2 Sep 2020

Right to Work-Flouting UAW Bosses Pay Back Thousands to MI Paramedics

Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en English.

29 Dec 2019

Foundation Assists Workers During UAW Union Boss-Ordered GM Strike

Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en English.

1 Dec 2019

Foundation Winning Protections Against Forced Unionism at Trump NLRB

Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en English.

18 Sep 2019

General Motors Employee Hits UAW Union Bosses with Federal Unfair Labor Practice Charge for Illegal Discrimination

Posted in News Releases

Charge: UAW officials illegally discriminated against nonmember worker causing GM to block possible promotion

Lansing, MI (September 18, 2019) – General Motors (GM) employee Joseph Small has filed an unfair labor practice charge against the United Auto Worker (UAW) Local 652 union with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

According to the charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, union officials interfered in the interview and hiring process for an opening at GM for which Small had applied. Union officials later admitted the position went to a union member instead of Small because Small had exercised his legal right to refrain from union membership and from paying union dues.

This discrimination against Small by UAW union officials violates his legal rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA outlaws discrimination by union officials against workers who elect to refrain from union activity. Small exercised his rights under Michigan’s Right to Work law, which not only allows workers to decline union membership but allows workers to stop any payment of union dues or fees as a condition of employment.

The unfair labor practice charge by Small comes as UAW officials have ordered a nationwide strike against GM affecting over 40,000 workers. The Foundation has issued a special notice to GM employees informing them about how to exercise their legal rights to refrain from participating in the strike and return to work.

The notice can be found here: www.nrtw.org/UAW-GM

Meanwhile, UAW officials have been caught up in an expanding corruption and embezzlement scandal that has resulted in numerous indictments, with the FBI reportedly recently raiding the home of current UAW President Gary Jones just weeks ago. In a separate case brought Foundation staff attorneys, the NLRB issued a decision earlier this month holding that UAW officials illegally seized dues from a Ford Motors employee’s paycheck while ordering the union to return the funds.

“UAW union officials continue to show a willingness to break the law, even violating the rights of the very workers they claim to represent,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Whether it be federal corruption prosecutions or unfair labor practice charges at the NLRB, UAW bosses must be held accountable when they break the law.”

4 Sep 2019

Labor Board Rules UAW Violated Ford Worker’s Legal Rights by Unlawfully Accepting Union Dues Deducted from Paycheck

Posted in News Releases

NLRB orders union officials to reimburse funds seized after employee resigned his union membership and revoked authorization to deduct any further dues

Washington, D.C. (September 4, 2019) – Ford Motor Company employee Lloyd Stoner won an important legal victory at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free litigation aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys after union officials violated his legal rights.

An NLRB three-member panel unanimously affirmed a ruling by an administrative law judge that United Automobile Workers (UAW) Local 600 union officials violated Stoner’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRB ordered the Dearborn, Michigan-based union local officials to reimburse Stoner for union dues unlawfully deducted from his paycheck after he attempt to exercise his legal right to revoke his dues checkoff authorization.

Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas ruled in February that UAW Local 600 engaged in unfair labor practices under the NLRA by accepting union dues deducted from Stoner’s wages for two-and-a-half months after he resigned union membership and revoked his authorization to deduct dues. The union also failed to refund any of the dues taken without Stoner’s consent for nearly five months after his revocation.

Stoner had already won a favorable settlement in January from the Ford Motor Company, which was charged for deducting the unauthorized dues from his paycheck.

In addition to refunding dues unlawfully deducted from Stoner’s paycheck, the NLRB ordered union officials to honor any requests of employees to resign from membership and revoke their dues checkoff authorizations. UAW union officials must refrain from coercing workers from exercising their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Board added.

“By standing up for his rights, Lloyd Stoner has won a clear victory for himself and his colleagues against abusive union practices,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Board is absolutely right that union bosses cannot keep accepting money deducted from a worker’s paycheck even after an employee resigns his union membership and tells the union he no longer wishes to pay dues.”

“It is outrageous that union officials thought they could get away with an obvious violation of the National Labor Relations Act,” Mix added. “Scandal ridden UAW bosses may claim to represent rank-and-file workers, but their actions repeatedly show they are really just out for power and money.”

22 Jul 2019

Veteran Foundation Attorneys Highlight NLRB Victory for Workers Over UAW Union Bosses

Posted in Blog

Earlier this month, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys won a decision at the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) for Johnson Controls Inc. employees seeking to remove the United Auto Worker (UAW) union from their workplace.

Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse and veteran Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman, who provided free legal aid to the workers, recently authored an article for the Federalist Society about the victory and how it advances the rights of workers seeking to free themselves from union monopoly ranks:

The main takeaways from this case are: 1) employers can lawfully withdraw recognition of a union when presented with objective evidence (like an employee signature petition) that the union has lost majority support, and they now face less legal jeopardy for honoring the wishes of their employees than they did under the prior regime; 2) secret ballot elections remain the favored method for determining employees’ representational desires, so if the union is «anticipatory» ousted based upon a majority employee petition but believes it actually possesses majority support, it cannot litigate its way back to power using the slow and prolonged unfair labor practice process, but must file for a secret ballot election; and 3) as noted in the dissenting opinion of Obama appointee Lauren McFerran, the Johnson Controls decision could open the door to periodic recertification elections for unions.

Many employee advocates have long urged that recertification elections are desirable. Unlike politicians who must automatically face periodic elections (a.k.a “recertifications”), current NLRB law “presumes” that unions retain majority status in perpetuity. Yet statistics show that 94% of unionized workers have never voted for the union representing their workplace. James Sherk, Union Members Never Voted for a Union, Heritage Foundation, August 30, 2016. If the NLRB adopts a recertification process, unions could not rely upon outdated doctrines granting them perpetual majority status, but would have to periodically prove their majority support. As National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have long argued, permanently encrusting a labor union on a bargaining unit, with no showing of current employee support, does not lead to workplace stability or protect employees’ right of free choice.

Read the rest here.

Learn more about the decision here.