Foundation comments expose flimsy statutory foundations of proposed rule, also show it violates federal workers’ First Amendment Janus rights

Washington, DC (January 25, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation just filed comments at the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), opposing the agency’s plan to restrict federal employees’ right to stop unwanted union financial support for over 99 percent of the year.

The FLRA announced in December 2022 the proposed rule, which would rescind a 2020 regulation that permits federal employees to stop union dues deductions from their paychecks any time after one year from the date employees authorize such deductions. Foundation attorneys in 2020 filed comments supporting the current regulation that eliminated an FLRA-created limit on federal workers’ legal right to stop union payments.

The Foundation’s comments argue that the slated rule would return the FLRA to an incorrect interpretation of federal law in which dues deductions are “perpetually irrevocable for consecutive years,” except for one day to opt out between yearly periods. The Foundation points out that the statute simply says that dues deduction authorizations “may not be revoked for a period of 1 year,” (emphasis added) not multiple “periods,” which lets employees quit dues deductions any time after an initial yearlong period of irrevocability. Subsequent yearly restrictions, Foundation attorneys argue, are not supported by the statute.

Such a flawed interpretation would trap employees into subsidizing an entire year of unwanted union “representation” and expenditures merely because they miss the arbitrary one-day opt-out deadline. “The Authority will violate [federal law] if it . . . decrees that dues deduction assignments can be made irrevocable for multiple yearly periods,” the comments say.

Biden FLRA Rule Change Will Block Federal Employees’ First Amendment Janus Rights

The Foundation also points out that the 2020 rule lets federal employees exercise their First Amendment rights recognized in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision to the greatest extent possible under the governing federal law. In Janus, the Court ruled that all American public sector workers have a First Amendment right to refrain from paying dues to an unwanted union, and that union dues deductions from a public sector worker’s paycheck can only occur with his or her affirmative consent.

If the Biden FLRA rescinds the 2020 rule and makes union dues deductions irrevocable for consecutive yearly periods, the federal government would be allowed to “disregard its employees’ wishes and continue to seize monies from their wages for a cause they oppose,” the comments read. That would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment principles recognized in Janus.

The 2020 rule instead sought to bring the dues deduction statute in line with Janus’ First Amendment standard “by construing the irrevocability period in [federal law] to be as short as possible,” the comments say.

The comments also refute union officials’ claims that rescinding the 2020 rules is necessary to maintain union financial interests and protect employee choice. The comments point out that union financial interests do not trump the right of workers to stop unwanted union financial support, and that eliminating the greater freedom to do so provided by the 2020 rule cannot possibly safeguard employee free choice.

“The Federal Labor Relations Authority, now stocked with union-label Biden appointees, is moving to limit the rights of rank-and-file workers just to give federal union bosses expanded powers to seize union dues over the objections of the workers they claim to represent,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “All American public sector workers have a First Amendment right under Janus to freely make this choice, and by changing the rules the FLRA will deliberately undermine the constitutional rights of the federal workforce.”

Union sought to interrogate teenage cashier over his religious beliefs after he asserted his rights and presented religious objections to supporting the union

Pittsburgh, PA (January 17, 2023) – North Huntingdon Giant Eagle employee Josiah Leonatti – a high school student – has filed federal discrimination charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1776KS union. He maintains that union officials refused to consider his religious beliefs after he expressed religious objections to joining and paying dues to the union. Union officials, according to his charges, subjected him to an illegal “religion test” to determine whether his religious beliefs count.

Leonatti is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who filed charges for him against the union at both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). They also filed charges against Giant Eagle for firing him after he asked for a religious accommodation. Giant Eagle falsely told him that he must join the union to keep his job.

Leonatti charges that the UFCW union and Giant Eagle are breaching Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Title VII requires unions and employers to accommodate employees who have religious objections to joining or supporting a union. The NLRA also prohibits forced union membership regardless of a worker’s reason for not wanting to affiliate with a union. Leonatti’s Title VII claims will be investigated by the EEOC; the NLRB will handle his NLRA claims.

