Employees Call for Union Officials to End Push for Coercive “Card Check” Unionization Drive at Hartford Marriott
**Hartford, CT (June 28, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a group of employees at the Hartford Marriott Downtown Hotel are seeking to intervene in a dispute between their employer and the UNITE HERE union to prevent union officials from short-circuiting the traditional government-supervised process for deciding whether to unionize.
The union hierarchy is waging a coordinated pressure campaign against Marriott to force union monopoly bargaining on all employees through the coercive “card check” unionization process rather than the less-abusive secret ballot election process supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Because of the prevalence of union intimidation tactics directed at employees, card check is known to severely curtail workers’ freedom of choice in deciding whether or not to unionize.
The motion, filed by the employees with the full NLRB in Washington, DC, makes it clear that they do not support UNITE HERE officials’ push for the coercive card check privileges. The motion reminds the agency that examining the situation without allowing employee input would turn labor law “on its head.” Specifically, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states that employees, not employers or union officials, solely have the right to choose whether or not to unionize.
As the Marriott employees detail in their motion, union organizers often bully or mislead workers into signing authorization cards during these card check drives which then are counted as “votes” in favor of unionization. Many workers report that union officials set up complex procedures making later rescission of such cards nearly impossible.
Under many so-called “neutrality agreements” between bullied employers and union officials that usually precipitate such card check drives, union officials are given unfettered access to workers on company property, and the home addresses and phone numbers of employees. Employees are then subjected to workplace harassment and menacing home visits from groups of union organizers. Also, such agreements usually include a gag rule preventing the employer from commenting on the potential impact of unionization.
But the Marriott employees make clear in the declarations being filed with their motion, that they want to be able to hear both arguments for and against unionization, and they do not want their employer to give UNITE HERE officials their personal information or to have union officials approach them while working. Additionally, they point out that UNITE HERE union officials “never asked employees of the Hotel if [they] want such a ‘neutrality agreement’….”
“UNITE HERE union officials have shown disdain for even the most minimal worker protections in their charge to corral workers into their forced dues-paying ranks,” said Stefan Gleason, National Right to Work Foundation Vice President. “Rather than building support for unionization from the ground up, union officials are trying to impose unionization on these employees from the top down – like it or not.”
*Read the Employees’ Motion to the NLRB*
*For more information on the abusive “card check” scheme, visit our Spotlight on Top Down Organizing*
Does Forced Unionism Also Threaten Bridge Safety?
The National Taxpayers Union’s blog (they’re a voluntary “union”) picks up on a Senate vote today to repeal Davis-Bacon wage mandates for bridges classified as “structurally deficient” or “functionally obsolete.”
Like “Project Labor Agreements,” Davis-Bacon effectively discriminates against nonunion workers and contractors, effectively blackballing them from working on government projects.
Not surprisingly, Big Labor’s allies in the Senate blocked the amendment that would have eliminated the onerous David-Bacon requirements… meaning that taxpayer dollars will continue to be diverted into bridge construction projects under union boss monopoly control.
The resulting featherbedding, extortionate work stoppages, and wasteful work rules will run up the costs. Meanwhile, union officials will rake in millions in forced union dues.
But that isn’t where the story ends. This map shows the Percentage of Bridges in each State that is classified as “Functionally Obsolete” or “Structurally Unsound” (the same classifications used in the blocked Senate Amendment):
It turns out that bridges in Right to Work States are far safer than those in states that allow union officials to force workers to pay union dues or be fired.
In fact bridges are 31% more likely to be functionally obsolete or structurally unsound in forced-unionism states (29.68% in Forced-Unionism States vs. 22.71% in Right to Work States).
“You have to scratch your head, and say ‘what’s going on?’ “
Those are the words of former United Farm Workers union activist Don Villarejo in today’s LA Times about the efforts of UFW officials to impose coercive “card check” organizing on California’s farm workers. Though the UFW union once highly prized secret ballot elections over whether to unionize, it is now pressing to making this highly abusive process the law of the land.
This is bad news for California’s farm workers. Earlier this year, the California Ag. Board ordered the UFW union to end its misrepresentations, illegal threats of firings, and unlawful dues demands against California Mushroom employees. The order, won by Right to Work attorneys, contradicted an earlier claim by a UFW official in the media that, “We give workers a clear choice and show them how to exercise their options.”
Attorneys from Right to Work also won over $105,000 in back pay for a large group of strawberry pickers that UFW officials ordered unlawfully fired from their jobs. The employees had refused to join the union and sign dues check-off authorizations permitting the union to collect full dues directly from their wages.
