Washington, DC (December 17, 2009) – In five new cases before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), union lawyers are asking the NLRB to overturn a landmark 2007 decision which gave new protections to workers swept into union ranks through card check forced unionism.

In Dana Corporation, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys won new rights for employees intended to counteract the employee intimidation and harassment waged by aggressive union operatives that frequently occurs during controversial card check organizing campaigns.

The Dana decision granted employees the ability to file a decertification petition and demand a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer recognizes a monopoly bargaining agent by card check. This important (though modest) check gives workers some ability to stop union organizers from gaining monopoly control over a workplace without even the support of a majority of the employees.

The very Foundation attorneys who originally won the landmark Dana case are providing free legal assistance to Todd Fields, an ARAMARK Uniform and Career Apparel employee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Mike Lopez, an employee of Lamons Gasket Company in Houston, Texas, in two of the five cases before the NLRB. These two cases seeking to overturn Dana were pressed by Service Workers United (SEIU) and United Steelworkers union lawyers.

In each of these cases, more than 30 percent of the employees at each employer asked for a secret ballot election to decertify the newly installed union, and union lawyers asked for the election petitions to be dismissed. Union lawyers argue that giving the employees a secret ballot election is a “radical departure” from established law.

“The fact that many employees corralled into a union through the card check scheme have almost immediately thrown the union back out through a private ballot vote demonstrates card check’s unreliable and coercive nature,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Because the Dana election process inherently undermines Big Labor’s case to permanently end secret ballot elections, union lawyers are determined to undo this modest check on union intimidation.”

In the Dana ruling, the NLRB majority pointed out, “card checks are less reliable because they lack secrecy and procedural safeguards… union card-solicitation campaigns have been accompanied by misinformation… workers sometimes sign union authorization cards…to get the person off their back.”

Denver, CO (December 23, 2009) – After years of litigation, the 10th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals has upheld a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling ending a discriminatory Teamster union workplace policy. Kirk Rammage, the victim of union officials’ discriminatory policies, received free assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation during his extended legal battle.

Rammage, an Interstate Bakeries employee of Ponca City, Oklahoma, was involved in the consolidation of two separate corporate divisions in 2005. Part of one division was staffed by a single nonunion sales representative – Rammage – who had put in more time with Interstate Bakeries than any of his coworkers at the office where he worked. Company officials wanted to ensure he retained his seniority during the merger, but union officials from Teamster Local 523 insisted that union members receive preferential treatment, discriminating against Rammage despite his workplace tenure.

After reviewing the facts of the case, the NLRB concluded that the union hierarchy had broken the law by treating employees differently based on their union membership status. However, union officials did not comply with the NLRB’s decision and refused to allow the employer to reinstate Rammage’s seniority.

Teamster lawyers subsequently challenged the NLRB’s decision at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that union officials may discriminate against nonunion workers’ seniority rights when they are merged with unionized employees. However, the 10th Circuit ruled that the union’s conduct violates the National Labor Relations Act, which requires union officials to treat all workers equally, regardless of union membership.

“Union bosses despise those who choose not to unionize, so they try to make an example out of them,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, this type of abuse will continue until Big Labor’s government-granted special privileges are eliminated.”

Today, the Supreme Court announced its decision not to hear Jeffrey Reed v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, a case brought by Foundation attorneys that challenged a discriminatory United Auto Workers (UAW) forced unionism policy.

In response to the Court’s failure to take up the case, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement:

"It’s deeply disappointing that the Supreme Court will not address a discriminatory UAW policy that forces employees who object to union activities on religious grounds to pay more union dues than secular objectors or union members. The Right to Work Foundation will continue to work towards safeguarding the rights of all employees of faith to get or keep a job without compromising their deeply-held religious convictions.

"While we will continue to press this issue in the courts, the only sure way to end this type of injustice once and for all is by ending forced unionism and stripping union officials of their special powers to impose monopoly bargaining and forced dues on any employee."

Here’s an update on the case of Sean Beightol, a veteran Miami chemistry teacher denied access to private counsel at a school disciplinary hearing.

