P.R. Aqueduct and Sewer Authority employee’s lawsuit against union officials and Governor’s office for illegal forced dues seizures

San Juan, PR (November 28, 2017) – Utilizing free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) employee in San Juan, PR has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of public sector union officials’ forced dues powers.

The case argues that Puerto Rico’s labor law requiring the plaintiff employee to join the union and pay union dues as a condition of government employment violates his First Amendment rights. Reynaldo Cruz is a PRASA plant operator who has been forced to pay union dues despite attempting to exercise his right to resign from Unión Independiente Auténtica De Los Empleados De La Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados union (UIA) last year.

Late last year, Cruz sent letters to UIA and PRASA resigning his union membership and objecting to the payment of the portion of forced dues that are used for UIA’s political and ideological activities. Cruz cited his First Amendment rights under the National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court case Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, including the right to pay reduced dues.

UIA officials responded rejecting his request, informing Cruz that if he wished to cease his union membership and stop paying dues, then he must end his employment with PRASA or seek a position outside their monopoly bargaining unit. Union officials and PRASA bosses continued deducting money from Cruz’s paycheck for full forced union dues as a condition of employment.

On April 4 of this year, Cruz’s Foundation-provided staff attorney sent union and PRASA officials a notice requesting back pay for dues illegally taken as well immediate cessation of all dues deductions from Cruz’s paycheck. UIA officials and PRASA administrators denied Cruz’s requests, citing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s statutes authorizing “all-union agreements” and “maintenance of membership agreements.”

In response, Cruz is suing UIA officials and PRASA administrators for infringing upon his rights recognized by the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent. Because Cruz is challenging the constitutionality of PR statutes, he has also named the Governor of Puerto Rico in his suit.

In addition to asking the union to respect his rights under the Hudson precedent, Cruz is also asking the court to rule that forced payment of any union dues or fees violates his First Amendment rights. That issue is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-backed Janus v. AFSCME case. Janus was filed for an Illinois government employee, Mark Janus, who is forced to pay dues to AFSCME union officials.

Janus is expected to be argued in January, with a decision likely by the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June. Cruz’s case joins six other ongoing Foundation-backed cases challenging mandatory union payments for government employees as a violation of the First Amendment.

“This case shows the lengths to which union officials will go to extort every last cent from workers they claim to ‘represent’, even in clear violation of long-standing Supreme Court precedent,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Every American worker, whether in the 50 states or in Puerto Rico, should have Right to Work protections that ensure that union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary.”

Employees file motion to intervene to challenge Labor Board ‘accretion’ doctrine used to impose SEIU monopoly bargaining on them against their will

Lehigh Valley, PA (November 13, 2017) – With legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, employees at Lehigh Valley Hospital-Schuylkill East filed a motion with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC to intervene in a case to assert that their rights were violated when Service Employees International Union (SEIU) “representation” was imposed on them against their will.

The 160 workers at Lehigh Valley Hospital-Schuylkill East were not given a choice whether or not to be placed under SEIU monopoly bargaining power. Recently, an NLRB Regional Director ordered workers at Schuylkill East be added to the bargaining unit at Lehigh Valley Hospital-Schuylkill South.

In 2016, employees at Schuylkill East completely rejected SEIU officials’ attempts to unionize their workplace, with SEIU organizers failing to even file a petition for an election, which would require the signatures of 30% of the hospital workers. However, employees at the nearby separate facility, Schuylkill South, have been unionized for several decades. But, neither SEIU organizers nor NLRB officials have ever produced evidence of Schuylkill East employees’ desire for any kind of union representation.

Nevertheless, in October NLRB Regional Director Dennis Walsh ordered that Schuylkill East workers should be forced into the slightly larger Schuylkill South monopoly bargaining unit, citing the NLRB’s ‘accretion’ policy. The workers at Schuylkill East were never given a vote and were accreted into an unwanted organization for the convenience of union officials.

Walsh previously had been suspended one month without pay by the NLRB, following an Inspector General’s investigation into Walsh for using his position with the NLRB to solicit contributions to a pro-union scholarship fund from union officials from unions with cases at the Labor Board. Reports indicate that the SEIU was one of the unions that made payments to Walsh’s fund.

