U.S. Supreme Court issues 5-4 decision that government workers cannot be forced to pay union fees

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger takes questions from reporters after arguing the Janus case on February 26, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 27, 2018) – In a major victory for First Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Janus v. AFSCME that non-union government workers cannot be required to pay union fees as a condition of working in public service. This landmark case restores the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association to more than 5 million public school teachers, first responders and other government workers across the country.

Mark Janus, plaintiff in the case and a child support specialist for state government in Illinois offered the following reaction: “I’m thrilled that the Supreme Court has restored not only my First Amendment rights, but the rights of millions of other government workers across the country. Across the country, so many of us have been forced to pay for political speech and policy positions with which we disagree, just so we can keep our jobs. This is a victory for all of us. The right to say ‘no’ to a union is just as important as the right to say ‘yes.’ Finally our rights have been restored.”

Janus filed his case in Illinois in 2015 with free legal aid from the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Jacob Huebert, Janus’ attorney from the Liberty Justice Center, responded to today’s ruling: “This is the biggest victory for workers’ rights in a generation. The First Amendment guarantees each of us, as individuals, the right to choose which groups we will and won’t support with our money. Today the Supreme Court recognized that no one should be forced to give up that right just to be allowed to work in government. The Court recognized that unions have the right to organize and to advocate for the policies they believe in – but they don’t have a special right to force people to pay for their lobbying. They have to play by the same rules as everyone else.”

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, offered the following comment:

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for rights of public-sector employees coast-to-coast that will free millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees from mandatory union payments. While this victory represents a massive step forward in the fight to protect American workers from forced unionism, that fight is far from over. Union officials and their allies in state government have already taken steps to prevent workers from exercising their rights under the Janus decision, while millions of private sector workers in states without Right to Work protections are still forced to pay union fees or else be fired. Further, workers of all stripes continue to have their freedoms of association violated by being forced under union monopoly ‘representation’ against their will. So while we celebrate today’s decision, there remains much work to do to both enforce and expand upon this historic victory over coercive unionism.”

Background: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME on Feb. 26, 2018. On the day of oral arguments, a large crowd of public school teachers, other government workers and supporters from across the country rallied outside the Supreme Court on Janus’ behalf, calling on the court to “Stand with Mark” and “Stand With Workers.”

Illinois is among 22 states that has required many government workers to pay union fees as a condition of employment. Plaintiff Mark Janus has worked for state government in Illinois as a child support specialist since 2007. Over the past decade, he was forced to pay thousands of dollars in union fees to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) – even though he opposes many of the union’s positions on public policy issues, felt he would be better off without the union’s so-called representation and was never asked if he wanted to be covered by a union contract. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in his favor, Janus will not be required to pay these union fees.

The fight over non-member union fees intensified in Illinois in 2015, when Gov. Bruce Rauner filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge in Chicago to declare non-member union fees unconstitutional. Lower courts ruled that the governor did not have standing to bring this suit because he personally was not required to pay union fees. That’s when state worker Mark Janus intervened in the lawsuit with the help of the Liberty Justice Center and National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The case was renamed Janus v. AFSCME, and Janus was successful in taking this fight all the way to the highest court in the nation.

More information about the case is available at www.nrtw.org/janus.

Frankfort, KY (November 15, 2018) – Today, the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the Commonwealth’s popular Right to Work statute, ending the spurious Big Labor-funded effort to resume the forcing of workers to pay union officials just to keep their job.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement in response to the decision:

“Although hardly a surprise, today’s ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court is great victory for Kentucky workers, as the Court rejected a desperate attempt by union bosses attempt to re-impose their power to have a worker fired for refusing to pay dues or fees to a union they oppose. The Commonwealth’s Right to Work law simply protects workers’ freedom to choose and ensures that union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary. It is no surprise that Right to Work in Kentucky has led to billions in economic investment and thousands of new jobs statewide and today’s decision means that, despite the wishes of Big Labor, Kentuckians will continue to reap the benefits that come with protecting workers’ rights.”

Unfair labor practice charge with federal labor board says Teamsters union illegally limited worker’s right to stop seizure of dues

Omaha, NE (November 15, 2018) – Dairy industry worker Idalberto Jimenez Destrade has filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against Teamsters Local Union 554 for the union officials’ scheme to block him from exercising his legal right to stop paying union dues after resigning his union membership. Destrade filed the charge at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Destrade works for Lala Branded Products in Omaha. He notified union officials in writing on September 21 that he resigned his Teamsters union membership and revoked authorization for further dues deductions.