If UFW officials show similar disregard for workers’ rights under “card check” drives, California’s farm workers have reason to worry.
No Tea Party
The coercive “card check” union organizing scheme became the law of the land for public sector workers in Massachusetts yesterday.
Bay State employees will undoubtedly find out soon that this abuse ridden scheme is no tea party. See all the latest about the National Right to Work Foundation’s efforts to lessen the abuses suffered by workers under such drives here.
Puerto Rico Union Bosses Try to Dodge Consequences of Janus Lawsuit
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Worker still battling scofflaw union officials who tried to saddle him with restraining order
PRASA employee Reynaldo Cruz didn’t back down after UIA union officials tried to foist a specious restraining order on him. He isn’t backing down in the face of UIA union officials’ Janus violations either.
SAN JUAN, PR – When Reynaldo Cruz, an employee of the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), made a Facebook post referring to a chapter president of the Authentic Independent Union of Water and Sewer Authority Employees (UIA) as “lazy,” the chapter president tried to hit him with a restraining order.
“A UIA union official targeted me with a restraining order for daring to speak out against the union, which is my free speech right,” commented Cruz. “That’s ridiculous coming
from union officials who claim to ‘represent’ me and my coworkers.”
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in October 2023 defeated the UIA official’s specious argument that the court should issue a restraining order against Cruz because he
would have had to “stalk” him to know of his laziness. But Cruz’s battle against the UIA union is far from over.
District Court Refuses to Crack Down on Obvious Janus Violations
Cruz is currently challenging a decision by the District Court of Puerto Rico in his years-long case to reclaim dues money that UIA union officials took unconstitutionally from his paycheck.
The District Court made the puzzling move of dismissing Cruz’s suit as “moot” after UIA officials deposited money due to Cruz with the Clerk of the District Court of Puerto Rico. In his motion to alter and amend the judgment, Cruz argues that because the court has not decided any of his underlying claims or entered a judgment in his favor, he has no entitlement to and cannot seek or obtain that money. Cruz is also appealing the District Court’s dismissal of his suit to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, MA.
“Until the Court enters a declaratory judgment for Cruz, Cruz’s injury-in-fact will persist because Cruz has not received monetary relief and the Court has not entered judgment for Cruz entitling him to the UIA deposit,” Cruz’s motion reads.
Cruz argues in his suit that various provisions of the Puerto Rico Labor Relations Act, which UIA union bosses relied upon to take money from his paycheck, violate the First Amendment. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME case that public employees have a First Amendment right to opt-out of dues payments to
an unwanted union, and that public employees must waive this right before any dues are deducted from their paychecks.
Cruz’s Janus lawsuit began in 2017, after UIA officials responded to his request to end his union membership and stop dues payments by telling him that he could only cut ties with the union if he left his current job. In addition to naming the UIA, Cruz’s lawsuit also names the Governor of Puerto Rico in his official capacity as Cruz is also challenging the constitutionality of Puerto Rico’s laws authorizing mandatory dues and so-called “maintenance of membership” agreements.
The Janus case was decided as Cruz’s case was ongoing. The Justices definitively ruled that requiring public sector employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment violates their First Amendment free association rights.
The Puerto Rico District Court issued its ruling on October 17, 2023. In addition to not entering a judgment for Cruz deciding his entitlement to the unconstitutionally seized money, the Court also didn’t reach a conclusion on the constitutionality of the Puerto Rico law authorizing mandatory dues payment and membership, nor did it require the UIA union to abandon anti-Janus contract provisions.
Union Bosses Must Be Made to Comply with Janus
“The ruling in Mr. Cruz’s case poses serious issues for public employees across Puerto Rico and across the country,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “If allowed to stand, it creates a precedent in which workers get no relief when union bosses seize money unconstitutionally from their hard-earned pay, and in which laws that authorize such illegal dues deductions are allowed to stand despite Janus unambiguously prohibiting them.
“Foundation staff attorneys will continue to fight for Mr. Cruz until his rights are vindicated and he gets a judgment awarding him the money he is constitutionally entitled to,” Semmens added.
