National Right to Work Foundation Files Brief in Support of Grad Students’ Legal Challenge to Being Forced to Fund Radical Campus Union
Amicus brief at Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals argues NLRB coercion over bargaining means mandatory union dues requirement violates First Amendment
Chicago, IL (July 16, 2026) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in support of University of Chicago graduate students who are challenging the requirement that they pay fees to a union they oppose. Currently, these students must pay the union in order to keep their research and teaching jobs, which are a requirement of completing their graduate program.
The lawsuit, Graduate Students for Academic Freedom, Inc. v. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, was brought by a group that includes Israeli and Jewish graduate students who oppose being forced to fund the union, especially due to UE union officials’ “virulent anti-Israel advocacy.”
The Foundation’s brief, filed on Wednesday, July 15, supports the graduate students by arguing that the compulsory fee requirement they are subjected to violates the First Amendment, because it is the direct result of extensive and coercive bargaining requirements mandated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB):
“[T]he First Amendment prohibits the government from coercing one private party to infringe on the speech rights of another private party. This is what the NLRB does when it requires employers to bargain over forced fee requirements—the NLRB coerces one private party (an employer) to agree to compel other private parties (employees) to subsidize union speech.
The NLRB would violate the First Amendment by directly compelling employees to pay for union speech. Three times in the last 25 years the Supreme Court has struck down compelled subsidies for third-party speech… There is no constitutionally meaningful distinction between the compelled payments invalidated in those cases and the compulsory union fees at issue.”
The brief notes that in multiple decisions, including Janus v. AFSCME and Harris v. Quinn (both argued by Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys), the Supreme Court held that the government violates the First Amendment by compelling employees to subsidize union speech. More recently, in the 2024 NRA v. Vullo decision, the court reiterated the “principle that a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.”
The Foundation amicus brief argues that, under those Supreme Court precedents, the NLRB’s highly coercive requirements that force employers in non-Right to Work states to bargain with union officials over forced fee requirements mean that the resulting mandatory dues requirement is unconstitutional government-compelled speech. As the brief points out, employers face NLRB prosecution for refusing to consider such a requirement, and even seeking to defend the conscience rights or academic freedom of those subjected to forced dues does not allow an employer to escape this requirement.
“Union bosses’ forced dues powers are the direct result of government coercion, and it is past time that federal courts take a closer look at how this results in compelled funding of radical speech in violation of the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These students would have never been forced to fund union boss speech they find abhorrent if it weren’t for the NLRB’s actions, which first controversially subject graduate students to monopoly unionism and then require bargaining with union officials over a forced dues requirement.”
Counselor at IL Correctional Facility Slams Union With Federal Charges For Illegally Seizing Money From Paycheck
AFSCME union officials told worker that formal membership and full dues payments are required just to keep her job
East Saint Louis, IL (February 11, 2026) – A mental health professional employed by University Correctional Healthcare Solutions has just filed a federal charge against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 union, maintaining that union officials are forcing her to join the union and pay full union dues – including dues for union politics.
The employee, J. Denise Bradley, is pursuing her case at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law. Ms. Bradley works primarily at the Illinois Youth Center Pere Marquette in Grafton, IL.
Even though federal labor law permits union bosses in many states to force workers to pay money to a union to keep their jobs, the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. General Motors forbids mandatory formal union membership. Additionally, the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision prohibits union officials from requiring workers who opt out of union membership to pay dues for the union’s “nonchargeable” expenses, which include political and ideological actions.
Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, meaning union officials can enforce union contracts that require workers to pay money to the union or else be fired. However, this legal privilege is limited by Beck. In contrast, in Right to Work states like Illinois’ neighbors Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, and Kentucky, all union financial support is voluntary and the choice of each individual worker.
“My colleagues and I are very proud of the services we provide, as challenging as our jobs are. The last thing I need is AFSCME union officials threatening my livelihood because I refuse to support their regime inside the workplace and their political agenda outside the workplace,” commented Bradley. “No worker in any profession deserves to be bullied into funding a union they oppose, especially if they feel that the union isn’t doing anything to improve their work.”
Council 31 is notably the same AFSCME affiliate that Foundation attorneys faced in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling establishing that public sector employees have a First Amendment right to refrain from paying dues to union officials. While Bradley works for a private contractor and is not under the purview of Janus, federal law still protects her from being forced to pay full dues or authorize automatic deduction of union dues for AFSCME Council 31.
