Another Janus Victory: South Jersey Bus Drivers Win Back Illegally Seized Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
New Foundation-backed challenges to Janus restrictions also pending at U.S. Supreme Court
Stop Requested: Tyron Foxworth and his fellow South Jersey Transportation Authority bus drivers told union officials to cease union dues to no avail, until Foundation staff attorneys’ lawsuit forced union bosses to back down.
CAMDEN, NJ – Toward the end of 2021, South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) bus driver Tyron Foxworth and his colleagues Doris Hamilton, Karen Burdett, Karen Hairston, Ted Lively, Arlene Gibson, and Stanley Burke decided they had had enough of International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) union bosses’ so-called “representation” and opted out of union membership. Union cards they had signed indicated that the union would cease taking money from their paychecks in January 2022.
But, January 2022 came and went, and neither Foxworth nor his fellow independent-minded colleagues saw dues deductions stop. As a result, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, they filed a First Amendment federal civil rights lawsuit against the IFPTE union. They argued that union officials violated their First Amendment rights under the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court precedent by continuing to seize dues despite their objections.
IFPTE Officials Subjected Drivers to Restrictions They Never Knew About
In Janus, the Court declared it a First Amendment violation to force public sector workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. It also ruled that union officials can only deduct dues from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Rather than face Foundation staff attorneys in federal court, IFPTE union lawyers backed down and settled the case. As the settlement ordered, union bosses have now given back all money they seized unconstitutionally from Foxworth and his objecting coworkers, plus interest. The settlement also bars the IFPTE union from demanding or seizing any dues from the drivers going forward.
According to Foxworth and his colleagues, IFPTE dues deductions cards led them to believe that dues opt-outs would become effective on either the January or July following a request. However, the union’s monopoly bargaining contract with SJTA recognized dues revocations only in July. The drivers never consented to this greater restriction.
Foundation attorneys argued in the lawsuit that IFPTE union officials, by taking union dues after January 1, 2022, without the workers’ consent, “violate[d] Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free speech and association.”
Foxworth and his coworkers’ victory is the latest of numerous Foundation-won cases to vindicate American public workers’ First Amendment Janus rights. In the past few years, class action lawsuits brought by Foundation staff attorneys have led to settlements freeing tens of thousands of Ohio public employees from American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union schemes illegally restricting the exercise of their Janus rights.
Courageous public workers from California and Nevada are also asking the Supreme Court to take the next step and declare such Janus restrictions clearly violative of the First Amendment.
Lifeguards, Police Officer Battle Blatantly Unconstitutional Restrictions
Foundation attorneys just filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear several Southern California lifeguards’ suit against a so-called “maintenance of membership” scheme that California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials are using to trap the lifeguards in membership and full dues payments years after they resigned, in direct opposition to Janus.
Also awaiting Supreme Court review of her case is Las Vegas police officer Melodie DePierro, who with Foundation aid is battling an arrangement imposed by Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) union officials that forbids the exercise of her Janus rights for over 90 percent of the year.
“Union officials across the country continue to enforce schemes that give them — not the workers they claim to ‘represent– control over the exercise of Janus rights, meaning more money in union coffers while employees’ constitutional rights are squashed,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While many union bosses, aware of the indefensibility of their actions, run screaming from facing Foundation attorneys on Janus issues and settle quickly, American public workers should also know that Foundation attorneys will fight all the way up to the Supreme Court to ensure their First Amendment rights are protected.”
Workers Win Cash Back in Case Challenging Illegal Discrimination for Non-Union Status
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.
Machinists union scheme sought to deny non-union workers’ bonuses because they opposed union association
IAM bosses regularly discriminate against dissident workers. In 2011, Foundation-assisted South Carolina Boeing employee Dennis Murray recounted how IAM officials tried to shutter his plant because workers there had voted the IAM out.
