Foundation Attorneys & PA Metal Workers Fight Steelworkers Union Contract Deception
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union bosses lied to metal workers and covertly signed forced-dues contract to keep grip on power
In NLRB documents, Steelworkers union officials openly defended their deception of employees, calling such behavior “irrelevant” to whether they should remain in power.
FRANKLIN, PA – Workers under the thumb of union bosses have many reasons to oppose the union’s “representation.” It could be they oppose a bad contract the union negotiated, or maybe it is the union’s divisive political activity for candidates they oppose. Whatever the reason, workers have a right under federal labor law to vote to free themselves of such unwanted union “representation.”
But federal labor law also has no shortage of workarounds for union bosses bent on clinging to their monopoly bargaining power over workers. Kerry Hunsberger and her coworkers at Latrobe Specialty Steel’s Franklin, PA, facility are currently defending their right to throw out unpopular Steelworkers union officials, after the union chiefs secretly signed a contract workers had voted down twice.
Steelworkers Officials Tried to Dodge Employee Accountability
Steelworkers chiefs did so to activate a so-called “contract bar” and remain in power at the plant when they knew a decertification election was coming. Steelworkers officials held two ratification votes to make workers think they had control over whether the contract went into effect. But in reality, union officials have no legal obligation under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal statute that governs private sector labor relations, to even conduct such a ratification vote, much less heed the workers’ actual vote tally.
The pro-union boss National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) created out of whole cloth the “contract bar” policy. It immunizes union officials from employee-backed attempts to vote out a union for up to three years after union bosses and management finalize a contract — even a contract that isn’t supported by a majority of workers.
Hunsberger’s petition asking the NLRB to hold a vote to remove the union contains the requisite number of signatures under NLRB rules, but union officials argue the “contract bar” should block the election anyway.
Union Bosses Ignored Two Votes by Workers Rejecting Forced-Dues Contract
The Latrobe Specialty Steel workers first voted July 25 on the contract drawn up by Steelworkers union officials. The workers soundly rejected the contract, and Hunsberger began collecting employee signatures for a decertification petition shortly afterwards.
According to documents and transcripts filed with the NLRB, when Steelworkers union officials discovered a decertification petition was circulating, they secretly and hurriedly signed the unpopular contract on July 28, without telling the employees or the employer, in an attempt to activate the “contract bar” rule and avoid being voted out.
The slapdash contract lacked basic In NLRB documents, Steelworkers union officials openly defended their deception of employees, calling such behavior “irrelevant” to whether they should remain in power. elements, like start and end dates. Even though the union now claims this contract was immediately in effect on July 28, union officials held a new employee ratification vote on August 1, encouraging workers to “ratify” the contract. But the union bosses never told the workers their “vote” was a meaningless sham because union officials had already signed the forced-dues contract in secret.
Hunsberger’s decertification petition was filed at 2:00 PM on August 1, just hours before the sham contract vote occurred. As with the previous vote, the workers rejected the contract by a lopsided margin. But later that night, at around 9:00 PM, union officials suddenly announced to the employer that the contract was already in effect and the employee ratification “vote” was irrelevant because of the union bosses’ covert signing on July 28.
In sworn testimony, one union boss admitted that Steelworkers union bosses execute contracts despite employees voting them down, and that union officials deceived the Latrobe workers and ignored their votes in this case “to protect the integrity of the union.” Apparently the Steelworkers bosses’ lust for monopoly bargaining power and compulsory union payments takes precedence over the actual wishes of the rank-and-file workers union officials purport to “represent.”
‘Contract Bar’ Encourages Unions to Force Through Unpopular Contracts
“Steelworkers union bosses drew up a contract that my coworkers and I hated, so naturally we wanted them out of our workplace and out of our pocketbooks. But to add insult to injury, they apparently didn’t even think they owed us a duty of honesty,” said Hunsberger.
“This entire ordeal has been incredibly frustrating and we are grateful for the help of the National Right to Work Foundation in defending our right to vote the union out.”
Kerry Hunsberger’s Foundationbacked brief defending her and her coworkers’ rights states that the Steelworkers’ contract ploy is “nothing more than a smokescreen, concocted by a desperate and unpopular union to entrench itself and bar employee free choice” under federal law.
