**Honolulu, HI (October 30, 2006)** – Challenging actions by union officials to seize compulsory union dues spent for political activities, an employee at the Turtle Bay Resort in Hawaii has filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the UNITE-HERE Local 5 union.

The charges, filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, detail how UNITE-HERE union officials have ignored U.S. Supreme Court precedent by refusing to acknowledge objection letters sent by employees exercising their right to refrain from paying any more forced dues than the amount proven to cover collective bargaining costs.

In the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed employees’ right to object to paying forced union dues not used for collective bargaining, such as politics, lobbying, and organizing. Additionally, the NLRB has outlined a procedure where employees can exercise their Beck rights by sending an objection letter to union officials.

However, instead of recognizing the employees’ Beck objections, the UNITE-HERE Local 5 union hierarchy set up a series of illegal bureaucratic hurdles to discourage workers from exercising these rights. Such hurdles include forcing employees to annually renew their objections during a short window period and refusing to accept Beck objections during periods while a collective bargaining contract was not in place.

“In their rush to line their political coffers, UNITE-HERE union officials are violating the rights of the very employees they claim to ‘represent,’” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason. “This bullying highlights how workers are mistreated in states without Right to Work protections that would make union dues-payment strictly voluntary.”

The NLRB Regional Director will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint against the union local.

This is not the first time that UNITE-HERE Local 5 union officials have violated the rights of rank-and-file workers. In March 2005, an electrician at the Hilton Hawaiian Village resort filed charges at the NLRB after union officials illegally forced nonunion workers to pay money into a union strike fund that was then used to support UNITE-HERE work stoppages in other industries, including outside of the United States in Guam and Saipan. Foundation attorneys forced UNITE HERE union officials to settle that case in July and stop illegally siphoning nonunion employees’ forced dues into the general strike fund.

“Ultimately, only ending forced unionism will allow workers to hold union officials accountable,” said Gleason.

Read the NLRB charges

**High Point, NC (October 17, 2006)** – Today, a group of Thomas Built Buses employees filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit challenging a District Court decision to dismiss their lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for denial of their constitutional due process rights after union representation was forced upon them.

The lawsuit, originally filed in April with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, 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 facility.

The NLRB officials decreed that employees may not intervene to assert their rights and challenge union representation election results because they lack standing. 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 procedural decision whitewashed the illegal eleventh hour intervention of Thomas Built to assist its hand-picked union in winning monopoly bargaining representation over the employees. In June 2005, one day before a union representation election, Thomas Built officials issued a surprise memo to all High Point workers, 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. When a group of employees tried to object to the tainted vote, NLRB officials refused to recognize them. The UAW union was then 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. “When the NLRB becomes a rubberstamp for union-employer collusion, it seriously undermines the credibility of a federal agency that is supposed to protect 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.

**Lexington, KY (October 5, 2006)** – International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 526 union officials have settled a federal civil rights lawsuit against the union for illegally seizing forced union dues from seven nonunion Lexington firefighters. The firefighters brought the lawsuit with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys.

According to the settlement, IAFF union officials have refunded with interest all forced dues seized improperly since the collective bargaining agreement went into effect in June 2005. Each of the firefighters received approximately $150 in refunded dues and interest.

The victory for the nonunion firefighters contradicts earlier denials of any wrongdoing by Local 526 union official Mark Blankenship who was quoted in news reports immediately following the lawsuit’s filing claiming, “we follow all of the federal and state rules.”

“The fact that these firefighters had to file a federal lawsuit to get union officials to stop violating their basic constitutional rights shows how little the union bosses truly care about ‘representing’ workers,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case demonstrates how vulnerable Kentucky employees are without a Right to Work law on the books making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary.”

The suit, filed June 22 against the IAFF Local 526 by the firefighters in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, also named Lexington Mayor Teresa Isaac, and other top city officials, for signing and enforcing an agreement with the union that resulted in the unconstitutional acts.

Under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, before seizing any forced dues, union officials must first provide an independent audited disclosure of the union’s expenses. Such audits are intended to ensure that forced union dues seized from nonunion public employees do not fund union activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities. Unsurprisingly, IAFF union political operatives recently endorsed Isaac’s mayoral campaign.