Pennsylvania’s lack of Right to Work protections means that union officials may force private sector workers in unionized workplaces, like Leonatti, to pay them fees or be fired. Under federal law, employees with religious objections cannot be compelled to pay such fees. Right to Work states broaden that protection; in Right to Work states, no worker can be fired for refusal to join or financially support a union no matter the reason for objecting to subsidizing union activities.

High School-Age Employee Dismissed After Presenting Religious Objection

Leonatti’s charges report that he attended employee training last year as a cashier trainee. There an official told new hires that they “must sign papers to join the United Food And Commercial Workers.” According to the NLRB charges, “No other options were even hinted at.”

After reviewing the papers with his family, Leonatti’s charges explain, he mailed a letter to UFCW officials detailing his sincere religious objections to joining and supporting the union. He also presented the same letter in person at training. Rather than accommodate his sincere religious beliefs, a company official “dismissed [Leonatti] from training and sent [him] home.” The same official later called Leonatti and told him that union membership is compulsory at Giant Eagle, and the grocery store had terminated him over his refusal to join.

UFCW officials also responded to Leonatti’s letter by mail on November 10, rejecting the written explanation of Leonatti’s religious objection and demanding he “complete its religious examination” before they even considered granting him an accommodation. Even if he passed this “test,” the charges say, union officials threatened that he would still have to pay an amount equal to full UFCW union dues to a charity.

A religious test is forbidden by federal law. The Supreme Court ruled in its 1981 Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division decision that “religious beliefs need not be…comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”

Leonatti’s father called Giant Eagle’s HR department, according to the charges, to gain more clarity. A Giant Eagle employee reiterated that employment depended on union membership. After missing several weeks of work because the store had terminated him, Leonatti got an email from Giant Eagle inviting him to return to work.

To date, however, no Giant Eagle agent ever offered or discussed a religious accommodation with Leonatti, and the union has not retracted its threats or agreed to accommodate.

Employee Seeks Re-Training for Accommodation-Denying Union Officials

Leonatti’s EEOC charges seek to compel the UFCW union and Giant Eagle to provide him a legally-required religious accommodation. In addition, the NLRB charges state that relief must include unit-wide information and corporate retraining, among other remedies.

“Union bosses’ attempt to coerce a high schooler to violate his religious beliefs is unconscionable, and illegal,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re proud to support Mr. Leonatti as he defends his rights, but this should serve as a stark reminder that all Americans deserve Right to Work protections. Regardless of their particular reasons for not wanting to affiliate with a union, no employee’s job should hinge on whether he or she pays dues to a private organization.”

Union boss-beholden NLRB to make it easier for union bosses to block workers from exercising right to vote out unpopular unions

Washington, DC (November 3, 2022) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) today announced it was initiating rulemaking to rescind the Board’s Election Protection Rule, a 2020 provision that, among other things, helped protect rank-and-file workers’ statutory right to hold votes to remove unwanted union officials.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement on the Biden NLRB’s announcement:

“The Biden-appointed NLRB majority – two of whom were union lawyers when nominated for their seats on the Board – is once again protecting union boss power to the detriment of the statutory rights of rank-and-file workers. Make no mistake, reversing the Election Protection Rule will mean more workers trapped in forced union ranks they oppose, and more denials of worker requests for basic secret-ballot votes regarding union status.

“The NLRB’s own statistics indicate that workers are currently seeking to throw out unwanted unions at the highest rate in years. Yet, rather than reflect on why so many workers want nothing to do with union so-called ‘representation,’ the anti-worker response of the Biden Administration and their Big Labor allies is to build a wall to keep workers in unions, or to stop them from even holding votes to oust incumbent union bosses.”

