New Flyer Employee Slams CWA Union with Federal Charges, Claims Union Lied to Employees to Attain “Majority Status”
Following suspect ‘card check,’ union bosses seek to invalidate worker-backed petition for secret ballot vote to oust union
Shepherdsville, KY (August 9, 2023) – An employee of bus manufacturer New Flyer has filed federal charges against his employer and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union, maintaining that CWA officials illegally imposed union control over him and his coworkers despite the union lacking a demonstrated majority support among the workers. The employee, Gregory Mabrey, filed his charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 9 in Cincinnati with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Mabrey’s charges explain that CWA union officials gained power in his workplace through a process called “card check,” which bypasses the NLRB’s standard secret ballot election process for installing a union. Under card check, employees are denied the right to vote in private on whether they want the union in the workplace, and union officials can instead claim majority status by demanding union authorization cards directly from workers.
The card check scheme’s lack of privacy exposes workers to a variety of coercive behaviors from union officials who are seeking to collect cards from a majority of employees in a work unit. Workers often report being told signing the card only requests “more information” about the union or serves some other purpose, even though the card will be equivalent to a “vote” in favor of union representation. Workers have also experienced threats and unwanted home visits during card check campaigns.
Cards Union Bosses Used to Support “Majority Status” Claims Had Multiple Problems
Mabrey’s unfair labor practice charges report that his employer, New Flyer, recognized the CWA union despite multiple flaws with the union’s card check claim of majority status. The charges state that union officials “misrepresent[ed] to employees that the cards were for a single, restricted purpose other than to designate the Union as their representative,” and that “the Employer and CWA relied on authorization cards that employees revoked or cancelled prior to the date of recognition.”
To make matters even worse, the charges also point out that “the card check was based on a unit of employees that was smaller than the Employer-recognized bargaining unit.” This means that, even if CWA bosses hadn’t made misrepresentations or relied on cards that workers had actually revoked, the number of cards they submitted to support their claim of majority status may have been too small, even under the coercive card check regime.
Mabrey’s charges seek an NLRB prosecution of the union and employer for their respective roles in illegally granting CWA union officials monopoly bargaining powers over his coworkers.
NLRB Blocks Workers’ Attempt to Vote Out the Union, Even Amid Deception
Mabrey’s charges come as another New Flyer employee, Megan Sowder, is pressing for the NLRB to accept an employee-backed petition she submitted to the NLRB in June that asks for a secret ballot vote to remove the CWA union. Sowder sought to take advantage of a Foundation-backed reform the NLRB adopted in 2020, which gives workers a 45-day window to file for a secret ballot election after an employer notifies employees that it has recognized a union pursuant to a card check.
Filing for a secret ballot vote in this way counters the NLRB’s so-called “voluntary recognition bar,” which normally locks workers under union power for up to a year or more after a card check recognition.
However, as the Request for Review filed by Sowder’s Foundation staff attorneys points out, NLRB Region 9 wrongly dismissed Sowder’s petition. Although Sowder submitted the requisite number of signatures twice to support her petition for a decertification election (30% or more is required to trigger a vote), NLRB Region 9 dubiously claims that Sowder collected the signatures “too early” and that an arbitration meeting that modifies the unit also nullifies the petition. NLRB Region 9 even claims that it never received all the signatures, despite Sowder’s evidence of faxing them directly to NLRB Region 9.
“The Region’s error has caused severe prejudice to Sowder and the bargaining unit employees’ rights under [the National Labor Relations Act], and review should be granted to correct that error,” Sowder’s Request for Review to the full National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., states.
Biden NLRB Plans to Eliminate Workers’ Ability to Challenge “Card Check” Drives
The New Flyer employees’ cases come as the Biden NLRB is poised to issue a final rule as soon as this month to overturn the 2020 Foundation-backed reforms that allow workers to challenge the imposition of union monopoly bargaining power via card check with a secret ballot election. Foundation attorneys filed comments opposing the Biden NLRB’s proposed rule to nix these provisions.
“This situation demonstrates exactly how rank-and-file workers’ rights will be further trampled if the Biden NLRB moves forward with its attempt to expand union bosses’ card check power and simultaneously restrict workers’ statutory right to hold decertificiation votes to remove unwanted unions,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Even absent the misrepresentations CWA union bosses made to foist union so-called ‘representation’ on workers, such card check drives are inherently prone to union pressure tactics that would be grounds for invalidating an NLRB-supervised vote.”
