Walt Disney World Employees Win Ruling Against Teamsters Union for Illegally Blocking Workers from Resigning
Teamsters Local 385 Union Officials Violated Federal Labor Law
Kissimmee, FL (March 27, 2017) – Eight Walt Disney World and United Parcel Service (UPS) employees have won a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union Local 385 after union officials refused to accept their membership resignations and dues checkoff revocations, and continued to illegally deduct union dues.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, the workers each filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB in 2014 and 2015. The case was tried in late 2016 and National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys represented the workers at the hearing.
During 2014 and 2015, each of the eight workers attempted to formally resign from the union, revoke their dues checkoff authorization, and sought information from union officials on how to properly do so. In their unfair labor practice charges, the workers contended that union officials had violated the law by intentionally ignoring or delaying responses to attempts to resign and end dues payments.
The NLRB Administrative Law Judge who heard the case ordered Teamsters union officials to accept the workers’ resignations and reimburse them for the dues illegally collected, with interest. The Judge also ordered the union to distribute and post a notice to all bargaining unit employees informing them that Teamsters Local 385 union officials had broken federal labor law and spelling out the specific rights workers have under the law, including resigning without being forced to pay fees to the union. That right is protected by Florida’s Right to Work law.
Teamsters Local 385 has a history of stonewalling workers’ attempts to resign union membership and stop unwanted union dues deductions. In 2014 alone, it was hit with three separate federal unfair labor practice charges by abused workers.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented, “It is outrageous that this union local has repeatedly violated workers’ rights. All too often, we see that even in Right to Work states like Florida, workers are not free from union boss’ schemes to trap them into an unwanted union. Although we are pleased with the judge’s ruling, it should never be this hard for workers to exercise their fundamental Right to Work without paying dues or fees to a union official.”
Ballot language rejected as “unfair and insufficient” was authorized as an eleventh-hour political kickback by former MO Secretary of State
St. Louis, MO (March 24, 2017) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix released the following statement regarding the Cole County, Missouri, Circuit Court’s decision in the case Hill v. Ashcroft:
“This ruling is an important step in defending Missouri’s recently-passed Right to Work protections for workers. Show Me State citizens overwhelmingly oppose giving union officials the power to have a worker fired solely for refusing to pay union dues or fees, which is why Big Labor is trying to be intentionally deceptive about their efforts to overturn the state’s new Right to Work law.”
In the case a group of Missouri citizens, with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, challenged misleading ballot language put forth by union officials designed to overturn the state Right to Work law.
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.”
Yesterday the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in the case David Smith & Donald Lambrecht v. Wolf currently before the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. The brief is filed in support of homecare providers challenging an executive order signed by Gov. Wolf forcing providers across the state into union monopoly bargaining ranks.
The brief argues that Gov. Wolf exceeded his executive powers by creating, by fiat, a new forced unionism mandatory bargaining system for homecare providers in Pennsylvania. The brief explains that Gov. Wolf’s executive order is illegal and beyond the Governor’s authority because, among other reasons, the Pennsylvania Public Employee Relations Act (PERA) establishes the parameters of permissible bargaining with regards to the Commonwealth.
The executive order in question, 2015-05, is nearly identical to a 2010 executive order by former Gov. Rendell that was rescinded after a court challenge. Both executive orders sought unilaterally to force an entire class of private employee which is paid in part through Medicaid type programs into a forced unionism situation by mandating a monopoly bargaining “representative.”
To view a copy of the brief please click here.
Worker Advocate Files Brief with Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Defense of Wisconsin Right to Work Law
National Right to Work Foundation brief responds to Big Labor attempt to overturn longstanding Right to Work protections against forced union fees
Chicago, IL (March 21, 2017) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a legal brief for six Wisconsin workers with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of Wisconsin’s Right to Work law. The brief was filed after union lawyers appealed a district court judge’s decision to dismiss a challenge by union officials to Wisconsin’s Right to Work law.
Union officials have asked that the lawsuit be heard before an en banc panel of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judges because a three judge panel on the same appeals court previously upheld Right to Work laws as constitutional in 2015 in a similar union boss challenge to Indiana’s Right to Work law. The attempt to have this en banc hearing is part of a nation-wide strategy by union officials to have Right to Work protections for workers struck down.
Union lawyers are claiming that Right to Work laws, which simply allow an individual to work without being forced to pay dues or fees to a union boss, should be overturned. First, union lawyers claim that they are constitutionally entitled to a portion of each worker’s paycheck. Second, union lawyers argue that despite decades of precedents to the contrary, section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which gives individual states the ability to pass Right to Work laws, was never intended to allow workers to stop paying union fees and should be completely reinterpreted.
Foundation staff attorneys argue in the workers’ brief that union bosses do not have a ‘constitutional right’ to a worker’s paycheck and that Section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act has been correctly interpreted for the past 70 years to allow states to pass Right to Work laws that prohibit any requirement that workers pay union fees as a condition of their employment. The brief further argues, to the extent that U.S. labor laws create a “taking” it is union bosses using the forced unionism provisions in federal law to seize mandatory union fees from workers without Right to Work protections.