In addition to the refunds, as a result of the settlement union officials cannot seize any future dues from nonunion firefighters until the union follows constitutionally-required procedures recognized by the Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Hudson decision. However, until Kentucky workers are protected by a Right to Work law, union officials will have the power to force employees to pay union dues or fees just to get or keep their jobs.

**Washington, DC (September 26, 2006)** — A group of teachers receiving free legal help from the National Right to Work Foundation today persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case in which Washington State’s high court struck down a state law intending to limit the misuse of mandatory union dues for certain political activities. The Washington State Attorney General also joined in the appeal.

The voided Washington law required union officials to obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending their mandatory union dues on a tiny fraction of what the union actually spends on politics. However, in the process of striking down the law, the state Supreme Court fabricated a constitutional “right” for union officials to spend the money of employees who want nothing to do with the union on politics.

If upheld, the Washington State Supreme Court rulings in *Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA) Union* and *Washington v. WEA Union* – which, as Justice Richard B. Sanders’ three-member dissent pointed out, “turns the First Amendment on its head” – open the door for activist court rulings to undermine America’s 22 state Right to Work laws, which make union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary.

Foundation attorneys – working jointly with Steven O’Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry of Seattle – originally filed the suit, *Davenport v. WEA*, in 2001 for more than 4,000 Washington teachers who are not union members, but nonetheless are forced to pay union dues or be fired.

A long-awaited ruling in Davenport by the State Supreme Court in mid-March upheld an appellate court’s decision to overturn a trial court – thereby striking down the last remaining union dues provisions in I-134, Washington’s troubled “paycheck protection” law.

“These ineffective ‘paycheck protection’ laws have unfortunately opened a Pandora’s Box, creating an opportunity for activist courts to award new privileges to union bosses and even to jeopardize state Right to Work laws,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While the underlying law is deeply flawed, the National Right to Work Foundation has a duty to limit the broader collateral damage done to employees’ rights by the court response.”

Though the Foundation believes the State Supreme Court’s decision was wrongheaded, the ruling brought into focus how difficult the paycheck protection regulatory approach is, and how ineffective it has been in protecting employees laboring under forced unionism. Even if Washington’s Supreme Court had reinstated the trial court’s rulings, I-134 would still only result in small individual refunds of $25 per year, on average. This is because the vast majority of union political expenditures are out of reach of the campaign finance regulation.

“Ultimately, Right to Work laws are the way to protect workers from the misuse of their funds. By making membership and the payment of dues entirely voluntary, Right to Work laws allow employees to prevent the theft in the first place,” stated Gleason.

Key Legal Documents:
Foundation’s Cert Petition (Davenport v. WEA)

Foundation’s Reply Brief (Davenport v. WEA)

Davenport v. WEA Cert Petition Appendix

Supreme Court Order Granting Cert

Washington State Cert Petition (Washington v. WEA)

Washington State Reply Brief (Washington v. WEA)

Washington v. WEA Cert Petition Appendix

WEA Brief Opposing Cert

Amicus Brief by 13 Public Policy Groups Supporting Cert
Amicus Brief by Institute for Justice Supporting Cert
Amicus Brief by Pacific Legal Foundation Supporting Cert
Amicus Brief by Campaign Legal Center Supporting Cert

WA State Supreme Court Decision (Majority)
WA State Supreme Court Decision (Dissent)

**Detroit, MI (September 25, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a western Michigan auto worker today hit the United Auto Workers (UAW) union with a federal civil rights lawsuit for religious discrimination. In violation of federal labor law, union officials have applied a discriminatory policy that forces the employee to pay to charity fees in place of union dues that are higher than fees paid by nonmembers who object for secular reasons – or face termination.

Jeffrey Reed, a resident of Bridgman who assembles Hummer H2s for AM General, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan after UAW union officials refused to grant him an adequate religious accommodation to paying dues to a union that conflicts with his religious beliefs.