“The ‘contract bar’ arbitrarily blocks, often for years, workers’ statutory right under federal law to vote out union officials they oppose. Worse, it encourages union officials to cynically impose a contract at all costs, especially when union bosses know rank-and-file workers would see such a contract as a reason to get rid of so-called union ‘representation,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “This case presents an easy choice for the NLRB: defend the rights of rank-and-file workers, or side with Steelworkers union officials, who repeatedly misled those workers and disregarded their votes simply to protect union power. The case also demonstrates that there is no such thing as ‘union democracy’ in America.”
ATU Union Facing Prosecution After Agent Physically Assaults Bus Driver
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Bus driver targeted by union militants for opposing incumbent union officials
Driven by Justice: Thomas McLamb did not let ATU union agents get away with upending his career just because he opposed their agenda. The union is now facing prosecution for its abuses.
WASHINGTON, DC – Transdev bus driver Thomas McLamb thought that Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) union bosses at his workplace were mishandling finances and not serving the workers’ interests. In 2015, he led a campaign to vote the union out, and in October 2021 he ran for union office in the hopes of unseating officials he found ineffective.
In response, union agents kicked off a vicious retaliation campaign to punish McLamb for peacefully resisting ATU union bosses’ agenda. This included a union steward physically assaulting McLamb and another union official arranging McLamb’s illegal firing.
McLamb sought out free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and hit ATU union officials with federal charges for illegal retaliation. He also charged Transdev for the company’s role in his firing. McLamb’s opposition to the ATU union is activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees workers’ right to “refrain from any or all of ” union activities. McLamb’s charges say that ATU and Transdev officials illegally violated his rights under the NLRA.
Following an investigation, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a formal complaint against the ATU union, confirming all McLamb’s charges and scheduling a trial against ATU for its campaign of illegal retaliation. As this edition of Foundation Action went to press, a trial over the union’s misconduct had concluded. McLamb is now awaiting a decision from an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
Union President Encouraged Followers to Assault Dissident Workers
In a statement filed in November 2021, McLamb said that the ATU Local 689 president, Raymond Jackson, had told other union officers to “slap” employees who were opposing his agenda. Shortly after, McLamb’s statement reported, a union shop steward assaulted him. Both incidents occurred while McLamb was campaigning against the incumbent officers to serve on Local 689’s board.
The NLRB’s complaint and notice of hearing in the case echoed McLamb’s charge. It stated that “[o]n November 11, 2021 . . . [union steward] Tiyaka Boone, at the Employer’s Hubbard Road facility, in the presence of employees, physically assaulted the Charging Party.”
McLamb reported in another federal charge that, shortly after this incident, ATU official Alma Williams demanded that Transdev management fire him. The NLRB’s complaint confirms this accusation: “On November 11, 2021, Respondent, by Alma Williams, at the Employer’s Hubbard Road facility, requested that the Employer discharge the Charging Party.”
On November 16, Transdev gave McLamb a letter stating that he had been placed on “Administrative Leave without pay” pending the outcome of an investigation.
For its part, Transdev backed down and settled immediately, reinstating McLamb and paying him full back wages for the period of his suspension. The ATU union, however, remains defiant.
“The union should not be run as the personal fiefdom of union bosses who do everything they can to insulate themselves from accountability, yet that’s how ATU officials have treated it, complete with threats and violence against me for calling out union officials’ shortcomings,” McLamb told The Washington Free Beacon shortly after a trial was scheduled in his case.
Case Highlights Need for Right to Work Protections
“No American employee should have to go to work thinking that they could be fired, mugged, or slandered merely for exercising their right to oppose union officials. The NLRB’s issuance of a complaint against the ATU in Mr. McLamb’s case is a small but significant step toward justice,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “However, due to Maryland’s lack of Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, Mr. McLamb is still required to sacrifice part of every paycheck to the same union hierarchy that is now facing prosecution for instigating violence against him.”
“Although we’re happy that the scales are finally tipping in Mr. McLamb’s favor, it’s unfortunately the reality in the 23 non-Right to Work states that workers are forced to pay fees to union hierarchies that act against their interests, sometimes even violently so.”
Indiana US Brick Employees Target ‘Successor Bar’ for Demolition
Over 70 percent of workers want Teamsters gone, but non-statutory policy prevents vote
Though Kerry Atkins and roughly 70 percent of his coworkers want to kick Teamsters bosses from their facility, the “successor bar” and other non-statutory “bars” could block a vote for years.