Nebraska is one of 27 states with Right to Work laws that make union payments voluntary. Nebraska adopted Right to Work provisions in 1946, among the first states to do so in the country.

Despite Destrade’s request, Teamsters union officials have continued to seize membership dues out of his wages. Union officials cited a union-created policy that arbitrarily limits a worker’s right to end dues payments to just 15 days.

Union officials responded to Destrade in a letter sent on October 24, acknowledging that they had received his request, but that he had missed the 15-day “window period” to revoke his dues check-off authorization between October 5 and October 20. Teamsters officials rejected Destrade’s request to revoke his checkoff authorization because it arrived prior to this so-called “window period.”

However, because union officials waited until just days after their “window period” had ended to provide Destrade with this information, he was then too late to revoke according to the union policy.

The charge alleges that union officials coerced and restrained Destrade from exercising his rights guaranteed under the National Labor Relations Act and seeks legal relief for Destrade and all similarly affected workers subject to the same illegal union policy.

“Union bosses repeatedly resort to so-called ‘window period’ rules to block workers from resigning their union membership and stopping forced-dues deductions,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Even in Right to Work states, Big Labor has a long history of utilizing underhanded tactics to deny workers their legal rights and to seize part of the hard-earned wages of workers like Mr. Destrade.”

Foundation staff attorneys have pursued numerous other legal actions for workers across the country after union officials used similar union-enacted “window period” schemes to deny workers’ requests to resign their union membership and stop paying union dues.

National Right to Work Foundation letter says WMATA could face civil rights lawsuits if it doesn’t stop seizing union fees from workers who don’t consent

Washington, DC (October 30, 2018) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation sent a letter to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority warning WMATA against failing to comply with the legal protections for public workers under the U.S. Supreme Court’s June Janus v. AFSCME decision.

The Janus case was argued and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. In June the Supreme Court held that mandatory union fees violate the constitutional rights of public employees and ruled that it violates the First Amendment when any union fees are taken from public employees who have not given affirmative consent to such deductions.

However, Foundation staff attorneys have received reports that WMATA continues to deduct union dues or fees from the wages of employees who do not consent to those deductions. The Foundation letter urges WMATA General Manager and CEO Paul Wiedefeld to immediately stop deducting union fees from the wages of all such employees.

The letter notes that any deduction authorization signed prior to Janus does not constitute legal waiver of a workers’ constitutional right to not pay. If WMATA does not comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the letter explains that “Foundation staff attorneys will bring a civil rights action seeking class-wide injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees for any injured employees who request their assistance.”

Copies of the letter were also sent to Teamsters Local 639 and ATU Local 689, who may be receiving forced fees collected in violation of the rights of WMATA employees.

“Janus is a landmark victory for workers’ rights, ensuring that while workers can choose to join and financially support a union if they choose, they cannot be forced to fund a union against their will,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, Foundation staff attorneys have been contacted by WMATA employees about violations of their Janus rights, demonstrating that even a mile or two from the Supreme Court a long road remains ahead to ensure public employees’ rights are fully respected.”

“The good news is, workers will always have an ally in the National Right to Work Foundation if they choose to stand up against coercive forced union dues schemes,” continued Mix.

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are currently litigating more than fifteen cases seeking to enforce public employees’ rights under the Janus precedent.

The Foundation has also established MyJanusRights.org to inform government employees of their new rights. At the site, public employees can learn about their First Amendment rights and request free legal aid.

Class action lawsuit challenges a NJ law that blocks workers from exercising First Amendment rights outside 10 day “window period”

Trenton, New Jersey (November 5, 2018) – Two New Jersey public school teachers have filed a federal class action lawsuit against the Township of Ocean Education Association (TOEA), New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and the National Education Association (NEA) unions, with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Teachers Susan G. Fischer and Jeanette Speck, for themselves and potentially thousands of other teachers across the state, are asking the U.S. District Court for New Jersey to order NJEA union officials to refund illegally-seized union dues taken from teachers without their consent and in violation of their First Amendment rights as protected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME.

In Janus, which was argued and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, the High Court ruled it unconstitutional to require public employees to subsidize a labor union. The Court further held that any union dues or fees taken without a public employee’s affirmative consent violates the employee’s First Amendment rights.

As the complaint details, union officials refused to allow Fischer and Speck to stop payment of union dues when they resigned their membership in July 2018. Township officials said the teachers could only stop payments and withdraw their membership during an annual 10-day window period based on a newly passed New Jersey state law.