The employees have now moved to intervene and requested review of the Regional Director’s decision at the NLRB in Washington, DC. They are asking that they be made a party to the case, because it is their freedoms and rights at stake. Specifically, they seek to challenge the accretion order, which imposes forced unionization on them against their will.

“This case demonstrates how the National Labor Relations Act, which is ostensibly about the rights of employees, has been weaponized against independent workers who wish to remain free of union bosses’ so-called representation,” said Mark Mix president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These employees successfully opposed an SEIU organizing campaign at their workplace only to have a union partisan at the NLRB force the union on them without a vote or any showing of interest.”

“Like so many pro-forced unionism NLRB policies, the ‘accretion doctrine’ is not mandated by the National Labor Relations Act but is the creation of Board bureaucrats seeking to further the interests of union organizers,” continued Mix. “This case gives the new Trump NLRB the opportunity overturn this outrageous doctrine that is being used to trap workers in a union they never asked for and successfully opposed only a year ago.”

Union officials frequently thwart workers attempts to hold decertification votes by filing spurious NLRB “blocking charges”

Washington, DC (October 18, 2017) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, an Arizona worker has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to review a case in which he and his co-workers were denied the right to vote to remove a union claiming to represent them, despite the fact that a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit signed a petition for such an election.

Tim Maguire, an employee of Calportland Company in Arizona, wants a vote to decertify Teamsters Local 104 union as his monopoly bargaining agent. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), if a decertification petition garners signatures from at least 30% of the employees in a bargaining unit, the NLRB is supposed to conduct a secret-ballot election to determine whether a majority of the employees wish to decertify the union. Maguire’s petition was signed by the majority of workers in the bargaining unit, far more than necessary.

However, Teamsters officials had previously filed two “blocking charges” which halted these workers from properly exercising their right to choose workplace representation. The NLRB Regional Director postponed the decertification election. Despite holding no formal hearing to determine whether the union officials’ claims had any merit, the Regional Director overstepped his authority by granting these “blocking charges.” This forced Maguire and his coworkers to remain under union monopoly “representation” that a majority of them oppose.

Understanding that his legal rights were being frustrated, Maguire turned to National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for help. Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition requesting the NLRB to reconsider these blocking charges and the unfair “blocking charge” policy as a whole.

Union brass routinely contrive spurious charges when a decertification process arises, which then garners an order blocking the election from the Regional Director. Because the NLRB’s policy for dealing with such charges are opaque at best, workers are regularly trapped into paying forced union dues to a union they do not want to be a part of because their avenue to ridding that union is blocked by Big Labor sympathizers.

Due to the “blocking charge policy” and other election regulations, such as the “contract bar” and “successor bar,” workers are regularly blocked from being able to decertify an unwanted union for up to three years, and potentially indefinitely. Regional Directors routinely overstep their authority by “blocking” elections without holding hearings to discern whether charges brought forth by union officials are even true, and if true, affect employee free choice. Consequently, workers are denied true free choice in the workplace until the charges are ultimately resolved.

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have already called upon President Trump’s newly installed NLRB to review the corrupt policies such as the successor bar, to protect the rights of every worker from the injustices of forced unionism. Maguire’s petition for review asks the NLRB to reconsider the “blocking charge” policy as well.

“Union officials have taken advantage of unclear rules surrounding ‘blocking charges’ for too long to trap workers into paying forced dues to unions opposed by a majority of workers. The new Trump National Labor Relations Board should move quickly to end this arbitrary barrier to workers who seek a decertification vote,” said Mark Mix President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “For almost a decade, the Obama NLRB stacked the deck in favor of union bosses’ forced dues powers. The new NLRB majority should move quickly to roll back those one-sided rulings, starting by supporting the petition of Tim Maguire and a majority of his co-workers to hold a vote to decertify an unwanted Teamsters union.”

NLRB: Union officials are violating federal law by continuing to illegally fine workers for exercising right to resign from the union and return to work during 2016 strike

Brooklyn, NY (October 16, 2017) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a complaint against Communications Workers of America Local 1109 union officials after they attempted to illegally fine two Verizon workers nearly $40,000. The complaint was issued after NLRB investigators found merit to charges filed against the CWA Local 1109 officials by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys for Verizon employees Pamela Ivy and Cheryl Allison.