AFSCME Union Officials Ignore Supreme Court Precedent, Use Unlawful Dues Forms
According to Bradley’s charge, AFSCME union officials told her and her coworkers that “it was a condition of employment to: (1) be a member of the Union; (2) pay full Union dues and/or (3) sign the Union’s unlawful dual-purpose membership and dues deduction authorization form.” Federal law prohibits the use of “dual-purpose” union membership forms, which confusingly demand that workers assent to both membership and direct paycheck deduction of union dues with only one signature.
In late 2025, Bradley attempted to exercise her right to refrain from union membership and her right to pay a reduced amount of union dues as per Beck. AFSCME union officials sent correspondence to Bradley rejecting her attempts to exercise her right under federal law to refrain from membership. Those communications also stated “the Union [does] not permit employees to pay a reduced fee.”
“Solely to preserve her employment, [Bradley] involuntarily signed the Union’s unlawful dual-purpose membership and dues deduction authorization form ‘under protest,’” the charges read. Bradley’s charges finally report that the union has never made any attempt to respect her rights under Beck and that full union dues are now flowing from her paycheck to AFSCME Council 31.
“AFSCME Council 31 union officials are just as intent on attacking workers’ free association rights as they were when Janus was being litigated,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Instead of trying to win the support of Ms. Bradley and her coworkers voluntarily, they are ignoring federal laws to fund union political and ideological activities.
“Unions that disrespect employees like this don’t deserve a cent of employees’ hard-earned pay, which is why all American workers deserve the Right to Work freedom to choose for themselves whether or not to fund a union,” Mix added.
Foodservice Workers at Two High Schools Win Campaign to Remove SEIU Union Bosses
After vast majority of cafeteria workers requested vote to ‘decertify’ union, union bosses disclaimed interest rather than face a vote
Chicago, IL (February 4, 2026) – Foodservice employees who serve Lyons Township High School North and Lyons Township High School South have successfully removed Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 73 officials from power at their workplaces.
The victory comes after Quest Food Management Services employee Lisa Latelle filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) a petition backed by the majority of her coworkers seeking such a vote. Latelle spearheaded the union removal effort with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, a task which includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Nearly everyone in Latelle’s unit backed the petition seeking a union decertification vote. Latelle’s work unit includes all Quest Food Management employees at both high schools, including “Cooks, Assistant Cooks, Food Service Workers, Utility and Caterers.”
According to NLRB Region 13’s Decision and Direction of Election, the decertification election would have taken place near the end of January in the staff cafeterias of both Lyons Township High School North and Lyons Township High School South. However, ahead of the election, SEIU union officials disclaimed interest in maintaining control over the work unit, likely fearing a lopsided vote result against the union.
Because Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SEIU union officials had the power to force Latelle and her coworkers to pay union fees to keep their jobs. In Right to Work states like neighboring Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky, and Iowa, union financial support and union membership are the voluntary choice of each individual worker. With SEIU officials gone, Quest Food Management Services employees are free of both the union’s forced-dues demands and the union’s monopoly bargaining control over their contracts.
“SEIU union officials did not represent our interests in the workplace, yet money was constantly coming out of our paychecks to support their activities,” Latelle commented. “The vast majority of my coworkers had had enough of that, and we’re glad we could band together to free ourselves of the SEIU’s control.”
“It is wrong to force any worker under union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’ against their will,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Yet in Illinois, workers are not only forced under union monopolies, but can be required to fund union activities or else be fired.
“We are proud to have helped the cafeteria workers at Lyons Township schools exercise their right to eject the SEIU and escape both forced dues and forced ‘representation,’” added Mix. “We look forward to the day when every individual employee in Illinois has the right to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a labor union.”
St. Louis-Area Worker Battles Illegal Union Threats to Get Non-Members Fired
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
After divisive strike, IAM bosses demand non-members pay illegal ‘reinstatement fee’ to work
Robert Jacobs, an employee of power management company Eaton, filed federal charges showing IAM bosses clearly can’t manage their power: They are threatening union non-members with hundreds in illegal fees.
TROY, IL – “They’re threatening our jobs and livelihoods.”
This is how Robert Jacobs, an employee for power management company Eaton Corporation, described how International Association of Machinists (IAM) union bosses were treating him and his colleagues who dissented from the union’s agenda in an interview with the St. Louis Business Journal.
