**Cleveland, OH (March 26, 2007)** – Two employees of Alcoa Company (NYSE: AA) filed a new round of federal unfair labor practice charges today to protect themselves from a pattern of ugly union intimidation at the company.

The employees at Alcoa’s trucking wheel manufacturing plant filed the charges with help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys after officials from the International Union of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union repeatedly threatened them with unlawful discipline and termination simply for inquiring about their limited legal rights to refrain from formal union membership.

Today’s filing at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is the third related charge filed inside of one month. Alcoa employees Mark Bedenik and Matthew Slatten also detail in their charge how union officials kicked them out of the union in retaliation for inquiring about their rights to refrain from full union membership, but illegally continued to seize union dues from their paychecks.

After Bedenik and Slatten originally approached union representatives in February to inquire about their rights to refrain from formal union membership, union officials unlawfully misled them that full membership is a mandatory condition of employment and that resigning from the union would result in their termination. In retaliation for asserting their right to refrain from certain union activity, union officials effectively suspended six employees from eligibility for overtime work at the Alcoa facility for a period of up to one year. The employees responded with unfair labor practice charges filed at the NLRB.

“Union officials want workers to shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These are just a few of many types of abuse faced by employees in states like Ohio with no Right to Work law to ensure that the payment of union dues is strictly voluntary.”

In a second related charge filed in early March, Foundation attorneys highlighted that union officials ordered Bedenik and Slatten to attend an IAM union internal kangaroo court held for the purpose of punishing them for inquiring about refraining from full union membership. Instructing the employees to attend the proceedings and only enter through the “rear entrance” of the building, union officials intended to fine and discipline the two for thinking about opposing the union. The employees chose not to show up for their “trial.”

Under the Foundation-won *Communication Workers of America v. Beck* decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employees laboring under compulsory unionism contracts are entitled to resign from formal union membership and withhold forced dues for everything except the documented cost of monopoly bargaining. However, if union officials expel a union member for any reason other than a failure to pay dues, they are not entitled to collect *any dues whatsoever* from such persons.

**Pittsburgh/Harrisburg, PA (March 22, 2007)** — A group of 26 Pennsylvania Turnpike employees have filed two federal lawsuits against two Teamsters union locals, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and two Turnpike Commission officers for illegally seizing union dues from the employees’ paychecks in violation of their constitutional rights.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is giving the employees free legal aid to file the lawsuits. 19 employees filed the first suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg, and seven employees filed the second suit the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. The Harrisburg suit names Teamsters Union Local 77 and the Pittsburgh lawsuit names Teamsters Union Local 250 for their respective roles in the illegal dues seizures.

The 19 Turnpike employees in the Harrisburg suit are also filing a potentially precedent-setting claim challenging the constitutionality of a clause in the Teamster union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement that prohibits employees from resigning their formal union membership, except during a narrow 15-day window prior to the expiration of a three-year long collective bargaining contract. These so-called “maintenance of membership” clauses are common in the public sector in Pennsylvania. They are intended to block employees from exercising their constitutional rights to refrain from formal union membership, and to cut off funding for objectionable union activities.

Both lawsuits cite multiple violations of employees’ rights by Turnpike and Teamsters union officials in confiscating forced dues from employees who had resigned their formal union membership. The union hierarchy did not follow the minimal procedural protections required by the Supreme Court in the 1986 *Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson* decision. In the Foundation-won *Hudson* case, the High Court ruled that before collecting any forced dues, union officials must provide an audited disclosure of the union’s expenses and give employees an opportunity to object to paying forced union dues spent for certain activities.

Such audits are intended to ensure that nonunion public employees can cut off their funding of union activities unrelated to collective bargaining such as union politics, organizing, and union-only activities. Until employees receive a proper Hudson notice disclosing such expenditures, it is illegal for union officials to collect any forced dues from nonunion employees.

“In their lust for forced dues revenues, Teamsters union officials are trampling upon the rights of the very employees they claim to represent,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “These cases demonstrate two common types of abuse that occur because Pennsylvanian employees do not have the protection of a Right to Work law making the payment of union dues strictly voluntary.”