“By maintaining a discriminatory policy, the UAW hierarchy appears to have little regard for those who have deep moral objections to the union and its activities,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “But this heavy-handed behavior towards workers who dare dissent comes as little surprise given the UAW bosses’ thuggish history.”

Though Reed prompted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to determine that UAW officials had violated federal law and issue him a “right to sue” letter, the union hierarchy has refused to grant him a proper accommodation.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the worker’s sincerely held religious beliefs. To avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral, the law requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the worker – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to receive the funds.

In spite of the law, UAW officials have forced Reed to pay to charity a $100 premium over the amount that any secular objecting worker is forced to pay. Reed continues to pay the discriminatory amount under protest to prevent UAW officials from ordering him fired.

As a devout Catholic, Reed believes that financially supporting the UAW union violates his sincerely held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals and abortion-on-demand.

“UAW officials want to single out Jeffrey Reed to make other employees of faith think twice about refusing to toe the union line,” said Gleason. “Employees should not have to take legal action for union officials to respect their fundamental right to religious freedom.”

Reed points out in his complaint that even full UAW members and secular objectors are allowed to pay an amount less than full dues if they want to cut off the use of their mandatory union dues for political activities.

**Albuquerque, NM (September 22, 2006)** – The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to overturn a District Court ruling ordering union officials to refund all dues seized by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union (AFSCME) Local 624 from nonunion city government employees.

The unanimous 21-page ruling came in Wessel v. Albuquerque, a case brought by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for city government employees against the City of Albuquerque and the AFSCME Local 624, after the city deducted union dues used for activities unrelated to collective bargaining and without proper procedural protections.

The appeals court agreed with the District Court that union witnesses had failed to prove that the forced dues – seized from nonunion employees – were being spent to the benefit of the city government employees and rejected the union’s position that nonmembers be forced to pay. Union officials could not meet their constitutional burden of proof that the seized money is used for collective bargaining expenses.

The case was originally filed in January 2000 by Rory Wessel of Albuquerque, and twelve other city employees, after the City of Albuquerque heeded the demands of union officials of AFSCME Local 624 to withhold compulsory union dues from employees’ paychecks without observing constitutional due process requirements.

“In their rush to hoard forced dues, union officials showed complete disregard for the constitutional rights of the very employees they claim to represent,» said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Ultimately, this case illustrates why New Mexico needs to enact a state Right to Work law that would make payment of union dues completely voluntary.”

Like many agreements around the country, the collective bargaining agreement also included an indemnification clause in which the union promised the city that it would pay all legal costs in defending a suit filed by employees whose constitutional rights were violated. On an earlier appeal the court found this contract provision void as against public policy. The appeals court now has remanded to the District Court the issue of whether the city must disgorge the money it received under the illegal clause. Foundation attorneys are confident the District Court will order the money’s return – an action that would serve as a strong deterrent to other government bodies that might consider aiding unions in violating employees’ First Amendment rights.

The thirteen plaintiffs will receive approximately $1,800 in refunded dues, interest and damages to go along with the over $600 already refunded to them. A companion class-action case, also filed with free legal aid from Foundation attorneys, was settled in 2005 resulting in almost 500 nonunion employees receiving nearly $180,000 in refunded dues, interest and damages.

Download the Appeals Court Decision

In its «In the Pipeline» article about cases up for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court, National Review Online detailed the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s pending Davenport v. Washington Education Association case as among the most high profile. The case seeks to reverse the collateral damage to employee rights caused by the Washington Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state’s ineffective «paycheck protection» law.

To read the article, click here.

To read the Foundation’s latest news about Davenport v. Washington Education Association, click here.

Media seeking comment or an interview with a Foundation spokesperson should contact Justin Hakes, Legal Information Director, at 703-770-3317, or by email.

**Springfield, VA (September 21, 2006)** – Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement in response to today’s ground-breaking ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed two of its earlier appellate rulings by a vote of 8-3, upholding a state law that will effectively force coercive union organizing upon employees of private companies who receive state funds.

“In a controversial decision with national implications, the activist Ninth Circuit in Chamber v. Lockyer has done an about face and upheld a California law which will surely result in increased pressure on employees to join unions.

