**Aberdeen, MD (August 8, 2007)** – Following challenges by employees unlawfully unionized by “card check,” International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM) union Local 2424 officials backed down and settled federal labor charges pending against them.

The settlement came after federal investigators found that union officials had violated the employees’ rights during a so-called card check organizing drive which bypassed the secret-ballot election process.

Last month, three employees working for private contractors at the Aberdeen Test Center military facility obtained free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation. Foundation attorneys filed charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 5 office in Baltimore. The NLRB charges detailed multiple union violations of the employees’ rights, including unionizing employees who did not support the union, unlawfully transferring these employees into a union bargaining unit, and threatening employees with termination if they did not join the union.

To avoid an embarrassing NLRB prosecution, IAM officials formally settled the charges by renouncing monopoly bargaining privileges over the more than 150 employees who were unlawfully unionized. The union brass also agreed that they would not attempt to unionize the engineers under a card check scheme, but instead would only use the less coercive NLRB-supervised secret-ballot election process.

“IAM union bosses got caught red-handed violating the rights of the very employees they claimed to represent,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “While this case highlights the coercion inherent in so-called ‘card check’ unionization, ultimately these abuses by union bosses will not end until their compulsory unionism privileges are eliminated.”

The case is one of many documented instances of fraud and abuse in card check organizing drives. Under card check, union-controlled authorization cards are used as “votes” for unionization. Employees report that cards are often collected under false-premises or through intimidation. In this case, the union declared a victory in their card check drive when it did not even have cards from a majority of employees.

The employees also filed charges against their employers (Jacobs Technology Inc., LogSec. Corporation and Science and Technology Corporation) for their role in imposing the unwanted union on the workers by recognizing IAM officials as the employees’ collective bargaining representative without proof that the union had the support of a majority of the employees.

**San Diego, CA (August 7, 2007)** – A local employee of Albertsons, Inc. filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 135 union after union officials unlawfully demanded she be fired from her job unless she joined the union and paid full dues.

Sixteen year-old high-school student, Danielle Cookson, a front courtesy clerk for the grocery giant, obtained free legal assistance from attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The federal charges highlight that UFCW Local 135 union officials are failing to respect employees legal rights and requiring them to join and pay dues to the union as a job condition.

In late July, UFCW Local 135 union officials sent a “termination notification” letter to Albertsons requesting Cookson be fired from her position. In their demand, union officials ordered Cookson to pay the forced dues within seven days of the notification, or else she would be removed from the schedule and terminated.

Since she began working at Albertsons in May, union officials have attempted to seize forced dues from Cookson’s paycheck. However, Cookson was never informed of her right to refrain from formal union membership or given proper financial notice of how her forced dues would be spent, as required by Foundation-won court decisions.

“In their lust for compulsory union dues, union officials will even bully children who are working to save money for their future. But they made a big mistake trying to push Danielle around,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This abuse is all too common in California because there is no Right to Work law to ensure that payment of union dues is strictly voluntary.”

In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision *Communications Workers v. Beck*, the Court affirmed that workers have the right to resign from formal union membership and halt and reclaim the portion of forced union dues spent on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union politics. Unfortunately, they can still be forced to pay for bargaining expenses, even if they do not want union “representation.” However, employees have the right to have an independent third party audit the union expenditures and certify that the percentage of dues that non-members are forced to pay does not include political spending and other non-collective bargaining expenses.

Despite Cookson’s formal objections, the union hierarchy failed to provide her with an independently audited breakdown of union expenditures, as required by law. The NLRB’s Regional Office will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint and prosecute the union.

“The attempts by union officials to run roughshod over workers’ rights show the inevitable greed and corruption that flow from forced unionism,” said Gleason.

**Butte, MT (August 6, 2007)** – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed to prosecute the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 4 union for illegally seizing forced union dues from multiple Safeway employees’ paychecks, unlawfully threatening termination, and rejecting requests to resign from formal union membership.

