Public Employees in Three States File Federal Lawsuits to End Public Sector Forced Union Dues
National Right to Work Foundation cases follow up on Supreme Court split on constitutionality of mandatory union fees for government employees
Springfield, VA (January 18, 2017) – Government employees – including Pennsylvania teachers, California medical center employees, and New York school employees – across the nation are filing three new federal court cases challenging the constitutionality of public sector union officials’ forced dues powers. These cases, being filed today with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, argue that state requirements that the plaintiffs pay mandatory union fees as a condition of government employment violate the First Amendment.
Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in that public-sector workers could be compelled as a condition of employment to pay union fees. However, in two recent National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court decisions, Knox v. SEIU (2012) and Harris v. Quinn (2014), the High Court suggested it was ready to revisit a 1978 precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education case, expressing skepticism about the constitutionality of public sector union officials’ forced-dues privileges.
Assisted by staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation, two California Santa Clara Valley Medical Center pharmacists – Jeffery Lum and Andrew Li –are filing suit against SEIU officials in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose assisted by Foundation staff attorneys.
Three school workers in New York state have filed suit against the electrical workers union and Governor Cuomo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in Utica.
In Pennsylvania, the Foundation is working with the Fairness Center on behalf of four schoolteachers from three school districts that have filed suit against the Pennsylvania State Education Association union in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg.
A similar challenge came before the Supreme Court last year, in Freidrichs v. CTA. While the Court ended up tied 4-4 in Friedrichs after the death of Justice Scalia, these three new cases join the growing number of lawsuits that challenge forced dues and fees in the public sector. Foundation staff attorneys have previously filed cases on the issue in Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
“It takes a lot of courage to stand up for freedom,” said Rebecca Freidrichs, lead plaintiff in Freidrichs v. CTA. “I’m so proud of and cheering for these four courageous Pennsylvania teachers, three brave New York school employees, and two more Californians who are standing up for our hard fought liberties and bringing these cases – it is my prayer they will be victorious so all Americans can have their First Amendment rights restored.”
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation issued the following statement on the three new cases:
“It is wrong that public employees are forced by the state government to pay fees and dues to a third party, a union, in order to keep their job as school teachers and public servants. For too long, the rights of public employees have been trampled by states that require them to pay dues to a labor union just to get or keep a government job.
“Over eighty percent of Americans support the right of all employees to work without being forced to pay tribute to union officials. Many public sector employees oppose the one-size-fits-all union monopoly bargaining contract, which makes it even more shameful that the government turns around and then forces these public servants to pay union officials for so-called representation they never wanted in the first place.”
Pro-Right to Work Missouri Workers File Lawsuits Challenging Language of Union Boss-Backed Forced Dues Ballot Measures
Outgoing Secretary of State approved Big Labor-backed measures hours before leaving office in apparent political kickback
Jefferson City, MO (January 23, 2017) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys three Missouri workers filed legal challenges against ten separate initiative-petitions that could wipe out a potential Missouri Right to Work law and strip away any newly-won Right to Work protections for them and hundreds of thousands of other Missouri workers.
Although statutorily required to draft summary statements to inform petition signers and voters of the effect of the proposed amendments, former Secretary of State Kander’ s midnight actions seem designed to hide from Missouri voters the ballot measures would put in Missouri’s constitution. None of the proposals even mention the Right to Work law that they are designed to render unconstitutional.
With a Right to Work bill likely to pass the Missouri Legislature in the coming weeks, and Governor Eric Greitens pledging to sign the bill into law, union bosses scrambled to put numerous initiative-petitions to kill the law on Big Labor friendly Jason Kander’ s desk for his approval before he left office. Secretary Kander approved all ten just hours before vacating his office. They would appear on the 2018 general election ballot if they obtain a sufficient number of voter’s signatures.
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:
These deliberately misleading initiative petitions are nothing more than an attempt by Big Labor to confuse voters in hope that the confusion will result in overturning popular Right to Work protections.
Missourians should be outraged that outgoing Secretary of State Jason Kander, who was supported by thousands of dollars of forced dues in his recent unsuccessful Senate campaign, granted union bosses this huge political payoff just before stepping out of office. All workers should have the right to get or keep a job without having to pay tribute to a union boss, and those rights should not be put in jeopardy because of a political favor given to union hours before he leaves office.