In May, New Jersey legislators enacted a law to limit workers from exercising their rights under Janus except during the annual 10-day window. At the time Janus was pending a decision at the Supreme Court. The teachers’ class action suit argues that the New Jersey law is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

The teachers also seek a refund of membership dues forcibly taken after they resigned their union membership, as well as for all other public employees who attempted to resign following Janus. The lawsuit is similar to several other cases around the country pursued by public employees with assistance from Foundation staff attorneys following the Janus ruling.

For example, in two ongoing lawsuits, Pennsylvania school bus driver Michael Mayer and California court worker Mark Smith each filed federal complaints after union officials blocked their attempts to exercise their rights under Janus.

“Contrary to the wishes of New Jersey union bosses and their allies in the state legislature, First Amendments rights cannot be limited to just 10 days out of the year,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “The Foundation-won Janus decision at the Supreme Court recognized that all civil servants may exercise their rights to free speech and free association by resigning their union membership and cutting off union payments whenever they choose. Despite the ongoing resistance by union officials to the rights of the workers they claim to represent, Foundation staff attorneys remain committed to enforcing the constitutional rights of Susan, Jeanette, and millions of other public sector workers guaranteed by Janus.”

To inform workers of their legal rights under Janus, and ensure they know they can turn to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for free legal aid if union officials attempt to obstruct them from exercising those rights, the Foundation launched a special website: MyJanusRights.org.

SEIU officials’ “window period” policy traps provider into supporting union after unsolicited telemarketer pressured provider into forced dues

Sacramento, CA (November 2, 2018) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a class action complaint challenging a union scheme to violate the rights of California homecare providers. The complaint challenges union officials’ “window period” policy that blocks the provider from exercising her constitutional right to refrain from financially supporting a union, despite the fact that she only became a member under pressure during an unsolicited phone conversation.

Delores Polk, who provides home healthcare to her daughter, is not a voluntary member of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015. However, an SEIU telemarketer called her and read Polk the terms of the local union’s membership and dues deduction authorization. Pressured by the unsolicited phone call, Polk reluctantly agreed to join.

Polk notes in her complaint that she was not notified of her First Amendment rights, protected by the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision Janus v. AFSCME, to refrain from joining or subsidizing SEIU Local 2015 and did not sign any written documentation agreeing to be a union member or waiving her First Amendment rights.

Days after the phone call, Polk researched SEIU Local 2015 and realized she did not want to financially support the organization, as doing so does not reflect her values and also for financial reasons. Polk called SEIU Local 2015 and told them she did not want to be a union member and did not consent to union dues deductions. However, in a letter sent after her phone call, SEIU officials claimed that Polk had missed the “window period” to cut off payments and could not opt out for another year, and then only through written notice.

Despite her lack of consent, the California State Controller, at the behest of SEIU Local 2015, continues to deduct union dues from the Medicaid funds Polk receives to care for her daughter. The State Controller and SEIU Local 2015 officials also continue to enforce their “window period” policy against other providers.

Polk came to Foundation staff attorneys for free legal aid in filing her class action complaint against SEIU Local 2015 and the State Controller of California. Polk’s charges allege that the “window period” policy violates her constitutional right to refrain from paying union dues or fees.

Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court Harris v. Quinn decision, Polk and homecare providers across the country cannot be forced to pay union fees without their consent. The 2014 ruling declared unconstitutional an Illinois scheme that classified individual homecare providers as “public employees” so they could be unionized by the SEIU and forced to pay union dues. Furthermore, in Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court affirmed that it is unconstitutional for union dues and fees to be collected without an individual’s affirmative consent and clear, knowing waiver of their First Amendment rights.

The complaint requests that the court certify a class including all home healthcare providers who have been forced to pay union dues even after notifying the State Controller or SEIU Local 2015 officials that they do not consent to financially supporting the union.

“Ms. Polk’s case shows that union officials will ignore the clear wishes of the workers they claim to ‘represent’ simply to line their pockets with coerced fees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials have a long history of manipulating ‘window period’ rules, arbitrary union-enacted limitations on ending dues payments, and other obstacles designed to block individuals from exercising their constitutional rights. Although the Foundation’s victories in Harris and Janus provide important protections, a clear ruling is needed to put an end to these union bosses’ abusive practices.”

