Philly Public Defender Beats Illegal UAW Dues Deduction Scheme
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
UAW boss threatened to reduce workers’ wages for not signing dues card
Philly Public Defender Brunilda Vargas surely didn’t feel “represented” by UAW bosses when they sought to reduce her and her colleagues’ pay just for not signing dues cards. Mark Mix expressed the outrageousness of this scheme to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Brunilda Vargas, a public defender for the City of Philadelphia, staunchly objected when United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 5502 union bosses sought to gain power over her and her colleagues at the Defender Association of Philadelphia.
After UAW union officials were installed in her workplace, things only got worse for her. A UAW union official threatened Vargas and her coworkers that, if they didn’t sign cards authorizing the direct deduction of union dues from their paychecks, their wages would be reduced. This threat was a blatant violation of federal law.
Vargas challenged UAW officials’ illegal demands with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Union bosses quickly backed down, and in June entered into a settlement approved by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 4 which fully vindicates Vargas’ and her coworkers’ rights.
Public Defender Hits UAW with Federal Charges Following Intimidation
On April 18, 2023, Vargas filed her federal unfair labor practice charge with NLRB Region 4 for the threats made against her and her colleagues at the Defender Association of Philadelphia. UAW officials issued these threats against public defenders who chose not to sign automatic dues deduction authorization forms.
Even though Vargas works in the non-Right to Work state of Pennsylvania and can be forced to pay some union dues as a condition of employment, federal law prohibits forcing workers to authorize automatic dues deductions from their paychecks. Had Vargas lived in a Right to Work state, not only would she have the right to refrain from automatic dues deductions from her paycheck, but she could also refrain from financially supporting the union altogether. In Right to Work states, workers are fully protected from mandatory union membership and financial support, both of which must be completely voluntary.
Settlement Forces Union Bosses to Fully Abandon Illegal Threats
Now, pursuant to settlements, the UAW must email and post notices informing workers that the union will not work with the workers’ employer to reduce wages of nonmembers that do not sign automatic dues deductions forms. The union must also not suggest failure to sign a dues deduction card could lead to a worker’s termination. Finally, the union must not coerce or restrain individuals from expressing their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
“[UAW] will not threaten objecting non-members that we will notify the Employer it can seek refunds of their contractual salary increases if they do not sign a dues deduction authorization form. Neither employees nor members are legally required to execute a dues deduction authorization form,” the notice reads.
“While we are happy that we were able to help Vargas and her coworkers fight UAW misconduct, this instance is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to UAW malfeasance,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The recent federal probe into UAW officials stealing and misusing workers’ money has sent multiple top UAW bosses to jail, and uncovered a shocking culture of contempt for workers’ rights.”
“Fortunately, the numerous victims of UAW boss abuses need not fight alone,” continued Semmens. “They have an ally in the National Right to Work Foundation.”
UGSOA Union Officials Hit With Another Federal Charge for Seizing Forced Union Fees in Violation of Security Guards’ Rights
NLRB Charge: Union bosses illegally failed to disclose financials and restricted workers’ rights to opt out of union political spending
Newark, NJ (October 5, 2020) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, William J. Sona is taking his case against the United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union Local 171 to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The Paragon Systems employee’s federal unfair labor practice charge states that union officials illegally failed to provide a mandated independent audit justifying union fees, and imposed unlawful restrictions on workers seeking to challenge the calculation of the fees workers must pay as a condition of employment.
Because Sona is employed in New Jersey, a forced-unionism state, he can legally be fired for refusing to pay union fees. However, these forced fees cannot be used for union political activities or lobbying. Union officials must comply with certain legal requirements to justify the amount they can force workers to pay as a condition of employment.
Under the precedent established in the Right to Work Foundation-won Beck Supreme Court case and subsequent California Saw NLRB precedent, unions must provide verification of chargeable expenses through an independent audit, provide escrow if workers dispute charges, and provide an independent system for workers to challenge the fees.
Sona’s case against UGSOA charges that union officials failed to comply with any of these requirements. Additionally the charge states union officials illegally required Beck objectors like Sona to file two separate objections to funding union political activity—one to Local 171 and one to the International.
