Atlanta, GA (February 4, 2009) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys announced they will appeal last week’s stunning ruling by the Court of Appeals of Georgia that despite Georgia’s longstanding and popular Right to Work law, a local union may force nonmembers to pay for the privilege to work.

Georgia is one of 22 states with Right to Work protections which ensure that no worker can be forced to join or pay dues to a union in order to get or keep a job. The state law unambiguously states that “[n]o individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment to pay any fee, assessment, or other sum of money whatsoever to a labor organization.”

Nonetheless, the Georgia Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court ruling, held that the International Longshoreman Association Local 1414 union may legally force nonmembers to pay a referral fee to the union on jobs obtained at a union hiring hall between June 2005 and September 2006. The controversial contract between the union and the Georgia Stevedores Association requires that all employees be hired through the union hiring hall. The union forces all nonmembers to pay referral fees as a condition of employment.

Attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation are providing free legal aid to eleven nonmember employees who perform longshoremen work at the port of Savannah. Local 1414 union bosses have demanded the employees turn over approximately $1.33 each per hour worked.

The ruling took a position that the Georgia Right to Work law does not apply to a hiring hall scenario, and federal labor law does not permit states to prohibit unions from forcing workers to pay monies to an exclusive union hiring hall. However, Foundation attorneys argue that the Right to Work law unambiguously prohibits any mandate on employees to pay a union for the privilege to work, and state Right to Work laws cannot be preempted by federal law in this regard.

“Despite the clarity of Georgia’s popular Right to Work law, this court has concluded that the Right to Work law does not mean what it says,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We are confident this ruling will be overturned.”

“This case shows you that even in Right to Work states, union tyrants will trick, lie, and steal their way into workers’ wallets,” continued Gleason.

Foundation attorneys are preparing a petition for certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court.

Washington, DC (January 30, 2009) – President Barack Obama issued two decrees today intended to corral millions more American workers into forced unionism while blacklisting non-union employees from working on taxpayer funded projects.

“After spending more than a billion dollars in forced union dues to get Obama elected, the union bosses have received their first major payoff – two executive orders intended to grease the rails for coercive union organizing, give the Secretary of Labor the power to blacklist union-targeted employers and employees, and keep workers in the dark about their rights to refrain from union membership,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Obama’s two executive orders serve one basic goal: to seize more forced dues revenue to fund Big Labor’s political agenda.”

Obama repealed Executive Order 13201 signed by President George W. Bush which had helped ensure that employees of federal contractors were informed of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck (1988). Won by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, Beck held that private-sector employees may be compelled to pay certain union dues, but may not be compelled to pay any dues or fees earmarked for union politics, lobbying, and other non-bargaining activities.

President Obama included the revocation of Beck rights notices in an executive order advertising, and essentially endorsing, the formation of unions under a theory (long discredited by academic research) that forcing employees into union collectives will somehow prevent “substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce.”

The executive order also purports to give the Secretary of Labor the authority to determine what will be required by the notice, the authority to investigate violations, to hold hearings, and the power to punish violators of all federal labor laws mentioned in the notice. In effect, the Secretary of Labor would become an additional judge, jury, and executioner of federal labor laws with respect to federal contractors. Most importantly, the Secretary would determine whether a contractor would be fired by the federal government (apparently where the contractor has not even been found to have violated any laws by the law enforcement body of jurisdiction). Even President Bill Clinton stopped short of attempting to give the Secretary of Labor a "blacklisting" power, which is almost certainly unlawful.

Another new order effectively bars federal contractors from communicating truthful information about unionization to their employees.

“It’s disgusting to see this blatant payoff to Big Labor only two weeks into Obama’s term,” continued Mix. “Today, President Obama has sent an ominous message to the 93 percent of private sector workers in America who, for whatever reasons, have chosen not to unionize: You’re not welcome here.”

—

The executive orders can be read here and here. 

Washington, DC (January 21, 2009) — Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Maine state employees can be compelled under penalty of losing their jobs to pay into an international union’s litigation slush fund – even where all the litigation expenditures are made outside of their own bargaining unit.

In doing so, the High Court affirmed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirming a loose standard of protection under the U.S. Constitution for employees forced to pay dues as a condition of employment.

“America’s workers were not well served by this ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court missed an obvious opportunity to apply explicitly the same ‘strict scrutiny’ standard that applies under the First Amendment to other content-based government restrictions on free speech,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which provided free legal aid to the employees asserting their rights.