Additionally, Foundation staff attorneys point out that the National Labor Relations Act compensates unions by granting them immense workplace power to impose one-size-fits-all union contracts on all employees – union and nonunion alike – in union-controlled bargaining units.
Right to Work laws have withstood intense legal scrutiny for over 60 years, having never been struck down by a federal court or state appellate court. Foundation staff attorneys have also defended newly-enacted Right to Work laws in Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and West Virginia from various union legal challenges.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented, “It is outrageous that union officials are once again advancing this dubious legal theory that Right to Work protections that give workers choice over handing over a portion of their paycheck to a union somehow constitute an ‘illegal taking’ of union resources. Workers in non-Right to Work states are the ones having something taken from them. The Seventh Circuit should uphold Right to Work as constitutional as it did in 2015 and toss out this legal challenge.”
On March 10th, a group of independent drivers gathered national media attention when they filed a lawsuit against the City of Seattle, seeking to block the City Council bill instituting forced unionism on independent driver contractors. The drivers’ lawsuit argues that the Council bill is an infringement on their First Amendment rights as well as being preempted by the federal National Labor Relations Act.
These drivers are being represented by staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Freedom Foundation. Below is a selection of media coverage about the Foundation’s efforts to protect the individual liberty of all the ride-sharing workers. To read the full article please click on the hyperlinked title of each publication. To read the Foundation’s press release about the lawsuit please click here.
Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal
Law 360 – Eleven independent drivers sued the city of Seattle in federal court Friday claiming its new ordinance allowing for-hire drivers for Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing apps to unionize is unconstitutional and unfairly forces all drivers to comply with terms set by designated unions just to use the app.
Seattle Times – In a federal lawsuit, the drivers are seeking a temporary restraining order barring the city from enforcing the law — the first of its kind in the country — saying it goes against federal labor and privacy laws, as well as violates their rights to free speech and association.
Wall Street Journal –Seattle also is a crucial test case for millions of so-called gig economy workers who make deliveries, run errands and perform other freelance tasks as contractors. Uber and startups like delivery company Postmates Inc. and errands service TaskRabbit Inc. have withstood pressure to treat their contract workers as employees, thereby avoiding payment of full benefits or compensation for expenses like gasoline.
Reuters – The 11 drivers, represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Seattle on Friday that the city’s law violates their rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by forcing them to join a union in order to work, and is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.
KIRO TV – “It’s freedom, it’s the way of life these days if you want to be entrepreneur and own your own business. Be your own boss, manage your own life,” said driver Tianna Williamson.
Forbes – The Seattle ordinance also raises fundamental questions about the nature of work and employment, and the fairness of labor laws forged in the industrial era when they are applied to gig-economy workers.
Indiana Worker Hits Union Bosses with Federal Unfair Labor Practice Charges for Refusing to Follow the Law
Union Officials Seize Union Dues Despite Worker’s Resignation
Indianapolis, IN (March 17, 2017) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, an Indiana worker has filed federal unfair labor practice (ULP) charges against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union Local 135 for continuing to deduct dues from his paycheck despite his resignation from formal union membership and revocation of his dues check-off authorization.
The worker, Allen Sizemore, works at Builders First Source in the lumberyard. In December 2016, Sizemore resigned his formal union membership and revoked his dues check-off authorization within the “window period” permitted by the union. In spite of this, Teamsters union bosses continue to accept dues deducted from Sizemore’s paycheck in clear violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Recently, the same union, IBT Local 135, was hit with federal charges for a similar action against another worker, Daryl Mitchell, also at Builders First Source. Indiana’s Right to Work law clearly provides that a worker has the right to resign and stop paying forced dues to a labor union, as does the NLRA in Right to Work states.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented, “It is maddening that Indiana union officials continue to illegally seize forced dues from a hard-working Hoosier they claim to ‘represent.’ No worker should be forced to jump through all these hoops just to exercise their rights under the law.”
Indiana became the 23rd Right to Work state to end union officials’ power to have a worker fired solely for refusing to pay union dues or fees in early 2012. Since then Michigan (2012), Wisconsin (2015), West Virginia (2016), Kentucky (2017) and Missouri (2017) have joined the ranks of states with Right to Work protections.
Eleven Ridesharing Drivers File Federal Lawsuit to Block Seattle’s Forced Unionism Ordinance Targeting Uber & Lyft
Lawsuit says scheme to impose Teamsters union on independent contractors violates drivers’ First Amendment rights & federal labor law
Seattle, WA (March 10, 2017) – Today, eleven independent drivers are filing a federal lawsuit to block the Seattle City Council’s controversial ordinance designed to impose forced unionism on independent for-hire and ride-sharing drivers. These drivers use the popular Uber and Lyft apps to pick up customers. Dan Clark, lead plaintiff in the suit, is an independent driver who picks up riders through both Uber and Lyft.
The drivers are filing suit against the City of Seattle in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington with free legal representation by staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Washington state-based Freedom Foundation. The drivers’ federal lawsuit argues that the Seattle ordinance is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and that imposing union representation and forced dues on them violates their First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.
