**Visalia, CA (April 21, 2006)** – California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) prosecutors have issued a formal complaint against the United Farm Workers (UFW) union for misrepresentations, illegal threats, and unlawful dues demands against California Mushroom employees.
The complaint stems from unfair labor practice charges brought by a pair of California Mushroom (formerly PictSweet Mushroom Farms) workers in early March 2004 alleging that UFW union officials unlawfully demanded and/or collected full union dues from their paychecks, and threatened dissenting workers with a loss of health benefits if they refused to sign dues check-off authorization cards.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Guillermo Virgen and Gerardo Mendoza filed the class-action charges on behalf of roughly 400 workers employed by California Mushroom. Aside from unlawful dues collections and threats, the union hierarchy also failed to inform thousands of laborers statewide that they have the right to certain procedural protections to assure that their forced union dues do not finance activities unrelated to collective bargaining.

In accordance with the formal complaint received this week, the ALRB is demanding that UFW union officials inform California Mushroom employees of their right to refrain from paying full union dues, to provide the workers with an audit of the union’s books, and to establish and provide procedures by which the employees can challenge the amount of forced dues the union deducts from their paychecks.

“This ruling stalls UFW union officials’ all-out offensive on California agricultural employees’ rights,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union hierarchy’s repeated refusal to respect the workers’ basic freedoms shows a clear disdain, not only for the employees that they claim to represent, but also for the rule of law.”

The ALRB formal complaint states that UFW union officials intentionally misled workers by claiming all workers in the bargaining unit were required to pay full union dues as a condition of employment. The Board also found that UFW union officials unlawfully failed to inform employees of their rights to object to paying for non-collective bargaining activities, such as politics, and the right to challenge the union’s fee calculations before an impartial decision-maker.

Additionally, union officials demanded that workers sign dues check-off cards authorizing the automatic deduction of full union dues from their paychecks to keep their jobs. UFW officials then threatened workers with firings and loss of benefits if they failed to pay full dues and sign payroll deduction authorization cards. The actions of UFW union officials not only violated the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, but also unlawfully infringed on constitutional rights recognized in several Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

**Toledo, OH (April 21, 2006)** – With the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, four nurses from the St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center in Toledo have filed federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 8 Director in Cleveland against the United Auto Workers (UAW) union and its Toledo Local 12 for violating their rights.

The charges detail how UAW union officials have used a compulsory unionism clause in their contract with the medical center to threaten to have nurses fired, despite failing to inform the employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and the right to pay a reduced fee in lieu of dues. Under the Foundation-won United States Supreme Court decision Communications Workers v. Beck, union officials must inform workers of their right to remain nonmembers or resign from formal union membership and to refrain from paying for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities.

In addition to their “pay-up-or-be-fired” threats, union officials have also recently begun demanding forced union dues from per diem nurses without informing them of their rights.

The medical professionals also charge automotive union officials with misleading nurses into filling out UAW membership cards that “irrevocably” designate the UAW as their exclusive representative in all employment matters, flouting the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Foundation-supported case of Pattern Makers v. National Labor Relations Board, which affirmed the right of private sector employees to resign their formal union membership at any time. The union cards also require the employee to pledge “true and faithful Allegiance to the International (UAW) Union.”

Frustrated by their treatment at the hands of union officials, a group of nurses have created a website called “Nurses For A Union Free St. Vincents” (www.NursesKnowTheTruth.bravehost.com) with the goal of ridding their medical center of the unwanted automotive union. According to federal labor law, if 30 percent of the nurses in the autoworkers union collective bargaining unit sign the decertification petition, the NLRB will hold an election where the nurses can vote the union out. However, if a majority of the nurses sign the petition the hospital can voluntarily drop its recognition of the union.

“UAW union officials have shown their willingness to break any law in their never-ending mission to corral more St. Vincent nurses into paying forced union dues,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Given such disregard for the rights of the very rank-and-file employees that UAW officials claim to represent, it comes as no surprise that many nurses are leading an effort to show them the door.”

