Fairfield, Calif. (May 17, 2005) — A local employee of Anheuser Busch has filed a fifth round of federal charges against a recalcitrant Teamsters union local for once again failing to properly calculate and disclose how workers’ forced union dues are spent.

Catherine Anderson, a part-time employee at Anheuser Busch’s Fairfield facility, filed the unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.

For nearly two years, Teamsters Union Local 896 officials refused to provide Ms. Anderson with adequate audited financial disclosures about its spending, and the spending of its affiliates, as required by law and as promised in an earlier settlement with the federal government.

As a result of federal charges filed by Anderson and a co-worker in July 2003, September 2004, October 2004, and February 2005, Teamsters union officials settled the cases by agreeing to properly inform workers of their right to refrain from financially supporting the union’s political and ideological causes as required by law.

“This Teamsters union hierarchy wants workers simply to shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These union officials are scofflaws and repeat offenders. This arrogance, greed, and corruption is encouraged by the existence of the many union special privileges established by federal law.”

This April, Ms. Anderson received the most recent attempt by the union hierarchy to skirt around its legal obligations—audit reports that claim 96.06% of union dues money was spent on “collective bargaining” costs. Not only is some of this information hopelessly out of date, but Teamsters officials also continue to claim that 100% of union staff salary and overhead costs are chargeable to nonmembers, even though the disclosure shows that resources were spent on non-chargeable activities. Anderson’s complaint challenges these claims.

The actions of Teamsters union officials violated worker protections recognized in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Communications Workers v. Beck, a case argued and won by Foundation attorneys. Under the Beck ruling, workers may not be compelled to pay dues beyond the union’s proven collective bargaining costs, and they are entitled to an independent audit of union expenditures before any forced dues or fees are seized. Union officials also violated Penrod v. NLRB, which requires local union officials to provide financial disclosure for affiliated unions.

Milwaukee, Wis. (May 5, 2005) — The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s formal arguments in opposition to a Milwaukee County ordinance that requires certain private employers that contract with the county to assist union officials in pressuring employees into union ranks have been accepted by an Appellate Court.

The amicus curiae brief filed by Foundation attorneys in support of MMAC’s appeal of a lower court ruling, was accepted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC) v. Milwaukee County.

In their brief, Foundation attorneys argue that the ordinance, County “Chapter 31,” is pre-empted by federal labor law intended to protect third-party employers from pressure to unionize by other entities in concert with union officials. Foundation attorneys point out that such requirements in contracts by private businesses are clearly outlawed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and that government entities should be held to the same standard.

Under the ordinance, non-union private employers wishing to receive contracts from the County must sign a so-called “neutrality agreement” requiring them to assist union organizers by granting them sweeping access to their facilities, providing them with employees’ private personal information, and not telling workers the full story with regard to unionization.

“Local officials are forbidden from using the heavy hand of government to trample upon employers’ and workers’ freedoms which are supposedly protected by federal law,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Since union officials seem to be having increasing difficulties persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to these tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues into their coffers.”

On September 28, 2000, the County of Milwaukee’s Board of Supervisors passed “Chapter 31” over the objections of its own Corporate Counsel, who views the law as an impermissible regulation of private labor relations. One of the law’s sponsors branded the law a “…fight to change the NLRA.”

Milwaukee, Wis. (April 26, 2005) — In a legal controversy of national intrigue, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed arguments in opposition to a Milwaukee County ordinance that requires certain private employers that contract with the county to assist union officials in pressuring employees into union ranks.

Foundation attorneys filed the amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC) v. Milwaukee County, in support of MMAC’s appeal of a lower court ruling.

In their brief, Foundation attorneys argue that the ordinance, County “Chapter 31,” is pre-empted by federal labor law intended to protect third-party employers from pressure to unionize by other entities in concert with union officials. Foundation attorneys point out that such requirements in contracts by private businesses are clearly outlawed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and that government entities should be held to the same standard.

Under the ordinance, non-union private employers wishing to receive contracts from the County must sign a so-called “neutrality agreement” requiring them to assist union organizers by granting them sweeping access to their facilities, providing them with employees’ private personal information, and not telling workers the full story with regard to unionization.