IAM officials ordered hundreds of Eaton employees at its St. Louis-area facility to strike in October 2024, which alienated many workers and made them question union bosses’ motives. Jacobs described seeing union agents take photos of his license plate during the strike and how he suspected union agents were following him home.
IAM Anti-Worker Activity Only Increased After Disruptive Strike Order
But for Jacobs and other workers, that was only the beginning of IAM’s coercive conduct. After the strike concluded, many Eaton employees chose to exercise their right to resign their union memberships. Even in states like Illinois that lack Right to Work protections, private sector workers are free to end their union memberships, even if union officials enforce a contract that requires non-members to pay some fees as a condition of employment.
Instead of respecting this right, IAM union officials began retaliating against those who wanted to cut ties with the union. With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Jacobs slammed the IAM with federal charges for threatening to get him and other employees who resigned union membership fired unless they pay hundreds in “reinstatement fees” concocted by the union. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is now reviewing his charges.
“I and several of my colleagues don’t want to be part of the IAM union, but we are required by law to pay fees to union bosses just to keep our jobs,” commented Jacobs.
“That’s already something that we don’t want to do. But IAM officials are going even further and hitting us with hundreds of dollars in made-up fees just because we exercised our right to not be union members.”
IL Worker: Mandatory ‘Reinstatement Fee’ Not Permitted by Federal Law
Under federal labor law, which the NLRB is charged with enforcing, private sector employees have an absolute right to resign union membership. This right is codified in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and was affirmed by landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as General Motors v. NLRB.
Federal law further spells out that neither employers nor union officials can compel private sector workers to participate in union activities or refrain from such activities.
According to Jacobs’ federal charge, which was filed on the last day of 2024, “the Union is presently threatening Charging Party and [other employees who resigned from the union] with termination if they fail to pay a $306 ‘reinstatement fee’ by January 2025.” The charge argues that the IAM union is violating Eaton employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which safeguards employees’ “right to refrain from any or all of ” union activities.
According to the Business Journal, IAM officials’ letter demanding this payment was what prompted him to contact Foundation attorneys. “[I]f you do not remit the total sum indicated in the enclosed letter within 30 days from receipt of this letter, the Union will be required to seek your termination from employment,” the letter read.
“Instead of seeking to win Eaton employees’ voluntary support, IAM union officials have decided to effectively extort the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Threatening to terminate workers if they don’t pay a fee which is apparently intended to punish those who don’t want union bosses speaking for them tarnishes employee rights and freedom.
“While we’re confident that Foundation attorneys will help Mr. Jacobs prevail in beating this illegal scheme, this case shows what self-interested union bosses will do to demand fealty from workers, and why all American workers deserve the Right to Work freedom to cut off financial support for such union hierarchies,” Messenger added
Chicago-Area Chemical Plant Worker Asks National Labor Board to End Policy Letting Union Bosses Trap Workers in Unions
Employees submitted valid petition requesting vote to remove Teamsters union, but union bosses manipulated unproven charges against employer to block vote
Chicago, IL (May 8, 2025) – An employee of Rowell Chemical Corporation, a chemical plant based in Willow Springs, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to overturn a regional labor board’s decision blocking a vote to remove the Teamsters Local 710 union. The worker, Jeffrey Johnston, is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB, based in Washington, D.C., is the federal agency responsible for administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions, as well as adjudicating disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. Johnston’s Request for Review argues that regional NLRB officials blocked his and his coworkers’ requested union removal vote based on dubious “blocking charges” Teamsters union officials filed against Rowell management.
Union officials often file blocking charges to delay or cancel union decertification votes, despite the fact that their charges are often unproven and have little, if any, connection to the reasons workers cite for wanting to get rid of a union. The NLRB in 2020 adopted Foundation-backed reforms that gave workers a chance to vote before the agency handled litigation related to the election, but the Biden NLRB adopted a new rule in 2024 that lets union officials manipulate blocking charges to stop election proceedings completely.
Request for Review: NLRB “Blocking Charge” Policy Violates Multiple Federal Laws
Johnston’s Request for Review contends that the NLRB should eliminate the Biden-era rule permitting blocking charges and schedule a union decertification election for him and his coworkers as soon as possible. Johnston argues that holding up an election pursuant to blocking charges violates the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the statute that the NLRB is supposed to enforce, which states that a decertification election should occur if there is a question concerning representation. Johnston also argues that the Biden-era rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) on multiple grounds.