RIDGWAY, PA – Twelve nonunion factory employees at Clarion Sintered Metals, Inc., have each received $1,000 in back pay bonuses after being illegally discriminated against by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Local 2448 and their employer. With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, factory worker James Cobaugh filed federal charges against Clarion and IAM as he sought justice for himself and other non-member workers subject to unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Cobaugh’s charges against the union and his employer were filed on April 22, 2022, with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The charges came after the union and Clarion Sintered Metals gave $1,000 bonuses to union members, but denied them to workers who exercised their legal right not to join the union. Rather than face prosecution by the NLRB, both the union and employer have now agreed to settle the case.
In addition to the non-union employees receiving the bonuses they were previously denied as a result of the illegal discrimination, both the IAM and Clarion Sintered Metals are required to post notices that inform workers of their right to refrain from joining a union. The notices also state union officials will not maintain or enforce such discriminatory agreements going forward.
Machinists Union Bosses Already Forced Non-Union Workers to Pay Dues
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for private sector employees, unions can force workers to pay up to 100% of union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. This means that Mr. Cobaugh, although not a formal IAM union member, can be forced to pay up to 100% of IAM’s union dues to keep his job at Clarion Sintered Metals.
Even in Right to Work states, under federal law union bosses are granted the power to impose “representation” on individual workers against their will, including forcing non-member workers under union monopoly contracts they oppose. By stripping workers of their right to bargain for their own terms and conditions of employment, individual workers by law are prohibited from negotiating for themselves with their employers for better conditions.
Forced Union Monopoly ‘Representation’ Long Used to Discriminate
Union officials frequently use these government-granted powers to harm certain workers, for example those workers who, based on their productivity, would otherwise earn performance bonuses or higher compensation. Although union officials can impose one-size-fits-all monopoly contracts that favor some workers over others, there are some limits on how union monopoly powers can be used to discriminate.
The U.S. Supreme Court imposed these limits after union officials wielded their powers to negotiate and enforce racially discriminatory contracts (Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co. et al.). Explicitly discriminating against workers who exercise their legally protected right to not formally join a union and not be subject to internal union rules, as the IAM officials did in this case, has also long been illegal.
“This situation highlights how workers less knowledgeable of their legal rights are susceptible to blatantly illegal tactics of power-hungry union bosses,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Mr. Cobaugh courageously stood up to the union’s unlawful actions, not only for himself, but also for the other non-member workers subjected to this illegal discrimination.”
Worker Advocate Files Supreme Court Brief Opposing Union Boss Attempt to Evade Liability for Property Damage
Amicus brief in Glacier Northwest argues “Unions need no further exemptions and special legal privileges” and SCOTUS should “scrutinize” existing ones
Washington, DC (November 7, 2022) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today filed an amicus brief at the United States Supreme Court. The brief argues that the High Court should overturn a Washington Supreme Court decision that created a special exemption for union officials and their “more aggressive” members from liability under state tort law when property destruction and vandalism result from union boss-ordered actions.
The Foundation’s brief was filed in Glacier Northwest Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174, which deals with a union boss-ordered strike against construction company Glacier Northwest. Glacier Northwest’s attempt to sue the union over property damage caused by strike activities was denied by the Washington Supreme Court. Washington’s highest court accepted Teamsters lawyers’ argument that the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) allowance for union strikes somehow also immunizes unions from liability when strike activities destroy and vandalize property.
The Supreme Court announced last month it would hear arguments in the case. Those arguments haven’t been scheduled yet but are expected to occur in early 2023.
The Foundation provides free legal aid to hundreds of workers every year whose rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses, including those that occur during strikes. It contends in the brief that the Washington Supreme Court’s creation of a new “carve-out” in state law for vandalism and property destruction organized by union officials will leave not only employers, but also employees, with no recourse when harmed by such strike violence and mayhem. The Foundation points out that union officials already enjoy a slew of privileges and immunities under state and federal law enjoyed by no other private organization or citizen, and that this power should be pared back instead of expanded.