NLRB Seeks to Undermine Right to Vote as Worker Decertification Efforts Increase

The NLRB adopted the Election Protection Rule in 2020 after multiple rounds of comments from Foundation staff attorneys supporting the changes. The rule included reforms to the NLRB process for dealing with union “blocking charges,” which union bosses often file to prevent rank-and-file employees from exercising their right to vote out a union. Union officials manipulate “blocking charges” to stop workers’ requested votes from taking place for months or even years by making one or multiple allegations against the employer.

The 2020 rule stopped union charges from stalling worker-requested votes, and in most cases permitted the immediate release of the vote tally as opposed to ordering ballots to be impounded during litigation over “blocking charges.”

The Election Protection Rule also substantially eliminated the so-called “voluntary recognition bar,” a policy that union officials exploited to block workers from requesting a secret-ballot election after a union is installed through the abuse-prone “card check” process. The NLRB instead adopted a Foundation-backed process in which workers could submit a petition to hold a secret-ballot vote after a union’s installation by “card check,” with the secret-ballot election determining whether the union actually had the majority support union officials claimed in their submission of “union cards.”

Additionally, the Election Protection Rule cracked down on schemes in the construction industry where employers and union bosses installed a union in a workplace without first providing proof of majority union support among the workers. Foundation staff attorneys represented a victim of such a scheme in a case (Colorado Fire Sprinkler, Inc.) that ended when a DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously ruled for the worker, who had been unionized despite no evidence of majority employee support for the union. As the federal court said, “the rule is that employees pick the union; the union does not pick the employees.”

With the elimination of the Election Protection Rule, workers will not only have a much harder path toward getting a vote on whether a union should be ousted, but even if the vote is held, they will likely be kept in the dark about the results of that vote for months or even years if litigation follows union “blocking charges.” Also, workers forced into union ranks via “card check” would be barred for potentially years from ever holding a secret-ballot vote to determine the level of union support, as the bar following “card check” is often combined with other non-statutory bars like the three-year “contract bar.”

Workers nationwide relied on the Election Protection Rule as they exercised their right to vote out unpopular unions, and the NLRB’s own statistics show a sharp increase in worker decertification efforts. In 2021, the year following the Election Protection Rule’s adoption, Foundation attorneys aided over 7,000 workers at 54 workplaces in exercising their right to hold votes to boot unwanted union officials.

District Court ordered Southwest to announce that airline may not discriminate on basis of religion; airline instead effectively denied wrongdoing despite jury verdict

Dallas, TX (January 9, 2023) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Southwest Airlines flight attendant Charlene Carter is seeking sanctions against Southwest for flouting the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas’ decision in her case. Carter sued both Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 556 and Southwest in 2017 for firing her over opposing the union’s political stances – a violation of both the Railway Labor Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The District Court in December 2022 ordered Southwest and the union to give Carter the maximum amount of compensatory and punitive damages permitted under federal law, plus back-pay, and other forms of relief that a jury originally awarded following Carter’s victory in a July trial. The Court also mandated that Southwest reinstate Carter, ruling that only requiring Southwest and the TWU union to pay out future monetary damages to Carter “would complete Southwest’s unlawful scheme” of firing dissenting employees.

Carter’s latest motion calls on the District Court to impose sanctions against Southwest for releasing a misleading “Recent Court Decision” notice to its roughly 17,000 flight attendants, arguing that the notice papers over the airline’s significant rights violations found by the Court. The notice states that Southwest “does not discriminate” against its employees based on religious belief, despite the Court’s finding that Southwest did discriminate against Carter on religious grounds. The motion also says Southwest’s notice fails to make a court-ordered announcement that the airline is forbidden from discriminating in the future.

Foundation attorneys also contend that an “Inflight Information On The Go” memo the airline issued chills flight attendants’ religious expression, beliefs, and practices. The memo implies that Southwest will be the final arbiter of what kind of religious speech is acceptable in the workplace, while characterizing Carter’s speech challenging the TWU union’s political positions as “inappropriate, harassing, and offensive,” and thus worthy of punishment.