Somerset, NJ, Nissan Employees Overwhelmingly Vote Out UAW Union Bosses
Nearly 70% of distribution center employees voted against UAW, vote proceeded despite last-minute contract ratification by union officials and management
Somerset, NJ (April 30, 2024) – During a secret ballot election last week, workers at Nissan North America’s parts distribution center in Somerset, NJ, voted to oust United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials from power at their facility. The workers who participated in the April 24 union decertification election voted by nearly 70% to remove the union. Nissan employee Michael Oliver spearheaded the union removal effort with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Oliver kick-started the effort by filing a union decertification petition on April 1 with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Oliver’s petition contained support from enough of his coworkers to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
Because New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, UAW officials maintained contracts with Nissan management that require Oliver and his coworkers to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials in a unionized workplace are empowered by federal law to impose a union contract on all employees in the work unit, including those who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of both their forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers.
If union officials file no objections to the election by midnight on April 30, NLRB officials will certify the vote and Somerset Nissan employees will be officially free of the union.
UAW Union Officials Rushed New Contract in Likely Attempt to Prevent Removal Vote
After Oliver’s April 1 submission of the decertification petition, UAW union officials announced on April 18 that they had ratified a new union contract with Nissan management. The last contract had expired.
While the NLRB’s dubious “contract bar” generally allows union bosses to quash worker-filed decertification efforts for up to three years while a union contract is in effect, the contract bar didn’t stop Oliver and his coworkers’ requested election, because union officials weren’t able to reach a monopoly bargaining agreement with Nissan before Oliver filed his decertification petition. The contract bar does not appear in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is charged with enforcing, and is instead the product of union boss-friendly Board decisions.
Had union officials been able to ratify the contract just a few days earlier, the UAW likely would have succeeded in trapping the workers in union “representation” and forced-dues payments, despite a wide majority wanting to be free of the UAW.
Workers Across Country Growing Dissatisfied with UAW Agenda
Across the country, workers are choosing to affiliate with unions in record-low numbers, according to the most recent Gallup poll on the subject. In 2023, the UAW’s membership fell to its lowest level since 2009. Nonetheless, the UAW’s top bosses are engaged in a multi-million-dollar campaign to expand their influence across nonunion auto facilities, particularly in the South.
Workers are also increasingly attempting to exercise their right to vote out union officials they disapprove of. According to NLRB data, since 2020 decertification petition filings have gone up by over 40%. To resist this trend, the Biden NLRB is attempting to make it substantially more difficult for workers to decertify unions, and could soon issue a final rule invalidating the Election Protection Rule. The Election Protection Rule is a policy which contains multiple important safeguards regarding employees’ right to decertify unions they oppose.
“Mr. Oliver and his fellow Nissan employees are another example that workers who see the UAW up close and personal end up disliking the union’s so-called ‘representation,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“While these Nissan workers were able to get a vote to eliminate the UAW from their workplace, too often we hear from workers who are frustrated to learn they may have to wait years before even being able to seek a vote to remove unwanted union monopoly representation,” Mix added. “The vast scores of auto industry workers now within the crosshairs of the UAW’s sweeping organizing plan should remember that union officials often prioritize their own power over workers’ interests, and that biased NLRB standards like the ‘contract bar’ may make it very difficult to remove a union after it has been installed.”
Foundation Brief Exposes ILA Union Scheme to Destroy 270 Nonunion Port Jobs
Note: After this article was originally published, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Biden NLRB gutted union boycott prohibition under guise of ‘work preservation’
Despite employing hundreds of both union and nonunion employees and being a big boon to the Palmetto State’s economy, ILA union bosses want to shut down Charleston’s Leatherman Terminal until they gain a monopoly on jobs at the port.
CHARLESTON, SC – Charleston’s Hugh K. Leatherman shipping terminal represents the State of South Carolina’s roughly $1 billion investment to expand the state’s shipping sector. The terminal sports five massive ship-to-shore cranes, which rank among the tallest on the East Coast. Nonunion crane operators — state employees who have handled such work since Leatherman opened in 2021 and for years before that at other port facilities — work alongside unionized private sector employees to keep the port running.
But union bosses of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) think that the port should be effectively shut down until they get control over all jobs at the facility — even the crane jobs that the union’s members have never performed. They’ve backed up that coercive vision by suing any cargo carrier that docks at Leatherman until the union gains control of
all crane lift equipment jobs at the facility. In December 2022, the Biden National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) outrageously ruled 2-1 against a challenge by the South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA), holding that ILA union bosses’ secondary boycott scheme was lawful. Then the U.S. Court of Appeals, also by a 2-1 vote, affirmed that disastrous ruling.