Foundation: Union Officials’ Enormous Special Legal Privileges Should Not Be Expanded
The Foundation explains in the amicus brief that “states’ interest in protecting life, limb, and private property must be respected under principles of federalism” because federal remedies generally don’t exist for violations of these interests. Far from being a concern only for employers who face union strike efforts, the Foundation argues, employees are often targeted by hostile or violent strike behavior and state courts often are the only forum in which they can receive justice.
“For example, in Clegg v. Powers, employees sought damages in state court for union violence and property damage during a strike,” the brief says. “Cases like Clegg demonstrate that the Court should limit” unions’ ability to dodge liability in state courts, not extend it, says the brief.
The Foundation’s brief then points out that the exemption from liability for torts that Teamsters bosses seek should also be restricted given “the extraordinary privileges and exemptions already granted to unions” by Congress and courts all over the country.
These include, but are not limited to, the ability to perform acts that would be considered extortion if committed by any other private party, pursuant to the controversial 1973 United States v. Enmons Supreme Court decision. Union officials also have the privilege to foist monopoly “representation” over all workers in a workplace regardless of whether they are union members or voted for the union in power. Probably the most abusive union boss privilege of all is the power to force employees in non-Right to Work states to pay union dues or fees just to stay employed, while maintaining monopoly bargaining control in a workplace with no effective term limits.
“This Court should treat unions like all other citizens or entities, clarifying that they can be liable for damages in state courts under ‘the common law rule that a man is held to intend the foreseeable consequences of his conduct,’” the brief concludes.
“Union officials’ theory that they should be off the hook in state court for damaging or vandalizing property is outrageous on its face. The law already has plenty of carve-outs and privileges for union hierarchies that no other private organization or citizen gets to enjoy – least of all the workers union bosses claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials regularly force millions of workers to pay union fees or be fired, and force their ‘representation’ on millions of workers who bitterly oppose it. The Supreme Court must reject this shocking union ploy for even more coercive powers, and hold the existing set of union boss privileges to much more scrutiny.”
NYC University Professors Take Aim at Forced Union ‘Representation’
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
CUNY professors’ lawsuit argues NY law forces them under power of anti-Semitic union
Prof. Avraham Goldstein recalled in a Wall Street Journal piece the anti-Semitism his family faced in the Soviet Union. He and other plaintiffs argue they shouldn’t be forced to associate with a union that subjects them to similar hostility.
NEW YORK, NY – For decades, government sector union bosses have relied on two pillars of coercion — forced dues and forced representation — to maintain their grip on power over America’s public servants and the public services citizens rely on.
While the Supreme Court in the 2018 National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case recognized that forcing government employees to pay dues to stay employed violates the First Amendment, a new Foundation-assisted civil rights lawsuit from six City University of New York (CUNY) system professors may finally defeat union bosses’ privilege to impose union representation over the objections of public workers.
CUNY professors Jeffrey Lax, Michael Goldstein, Avraham Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, and Maria Pagano sued the AFL-CIO-affiliated Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union, CUNY executives, and New York State officials in January, challenging New York State’s “Taylor Law” that gives unions monopoly bargaining privileges in public sector workplaces like CUNY.
The plaintiffs, most of whom are Jewish, oppose the union’s “representation” on the grounds that union officials and adherents have relentlessly denigrated their religious and cultural identity. Several of the plaintiffs exercised their Janus right to cut off dues after PSC officials rammed through a resolution in June 2021 that they found “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel,” according to the lawsuit.
Discrimination Cited in Groundbreaking First Amendment Case
The lawsuit, which was filed with legal aid from both the National Right to Work Foundation and Pennsylvania-based Fairness Center, says: “Despite Plaintiffs’ resignations from membership in PSC, Defendants . . . acting in concert and under color of state law, force all Plaintiffs to continue to utilize PSC as their exclusive bargaining representative.”