“Forced unionism is an outrageous situation. It results from actions by politicians to pay back the union bosses who got them elected by handing them the forced union dues of millions of employees in America.”

The employee petitioners in Daniel Locke et al. v. Edward Karass et al., asked the U.S. Supreme Court to provide much-needed clarity to the criteria it had established previously that determine what union activities employees can be lawfully forced to fund.

Unions spend billions of dollars each year on activities such as politics, organizing, litigation, lobbying, and a wide range of other ideological and non-bargaining activities. Yet union officials often claim that non-union members must foot the bill for these activities or be fired from their jobs.

The High Court’s ruling dealt with a special situation where, according to lower courts, employees who pay into a national litigation pooling arrangement could theoretically at some time benefit from litigation expenditures for their own bargaining unit.

“Because of the narrowness of the issue involved, we are optimistic that collateral damage to employee rights will be minimized,” continued Mix. “More fundamentally, however, this decision also highlights the need for state Right to Work laws which prevent union officials from extracting any compulsory dues from individual employees as a condition of employment.”

Locke is the 14th case brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

New York, NY (January 16, 2009) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges for an independent cameraman who was threatened with blacklisting unless he joined a union and paid a $5,950 initiation fee.

The case challenges a common, though illegal, practice in the entertainment industry that union officials use to compel actors, employees, and independent contractors to join or pay dues to a union even though they have not continuously worked for an individual employer for the 30 days required by statute.

Brian Johnson, a cameraman employed by ESPN, is occasionally designated as a «daily hire» for the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) when ABC broadcasts ESPN sports programming. ABC and the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians Local 16 – Communication Workers of America (NABET-CWA) union are party to a monopoly bargaining agreement that governs terms of employment for freelance workers. Under this agreement, workers employed by ABC for 20 days in a year or more than 30 days over a two year period are required to become union members.

However, federal law states that employees cannot be legally forced into a union’s monopoly bargaining ranks unless they work for 30 consecutive days for a single employer. Johnson was never employed by ABC for longer than the prescribed 30 day period. Nevertheless, NABET-CWA Local 16 ordered him to join the union on December 3, 2008.

Union officials also informed Johnson that formal union membership was a condition of future employment with ABC. Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, however, employees cannot be compelled become formal, full dues-paying union members as a condition of employment. Workers can be forced to pay certain union fees related to workplace bargaining.

Adding insult to injury, union officials attempted to extract an exorbitant “union initiation fee” of $5,950 from Johnson.

“Even though the entertainment unions’ ‘30 days in two years’ standard has no basis in law, union bosses frequently use this rule to extort money from freelance and part-time workers,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“This kind of union dues shake-down scheme is all too common in the entertainment business, and we aim to stop it,” added Gleason. “Workers should be free to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union – and they certainly shouldn’t be shoved into union ranks just to keep a job.”

UAW Tries to Block Employee Election to Toss Out Union at JCIM Grand Rapids

Meanwhile, UAW operatives work to pressure employees at Holland JCIM plant into union ranks

Grand Rapids, MI (January 13, 2009) — A majority of Johnson Controls (JCIM) employees at the Talon Court facility in Kentwood have filed a decertification petition seeking an election to oust the United Auto Workers (UAW) union as the JCIM workers’ monopoly bargaining agent, but UAW union lawyers argued in a formal hearing yesterday that the employees should be barred from access to a decertification election.

JCIM worker Dawn Lambert filed the decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a secret ballot election to determine whether or not a majority of the workforce wants to retain the UAW union as their monopoly bargaining agent. Under federal labor law governing the private sector, when a union hierarchy has been granted monopoly bargaining authority, it is illegal for any present or future employees – whether they are members of the union or not – to negotiate with their employer for themselves unless they can prove that the union hierarchy does not retain majority support.

A clear majority of the employees at the Talon Court facility in Kentwood have now expressed their intent to remove the UAW. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have also sent a letter to JCIM management demanding that it cease further contract negotiations and also withdraw recognition of what is now a minority union at Talon Court. Under the law, recognizing and negotiating with a union that does not have majority support is an unfair labor practice.

(Continue reading this news release…)

Grand Rapids, MI (January 13, 2009) – A majority of Johnson Controls (JCIM) employees at the Talon Court facility in Kentwood have filed a decertification petition seeking an election to oust the United Auto Workers (UAW) union as the JCIM workers’ monopoly bargaining agent, but UAW union lawyers argued in a formal hearing yesterday that the employees should be barred from access to a decertification election.