At the very least, Johnston’s Request for Review maintains, the NLRB should hold a hearing into whether the employer misconduct alleged by Teamsters union officials actually has a connection to Johnston and his coworkers’ desire to kick the union out. The regional NLRB did not order such a hearing and simply blocked the vote.
“My coworkers and I requested a vote to remove this union almost two months ago and somehow the NLRB is letting Teamsters bosses throw around specious charges to stop us from doing so,” commented Johnston. “My coworkers and I have spent two years under Teamsters control, and I believe that the vast majority of us agree that the Teamsters don’t represent our interests. It’s not fair that union bosses and the NLRB can trump our free choice.”
“The NLRB, through its ‘blocking charge’ rule has let union officials stifle the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent’ in violation of the statute the NLRB is supposed to enforce,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Johnston speaks for workers across the country in challenging this NLRB-invented policy, which is completely antithetical to the idea expressed in federal labor law that employees should choose the union, not the other way around.”
Chicago 911 Operators Notch Another Janus Victory Over IBEW
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation attorneys stopped deceptive cycle that kept illegal dues flowing for months
Patricia Whittaker heard ridiculous excuses from IBEW union officials about how they couldn’t honor her Janus rights. But after teaming up with Foundation attorneys, she’s cut off dues to IBEW bosses.
CHICAGO, IL – Another 911 operator employed by the City of Chicago has successfully defended her First Amendment rights under the National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. Late last year, Operator Patricia Whittaker sought free Foundation legal aid after facing months of stonewalling from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 21 union officials, who refused to stop taking dues from her paycheck against her will.
Whittaker fought these dues seizures by invoking her First Amendment rights under Janus. Foundation attorneys argued and won the Janus case before the Supreme Court in 2018. The Supreme Court agreed with Foundation attorneys and ruled that union officials could not force public sector employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and that union officials must obtain affirmative employee consent before deducting union dues from any public worker’s paycheck.
In October, following unfair labor practice filings by Foundation attorneys at the Illinois Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), IBEW union bosses abandoned their unconstitutional dues demands — and other outrageous behavior they had subjected Whittaker to.
IBEW Union Outrageously Claimed They Had No Power to Stop Dues Deductions
Whittaker faced much more than just illegal dues deductions during her ordeal. IBEW officials engaged in a deceptive cycle in which Whittaker was told to resolve the matter with her employer, while the employer directed her back to the union, resulting in continued dues deductions for over 10 months. In doing so, the charges maintained, union officials misrepresented the law by making it appear as if they were the “good guys” by remitting dues deducted by the City of Chicago through checks back to her and claimed that only the employer — not the union — had the power to end dues deductions.
This isn’t the first time IBEW 21 union officials have been caught imposing illegal dues practices on Chicago 911 employees. In June 2024, Rhonda Younkins also triumphed in her months-long legal battle to exercise her First Amendment right to stop all union dues payments to IBEW Local 21. IBEW Local 21 union officials stopped their violation of Younkins’ Janus rights only after Foundation attorneys filed charges at PERB on Younkins’ behalf.
Independent-Minded Workers Continue to Defend Freedom with Janus
The Janus decision’s impact continues to grow. Immediately following the ruling, nearly a half a million public employees stopped paying union dues, with many others following in subsequent years as litigation backed by Foundation attorneys continues to defend their rights.
“The behavior of IBEW Local 21 union officials highlight just how crucial it is for public employees to be aware of, and assert, their Janus rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“While we at the Foundation are proud to help more workers protect their hard-earned money from funding union bosses and union agendas they don’t support, it is unacceptable that it takes aggressive legal action just to force union officials to respect workers’ constitutional freedoms.”
Eaton Employee Forces IAM Union Bosses to Abandon Illegal Termination & Fine Threats
Worker’s legal team still pressing labor board to prosecute union officials for threatening workers who opposed union membership
St. Louis, MO (February 21, 2025) – Robert Jacobs, an employee of power management firm Eaton Corporation at its Troy, Illinois, facility, has forced International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials to back off their threats to fire him unless he paid hundreds in illegal fees they imposed on him after he exercised his right to end his union membership.
Jacobs filed federal charges in January challenging the union’s so-called “reinstatement fee” threats at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). He received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
In states like Illinois and Missouri that lack Right to Work protections for their private sector workers, union officials have the privilege to enforce contracts that require every employee in a unionized workplace to pay at least a portion of full union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, as per the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), private sector workers have an absolute right to abstain from formal union membership, a right that was affirmed by landmark Supreme Court decisions such as General Motors v. NLRB.