The resolution is not nearly the worst example of PSC officials’ anti-Semitism, according to the lawsuit. Prof. Michael Goldstein asserts that adherents of PSC are waging a campaign to get him fired and have targeted him with harassment and threats such that he must have an armed guard accompany him on campus. Prof. Lax cites in the lawsuit a determination he has already received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that “PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.”
While all of the professors take issue with PSC bosses’ radicalism, they also want to break free from internal conflicts within the large and disparate unit, which consists of full-time, part-time, and adjunct teaching employees and others. Prof. Kass-Shraibman states in the lawsuit that “instead of prioritizing the pay of full-time faculty, PSC expended resources advocating on behalf of teachers in Peru, graduate students at various other universities and the so-called ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement.”
On top of all that, Profs. Avraham Goldstein, Kass-Shraibman, and Langbert contend that PSC officials aren’t even respecting their First Amendment Janus rights. Although all three professors clearly indicated they wanted to cut off financial support to the union, the lawsuit explains that “Defendants PSC and the City . . . have taken and continue to take and/or have accepted and continue to accept union dues from [their] wages as a condition of employment . . .” in violation of Janus.
“I had paid thousands of dollars in union dues for workplace representation, not for political statements or attacks on my beliefs and identity,” Prof. Avraham Goldstein wrote in a piece for The Wall Street Journal. “I decided to resign my union membership and naively thought I could leave the union and its politics behind for good.”
“I was wrong,” recounted Prof. Goldstein. “Union officials refused my resignation and continued taking union dues out of my paycheck.”
Suit Seeks Damages and to Overturn NY Law Authorizing Union Control
The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the Taylor Law’s imposition of monopoly union control is unconstitutional, and that the defendants cease “certifying or recognizing PSC, or any other union, as Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative without their consent.” The lawsuit also demands the union and university return dues seized in violation of Janus to Profs. Avraham Goldstein, Kass-Shraibman, and Langbert.
“By forcing these professors into a monopoly union collective against their will, the state of New York mandates that they associate with union officials and other union members who take positions that are deeply offensive to these professors’ most fundamental beliefs,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “New York State’s Taylor Law authorizes such unconscionable compulsion. It is time federal courts fully protect the rights of government employees to exercise their freedom to disassociate from an unwanted union, whether their objections are religious, cultural, financial, or otherwise.”
Las Vegas Police Officer Urges Supreme Court to Hear Case Battling Union’s Unconstitutional Dues Scheme
LVMPD officer argues union officials seized her money in violation of First Amendment through restrictive arrangement to which she never consented
Washington, DC (November 21, 2022) – Las Vegas police officer Melodie DePierro has submitted a petition asking the United States Supreme Court to hear her lawsuit defending her First Amendment right to abstain from paying dues to a union she does not support. DePierro is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
DePierro, a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officer, contends in the lawsuit that officials of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) union seized dues money from her paycheck in violation of her First Amendment rights pursuant to a so-called “window period” specified in the union contract. PPA officials’ “window period” scheme prohibits police officers from opting out of union financial support for over 90% of the year. DePierro never consented to – nor was ever informed of – this limitation.
DePierro seeks to enforce her First Amendment rights recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME case, which was argued and won by Foundation attorneys. The Justices ruled in Janus that forcing public sector workers to subsidize an unwanted union as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. They also held that union officials can only deduct dues from a public sector employee who has affirmatively waived his or her Janus rights.
“[I]f employee consent is not required, governments and unions can, and will…devise and enforce onerous restrictions on when employees can stop subsidizing union speech,” reads the brief.
PPA Union Officials Imposed on Officer Contract Provision She Never Knew About
According to DePierro’s original complaint, she began working for LVMPD in 2006 and voluntarily joined the PPA union at that time. However, in 2006 the union monopoly bargaining contract permitted employees to terminate dues deductions at any time.