With help from attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Safeway Inc. (NYSE: SWY) employees Gerald Rasmussen and Carla Crandall originally filed federal charges against the UFCW Local 4 union in April and May, respectively. After an initial investigation, the NLRB combined the complaints into one case and scheduled a hearing for September 2007 to prosecute the union.

The employees’ original charges cite that UFCW Local 4 union officials are attempting to enforce a compulsory unionism clause requiring employees to join or pay dues to the union or be fired from their jobs, despite a formal employee election recently stripping the union bosses of their forced unionism privileges.

All 34 Safeway employees participated in the late April NLRB-supervised deauthorization vote – a secret ballot election that gives employees the right to eliminate the mandatory dues clause from a monopoly bargaining contract. UFCW Local 4 union officials have been challenging the election result.

“No one should be forced to pay dues to a union,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These sorts of abuses will continue to plague workers in states like Montana, where there is no Right to Work law to ensure that payment of union dues is strictly voluntary.”

After learning of their right to resign from formal union membership from sources independent of UFCW Local 4, Rasmussen, Crandall and other employees sent letters to union officials resigning from formal union membership. Union officials rejected their requests and never provided any of the legally-mandated financial disclosure statements to the Safeway employees.

Additionally, UFCW union officials invented their own bogus and illegal rules for resigning. In their correspondence, union officials claim the grocery employees’ letters were unacceptable because they were not notarized, the letters were not sent by certified mail in separate envelopes, and were not accompanied by copies of applicable NLRB decisions and Supreme Court rulings.

However, under the 1988 Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in *Communications Workers v. Beck*, union officials cannot require formal union membership or the payment of union dues unrelated to collective bargaining as a condition of employment. The decision also requires union officials to provide employees with verified financial disclosure of union expenditures, so that employees can cut off the seizure of forced union dues used for activities such as union politicking or lobbying.

Download the NLRB Complaint

**Corpus Christi, TX (August 1, 2007)** – A security guard helped by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation has forced Asset Protection and Security Services (Asset) to settle federal charges he filed in April after company and union officials required him to pay union dues in violation of Texas’ Right to Work law.

Carlos Banuelos, a Corpus Christi-based Asset employee, filed federal charges against the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union and his employer, a federal contractor at a detention facility at Port Isabel.

The settlement requires Asset to reimburse Banuelos for dues paid and post a notice informing all security guards at the Corpus Christi facility about their rights. Specifically, Asset agreed not to “threaten” employees with termination for refusal to pay dues as well as make whole Banuelos “for any monies, plus interest, lost as a result of the discrimination against him.”

Banuelos’ charge detailed how the SPFPA union hierarchy maintains an illegal monopoly bargaining agreement with his employer that makes financial support for the union a mandatory condition of employment. Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board agreed to issue a complaint and prosecute the SPFPA union for threatening to have workers fired for refusal to pay dues. While Asset has settled, the defiant SPFPA union refuses and is scheduled to appear at trial before an Administrative Law Judge in October.

SPFPA union officials falsely claim without proof that Banuelos and his coworkers work on an “exclusive federal enclave” that is not protected by the Right to Work law – and thus can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Meanwhile, evidence shows that union officials have established these forced dues requirements at multiple worksites across Texas under apparently fraudulent agreements.

“Evidence indicates that union bosses have duped potentially thousands of Texans into paying compulsory union dues in violation of the law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “They must refund every dollar seized – no one should be forced to pay union dues just to get or keep a job.”

After the National Right to Work Foundation called on Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office for over eight months, his office followed up on two Foundation-led cases by initiating legal proceedings to enforce the state’s Right to Work law. Filed on July 24, the state’s lawsuits seek permanent injunctions against the collection of forced dues by the SPFPA union, as well as Asset in Corpus Christi and AKAL Security in El Paso.

In a parallel case, Foundation attorneys successfully secured reinstatement and back pay for Juan Vielma, a security guard for AKAL Security in El Paso, whom union officials had had illegally suspended without pay for over a year for refusal to pay dues. Agreeing with Foundation attorneys, a federal Administrative Law Judge ruled that SPFPA union officials had no legal authority to compel Vielma to pay dues.

