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.”
Foundation Fights For Starbucks Workers Seeking to Oust Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Majority of workers at flagship NYC Starbucks Roastery want decertification vote
NEW YORK, NY – Union bosses and their bought-and-paid-for political allies have been touting Starbucks as the latest and greatest frontier in union organizing. But, as soon as legally permitted after several high-profile Starbucks unionization efforts, workers are already seeking to vote out union officials.
Kevin Caesar, an employee of the high-end Starbucks Reserve Roastery location in Manhattan, sought out Foundation legal aid this May. He sought assistance in submitting a petition backed by a majority of his colleagues to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a vote to remove, or “decertify,” Starbucks Workers United (SBWU), and their puppet-masters at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), from the Roastery. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), workers must wait one year after a union is installed before seeking to remove it, meaning Caesar and his colleagues essentially filed their decertification petition as soon as allowed by the law.
“We have seen our workplace both with and without the union. We believe that the union is looking out for itself more than it is looking out for Starbucks partners, who do not want forced dues and who can advocate for ourselves,” stated Caesar about why he wants to be free of the union.
“That is why a majority of us have decided we would be better off without the union. The fact that the union officials have forced us to go through this decertification process despite the majority of workers stating they do not want to be represented by this union shows how little regard the union has for the will of the workers,” he added. “We call on union officials to respect our rights and not attempt to fight this vote.”
With the petition filed, the NLRB should now promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ power to impose a contract, including forced dues, on the workers. However, SBWU officials have already announced they will seek to block the vote, a matter Foundation attorneys quickly opposed in a brief to the NLRB.
Worker Dissatisfaction with Unions Growing Nationwide
The Starbucks workers are just the latest example of growing dissatisfaction with union officials’ so-called “representation.” Currently, worker requests for Foundation aid in decertifying an unwanted union are at an all-time high. NLRB statistics similarly show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021.
Unfortunately, the NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to union boss-created roadblocks, which can impact the Starbucks workers if union officials plot to stay in power regardless of workers’ wishes. Foundation-backed NLRB reforms from 2020, collectively known as the “Election Protection Rule,” have made it somewhat easier for workers to escape unwanted union “representation,” by eliminating the most egregious “blocking charge” tactics used by union bosses to delay or stop decertification elections entirely. “Blocking charges” are unverified union boss allegations of employer misconduct, often unrelated to workers’ desire to decertify.
Currently, the Biden-appointed NLRB majority is conducting rulemaking to roll back these protections and make it much harder for workers to decertify a union.
Foundation Provides Legal Notice to Starbucks Employees
After being in contact with multiple Starbucks workers interested in how to resist union control, the Foundation issued a legal notice informing employees of the coffee chain of their right to petition for a vote to oust an unpopular union.
“No worker anywhere should be forced under so-called union ‘representation’ they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Starbucks workers around the nation that fall victim to union tyranny should know they can turn to Foundation staff attorneys for assistance.”
“Foundation staff attorneys are now fighting to ensure that these workers are not denied the vote that they are entitled to under federal law to remove union control they oppose,” continued Mix. “Union bosses should not be allowed to keep their grip on power simply by disenfranchising those they claim to ‘represent.’”
Las Vegas Plumbing Designer Wins Case Against Union Over Illegal Retaliatory Fines by UA Union Bosses
In apparent retaliation for participating as an observer in a Labor Board election, union officials attempted to fine Universal Plumbing and Heating employee $4,999
Las Vegas, NV (April 7, 2023) – David Webb, an employee at Universal Plumbing and Heating Inc. has won his legal battle against United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry (UA) Local 525, after UA union officials illegally attempted to fine him.
Webb exercised his right to participate as an election observer during a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)-sanctioned election at his workplace, only to be subjected to the fine attempt by UA officials. In response, Webb, with the assistance of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, filed federal unfair labor practice charges at National Labor Relations Board Region 28 against the UA for violating his rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
Unions cannot lawfully discipline nonmembers. Since 2017, Webb has not been a union member and has not paid any dues. Universal Plumbing and Heating Inc. is also not a unionized company. Despite this, UA union officials initiated internal union disciplinary charges against him, attempting to levy a fine of $4,999 for exercising his right to participate in an NLRB-conducted election, including as an official election observer. Union officials apparently initiated the illegal fine attempt after Webb’s coworkers voted against bringing the union into their workplace while Webb served as an election observer.
The charges National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed against the UA union for Webb explained that, because Webb was a non-member since 2017, he could not legally be subject to discipline by the union. Further, the charges noted that the fine was illegal retaliation for his protected NLRA activity in serving as an election observer.