“Local officials are forbidden from using the heavy hand of government to trample upon employers’ and workers’ freedoms which are supposedly protected by federal law,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Since union officials seem to be having increasing difficulties persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to these tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues into their coffers.”

On September 28, 2000, the County of Milwaukee’s Board of Supervisors passed “Chapter 31” over the objections of its own Corporate Counsel, who views the law as an impermissible regulation of private labor relations. One of the law’s sponsors branded the law a “…fight to change the NLRA.”

Mount Clemens, MI (April 22, 2005) – In order to avoid federal prosecution by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a local union was forced to back down from its unlawful threats to fine a group of nonunion nurses up to $4,000 each for refusing to abandon their patients during a recent strike.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys persuaded NLRB prosecutors to issue a formal complaint in January 2005, after helping four Mount Clemens General Hospital nurses who had been targeted for union retaliation file unfair labor practice charges last November.

In August of 2004, Deborah Mounger, Cherie Jones, Kimberly Grifka, and Jennifer Pacyga followed proper procedure by sending letters to Local 40 of the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) formally revoking their union memberships. By resigning from formal union membership, employees cannot be subjected to union rules and internal union discipline.

After having officially resigned from formal membership in OPEIU Local 40, the four women continued going to their jobs during a union-ordered strike. In October, each woman received a letter stating union officials were filing internal charges against them. They were each threatened with fines of $500 per charge, for totals of up to $4,000 per person simply for loyally serving their patients.

In an attempt to cut their losses and settle the complaint filed by the NLRB, OPEIU Local 40 officials have given up their attempt to collect these fines. The four women have been notified that all possibility of a monetary fine for continuing to work during the strike has been rescinded, and union officials must post a notice at the hospital informing other employees of the settlement.

“The vicious lack of compassion displayed by union officials for the sick and feeble is stunning,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It’s outrageous to retaliate against health care professionals simply because they refused to abandon their patients.”

The action of the union hierarchy violated NLRB v. Textile Workers, a Supreme Court decision that it is an unfair labor practice for a union to fine employees who had been union members in good standing but who resigned during a lawful strike and then returned to work. According to another Supreme Court decision, Patternmakers v. NLRB, workers may resign from union membership at any time, including during a strike.

“This union hierarchy’s disdain for the nurses’ freedom and economic security – to say nothing of their lack of concern for public health – shows they do not have employees’ best interests at heart.”

Springfield, Va. (April 15, 2005) – The following is a statement of Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, in response to the preliminary upholding of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union’s “neutrality agreement” with Dana Corporation by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

“The ALJ’s wrongheaded ruling will allow us swiftly to bring this case before an NLRB that has already indicated that it has a dim view of ‘card check’ agreements and the attendant violation of the principle of employee free choice.

“We are extremely confident our forthcoming appeal will succeed, because the ALJ’s decision ignores 40 years of established Board precedent. It is simply unlawful for UAW officials to bargain over the wages and working conditions of workers when a majority of workers have not selected the union.

“In the Dana agreement, the UAW hierarchy made explicit concessions as to workers’ wages and benefits in exchange for active company assistance in coercing employees to unionize. And then they kept the pact secret from the employees those concessions would hurt.

“This case presents a classic example of an employer choosing the union it wants to represent its employees, working with union officials to coerce employee support for it, and negotiating basic contract terms in advance.

“In their rush to establish the UAW as the monopoly representative of the employees at Dana in St. Johns, Michigan, UAW and Dana officials trampled upon fundamental employee rights guaranteed by federal labor law.”

Washington, DC (April 13, 2005) ¯ The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s president today filed a request with the Department of Labor (DOL) asking the agency to investigate and prosecute a top AFL-CIO official for violating a federal disclosure law intended to reveal potential conflicts of interest by union officials.