“Meanwhile, despite a lack of evidence of true majority support, the NLRB has improperly denied two submissions of valid employee signatures from workers simply asking for a vote to challenge the invalid card check recognition,” added Mix. “It is not too late for the Biden Board to stop its rulemaking to eliminate the Election Protection Rule, and give rank-and-file workers some hope that their statutory right to decertify a union they oppose will not be steamrolled by the NLRB’s desire to protect incumbent union power.”
It’s Official: Oregon Masami Foods Workers’ Vote to Oust UFCW Union Officials is Certified
Despite union legal tactics delaying the certification of an NLRB decertification election, Masami Foods workers are free of unwanted union
Klamath Falls, OR (August 3, 2023) – A vote by workers at Masami Foods in Klamath Falls to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 555 union officials’ forced representation powers has been certified. A petition filed by employee Scott Child with the National Labor Relations Board Region 19 (NLRB) led to this successful vote. Child received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Child and his coworkers at Masami Foods filed for a decertification vote on March 2, 2023. Under federal labor law, workers can trigger such a decertification vote with the support of at least 30% of workers in a unionized workplace. The NLRB then scheduled a vote for May 11, 2023.
On May 11, Masami employees made their position on the union clear, voting 54-25 to remove the union from their workplace. However, UFCW union officials had previously filed a number of “blocking charges,” presumably to delay the NLRB’s certification of the results. As a result of these blocking charges, the vote certification was delayed until August 1, 2023, when the NLRB Regional Director certified the election results.
The case is an example of how the NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to union boss-created roadblocks. Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials. However, the Biden NLRB is attempting to roll back these protections and make it much harder to decertify a union.
For example, the 2020 reforms blocked union officials from resubmitting overlapping charges, which often contain unverified and unrelated allegations of employer actions and delay the process further. Had these reforms not been in place, the three-month delay for these workers could have been extended much longer, possibly effectively indefinitely.
The Masami Foods decertification is another example of a growing movement among workers to remove incumbent unions from their workplace. Currently, the NLRB’s data shows a unionized private sector worker is far more likely to be involved in a decertification effort as their nonunion counterpart is to be involved in a unionization campaign. NLRB statistics also show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021.
“We are honored to have been able to help the Masami Foods workers exercise their rights under federal law to remove a union they clearly, overwhelmingly, oppose,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “While the outcome is favorable, the union-instigated delays in certifying the results of the decertification vote highlight the lengths UFCW officials are willing to go to in order to maintain control over workers, even those who clearly want nothing to do with them.”
“The blocking charge tactics used by UFCW union officials in this case demonstrate how wrong it would be if and when the Biden NLRB reverses the Election Protection Rules that cut back on such ‘blocking charge’ abuses,” continued Mix. “Without those modest 2020 reforms, these workers would almost certainly still be trapped in union ranks they oppose with no end in sight.”
Full Foundation Action May/June 2023 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the May/June issue issue of Foundation Action are now on the website.
In this issue:
- Foundation Blasts Biden NLRB’s Proposed Rule to Trap Workers in Unions
- Disney Worker Hits UNITE HERE Union with Federal Charge for Illegal Dues Seizures
- Teen Supermarket Cashier Fired for Refusing to Join and Fund UFCW Union
- Foundation Slams Biden Labor Board’s Biased Ruling in Federal Appeals Court
- Busted: Kroger Worker’s Card Illegally Altered to ‘Authorize’ Forced Dues
- Foundation: Texas Taxpayers Shouldn’t Be Forced to Fund Union Activities
- Fight for Worker Freedom with an IRA Gift
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
Foundation: Texas Taxpayers Shouldn’t Be Forced to Fund Union Activities
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief says Janus explains why Texas Supreme Court must invalidate ‘official time’ scam
Don’t Mess with Taxes: The Foundation urged the Texas Supreme Court (above) in recent legal briefs to quash the City of Austin’s scheme funneling taxpayer money to union ideological activities.
