Detroit, MI (January 28, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a citizen activist announced today he will file an appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court in an ongoing public disclosure battle over the use of school district e-mail systems for union political activities.

In 2007, political activist Chetly Zarko from DeWitt – invoking Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure law – requested e-mail communications among Howell Education Association (HEA) union brass regarding heated bargaining negotiations between the Howell Public School (HPS) system and union officials. The HEA union is a local affiliate of the Michigan Education Association and National Education Association unions.

At the time of the collective bargaining conflict, Zarko suspected union boss lobbying was occurring at taxpayer expense. Zarko is seeking the release of approximately 5,500 e-mails between the union hierarchy and teachers.

HEA union officials claimed a special exception from the requirements of Michigan’s FOIA law, despite the fact that the e-mails were sent over a taxpayer funded e-mail system and the HPS’s “Acceptable Use Policy” explicitly states that e-mails sent on the server are “not consider private communication [and] may be re-posted.”

Foundation attorneys won a ruling from the Livingston Circuit Court requiring disclosure, but union lawyers managed to convince the State of Michigan Court of Appeals to overturn the lower court’s decision.

“Public resources should not be spent on the shadowy and self-serving political activities of union bosses,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Howell Education Association union officials should be subject to the same public disclosure requirements as everyone else who uses taxpayer funds.”

In 2007, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to establish new rights for workers through the landmark Dana/Metaldyne decision.  The ruling empowered workers to call a vote to kick out an unwanted union during a 45-day window period following a successful "card check" organizing drive.

The ruling was a rebuke of union organizers and their coercive tactics, as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) acknowledged the abuses, and determined that employees needed a way to challenge the imposition of a union workplace monopoly via card check by obtaining a secret ballot decertification election.

Prior to the Obama Administration, the NLRB maintained an online database of all card check recognitions and any subsequent union decertification elections. The NLRB, however, stopped updating this information last spring. Foundation attorneys recently demanded the NLRB to update the database regularly, and NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman responded last week.  Although she blamed the General Counsel’s office for the neglect, she stated the agency would post new information monthly going forward.

While this information doesn’t prevent coercive card check organizing on the job – an increasingly common union tactic even without passage of the pending EFCA legislation in Congress – it does help the public see how widely used this abusive union organizing actually is… and which companies have blocked their employees’ access to secret balloting.

Perhaps even more importantly, this data reveals the nasty little fact that card check signing does not represent employees’ true wishes.  For in many cases, the very union bosses who came in through card check were sent packing — only days later — after employees obtained a secret ballot vote. 

Worker Advocate Seeks Biased Agency Members’ Recusal on Controversial Transportation Union Rule Change

Former airline union officials should not use federal power to help their unions corral tens of thousands of workers into union membership

Washington, DC (January 19, 2010) – Citing substantial legal precedent, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed a motion with the National Mediation Board (NMB) seeking the recusal of the two former union officials who are behind a dramatic rule change proposal on how a union is imposed on non-union railway and airline industry workers.

The NMB, the federal agency tasked with mediating labor disputes within the railroad and airline industries, is quietly rolling back 75 years of precedent and changing labor union organizing regulations, greasing the skids for union organizers to lock industry workers into union ranks.

The two board members who now comprise the majority of the board, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, were both appointed by President Barack Obama and were executive officers for two of the very unions pushing for the changes.

Click here to read the full release.

Washington, DC (January 19, 2010) – Citing substantial legal precedent, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed a motion with the National Mediation Board (NMB) seeking the recusal of the two former union officials who are behind a dramatic rule change proposal on how a union is imposed on non-union railway and airline industry workers.

The NMB, the federal agency tasked with mediating labor disputes within the railroad and airline industries, is quietly rolling back 75 years of precedent and changing labor union organizing regulations, greasing the skids for union organizers to lock industry workers into union ranks.

The two board members who now comprise the majority of the board, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, were both appointed by President Barack Obama and were executive officers for two of the very unions pushing for the changes.

Hoglander was a union official with the Air Line Pilots Association union and Puchala was an officer of the Association of Flight Attendants union. Both unions are a major part of an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) union-led coalition urging the NMB to discard its policy of requiring a true majority of all workers within a collective bargaining unit to decide for themselves if they wish to be represented by a union. The new procedure would stack the deck in favor of unionization by requiring only a majority of workers actually voting in a union organizing election to make that decision for the whole group.

The members voted 2-1 to preliminarily support the controversial change, and NMB Chair Elizabeth Dougherty has criticized the hasty actions of the two members.

“President Obama’s appointed Big Labor operatives on the National Mediation Board should recuse themselves from this controversial effort to give union bosses the upper hand over independent-minded workers,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of National Right to Work. “If these members do not recuse themselves, the NMB’s actions will betray the integrity of government decision-making as well as President Obama’s pledge that his personnel would avoid these very violations of ethics.”