Union officials at UGSOA have a history of illegally seizing dues from workers. Previously, UGSOA union bosses illegally demanded union dues from nonmember workers while there was no contract in effect between the union and the employer.
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Sona and five other Paragon employees won $4,000 in illegally seized back dues. That case was settled in 2019 and formally adopted by the NLRB in August of 2020, but Sona’s new charge says union officials have not stopped violating the law.
“Union brass at UGSOA have demonstrated again that they will violate the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent’ just to stuff their pockets with more forced dues,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“They use their special government-granted privileges to force workers to pay up or be fired, and then refuse to provide the information needed to confirm that at least these forced fees are not being illegally funneled into union lobbying and campaign expenses. If union bureaucrats are afraid of transparency, there’s probably a reason for that.”
Massachusetts Educators Ask State High Court to Take Legal Challenge to Public Sector Forced Union Dues
Case argues forcing state employees to subsidize union officials’ speech violates First Amendment protections
Boston, MA (June 27, 2017) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a group of Massachusetts educators are asking the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to hear their case challenging payments they are currently forced to make to union officials.
In 2014, four University of Massachusetts and Hanover School Committee educators filed a series of prohibited practice charges with the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations (DLR) against their employers and the union that holds monopoly bargaining contracts at their facilities. The charges challenge the constitutionality of the compulsory union fees that they are forced to pay.
The four plaintiffs have chosen to refuse union membership, but all must pay fees to National Educators Association union officials as a condition of their employment. The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Dr. Ben Branch, is a Finance professor. His colleague and fellow plaintiff, Dr. Curtiss Conner, is a Chemistry professor, both at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Plaintiff Dr. Andre Melcuk is Director of Departmental Information Technology at the Silvio O. Conte National Center for Polymer Research at the University. Dr. Melcuk was born in the Soviet Union and opposes the union based on his dislike of collectivist organizations.
Plaintiff Deborah Curran is a long-term teacher in the Hanover Public Schools. She had the union officials who supposedly “represent” her attempt to invalidate her promotion to a position mentoring new teachers and push to have her investigated and suspended. She ultimately spent nearly $35,000 of her own money battling union officials just to protect her job.
All of these employees believe they would be better off without union representation and desire to be released from paying for the unwanted representation. Their charges at the Massachusetts DLR were dismissed on February 23, 2015, but only recently did the DLR formally transmit the record to the Court of Appeals.
Foundation staff attorneys now seek direct review of the educators’ case by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Ultimately the issue of the constitutionality of forced union fees for public employees will have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“These are dedicated teachers and professors who are being forced to pay dues and fees to union bosses who do not have their best interests in mind,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “The fact that one of these educators had to pay forced fees to union officials, while the same officials were pushing for her termination, demonstrates the injustice of mandatory union payments for employees who never asked for or wanted union officials’ so-called ‘representation.’”
In addition to this case, Foundation staff attorneys have six other cases in federal court seeking a ruling that forced union payments for public employees violate the First Amendment. One of those cases, Janus v. AFSCME, is currently at the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari.
Court Rejects Misleading Ballot Language in Big Labor Attempt to Overturn Missouri Right to Work Law
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a group of Missouri workers have just won a victory in their fight to defend the new Missouri Right to Work law from Big Labor attempts to repeal the new law through misleading ballot measures.
In the ruling that was just issued by Cole County Circuit Court Judge Green, the AFL-CIO union-backed repeal referendum ballot language was deemed “improperly, unfairly, and insufficiently constructed…” Judge Green further noted that “The People [of Missouri] are entitled to consider a question which is phrased in a grammatically-competent manner.”
Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, issued the following statement on the ruling:
“Union bosses know that giving workers a choice when it comes to union membership and payment of union fees is popular. This is why they are so intent on misleading the public about their attempts to overturn Missouri’s Right to Work law. Today’s ruling is an important step in defending the right of Missouri employees to work without being forced to pay tribute to a union boss.”
For more information on previous legal actions defending Missouri’s popular Right to Work law, please see the press releases here and here.
Janus v. AFSCME Media Roundup
On June 6 the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation petitioned the Supreme Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME a case that could end forced union fees for all public sector employees. The case has generated a lot of media attention. Here are just some samples. Please click the link in the publication name to read the full article.