INDIANAPOLIS, IN – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have made big strides in recent years for independent-minded workers who want to exercise their right to vote unpopular unions out of their workplaces.
The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) adoption in 2020 of Foundation-backed reforms to the decertification process have made it significantly less difficult for workers to exercise their rights. But, there’s much more work to be done to eliminate contrived, union boss-friendly NLRB policies that stifle worker rights just so unwanted unions can stay entrenched.
Enter Kerry Atkins and his coworkers at US Brick in Mooresville, Indiana. With free Foundation legal aid they are fighting an NLRB policy called the “successor bar” that arbitrarily blocks employees’ right to vote out an unwanted union when management changes hands in a workplace.
Atkins filed a petition signed by his colleagues in December 2021, asking the NLRB to hold a vote on whether to decertify Teamsters Local 135 union officials. NLRB Regional Director Patricia Nachand ruled on February 9 that US Brick’s recent acquisition of the plant triggered the so-called “successor bar” and rendered the employee petition invalid.
NLRB-Invented Policy Traps Workers in Union They Strongly Oppose
Nachand blocked the vote even though, according to her own order, plant management has in its possession a parallel petition expressing disaffection with the Teamsters, which bears the signatures of about 70 percent of the employees.
The “successor bar” is a non-statutory policy invented by NLRB appointees that immunizes union officials from being voted out by employees for up to a year after management changes as a result of a sale, merger, or acquisition.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is charged with enforcing, explicitly states that employees have a right to remove union monopoly “representation” they oppose. The “successor bar,” however, is found nowhere in the NLRA’s text.
The only “bar” to employees requesting a decertification election that is mentioned in the NLRA is a one-year restriction after employees certify a union in a secret-ballot vote. That the “successor bar” — which isn’t even in the NLRA — can stave off attempts to vote out a union for up to four years when combined with a “contract bar” makes it especially offensive to workers’ rights.
To make matters even worse, two different federal agencies — the NLRB and the Department of Justice — effectively worked together to impose the “successor bar” on Atkins and his coworkers. The Department of Justice in an antitrust complaint forced the former owner of the Mooresville brick facility to sell it to US Brick. The NLRB now says that event should be grounds for blocking the employees from ejecting a union they overwhelmingly oppose.
‘Successor Bar’ Disregards Desires and Experiences of Workers, Brief Says
Atkins’ Foundation attorneys have filed a Request for Review of Nachand’s order with the NLRB in Washington, D.C. It contends that the “successor bar” serves no purpose other than to block the will of rank-and-file employees, entrenching union bosses who ought to be accountable to the employees.
“The successor bar undermines the NLRA’s core purpose of employee free choice by disregarding employees’ actual desires and past experiences with their union representative,” the Request for Review argues.
Restriction Shows How NLRB-Invented Policies Stifle Individual Rights
“The NLRB-invented ‘successor bar’ is just one example of how the Board neglects its mandate to protect the rights of individual workers, including those opposed to forced union affiliation, just to protect union boss power,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The ‘successor bar’ not only overrides the statutory right of workers to vote out unions they oppose, but does so at the very moment when workers are most likely to reevaluate their union status: the turnover of the old management that perhaps was the reason for unionization in the first place.”
Union Bosses Caught Red-Handed Illegally Taking Dues from Charter School Teacher
California union officials backed off anti-Janus deductions after Foundation action
Foundation staff attorney Bill Messenger successfully argued Janus at the Supreme Court. But enforcing the landmark First Amendment victory is an ongoing battle.
LOS ANGELES, CA – A former teacher at Camino Nuevo Charter Academy in Los Angeles, California, is getting a refund of illegally seized union dues with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The refund came after Foundation staff attorneys sent a letter to officials with the Camino Nuevo Teachers Association, an affiliate of California Teachers Association, threatening legal action for violating the teacher’s First Amendment rights.
Natalie Bahl, who was a teacher at Camino Nuevo Charter Academy up until recently, attempted to exercise her right as a public employee not to pay any union fees. Ms. Bahl notified the union of her decision in a mass email to several union officials, which reportedly also prompted other teachers to make similar requests. Her email was sent before the union-designated “window period” closed for teachers to revoke their authorization for deducting union dues.
Despite the timely request, Ms. Bahl realized a few months later that union dues were still being deducted from her paycheck. When she asked union officials about it, they suddenly claimed she missed her window period for dues revocation.
