Comments to Federal Labor Relations Authority point out that no union dues can be seized unless a federal employee provides a knowing waiver of their First Amendment rights

Washington, DC (Aug 12, 2019) – Today the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed comments with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) regarding the need for the federal government to fully protect the First Amendment rights of its employees as recognized in the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME.

The submission comes after the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) asked the FLRA to solicit public comments on how to proceed with union dues deductions in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.

In Janus, the High Court held that requiring public employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment violates their First Amendment rights “by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.” Justice Samuel Alito further ruled for the majority that no union dues or fees could be taken from a public employee “unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay” using a “freely given” waiver of his or her First Amendment rights.

Consistent with that standard, the Foundation urged the FLRA to issue guidance to agencies that they “must cease deducting union dues from the wages of employees who signed a dues deduction form that does not satisfy the [Janus] standard.” Federal employees who signed dues deduction authorizations before the Janus decision did not knowingly waive their Janus rights. Consequently, union dues cannot legally be deducted from their paychecks.

According to the Department of Labor, nearly one million federal employees (or 26.4% of all federal workers) are union members, most of whom are likely having dues deducted from their paychecks despite never having knowingly waived their First Amendment right not to subsidize union activities as protected by Janus.

Workers who want to voluntarily pay union dues must either provide the government with a valid waiver or pay dues on their own without using taxpayer-funded payroll systems to forward the money to union officials. The comments further argue that, even where workers provide a valid authorization for dues deductions that meets the Janus standard, the government should not block them from revoking that authorization if the request is submitted at any time at least a year after the Janus-complaint authorization was obtained.

Though federal workers have never been required to pay union dues or fees to keep a job, agencies and union officials frequently prohibit employees from stopping the seizure of union dues from their wages except during short annual escape periods. The comments filed by the National Right to Work Foundation say that this practice does not comply with Janus either.

“The Janus precedent is not ambiguous on this issue: Without an affirmative and knowing waiver from public workers, the government cannot collect union dues without violating the First Amendment,” explained National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The government is seizing union dues from close to one million federal workers in violation of the First Amendment, and federal agencies have an obligation to act swiftly to ensure that workers’ Janus rights are fully protected.”

Foundation staff attorneys have been hard at work ensuring that public workers’ constitutional rights under the Janus decision are protected, with more than 30 cases active in federal courts across the country to enforce the landmark ruling.

Princeton, WV (May 18, 2010) – Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 union officials have agreed to a statewide settlement after six ResCare group home employees filed several unfair labor practice charges against them.

The employees, with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, challenged the SEIU District 1199 union’s forced dues policy, which violated Foundation-won employee rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988).

In Beck, the Court held that union officials cannot lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining union boss activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. The employees also challenged the SEIU union officials’ practice of requiring employees to object to paying full union dues multiple times in order to exercise their rights under Beck.

Under the settlement, SEIU District 1199 union bosses will mail notices to all ResCare employees in West Virginia detailing the employees’ rights to object to full-dues-paying union membership. Further, the settlement requires SEIU District 1199 union bosses to allow ResCare employees in Mercer County, who were told by SEIU officials to join or be fired, to retroactively rescind their union membership and to receive refunds of their forced union dues.

Meanwhile, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina are scheduled to challenge the SEIU District 1199 union hierarchy’s “annual objection” policy before an NLRB administrative law judge in June. The SEIU District 1199 “annual objection” policy is clearly designed to force workers into making full union dues payments against their will.

Five NLRB administrative law judges around the country have held such union fee schemes unlawful.

“These six courageous workers have taken a stand for the rights of all ResCare employees in the Mountain State,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work. “Foundation attorneys will continue to pursue overturning the SEIU union bosses’ illegal membership policy, but West Virginia needs to pass a state Right to Work law making union dues payment completely voluntary in order to end these kinds of compulsory unionism abuses.”

Group Home Workers Force SEIU Bosses into Forced Union Dues Refund

Right to Work Foundation attorneys continue to challenge illegal union membership “opt-out” policy

Princeton, WV (May 18, 2010) – Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 union officials have agreed to a statewide settlement after six ResCare group home employees filed several unfair labor practice charges against them.

The employees, with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, challenged the SEIU District 1199 union’s forced dues policy, which violated Foundation-won employee rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988).

In Beck, the Court held that union officials cannot lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining union boss activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. The employees also challenged the SEIU union officials’ practice of requiring employees to object to paying full union dues multiple times in order to exercise their rights under Beck.

Under the settlement, SEIU District 1199 union bosses will mail notices to all ResCare employees in West Virginia detailing the employees’ rights to object to full-dues-paying union membership. Further, the settlement requires SEIU District 1199 union bosses to allow ResCare employees in Mercer County, who were told by SEIU officials to join or be fired, to retroactively rescind their union membership and to receive refunds of their forced union dues.

