

“The argument is over two sides of the same coin. Some union bosses would like to see even more resources diverted into politics with the goal of passing new laws that grant more coercive organizing privileges.

“Other union officials – such as those at the SEIU and Teamsters, and at the grocery, hotel, and textile unions – would like to see even more resources diverted to corporate campaigns and top-down organizing. These tactics involve attacking companies until they agree to hand over their employees into forced unionism without even so much as a vote of the employees.

“This political posturing within ultra-elite union hierarchies amounts to nothing more than a shell game by power-hungry union officials bent on control over more than $10 billion in compulsory union dues. In the end, it doesn’t matter who is steering Big Labor’s ship as long as individual workers continue to be strapped to the mast.

“Rather than working to preserve and expand their power to order workers to ‘pay up or be fired,’ union officials should work to improve their product in order to attract workers’ voluntary support.”

To schedule an interview with a Right to Work spokesperson, call Justin Hakes at 703-770-3317.

Denver, CO (July 21, 2005) – A local Safeway worker filed federal charges against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 1 after union officials denied his right not to subsidize union politics and failing to provide him with a legally mandated audit of union expenditures.

Robert Wilson, an employee at a Safeway distribution center in Denver, obtained free legal assistance from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of himself and roughly 20 similarly situated employees.

Wilson began working at the facility in 2003, and promptly submitted his resignation from formal union membership.

The charges claim that since Wilson’s resignation, union officials have failed to meet the legal requirements set forth in the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communication Workers v. Beck. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and the right not to be forced to pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.

“Union officials want workers like Robert Wilson to simply shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Rather than respect the rights of workers they claim to represent, union officials are bullying workers to pay for political electioneering.”

Wilson alleges that union officials never honored the resignation of his formal union membership continued deducting the full forced dues amount from his paycheck. The union hierarchy has also failed to provide an independently audited breakdown of union expenditures as required by law. The NLRB will now investigate the charge and decide whether to issue a formal complaint and prosecute the union.

“The attempts by union officials to run roughshod over workers’ rights show the inevitable greed and corruption that flow from forced unionism,” said Gleason.

High Point, North Carolina (July 20, 2005) – A group of Thomas Built Buses (TBB) employees filed a motion late yesterday with the full National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to allow them to bring some extraordinary last-ditch election misconduct to the attention of the agency.

The appeal of the NLRB Regional Director’s refusal even to consider employee objections raises a core legal question that could determine to what extent employees – not just unions and employers – have an independent ability to assert their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

Two days before the June 29 election, Scott Evitt, Human Resources General Manager for Freightliner issued an explosive memo announcing that TBB hourly-paid employees would have to pay higher health insurance premiums starting September 1, 2005.

UAW union operatives quickly circulated copies of the Evitt memo around the facility with “DID YOU SEE THIS” THE COST OF BEING NON-UNION JUST WENT UP!” written at the top.

The TBB employees allege that the last-minute intervention of their employer in announcing a major increase in benefit costs, tainted the election that granted United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials monopoly bargaining power over about 1,200 TBB employees. The workers objected to the extraordinary 11th hour move by the company, but the Regional Director refused to grant the employees’ motion to intervene, and therefore never even considered whether the misconduct tainted the election.

Employees opposing unionization report that this last ditch intervention by the company swung a large number of votes in favor of the union – ultimately resulting in a vote of 714 to 508. Under long-standing law, an intervention of this nature intended to influence the election is illegal, and the proper legal remedy is to set aside the election as tainted. Not surprisingly, neither the company nor the union objected to the election result, so the employees asked National Right to Work Foundation attorneys to assist them in intervening.

“We hope the Board recognizes that employees indeed have rights – regardless of whether company and union officials have cut a deal to undercut their freedom of choice,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “How can workers be denied the ability to challenge a tainted election when company and union officials seem to have acted hand in glove since the outset to turn the employees into dues-paying union members?”

Facing a formal complaint and prosecution by the NLRB, UAW and TBB/Freightliner officials agreed earlier this year to cancel a company-wide sweetheart deal in which union officials had unlawfully bargained to limit workers’ wage demands and made other concessions in exchange for Freightliner’s assistance in coercing workers to unionize.

Based on evidence provided by Foundation attorneys, the NLRB’s General Counsel also found that TBB/Freightliner officials provided unlawful assistance to the union and held unlawful “captive audience” speeches jointly with union officials to coerce employees to sign union authorization cards treated as “votes” for unionization.

Goshen, Ind. (July 7, 2005) – Approximately 200 employees at Cequent Towing Product’s Goshen facility have filed a “deauthorization” petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the agency to hold an election to rid their work place of mandatory union dues.

The employees filed the petition with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys after the agency has failed for 15 months to address an earlier petition for an election to throw out the union as the Cequent workers’ monopoly representative altogether.

While the majority of Cequent workers who signed the earlier “decertification” petition were awaiting an NLRB election to throw out the union that had been imposed upon them without even the basic protections of a secret ballot election, Cequent entered into a forced unionism contract with the United Steelworkers of America (USWA) union, authorizing the firing of any Cequent worker who refuses to pay forced union dues.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees have the right to call for a deauthorization election at any time. If 30% or more of the employees in the bargaining unit sign a deauthorization petition, the NLRB will conduct a secret ballot election to determine if a majority of the employees wish to cancel the forced union dues clause and restore employees’ freedom to decide whether to join or pay dues to the union.

“Cequent and USWA officials have negotiated away the freedom of the company’s employees,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Meanwhile, the NLRB has stood idly by while USWA officials cemented themselves in place and helped themselves to forced dues from workers’ paychecks.”

In March 2004, more than 230 workers signed the “decertification” petition, which was given to Cequent before it recognized the USWA union as their “exclusive bargaining representative.” If a decertification election is allowed and is successful, all Ceuqent employees then would be free to negotiate their own terms and conditions of employment.

In June 2004, the NLRB in Washington, DC, voted 3-2 to take up the Cequent case and consider whether union-opposition petitions signed by a majority of employees may be completely ignored during a so-called “card check” organizing drive. Workers at the facility found themselves unionized by the USWA union despite the fact that a majority of employees had submitted a petition expressing their desire to remain union free in advance of the union’s recognition by their employer as their “exclusive bargaining representative.” Cequent officials had implemented a “neutrality agreement” with the USWA union that severely limited employee freedoms.

The NLRB’s ultimate decision will impact the enforceability of controversial “neutrality agreements,” contracts between unions and employers under which the employer agrees to actively assist organizers in unionizing its workers.