Foundation attorneys have previously appeared before the NMB asking for the proposed change to be rejected because it would make it exceedingly difficult for independent-minded workers to resist Big Labor’s well-funded, professional organizing machine, particularly since these campaigns must be run across entire, often-nationwide bargaining units. The proposed change also imposes a greater burden on employees who wish to refrain from union membership by forcing them to either take affirmative action to oppose the union or otherwise potentially allow far less than a majority to make that decision for them.

Washington, DC (January 5, 2010) – Apparently without conducting a field investigation, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) dismissed a complaint against one of the most politically active unions in America after evidence surfaced that union officials deposited illegally laundered dues money into its political action committee (PAC).

Citing in part lack of sufficient funding to enforce the law, the FEC junked a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and two Alabama teachers who discovered a union scheme to divert convention reimbursements into the National Education Association (NEA) union’s PAC.

When attending the NEA’s 2004 national convention, Daphne Middle School science department chair Claire Waites was deceived into supporting the NEA’s PAC and was determined that it would not happen again. However, Waites and Assistant Principal Dr. Jeanne Fox, both members of the Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA), Alabama Education Association (AEA), and NEA unions, discovered the practice continues.

In July 2008, Waites and Fox attended the NEA’s annual convention in Washington, DC as delegates of the BCEA. According to their sworn testimony, BCEA union president Saadia Hunter informed the educators that contributions in their names were made to a “children’s fund” using money included in their expense reimbursements for their trip to the convention.

Although Hunter told Waites that these contributions were not political in nature, they actually went to the NEA’s PAC. Hunter later admitted that the money would be contributed to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. AEA union bosses also admitted to the educators that the PAC contributions were paid with BCEA members’ dues.

Foundation attorneys are considering a lawsuit against the FEC for shirking its duty of upholding the integrity of the political system, particularly since it is suspected this scheme affected many other teacher delegates to the union convention.

“The FEC made a conscious decision to not take these charges seriously,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We suspect this scheme could involve many more teachers – potentially to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

It is illegal for union officials to encourage and solicit contributions under false pretenses and without informing workers of their right to refuse to contribute without any reprisal. Federal law also forbids campaign contributions made in the name of another person.

Des Moines, Iowa (December 31, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Bridgestone Corporation employee filed federal charges after his employer illegally diverted a portion of his paycheck to a local union to which the employee does not belong.

The case points out the need for strong and fully enforced Right to Work laws and other protections against forced unionism abuse. A few Iowa legislators have recently tried to repeal the state’s Right to Work law that makes union membership and dues payment voluntary – even though doing so would lead to employee rights violations on a massive scale.

Terry L. Welch of Polk City filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against United Steelworkers Local 310 union bosses and Bridgestone.

In October, Welch resigned from the Steelworkers union and revoked his dues deduction authorization. Dues deduction authorizations are used by union officials to automatically withhold union dues from employee paychecks.

Under Iowa’s popular Right to Work law no worker can be required to join or pay any money to a union as a condition of employment. Additionally, the union’s own dues authorization card allows Welch to revoke his authorization at any time.

However, union officials are ignoring Welch’s repeated requests to exercise his legal rights. Despite the employee’s best efforts to resign from union membership and halt the dues seizures, Bridgestone continues to illegally deduct union dues from Welch’s paycheck and forward them to the union hierarchy.

The charges will now be investigated by the NLRB regional director in Des Moines who can prosecute the union officials and the company for violating the employee’s legal rights.

“Despite repeated requests, Steelworker union bosses are disregarding their own rules and ignoring Mr. Welch’s legitimate attempts to exercise his right to stop paying union dues,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Fortunately, workers in the Hawkeye State have rights under federal law and Iowa’s Right to Work law to help combat the corrupt actions of unaccountable union bosses.”

Phoenix, AZ (December 23, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five employees from different Fry’s Food Stores locations have filed federal charges challenging their employer’s and a local union’s efforts to block them from stopping the seizure of union dues from their paychecks.

Disgusted with recent union strike threats, large numbers of employees withdrew from the union, but union officials are now retaliating by refusing to honor their legal rights and getting Fry’s management to deduct and forward the union dues money anyway.

Shirley Jones of Mesa, Karen Medley and Elaine Brown of Apache Junction, and Kimberly Stewart and Kristy Dickenson of Queen Creek – acting for other similarly situated employees – filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union bosses and Fry’s.

In the midst of a well-publicized UFCW Local 99 union-threatened strike in November 2009, the employees resigned from the UFCW union and revoked their dues deduction authorizations during a time in which the UFCW union did not have a contract at their workplaces. Under Arizona’s popular Right to Work law no worker can be required to join or pay any money to a union, and under federal labor law, if there is no longer a bargaining agreement in effect between union officials and an employer, employees can revoke their dues deduction authorizations at any time.