Click here to read the whole release.

Washington, DC (May 19, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Virginia workers have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The petition asks the court to review a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision invalidating a union decertification in Boykins, Virginia.

Shirley Mae Lewis and Henry Vaughan are both employed at a Narricot plant in Boykins. In August 2007, they initiated an effort to eject the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local 2316 union from their workplace. Although 64% of employees in the bargaining unit signed a petition against union officials, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) invalidated the decertification on the grounds that Lewis and Vaughan received “unlawful assistance” from their employer.

Narricot management merely gave Lewis and Vaughan factual information about the number of signatures they would have to collect to decertify the union and the proper wording to use in union decertification petitions. Company officials also indicated that signed petitions would have to be presented to management before they could withdraw recognition from the Carpenter union. Narricot did not actively encourage Lewis or Vaughan to organize against the union.

Although federal labor law permits employers to provide information to workers so long as they avoid inducements or threats of reprisal, the NLRB ruled that the information the company passed on to Lewis and Vaughan exceeded so-called “ministerial assistance.” The NLRB’s decision was later upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Foundation attorneys argue that employees should be permitted to receive accurate information about how to exercise their workplace rights. Without the information they received, Lewis and Vaughan might not have been able to get rid of the unwanted union.

“Despite overwhelming employee opposition to the Carpenter union, Narricot employees are still saddled with union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Workers shouldn’t be punished for seeking information from their employer when attempting to eject an unwanted union, and employers shouldn’t be gagged from giving employees truthful information about their basic rights.”

Washington, DC (May 20, 2010) – Acting for three flight attendants and two customer service representatives at Delta Air Lines, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn a dramatic rule change on how a union is imposed on railway and airline industry workers.

Airline employers have filed a federal lawsuit against the National Mediation Board (NMB), the federal agency tasked with administration of labor relations within the railroad and airline industries, attacking its controversial rule change that overturns 75 years of precedent. The new procedure stacks the deck in favor of unionization by granting a union monopoly bargaining power over workers if the union “wins” an election, no matter how few eligible workers actually vote. This means that a small bloc of workers could force union boss “representation” on the whole group rather than having a true majority of all workers deciding for themselves.

Foundation attorneys argue that the new rule is unconstitutional because it violates the workers’ rights of freedom of association and due process, especially when the union can only demonstrate support from a minority of workers in the class or craft.

The five Delta workers and similarly situated employees in the railway and airline industries could soon find themselves forced into fees-paying ranks against their will. There are ongoing unionization efforts at Delta by the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions.

Unlike private sector workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act, nonmember employees in the railway and airline industries are not protected by the Right to Work laws in Georgia, where Delta is headquartered, and 21 other states. Furthermore, the rule change is especially troubling given the complicated bureaucratic hoops these workers must jump through to remove an unwanted union.

Foundation attorneys also argue that the NMB members who approved the rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, should have recused themselves because of their prejudgment of the regulations. Hoglander and Puchala are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions, respectively. Both unions are a major part of an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) union-led coalition that urged the NMB to discard its longstanding policy.

“This is a shameless payoff from the Obama Administration and two former union officials to their Big Labor associates,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation legal information director. “If these regulations are upheld, transportation unions will become roach motels – a tiny minority of workers will be able to install the union, but it will be virtually impossible for a majority of employees to remove the unwanted union.”

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.

Princeton, WV (April 6, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina has issued a federal complaint against a local union for maintaining an “annual objection” policy designed to force nursing home workers into full union dues payments against their will.

The complaint stems from multiple charges filed by six employees from the Princeton area of West Virginia against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199. The employees – Sherry French, Walter Coeburn, Tammy Tyree, Bruce Hoyle, Debra Fitzko, and Deborah Dunn – filed the series of charges with free legal assistance from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The six employees challenged the SEIU District 1199 hierarchy’s policy which violates Foundation-won precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), in which the Court held that union officials can not lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. Foundation attorneys are currently challenging many union boss schemes similar to the SEIU District 1199 union bosses’ annual objection policy, often concocted by union brass to burden or thwart employees from exercising their rights under Beck. Five NLRB administrative law judges have held such schemes unlawful.

The NLRB’s complaint challenges the SEIU District 1199 annual objection policy, but other meritorious charges remain pending, and the NLRB has indicated that further complaints will be issued unless the union hierarchy settles.

“The SEIU District 1199 union officials’ illegal behavior shows they’re just after forced union dues revenue,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work. “This blatant disregard for the rights of the workers SEIU bosses claim to represent shows why West Virginia needs to pass a state Right to Work law making union dues payment completely voluntary.”