Check out the lead article in the January/February 2017 Foundation Action Newsletter “Foundation Cases Poised to Challenge Forced Dues at Supreme Court”
Foundation Cases Poised to Challenge Forced Dues at Supreme Court
Cases to overturn forced dues could quickly reach Supreme Court with new Trump Justice
To read the rest of the January/February 2017 issue, please click here.
Washington, D.C. – Over the past few months, Foundation staff attorneys have been busy litigating hundreds of cases on the behalf of independent-minded workers across the country. Two of those cases have the potential to reach the Supreme Court this year and answer the unresolved questions left in the wake of the 4-4 split in the Fredrichs v. California Teachers Association.
One of those cases, Janus v. AFSCME, stems from an executive order from Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner that placed any union fees that nonunion members were forced to pay into an escrow account until the constitutionality of those fees was resolved. Governor Rauner subsequently filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and argued that collecting forced dues or fees from state employees as a condition of employment violated the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Foundation staff attorneys then filed a motion to intervene as plaintiffs for Mark Janus and other state employees who are forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. A Judge eventually ruled that Governor Rauner did not have standing in court but let the Foundation-represented employees continue to challenge the constitutionality of forced fees.
After the Supreme Court reached a 4-4 deadlock in a similar case earlier this year, Friedrichs v. CTA, a District Judge ruled against Janus and the other state employees. Foundation attorneys immediately filed an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and are awaiting a decision. It is possible that a petition for a writ of certiorari could be filed with the Supreme Court later this year.
The second case, Serna v. Transportation Workers Union (TWA), is a class-action lawsuit brought by several American Eagle Airlines and Southwest Airlines employees U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas was pending with the Supreme Court as this issue of Foundation Action went to press. That suit challenges the constitutionality of the Railway Labor Act’s sanction of agreements that require compulsory union fees as a condition of employment.
Even though these employees work in the private sector, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that because the Railway Labor Act (RLA) effectively mandates forced fees for railway and airline workers, it effectively fosters the same Constitutional issues as were raised for government employees in Friedrichs. Therefore, success in Serna on the First Amendment claims against forced dues would effectively overturn forced dues for public sector workers.
After the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the airline employees citing the Friedrichs deadlock, Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Court was scheduled to consider the petition on January 6 and a decision whether to take the case or not could follow shortly after, or the Justices may decide to hold the case in light of the potential for a 4-4 tie until a ninth Justice is seated.
“Both of these cases have the potential to answer the ultimate question that was left unresolved by Friedrichs and that is whether or not it is constitutional to force workers to pay union bosses tribute to get or keep a job,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said.
In addition to Serna and Janus, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have two additional cases working their way through the courts – one on behalf of university professors in Massachusetts and one for school employees in Kentucky – that directly challenge the constitutionality of mandatory union dues. More cases directly challenging the constitutionality of government-mandated forced union dues are expected to be filed by Foundation staff attorneys in 2017.
Worker Files Brief Against Coercive Union Boss Gerrymandering Scheme
Union bosses used controversial rule to gain a foothold in Chattanooga VW plant after previous floor-wide votes failed
Washington, D.C. (February 3, 2017) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a worker in the Chattanooga, Tennessee Volkswagen plant has filed an amicus curiae brief with the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals asking the court to overturn the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that allowed United Auto Workers (UAW) union bosses to gain access to the plant’s workers through a micro-unit scheme.
In February 2014 workers at the plant rejected UAW union representation in an NLRB sanctioned election. Undeterred, UAW bosses sought to gain a foothold in the plant through a 2011 NLRB decision that allows for what is termed “micro-unit organizing.” The recent NLRB decision allows union officials to gerrymander specific groups of employees into micro-units for union representation votes. In December 2015, the UAW used this tactic to win a vote for a micro-unit, thus imposing a coercive one size-fits-all monopoly bargaining contract on those workers.
Patrick Penderfraft is one of the workers in the VW micro-unit who voted against union representation. He opposed the UAW’s gerrymandering of workers to gain a victory in the vote. The Foundation has now assisted him in filing a brief in D.C. Circuit Court arguing that his vote on union representation was diluted because the micro-unit was substantially made up of pro-union employees rather than the whole workplace which had already rejected unionization.