New York Times – “Last year, the Supreme Court seemed poised to deal a sharp blow to public sector unions. Then Justice Antonin Scalia died and the court deadlocked, granting the unions a reprieve. It may not last long.”
One News Now – “The Janus case is a very important step in our efforts to end the forced payment of fees to a union as a condition of employment,” says Mark Mix of National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation. “The Janus case specifically deals with government employees. Interestingly enough, if we win at the Supreme Court, which we fully intend to do, it would protect every government employee in America from being fired for failure to tender dues or fees to a labor union.”
Washington Free Beacon – “The Supreme Court could revisit a 40-year-old precedent that allows government agencies to force public sector workers to pay union dues, an issue the court deadlocked on in 2016 following the sudden death of Antonin Scalia.”
Illinois News Network – “Foundation President Mark Mix said this is about compelled speech vs. free speech.Mix said what’s happened is there’s “a private institution in between taxpayers and elected officials and [the union] is able to speak for government employees that, heretofore, never asked for, never wanted, and in fact stand back and say, ‘I don’t want you to speak for me,’ as [plaintiffs] have said in this case,” Mix said.”
Foxnews.com – “It’s the state’s burden to justify infringing on a worker’s association rights,” he said. “The key is there’s no difference between collectively bargaining with the government and lobbying the government. If you can’t force people to pay to lobby the government, then you can’t force them to pay union dues or exclusively bargain with them.”
SCOTUSBLOG – “With Justice Neil Gorsuch now on the bench, however, Janus hopes that the Supreme Court will seize its third opportunity to reverse Abood. ”
Washington Examiner – “The case, called Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, asks whether an Illinois state government employee can be forced to pay a so-called “security fee” to the union as a condition of employment. Such fees are common provisions in public-sector union contracts. Losing them would be a severe financial blow to the unions.”
Illinois State Employee Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear First Amendment Challenge to Mandatory Union Fees
Janus v. AFSCME could free all government workers in the U.S. from being forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment
Washington, D.C. (June 6, 2017) – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to hear a case that could free government workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.
Forcing government employees to pay money to union officials to keep their jobs violates the First Amendment, argues plaintiff Mark Janus in the case Janus v. AFSCME. Janus is a child support specialist from Illinois, whose lawsuit was brought by attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center.
The request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case follows a March ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which upheld forced dues and fees based on the Supreme Court’s 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision. The plaintiffs in Janus v. AFSCME argue that Abood was wrongly decided and should be overturned, especially in light of subsequent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have applied strict scrutiny to mandatory union fees. A copy of the petition is available here.
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, issued the following statement about the case:
“For too long, millions of workers across the nation have been forced to pay dues and fees into union coffers as a condition of working for their own government. Requiring public servants to subsidize union officials’ speech is incompatible with the First Amendment. This petition asks the Supreme Court to take up this case and revisit a nearly half-century-old mistake that led to an anomaly in First Amendment jurisprudence. By applying the principles the Court laid out in two recent cases brought for workers by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys – Knox and Harris – the Court can end the injustice of public sector forced dues by the end of next term.”
Jacob Huebert, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, described what is at stake in the Janus case:
“People shouldn’t be forced to surrender their First Amendment right to decide for themselves what organizations they will and won’t support just because they decide to work for the state, their local government or a public school. This case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to restore to millions of American workers the right to choose whether to support a union with their money.”
Mark Janus works for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and is forced to send part of his paycheck to AFSCME. He said, explaining why he brought the case:
“I went into this line of work because I care about kids. But just because I care about kids doesn’t mean I also want to support a government union. Unfortunately, I have no choice. To keep my job at the state, I have to pay monthly fees to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a public employee union that claims to ‘represent’ me. I’m filing this case on behalf of all government employees who want to serve their community or their state without having to pay a union first.”
In addition to Janus v. AFSCME, six other ongoing cases brought by workers with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation are challenging public sector forced dues. These cases represent the full spectrum of public employees, including teachers in Pennsylvania, school aides in Kentucky, university professors in Massachusetts, medical center technicians in California, school electricians in New York and state troopers in Connecticut.