AUSTIN, TX – Union officials spend billions of dollars to influence the political system every election cycle. This is why they are so desperate for forced-dues power — it gives them a guaranteed stream of revenue to sustain their agendas, regardless of whether workers support the union hierarchy’s aims.
But workers are increasingly taking advantage of their rights under Right to Work laws and the landmark National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision to refrain from financially supporting union bosses of whom they do not approve.
Union bosses in Austin, TX, have apparently worked around this dilemma by shifting the burden for funding the union agenda to taxpayers. Through a so-called “official time” scheme, City of Austin employees who are union officials receive compensation from the public purse for conducting union business on the clock.
‘Official Time’ Boosts Inherently Political Government Union Agenda
Foundation attorneys recently filed a brief in the Texas Supreme Court case Roger Borgelt v. City of Austin, arguing that the Foundation-won Janus decision definitively shows why Austin’s scheme violates the Texas Constitution’s prohibitions against payouts of public funds to serve private interests (known as the “Gift Clauses”). The High Court ruled in Janus that forcing public sector workers to fund any union activities as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment, and that union dues can only be deducted from a public sector worker’s paycheck with his or her freely given consent.
An “official time” scheme, which instead forces taxpayers into funding those same union activities, “conflicts with the Supreme Court’s reasons for holding in Janus that it violates the First Amendment to require public employees to subsidize union activities,” says the Foundation’s brief.
The Foundation points out in its brief the Court’s Janus holding that all public sector union undertakings “constitute speech and petitioning on matters of political…concern,” and that by funneling taxpayer money into such speech “the City is effectively paying individuals to lobby the City for a private advocacy organization and its members.”
“The notion that this political advocacy predominantly serves a public purpose, as opposed to predominantly benefiting the private organization, is untenable,” the brief reads.
The brief also refutes an assertion from a lower Texas court that “official time” payments made by the city are actually part of union officials’ compensation for their normal job duties. This defies Janus’ reasoning that public employees who are also union officials “do not act as government agents pursuing their official job duties when they act as union officials.”
“For example, in granting paid leave to employee Bob Nicks to act as the Union’s president, the City is not paying Mr. Nicks for his services as a firefighter or as a public servant,” the brief explains. “The City is paying Mr. Nicks for his services as an agent of a private organization.”
The brief also reveals the disturbing implications of the union-backed argument that taxpayer subsidies for “official time” are needed to maintain harmonious relations between the city and the union: “If respondents contend that Union officials would disrupt City services if they did not receive [‘official time’], that would make the benefit akin to the City paying protection money” to union officials, reads the brief.
Union Bosses Should Not Get Public Funds to Pursue Union Interests
“The Texas Supreme Court should recognize that union officials are not entitled to a slice of taxpayer funds to ‘bargain’ against public interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “Texas’ Gift Clauses forbid the payout of public funds for activities that don’t have a tangible public benefit, and it’s hard to think of an arrangement that violates the Clauses more plainly than letting union bosses pursue private union business on the taxpayer dime.”
“Although Janus now protects public employees around the country from being forced to fund union activities and speech against their will, unfortunately many states and municipalities across the country permit union bosses to subsidize those same inherently political activities using direct payment of tax dollars,” LaJeunesse added.
“If union bosses cannot convince rank-and-file workers to voluntarily fund such activities as Janus requires, they should re-examine their priorities, not seek to force taxpayers to pay for what public employees will not.”
Busted: Kroger Worker’s Card Illegally Altered to ‘Authorize’ Forced Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Employee’s UFCW union card indicating objection to financial support changed without her knowledge
Jessica Haefner clearly exercised her rights under Texas’ Right to Work law. Foundation attorneys will get to the bottom of who faked her consent to dues deductions and restore her rights.
HOUSTON, TX – Supermarket clerk Jessica Haefner began her job at a suburban Houston Kroger store in August 2022. She attended a mandatory meeting for new employees run by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) local union agents. Despite the union’s hard-sell at the meeting, she knew her rights under Texas’ Right to Work law: Union bosses couldn’t force her to pay any dues or fees to the union to keep her job.
During the meeting, Haefner followed a union representative’s instructions to indicate on a union form that she did not want to be a part of the union or pay dues or fees. But she was shocked to discover just weeks later not only that union dues were coming out of her paycheck, but also that the union form she was required to sign had been altered to indicate she consented to those deductions.