Sacramento public employees were target of IUOE union’s request for their emails related to rights to oppose unionization

Sacramento, California (October 18, 2018) – Three employees of the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito & Vector Control District filed unfair labor charges with the California Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) against Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 3 union after a union official used the state’s public records request system to attempt to harass and intimidate the workers for being critical of the union and seeking to exercise their rights.

Ryan Wagner, Brett Day, and Mark Pipkin, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, filed the unfair practice charges after they received notification by their employer that a union official had requested their work email records and other documents under the California Public Records Act.

The Operating Engineers official requested copies of all three employees’ emails with keywords such as “decertification,” “PERB,” “union,” “decertify,” “how to get rid of union,” “Public Employee Relations Board,” and “Meyers Milias Brown Act.” The terms are related to the employees’ legal rights under California law, specifically the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) which covers county and municipal workers, to remove a union that has lost the support of a majority of workers.

Under the MMBA, workers have a right to abstain from formal union membership and participation in union activities. Unions are prohibited from interfering with, intimidating, restraining, coercing or discriminating against public employees because of the exercise of those rights.

The charges filed with PERB state that the union official’s requests violate the workers’ rights under California’s labor law. The three workers each request that, as a remedy for the illegal intimidation, the union be required to post notices to all employees of their right to refrain from union activities under California law, and that the union’s practices violated Wagner, Day, and Pipkin’s legal rights.

Before the June Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, public employees in California could be required to pay union dues or fees, even if they were not union members. After Janus recognized workers’ First Amendment right not to fund union speech, the three workers were free from union forced dues, but still stuck under the union’s monopoly contract and so-called “representation.” A decertification election, about which the union official’s records request sought information, would force the union to prove that it actually has the support of at least a majority of the workers it claims to represent.

“This case shows that union officials will go to any lengths to try to trap workers under a union monopoly they oppose,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Apparently, IUOE union bosses are so fearful of letting workers vote on unionization, that they are willing to harass and attempt to intimidate workers whom they claim to ‘represent.’”

Teachers who sued to challenge forced union fees file motion asking court to apply the Supreme Court’s Janus decision to Keystone State law authorizing forced fees

Harrisburg, PA (October 9, 2018) – In an ongoing case challenging the constitutionality of mandatory union payments, a group of Pennsylvania teachers have asked a federal judge to apply the recent landmark Janus Supreme Court precedent by striking down the portions of Pennsylvania law that authorize forced union dues.

This case, Hartnett v. Pennsylvania State Education Association, was originally filed in March 2017 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the state capital of Harrisburg. Teachers Gregory Hartnett of the Homer-Center School District, Elizabeth Galaska of the Twin Valley School District, and Robert Brough Jr. and John Cress of the Ellwood City Area School District, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Pennsylvania-based Fairness Center, filed the case as a First Amendment challenge to the state law which gives public sector union officials the power to compel non-union teachers and other government workers to pay union fees to keep their jobs.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois state worker Mark Janus, whose case was briefed and argued by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that, unless public sector workers affirmatively consent to paying union dues or fees and knowingly waive their First Amendment right not to subsidize a labor union, the collection of dues or fees violates their constitutional rights.

In light of the Janus decision, the teachers filed a motion for summary judgement last month, asking the court to take into account the Janus precedent and rule for the teachers. The motion asks the Court to invalidate Pennsylvania state law provisions which conflict with the teachers’ rights under Janus, striking down any authorization for mandatory union payments. On Friday, the teachers filed their opposition to the unions’ motion to dismiss the case.

The case isn’t the only one brought by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for workers challenging Pennsylvania law. In a case filed just last month, Foundation staff attorneys represent Pennsylvania school bus driver Michael Mayer, who sued after Teamsters union officials rejected his attempts to exercise his rights under Janus by resigning his union membership and informing the union it lacks his authorization for deducting dues from his paycheck.

“Thanks to the historic Foundation-won Janus precedent, teachers and school employees across the country are finally free to exercise their constitutional rights and decide for themselves whether or not union officials deserve a portion of their paycheck,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, it is critical that any authorization for public sector forced dues be permanently removed from state law, so unscrupulous union bosses cannot use unconstitutional provisions to attempt to deceive workers about their right not to fund a labor union.”

To inform workers of their legal rights under Janus, and ensure they know they can turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid if union officials attempt to obstruct them from exercising those rights, the Foundation launched a special website: MyJanusRights.org.

Labor Board charge: Despite Right to Work law, UFCW is illegally attempting to force Rite Aid employee to pay union dues

Grand Rapids, Michigan (October 1, 2018) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys a Michigan pharmacy worker has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 951 union for illegally forcing her to pay union dues.