Janus’ case is the first of that group to reach the Supreme Court. The case is on track for the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear it at its first conference of the term beginning in the fall. If four justices agree, the Supreme Court could announce soon after its September 25 conference that it will hear the case.
Background: Janus v. AFSCME’s journey to the Supreme Court
The case now called Janus v. AFSCME began on February 9, 2015. Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner issued an executive order prohibiting state agencies from requiring nonmember state employees to pay union fees, and directed that instead any such fees deducted be put in escrow pending the resolution of litigation.
On the same day, Rauner filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the collection of forced fees from state employees, asking for a declaratory judgment that the forced fee provisions violate the First Amendment and that his executive order was valid.
On March 23, 2015, staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center filed a motion for Mark Janus to intervene in the case. Janus’s complaint requested not only a declaratory judgment but also an injunction and damages from the unions for the compelled fees.
Although the court then ruled that Rauner did not have standing necessary to pursue his lawsuit, the challenge continued because the judge granted Janus’ motion to intervene. The case was renamed Janus v. AFSCME. On July 2, 2015, the Illinois Attorney General asked the district court to stay the case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in a case with similar constitutional issues at stake, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. The district court granted a stay on July 8, 2015.
According to most legal observers, the Supreme Court appeared ready to rule for the teacher plaintiffs in Friedrichs and declare that forced union fees for public sector workers violate the First Amendment. However, after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016, the court ultimately deadlocked 4-4 on Friedrichs. Soon after, a district court judge dismissed Janus, allowing the case to be appealed to the 7th Circuit.
The appeal was filed in October 2016, and oral argument was held on March 1, 2017. On March 21, the 7th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, ruling that the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education precedent applied to Janus v. AFSCME. That expected decision by the 7th Circuit allowed Janus’ attorneys to file a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Recent Supreme Court victories set stage for Janus case
Janus follows a series of decisions that demonstrate a willingness by the Supreme Court to reconsider the constitutionality of forced union fees. In 1977, in Abood, the High Court had held that although union officials could not constitutionally spend objectors’ funds for some political and ideological activities, unions could require fees to subsidize collective bargaining and contract administration with government employers.
In the 2012 Knox v. SEIU case, brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, the Supreme Court began to question Abood’s underpinnings. The Court there held that union officials must obtain affirmative consent from workers before using workers’ forced union fees for special assessments or dues increases that include union politicking.
In the opinion Justice Samuel Alito authored, the door was left open to challenge all forced union fees as a violation of the First Amendment. Alito wrote, “By allowing unions to collect any fees from nonmembers and by permitting unions to use opt-out rather than opt-in schemes when annual dues are billed, our cases have substantially impinged upon the First Amendment rights of nonmembers.” Additionally he said, “Unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember-employees.”
Two years later, the Foundation assisted a group of Illinois home care providers, including Pam Harris, a mother taking care of her disabled son, in challenging a state scheme authorizing Service Employees International Union officials to require the providers to pay union dues or fees. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys took the case to the Supreme Court, which held that the forced dues requirement violated the First Amendment. The Liberty Justice Center filed an amicus brief in support of Pam Harris and the other plaintiffs with the Supreme Court.
In its Harris ruling, the Court heavily criticized the reasoning of Abood and refused to extend Abood to the “new situation” before it, “[b]ecause of Abood’s questionable foundations, and because the personal assistants are quite different from full-fledged public employees.” The decision held Illinois’ scheme unconstitutional and cracked the door even further open for the Court to revisit Abood and the constitutionality of forced union fees. Justice Alito wrote for the Court, “Except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”
Last year, it appeared that the Supreme Court was ready to strike down forced union fees for public sector workers for good in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case. The case was brought by Rebecca Friedrichs and eight other teachers who argued that Abood should be overturned because the forced collection of union fees is a violation of the First Amendment. In that case, attorneys for the Liberty Justice Center filed an amicus brief for Mark Janus and National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a separate amicus brief. Both asked that the High Court strike down compulsory union fees for public employees as a violation of the First Amendment.
Most legal observers agreed that Scalia was set to cast the deciding fifth vote in favor of the plaintiffs. However, his death just weeks before the case was to be decided resulted in a deadlocked court and left Abood in place for the time being. Now, Janus provides another vehicle for the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of compelled union fees for public employees.