Haefner, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, slammed UFCW officials and Kroger with federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The charges state that UFCW bosses’ and Kroger’s actions violate her rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees American private sector workers’ right to abstain from any and all union activities.
“I was lied to . . . and my rights were not only violated as an employee but as an American citizen,” said Haefner.
Employee’s Dues Form Was Altered, Forced Dues Deductions Began
According to Haefner’s charges, a UFCW agent passed out a union membership application and a dues checkoff on a single form that he claimed was mandatory for meeting attendees to complete. Another piece of onboarding literature stated that Kroger management had the “opinion that you should participate and be active in the Union.”
When Haefner asked how she could exercise her right to refrain from joining the union or paying union dues, the union agent instructed Haefner to write “$0” in the field marked “union dues” on the form.
Haefner followed these instructions. But after discovering later that union dues were indeed coming out of her paycheck, Haefner quickly obtained a copy of the form on which Kroger and UFCW officials based their dues deductions. She saw that someone had changed the dues deduction amount in the field she marked “$0” to a dollar amount to induce dues deductions from her paycheck.
UFCW Chiefs Illegally Seizing Dues from Grocery Workers Across Country
UFCW’s violation of Haefner’s rights is not an isolated incident. In Pennsylvania, Foundation staff attorneys are also representing Giant Eagle supermarket cashier Josiah Leonatti, who charges UFCW Local 1776KS union officials with refusing to accommodate his religious objections to union membership (see page 3). King Soopers grocery employees from Colorado are also receiving free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys in opposing illegal UFCW strike fines, some of which are as high as about $4,000 per worker.
“Jessica Haefner knew her rights under Texas’ popular Right to Work law and actively asserted them, yet UFCW union officials still brazenly took her money against her will,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“As cases brought for workers with free Foundation legal aid show, UFCW bosses have a long and documented history of violating workers’ rights, whether through thousands of dollars in illegal strike fines, illegal religious discrimination, threatening teenagers’ jobs, and now by altering a worker’s dues authorization,” Mix added.
Employee Advocate Blasts Fourth Circuit Decision Giving ILA Union Power to Force Out Nonunion Workers at Charleston’s Leatherman Terminal
National Right to Work Foundation offers free legal aid to union-free workers whose jobs are threatened as the result of Biden NLRB ruling
Washington, DC (July 28, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation today blasted the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 decision in South Carolina Ports Authority v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The decision upheld an NLRB reversal of an Administrative Law Judge’s ruling that the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) union’s actions violated federal law.
By embracing the Biden NLRB’s nearly limitless definition of “work preservation,” the Court of Appeals decision has greenlighted the ILA union’s scheme to sue any carrier that attempts to utilize Charleston, SC’s Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal until the union gains control of every job at the port.
Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement criticizing the ruling:
“By accepting the NLRB’s contorted definition of ‘work preservation’ to allow ILA union officials to gain control over port jobs that have never been under union control, the 2-1 Fourth Circuit decision has put the jobs of hundreds of union-free South Carolina state employees at Charleston’s Leatherman Terminal on the chopping block. It is outrageous that these jobs, created with the investment of over $1 billion in South Carolina taxpayer dollars, will now be handed over to ILA union bosses to protect their monopoly on port jobs that stretches from Texas to Maine.
“The South Carolina state port workers at Leatherman Terminal, whose jobs are under attack because of this decision, should reach out to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid so they can explore their full legal options to defend their jobs and work opportunities.”
Union’s Aggressive Pursuit of Monopoly Power Will Lead to Hundreds Losing Their Jobs
In South Carolina Ports Authority v. NLRB, the Port Authority is challenging the Biden NLRB’s ruling (now affirmed by the Fourth Circuit’s split decision) that approved the ILA’s gambit to gain control of the Leatherman Terminal’s crane lift equipment jobs. That work is currently performed by state employees free from the union’s control, and those state employees have performed this work for the Port Authority for many years.
The Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that provides free legal aid to employees facing compulsory unionism abuses, submitted a legal brief in the case in April, noting that “the inevitable result of the National Labor Relations Board’s erroneous 2-1 decision will be devastating to Charleston, South Carolina port workers who have chosen to work as non-union employees for the State of South Carolina or its Port Authority.”