The motion asks the District Court to find the airline in contempt so it can issue monetary sanctions against Southwest, and further order the airline to immediately issue corrective notices.

Flight Attendant Called Out Union Officials for Their Political Activities

As a Southwest employee, Carter joined TWU Local 556 in September 1996. A pro-life Christian, she resigned her membership in September 2013 after learning that her union dues were being used to promote causes that violate her conscience and have nothing to do with her work.

Carter resigned from union membership, but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. State Right to Work laws do not protect her and her fellow flight attendants from forced union fees because airline and railway employees are covered by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA). The RLA allows union officials to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. But it does protect the rights of nonmembers of the union who are forced to associate with a union, including the rights to criticize the union and its leadership, and advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.

In January 2017, Carter learned that Audrey Stone, the union president, and other TWU Local 556 officials used union money to attend the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.,” which was sponsored by political groups she opposed, including Planned Parenthood.

Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, took to social media to challenge Stone’s leadership and to express support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message affirming her commitment to both the recall effort and a National Right to Work law after the union had sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.

After Carter sent Stone that email, Southwest managers notified Carter that they needed to have a mandatory meeting as soon as possible about “Facebook posts they had seen.” During this meeting, Southwest presented Carter screenshots of her pro-life posts and messages and questioned why she made them.

Carter explained her religious beliefs and opposition to the union’s political activities. Carter said that, by participating in the Women’s March, President Stone and TWU Local 556 members purported to represent all Southwest flight attendants. Southwest authorities told Carter that President Stone claimed to be harassed by Carter’s messages. A week after this meeting, Southwest fired Carter.

Flight Attendant Wins Jury Verdict and District Court Decision

In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit with help from Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the firing as an abuse of her rights, alleging she lost her job because of her religious beliefs, standing up to TWU Local 556 officials, and criticizing the union’s political activities and how it spent employees’ dues and fees. In July 2022, she won a federal jury verdict awarding millions of dollars in damages for Southwest’s and TWU’s violations of her rights, and in December 2022 the District Court issued its judgment in her favor.

“First, Southwest Airlines violated Charlene Carter’s rights by firing her at the union’s behest. Now, the airline is doubling down by misleading other workers about its wrongdoing in defiance of a federal court order,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation attorneys will continue to defend Ms. Carter’s rights, and will ensure that Southwest’s attempts to dodge the requirements of the decision in her favor will not go unopposed.”

Union and CVS face federal charges after UFCW officials initiated firing of worker who exercised legal right to refrain from union membership

Chicago, IL (December 22, 2022) – Evanston CVS employee Lynn Gray has won reinstatement after United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 881 union officials had her illegally fired for refusing to join the union. Gray received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Gray filed federal unfair labor practice charges on December 16 at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against both the union and her employer, stating that CVS management illegally fired her after UFCW officials sent her letters threatening termination if she did not become a union member. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is responsible for enforcing, forbids union bosses from having workers fired for refusing formal union membership.

Almost immediately after Gray filed the charges with free Foundation legal representation, CVS reinstated her, likely knowing that the union-initiated termination was a clear violation of federal law.

Although forced union membership is prohibited under the NLRA, Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, meaning union bosses can force workers under their control to pay them money just as a condition of staying employed. However, the 1988 CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision won by Foundation attorneys prevents union officials from forcing nonmembers to pay for any activities beyond the union’s bargaining functions, such as political and ideological expenses.

In contrast, in states with Right to Work protections (including Illinois’ neighbors Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Kentucky), no worker can be fired for refusal to pay money to unwanted union officials.

Employee Paid Union Dues Under Protest, But UFCW Bosses Still Ordered Firing

Gray’s charge says she began working part-time shifts at the CVS in early October. In late November she received a letter from UFCW union officials stating that she needed to pay full union dues to keep her job, and alleging that she already owed nearly $200 in back union dues. Gray responded on December 5, sending the amount that the union declared she owed but clarifying that she was doing so “under protest and solely to protect my job with CVS.”