Foundation attorneys have discovered that the AFL-CIO’s Director of International Affairs, Barbara Shailor, has never filed the mandatory union disclosure forms on which she must disclose compensation received by her husband, Robert Borosage, from the “Campaign for America’s Future” (CAF), an organization which he founded and leads. She also must disclose that her husband’s organization has received at least $130,000 in payments from the AFL-CIO in recent years.

Aside from exposure to potential criminal prosecution, the apparent failure to follow federal disclosure law opens up Shailor, Borosage, and CAF to charges of hypocrisy in light of the national notoriety Borosage and CAF recently received in vehemently denouncing Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX) for alleged unethical behavior.

Under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), union officers like Shailor must file annually an “LM-30” form to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

“The workers – whose dues collected in many cases as a condition of employment, pay Ms. Shailor’s salary and the AFL-CIO’s contributions to her husband’s organization – are entitled, by law, to know how their money is being spent and whether there has been any self-dealing by union officials,” said Mark Mix, president of the Foundation.

Responding to an extensive wave of union corruption, the U.S. Congress held extensive hearings in 1959, which resulted in passage of the LMRDA. Also known as the Landrum-Griffin Act, the LMRDA requires that among other things, unions, their officers, and key employees must annually disclose certain financial information.

Penalties for willful violation of the LMRDA include up to a $100,000 fine and up to one year in jail. Union officials may also be barred from holding office or even being a union employee for up to 13 years for violating the LMRDA.

Santa Monica, Calif. (April 1, 2005) – After National Right to Work Foundation attorneys persuaded National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) prosecutors to file a complaint against a local union and hotel for corralling the workers into unionization, the hotel has been forced to withdraw recognition of the union.

After six employees at the Four Points by Sheraton Hotel filed federal unfair labor practice charges in late 2003 to challenge a so-called “card check” unionization drive that resulted in a flood of allegations of workers’ rights violations, the NLRB General Counsel’s office ordered prosecution of the hotel and the union for collusion. The workers alleged that the hotel illegally recognized Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees (HERE) Union Local 11 as the monopoly bargaining representative of the Hotel’s staff despite a lack of majority support.

Under “card check” or so-called “neutrality agreements,” employers are induced to waive their employees’ ability to vote in a secret ballot election and agree to provide other assistance to union organizers in pressuring employees to unionize. These pacts often include unlawful pre-arrangements over substantive terms and conditions of employment, such as health care, wages, or compulsory union dues. Typically the union will agree to limit wage and benefit demands in exchange for company help in coercing workers to unionize.

Because many Four Points workers felt harassed into signing union authorization cards, and many revoked signed cards, the employees disputed the union’s claim that a majority of the workers actually support it – and NLRB officials agreed. The employees asked the NLRB to bar HERE officials from bargaining on their behalf. Rather than face a trial, the hotel and union settled.

In withdrawing recognition of the HERE union, hotel officials also agreed not to recognize the union in future organizing attempts unless it demonstrates majority support through the less abusive government-supervised secret ballot election process. Hotel workers will also now be free to bargain directly with their employer over their own wages and working conditions.

“Despite HERE union officials’ claims of innocence, their decision to settle suggests that union officials recognize that they may not enjoy the support of a majority of workers,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While this is a meaningful victory for these workers, so long as California workers labor under a system of compulsory unionism, they will continue to face such cynical schemes.”

San Diego, Calif. (March 31, 2005) — A U.S. District Court Judge has ruled that San Diego government union officials violated the First Amendment rights of non-union employees by implementing a discriminatory dental insurance package in June 2002 and 2003.

The dental benefits scheme, part of an agreement between the San Diego Municipal Employees Association (MEA) union and the City of San Diego, was designed to pressure employees into signing up as formal union members, thereby causing them to give up certain rights, including the ability to refrain from funding union political activities.

The case originated in August 2002, when San Diego employees Susan Brannian, David Cornacchia, and Jennifer Shen, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the legality of the discriminatory policy.

Under the June 2002 “open enrollment” scheme, non-union workers were completely barred from using their pre-tax dollars to enroll in the dental benefits plan, forcing them to either pay dues to union officials or forgo the option of enrolling in the plan.