In previous years, Foundation attorneys assisted workers in fighting back against other UAW union boss schemes to unionize the plant, including through card check organizing.
National Right to Work Foundation Mark Mix commented, “The gerrymandering scheme that union bosses used to gain a foothold in the Chattanooga Volkswagen plant is unfair to the workers who voted against union representation only to have the ground rules changed and now are forced into a monopoly union. All workers should have the right to decide on union membership through a secret-ballot election, like the one that took place in 2014 in which union bosses were rejected, instead of through manipulated micro-unit schemes.”
Worker Advocate Testifies Before Congress on Need for Labor Board Reforms
Under Obama, National Labor Relations Board became a promoter of forced unionism powers rather than a neutral arbitrator
Washington, DC (February 14, 2017) – This morning, National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse testified before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions. The Subcommittee, which is chaired by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), held a hearing titled “Restoring Balance & Fairness to the NLRB.”
LaJeunesse, who has worked at the Foundation, whose staff attorneys have represented thousands of employees in unfair labor practice and representation cases before the NLRB, for over forty-five years, including as Legal Director since 2001, laid out the damage done to independent-minded workers over the past eight years by the Obama NLRB. From forcing nonmembers to subsidize union politics, barring secret-ballot elections in favor of coercive card-check schemes, imposing “ambush election” rules, and gerrymandering bargaining units into “micro-units” to ensure union victories, the damage has been immense.
“I commend you for investigating the adequacy of the National Labor Relations Board’s enforcement of the rights of individual workers under the National Labor Relations Act to refrain from union associations. Unfortunately, the Board majorities President Obama appointed have in many respects denied or diminished those rights,” testified LaJeunesse.
LaJeunesse provided many recommendations to the Subcommittee on how to bring this about, first and foremost by suggesting President Trump nominate two nominees to fill the vacant NLRB seats who will defend the rights of all workers, including those who prefer not to affiliate with a labor union. Other specific recommendations made by LaJeunesse to the Committee include restoring protections for secret-ballot elections as the preferred process for “certifying” a union as the monopoly bargaining representative, more vigorously enforcing employees’ rights not to fund union politics and lobbying, undoing the Obama NLRB’s biased “Ambush Election” Rule, and ending the NLRB’s discretion to certify micro-units.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented, “As Mr. LaJeunesse laid out in his testimony before Congress, the past eight years under the Obama NLRB have been dismal ones for the rights of America’s independent-minded workers. I urge Congress to exercise its oversight powers to ensure that the NLRB returns to being a neutral arbitrator rather than, too often, an arm of Organized Labor with the goal of expanding Big Labor’s forced dues ranks.”
Michigan Worker Wins NLRB Decision Against Union Boss Scheme to Undercut Right to Work in Michigan
Union bosses sought to impose coercive in-person ID requirement on workers seeking to exercise the right to stop paying union fees
Springfield, VA (February 15, 2017) – With legal representation provided by attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a Michigan worker has won a battle against illegal barriers created by union officials seeking to restrict workers from resigning their union membership and exercising their rights under Michigan’s Right to Work law.
In October 2014, after Michigan’s new Right to Work law went into effect, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 58 union officials imposed a new policy governing the procedures for resigning formal union membership and revoking dues checkoff. These procedures demanded that resignations take place in person at the Local 58 union hall in Detroit, Michigan, where the worker would have to present photo identification and a corresponding written resignation and/or dues checkoff revocation.
After the policy was implemented, Ryan Greene, a worker who lives several hours away from the IBEW Local 58 union hall, decided to exercise his right to resign his formal union membership and revoke his dues checkoff authorization. Upon encountering the restrictive policy created by Local 58 union officials, Greene filed a federal Unfair Labor Practice charge with the NLRB alleging that the new policy was unlawful and violated the rights of workers as guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
The ULP charge argued that forcing workers to appear in person with a photo ID violated workers’ rights by illegally hindering their right to resign at any time from the union and to revoke dues checkoff authorizations.
The regional General Counsel for the NLRB investigated and issued a complaint. The administrative law judge who heard the case dismissed the complaint, but the Foundation staff attorneys appealed to the full NLRB for Greene.