Foundation Highlights Workers’ Plight After Disastrous Decision
As the U.S. Supreme Court now decides whether to hear the case, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a legal brief with the High Court highlighting how the Biden NLRB’s rejection of longstanding precedent will let 270 nonunion state employees at Leatherman be put out of work. That’s despite them having done nothing wrong when performing crane work exactly as they have for years.
“In short, the decisions below, if affirmed, will cause grievous harm to 270 non-union Ports Authority workers and their families,” the brief reads. “The Foundation submits this brief to provide a voice for the otherwise voiceless non-union Ports Authority workers, so the Court has a clear view of the stakes involved for the workers and their families if the decisions below stand.”
Job-Destroying ILA Union Gambit Breaks Federal Law
The brief states that the ILA union’s scheme, if allowed to continue, would require South Carolina to both fire the nonunion state employees of the port, and then turn control of crane jobs over to a private company with an ILA union contract. That’s because South Carolina protects its public sector employees by banning union monopoly bargaining.
If the union’s gambit succeeds, the devastating effects for current employees would go beyond just getting fired. The brief reveals that, even if terminated state workers were to seek new employment at Leatherman with the private company under the union’s control, the ILA would likely give hiring priority to its existing unionized workers above the former state workers under the union seniority provisions and hiring hall referral rules contained in the contract.
“Crane and lift operators who have spent years as non-union Ports Authority employees will likely find themselves at the bottom of any ILA hiring hall list behind the union’s 2,000 current members,” the brief notes.
Additionally, the brief points out that the ILA union’s scheme violates the prohibition on secondary boycotts in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is responsible for enforcing. Secondary boycotts involve union agents targeting a neutral employer (in this case, cargo carriers) in order to win a labor dispute that the neutral employer isn’t even party to.
Finally, the brief notes, by granting the ILA control over the jobs of state employees who have never chosen to affiliate with the ILA, the NLRB is undermining the NLRA’s fundamental premise of employee free choice — the rule that “the employees pick the union; the union does not pick the employees.”
Supreme Court Must Intervene to Defend Worker Rights
“ILA union officials have a well-earned reputation for valuing power over the well-being of workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “While pursuing monopolistic schemes like this that upend the livelihoods of innocent nonunion workers, union agents were also organizing deals in which mob-linked longshoremen from New York and New Jersey could get paid for 27 hours of ‘work’ per day.
“The ILA union’s gambit here should be deemed no less illegal than their interactions with mob members, and the Biden NLRB’s greenlighting such a scheme effectively invites other union bosses to try unlawful secondary boycotts that end with workers and businesses suffering needless harm,” Messenger added.
IUOE Union Bosses Hit With Federal Charge for Illegal Termination
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Longstanding law protects against mandatory dues deductions, formal union membership
Firestop inspector Alexandra Le isn’t going to let IUOE union bosses snuff out her livelihood over her refusal to join or support the union. She’s filed federal charges with Foundation aid.
PLEASANTON, CA – Sometimes, even the extraordinary power to demand payments from workers under threat of termination isn’t enough for union bosses, who frequently go beyond what is legal to coerce workers into membership and dues payment.
Alexandra Le, an employee of Construction Testing Services (CTS), found herself on the receiving end of such illegal demands from International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) officials in October. But Le is now fighting back, hitting IUOE bosses and her employer with federal charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 32 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
Union Misinformed Worker About Rights
Le’s charges state that IUOE bosses got her fired after she rebuffed their demands to formally join the union. Additionally, Le’s charges maintain that union officials unlawfully deducted union dues from her paycheck without her permission and failed to inform her of her right to pay reduced union dues as a non-member — a right secured by the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court victory.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Le and her coworkers can be forced to pay some fees to the union to keep their jobs, even if they’ve abstained from formal union membership. However, as per Beck, in non-Right to Work states, union officials can’t force nonmember employees to pay for union expenses (such as union politics) that go beyond what the union claims goes to bargaining.
Other Supreme Court precedents require union bosses to seek workers’ express consent before deducting dues directly from their paychecks.
In Right to Work states, all union financial support is voluntary and the choice of each individual worker.
Employee Demands Federal Injunction to Reverse Illegal Union-Ordered Firing
“It’s outrageous that IUOE union officials believe they can get me fired simply because I don’t agree with their organization and don’t want to support or affiliate with them,” Le said. “IUOE union officials have been far more concerned with consolidating power in the workplace and collecting dues than caring about me and my coworkers, and I hope the NLRB will hold them responsible for their illegal actions.”