At that point, Ms. Bahl reached out to National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who sent a letter demanding a refund of union dues collected in violation of Bahl’s First Amendment rights. Rather than face a potential federal civil rights lawsuit, CNTA union officials refunded all dues taken from Bahl from the time of her request until she left the school’s employment to further pursue her own education.
Union Officials Refuse to Learn Their Janus Lesson
In the Foundation-argued Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court case, the Court recognized that forcing public sector workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. The Justices also ruled that public employees must opt in with affirmative consent to any union payments before money can be taken from their paychecks.
Since winning the 2018 Janus Supreme Court decision, Foundation staff attorneys have scored victories across the country for public employees seeking to enforce their First Amendment rights under the Janus decision. For example, Foundation staff attorneys recently successfully defended a public school teacher in Harford County, Maryland, from whom union bosses illegally seized dues for months despite two letters to the local AFSCME affiliate exercising her right to resign union membership and end all dues deductions from her pay.
“Teachers and other public sector workers have Janus rights under the First Amendment and should immediately contact the Foundation for free legal assistance if they believe their rights have been violated,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Unfortunately we continue to see that even when public employees comply with arbitrary union-created policies designed to stifle their First Amendment rights, union officials still brazenly ignore Janus in order to fill their coffers with union dues seized from employees.
NYC Car Wash Workers Kick Out Unwanted RWDSU Union Officials
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union bosses rejected by Alabama Amazon workers now ousted by car wash employees
Main Street Car Wash worker Ervin Par (center) and his colleagues in NYC thank their National Right to Work Foundation attorney for helping them secure a vote to remove unwanted RWDSU union bosses from their workplace.
NEW YORK, NY – In 2018, Ervin Par, an employee of Main Street Car Wash in Queens, NY, explained why he and his coworkers overwhelmingly wanted Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU) officials out of their workplace: “They just come and collect their fees, but I don’t see an economic benefit from the union.”
“Among my colleagues, there’s a majority that doesn’t want the union,” Par told Reason magazine in an interview at the time. Now, after a three-year effort to vote out RWDSU officials, Par and his coworkers have finally succeeded with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Soon after Par submitted an October petition signed by enough of his coworkers to prompt the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to conduct an employee vote whether to eject the union, RWDSU officials filed paperwork ending their control over the facility. Notably, RWDSU union officials fled Main Street Car Wash before the NLRB had conducted the union decertification election for Par and his coworkers — likely in an attempt to avoid an embarrassing, overwhelming rejection in the vote.
Car Wash Employees Endured Years of Forced Dues, Union “Blocking Charges”
Par also rallied his coworkers in 2018 to oust the union, but their valid petition for a decertification election was thwarted by “blocking charges” from RWDSU officials. Because Par and his colleagues work in non-Right to Work New York, the delays meant that they were forced to pay dues to an unpopular union for almost three more years just to keep their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states all union financial support is strictly voluntary.
Par and his coworkers’ desire for freedom from union control is not uncommon. According to reports, in 2018 Main Street Car Wash was one of only six car washes in New York City still under union monopoly control, a number that had been declining following other union departures due to lack of employee support.
RWDSU Bosses Oppose Will of Rank-and-File Workers Across Country
The RWDSU is notably the same union that Bessemer, AL, Amazon employees rejected decisively during a highly publicized April 2021 union election. Despite that election loss, RWDSU officials are still trying to install themselves at the Bessemer facility. Litigation continues over whether RWDSU lawyers will nullify the workers’ vote in which barely 12% of eligible voters supported union bosses’ monopoly “representation.”
Atlanta, GA-area employees of water treatment company Ecolab have also recently received free Foundation legal assistance in their attempt to remove RWDSU officials.
“Mr. Par and his coworkers persevered for almost three years to end RWDSU union officials’ grip on power in their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Although we’re glad the employees have finally been able to exercise their right to remove RWDSU, union officials should not have been able to manipulate the rules to stifle the decertification effort for so long.”
“RWDSU union officials have a penchant for challenging the will of the very employees they claim to ‘represent.’” Semmens added. “Workers across the country who seek to remove unwanted RWDSU presence in their workplace should contact the Foundation for free legal aid in exercising their rights.”
NLRB Blocks Attempt to Oust Union, Despite Unanimous Call for Union’s Removal
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Every employee signed a petition for vote to remove Carpenters Union from their workplace
Foundation staff attorneys are defending Neises Concrete Construction Corp. workers’ unanimous call to free themselves from the coercive reign of IKORCC union bosses.