In April 2016, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and CWA union officials announced a coordinated work stoppage at Verizon facilities and ordered workers up and down the East Coast, from Massachusetts to Virginia, to abandon their jobs. CWA Local 1109, which is the subject of the NLRB complaint, participated in the multi-state strike.

Soon after CWA union officials ordered the strike, the two workers who filed the charges chose to resign from the union and returned to work. Under federal law, workers cannot be compelled to join a union-boss ordered strike action. However, under a 1972 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling, workers must resign their formal union membership before to returning to work to protect themselves from union-issued fines.

In 2016, both Pamela Ivy and Cheryl Allison resigned their union membership on April 19 and April 25 respectively. Despite this, CWA union brass is attempting to fine these two Verizon employees for working during the strike through the end of May 2016. Ivy is being charged $21,918.16 while Allison is being charged $16,791.14.

Understanding their legal rights were in jeopardy, Ivy and Allison turned to National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney for free legal assistance in defending their legal rights. As such, Foundation staff attorneys filed separate federal unfair labor practice charges against CWA union officials for violating federal labor law with these corrupt fines.

In response to those ULP charges, the NLRB Brooklyn Region Director issued a consolidated complaint against CWA union officials on September 28, 2017. This is the second complaint that the Brooklyn Region Director has issued in recent weeks against CWA union officials for illegal strike fines against Verizon workers as a result of Unfair Labor Practice charges filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.

Foundation staff attorneys have already defended fifteen Verizon workers from retaliation by union officials as a result of the April 2016 East Coast strike. In prior cases seven of those workers were fined up to $14,000 each for exercising their federally protected rights. The remaining eight were threatened by union bosses with “union discipline” that would have resulted in similar fines. In eleven of those cases, union officials have already been forced to settle with the workers and rescind the illegal strike fines and threats.

“It is outrageous that CWA union officials threatened workers with thousands of dollars in fines for simply exercising their right to resign from a union so they could work to support themselves and their families,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As the numerous cases that have come after threats and illegal fines in the wake of the Verizon strike demonstrate, union officials habitually violate the rights of the very workers they claim to ‘represent.’ New York workers need Right to Work protections to help defend workers from this type of abuse.”

Union officials violated Michigan’s Right to Work law by extending requirement that teachers pay fees or be fired

Detroit, MI (October 12, 2017) – The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) has ruled that the Clarkston Education Association (CEA) and Michigan Education Association (MEA) violated Michigan’s Right to Work protections for public employees by illegally extending a forced dues clause in the monopoly bargaining agreement after the law took effect. The Commission also found that Clarkston Community Schools officials violated the law by agreeing to union officials’ demands for the illegal extension. Both the school district and the unions were fined making this the first case of its kind to monetarily penalize violators of the Right to Work law.

The ruling stems from State charges filed with MERC by Ron Conwell, a Michigan public school teacher, with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. In August 2015, Conwell resigned his union membership. Later in August, teacher union officials informed Conwell that he was still required to pay union fees or be fired.

Michigan’s Right to Work Law provides that contracts or agreements entered into after the law went into effect must respect workers’ right to refrain from the payment of any union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Union bosses illegally extended the forced dues clause after the law went into effect on March 28, 2013. Therefore, Conwell could not legally be required to pay union dues or fees.

MERC ordered that Clarkston Community Schools, CEA, and MEA cease and desist from interfering with employees who exercise their rights under Michigan’s Right to Work Law. The decision also orders the CEA and MEA to stop threatening employees with termination based on an unlawful monopoly bargaining agreement provision that they have challenged.

“In their desperate attempt to keep their forced dues money stream flowing, Michigan union bosses repeatedly have violated the protections for workers under Michigan’s Right to Work law,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Foundation staff attorneys continue to assist dozens of independent minded workers in fighting back against Big Labor’s orchestrated campaign to undermine Right to Work in Michigan.”