“Please note that the enclosed payment in no way indicates my consent to becoming a member of UFCW or any of its affiliates,” Gray’s letter read. She also demanded the union provide her the calculation for the amount they claimed she owed.

Union officials at no point informed Gray of her rights under Beck to pay reduced union dues as a nonmember, or her right to abstain from union membership.

Although a union official acknowledged the receipt of her letter, CVS management contacted Gray only days later to tell her that she had been terminated at union officials’ behest. With Foundation legal aid, Gray filed federal charges against the union and CVS on December 16. Her charge sought an NLRB 10(j) injunction, which if granted would let a court order her immediate reinstatement.

Before NLRB officials could take any action on her charge, however, CVS officials hastily reinstated Gray on December 19.

Foundation President: Forced Dues Are Always Wrong, Even in Non-Right to Work States

Foundation staff attorneys earlier this year aided another Illinois employee, Murphysboro Penn Aluminum International employee Mary Beck, after International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union officials threatened to fire her for refusal to pay union fees. Foundation attorneys argued that the union officials’ contract was so sloppily written that it didn’t even let IBEW bosses enforce their legal privilege (due to Illinois’ lack of a Right to Work law) to force Beck to pay some money to the union just to keep her job.

“Union officials in non-Right to Work states like Illinois have a tendency to play fast and loose with workers’ rights and livelihoods. That’s because the core assumption behind the laws in those states is that union officials’ ability to stock their coffers should trump worker free choice,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While Beck and other Foundation-won court decisions provide at least a check on that privilege in non-Right to Work states, every American worker deserves Right to Work protections so workers can make up their own minds about whether union officials have earned their support.”

Union officials still taking full dues from her paycheck months after she requested stop, union contract may also be ineffective

Murphysboro, IL (June 17, 2022) – Penn Aluminum International employee Mary Beck has filed a federal charge against International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 702 after union officials unlawfully seized money from her wages without her consent and without proving that a contract mandating such deductions is even in effect.

As detailed in the charge, the Murphysboro aluminum worker informed local union officials twice that they have no legal authority to deduct money from her paycheck, but union officials ignored her and instead illegally continue to seize full union dues, including dues for union political activity.

Beck’s charge was filed at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 14 in St. Louis with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Additionally, her case says union officials violated federal labor law by refusing to even respond to her requests to stop dues deductions.

As Beck’s unfair labor practice charge notes, she sent a letter to IBEW union chiefs and her employer in January 2022, exercising her right to resign her union membership and end any union dues deductions she was not required to pay in order to keep her job. Her letter also demanded a copy of any contract that gives IBEW officials the power to require dues payment as a condition of employment. When she received no response, she redelivered this letter by hand in March 2022.

IBEW Union Bosses Didn’t Show They Can Legally Take Dues from Worker, Take Money Anyway

Because Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, union officials can legally force workers in facilities under union control to pay some union fees just to stay employed. However, union bosses lose this legal privilege if there is no monopoly bargaining contract in effect between the union and management in the workplace. Under longstanding law, union officials must also gain consent from a worker before they can directly deduct compulsory fees from his or her paycheck.

In contrast, in the 27 Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary and the free choice of each individual worker.

Additionally, nonmember workers governed by a union monopoly bargaining contract have a right under the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision to object to paying any union fees beyond what union officials claim goes toward core bargaining activities. This amount excludes money used for union political expenditures. Beck’s letter asked that all union deductions cease if IBEW bosses failed to provide a valid contract, and reduce her dues as per CWA v. Beck if they were able to provide such a contract.

To date, Beck’s charge says, the union has not responded to her written request, full union dues (including dues for politics) are still coming out of her paycheck, and she has not received a copy of a union contract.

Beck’s charge states that IBEW bosses are violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by “accepting fees from Charging Party’s paycheck without a consent or a collective bargaining agreement” and by “failing to respond in a timely manner to Charging Party’s January and March letters.” These actions violate Beck’s right under the NLRA to abstain from union activity, the charge says.