CROWN POINT, IN – Mike Halkias and his coworkers at Neises Construction Corp. in Crown Point, Indiana, are subject to monopoly “representation” by officials of the Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters (IKORCC) union.
Every bargaining unit member exercised the right under Indiana’s Right to Work Law to decline formal union membership and to refuse to pay any union dues or fees, but union officials still have the authority under federal law to “negotiate” with Neises for the employees despite their objections to that representation.
NLRB Officials Snub Workers’ Unanimous Petition, Demand Union Bargaining
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Halkias submitted a decertification petition to Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), signed by every member of his unit, to remove IKORCC union officials from their workplace.
Despite unanimous agreement by the unit’s workers to hold a vote to oust IKORCC bosses, NLRB Region 13 officials rejected the decertification petition. The Regional Director is demanding that the Indiana employer bargain with IKORCC, even though none of its employees want the union to “represent” them.
Union Bosses Won’t Give Up Monopoly Bargaining Power over Non-members
So far union officials have stymied the vote through “blocking charges,” unfair labor practice charges filed by union lawyers that, before they are resolved, prevent a vote from taking place. Union officials claim the vote cannot proceed until the company negotiates “in good faith” with the union.
That demand comes even though federal law makes it illegal for an employer to engage in bargaining with a union that it knows lacks the support of at least a bare majority of workers. The NLRB regional official’s order dismissing the employees’ petition did not even acknowledge that every employee in Mr. Halkias’ bargaining unit has shown a desire to be independent from the union by resigning union membership and asking for a decertification vote.
Foundation Attorneys Bring Fight to National Board
The Foundation staff attorneys who represent Halkias have appealed to the NLRB in Washington to overturn the rejection of the decertification petition and to allow the workers to vote so they can be rid of the union whose so-called “representation” they all oppose. “It is outrageous that in a workplace where every single worker wants nothing to do with a union, federal law still forces workers to accept the so-called ‘representation’ of union bosses,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“The fact that this appeal is even necessary demonstrates how rigged federal law is against independent-minded workers who seek to exercise their right not to associate with a union.”
“This case is a reminder that, even in Right to Work states that protect workers from being forced to fund a union they don’t support, federal law still forces workers under union monopoly control even when those employees oppose the union and believe they would be better off without it.”
Flight Attendant Sues Transport Union for Religious Discrimination
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2021 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Flight Attendant Sues Transport Union for Religious Discrimination
Please stow your religious objections: TWU union bosses forced Allegiant Air flight attendant Annlee Post to fund the union in violation of her religious beliefs and federal law.
KNOXVILLE, TN – Allegiant Air flight attendant Annlee Post filed a federal lawsuit in November against Transport Workers Union of America Local 577 (TWU) because the union refused to accommodate her religious beliefs. She received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Post is a Christian, and she objects to funding the TWU on religious grounds. As recognized in the 2015 EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Supreme Court decision, Post is not required to satisfy any special requirements to merit religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To exercise her rights, Post sent two letters to union officials making them aware of her objection and asking that her dues payments be redirected to charity.
EEOC Issues “Right to Sue” Letter to Union Objector
When TWU officials refused this request, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the union.
The EEOC was unable to resolve Post’s charge, but it issued a “Right to Sue” letter in August 2020, allowing her to file a federal lawsuit against the union to protect her rights. Post then filed a complaint in federal court alleging TWU officials illegally discriminated against her by refusing to accommodate her and threatening to revoke her bidding privileges.
Bidding privileges control a flight attendant’s ability to schedule trips, work, vacations and days off. Post asked the court for an order stopping TWU officials from requiring her and other employees to pay union fees that violate their sincere religious beliefs.
Post’s lawsuit also alleges that union officials violated the United States Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments, which require union officials to follow specific procedures to demand forced dues payments. The union did not follow those procedures here.
Union officials did not provide a notice of how the forced-fee amount was calculated and an audit of the union’s financial records. Nor did they give a notice of the procedure to challenge the fee amount.
Federal Law Prevents Union Threats to Workplace Privileges
Even though she lives in Tennessee, which has enacted Right to Work protections so workers who object to union membership can freely abstain from funding union activities for any reason, Post is subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because she works for an airline.