The brief spelled out the consequences of the ILA union’s maneuver for Leatherman’s 270 state employees, who are protected by state law from monopoly union control. It explains that South Carolina spent over $1 billion to develop the terminal, but because of the ILA’s aggressive attempts to enforce its alleged monopoly at the port, “the only way for South Carolina’s $1 billion Leatherman Terminal to be usable would be for the State to turn the facility over to a private employer with an ILA contract and discharge the 270 State employees.”
The devastating effects for current employees wouldn’t stop there if the ILA is victorious in the case, the brief argued. The brief pointed out that, even if fired state workers were to seek new employment at Leatherman with a private contractor under the union’s control, the ILA would prioritize those workers far below existing union members because of union seniority provisions and hiring hall referral rules.
As the brief noted, the ILA union has an extensive history of exploitation. The New York Daily News reported in 2022 that ILA chiefs negotiated deals by which mob-linked longshoremen in the New York/New Jersey area could get paid for 27 hours of “work” per day. The ILA hierarchy organized such arrangements while trying to shut down ports like Leatherman which allow both unionized and union-free workers to work side-by-side.
Salt Lake City-Area Starbucks Workers Latest Seeking Vote to Remove SBWU
Utah Starbucks workers join other stores by filing decertification petition to remove “Workers United”
Cottonwood Heights, UT (July 27, 2023) – Employees at the Cottonwood Heights Starbucks in Utah have just submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asking the federal agency to hold a vote to end the Chicago and Midwest Joint Regional Board Workers United/SEIU, also known as Starbucks Workers United (SBWU), officials’ monopoly “representation” powers at their workplace. Indya Fiessinger, who filed the petition on behalf of a group of her coworkers, is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
With the petition filed, the NLRB should now promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ power to impose a contract on the workers.
Utah is a Right to Work state meaning union payments must be voluntary and cannot be required as a condition of employment. However, under federal law, SBWU officials’ monopoly bargaining powers still allow them to impose a union contract on all employees at the store, even those who are not union members and who oppose SBWU’s so-called “representation.” A successful decertification vote would strip union officials of that extraordinary monopoly bargaining power.
The Cottonwood Heights Starbucks workers are the latest group of Starbucks workers seeking to exercise their right to vote out unwanted union officials. Foundation attorneys are currently assisting Starbucks employees who filed decertification petitions in Manhattan, NY, Buffalo, NY, Pittsburg, PA, and Bloomington, MN.
Federal labor law prevents workers from exercising their right to remove an unpopular union for at least one year after one is installed. In each instance, the decertification petition was filed shortly after the one-year period concluded. For example, the NLRB only certified SBWU officials as the monopoly bargaining “representative” in late June 2022 at the Cottonwood Heights location.
The growing movement among Starbucks partners to eject unwanted union officials from their stores is part of a larger trend. The NLRB’s own statistics also show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021. However, union officials still have many ways to manipulate federal labor law to prevent workers from voting them out, including by filing unrelated or unverified charges against management.
“We call on SBWU officials and the NLRB to respect the wishes of these workers who simply want a prompt decertification vote to decide whether or not they want the union in their workplace,” commented Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The right of workers to oust a union that lacks majority support is supposed to be fundamental to federal labor law, otherwise the NLRB is just protecting incumbent union bosses to the detriment of actual rank-and-file workers’ wishes.”
Seattle Mariners Retail Employees Vote Out UFCW Union, Defeat Union Boss Attempt to Block Election Using “Card Check”
UFCW Local 3000 swept out in “double header” as Mariners and Storyville Coffee workers both successfully remove unwanted union
Seattle, WA (July 26, 2023) – Seattle Mariners employees have successfully voted 50-9 to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 3000 union officials from power at the Mariners’ retail stores in T-Mobile Park and the Westlake area of Seattle. The news follows the National Labor Relations Board’s denial of a union attempt to overturn the election. The employees received free legal aid in their effort from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The Mariners’ retail workers filed a petition in April asking National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 19 to hold a vote on whether the union should be removed. The petition followed UFCW union officials’ imposition of union power over the retail shop employees via an October 2022 “card check” drive. “Card check” is a coercive and abuse-prone scheme in which union officials can bypass the secret ballot union election process, and instead attempt to obtain a majority of union authorization cards by demanding them directly from workers.