Federal law further spells out that neither employers nor union officials can compel private sector workers to participate in union activities, which includes imposing retaliatory fees or fines tied to membership. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and financial support are fully voluntary and the choice of each individual employee.
Jacobs and many other Eaton employees resigned their IAM union memberships after a strike order in October 2024 which many workers disagreed with. His federal charge reported that, after the strike, IAM union officials hit him and others who had ended membership with threats of termination if they “fail[ed] to pay a $306 ‘reinstatement fee’ by January 2025.”
Faced with federal charges and an NLRB investigation, IAM union officials quickly sent him a letter taking back the threat, claiming that the whole situation was actually due to an error made by Eaton’s Human Resources department in monthly union fee collections.
Federal Labor Board Urged to Investigate Union’s Post-Strike Threats
Despite the quick reversal, Jacobs’ Foundation-provided attorneys have asked the NLRB to continue the investigation against IAM officials, as demanding membership “reinstatement fees” from workers on pain of termination is an illegal practice that goes beyond simply sending workers an invoice for what union officials believe they owe in monthly fees. By formally prosecuting the IAM for these clear-cut violations of federal labor law, the NLRB could also require IAM officials to notify all workers of their legal rights, including the fact that they have the right to resign their formal union membership and that nonmembers cannot be required to pay any reinstatement fees.
“IAM bosses knew this wasn’t right, and that’s why they’re now scrambling to explain themselves,” commented Jacobs. “While my coworkers and I are unfortunately required by Illinois law to pay some union fees, there’s nothing in the law that lets union bosses threaten us like this over membership, and I think the NLRB should hold union bosses accountable for the sake of our whole workplace.”
Foundation attorneys have recently assisted other employees nationwide in challenging IAM union bosses’ influence, including last August in Dover, Ohio, and Petaluma, California, where employees at two different Ford dealerships successfully voted out IAM Local 1363 and IAM Local 1596 union officials, respectively. Foundation attorneys also successfully attacked an illegal dues scheme imposed by IAM union officials on Boeing engineer Don Zueger, which incorrectly calculated the amount of money he could be required to pay to the union as a condition of employment.
“We’re encouraged that Mr. Jacobs’ legal action has caused IAM bosses to back off a clearly illegal threat they imposed on him. But IAM union officials thought it was appropriate to threaten workers who exercised their limited workplace rights with either huge fines or outright termination. That is a disturbing revelation, and taking such action is more than enough to trigger a formal NLRB complaint against the IAM,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As cases like this show, American workers need security for their freedom to affiliate or disaffiliate with unions as they choose, which is why workers deserve Right to Work protections to make all union affiliation and financial support completely voluntary.”
Troy-Based Eaton Corporation Worker Challenges IAM Union Scheme Pushing Termination, Fines on Workers Who Oppose Union
Federal charge: IAM officials illegally demanded money, threatened termination of workers who resigned union membership after divisive strike
St. Louis, MO (January 9, 2025) – An employee of power management firm Eaton Corporation’s Troy, Illinois, facility has just filed federal charges against the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union for violating the rights of multiple employees at his workplace. The employee, Robert Jacobs, maintains that IAM officials are threatening to get him and other employees who resigned union membership fired unless they pay a so-called “reinstatement fee” concocted by the union. Jacobs filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Under federal labor law, which the NLRB is charged with enforcing, private sector employees have an absolute right to resign union membership. This right is codified in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and was affirmed by landmark Supreme Court decisions such as General Motors v. NLRB. Federal law further spells out that neither employers nor union officials can compel private sector workers to participate in union activities or refrain from such activities.
However, in states like Illinois that lack Right to Work protections for their private sector workers, union officials have the legal privilege to enforce contracts that require every employee in a unionized workplace, including those who have abstained from formal union membership, to pay some portion of union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union financial support is fully voluntary and the choice of each individual employee.
“I and several of my colleagues don’t want to be part of the IAM union, but we are required by law to pay fees to union bosses just to keep our jobs,” commented Jacobs. “That’s already something that we don’t want to do. But IAM officials are going even further and hitting us with hundreds of dollars in made-up fees just because we exercised our right to not be union members.”