The RLA overrides state Right to Work laws and allows union officials to compel union fees, but only “as a condition of continued employment.” The RLA does not permit forced-dues payments based on any other condition — such as bidding privileges. Post’s Foundation staff attorneys argue that TWU’s monopoly bargaining agreement with Allegiant is invalid because it requires dues payments to maintain bidding privileges, whereas payment “as a condition of continued employment” is the only legal forced unionism agreement under the RLA.
“Annlee Post and others like her should not have to choose between privileges at work and their religious beliefs,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “TWU bosses knew about Ms. Post’s objections, but refused to accommodate them as longstanding federal law requires. They instead threatened to take away her bidding privileges, simply because she would not fund their organization in violation of her religious faith.
“This case is a reminder of why no worker should be forced to fund a union with which he or she disagrees, no matter whether their objection is religious or for any other reason,” Semmens said.
University of California Workers Challenge Restrictions on Janus Rights
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Class-action lawsuit targets state and union for illegally blocking dues revocations
Former presidential candidate and self-described socialist Bernie Sanders gained the endorsement of UPTE union bosses, who are saddling employees with arbitrary restrictions on their First Amendment rights.
SAN DIEGO, CA – In March, UC San Diego Health Service Desk Analysts Pablo Labarrere and Sam Doroudi filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE) union and the University of California for seizing dues from their paychecks in violation of their First Amendment rights.
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Labarrere and Doroudi contend that the dues seized from them and their colleagues are unconstitutional under the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court ruled that deducting union dues from any public sector worker’s paycheck without his or her affirmative and knowing consent breaches the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The class-action lawsuit names University of California President Janet Napolitano as a defendant for the university system’s role in perpetrating this scheme. It also names California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as a defendant for the state’s enforcement of the illegal union dues policy.
UPTE Bosses Enforce Phony Restrictions on Janus Rights
According to the lawsuit, UC San Diego Health officials made all new employees “believe that it was a condition of employment to either join the union as full members or pay forced fees as non-members” during a mandatory orientation session. New employees were given and told to sign “dues deduction authorization cards” which provided that union officials would continuously collect dues from each employee’s paycheck unless a revocation letter was sent in a 30-day window before the annual anniversary of signing the card.
According to the lawsuit, the authorization cards did not explain, as Janus requires, that public sector employees “have a First Amendment right not to subsidize the union and its speech” and that signing the card would waive those rights. Labarrere and Doroudi eventually discovered their First Amendment Janus rights independently and sent letters to UPTE officials in December 2019 demanding that dues deductions be cut off. UPTE agents rejected both requests and continued to seize dues from Labarrere’s and Doroudi’s paychecks, ostensibly because they did not submit their requests within the “escape period” created by the union bosses.
The lawsuit contends that UPTE bosses are violating Labarrere’s and Doroudi’s First Amendment Janus rights by continuing to take dues from their paychecks without ever having received their “affirmative authorization and knowing waiver” of those rights. It also argues that the 30-day “escape period” illegally restricts Labarrere and Doroudi in the exercise of their Janus rights.
The class-action lawsuit additionally seeks to stop UPTE bosses and the University of California system from enforcing the scheme against any other workers, and require UPTE officials to return all dues and fees to any employees in the workplace that had their First Amendment rights violated because of the policy.
Workers Continue to Abolish “Escape Periods” With Foundation Legal Aid
Since the Janus decision, Foundation staff attorneys have litigated at least 14 cases around the country for thousands of workers whose First Amendment Janus rights have been infringed upon with union-created “escape periods.” Six of these cases have already been settled favorably for the plaintiff employees, providing relief and refunds for them and hundreds of their coworkers, while eliminating the restrictions for tens of thousands more.
In one of those cases, Michael McCain, a math professor at a community college in Ventura County, California, fought an illegal “escape period” foisted on his workplace by American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union officials, by filing a federal lawsuit in the District Court for the Central District of California. Ultimately, instead of facing Foundation staff attorneys in court, AFT officials settled the case and paid refunds to all workers who had dues seized because of the illegal policy.
“The Supreme Court made it absolutely clear in Janus that union officials violate public workers’ First Amendment rights when they seize union dues without their consent,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Yet over a year and a half after the decision, California union bosses — with the assistance of state officials — continue to subject the state’s public servants to schemes that violate these rights, all to fill union coffers with more illegal dues.”