After the briefing concluded, the NLRB issued a 2-1 decision determining that the policy set by Local 58 officials infringed on workers rights. The Board’s opinion rules that the policy was an illegal restriction placed by the union on the members’ rights to resign and revoke, because it imposes a significant burden on exercising those rights.
“This case is just another example of union officials’ campaign to prevent the workers they claim to ‘represent’ from exercising their rights under the state’s popular new Right to Work law,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Instead of cooking up schemes to trap workers into paying union dues, union officials should ask themselves why they are so afraid of giving workers a choice when it comes to union membership and dues payment.”
Since Michigan enacted its Right to Work law in 2012, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have successfully worked to defend the law against union challenges and assist workers in exercising their right under the law to resign from union membership and stop all payment of union dues and fees. Since the law was enacted, Foundation attorneys have filed some 28 legal actions for Michigan workers seeking to exercise their rights as protected by Right to Work.
Monte Carlo Bartender Hits UNITE-HERE Union with Federal Charges After Being Illegally Fired for Not Having ‘Union Card’
Union ‘representation’ was imposed on workers without a vote, after which non-member employees were fired in violation of federal law
Las Vegas, NV (February 21, 2017) – A Las Vegas bartender has filed federal Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges against Aramark and the UNITE-HERE Local 165 union after the Local 165 union officials illegally had her fired from her position for not having a “union pour card.” The ULP charges were filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 28 office in Las Vegas, NV.
In November 2016, Natalie Ruisi was hired by Aramark, a concessions contractor, to be a bartender for the then soon to open Park Theater located in the Monte Carlo Resort and Casino. In December, Ruisi was informed by Aramark management that the Aramark employees at the Park Theater would be represented by union officials from UNITE-HERE Local 165.
The workers at the Park Theater had never voted on whether or not to join the union. As the charge notes, no evidence exists that a majority of the workers support UNITE-HERE Local 165 as their monopoly bargaining agent. It is illegal for a union and company to agree to an exclusive union contract when union officials have not offered any proof that they are supported by at least a majority of the workers in a workplace.
On January 12, 2017, Ruisi and a number of her co-workers were fired. Ruisi was told that she and her co-workers were being fired because they did not possess a “union pour card.” When she was hired, a union card was not a requirement or condition of employment, and Ruisi was never even given the opportunity to acquire a union card. Of course, Nevada’s longstanding Right to Work law makes it illegal for any employee to be forced to join a union or pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.
The charges allege that Aramark’s actions in collusion with UNITE-HERE union officials violate Ruisi and her co-workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Specifically, the charges note that, by recognizing a minority union and firing workers for not possessing prior union certification, Aramark has deliberately provided unlawful assistance to UNITE-HERE union officials, and that. UNITE-HERE union bosses likewise violated the NLRA by accepting monopoly bargaining agent status over workers without any demonstration of majority support.
“As this case shows, Right to Work laws are only words on paper unless they are vigorously enforced. Ms. Ruisi was hired to fulfill a job, and was summarily fired without warning simply for not possessing a union card,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “It is shameful that union bosses fired a worker for simply expressing her long protected rights under Nevada’s Right to Work law which has been in place for over 65 years.”
Foundation attorneys are also assisting Ruisi in a second case, originally filed in 2014, that is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In that case, Ruisi and her fellow plaintiffs are appealing an NLRB decision upholding an unwritten UNITE-HERE policy that inhibits workers seeking to revoke dues-checkoff.
The union policy at issue in that case requires members to submit a written request for the union to provide them with information about the date that they signed their dues-checkoff authorization cards, which serves no purpose except to obstruct workers from exercising their legally protected rights. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for March 14, 2017.
Including the charges filed for Natalie Ruisi, Foundation staff attorneys currently have over 90 legal actions for employees before the National Labor Relations Board and its regional offices.