Download the Pittsburgh Complaint
Download the Harrisburg Complaint

**Ventura, CA (February 21, 2007)** – California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) prosecutors have issued a decision and order that United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials must end its misrepresentations, illegal threats of firings, and unlawful dues demands against California Mushroom employees. The ALRB ruling contradicts earlier knee jerk UFW statements to the media denying any wrongdoing and that: “We give workers a clear choice and show them how to exercise their options.”

The ruling stems from unfair labor practice charges brought by a pair of California Mushroom (formerly PictSweet Mushroom Farms) workers in early March 2004 alleging that UFW union officials unlawfully demanded and/or collected full union dues from their paychecks, and threatened to order dissenting workers fired.
With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Guillermo Virgen and Gerardo Mendoza filed the class-action charges on behalf of roughly 400 workers employed by California Mushroom Farm. Aside from unlawful dues seizures and threats, the union hierarchy also failed to inform thousands of laborers statewide that they have the right to certain procedural protections to assure that their forced union dues do not finance activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities.

Though many workers previously contested the amount of forced dues deducted from their paychecks, UFW officials simply ignored their objections.

The ALRB is ordering that UFW union officials inform California Mushroom employees of their right to refrain from paying full union dues, provide workers with an audit of the union’s books, and establish and provide procedures by which the employees can challenge the amount of forced dues the union deducts from their paychecks. UFW officials also must refund with interest any unlawfully seized dues, as well as post notices and inform employees both orally and through the mail that they have the right to withhold forced dues unrelated to collective bargaining.

UFW officials must also provide the ALRB with all related documents in order to “facilitate the calculation of refunds,” as well as process any languishing objections to paying full dues by employees.

“UFW union officials have repeatedly run roughshod over the rights of workers at California Mushroom Farm,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union hierarchy’s refusal to respect the workers’ basic freedoms shows a clear disdain, not only for the employees that they claim to represent, but also for the rule of law.”

Not only did UFW officials violate the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, but they also infringed on rights recognized in several Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Read the ALRB Ruling

**Chicago, IL (February 21, 2007)** – A wave of federal unfair labor practice charges filed against the Teamsters Local 714 union by ten Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. employees has forced Teamsters officials to stop attempting to collect unlawful retaliatory fines against the workers for continuing to do their jobs during a union-ordered strike.

The metal processing workers obtained free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation to file the unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in December 2006. The workers charged that Teamsters officials illegally failed to notify the workers of their right to refrain from formal union membership and then hit them with retaliatory fines – up to $1,000 apiece – for refusing to walk off the job during the strike in March 2006.

Because the Teamsters hierarchy unlawfully failed to inform the workers of their right to refrain from formal union membership and to object to paying for the union’s nonrepresentational activities, such as politics, the employees thus cannot be considered voluntary members – and could not legally be subjected to internal union disciplinary measures, such as the strike fines.

Facing a potential embarrassing prosecution by the NLRB, Teamsters union lawyers sent letters to the ten Ryerson employees stating that the union would not attempt to collect the fines, and Right to Work Foundation attorneys subsequently withdrew the NLRB unfair labor practice charges for the workers. Only in the unlikely event that the workers want formal union membership with the union that trampled on their rights, could the Teamsters officials attempt to collect the fines.

“Teamsters officials went to great lengths to intimidate workers and stifle dissent,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case shows the contempt that union officials often have for employees who exercise independent judgment and who work to support their families during an unpopular strike.”

The actions of Teamsters union officials violate employee rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court *Communications Workers v. Beck* decision. Under *Beck* and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and honor their right not to pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities.

**Atlanta, GA (February 21, 2007)** — With free legal help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, three local commercial insulation workers filed federal charges against a local union for refusing to honor their resignations from the union and threatening to fine them $5,000 each in retaliation for working for a nonunion employer.