In January 2020, she first tried to exercise her Janus rights, sending letters to both union officials and the LVMPD stating that she was resigning her membership. The letters demanded a stop to union dues being taken from her paycheck.
Her complaint reported that union and police department agents rejected that request because of the union-imposed “window period” restriction previously unknown to DePierro that purportedly limits when employees can exercise their Janus rights. As her brief notes, that “window period” restriction was added in the 2019 monopoly bargaining contract between union officials and the police department, despite the fact Janus had already been decided by then.
DePierro never agreed to such a restriction on the exercise of her First Amendment rights, but union agents nonetheless rebuffed her again when she renewed her demand to stop dues deductions in February 2020. When she filed her lawsuit, full union dues were still coming out of her paycheck.
DePierro’s Supreme Court petition argues that, because union officials kept seizing money from her wages under the guise of the “window period,” and never sought her consent to the restriction, they violated the First Amendment. As per Janus, union officials must obtain a worker’s waiver of their Janus rights before deducting dues or fees from their pay. DePierro asks the High Court to declare the “window period” scheme unconstitutional, forbid PPA and LVMPD from further enforcing it, and order PPA and LVMPD to refund with interest all dues unlawfully withheld from her pay since she tried to stop the deductions.
“This Court’s review is urgently needed because the Ninth Circuit’s decision is allowing governments and unions to unilaterally decide when and how to restrict employees’ right to refrain from subsidizing union speech—without the need to secure their affirmative consent to the restriction,” asserts the brief.
Officer Joins California Lifeguards in Asking Justices to Uphold Janus Ruling
DePierro’s petition comes as 21 Foundation-represented Southern California lifeguards are also urging the Supreme Court to hear their case challenging an anti-Janus dues scheme concocted by California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials. That scheme has trapped the lifeguards in union membership and full dues deductions until 2023, despite each of the lifeguards exercising his or her Janus right to abstain from union membership and union financial support.
As in DePierro’s case, the lifeguards were not explicitly informed of the so-called “maintenance of membership” restriction which now confines them in membership and full dues payment. Moreover, union officials never obtained voluntary waivers of Janus rights from any of the lifeguards before subjecting them to this scheme.
“Janus’ First Amendment protections are meant to ensure that workers are not being forced to subsidize union bosses of whom they disapprove, whether based on union officials’ ineffectiveness, political activities, divisive conduct in the workplace, or any other reason,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials’ defense of schemes that siphon money out of unwilling workers’ paychecks sends a clear message that they value dues revenue over the constitutional rights of the workers they claim to ‘represent.’”
“Two parties, here the union and police department, cannot enter into an agreement to restrict the First Amendment rights of an American citizen, yet that is exactly what has happened here to Officer DePierro,” Mix added. “The Supreme Court must defend Janus rights against such obvious violations, and ensure that these unconstitutional schemes are not allowed to stand.”
Forced Dues For Politics: CWA Union Hit with Federal Charge by Pennsylvania Metal Worker
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
CWA officials defied decades of law by rejecting worker’s resignation
Coates’ case challenging illegal seizure of forced dues for politics comes after one analysis found that union officials likely spent over $12 billion on political activities during the 2019-2020 election cycle, far more than union officials publicly admit.
GALETON, PA – An employee of metal corporation Catalus hit a Communications Workers of America (CWA) union local this May with federal charges for illegally seizing full union dues from his paycheck, including dues for politics. Curtis Coates, a metal worker for Catalus, is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Foundation attorneys filed Mr. Coates’ charges with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 6 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Region is now investigating the charges.
CWA Union Officials Continue to Collect Dues from Worker, Despite Lack of Authorization
On October 20, 2021, Mr. Coates sent a message to CWA union officials declaring that he was resigning from his position as shop steward and terminating his union membership.
Because no union monopoly contract was in effect, under longstanding law, Coates should have been able to immediately cut all financial support for the CWA union which he no longer supports. The charges say a union official rebuffed both of Mr. Coates’ requests the next day, insisting that he had to remain both a union member and a shop steward.