EEOC Charges say union officials and Southwest violated flight attendant’s civil rights when they fired her for voicing her beliefs

Dallas, TX (October 3, 2017) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a fired Southwest Airlines flight attendant sued her ex-employer and union officials on September 14, 2017, after voicing her views on abortion, supporting a National Right to Work law, and opposing union officials’ leadership. Charlene Carter has filed a court complaint against Transport Union Workers of America (TWUA) Local 556 and Southwest Airlines as well as Equal Opportunity Employment Commission employment discrimination charges against Southwest Airlines and Local 556.

Charlene Carter is a Christian who believes her faith requires that she spread her pro-life message. As a Southwest employee, Carter joined Local 556 in September 1996. She resigned her membership in September 2013 after learning that her union dues were going towards causes that violate her conscience.

As is her right, Carter dropped union membership but was still forced to pay fees to Local 556 as a condition of her employment. State Right to Work laws do not protect her from forced union fees because airline and railway employees are covered by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA). The RLA allows union officials to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees.

Carter often directly messaged the president of Local 556 with criticisms of the union’s leadership and political stances. Carter never had any communication from Southwest, from the union, or the union president that such speech was contrary to the terms of her employment. That changed in 2017, when after several years of dissatisfaction with union officials, Carter criticized the union for supporting abortion and voiced support for National Right to Work legislation that would end the requirement that she pay forced union fees to a union that advocates against positions about which she feels strongly.

A labor dispute amongst Local 556 members began in 2012 and lasted more than five years concerning the legitimacy of the Local 556 Executive board. Two members of the board were removed after their opponents filed misconduct claims against them. Under union bylaws, two candidates from the losing party were nominated to fill the vacant positions. Audrey Stone of the losing party was elected president by the newly installed executive board.
Over the next two years, more than 90 employees opted out of union membership in response to what they saw as an improper power grab. The election was again contested via a Department of Labor complaint, but that complaint was eventually dismissed by Labor Department officials. Through 2016, over 7,000 signatures were collected for a recall of Stone but the union executive board dismissed this petition as well.
In January 2017, Carter found out that Stone and other Local 556 officials probably used union dues to attend the “Women’s March on Washington DC” which showed support for several political positions she opposed, including abortion and funding for the abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

Carter posted in various Facebook groups for Southwest flight attendants and sent a personal message to President Stone, explaining why she was upset her money was going towards causes she did not support. These complaints garnered no response from either the union or Southwest. But then, Carter sent Stone another e-mail exclaiming her support for a National Right to Work bill.
Only six days after sending Stone that e-mail, Carter received notification from Southwest managers that they needed to have a mandatory meeting as soon as possible in regards to “Facebook posts they had seen.” During this meeting, Southwest presented Carter screen shots of her pro-life postings. Southwest bosses questioned why she sent these messages, despite Carter explaining her beliefs. Southwest authorities said that Stone claimed to be harassed by these messages.

A week after this meeting, Carter was fired from her job. Southwest said she violated its “Workplace Bullying and Hazing Policy” and its “Social Media Policy” by sharing her pro-life beliefs because her message was “highly offensive in nature.” Carter had never previously received any discipline in her 20 year career with Southwest.

As Carter’s legal filings document, this explanation lacks any credulity. Throughout the five year labor dispute over the TWUA Local 556 executive board, supporters of Stone routinely encouraged violence, used vulgarities, and even sent death threats towards their fellow Southwest employees and union members who opposed Stone. Yet none of them have been fired for their offensive language, apparently because they had the right politics and supported the union brass.

“This case shows the extent to which union officials will wield their power over employers to violate the rights’ of the workers they claim to represent,” said Mark Mix president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Charlene Carter did nothing wrong. She merely voiced her opinion and opposition to her money being used for causes she opposes, expressing her protected religious beliefs. Southwest and TWUA union officials need to be held accountable for violating Charlene’s rights and the National Right to Work Foundation is pleased to help her stand up to this campaign of harassment.”