Just 10 days after Foundation attorneys filed Webb’s unfair labor practice charges against the UA, the union capitulated, sending Webb a letter acknowledging they lacked the legal basis for the fine because he was not a union member, and that therefore he was not subject to the fine or any other sanction from the UA Local or national affiliate.
Although union bosses often initiate internal union discipline against voluntary union members, longstanding precedent protects workers who are not union members from being subjected to such retaliatory fines. Further, workers cannot legally be fined by union officials for exercising their protected rights under federal labor law, including participating in an NLRB-supervised election to decide whether or not union officials become the monopoly bargaining “representative” of workers in a given workplace.
Nevada is a Right to Work state, meaning workers cannot legally be required to join or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials who have obtained monopoly bargaining control in a workplace are granted the power to impose one-size-fits-all union contracts on all workers, including those who opt out of union membership and would prefer to negotiate their own terms of employment. In the election that triggered the illegal retaliatory fine against Webb, workers voted against granting UA union bosses such monopoly bargaining powers.
“This case was open and shut: Union officials know workers can exercise their rights to participate in an NLRB-sanctioned election and they were caught red-handed violating Webb’s rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Although the fine has officially been dropped, Foundation attorneys remain ready to protect all workers’ right to refrain from union activities.”
“Other workers in Nevada and nationwide facing similar backlash from union officials should know they can reach out to Foundation staff attorneys for free legal assistance in challenging union officials who violate their rights,” added Mix.
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.”
Foundation Helps Healthcare Workers Remove Unwanted Unions
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.
Evidence of union boss “serious financial malpractice” exposed as workers seek to vote out SEIU
Nurse Brittany Burgess (front, center) led her fellow Mayo Clinic nurses in decertifying the Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union. She’s “extremely grateful” for Foundation support.
DETROIT, MI – Workers across America are increasingly fed up with union bosses’ self-serving so-called “representation.” National Right to Work Foundation legal aid requests are spiking from workers seeking assistance in filing decertification petitions to end union monopoly bargaining control in their workplaces. In 2021 alone, Foundation attorneys provided legal assistance in 54 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decertification efforts, which together sought to end union boss control of more than 7,000 workers.
This increased demand has continued in 2022, with healthcare workers in particular seeking the Foundation’s legal aid in exercising their legal right to free themselves from union ranks. In one such ongoing case, Foundation staff attorneys assisted Crystal Harper, an employee at Detroit’s Sinai-Grace Hospital, who along with coworkers battled to oust SEIU Healthcare Michigan union officials.
Harper’s initial petition was rejected after an NLRB regional official dubiously dismissed the petition on the grounds that “Midnight, February 8th” in the union monopoly contract was actually unambiguously a reference to the minute after 11:59 p.m. on May 7. This questionable interpretation of union officials’ sloppily written contract meant that the petition filed on the 8th was actually late under the controversial NLRB-created “contract bar” policy.
Undeterred, that decision was appealed and a second petition for a decertification vote was filed in May after the contract bar had expired and a vote was scheduled. Meanwhile, “substantiated allegations of serious financial malpractice” have come to light involving the SEIU local that were so glaring even SEIU International President Mary Kay Henry couldn’t ignore them, as she was pushed to use the SEIU’s “trusteeship” procedures to oust local officials and take full control of the local.
As a result, in June, Foundation President Mark Mix formally asked the Department of Labor and Department of Justice to investigate the serious allegations of financial and other wrongdoing by SEIU local officials. The letter calling for the federal investigation noted that “any internal SEIU International investigation will be insufficient [given the] long history of union officials attempting to ignore or downplay corruption in their own ranks.”
Foundation Counters Union Legal Tricks to Block Vote
Elsewhere in Michigan, lab technicians at Ascension Providence Rochester Hospital have finally won their effort to be free of unwanted so-called “representation” by union officials of the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) Local 40.
During the protracted process, Foundation staff attorneys successfully fought off OPEIU union lawyers’ efforts to block the vote which cited the pending sale of the facility by Ascension to LabCorp as grounds for rejecting the workers’ request for an election. Union lawyers had urged the NLRB regional office to block a vote whether to remove the union on the grounds of an upcoming “cessation of operations” by the employer, a policy previously applied only to certification elections.
In briefs to the NLRB, Foundation staff attorneys countered that union attempts to block the vote were unjustified as a matter of law. Foundation attorneys also noted that the attempt to block the vote was likely a cynical attempt to keep power over the bargaining unit. If the sale ultimately went through, the union would have likely sought to block a decertification vote citing the NLRB-created “successor bar” that insulates union officials from decertification votes after a workplace’s change in ownership.
The Board ultimately rejected the union lawyers’ arguments and scheduled a decertification vote by mail-in ballot. However, rather than go forward with a vote they seemingly knew they were going to lose, OPEIU officials instead disclaimed interest in the unit, finally giving the workers the freedom from unwanted union representation they sought.