From December 2021 to February 2022, Mr. Coates followed up with union officials several times via email and mail. He repeatedly asked when union officials would cease taking dues money from his paychecks and what process he had to follow to revoke his dues deduction authorization to stop money from being seized from his paychecks.
“To date, the Union has not responded . . . and dues and contributions continue to be deducted from his wages,” the charge reads. Because Pennsylvania currently lacks a Right to Work law, union officials can legally force employees to pay some union fees just to keep their jobs. However, those forced fees cannot be demanded when no union contract is in effect.
Further, even in states without Right to Work protections full union membership cannot be required. Additionally, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CWA v. Beck (1988), won by Foundation attorneys, forced fees are limited to only the part of union dues that union officials claim goes toward a union’s core “representational” functions and cannot be collected for other activities like union politics and lobbying.
Conflict of Interest: NLRB General Counsel is a Former CWA Union Official
Currently, the NLRB General Counsel is former CWA attorney Jennifer Abruzzo, who has expressed support for a number of policies which give union officials greater power to force workers into dues-paying union ranks, even without a vote. Foundation attorneys requested last year that Abruzzo recuse herself from a case involving an Oregon ABC cameraman who accused another CWA local of demanding illegal dues from him, including dues for politics.
Coates’ case represents another potential conflict of interest for Abruzzo, who has repeatedly sided with union officials against the rights of workers opposed to union affiliation.
“Mr. Coates’ right to refrain from funding union activities is being ignored by CWA union officials as they continue to unlawfully seize full union dues, which includes money used for union political activities,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “This case shows why Pennsylvania workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to make all union payments strictly voluntary: So union bosses cannot so brazenly collect money to which they are not entitled under longstanding federal law.”
“Further, Mr. Coates’ case demonstrates the obvious conflict of interest that exists as Abruzzo, a former CWA lawyer, is charged with enforcing workers’ rights violated by her former CWA union colleagues,” Semmens added.
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.
Teamsters Officials ‘Beck’ Down: Must Return Thousands in Dues Seized for Politics
Foundation-won settlement also forces union officials to stop threatening non-members
SoCal Shenanigans: Teamsters officials’ disrespect for rank-and-file workers and their rights led to multiple Foundation-backed employee actions against them in just the past year.
LOS ANGELES, CA – When Nelson Medina and about 60 of his coworkers at Savage Services in Long Beach tried to exercise their right as union non-members to opt out of funding Teamsters Local 848 officials’ political expenditures, Teamsters bosses responded with harassment, misinformation, and threats of termination.
Now, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, they have won a settlement that required Teamsters honchos to pay back thousands of dollars in dues union officials seized in violation of workers’ rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections, even Golden State private sector workers who oppose a union’s presence in their workplace can be required to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs. However, under the Beck decision, union officials can never require non-members to subsidize union political activity. Beck also entitles employees who have abstained from union membership to receive union financial disclosures.
Teamsters Bosses to Workers: Fund Union Politics or Be Fired
Medina originally filed charges against Teamsters officials for illegal dues practices in September 2021. The charges stated that he had sent Teamsters officials a letter on August 15 exercising his right to reject formal union membership and invoking his right under Beck to cut off dues deductions for union politics.
About a month after the letter, the charge noted, union officials informed Savage Services management by mail that if Medina and 12 fellow employees who also objected to full union membership did not complete membership applications and pay full dues for the month of September, the employer should terminate the employees before September’s final week.
The settlement, in addition to requiring Teamsters bosses to return nearly $6,000 in illegally taken dues to Savage Services employees, also mandated that union officials declare in a public notice that they “will not fail to provide non-member employees with a breakdown of dues and fees required for Beck objectors upon request.”
They also had to declare they “will not threaten employees who have raised Beck objections with termination for failing to complete a union application as a condition of employment.”