Post-Strike, IAM Lodge 660 Union Officials Impose $300+ Fine on Workers Who Quit Union Membership
Last October, IAM union officials ordered Eaton Corporation employees – which comprise a work unit of over 400 people – to strike. After the strike concluded, worker opposition to IAM union bosses’ priorities increased and many decided to end their union memberships, including Jacobs.
According to Jacobs’ federal charge, which was filed on the last day of 2024, “the Union is presently threatening Charging Party and [other employees who resigned from the union] with termination if they fail to pay a $306 ‘reinstatement fee’ by January 2025.” The charge argues that the IAM union is violating Eaton employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which safeguards employees’ “right to refrain from any or all of” union activities.
Foundation attorneys have recently assisted other employees nationwide in challenging IAM union bosses’ influence, including last August in Dover, Ohio, and Petaluma, California, where employees at two different Ford dealerships successfully forced out IAM Local 1363 and IAM Local 1596 union officials, respectively. In 2022, Foundation attorneys also successfully attacked an illegal dues scheme imposed by IAM union officials on Boeing engineer Don Zueger, which incorrectly calculated the amount of money he could be required to pay to the union as a nonmember.
“Instead of seeking to win Eaton employees’ voluntary support, IAM union officials have decided to effectively extort the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Threatening to terminate workers if they don’t pay a fee that is apparently intended to punish those who don’t want union bosses speaking for them tarnishes employee rights and freedom.
“Mr. Jacobs’ case shows the tactics union officials will use to force fealty out of independent-minded workers, which is why it’s important that workers in Illinois and across the nation have the Right to Work freedom to cut off all financial support to union bosses they oppose,” Mix added.
IBEW Union Back Down After Chicago 911 Operator Filed Charges Challenging Dues Seizures
IBEW union officials falsely told employee that union had no power to stop dues deductions
Chicago, IL (October 24, 2024) – Patricia Whittaker, a 911 operator for the City of Chicago, has triumphed in her legal fight to halt union dues payments to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 21 after union officials misled her about her rights and obstructed her attempts to stop the deductions. With help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Whittaker filed charges with the Illinois Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to assert her rights.
Whittaker sent multiple requests to IBEW union officials to end union deductions, as is her First Amendment right under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Supreme Court declared that union officials could not force public sector employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and that union officials must obtain affirmative employee consent before deducting union dues from any public worker’s paycheck.
Union officials instead engaged in a deceptive cycle in which Whittaker was told to resolve the matter with her employer, while the employer directed her back to the union, resulting in continued dues deductions without her consent that lasted over 10 months. In doing so, the charges maintained, union officials misstated the law by making it appear as if the employer, not the union, was the one responsible for ordering a stop to dues deductions.
Union Deception Violates Workers’ Rights
As part of this scheme, IBEW Local 21 union officials at one point tried to portray themselves as the “good guys” by continuing to take dues money from Whittaker’s paycheck, but then “reimbursing” those dues deductions by check, according to Whittaker’s charges. They did this to appear as if they were pacifying Whittaker while they worked out a way to “win her back,” despite the fact that Whittaker made clear to them she just wanted to cut ties with the union.
In Other Recent Case, IBEW Local 21 Stopped Janus Violations After Foundation Involvement
This isn’t the first time IBEW 21 union officials have been caught imposing illegal dues practices on Chicago 911 employees. In June, Rhonda Younkins, also triumphed in her months-long legal battle to exercise her First Amendment right to stop all union dues payments to IBEW Local 21. As with Whittaker’s case, IBEW Local 21 union officials stopped their violation of Younkins’ Janus rights only after Foundation attorneys filed charges at PERB on Younkins’ behalf.
Continued Impact of Janus Decision
The Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court ruling, issued in June 2018, affirmed that public employees cannot be forced to pay union dues or fees without their affirmative consent. This decision has empowered employees like Whittaker to challenge union overreach and unlawful dues deductions. Since the ruling, hundreds of thousands public employees across the country have exercised their Janus rights to opt out of union payments.
The Janus ruling has already led to major changes across the country. Before the decision, millions of public sector workers, including many in Illinois, were required to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Immediately following the ruling, around 450,000 public employees stopped paying union dues, with many others following in subsequent years as litigation backed by Foundation attorneys continues to defend their rights.
“The behavior of IBEW Local 21 union officials highlight just how crucial it is for public employees to be aware of and assert their Janus rights,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we are pleased to see IBEW officials back down once again, it is unacceptable that it takes aggressive legal action just to force union officials to respect workers’ constitutional rights.”