Worker Advocate: Injustice to the Free Speech rights of public school teachers, public safety officials, and other government workers close to coming to an end

Washington, DC (September 28, 2017 ) – In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s announcement today that it is granting a writ of certiorari in Janus v. AFSCME, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement:

“With the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Janus case, we are now one step closer to freeing over 5 million public sector teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other employees from the injustice of being forced to subsidize a union as a condition of working for their own government.

“As the Court noted in the National Right to Work Foundation’s landmark Knox v. SEIU victory, compelled speech under the guise of forced union dues is an ‘anomaly’ under the First Amendment. We are hopeful that by the end of this Supreme Court term, the High Court will finally end this anomaly and fully protect the First Amendment rights of public sector workers against an injustice that has existed for over half a century.”

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, along with attorneys with the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center, are providing free legal representation to plaintiff Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Service.

Jacob Huebert, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, issued the following statement:

“We are pleased the Supreme Court has agreed to take up this case and revisit a 40-year-old precedent that has allowed governments to violate the First Amendment rights of millions of workers. People shouldn’t be forced to surrender their First Amendment right to decide for themselves what organizations they support just because they decide to work for the state, their local government or a public school.

“Right now, public sector employees in Illinois and many other states aren’t given a choice: They’re automatically forced to give their money to a union. Janus v. AFSCME presents an opportunity to restore fairness and First Amendment rights to millions of American workers by giving them the right to choose whether to support a union with their money.”

The case will likely be argued in early 2018 with a decision issued before the Court adjourns at the end of its term in June.

More information, including legal briefs in the case, can be found at www.nrtw.org/janus.

Obama NLRB’s “successor bar” rule blocks decertification vote, even though majority of workers want union removed

Washington, DC (September 27, 2017) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, an Alaskan worker has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to review a case in which she and her co-workers were denied the right to vote to remove a union claiming to represent them, despite the fact that a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit signed a petition to remove the union as their representative.

Elizabeth Chase, an employee of Apple Bus Company near Anchorage, Alaska, wants to decertify Teamsters Local 559 union officials as her monopoly bargaining agent. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), if a decertification petition garners signatures from at least 30% of the employees in a bargaining unit, the NLRB is supposed to conduct a secret-ballot election to determine whether a majority of the employees wish to decertify the union. Chase’s petition was signed by the majority of workers in the bargaining unit, far more than necessary.

However, citing the so-called “successor bar” doctrine reinstituted by the Obama Labor Board in 2011, the NLRB Regional Director blocked Chase and her coworkers from voting to remove the union. Chase had previously worked for First Student, until the school district replaced it with Apple Bus, with whom she is currently employed.

Although there is no mention of a successor bar anywhere in the NLRA itself, and the Act ostensibly is designed to give employees a choice in their representative, pro-forced unionism Labor Board members from the Clinton and Obama administrations have used the successor bar doctrine to prevent workers from removing an unwanted union after changes in ownership of the employer.

Due to the successor bar and other election bars, such as the “contract bar” and “recognition bar,” workers are regularly blocked from being able to decertify an unwanted union for up to three years. Because the successor bar can be triggered at any time, workers could be blocked for indefinite periods, and perhaps as long as four years from holding a decertification vote. This, despite the fact that workers may have only supported unionization for dealing with the previous employer. Furthermore, because Chase and her co-workers work in Alaska, a state that does not provide Right to Work protections, the NLRB Regional Director’s decision allows Teamsters officials to seek a forced fees contract that would require the payment of dues as a condition of employment.

Chase’s petition points out that so-called “successor bars” are in conflict with precedents from the Sixth and Seventh Circuit U.S. Appeals Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which hold that a union’s presumption of majority support can be overcome by proof that a majority of employees do not support the union, as happened in this case.

“The successor bar doctrine has been used for too long to trap workers, like Elizabeth Chase, into paying forced dues to a union opposed by a majority of workers. The new Trump National Labor Relations Board should move quickly to end this arbitrary barrier to workers seeking a decertification vote,” said Mark Mix President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “For almost a decade, the Obama NLRB stacked the deck in favor of union bosses’ forced dues powers. The new NLRB majority should move quickly to roll back those one-sided rulings, starting by supporting the petition of Elizabeth Chase and a majority of her co-workers to hold a vote to decertify an unwanted Teamsters union.”