“That Teamsters Local 848 officials illegally siphoned money for politics from almost 60 Savage Services employees and threatened termination of those who dared to stand up for their rights demonstrates clearly that Teamsters officials prioritize power far above the employees they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “Based on the sheer number of employees in Medina’s workplace who received refunds as the result of this settlement, Teamsters officials apparently played fast and loose with the rights of all workers who objected to the union agenda.”
Foundation Attorneys Counter Teamsters Coercion Across Southern California
Last September, Foundation staff attorneys also aided Ventura, CA, Airgas employees in removing Teamsters Local 848 from their facility. After litigation that had lasted almost a year, as well as two submissions of petitions demonstrating a majority of workers at the plant wanted the Teamsters gone, union officials finally departed the plant. They did so just before the NLRB was slated to conduct a secret-ballot vote whether to remove the union at the plant, likely leaving to avoid an embarrassing rejection by the workers.
The string of Foundation-assisted worker victories over unwanted Teamsters officials in Southern California continued last year when Ozvaldo Gutierrez and his XPO Logistics coworkers forced Teamsters Local 63 union bosses out of their Los Angeles facility in October.
Boeing Technician Files Federal Lawsuit Against Machinists Union Over Illegal Forced Dues Demands
Instead of reducing nonmember worker’s payments in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, union bosses charged him arbitrary higher amount
Seattle, WA (May 24, 2022) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Seattle Boeing technician Don Zueger is suing International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials in federal court for violating his right to refrain from paying for unwanted union activities.
Zueger, who is not a member of the IAM union, is defending his right under the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which the Court ruled that union officials cannot charge full union dues to objecting private sector workers who have abstained from formal union membership. Under Beck, union officials can only charge union nonmembers “fees” which exclude expenses for things like union political activities.
Because Washington State lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, nonmembers like Zueger can be forced to pay the reduced amount under Beck as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
IAM Officials Continue to Overcharge Worker in Violation of His Rights
According to Zueger’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, he submitted a request to IAM union officials in February resigning his union membership and asking for his dues payments to be reduced under Beck.
Zueger’s lawsuit reports that IAM officials’ response to his Beck request claimed that, under IAM’s nationwide policy, the portion of union dues he is required to pay is based on averages of selected audits that in each case include nine other local and district IAM affiliates. This means the forced union fee amount is not calculated using the actual amounts determined in the audits of the local and district IAM affiliates that Zueger is required to fund as a condition of employment. Unsurprisingly, this resulted in Zueger’s dues reduction being significantly less than it would have been had union officials only used the audits for the district and local affiliates Zueger is forced to fund.
According to his lawsuit, union officials are still demanding from Zueger dues in excess of the amount Beck permits. The lawsuit seeks to force IAM union bosses to return all money demanded in violation of Beck and to properly reduce his future union payments in accordance with Beck.
Workers Should Be Wary of Illegal Union Dues Schemes as Union Political Activity Increases
Zueger’s lawsuit comes after union bosses spent near-record sums on politics during the 2020 election cycle. A report by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released in 2021 revealed that union officials’ own Department of Labor filings show about $2 billion in political spending during the 2020 cycle, primarily from dues-stocked union general treasuries. Moreover, other estimates strongly suggest that actual union spending on political and lobbying activities actually topped $12 billion in 2019-2020.
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out when union officials are trying to strong-arm employees into subsidizing union activities, including politics, against their will. IAM officials’ nonmember dues scheme doesn’t pass the smell test,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re proud to help Mr. Zueger defend his Beck rights, ultimately no American worker should be forced to pay fees determined by the whims of union officials simply in order to keep their jobs.”
“This case shows why Right to Work laws are needed nationwide to ensure that the decision to join or financially support a union is strictly a matter of each individual worker’s own conscience. Workers should be especially aware of attempts by union officials to force them to fund union activities as union political activity heats up in advance of this year’s elections,” Mix added.