Over 9,000 independent drivers in the Seattle area collect riders through the Uber and Lyft apps, accounting for tens of thousands of rides daily across the Emerald City area. Last week Teamsters union officials, who pushed for passage of the first-in-the-nation Seattle ordinance subjecting ride-sharing drivers to forced unionism, filed papers with the city formally declaring their intent to unionize drivers who work with Uber and Lyft, as well as Eastside Town Car and Limousine, LLC.
“Teamsters union bosses are attempting to impose their 1920s era forced unionism model on a 21st-century workforce,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Polls consistently show Americans overwhelmingly oppose workers being forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of working.”
“Expanding forced unionism to independent drivers is not only wrong, it is a violation of federal law and the First Amendment rights of drivers who never asked for and don’t want union officials’ so-called ‘representation,’” Mix continued. “Big Labor’s one-size-fits-all, top down model is the very antithesis of ride-sharing which attracts drivers by connecting them with consumers and providing them the freedom to decide when to work and through which app to find customers.”
Background: Teamster-Backed Seattle Law Attempts to Expand Forced Unionism to Ride-Sharing Independent Drivers
In 2015, the Seattle City Council passed an ordinance that targeted independent drivers, such as those who contract with Uber and Lyft, for compulsory unionization. The bill authorizes unionization through the coercive and unreliable card-check system as opposed to a secret ballot vote and allows union officials to make payment of union dues or fees mandatory, even for drivers who oppose union representation. Under ‘card check,’ cards solicited and collected from individuals by professional union organizers are counted as ‘votes’ for unionization, despite numerous examples of workers signing the cards as a result of being pressured, misled, threatened or even bribed.
The ordinance further mandates that companies turn over private personal contact information for drivers to union organizers, even for drivers who have shown no interest in unionization or actively oppose the union. In addition, should the Teamsters successfully “organize” drivers through a card check, city administrators are empowered to impose a union contract on the drivers and companies if an agreement isn’t reached within 90 days of the unionization certification.
The ordinance was passed by the Seattle City Council in September 2015 after heavy lobbying by Teamsters union officials who sought to take advantage of independent drivers and force them to pay dues to the union as a condition of picking up riders through the apps. Shortly after the bill was passed, the National Right to Work Foundation issued a special legal notice to Seattle independent driver contractors, notifying them of their rights and offering free legal aid. A number of concerned drivers then reached out to the Foundation for help.
After the bill became law in December 2015, the ordinance was put on hold until January 2017 while the Seattle Department of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS) finalized the unionization process. The final rule defines ‘qualifying drivers’ who are eligible to vote on unionization as drivers who have completed 52 rides beginning or ending in Seattle in the last 90 days, regardless of whether or not a driver wants anything to do with a union.
These so-called “qualifying drivers” will be the only drivers eligible to vote on union representation, despite the fact that all drivers who contract with these companies will be subject to the forced unionism terms. Effectively, Teamster cards collected from a small fraction of all drivers could result in the unionization of more than 9,000 drivers in Seattle, plus any future drivers.
On March 7, 2017, officials from Teamsters Union Local 117 filed a notice of their intent to unionize drivers associated with Uber and Lyft, as well as Eastside Town Car and Limousine, LLC. The three companies now have until April 2 to turn over to the union the personal contact information for the fraction of total drivers who are designated by the City as eligible to vote on unionization. These drivers are filing their lawsuit now because they have a limited window before their personal information will be forcibly delivered to union officials against their wishes.
To view a copy of the filed complaint please click here.
New York City Preschool Teachers and Other Employees Vote to End Unwanted UFT Union ‘Representation’
Birch Family Services Manhattan Early Childhood Center pre-K providers vote to remove the UFT from their school
New York City, NY (March 9, 2016) – Employees of the Birch Family Services Manhattan Early Childhood Center in Washington Heights, Manhattan have voted overwhelmingly to remove the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) union from their workplace and end the UFT’s designation as their monopoly bargaining representative.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, private-sector employees in unionized workplaces have the right to initiate a decertification election to remove a union. Recently, employees in the Birch Family Services Manhattan Early Childhood Center signed and submitted a decertification election petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The employees who voted to remove the union included teachers, teachers’ aides, teaching assistants, nurses and other employees.
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys provided free legal advice to employees seeking to remove the union, including on how to navigate the often-complicated NLRB process for successfully getting a vote to remove the union officials as the school employees’ NLRB-designated monopoly bargaining representative, a process known as decertification.
Relying on that advice from Foundation staff attorneys, the employees collected signatures from their coworkers in support of the decertification vote and submitted the petition to the NLRB, resulting in a decertification vote that was held on February 28, 2017. At the end of the vote, the tally stood 37-15 in favor of decertifying the UFT and removing them from the workplace.
“The Foundation is committed to helping workers like these New York City preschool employees assert their right to remove union officials whom they feel are a detriment to their school and their students,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to continue defend and protect these educators’ choice if there is union boss retaliation.”
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are prepared to defend the workers’ choice should union officials attempt to overturn the results of the vote.