Although union members are allowed to consult with advisers from the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) union during similar proceedings, school administrators prevented Beightol from bringing an adviser from his voluntary teacher association to the meeting, a clear-cut case of workplace discrimination against nonunion teachers.

Foundation attorneys responded by filing charges on Beightol’s behalf with the Florida Public Employee Relations Commission, which issued an official complaint last week against the union and the local Miami-Dade school district. The complaints against the union and the school district can be found here and here; the Employee Relations Commission will now investigate the matter to determine school and union officials’ culpability.

To paraphrase our press release on the charges, the discriminatory work rule Beightol challenged is nothing more than a tool to discourage teachers from leaving the union and enrolling in a voluntary teachers association.

A victory for Beightol would end this discriminatory practice and stop union officials from undermining Florida’s popular Right to Work law.

New Obama Administration Contracting Policy "Nothing More Than Payback" to Big Labor

So-called "project labor agreements" discriminate against the 85 percent of construction workers who have opted against unionization

Washington, DC (April 13, 2010) – Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a policy initiated by President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13502, encouraging federal agencies to discriminate against nonunion workers and employers by adopting so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on all federal construction projects costing the taxpayers over $25 million. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, released the following statement about the policy.

“The Obama Administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize. Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: to impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top-down.

“Rather than encouraging a competitive and open bidding process to ensure the American taxpayers get the best deal, the White House favors using federal contracts to reward Big Labor’s political machine. The policy is nothing more than payback for the billion dollars the union bosses spent electing Barack Obama and other forced-unionism proponents in the last election cycle.”

Click here to read more.

Jackson, MI (April 8, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four local workers have agreed to a settlement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 164 union after union officials obstructed their attempts to opt-out of certain union dues.

Michael Vetrovec, Robert Harris, Ken Low, and Larry Kunk are employed by Perfection Associates L.L.C. in Jackson, Michigan. All four workers objected to Teamster membership and attempted to opt-out of paying full union dues last summer.

Because Michigan lacks a Right to Work law, employees can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communication Workers v. Beck guarantees the right of workers to opt-out of forced dues intended for purposes other than workplace bargaining, such as lobbying, political activism, and members-only activities.

Despite this precedent, Teamsters officials initially refused to stop collecting dues earmarked for non-bargaining activities from Vetrovec, Harris, Low and Kunk. Union officials also failed to provide all four workers with an independently audited breakdown of union expenditures, which is required by law to ensure that employees are not forced to pay for objectionable activities.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, the workers filed federal unfair labor practice charges last October with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Instead of contesting the charges, Teamsters officials recently agreed to a settlement that refunds dues collected for non-bargaining activities from all four employees since July 2009. The union also agreed to post public notices informing employees of their rights to resign from union membership and opt-out of dues unrelated to workplace bargaining.

“We’re pleased to hear that Teamsters bosses will refund money seized from four independent-minded workers who have no interest in subsidizing political and members-only union activities, but this type of abuse will continue as long as employees can be forced to pay union dues just to keep a job,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to really protect workers is for Michigan to adopt a Right to Work law, making union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary.”

Washington, DC (April 13, 2010) – Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a policy initiated by President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13502, encouraging federal agencies to discriminate against nonunion workers and employers by adopting so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on all federal construction projects costing the taxpayers over $25 million. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, released the following statement about the policy.

“The Obama Administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize. Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: to impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top-down.

“Rather than encouraging a competitive and open bidding process to ensure the American taxpayers get the best deal, the White House favors using federal contracts to reward Big Labor’s political machine. The policy is nothing more than payback for the billion dollars the union bosses spent electing Barack Obama and other forced-unionism proponents in the last election cycle.”

The National Right to Work Foundation filed formal comments with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council last summer opposing the proposed rule. The Foundation argued that the directive is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, and that imposing discriminatory PLAs on federal contractors violates workers’ rights, passes along higher costs to taxpayers, and serves no purpose other than to enrich Big Labor’s coffers.