Download the NLRB Settlement

**Hartford, CT (July 24, 2007)** – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has denied a local Colt Manufacturing employee’s request for a ruling now in his precedent-setting case that has already languished at the federal agency for four years.

With free legal help from attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, George Gally, a 40-year veteran Colt employee, originally filed unfair labor practice charges at the NLRB in March 2003. Gally is challenging the United Auto Worker (UAW) union’s nationwide policy of barring employees from paying for union political activities unless they object annually.

Rather than decide the long-pending case, the NLRB instructed its Region 34 to set a hearing date before an Administrative Law Judge, claiming that the record in the case is insufficient to issue a final decision.

In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court *Communications Workers v. Beck* decision, the court recognized that workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership and cannot be forced to pay for activities other than monopoly bargaining. But UAW officials have eviscerated the Supreme Court’s Beck and related appellate court rulings by requiring Gally and his co-workers to renew their objections every year – a hurdle intended to discourage them from reclaiming their forced union dues.

Meanwhile, Gally has endured 16 years of illegal conduct by UAW officials. In December 2003, a federal Administrative Law Judge awarded Gally nearly $31,000 in compensation plus interest for pay lost after he was illegally fired at the order of UAW Local 376 union officials in 1991. Prior to his award, Gally filed the unfair labor practice charges challenging the UAW union officials’ annual objection scheme.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “By its pathetically slow processing of employee rights complaints, the NLRB helps UAW officials trap workers in union ranks. This situation underscores why Connecticut needs a Right to Work law that would make union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary.”

Gally’s case is one of many long-languishing cases at the NLRB, a federal bureaucracy long criticized for political in-fighting and institutional bias favoring compulsory unionism. In recent months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the labor board to decide promptly another Foundation-assisted case that began 17 years earlier in 1989, when Schreiber Foods employees Sherry and David Pirlott first filed their challenge to being compelled to fund coercive union organizing drives.

Download the Board’s Order

**Corpus Christi & El Paso, TX** (July 24, 2007) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason made the following statement regarding Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s long-sought legal action this afternoon to initiate the state’s enforcement of the highly popular Right to Work law:

“The National Right to Work Foundation welcomes the Attorney General to our ongoing battle to prevent the erosion of Texans’ Right to Work. No employee should be forced to pay union dues just to get or keep a job. But the violations Foundation attorneys uncovered in Corpus Christi and El Paso may only be the tip of the iceberg.

“Evidence obtained several months ago by Foundation attorneys during a federal labor board trial suggests that Big Labor’s phony ‘exclusive federal enclave’ scheme to violate the Right to Work law is widespread. Foundation attorneys are pressing ahead to protect all employees who are victim to this compulsory unionism scheme, and we urge the Attorney General to do the same.

“Union officials must be put on notice that a Texan’s Right to Work is sacred. Every violation must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, or union officials will only be emboldened.”

**Background**: National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are currently representing two Texas security guards in cases before the National Labor Relations Board and have convinced federal officials to prosecute the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union for unlawfully threatening the security guards’ jobs. Foundation attorneys first brought Texas Right to Work law violations to the attention of the Office of the Attorney General in November 2006. Today’s action is the first formal legal action taken by the State.

In April, Foundation attorneys filed federal charges for Carlos Banuelos, an Asset Protection and Security Services guard in Corpus Christi, against the SPFPA union and his employer after union officials unlawfully threatened to have him (and other employees) fired for asserting their legal right to refrain from formal union membership and payment of union dues.

Meanwhile, in recent days, Foundation attorneys successfully secured the reinstatement of Juan Vielma, a security guard for AKAL Security in El Paso, whom union officials had illegally suspended without pay for over a year for refusal to pay dues. Agreeing with charges filed by Foundation attorneys last November, a federal Administrative Law Judge ruled in June that SPFPA union officials had no legal authority to compel Vielma to pay dues.

Texas is one of 22 states that have a Right to Work law, ensuring that union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary.