Union and City officials later modified their agreement for the June 2003 enrollment period, this time forcing employees to pay a “voluntary” agency fee to receive the benefits, even though the union was required to provide all employees – regardless of union membership or agency fee payer status – with health insurance, life insurance, and the same lump sum allotment of pre-tax funds. In 2004, MEA union and City officials, under pressure from the workers’ suit, retreated from their coercive policy to allow non-union members to opt into the benefits plan.

“Rather than look after employees’ interests, MEA union officials shamelessly withheld workers’ benefits to force them into union ranks,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Without this type of coercion, union officials know that many employees have little use for the union and would therefore resign and withhold financial support.”

The Court agreed with Foundation attorneys’ arguments and ruled that the 2002 members-only enrollment scheme “constitutes unlawful coercion to join the union in violation of the First Amendment.” For the 2003 enrollment period, the court found the agency fee option forced workers, “to subsidize the costs of union activities that he or she would have otherwise received for free. This amounts to more than coercing union membership; it constitutes coercion to subsidize the union itself,” the Court added.

Anchorage, Alaska (March 31, 2005) – Workers have once again voted to remove Teamsters Union Local 959 as the “exclusive bargaining representative” of more than 200 Anchorage-area school bus drivers and attendants. Employees voted 109-78 this week to vote out the unwanted union.

The new election result comes on the heels of a December 2004 election in which workers voted to decertify the union 105-83. This week’s election was held after union officials filed objections to the results of the December 2004 vote. The drivers’ employer, First Student, Inc., provides school bus services to the Anchorage School District.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, school bus driver Jayne Larrassey filed objections to a May 2004 decertification election in which the Teamsters union narrowly maintained its status as the workers’ monopoly representative after company officials stifled worker free speech. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19 office ordered a new election in July 2004, but union officials appealed the decision to the full NLRB in Washington, delaying the new election. However, a three-member panel of the NLRB ordered in November that results from the tainted May union decertification election be set aside and that a new election be held because of the actions of company officials.

The federal labor agency’s order affirmed the findings in a report issued by a hearing officer of the NLRB’s Region 19 office. That report found “serious and extensive” company interference by enforcing an “overly broad rule” limiting employees’ rights to distribute pro-decertification literature leading up to the election.

The objections originated when Larrassey exercised her right to oppose the union hierarchy by distributing flyers in the company parking lot promoting the May 2004 decertification of the Teamsters union as the drivers’ monopoly bargaining agent. However, union activists quickly seized the flyers from the vehicles and turned them over to the union steward, who then reported Larrassey to company officials.

Larrassey was then given a “verbal warning” by a company official and told that any further attempt to circulate pro-decertification literature would result in disciplinary action. Larrassey was reprimanded a second time on the day of the election when she simply stood in a non-work area and reminded people to vote.

“Despite the best efforts of Teamsters officials to stifle dissent, First Student bus drivers will now determine their own future in an atmosphere free from coercion,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

As a result of the decertification victory, First Student employees will now be free to negotiate their own terms and conditions of employment, and be rewarded on their individual merit.

Everett, WA (March 31, 2005) – Six local hospital workers filed class-action federal unfair labor practice charges this week against the Service Employees International Union District 1199 NW (SEIU). The charges state that SEIU officials failed to inform over 800 employees of Northwest Hospital and Medical Center of their rights to withhold payment of union dues for politics.

The six coworkers, with help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, filed the charges at the NLRB’s regional office in Seattle.

“Union officials want these workers 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 into bankrolling union politics.”

The SEIU’s contract with the hospital expired in fall 2004, after which the union ceased collection of involuntary union dues from employees. Since then, the union has used the threat of “back-dues collection” to keep workers in line and preserve the union’s status as monopoly representative.

The actions of SEIU officials violate the rights of these six hospital employees recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision, Communications 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.

Foundation attorneys argue that since SEIU officials failed to properly inform workers of these rights as required by law, they have no claim to any of the compulsory “back-dues” that they are currently using to threaten workers. The NLRB will now investigate the charge and decide whether to issue a formal complaint in the case.

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