Some of the typical conditions demanded by unions in PLAs include monopoly bargaining, forced dues and fees for all “represented” workers, exclusive union hiring halls, and inflexible union work rules which strictly separate job functions into exclusive union jurisdictions based on craft.

One other particularly egregious feature of many PLAs requires contractors to make contributions to union pension plans. Nonunion employees will receive no retirement benefits for their work on a project because union pension plans have vesting periods that last longer than most projects. Nonmembers thus end up subsidizing the pensions of longtime union members.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Department of Labor, only 15 percent of construction workers in the United States are unionized.

Chicago, IL (April 22, 2010) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a group of home-based personal care providers today filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Governor Pat Quinn and union officials for their efforts to force Illinois personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.

The suit stems from an executive order issued by disgraced former-Governor Rod Blagojevich shortly after his election, later codified, in which over 20,000 personal care providers who care for individuals with disabilities were designated as “public employees” of the state of Illinois for the purpose of granting Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses monopoly “representation” and forced dues privileges over them.

Following the Rod Blagojevich blueprint of forced unionism, Quinn signed an executive order last June that made an additional 4,500 home-based personal care providers susceptible to unwanted union boss bargaining and political “representation.” Not coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses’ political endorsement and support during his recent closely-contested primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for Governor.

The additional 4,500 home-care providers who are not yet under union control soundly rejected union membership by a two-to-one margin in a mail-in vote. However, per Quinn’s executive order, the home-care providers may again be subject to out-of-state SEIU and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union organizers making “home visits” attempting to organize the home-care providers through coercive “card check” unionization tactics.

Pam Harris, Gordon Stiefel, and several other home-care providers — with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation — filed the federal suit on behalf of all of Illinois’s providers unionized by Blagojevich and on behalf of home-care providers threatened by forced unionism as a result of Quinn’s executive order.

“My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son,” said Harris, who provides personal care for her adult son and is the lead plaintiff in the suit. “Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with.”

The class-action suit challenges the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.

“This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In effect Governor Quinn is picking the lobbyists of Illinois’s personal care providers, all in exchange for the union bosses’ support and political contributions.”

A copy of the complaint can be downloaded (pdf) by clicking here.

Delta Employees File Motion to Join Legal Challenge to Controversial Transportation Unionization Rule

Former union officials on National Mediation Board created new policy stacking the deck in favor of forced unionization of railway and airline employees

Washington, DC (May 20, 2010) – Acting for three flight attendants and two customer service representatives at Delta Air Lines, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn a dramatic rule change on how a union is imposed on railway and airline industry workers.

Airline employers have filed a federal lawsuit against the National Mediation Board (NMB), the federal agency tasked with administration of labor relations within the railroad and airline industries, attacking its controversial rule change that overturns 75 years of precedent. The new procedure stacks the deck in favor of unionization by granting a union monopoly bargaining power over workers if the union “wins” an election, no matter how few eligible workers actually vote. This means that a small bloc of workers could force union boss “representation” on the whole group rather than having a true majority of all workers deciding for themselves.

Foundation attorneys argue that the new rule is unconstitutional because it violates the workers’ rights of freedom of association and due process, especially when the union can only demonstrate support from a minority of workers in the class or craft.

Read the full release by clicking here.

Government Union Bosses Face Federal Suit for Illegal Forced Dues Scheme

Right to Work Foundation attorneys challenge union hierarchy for violating employees’ constitutional rights

Philadelphia, PA (May 21, 2010) – Eight public employees have filed a federal lawsuit against a local union and the Borough of Ephrata for illegally confiscating union dues payments from their paychecks without following federal requirements.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, providing the eight employees with free legal aid, filed the suit today in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The borough employees, who have exercised their right to refrain from formal union membership with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1600 union, are asking the court to protect their Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). The Court ruled in Abood that nonmember public employees can be forced to pay some union dues, but not the part used to pay for union politics and other union activities.

IBEW Local 1600 union officials are compelling the employees into paying a whopping 99.51 percent of full union membership dues.

Click here to read the whole release.