“This special-interest state statute is pre-empted by federal labor law, which is supposed to protect employees from pressure to unionize by other entities working in concert with union officials. Numerous federal courts across America have recognized this fact before the Ninth Circuit went out on this limb.

“The practical effect will be that employees of private employers wishing to accept funds from the state must be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization, and their employers could ultimately be blackballed from government contracts unless they clear the path for union organizers to recruit new forced-dues-paying members. Moreover, union organizers will insist that the law entitles them to sweeping access to company facilities, employees’ private personal information, and the power to sidestep the less-abusive secret ballot election process for determining whether employees actually want a union – a procedure overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.

“State officials are using the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies seem to be having difficulties persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to these tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues into their coffers.

“The National Right to Work Foundation denounces this rogue appellate ruling and vows to support efforts to gain U.S. Supreme Court review.”

**Tampa, FL (September 11, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five nonunion security officers employed at the Tampa Federal Courthouse won a lawsuit in state court this week against security union officials who illegally threatened to have them fired for refusing to join or financially support the union.

The ruling slows a statewide scheme by union officials to force employees at federal buildings into union ranks against their will.

Fred Bohlig and four coworkers filed the suit in the Circuit Court of Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in November 2003 against the union after United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union Local 132 officials attempted to circumvent Florida’s Right to Work law. The highly popular law protects employees from being forced to join or pay dues to an unwanted union.

“This victory is an incremental yet important step towards protecting employee freedom in the Sunshine State,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “With these bully tactics, it’s obvious that the union hierarchy is more concerned with milking workers for forced union dues than supposedly ‘representing’ them.”

As part of an effort to pressure nonunion workers into paying dues, UGSOA union officials posted a notice at the Tampa Federal Courthouse in October 2003 threatening that all security officers would lose their jobs unless they agreed either to join the union or pay dues.

The notice falsely claimed the security officers worked on federal property and are not protected by Florida’s Right to Work law – and thus could be forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. Although it is true workers employed at some federal installations cannot be protected by a state Right to Work law, the court agreed with Foundation attorneys that the Tampa Federal Courthouse does not qualify as such a location.

The unlawful threats are part of an emerging trend under which union officials seek to bypass Right to Work laws – an unfortunate growing pattern the Foundation is battling both in Florida and nationwide. In another recent Foundation case in Florida, four nonunion employees at a federal detention facility in Miami recently hit the Teamsters Local 769 union with a similar lawsuit for illegally ordering them to pay union dues or face termination.

**Columbus, OH (September 6, 2006)** – Resolving a case brought by an Ohio state employee with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a federal judge signed a decree yesterday settling a religious discrimination lawsuit in union contracts for all state workers. The consent decree re-affirms that all public sector employees who have sincere religious objections to union affiliation cannot be forced to associate with and pay dues to a union they find objectionable.

The state’s agencies and the union hierarchy were denying, as a matter of policy, religious objections to the payment of forced union dues when objecting employees were not members of certain state-approved churches.

The settlement concludes a lawsuit for systemic religious discrimination filed by Foundation attorneys, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the State of Ohio, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OPEA), the Ohio State Employment Relations Board, the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA) union, and the Ohio Department of Administrative Services.

In a related matter, the EEOC also determined that the OCSEA union illegally retaliated against the worker who brought the original case after objecting to union affiliation on religious grounds. OCSEA union officials’ had filed a retaliatory counter-claim against Glen Greenwood – a 28-year OEPA employee – demanding that he repay the union for all raises and employment benefits he received for the past quarter century.

As a devout Presbyterian, Greenwood believes that supporting the OCSEA union violates his sincerely held religious beliefs because of the union’s support for abortion on demand and special rights for homosexuals.

“This decree stalls state and OCSEA union officials’ systematic religious discrimination against Ohio’s public servants,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “The union hierarchy’s willingness to violate employees’ religious freedom demonstrates how their interests are squarely at odds with the employees they claim to represent.”

The actions of OCSEA union officials and the state agencies violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under Title VII, an employee may not be forced to financially support a union if doing so violates his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. To avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral, the law requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the employee – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to accept the funds.