Gonzalo Gomez, Ubaldo Romero, and Juan Perez, filed the parallel unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators Local 48 union. The workers seek an injunction blocking any illegal fine collection proceedings initiated by union officials in state court because Romero and Perez have already been served with notices demanding payment of the unlawful fines.

“Union officials are abusing their power over workers to prevent them from earning a good living,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It is unconscionable for union bosses to attempt to drive workers into the poorhouse in vicious retaliation for pursuing work opportunities at nonunion job sites.”

Insulator union officials told workers at a recent union meeting that they could not resign their union memberships unless they did so “correctly,” but failed to explain exactly what this meant. When asked what this meant, union officials replied simply that the employees had failed to resign “correctly.”

Gomez and his coworkers cannot be lawfully fined because they resigned their union memberships (and thus were no longer subject to internal union rules) before returning to work – their right under the Foundation-supported *Patternmakers v. NLRB* 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision. In *Patternmakers*, the High Court ruled workers may resign their full, formal union membership immediately, at any time, and without restrictions.

The NLRB is responsible for investigating the charges and will decide whether to prosecute the union for unfair labor practices.

Aside from violating the National Labor Relations Act, Insulator union officials’ actions also run contrary to the spirit of Georgia’s highly popular Right to Work law – on the books since 1947 – which prohibits forcing workers to join or pay dues to a union as a job condition.

The workers’ charges follow unfair labor practice charges filed recently by coworker Larry Blaisdell, who was similarly retaliated against by Insulator union officials for resigning his union membership and working for a nonunion employer.

Washington, DC (February 8, 2007) – Two employees represented by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in defending against abusive “card check” union organizing tactics today gave written testimony to the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee about their disturbing experiences.

The coercive card check unionization scheme is highly controversial for severely curtailing employees’ freedom to choose whether or not to unionize and for stripping workers of the limited protections of a government-supervised secret ballot election.

Mike Ivey, a Foundation-assisted materials handler at Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation in Gaffney, South Carolina, detailed the unrelenting harassment he and his coworkers have faced over the past four years at the hands of United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers seeking to force unwanted unionization upon them. This has occurred even though more than 70 percent of the employees submitted a petition stating they want nothing to do with the UAW.

“Faced with a never-ending onslaught, we employees feel that the UAW is holding our heads under water until we drown,” he stated. “Some employees have had five or more harassing visits from these union organizers. The only way, it seems, to stop the badgering and pressure is to sign the card….Moreover, in many instances, employees who signed cards under pressure or false pretenses later attempted to retrieve or void this card. The union would not allow this to happen, telling them that they could not do so.”

Karen Mayhew, a Portland, Oregon, employee of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (a component of the national Kaiser Permanente health network) also detailed misrepresentations made to employees during a card check campaign last year involving the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Aside from collecting the cards under false pretenses – that they would actually be used to get a secret ballot election – union organizers browbeat people to sign. Ultimately, the federal labor board forced the union to rescind its unlawful “voluntary recognition.”

“Throughout this whole ordeal, my colleagues and I were subjected to badgering and immense peer pressure. Some of us even received calls at home,” Mayhew stated. “I believe this abuse was directed towards me at the request of the union in an effort to intimidate me and have me back down… union abuses of a wide variety are the rule in ‘card check’ campaigns, not the exception.”

Karen Mayhew’s testimony can be found at www.nrtw.org/pdfs/Mayhew.pdf. Mike Ivey’s testimony can be found at www.nrtw.org/pdfs/Ivey.pdf.

**Toledo, OH (February 6, 2007)** – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a formal complaint and agreed to prosecute the United Auto Workers (UAW) union for a campaign of harassment and intimidation aimed at nurses seeking an election to vote the union out at St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center.

The complaint stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by St. Vincent nurse Amy Anderson in July 2006 with help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. Anderson’s charges detailed a bullying campaign by UAW union officials as she and others sought to collect signatures from their co-workers to throw the unwanted union out of their workplace.

The NLRB complaint against the UAW union and its Local 12 lists numerous examples of union agents physically intimidating nurses, including “following, surrounding, and impeding access to employees.” The complaint also cites that in one instance a union official physically “struck a clipboard containing the petition” from one of the nurse’s hands.