Meanwhile in Minnesota, multiple groups of healthcare workers are seeking decertification votes with Foundation legal aid. At the Mayo Clinic Health System in Mankato, Minnesota, approximately 500 nurses filed a petition for a vote to remove the Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union, while two separate units of Cuyuna of the lawsuit, Regional Medical Center healthcare workers located at facilities in Crosby, Baxter, Longville, and Breezy Point, Minnesota, filed for decertification votes to free themselves from the SEIU.
Hundreds of Minnesota Nurses Petition to Be Union Free
“I’m extremely grateful to have the free legal assistance of the National Right to Work Foundation in fighting for our right to hold a vote to remove the union,” commented Mayo Clinic Mankato nurse Brittany Burgess. “I can’t wait until the day when we are all finally free of the MNA.”
One likely reason for the increased decertification activity is Foundation-advocated reforms that were adopted by the NLRB in 2020 to curtail union officials’ abuse of so-called “blocking charges,” which they use to delay or block workers from exercising their right to decertify a union. However, with the Biden-appointed NLRB majority recently announcing it was starting rulemaking to overturn those reforms, Foundation staff attorneys are now gearing up to challenge the Biden Board’s attempt to give union bosses more power to trap workers in union ranks they oppose.
“Foundation staff attorneys will continue to assist workers in exercising their rights under federal law to hold decertification elections to remove so-called ‘representation’ opposed by most workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “The Biden NLRB is clearly prioritizing union boss power to the detriment of the rights of rank-and-file workers. Look no further than the fact that just as the Board seeks to expand the ability of union officials to impose unionization on workers through coercive ‘Card Checks’ without even secret-ballot votes, it simultaneously plans to make it easier for union lawyers to block workers from holding votes to remove a union.”
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.”
SF Security Officer Slams SEIU Union and Allied Universal with Federal Charges for Discrimination & Unfair Labor Practices
Despite informing both management and union of religious objections to union membership and financial support, employer seized money from worker’s paycheck for union
San Francisco, CA (November 10, 2022) – Thomas Ross, a San Francisco-based security officer employed by Allied Universal, has hit union officials affiliated with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and his employer with two sets of federal charges for forcing him to join and financially support the union after he told both parties his religious beliefs forbid union support. He is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Ross filed both federal discrimination charges, which will now be investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and unfair labor practice charges, which will be handled by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Ross is a Christian and opposes union affiliation on religious grounds. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits unions and employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. Title VII thus forbids forcing individuals to fund or support a union, the activities of which conflict with their religion. It also requires unions and employers to accommodate religious objections to union payments. Yet, according to Ross’ discrimination charges, SEIU union bosses flatly denied a request he made for such an accommodation.
Ross’ unfair labor practice charges, filed at NLRB Region 20, state that SEIU bosses and Allied Universal officials breached basic federal law by telling him that union membership is mandatory. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects private sector workers’ right to abstain from any or all union activities, and forced union membership is prohibited regardless of an individual worker’s reason for not wanting to affiliate with a union.
California’s lack of Right to Work protections for its private sector workers means that union officials are granted the power to force workers to pay them fees or be fired in workplaces where they maintain power. However, under federal law, employees with religious objections cannot be compelled to pay such fees. In Right to Work states, in contrast, no worker can be fired for refusal to financially support a union.
Union’s Discriminatory Demands Violate Both Title VII and Basic Federal Labor Law
According to his discrimination charges, Ross informed both the SEIU union and Allied Universal when he was hired in 2020 that his religious beliefs disallowed union membership and that he needed an accommodation. In addition to ignoring that request, his charges state that on July 20, 2022, “Allied Universal…demanded that I sign a payroll deduction, join the unions, and pay union dues.”
On August 31, 2022, Ross reminded Allied Universal of his religious objection to paying union dues, but on September 15, 2022, Ross’ “employer stated that union membership was compulsory and deducted union fees” from his paycheck without his consent.
Ross’ unfair labor practice charges state that those deductions violate the NLRA, because that statute prohibits the deduction of union dues and fees unless the employee has signed a written authorization. Ross’ discrimination charges argue that both his employer and the union have also violated his rights “under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” and parallel state non-discrimination laws.
Foundation Attorneys Regularly Win Cases for Workers Facing Religious Discrimination
Workers nationwide frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid when union chiefs snub their requests for religious accommodations or otherwise discriminate against them based on their religious beliefs.
This past July, Foundation staff attorneys scored a multi-million-dollar jury verdict for former Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter, whom Transport Workers Union (TWU) officials subjected to ridicule based on her religious opposition to union activities. This March, also with Foundation aid, Fort Campbell custodial worker Dorothy Frame won a settlement gaining a religious accommodation after Laborers’ (LIUNA) union officials unlawfully questioned her religious belief that she could not support financially the union’s political activities.