**Cape Canaveral, FL (April 18, 2006)** – Nine Boeing employees have filed a wave of federal unfair labor practice charges against the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union for unlawful threats of fines for refusing to walk off the job during a union-ordered strike. Union officials also unlawfully failed to inform the launch complex workers of their right to refrain from formal union membership.

The charges, filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, allege that IAM union officials illegally told the employees they had to formally join the union as a condition of employment. Additionally, the charges detail that the union is currently attempting to discipline the employees with unlawful fines for continuing to work during a strike that lasted from November 2005 to February 2006. Workers at the facility report that fines from union officials appear imminent, though the amount remains undisclosed.

“IAM union officials’ policy of bullying dissenting employees cannot go unpunished,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union officials’ thuggish tactics demonstrate how the union hierarchy’s interests are at odds with those of the very employees they claim to represent.”

The actions of IAM union officials violate workers’ rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must specifically inform employees of their right to refrain from formal, full dues-paying union membership, and of their right to pay a reduced fee to cover only the union’s collective bargaining costs.

Foundation attorneys contend that, because the employees were under the impression they had to become formal IAM union members and pay full union dues in order to keep their jobs, they are involuntary union members and thus are not subject to internal union discipline.

Because the Boeing employees work at the Cape Canaveral launch complex – which is considered an “exclusive federal enclave” – they do not enjoy the protections of Florida’s highly-popular Right to Work law. A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union.

**Olympia, WA (April 13, 2006)** – Despite admitting that they wrongly threatened and caused the firings of state government workers across Washington for refusing to pay union dues, Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union officials this week refused a second formal request from the National Right to Work Foundation to refund all forced union dues seized under their unlawful demands. More than 20,000 additional state government employees are now paying dues to the WFSE union – an amount estimated to be more than $10 million to date – under the union hierarchy’s admittedly unlawful “pay up or be fired” threats over the past nine months.

In letters dated March 31 and April 10, National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix wrote to the WFSE union’s head lawyer demanding that his client immediately stop seizing dues and return all dues taken from workers who were not voluntary members of the union at the time the forced dues clause went into effect. “Any action that sincerely respected workers’ rights would include returning all prospective dues seizures and all forced union dues seized pursuant to the union hierarchy’s unlawful ultimatum,” wrote Mix.

In a lawsuit filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington with free legal assistance from the Foundation, a group of Washington state workers charged the WFSE union with denying them their constitutional due-process rights – and subsequently ordering employees across the state fired for refusing to pay compulsory union dues.

Attempting to avoid an embarrassing federal court injunction, WFSE officials claimed they will seek no further firings for the moment, and that they would ensure that all terminated workers be rehired. Foundation attorneys point out that the workers’ lawsuit will proceed as planned because they have received no concrete evidence any of the dues will be returned or multiple due-process violations halted.

“WFSE officials’ shameless refusal to return millions of dollars illegally seized from workers’ paychecks further demonstrates that they are more concerned with fattening their coffers than representing the interests of state employees,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “However, union partisans in the state legislature deserve most of the blame for foisting an unwanted union on these workers in the first place.”

In May 2005, WFSE union officials sent a mailing to state employees informing them they would be fired if they refused to pay union dues. But this notice failed to provide certain constitutionally-required safeguards of employees’ rights to ensure they are not forced to pay for more than the cost of collective bargaining. These safeguards include a verification or audit of union expenditures, as well as an explanation for the basis of the portions of the workers’ fees claimed to be chargeable. WFSE union officials are also unlawfully requiring employees who wish to object to funding political and other non-collective bargaining activities to sign automatic payroll deduction forms.

The state workers charge that the seizure of forced dues by WFSE union officials without due process is a violation of their constitutional rights articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson decision. Hudson requires union officials to provide an independently-audited disclosure of their books and justify their expenditures before seizing any forced union dues from employees.

**Related Documents:**
March 31 Letter to WFSE Lawyer
News Release: WFSE Union Officials Forced to Admit Wrongdoing in Ordering State Workers Fired for Refusal to Pay Dues

**Annandale, VA (April 7, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Giant Food worker Kevin Nguyen has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union Local 400 officials for deceiving employees into paying union dues.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) charge details how a UFCW union official misled Nguyen to believe that joining the union and paying dues was a condition of his employment and how union officials have been deducting union dues from his paycheck despite his requests that they stop.