The NLRB complaint also alleges that UAW officials unlawfully intimidated nurses by such acts as recording their license plate numbers. The related harassment took place at and around the medical center, not only in the parking lots, but even in the cafeteria and bathrooms.

“UAW union officials have unleashed a shameless bullying campaign on St. Vincent nurses to keep the mandatory dues flowing in,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Given such hostility for the rights of the very rank-and-file nurses that UAW officials claim to ‘represent,’ it comes as no surprise that many nurses are leading the effort to show them the door.”

Despite union officials’ organized campaign of unlawful intimidation, the nurses were ultimately able to collect signatures from 30 percent of employees – the minimum necessary to trigger an NLRB supervised decertification election. Once the signatures are certified by NLRB Region 8 in Cleveland, the Board will hold a secret ballot election through which the health care professionals can rid their workplace of the abusive union.

Tired of union officials’ mistreatment, a group of nurses formed “Nurses For A Union-Free St. Vincent’s” (www.NursesKnowTheTruth.bravehost.com) with the goal of decertifying the unwanted automotive union. The NLRB has scheduled an April 24, 2007, hearing before an administrative law judge to prosecute the UAW union.

In April 2006, Foundation attorneys helped four nurses from St. Vincent’s file related federal charges with the NLRB against the UAW union and its Toledo Local 12 for violating their rights under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision *Communications Workers v. Beck*. Under *Beck* and related rulings, union officials must inform workers of their right to refrain from formal union membership and from paying for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities.

Download the Complaint

**El Paso, TX (February 5, 2007)** – National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officials have issued a formal complaint and agreed to prosecute a local security guard union and employer for unlawfully suspending a local guard without pay in retaliation for asserting his legal right to refrain from union membership.

The complaint stems from charges Juan Vielma, a local AKAL Security employee, filed against the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union and his employer with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

Vielma’s charge details how the SPFPA union hierarchy holds a monopoly bargaining agreement with his employer that illegally makes financial support for the union a mandatory condition of employment.

AKAL Security, a national contract security provider, capitulated to the union hierarchy’s illegal demands when they indefinitely suspended Vielma without pay in June 2006 for failure to formally join union ranks and pay money to the union. Under protections afforded by Texas’ highly-popular Right to Work law, union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary. While Texas state prosecutors are yet to take action to enforce these clear violations of Texas criminal law, Foundation attorneys persuaded federal officials to pursue the matter to the extent possible under federal law.

AKAL Security and SPFPA union officials are falsely claiming that Vielma and his colleagues work on federal property that is not protected by the Right to Work law – and thus can be forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. NLRB investigators disagreed, and found that the union hierarchy violated federal law by restraining and coercing employees exercising their limited rights under the National Labor Relations Act to refrain from union participation.

“Such blatant violations of the freedom of association are unbecoming of the State of Texas’ long tradition of defending employees’ Right to Work,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union hierarchy wants Mr. Vielma and his coworkers to just shut up and pay up.”

Foundation attorneys seek reinstatement and back pay for Vielma, as well as a notice to all AKAL Security employees about their rights to refrain from union membership and dues payment. The NLRB has scheduled a hearing for March 13, 2007, before an administrative law judge.

**Hartford, CT (January 31, 2007)** – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation an employee of Colt Manufacturing has filed a rare *mandamus* petition asking a federal appellate court in Washington, DC to order the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to rule in a long-delayed case that has languished at the federal labor board for nearly four years.

George Gally, a 40-year veteran Colt employee, originally filed unfair labor practice charges in 2003 challenging the United Autoworker (UAW) union’s nationwide policy of requiring employees to object annually in order to receive refunds of forced union dues spent for non-collective bargaining activities such as union politics and lobbying. Gally filed his *mandamus* petition at the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court *Communications Workers v. Beck* decision, the court recognized that workers have the right to refrain from formal, full dues-paying union membership and pay a reduced fee to cover the union’s collective bargaining costs. But UAW officials have violated the Supreme Court’s *Beck* and related appellate court rulings by requiring Gally and his co-workers to re-object every year – a practice intended to discourage them from reclaiming their money.