Over the objection of UFCW union officials, the NLRB Regional Director in May ordered a union decertification election at the request of the Seattle Mariners’ retail employees. Union bosses subsequently filed a Request for Review at the NLRB in Washington, D.C., seeking to halt the election. They argued that a so-called “voluntary recognition bar” should be imposed to block the Mariners’ employees from exercising their right to vote on the union’s removal. However, the NLRB denied the union’s Request for Review on July 25. After NLRB Region 19 certifies the 50-9 vote result, the Seattle Mariners’ retail employees will finally be free from the unwanted UFCW union.
Foundation-Backed Election Protection Rule Safeguards Employees’ Rights
The retail workers were able to challenge union officials’ card check drive thanks to the Election Protection Rule (EPR), a reform to the election rules enacted by the NLRB in 2020 following Foundation advocacy. While union officials pre-EPR were able to manipulate the so-called “voluntary recognition bar” to block employees from voting out a union for at least a year after an employer recognized a union’s supposed card check victory, the EPR granted employees a 45-day window in which to petition for a secret ballot election to challenge the card check result.
The NLRB Regional Director’s May decision noted that, even though the Mariners’ employees filed the petition outside the 45-day window, the “bar” following the card check recognition would still not apply because neither the union nor the employer had followed the proper procedure to ensure that the retail employees were informed of their right to challenge the card check drive. “There is thus no bar to an election in the instant matter,” the decision read.
The process by which workers can challenge card check drives by requesting secret ballot elections was originally established by Foundation attorneys in the Dana Corp. NLRB case. Though this decision was later overturned by the Obama NLRB, “Dana elections” were codified in the EPR.
Predictably, the wildly pro-Big Labor Biden NLRB has announced rulemaking to eliminate the Election Protection Rule, as well as rulemaking to impose harsh penalties on employers that challenge card check drives. Such changes would let unions seize power virtually automatically after a card check drive, with no opportunity for employees to have a secret ballot vote instead.
Seattle Storyville Coffee Employees Also Remove UFCW 3000 Union
Just hours after the NLRB denied UFCW Local 3000 officials’ Request for Review in the Seattle Mariners case, employees of Storyville Coffee Company in Seattle received word that UFCW Local 3000 officials had filed paperwork to end their control at the shop. Storyville employees, led by Paris Hunt, also petitioned for a union decertification vote with free Foundation legal aid. Apparently fearing another loss at the ballot box, UFCW Local 3000 officials pulled out as opposed to facing the will of the workers in an election.
“While the Seattle Mariners’ retail employees were able to shut down UFCW bosses’ scheme to force them under union control without even a vote, workers’ right to get a secret ballot vote is now under severe threat from the Biden NLRB, which is eager to empower the Administration’s union boss allies,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “NLRB officials should look to the Mariners’ employees as real-life examples of workers whose rights would be stripped away if the Election Protection Rule is done away with at Big Labor’s behest.”
“No worker should be trapped under the ‘representation’ of a union they oppose, and at the very least every employee should have a right to cast a private ballot before union bosses gain power in their workplace,” Mix added.
National Right to Work Foundation Files Brief Defending Law to Protect Teachers’ First Amendment Rights
Court of Appeals reviewing teacher union bosses’ lawsuit against Indiana law to ensure compliance with Foundation-won Janus 2018 Supreme Court precedent
Chicago, IL (July 24, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has just submitted a brief at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Anderson Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Rokita, defending an Indiana Law that protects teachers’ First Amendment rights against a lawsuit brought by teacher union bosses. The case is an appeal of a District Court judge’s preliminary injunction issued at the behest of union lawyers to stop the bill from going into effect.
At the District Court, the Anderson Federation of Teachers challenged Indiana’s State Enrolled Act 251 and 297. Those Acts require written consent from teachers, including an acknowledgement of their constitutional right to refrain from financially supporting a union, before taxpayer-funded government payroll systems can be used to deduct union dues from teachers’ paychecks.