Shortly after Giant hired him, Nguyen – a teenager who works part-time at an Annandale Giant store as an after-school job – was approached by a UFCW union official who said that he was “from Giant” and had additional paperwork “from Giant” that Nguyen needed to sign. In doing so the union obtained Nguyen’s signature on a union dues deduction card authorizing the automatic seizure of a significant amount in union dues from his small paycheck. Federal law states that private sector employees cannot be required to sign payroll dues deduction cards as a condition of employment.

“Union operatives must be punished for their bullying of teenagers and other employees to pay union dues,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “This case shows what little regard union officials have for the law and the employees they seek to represent.”

The NLRB charge also alleges that this illegal misrepresentation was part of a pattern in which union operatives preyed on students, part-time workers and non-English speaking employees to improperly swindle the employees into paying union dues that they were led to believe were a required condition of employment.

In addition to violating federal law, the union hierarchy’s actions violate the spirit of Virginia’s popular Right to Work law. Virginia is one of 22 states with a Right to Work law that protects employees from being forced to support a union as a condition of employment.

Once Nguyen realized that the he could not be legally forced to pay the union dues he sent a letter to the UFCW local treasurer, resigning his so-called “membership” and asking that the dues deductions stop. He further demanded a refund of all dues collected because he was never a truly voluntary union member. Union officials have so far ignored his demands and continue to collect full dues from his paycheck.

**High Point, NC (April 6, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Thomas Built Buses employees today filed a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for refusing to allow them to bring extraordinary last-ditch union election misconduct to the attention of the agency.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, the suit alleges that the NLRB improperly refused to allow workers to challenge the results of a tainted union election that granted United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials monopoly bargaining power over roughly 1,200 employees at the Thomas Built plant.

NLRB officials decreed that employees may not intervene to assert their rights and challenge union representation election results. The precedent-setting decision contradicts the notion that the National Labor Relations Act establishes rights for employees, rather than simply empowering union officials. Foundation attorneys point out that the ruling violates workers’ procedural due-process rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The NLRB’s decision whitewashed the illegal eleventh hour intervention of Thomas Built to assist its hand-picked union in winning monopoly bargaining representation over the employees. Thomas Built officials issued a surprise memo to all High Point workers in June 2005, one day before a union representation election, announcing that employees would have to pay higher health insurance premiums if they remained nonunion.

Working in tandem, UAW union operatives immediately circulated copies of the memo around the facility with “DID YOU SEE THIS» THE COST OF BEING NON-UNION JUST WENT UP!” written at the top. Employees opposing unionization report that this intervention by the company swung a large number of votes in favor of the union.

Under longstanding NLRB practice, such conduct requires that the election be set aside because it taints the employees’ vote. Union and company officials, however, wanted the same election result and did not file objections. Because the NLRB would not grant independent employees the right to intervene, the UAW union was certified as the monopoly representative because, according to an NLRB regional director, “no timely objections have been filed.”

“Thomas Built employees must be allowed to challenge this unlawful last-minute intervention that clinched an election victory for the UAW union – or workers’ rights under the law will be sharply undercut,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Outrageous decisions like this seriously damage the credibility of the federal agency that supposedly protects the rights of rank-and-file workers.”

Facing prosecution by the NLRB in early 2005, UAW union and Thomas Built officials agreed to cancel outright a company-wide sweetheart deal in which union officials had unlawfully bargained to limit workers’ wage demands and made other concessions in exchange for the company’s assistance in organizing the workers. After the union was forced out of the plant, however, UAW union officials petitioned for the election at issue in this case.

**Olympia, WA (March 29, 2006)** – Facing an embarrassing lawsuit filed by Washington State employees with help from the National Right to Work Foundation, Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union officials today admitted that they wrongly ordered state government workers across the state fired for refusing to pay union dues, and have apparently asked the state to reinstate temporarily those employees and cease additional firings.