JCIM worker Dawn Lambert filed the decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a secret ballot election to determine whether or not a majority of the workforce wants to retain the UAW union as their monopoly bargaining agent. Under federal labor law governing the private sector, when a union hierarchy has been granted monopoly bargaining authority, it is illegal for any present or future employees – whether they are members of the union or not – to negotiate with their employer for themselves unless they can prove that the union hierarchy does not retain majority support.

A clear majority of the employees at the Talon Court facility in Kentwood have now expressed their intent to remove the UAW. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have also sent a letter to JCIM management demanding that it cease further contract negotiations and also withdraw recognition of what is now a minority union at Talon Court. Under the law, recognizing and negotiating with a union that does not have majority support is an unfair labor practice.

However, in yesterday’s hearing, union lawyers claimed that the plant is not its own bargaining group but had been sucked into a large amorphous group that includes other JCIM plants across America, making the petition by a majority of Talon Court workers insufficient to trigger a decertification. Of course, it would be nearly impossible for employees to organize and muster a broad effort at unknown facilities far away from Grand Rapids. This UAW claim flies in the face of the fact that the union officials and management have been bargaining over local issues, and that a local contract is not in place after nearly two years since the union became the monopoly bargaining agent at Talon Court.

“Despite over 50 percent of employees wanting the union gone, bosses have the nerve to deny them even a vote,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Apparently the UAW is like a roach motel, easy to get in, but nearly impossible to leave.”

The decertification drive against the UAW in Kentwood comes amidst a UAW campaign to unionize JCIM workers in nearby Holland. In Holland, UAW union bosses have pressured JCIM to provide union organizers with access to company facilities and sensitive personal information about its employees, including their names, phone numbers, and home addresses.

Union bosses apparently intend to use this information to pressure employees to sign union authorization cards at work and at home. In fact, union operatives are also planning a captive audience meeting later this week to pressure workers to sign the cards. History shows that during “card check” campaigns union organizers frequently harass and even mislead workers into signing these cards with the ultimate goal of installing the union without even the minimal protections of a secret ballot election. Additionally, union officials will doubtlessly fail to tell Holland employees that they will not be able to vote the union out.

Today, the National Right to Work Foundation announced it will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission on behalf of two Alabama educators and itself against the National Education Association teacher union and two NEA affiliates for an illegal political fundraising scheme by the union hierarchy:

Washington, DC (January 13, 2009) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced today it will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking it to investigate charges made by two Alabama educators who discovered a union scheme to divert their money into the National Education Association’s (NEA) political action committee (PAC).

Claire Waites, the chair of the science department, and Dr. Jeanne Fox, an assistant principal, both work at Daphne Middle School in Bay Minette, Alabama. Waites and Fox are both members of the Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA), Alabama Education Association (AEA), and NEA teacher unions.

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

Read the rest of the Foundation’s press release here. A PDF copy of the complaint is available here.

Washington, DC (January 13, 2009) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced today it will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking it to investigate charges made by two Alabama educators who discovered a union scheme to divert their money into the National Education Association’s (NEA) political action committee (PAC).

Claire Waites, the chair of the science department, and Dr. Jeanne Fox, an assistant principal, both work at Daphne Middle School in Bay Minette, Alabama. Waites and Fox are both members of the Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA), Alabama Education Association (AEA), and NEA teacher unions.

In July 2008, Waites and Fox attended the NEA’s annual convention in Washington, DC, as delegates of the BCEA. By telephone, BCEA union president Saadia Hunter informed Waites and Fox that contributions to a “children’s fund” in their names were made from 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, the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education.

Later, Hunter admitted that the money would be contributed to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Sworn statements by Waites and Fox indicate that the AEA union boss also admitted that the PAC contributions were paid with BCEA members’ dues. However, it is illegal for unions to contribute to political candidates using “dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization.”

Teacher union officials also violated federal law by encouraging and soliciting contributions under false pretenses and without informing Waites or Fox of their right to refuse to contribute without any reprisal. Federal law also forbids campaign contributions made in the name of another person.

“This union money laundering scheme makes a mockery of federal election law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which has joined Waites and Fox as a complainant. “We suspect this scheme was widely used by the NEA union hierarchy and could involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. We urge the FEC to take decisive action.”