Illegal Forced-Dues-For-Politics Trickery Likely to Increase as Midterm Elections Near

Beck’s charge comes after union bosses spent near-record sums on politics during the 2020 election cycle. A report by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released in 2021 revealed that union officials’ own filings show about $2 billion in political spending during the 2020 cycle, money primarily from dues-stocked union general treasuries, including dues from workers in non-Right to Work states who would be fired if they refused to financially support union activities. Moreover, other estimates strongly suggest that actual union spending on political and lobbying activities actually topped $12 billion in 2019-2020.

“IBEW union officials in Illinois, a non-Right to Work state, already have the legal power to demand that dissenting workers like Ms. Beck subsidize some union activities against their will. The fact they are taking money from her well in excess of the legal limit – months after she requested a stop – demonstrates they value power and influence far above workers’ individual rights,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As midterm elections near and union officials seek to defend their government-granted power to force workers to pay up or else be fired, workers should not hesitate to contact the Foundation to challenge forced-dues-for-politics situations like the one that Ms. Beck is facing.”

Recently workers in New York, California, and New Jersey have also successfully freed themselves of unwanted Teamsters “representation”

Chicago, IL (December 15, 2022) – Morris-based Tri-State Asphalt employee Brent Johnson and his coworkers have successfully voted Teamsters Local 179 union officials out of their workplace, following Johnson’s filing of a worker-backed petition earlier this month requesting a vote to remove the Teamsters union. Johnson received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation in filing the petition for his coworkers.

The vote, conducted by Indianapolis-based National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 25, tilted overwhelmingly against continued union boss control, with nearly 80 percent of the employees voting to reject the union. The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal private-sector labor law, which includes holding union “decertification votes” among workers.

Although the NLRB’s union decertification process is still prone to union boss-created roadblocks, Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 have made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials.

Before the reforms, for example, union officials could stop workers who requested a decertification vote from casting ballots by filing so-called “blocking charges,” which often contain unverified and unrelated allegations of employer misconduct. The rule changes improved the process so employees can at least have a chance to vote before any allegations surrounding the election are resolved.

Johnson submitted the employee-backed petition seeking a vote whether to remove the union during a Teamsters-ordered strike against Tri-State Asphalt, during which Teamsters bosses filed charges against Tri-State Asphalt management. After the vote, Teamsters officials could have further pursued those charges in an attempt to invalidate the election result. However, because of the Foundation-backed NLRB reforms’ focus on letting workers exercise their right to vote before charges are dealt with, Teamsters officials likely saw the decisive rejection by employees and understood opposing the workers’ will would be futile.

Because Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, Teamsters union officials also had the power to force Johnson and his colleagues to pay dues or fees to the union hierarchy just to stay employed. In contrast, in the 27 Right to Work states – including neighboring Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa and Kentucky – union membership and all union financial support are the choice of each individual worker and cannot be required as a condition of employment.

Foundation Aids Employees Coast-to-Coast in Kicking Out Teamsters Officials

Johnson and his coworkers’ successful decertification comes as Foundation staff attorneys are receiving increasing requests from workers seeking to boot Teamsters officials out of their workplaces. Just this month, Teamsters Local 294 officials fled an XPO Logistics workplace in Albany, NY, after driver William Chard obtained free Foundation legal aid in filing a petition for a decertification vote, which 65 percent of his coworkers backed.

On the West Coast, Foundation attorneys recently aided nurses in Sacramento, CA, and Home Depot freight drivers in San Jose, CA, in removing unwanted Teamsters Local 150 and Teamsters Local 853 officials, respectively.

The NLRB’s own data show that a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as the average nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign, with one analysis finding decertification petitions up 42 percent this year.