The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that employees have a First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing union speech in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. That case was argued and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
In Janus, the Court ruled that forcing public sector workers to subsidize union activities as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. The Court also held that no union dues or fees can be taken from a public worker’s wages without a knowing and intelligent waiver of that employee’s First Amendment right not to pay, and that such a waiver “cannot be presumed.”
The brief filed by National Right to Work attorneys defends the Indiana law and urges the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the injunction, arguing the lower court ruling made three critical errors in justifying its ruling.
“It is outrageous that teacher union bosses in Indiana apparently believe they are entitled to use taxpayer-funded payroll systems to seize money directly from teachers’ paychecks – without the State taking steps to ensure that those teachers’ constitutional rights are protected,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Precedents in the Seventh Circuit and elsewhere make it clear that the injunction should be rejected, and this law should be allowed to take immediate effect.”
“It would be fully within the prerogative of Indiana lawmakers to ban union officials from deducting dues from government workers’ paychecks all together, or ban all monopoly bargaining to ensure individual teachers are not subjected to unwanted union so-called ‘representation,’” Mix continued. “If anything, Indiana teacher union bosses should count themselves lucky lawmakers have so far not been more proactive in protecting teachers’ First Amendment free speech and freedom of association rights.”
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Legal Notice to Yellow Trucking Employees as Teamsters Officials Threaten Strike
Are Top Teamster Bosses throwing Yellow drivers under the bus as part of their posturing for UPS strike threat?
Washington, DC (July 21, 2023) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice to employees of trucking company Yellow in light of news reports indicating that Teamsters union officials have issued a strike notice. The Foundation’s legal notice is available at the Foundation’s website here: www.nrtw.org/Yellow.
The Foundation is the nation’s premier organization dedicated to defending workers’ legal rights from forced unionism abuses. Rank-and-file workers who are interested in continuing to work and providing for their families during a strike often contact the Foundation for free legal aid to avoid strike discipline, or to resist intimidation often perpetrated by union officials.
The notice alerts workers that a strike could commence as soon Monday, July 24, and reminds workers that they should “learn about [their] legal rights from independent sources.”
“You should not rely on what self-interested union officials tell you,” the notice reads.
Employees Have Right to Rebuff Union Strike Orders
The legal notice informs Yellow workers who want to work during a strike that they should submit resignations prior to returning to work, because doing so is the best way to avoid vindictive union fines and often union discipline. “Your resignation letter must be postmarked the day before you return to work, or hand-delivered before you actually return to work,” the notice reads. Sample union membership resignation letters are available on the Foundation’s website.
The notice also informs employees of their other rights to disaffiliate from the Teamsters union, including how to stop funding unwanted union activities.
“If you work in a state with Right to Work protections, you have a right to cut off all payments of dues and fees to the union if you don’t support its activities,” the notice reads. “If you do not work in a state with Right to Work protections, you at least have a right to opt-out of dues payments for union politics, and may be able to avoid other union financial support.”
Foundation Attorneys Have Won Many Cases for Workers Against Illegal Strike Coercion
The Foundation frequently provides free legal assistance to workers who want to exercise their right to work during a union boss-ordered strike. During the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union’s strike against supermarket chain King Soopers in 2022, Foundation-assisted workers successfully forced union officials to back off of thousands of dollars in illegal strike fine demands.
Foundation staff attorneys also made headlines across the country in 2001, when they won a monetary settlement for UPS employee and former Dallas Cowboys linebacker Rod Carter, a victim of union violence during the 1997 Teamsters union officials’ nationwide strike against UPS.
“Many Yellow employees are likely questioning whether the hardline stance of Teamsters President Sean O’Brien and other Teamsters bosses is really in Yellow employees’ best interest,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “As O’Brien himself has acknowledged on social media, a strike could result in Yellow folding and a loss of work for 22,000 truckers – workers that Teamsters chiefs claim to ‘represent.’”
“More likely than not, O’Brien and the bosses atop the Teamsters union are playing such games with Yellow workers’ livelihoods in order to maintain a façade of strength for upcoming contract talks with UPS management,” Mix continued. “Yellow truckers who oppose such gamesmanship and would prefer to continue to do their jobs in defiance of Teamsters bosses’ orders should read the Foundation’s legal notice for a full explanation of their rights, and are welcome to seek free Foundation legal aid if they encounter any obstacles to exercising their right to work.”