The current delay is part of a 15-year history of illegal actions by UAW officials against Gally. In December 2003, a federal administrative law judge awarded Gally nearly $31,000 in compensation plus interest for pay lost after he was illegally fired at the request of UAW Local 376 union officials in 1991. Earlier in 2003, Gally filed the unfair labor practice charges challenging the UAW union officials’ annual objection scheme.

“The issue is simple: for Gally and his co-workers, justice delayed is justice denied,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Instead of defending the rights of individual employees that have been victimized by compulsory unionism abuses, too often the NLRB has sat on its hands allowing union officials’ wholesale workers’ rights violations to continue.”

Gally’s case is far from the only example of delayed justice for workers at the NLRB, a federal bureaucracy long criticized for political in-fighting and institutional bias favoring compulsory unionism. Only a few weeks ago the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the labor board to produce a ruling in a Foundation-assisted case that began in 1989.

In that case the NLRB was ordered to rule by January 30, 2007, but when the decision was finally released – 17 years after Schreiber Foods employees Sherry and David Pirlott first filed the case – the majority of the Members issuing the decision refused to address the core legal issue of whether nonunion workers can be compelled to pay for union organizing activity.

**Washington, DC (January 30, 2007)** – Forced to rule by an extremely rare court order, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) let stand a controversial Clinton NLRB ruling that approved the firing of workers who refuse to pay for union organizing campaigns. The ruling came in a long-languishing case initiated in 1989 by two cheese processing plant workers against Teamsters Local 75 in Green Bay, Wisconsin, with free legal help from the National Right to Work Foundation.

Although David and Sherry Pirlott, employees of Schreiber Foods, won part of their case on technical grounds, the NLRB refused to enter a judgment barring union officials from compelling the payment of union dues that are spent for union organizing. Accordingly, nonunion members nationwide may be forced as a condition of employment to pay for recruitment of new union members and to fund highly aggressive corporate campaigns intended to bully companies and employees into unionization. Union organizing expenditures often comprise as much as 40 and even up to 60 percent of a union’s budget, and nonmembers bristle at the use of their forced dues to corral even more workers into unions.

In a blistering dissent, Member Peter Schaumber scorned as “indefensible” the NLRB majority’s decision not to reverse a controversial Clinton-NLRB ruling that violated rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Schaumber also noted that the NLRB was reneging on its earlier representations to the U.S. Supreme Court. The agency had argued against U.S. Supreme Court review of its Clinton-era *Meijer* decision on the grounds that the NLRB would have the opportunity to reevaluate its position in *Schreiber Foods*. By now refusing to follow through and either reaffirm or overturn *Meijer*, Schaumber noted, the NLRB “effectively insulates the *Meijer* decision from appellate and Supreme Court review for the foreseeable future.”

“David and Sherry Pirlott have waited nearly two decades only to be slapped in the face by the agency charged with protecting them,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “This is justice delayed, and justice denied. Not only did it take two lawsuits against the agency and over 17 years to extract a ruling, but now the Board thumbs its nose again at binding U.S. Supreme Court precedents. The handling of this case is an embarrassment to all federal executive agencies.”

Foundation attorneys persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to order the NLRB to rule in the *Schreiber Foods* case in just the third known mandamus order ever issued against the Board since its creation in 1935. The Pirlotts’ case was the oldest of scores of cases in which Right to Work Foundation-assisted employees are trying to reclaim their forced union dues used for non-bargaining activity. Foundation attorneys are planning a vigorous appeal.

Under the Supreme Court’s rulings in *Communications Workers v. Beck* and *Ellis v. Railway Clerks*, cases brought by employees represented by Right to Work Foundation attorneys, workers may not be lawfully forced to pay for any union activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract negotiation, or grievance adjustment such as union organizing, politics, extra-unit litigation, and member-only programs.