**Landover, MD (September 5, 2007)** – A group of five ex-employees of Giant Foods, Inc. have prompted the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to prosecute a Carpenter union affiliate for illegal coercion and fining them $2,500 each because they found new jobs at nonunion employers. Union officials also levied the fines because the workers refused to serve as union “salts” (plants that surreptitiously work to unionize a nonunion work place).

All five employees are former carpenters at Giant’s Landover warehouse where they performed various jobs for the Mid-Atlantic area grocery chain until that facility shut down. Attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation helped the workers file federal charges at the NLRB in May against the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters (MARCC) union.

Union officials had demanded that the workers join the Carpenter union affiliate over the past 20 years and have lied to them about their right to refrain from formal union membership and to withhold all forced dues except those spent on union monopoly bargaining. Ultimately, the employees learned independently of these rights and sought to exercise them.

After the Giant warehouse shuttered in August 2005, all of the employees were unemployed for weeks before securing new jobs. Upon learning the workers had chosen a nonunion employer, union officials insisted they work to organize a union in the workplace. When they refused, the union brass imposed vicious internal union disciplinary fines against the workers. However, since the employees were no longer union members, they cannot be legally subjected to union discipline.

“Union officials tried to drive these workers towards the poor house simply for exercising their freedom to find new jobs and for honorably refusing to thrust a union upon their new employer,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Because Maryland does not have a Right to Work law making unions voluntary, union officials have little accountability to the workers.”

In the Foundation-won *Communications Workers of America v. Beck* decision in 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employees laboring under the National Labor Relations Act are entitled to resign from formal union membership but can still be forced to pay for activities related to union monopoly bargaining. However, they cannot be compelled to pay for other activities such as union political activities.
The NLRB has scheduled a hearing on November 7, 2007 at its Region 5 headquarters in Baltimore to prosecute the union.

Download the Complaint

**Corpus Christi, TX (September 5, 2007)** – For the second time in six months, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys have helped a security guard employed by Asset Protection and Security Services file unfair labor practice charges after union officials threatened workers with termination if they failed to pay union dues.

Under Texas’ Right to Work law, on the books since 1947, no employee can be required to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment.

Ramona Trevino joined fellow employee Carlos Banuelos in filing charges with help from Foundation attorneys challenging the enforcement of the illegal forced dues clause in the employment contract between Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union officials and their employer. Trevino also filed charges against Asset for enforcing the unlawful forced dues clause.

Banuelos’ earlier charges have already triggered a prosecution by the National Labor Relations Board. SPFPA union officials claim, with no basis whatsoever, that Banuelos, Trevino, and their coworkers work on an “exclusive federal enclave” that is not protected by the Right to Work law – and therefore can be forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment.

Under similar circumstances, Foundation attorneys successfully secured the reinstatement of Juan Vielma, a security guard for AKAL Security in El Paso, whom union officials had illegally suspended without pay for over a year for refusal to pay dues. Agreeing with Foundation attorneys, a federal Administrative Law Judge ruled that SPFPA union officials had no legal authority to compel Vielma to pay dues.

Trevino’s charge further emphasizes what is likely a widespread violation of Texas’ Right to Work law. In oral argument in Vielma’s case, an attorney for another security company with a contract with the SPFPA union even boasted that they require employees to pay dues “across the country in Right to Work states.” Evidence shows that union officials have established these forced dues requirements at multiple worksites under apparently fraudulent agreements.

Responding to demands of Texas citizens, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott took long-awaited legal action in July to enforce the Right to Work law in the Vielma and Banuelos cases. However, Texans await further action by the Attorney General to address the statewide pattern of Right to Work law violations.

“Union officials are trampling Texas’ long standing freedom to earn a living without paying money to union bosses for the privilege,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union officials need to learn that the Lone Star state takes its Right to Work law very seriously.”

**Janesville, Wisc. (September 11, 2007)** – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, ruled that union officials cannot force nonunion members to object twice simply to receive basic information about how union affiliates spend the workers’ forced union dues.