Dues deduction authorizations are used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks. Despite the employees’ best efforts to halt the dues seizures, Fry’s continues to illegally collect from the employees union dues for the UFCW union hierarchy.

The charges will now be investigated by the NLRB regional director in Phoenix, who can prosecute the union officials and the company for violating the employees’ legal rights.

“Despite repeated requests, UFCW Local 99 and company officials have ignored workers’ attempts to exercise their right to stop paying union dues” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We intend to make sure that UFCW operatives play by the rules and stop extracting union dues from workers who want nothing to do with this unaccountable union.”

Denver, CO (December 23, 2009) – After years of litigation, the 10th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals has upheld a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling ending a discriminatory Teamster union workplace policy. Kirk Rammage, the victim of union officials’ discriminatory policies, received free assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation during his extended legal battle.

Rammage, an Interstate Bakeries employee of Ponca City, Oklahoma, was involved in the consolidation of two separate corporate divisions in 2005. Part of one division was staffed by a single nonunion sales representative – Rammage – who had put in more time with Interstate Bakeries than any of his coworkers at the office where he worked. Company officials wanted to ensure he retained his seniority during the merger, but union officials from Teamster Local 523 insisted that union members receive preferential treatment, discriminating against Rammage despite his workplace tenure.

After reviewing the facts of the case, the NLRB concluded that the union hierarchy had broken the law by treating employees differently based on their union membership status. However, union officials did not comply with the NLRB’s decision and refused to allow the employer to reinstate Rammage’s seniority.

Teamster lawyers subsequently challenged the NLRB’s decision at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that union officials may discriminate against nonunion workers’ seniority rights when they are merged with unionized employees. However, the 10th Circuit ruled that the union’s conduct violates the National Labor Relations Act, which requires union officials to treat all workers equally, regardless of union membership.

“Union bosses despise those who choose not to unionize, so they try to make an example out of them,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, this type of abuse will continue until Big Labor’s government-granted special privileges are eliminated.”

Washington, DC (December 17, 2009) – In five new cases before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), union lawyers are asking the NLRB to overturn a landmark 2007 decision which gave new protections to workers swept into union ranks through card check forced unionism.

In Dana Corporation, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys won new rights for employees intended to counteract the employee intimidation and harassment waged by aggressive union operatives that frequently occurs during controversial card check organizing campaigns.

The Dana decision granted employees the ability to file a decertification petition and demand a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer recognizes a monopoly bargaining agent by card check. This important (though modest) check gives workers some ability to stop union organizers from gaining monopoly control over a workplace without even the support of a majority of the employees.

The very Foundation attorneys who originally won the landmark Dana case are providing free legal assistance to Todd Fields, an ARAMARK Uniform and Career Apparel employee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Mike Lopez, an employee of Lamons Gasket Company in Houston, Texas, in two of the five cases before the NLRB. These two cases seeking to overturn Dana were pressed by Service Workers United (SEIU) and United Steelworkers union lawyers.

In each of these cases, more than 30 percent of the employees at each employer asked for a secret ballot election to decertify the newly installed union, and union lawyers asked for the election petitions to be dismissed. Union lawyers argue that giving the employees a secret ballot election is a “radical departure” from established law.

“The fact that many employees corralled into a union through the card check scheme have almost immediately thrown the union back out through a private ballot vote demonstrates card check’s unreliable and coercive nature,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Because the Dana election process inherently undermines Big Labor’s case to permanently end secret ballot elections, union lawyers are determined to undo this modest check on union intimidation.”

In the Dana ruling, the NLRB majority pointed out, “card checks are less reliable because they lack secrecy and procedural safeguards… union card-solicitation campaigns have been accompanied by misinformation… workers sometimes sign union authorization cards…to get the person off their back.”

Employees Slap Teamster Union Officials with Federal Charges over Illegal Forced Dues Policy

Union officials fail to provide adequate disclosure to nonunion employees, then threaten the workers with termination

Philadelphia, PA and Baltimore, MD (December 16, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four workers forced to pay fees to a regional Teamsters union council have filed unfair labor practice charges against the union for providing inadequate financial disclosure and illegally threatening to have workers who didn’t pay fired.

Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonmember employees can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment, but they cannot be compelled to pay for politics, lobbying, and member-only events. Union officials are also legally obligated to inform workers of these rights and to provide workers with an independently verified audit of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses.

Graphic Communications Conference/International Brotherhood of Teamsters, District Council 9, union bosses have exclusive representation power over employees at Perfecseal, Inc. in Philadelphia, PA, and Standard Register in Salisbury, MD, but have not provided nonmember employees with the level of disclosure Beck requires. Nonmembers’ “agency fees” paid to the union council have increased by a greater percentage than corresponding increases in dues amounts for union members, and union bosses are demanding that the nonmembers pay the increased fees or be fired without providing an adequate breakdown of expenditures.

Click here to read the full release.