Le’s charge against the IUOE union states that, after she refused to affiliate with the union, IUOE bosses “caused Charging Party to be removed from the work schedule by her Employer as of October 2nd.” The NLRB v. General Motors Corp. U.S. Supreme Court decision protects the right of workers to refuse formal union membership, even in a non-Right to Work state.
As a remedy, the charge asks the NLRB Regional Director in Oakland to “invoke its authority under Section 10(j)” of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which empowers the Board to seek an injunction from a federal court to stop IUOE and CTS management from committing the unfair labor practices.
Workers Need More Protections Against Union Boss Coercion
“Ms. Le’s case shows why Right to Work protections are important,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.
“Even if IUOE union officials had followed federal labor law in this case, Ms. Le would still be forced to contribute to the activities of an organization she clearly doesn’t want to be part of.
“As Ms. Le’s case demonstrates, union bosses often value workers merely as sources of dues revenue and will go to extraordinary lengths to keep the money flowing,” Messenger added. “Workers deserve more protections against union boss coercion, not fewer.”
Foundation Blasts Biden Plan to Sneak Union Monopoly Power into Agricultural Sector
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Comments expose DOL rule’s rigging of agricultural visa program to favor union organizers
Julie Su — “acting” secretary of the Biden Labor Department due to bipartisan opposition barring her from the agency’s top job — is overseeing an attempt to sneak union boss power into the agricultural sector against Congress’ will.
WASHINGTON, DC – Federal labor policy in the United States provides a smorgasbord of powers to union bosses in the private sector, not the least of which are the powers to impose one-size-fits-all contracts on dissenting workers in a unionized workplace, and to force workers to pay dues in non-Right to Work states.
Traditionally that hasn’t been the case in the agricultural sector, where each state has the freedom to make its own labor policy. But in November 2023, the Biden Department of Labor announced a rule which could upend this balance and effectively impose on temporary agricultural employees portions of federal labor law that are overwhelmingly favorable to union bosses. The National Right to Work Foundation promptly filed comments exposing the slated rule as a Big Labor power grab.
Biden Admin Defies Congress by Granting Union Bosses Power Over Farmworkers
The proposed rule would assist union bosses with imposing monopoly bargaining privileges over temporary agricultural workers in the United States, including workers who don’t support a union. Among other things, the rule requires that employers fork over employee contact information at union bosses’ request — regardless of whether the union has any employee support. The proposed rule would also cajole employers into entering into so-called “neutrality agreements” with union bosses. “Neutrality agreements” typically require employers to censor information about the union and provide other aid to union bosses in their efforts to collectivize workers.
The comments cite multiple reasons as to why the Department of Labor lacks the legal authority to implement the proposed rule, such as the fact that Congress expressly excluded agricultural workers from federal labor statutes.
According to the comments, the Biden Department of Labor admitted in its rulemaking announcement that it is trying to impose parts of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) on
the agricultural sector, despite Congress’ intent.
“The Department not only lacks Congressional authorization to take this action, it is defying express Congressional intent to not subject these types of employees to provisions of the NLRA,” the comments state.
Comments: Union Power Grab Won’t Help Workers
The comments also point out that the provisions in the Department of Labor’s rule are unrelated to the rule’s stated purpose of helping agricultural workers avoid exploitation, and rather resemble a list of proposals to empower union officials at workers’ expense.
“The Department fails to explain how allowing unions to access employees’ personal information, to bargain for neutrality agreements, and to prevent employees from accessing information for and against unionization helps to alleviate the concerns identified in the proposed regulations,” the comments argue.
“The Department should not adopt the proposed regulation,” the comments conclude.
The Department of Labor’s notice of rulemaking comes as the Biden Administration is making a full court press to expand union boss legal privileges across the country. That includes the Biden National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) plan to wipe out the Foundation-backed Election Protection Rule, which eased the process by which workers could obtain votes to remove unpopular unions from their workplaces. The Biden NLRB seeks to make it more difficult for American private sector workers to exercise their right to remove unwanted unions, while giving union officials more tools to gain power in a workplace without even a vote.
“Despite the Department of Labor’s claims, the true underhanded goal of this rule is clear: handing union bosses more power to corral workers into union ranks, while cutting back on workers’ privacy and rights to resist unwanted unionization,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“Temporary agricultural workers should not be used as pawns to expand union bosses’ sphere of control into the agricultural sector. But that’s exactly what the Biden Department of Labor is attempting in direct contradiction of the choice made by Congress not to subject such workers to federally imposed monopoly unionism.”