The union begrudgingly took the action today after being notified by Foundation attorneys yesterday that they would file papers in federal court on Monday seeking an injunction to block even more firings which had just been threatened. While dismissing their violation of thousands of Washington State workers’ First Amendment rights as “technical,” union officials have so far failed, however, to return literally millions of dollars in forced union dues seized from thousands of state workers as a result of these illegal “pay up or be fired” threats.

The workers’ lawsuit, filed two weeks ago in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, points out that since obtaining a monopoly bargaining contract over them, WFSE union officials have denied them their constitutional due-process rights – and have even ordered several employees fired for refusing to pay compulsory union dues. As many as 20,000 employees joined the union or paid dues rather than lose their jobs.

Foundation attorneys announced today that the workers’ suit will proceed as planned, and that they have received no concrete evidence that any of the terminated employees will be reinstated, any dues returned, or multiple due-process violations halted.

“WFSE officials view workers’ First Amendment rights as mere ‘technicalities,’ and are trying to backtrack after viciously ruining state employees’ careers,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Any action that truly honored workers’ rights would include returning all forced union dues seized from state employees under the union hierarchy’s ‘pay up or else’ ultimatum.”

In May 2005, WFSE union officials sent a mailing to state employees informing them they would be forced to pay compulsory union dues as a job requirement. But this notice failed to provide certain constitutionally-required safeguards of employees’ rights to ensure they are not forced to pay for more than the cost of collective bargaining. These safeguards include a verification or audit of union expenditures and an explanation for the basis of the portions of the workers’ fees claimed to be chargeable.

WFSE union officials are also unlawfully requiring employees who wish to object to funding ideological and other non-collective bargaining activities to sign automatic payroll deduction forms.

The state workers charge that the seizure of forced dues by WFSE union officials without due process is a violation of their constitutional rights articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson decision. Hudson requires union officials to provide an independently-audited disclosure of their books and justify their expenditures before seizing any forced union dues from employees.

**Related Documents:**
Read the original announcement about the lawsuit
View the Complaint against WFSE et al.

**Boston, MA (March 28, 2006)** – Landing a decisive blow in a three-year battle involving scores of union legal maneuvers, an administrative law judge yesterday certified an election long held in limbo in which Saint-Gobain Abrasives employees voted to remove the United Auto Workers (UAW) union. The judge found UAW union officials’ last-ditch attempts to circumvent worker free choice at the massive Worcester manufacturing facility to be unavailing. The employees received free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

After a determined group of workers filed to decertify the UAW, union lawyers exploited National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) procedures to block a vote for two years. Ultimately, believing they had the votes to win, the union waived their “blocking” charges and allowed the vote to proceed in January 2005. But Saint-Gobain employees voted by a margin of 350 to 309 to terminate the union’s status as the monopoly bargaining representative at the plant. Shortly after the election results rolled in, UAW union officials filed a series of desperate objections to the results, specifically targeting the Foundation and a group of dissenting Saint-Gobain workers.

In their initial response filed at the NLRB regional office, Foundation attorneys pointed out that union officials provided no evidence supporting their objections concerning the Foundation and dissenting workers as law requires, making those claims too “vague and incomprehensible” to answer. In his decision, released yesterday, the judge agreed that no evidence supported those claims, and ruled that union officials should not be permitted to obtain a rerun simply because they do not like the outcome.

“This ruling should put an end to the union officials’ shameless attempts to cling to power,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While we are pleased that the employees’ wishes are finally being respected, this lengthy legal battle vividly demonstrates how the NLRB’s bureaucratic procedures are stacked against employee free choice.”

A decertification election has only one purpose and effect: to remove a union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees. Under the National Labor Relations Act, if 30 percent or more of the employees in a bargaining unit sign a decertification petition, the NLRB should conduct a secret ballot election to determine if a majority of the employees wish to throw the union out.

With the insufficient objections dismissed and the decertification vote official, Saint-Gobain employees will be free to negotiate their own terms and conditions of employment and be rewarded on their individual merit. Under the law, UAW union officials would have to wait at least one year before embarking on any new attempt to corral Saint-Gobain workers into union ranks.