AZ Fry’s Grocery Employees Win Federal Court Decision Overturning NLRB Ruling on Dues Deductions during Strike
DC Circuit reverses NLRB ruling that allowed Arizona union bosses to deduct dues from non-member workers who revoked their deduction authorizations
Washington, DC (March 23, 2017) – Seven Phoenix-area Fry’s Food Stores employees have won a federal court decision in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals after United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union and company officials refused to honor their legal right to refrain from union dues payments.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, 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 almost 800 similarly situated employees – filed federal unfair labor practice charges in December 2009 that spurred the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to investigate and issue a statewide complaint against Fry’s Foods and UFCW Local 99 union officials.
In the midst of a well-publicized UFCW Local 99 union boss-ordered strike in November 2009, the employees and almost 800 of their co-workers resigned their UFCW union memberships and revoked their dues deduction authorizations – documents used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – while the UFCW union did not have a monopoly bargaining contract in effect at their workplaces. The workers’ charges argued that, despite the employees’ efforts to halt the dues seizures, Fry’s officials illegally continued to deduct dues from their paychecks, and UFCW union officials illegally continued to accept the seized monies.
Under Arizona’s popular Right to Work law, no worker can be required to join or pay any money to a union. Further, the National Labor Relations Act provides that dues deduction authorizations cannot be irrevocable “beyond the termination date of the applicable collective bargaining agreement.”
After a long investigation, the Phoenix NLRB regional director issued a formal complaint against UFCW Local 99 union officials for enforcing illegal dues deduction authorizations that do not allow employees to revoke them during contract hiatus periods, contrary to federal law. However, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled for the union officials and rubberstamped the scheme.
The NLRB originally affirmed the ALJ’s ruling, but that decision was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Noel Canning that the Board lacked a valid quorum after President Obama’s unconstitutional 2012 NLRB “recess appointments.” After Noel Canning, a Senate-confirmed NLRB issued another ruling backing the ALJ’s decision, and exonerating Fry’s Foods and Local 99 union bosses. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys then appealed the case to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals handed down its decision on March 21, vacating the NLRB ruling. All three judges rejected the NLRB lawyer’s arguments. Two judges sent the case back to the NLRB for a new decision because the Board did not explain how its decision could be squared with Board precedent that workers must have at least one opportunity to revoke their dues deduction authorizations when a contract expires. Judge Silberman dissented, arguing that the NLRB ruling should be reversed without a remand, because the “Board has engaged in a blatant attempt to rewrite a statute in which Congress spoke plainly” that employees have “a right to revoke at will upon termination of an agreement.”
“These workers have waited the better part of a decade for justice after UFCW bosses refused to respect their legal rights to resign from the union and stop payment of all dues during a union-instigated work stoppage,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While it has taken a long time, this ruling is a step towards vindicating the hundreds of employees victimized first by UFCW union officials, then by an Obama NLRB that rubberstamped those abuses.”
NLRB Issues Complaint Against Teamsters Officials for Threats in Response to Campaign to End Forced Dues
Teamsters Local 455 officials reprimanded again by the National Labor Relations Board for violating workers’ fundamental rights
Fort Morgan, CO (February, 22 2017) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a complaint against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 455 union for threatening workers with the loss of their benefits, discharge and a lawsuit because they circulated petitions to end forced union dues and remove the union’s business agents. The complaint was issued after NLRB investigators found merit to charges filed against the Teamsters Local 455 by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys for Francisco Manjarrez.
Late last year, Foundation staff attorneys assisted the worker in filing federal unfair labor practice charges against the union for threatening him for exercising his rights to circulate a deauthorization petition at his workplace. Under the National Labor Relations Act if a deauthorization petition gains the signatures of thirty percent of employees, the workers then get to vote to end union bosses’ power to require them to pay money to the union or be fired.
After Manjarrez refused to back down from circulating the petition, union officials threatened illegal retaliation against him and his co-workers who had signed the petition.
The charges against Teamsters Local 455 in November of 2016 came just weeks after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision against the union for violating federal labor law by declining to help all workers under their monopoly bargaining control. The union was also charged with lying to workers that they would not be promoted or represented unless they paid full union dues or fees.
A hearing regarding the new charges against the union is scheduled for May 1 before a Regional National Labor Relations judge.
“It is outrageous that union officials threatened workers benefits and employment for simply expressing their rights under the law,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These particular union officials have a disturbing history of belittling and downright ignoring the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent.’ Colorado workers need Right to Work protections to help defend workers from this type of behavior.”