Labor Board Slaps Grocery Union Bosses with Federal Complaint for Statewide Illegal Forced-Dues Scheme

Suspecting widespread abuse, Right to Work Foundation gears up legal aid program to assist any of the tens of thousands of employees affected

Phoenix, AZ (April 1, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Phoenix has issued a statewide complaint alleging that local union bosses and Fry’s Food Stores are illegally blocking independent-minded workers from stopping union dues payments.

The prosecution is the result of a four month long investigation of charges filed by Fry’s employees with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. Employees from several Fry’s locations filed the federal charges challenging the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union hierarchy and Fry’s management, after union and company officials refused to honor the employees’ legal rights to revoke their dues deduction authorizations and continued to illegally seize union dues from their paychecks.

Upset by the UFCW Local 99 strike threat last November, the employees resigned from the union and revoked their dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – during a time in which the 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, employees can revoke their dues deduction authorizations once a contract terminates.

The Phoenix NLRB regional director found that the dues deduction authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all Fry’s locations are illegal because the dues deduction authorizations do not allow employees to revoke them during contract hiatus periods, as required by federal law.

Suspecting that the illegal dues deduction forms are used in all workplaces in Arizona where UFCW union bosses enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges, Foundation attorneys are now offering free legal aid to all employees affected by the illegal UFCW dues deduction authorizations.

View the full press release and the list of UFCW Local 99 union organized employers in Arizona here.

Phoenix, AZ (April 1, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Phoenix has issued a statewide complaint alleging that local union bosses and Fry’s Food Stores are illegally blocking independent-minded workers from stopping union dues payments.

The prosecution is the result of a four month long investigation of charges filed by Fry’s employees with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. Employees from several Fry’s locations filed the federal charges challenging the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union hierarchy and Fry’s management, after union and company officials refused to honor the employees’ legal rights to revoke their dues deduction authorizations and continued to illegally seize union dues from their paychecks.

Upset by the UFCW Local 99 strike threat last November, the employees resigned from the union and revoked their dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – during a time in which the 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, employees can revoke their dues deduction authorizations once a contract terminates.

The Phoenix NLRB regional director found that the dues deduction authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all Fry’s locations are illegal because the dues deduction authorizations do not allow employees to revoke them during contract hiatus periods, as required by federal law.

Suspecting that the illegal dues deduction forms are used in all workplaces in Arizona where UFCW union bosses enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges, Foundation attorneys are now offering free legal aid to all employees affected by the illegal UFCW dues deduction authorizations.

“UFCW Local 99 bosses are likely violating the rights of tens of thousands of workers across the state of Arizona” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work. “We intend to make sure that UFCW operatives play by the rules and stop extracting union dues from workers who, under Arizona’s popular Right to Work law, cannot be forced to pay union dues.”

With free legal assistance from the Foundation, Shirley Jones of Mesa; Karen Medley and Elaine Brown of Apache Junction; Kimberly Stewart and Saloomeh Hardy of Queen Creek; and Tommy and Janette Fuentes of Florence – acting for other similarly situated employees – filed the federal unfair labor practice charges that spurred the NLRB to investigate and issue a statewide complaint against UFCW Local 99 union bosses.

Note: Here is the list of UFCW organized employers in Arizona:

• Ace Parking – Phoenix
• Ace Parking – Tucson
• Albertson’s – Yuma
• ALSCO
• ARCO Services Company
• Arizona Center for Disability Law
• Arizona Sonora Desert Museum
• Calcot Compress Company
• Canteen (Raytheon)
• Canteen (Vendors)
• Canteen (Douglas)
• Community Legal Service
• Copper Queen Hospital
• Eurofresh
• Fry’s Food and Drug
• Fry’s Market Place
• Mission Foods
• Precept
• Robert B. Yacko, D.D.S., P.C.
• Safeway
• Smithfield
• Smith’s Food and Drug
• Southern Arizona Legal Aid
• Southwest Service Administrators
• Waste Management
  

Labor Board Announces Prosecution of SEIU Union Bosses for Illegal Union Membership Opt-Out Policy

Illegal union procedure forces nursing home workers to pay full union dues

Princeton, WV (April 6, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina has issued a federal complaint against a local union for maintaining an “annual objection” policy designed to force nursing home workers into full union dues payments against their will.

The complaint stems from multiple charges filed by six employees from the Princeton area of West Virginia against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199. The employees – Sherry French, Walter Coeburn, Tammy Tyree, Bruce Hoyle, Debra Fitzko, and Deborah Dunn – filed the series of charges with free legal assistance from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The six employees challenged the SEIU District 1199 hierarchy’s policy which violates Foundation-won precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), in which the Court held that union officials can not lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. Foundation attorneys are currently challenging many union boss schemes similar to the SEIU District 1199 union bosses’ annual objection policy, often concocted by union brass to burden or thwart employees from exercising their rights under Beck. Five NLRB administrative law judges have held such schemes unlawful.

The full press release is available here.