“Teamsters officials seem to be bleeding workplaces nationwide, a sign that they are prioritizing power and politics over the needs of workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Johnson’s case is unique, though, because without the Foundation-backed reforms to the NLRB’s union decertification process, Teamsters union officials could have made workers wade through months or even years of litigation just to exercise their right to vote out the union – which it turns out they overwhelmingly opposed.”

“However, even as workers across several industries are exercising this right at a rising rate, the Biden NLRB has announced rulemaking to roll back the Foundation-backed reforms that make decertifying unpopular unions easier,” Mix added. “The Foundation will oppose this move to hamper workers’ free choice rights, and will also continue to aid workers nationwide in voting out unions they oppose.”

Employees exercised constitutional right to stop funding union activities, but union-imposed restriction blocks exercise of right for over 90 percent of year

Toledo, OH (December 8, 2022) – Three Lucas County Job and Family Services (JFS) employees have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Ohio Council 8 union and their employer. They charge union and county officials with seizing dues money from their paychecks in violation of the First Amendment. The employees are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Buckeye Institute.

The employees, Penny Wilson, Theresa Fannin, and Kozait Elkhatib, are asserting their constitutional rights recognized in the landmark 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared it a First Amendment violation to force public sector workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. It also ruled that union officials can only deduct money from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.

“Plaintiffs . . . file this suit to stop Lucas County JFS and AFSCME from seizing union payments from them without their consent and to receive compensation for violations of their First Amendment rights,” reads the workers’ complaint.

Lucas County Employees Weren’t Informed of First Amendment Right to Abstain from Union Dues

Officials from AFSCME Council 8 and Lucas County JFS enforce a policy which permits the direct deduction of union dues from employees’ paychecks. According to the policy, employees who wish to stop subsidizing the union have only a handful of days per year in which to do so; an “escape period” that effectively forbids the exercise of their First Amendment Janus rights for over 90 percent of the year.

AFSCME union officials never informed Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib of this restriction. Union officials also never told the women that they had a First Amendment right under Janus to abstain from dues deductions, or that union dues could only be taken from them if they waived that right.

The employees discovered their Janus rights independently. Each attempted to exercise those rights twice by sending letters to AFSCME union officials stating that they were ending their union memberships and terminating dues deductions. AFSCME union officials denied all three women’s requests, stating that union dues deductions would continue because the letters missed the narrow “escape period” imposed by the union.

“Plaintiffs did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waive their First Amendment rights…The restrictions on stopping government dues deductions…are unenforceable as against public policy because the restriction significantly impinges on employees’ First Amendment rights,” reads the complaint.

Employees Seek Return of All Dues Seized Without Consent

Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib’s lawsuit seeks to stop Lucas County JFS and AFSCME union officials from seizing dues from their paychecks, and also seeks a refund of all union dues taken from their wages without their consent.

“AFSCME union officials decided to keep lining their pockets with money from Ms. Wilson, Ms. Fannin, and Ms. Elkhatib, instead of respecting each woman’s clear exercise of her First Amendment Janus right to stop supporting unwanted union activities,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “America’s public workers should not have to file federal lawsuits to defend their Janus rights, which union officials should inform them about in the first place before taking dues.”

“After learning of their First Amendment and Janus rights, Mses. Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib all notified their employer and the union in writing that they resigned from the union and requested that membership dues deductions stop,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute. “But as unions have done in so many other cases, AFSCME Council 8 refused to stop membership dues deductions and relied on the dues checkoff authorization card that unions have employed to disregard workers’ clear wishes. It is time for unions to start respecting workers’ wishes, and for public employers to start informing employees of their constitutional rights and stop acting as the unions’ bagman.”

Foundation attorneys scored a significant victory for Ohio public servants’ Janus rights in a 2020 lawsuit against another Ohio AFSCME local (Council 11). Rather than face off against Foundation attorneys, those AFSCME union officials backed down and settled the case. As a result, Foundation attorneys freed almost 30,000 Ohio public employees from a “maintenance of membership” scheme that limited the exercise of Janus rights to roughly once every three years.