“The Foundation is proud to help working men and women who courageously stand up for their beliefs even in the midst of union coercion,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, it’s important to recognize that, regardless of whether an employee’s objection to union affiliation is religious in nature or not, no American worker should ever be forced to subsidize union activities they oppose.”
Healthcare Workers at Cuyuna Hospital Successfully Petition for Votes to Remove Union
NLRB reverses itself after wrongly undercounting number of technical employees seeking vote to remove union
Minneapolis, MN (September 21, 2022) – A vote to remove union representation at Cuyuna Regional Medical Center (CRMC) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, will move forward after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 18 reversed itself and admitted to undercounting workers’ signatures in support of removing the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) from their workplace. National Right to Work staff attorneys filed a Request for Review on August 24, 2022, pointing out that the Region clearly miscounted the number of valid signatures on a union decertification petition. Now that the NLRB has acknowledged its mistake, a new pre-election hearing date is scheduled for later this month.
Employee Laurie Murphy filed the decertification petition for CRMC Unit II technical employees, which includes employees in the laboratory, respiratory therapy, physical therapy and radiology departments, plus licensed practical nurses, engineers, certified occupational therapy assistants, pharmacy technicians, and accredited records technicians.
“CRMC employees would like to work for an organization that doesn’t have to run everything through the union. CRMC is a great company to work for and they care about all of their employees,” Ms. Murphy said in a statement explaining the widespread support among her Cuyuna Regional Medical Center colleagues for removing the SEIU.
“In my opinion, all they are is a middleman that we pay to ‘negotiate’ on our behalf with our employer. Frankly, I feel who better to negotiate on my behalf than myself,” added Murphy. “I don’t see any benefit in having a union at CRMC.”
Under federal law, when the required number of workers in a bargaining unit sign a petition seeking the removal of union officials’ monopoly bargaining powers, an NLRB-conducted secret ballot vote whether to remove the union is triggered. If a majority of workers casting ballots against vote for the union, the union is stripped of its government-granted monopoly “representation” powers.
Those powers let union officials impose contracts on all workers in the workplace, even workers who are not union members and oppose the union. Further, because Minnesota is not a Right to Work state, union-imposed contracts can include mandatory union dues or fees, with nonmember workers fired if they do not pay.
Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal statute the NLRB implements, workers possess an specified statutory right to remove an unwanted union through a decertification election. Yet the NLRB has invented out of whole cloth a “contract bar” that blocks workers’ right to hold a decertification election for up to three years after union officials and a company finalize a monopoly bargaining contract.
After miscounting the signatures, the NLRB Regional Director cited the “contract bar” as a reason for dismissing the petition. Had the Region not ultimately reversed itself, that erroneous decision could have blocked a decertification vote for three more years because of the contract bar.
In response, Murphy’s Foundation staff attorneys filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., asking them to not only review the dismissal of the petition, citing the undercounting of workers’ signatures, but also to reconsider the “contract bar” given its role in stifling workers’ statutory right to a decertification vote. Before the NLRB could rule the Region, finally admitting its miscount, reversed the earlier ruling not to move forward with the vote the workers had requested.
“We’re glad to see Ms. Murphy and her coworkers able to move forward with their decertification election, clear mistakes by the NLRB all of which, perhaps not coincidentally, served the interests of SEIU union bosses who don’t want to face a vote of rank-and-file workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The fact that a worker needs our legal support and expertise just to get the Labor Board to do really simple math is just the latest example of how the NLRB is biased against workers who oppose coercive unionization.”
Union Seeking to Destroy Ballots of Cuyuna Regional Medical Center Clerical Workers Who Want to Remove SEIU
The technical employees covered by Murphy’s petition are not the only group of workers at Cuyuna Regional Medical Center seeking to free themselves of unwanted SEIU so-called “representation.” Also with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, CRMC employee Terri Larson filed a separate decertification petition for clerical employees working in the business office or medical records department.
The clerical employees’ petition was promptly processed by the NLRB and a mail-ballot decertification election has already taken place. However, before the votes could be counted, the SEIU sought to block the election by filing “blocking charge” allegations. Now, not only are the votes impounded, the NLRB has announced it intends to decide whether or not to destroy the ballots at the request of SEIU lawyers.
“As this situation shows, winning the right to hold a decertification vote is often just the beginning for workers seeking to free themselves from union wanted union ‘representation,’” added Mix. “Biased NLRB-invented procedures give union officials the ability to block the tallying of votes against the union, often indefinitely, leaving workers trapped in union ranks they overwhelmingly oppose.”
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.”