Seattle, WA (March 16, 2006) — Responding to today’s 6-3 Washington State Supreme Court ruling striking down a state law requirement that union officials obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending mandatory union dues for politics, the National Right to Work Foundation announced that its legal team is preparing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.

Foundation attorneys – working jointly with Steven O’Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry of Seattle – originally filed the suit, Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA), for more than 4,000 Washington teachers – who are not union members but who are forced to pay dues or fees – in Thurston County Superior Court. Judge Daniel Berschauer ruled that the teachers had an implied right of action under Initiative-134 to recover the fees the WEA had used, without their authorization, for political purposes. The trial court also certified the case as a class action for the thousands of nonmember teachers.

But the long-awaited ruling today in Davenport upheld an appellate court’s decision to overturn the trial court – thereby striking down the last remaining union dues provisions in I-134, Washington’s troubled “paycheck protection” law.

But, the State Supreme Court’s ruling directly conflicts with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, noted Justice Richard B. Sanders in his three-member dissent. “The majority turns the First Amendment on its head…The suggestion that asking people to check a box once a year unduly interferes with the speech rights of those contributors borders on the frivolous…There is no indication that any state has been held to have violated union members’ rights by foreclosing mandatory collection of fees from nonmembers.”

“While there is hope that the law can be salvaged, this situation shows how so-called paycheck protection laws are ineffective in halting the practice of forcing employees to function as ATM machines for union political operatives,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to ensure employees are protected is to strip Washington union officials of their legislatively granted power to seize union dues as a job condition.”

Even though the WEA admits it spends millions of dollars each year on political activities, the much-hyped paycheck protection law has ultimately offered no relief to teachers. Even if the Supreme Court had reinstated the Thurston County court’s rulings, the law would still only result in individual refunds of $10 per year, on average, under I-134. Substantially greater relief is still available to teachers under a settlement of a First Amendment lawsuit brought by Foundation attorneys in recent years. Under that settlement, nonmember teachers may annually object and reclaim more than $200 each.

Olympia, WA (March 15, 2006) – In a bold move to the assert the legal rights of thousands of Washington public employees, a group of ten Washington State employees filed a statewide class-action civil rights lawsuit in federal court this morning challenging forced union dues seizures by the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union and several top state officials.

The employees filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The state workers point out that since obtaining a monopoly bargaining contract over them, WFSE union officials have denied them their constitutional due process rights – and have even ordered several employees fired for refusing to pay compulsory union dues. In addition to reinstatement and damages, the suit seeks to block union officials from further threatening the jobs of other state workers who refuse to pay forced union dues.

In May 2005, WFSE union officials sent a mailing to state employees informing them they would be forced to pay compulsory union dues as a job requirement. But this notice failed to provide certain constitutionally-required safeguards of employees’ rights to ensure they are not forced to pay for more than the cost of collective bargaining. These safeguards include an audit of union expenditures and an explanation for the basis of the portions of the workers’ fees claimed to be chargeable.

WFSE union officials are also unlawfully requiring employees who wish to object to funding ideological and other non-collective bargaining activities to sign automatic payroll deduction forms. Top state officials, including Washington State Labor Relations Director Steve McClain, are named in the suit for their complicit role in carrying out the firings of dissenting state employees.

“For union officials, it’s all about the money,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “WFSE union officials’ contempt for employees’ rights and eagerness to have employees fired demonstrates they are more interested in collecting forced union dues than supposedly ‘representing’ Washington State employees.”

The state workers charge that the seizure of forced dues by WFSE union officials without due process is a violation of their constitutional rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson decision. Hudson requires union officials to provide an independently-audited disclosure of their books and justify their expenditures before seizing any forced union dues from employees.

More resources:

» Read the Complaint against WFSE et al.
» Statement by Foundation Legal Information Director, Justin Hakes 
» Statement of Kimberly Johnson 
» Statement of Maxine Dunkelman 
» Statement of Patricia Woodward