Salisbury, Maryland (October 16, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have filed unfair labor practice charges against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters/Graphic Communications Conference District Council 9 union for compelling nonmember employees to annually object to the payment of union dues unrelated to collective bargaining.

Four days after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the union agreed to a settlement that eliminated the Teamsters’ annual objector policy, Teamsters officials issued a letter to nonunion Standard Register employees in Salisbury, Maryland indicating they would still have to annually opt-out of and object to paying certain union fees each year.

District Council 9/Graphic Communications Conference union officials are the monopoly bargaining agents for companies across the Mid-Atlantic region. The Foundation’s unfair labor practice charges were filed on behalf of ten workers in Maryland and seven in Pennsylvania, many of whom fear that the union will reverse or ignore its earlier promise to end the annual objection policy.

Nonunion employees can be forced to pay union dues for workplace representation as a condition of employment, but under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck they cannot be legally required to pay for union activities unrelated to collective bargaining. As a result of previous Foundation unfair labor practice charges, the NLRB’s settlement eliminated a requirement forcing nonmember employees to annually renew their objections to excessive union dues. Despite this settlement agreement, Salisbury-area union officials maintained an annual objection policy designed to make it difficult for employees to exercise their Beck rights.

Although the NLRB issued its decision as a result of an unfair labor practice charge in Philadelphia, the settlement applied to the entire local. In that settlement, union officials agreed to remove their annual objector policy, as well as refund several nonmember employees for payments unrelated to collective bargaining.

“This is a scoff law union that has developed a disturbing reputation for pushing nonunion workers around,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The incident demonstrates the fundamental injustice of forced unionism. If union bosses were stripped of their special powers to force employees into unions and their forced dues ranks, this type of abuse couldn’t happen.”

Honolulu, Hawaii (October 6, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has decided to prosecute the UNITE HERE! Local 5 union in response to charges filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for two hotel industry workers.

Brenda Lee Orr, a nonunion employee of Turtle Bay Resort, alleges that union officials compelled her to pay dues for national organizing activities and a strike expense fund as a condition of employment. Grant Suzuki, a nonunion employee of Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resort and Spa, also alleges that UNITE HERE! Local 5 forced him to pay dues for national organizing and that union officials refused to provide him with a financial breakdown of union expenditures mandated by federal law. Government prosecutors determined that the union’s conduct violated employees’ rights, and will try the case before an administrative law judge.

Union officials can force nonmember employees to fund certain activities, but the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that union officials may not charge nonunion workers for activities unrelated to collective bargaining. The Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson also requires union officials to provide nonmember employees with an audited financial breakdown of union expenditures.

Although both employees refused formal union membership, UNITE HERE! bosses compelled Orr and Suzuki to fund organizing activities far removed from their places of employment. Union officials also forced Orr to pay into a general strike fund intended to support strikes across the country.

When Suzuki requested a financial breakdown of union expenditures to determine what mandatory fees he owed, union officials violated federal labor law by refusing to comply.

“Workers shouldn’t have to navigate a complex web of union rules and federal regulations to opt out of funding union activities,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The ultimate solution is for Hawaii to adopt a Right to Work law ensuring union membership and dues payment are completely voluntary.”

Washington, DC (October 3, 2008) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court case Locke v. Karass scheduled for argument on Monday, October 6.

“In previous cases argued by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, the Supreme Court has thus far ruled that union officials may force employees to pay union dues or be fired from their jobs. But they may not legally charge nonmembers for any activities beyond what union bosses can prove is spent on collective bargaining and contract administration.

“In their unquenchable thirst for more forced union dues, union bosses have developed a number of creative ways to stick nonmembers with the bill for union activism.

“The Supreme Court in Locke will directly address the question of whether non-union employees can be forced to pay for costly union lawsuits that do not concern their own place of employment. The answer should be ‘no’ based on existing Supreme Court precedent. Litigation is expressive activity, and forcing unwilling individuals to fund it violates their First Amendment rights. And lawsuits are often used to grease the rails for union organizing and ultimately more forced dues.

“Millions of workers laboring under forced unionism in America may be affected by the Court’s decision. While we are optimistic the Court will rule in our favor, the real remedy for the misuse of compulsory union dues is the elimination of Big Labor’s government-enabled special privileges that cause the problem in the first place. No worker should be forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union.”

Foundation attorneys filed the Locke case for Daniel Locke and 19 other Maine State employees in 2005 after the state legislature and governor repaid campaign debts by imposing a forced union dues requirement on the state government workforce. The employees’ lawsuit successfully forced Maine State Employee Association union officials to abandon their efforts to force nonmembers to subsidize their nationwide organizing efforts and reduce their forced dues demands of nonmembers, but the employees lost on the litigation funding question at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.