By a vote of 3-2, the NLRB majority agreed with National Right to Work Foundation attorneys and chose to follow an earlier U.S. Court of Appeals decision (also won by Foundation attorneys) which the Clinton NLRB had refused to apply. This week’s NLRB ruling decreed that refusal to provide a breakdown of union affiliate expenditures violates the union’s “duty of fair representation” (DFR) owed to nonunion workers. The relatively vague DFR standard is intended to protect employees from arbitrary or deliberately discriminatory actions by union officials.

With free legal help from the Foundation, Brandon Jones, a former employee of Chambers & Owen warehouses, in Janesville, Wisconsin, originally filed unfair labor practice charges at the NLRB in October 2001. Jones challenged Teamster Union Local 579’s policy of refusing to provide employees information about how union affiliates spend their mandatory dues until the employee not only “objects” to paying for non-collective bargaining activity, but also further “challenges” the union’s diversion of funds to union affiliates. Affiliates include such entities as the national or regional union or the AFL-CIO.

Under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court *Communications Workers v. Beck* and *Ellis v. BRAC* decisions, the high court recognized that workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership and have the right to object to paying for non-bargaining activities (such as politics, organizing, and lobbying). Under *Chicago Teachers v. Hudson*, non-members are also entitled to receive an independently audited breakdown of union expenditures and to challenge the breakdown before an impartial decision maker.

But the Clinton NLRB dramatically undercut the Beck decision and piled additional burdens on dissenting employees. Specifically, the Clinton NLRB applied the weak DFR standard instead of a stricter statutory standard to processing of Beck objections. In part, this meant that employees must resign or refrain from union membership and affirmatively object before receiving any disclosure of union expenditures. In this week’s ruling, dissenting NLRB members Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh (an activist union partisan who is reportedly jockeying for Senate confirmation with his recess appointment expiring in December) argued, like the Clinton NLRB, that employees should be forced to object a second time before receiving any meaningful disclosure from union affiliates. While this ruling does not correct many of the deficiencies of the NLRB’s *Beck* enforcement procedures, it does reverse one of its many anti-employee elements.

“This ruling is a small step forward for employee freedom,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “However, the Bush NLRB has a lot more work to do to put the agency on the side of the worker rather than the union bosses. And time is running out.”

**Philadelphia, Pa. (September 19, 2007)** – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today filed a motion in federal court seeking to inform more than an estimated 12,000 individuals that union organizers have surreptitiously violated their privacy rights under federal law.

The Foundation filed the motion to intervene in *Pichler v. UNITE* in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after the court ordered the union to pay damages because union organizers unlawfully used the license plate numbers of over 1,500 Cintas Corporation employees to access their personal information in official Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records. Union operatives conducted an additional 12,100 searches on individuals who may be employees of other non-union companies targeted by the union. Those individuals are unaware of this illegal invasion of their privacy.

The *Pichler* lawsuit, currently on appeal by union lawyers at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, revealed that UNITE union organizers violated employee rights under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) of 1994. That federal law bars anyone from using motor vehicle records to obtain individuals’ personal information with limited exceptions. The union must potentially pay $2,500 per violation if the District Court’s decision is affirmed.

Union organizers illegally obtained the home addresses of Cintas employees for the purpose of conducting “home visits” to pressure and browbeat those workers into signing union authorization cards. The union intended to use these cards to bypass the secret-ballot election process for determining whether the employees wanted to unionize.

The U.S. District Court determined that union operatives conducted surveillance of numerous parking lots used by workers, collected license plate numbers, and conducted more than 13,700 searches of driving records. Cintas employees were alarmed to learn of this invasion of their privacy and filed their successful class-action lawsuit against the notoriously abusive union.

The Foundation’s motion seeks to modify a protective order in the case, which paradoxically prevents any of these other 12,100 Americans from being notified about the violation of their rights. The Foundation is seeking the right to do a one-time mailing under court supervision to each citizen the union operatives targeted. Ultimately, those 12,100 victims could be entitled to over $30 million in liquidated damages from the UNITE union.

“Thousands of employees deserve to know that UNITE union organizers may have violated their privacy by rifling through their DMV records,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Citizens should not be prevented from learning that union operatives are secretly using their private personal information.”

Download the motion