Worker Kolby Klopfenstein-Snyder exercised her right to resign her membership from Local 951. However, as her charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) states, UFCW union officials have rebuffed her attempts to stop payments of union dues. The same charge was filed with the NLRB against Rite Aid, for continuing to collect union dues at the behest of UFCW officials.

Michigan’s Right to Work law makes it illegal to require union membership or payment of any union dues or fees as a condition for employment, thus permitting employees to choose for themselves whether to join or financially support a labor union. Despite the law, UFCW union bosses continue to insist that Klopfenstein-Snyder pay dues even after she resigned her membership.

The union dues deduction card UFCW officials are attempting to enforce only obligates a worker to pay as a result of union forced dues clause in a union monopoly bargaining contract or as a result of the UFCW’s internal union constitution. This means that even if the card’s language was legal, it doesn’t obligate nonmembers like Klopfenstein-Snyder to pay any dues, because Michigan’s Right to Work law bars contracts that include mandatory payments, and nonmembers are not subject to the terms of a union constitution.

This NLRB charge is not the first time that Local 951 officials have run afoul of protections for workers who choose not to join or support the union. Foundation staff attorneys assisted Rite Aid pharmacy technician Laura Fries with filing NLRB charges against UFCW Local 951 in November 2015.

According to her charge, which NLRB investigators found meritorious, Local 951 union officials threatened to have Fries fired unless she joined Local 951 and paid back union dues. Only after the NLRB issued a formal complaint against the union did UFCW officials quickly settle the case in April 2016 to avoid federal prosecution.

“Once again, rather than work to secure the voluntary support of the workers they claim to represent, UFCW union bosses have resorted to coercive tactics to attempt to stuff their pockets with forced union dues,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “As the dozens of cases Foundation staff attorneys have filed for Michigan workers demonstrate, Michigan union bosses continue to attempt to systematically undermine workers’ protections under Michigan’s popular Right to Work laws.”

“Fortunately for Michigan employees, the National Right to Work Foundation will continue defending their rights as long as union bosses continue attempting to illegally force them to pay union dues,” added Mix.

Since Michigan’s Right to Work protections were passed in late 2012, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have filed more than 100 cases for hundreds of Michigan workers to enforce their legal rights.

MEA officials forced to relinquish claims for back dues after resignations, Teamsters forced to refund dues seized in violation of state law

Michigan (September 19, 2018) – In three separate legal victories, Michigan workers succeeded in defending their rights under Michigan’s Right to Work laws. All three workers resigned their union membership and sought to end any union dues payments, only to have union officials continue seizing dues.

Two of the cases involved the Michigan Education Association (MEA). After Michigan’s Right to Work law covering government employees went into effect, school district employees Ryan Woodward and Susan Junak each submitted union membership resignations and dues authorization revocations to the MEA union, only to have their revocations blocked and MEA officials threaten to collect the dues with lawsuits.

Mr. Woodward informed union officials of his resignation both verbally and twice via e-mail. Despite his repeated notifications, the MEA filed a collection lawsuit against him in Michigan state District Court in an attempt to collect more than $800 in dues for the period after his resignation. In a similar situation, Ms. Junak resigned her MEA membership by way of certified mail, but MEA officials disregarded the notice and sent her a collection notice for over $600 in dues. In both instances, MEA officials alleged that the back dues were a debt owed to the union, which could then be used to damage the workers’ credit ratings.

Both settlements required the MEA to officially recognize the resignations and end attempts to collect the dues from the period following the resignations. Additionally, the settlement requires the MEA to take proactive steps to bear the costs of restoring the credit of both school employees, because the unauthorized dues collection attempts may have improperly damaged both of their credit scores.

The third case concerns a similar situation between Gordon Alger and Teamsters Local 214. Alger, a building maintenance worker, filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) when the Teamsters union continued to deduct dues from his paycheck after he revoked his deduction authorization. The settlement requires the Teamsters officials to refund $300.

Michigan is a Right to Work state, which protects workers’ freedom to join a union and outlaws forced dues and fees as a condition of employment. All three settlements were made possible by the state’s Right to Work protections.

“These three cases show the importance of Right to Work protections in ensuring that worker rights are not abused by union officials,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Clearly, Big Labor bosses will reject or deliberately ignore resignations of their members just to keep extracting every penny of dues from workers. Thanks to Michigan’s Right to Work law, these workers are able to stand up to greedy union bosses and enforce their legal rights.”