UPS Drivers Sue Teamsters for Forcing Nonmembers to Subsidize Organizing Activities and Union Strike Fund
Louisville, Kentucky, and Dayton, Ohio (August 19, 2008) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, three UPS employees in Kentucky and two UPS employees in Ohio filed federal lawsuits Friday and Monday, respectively, against national and local Teamsters officials for illegal extraction of forced union dues.
In the lawsuits, the nonmember employees claim that the national and local unions breached their duty of fair representation and violated the employees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights by charging and collecting fees used for organizing nonunion workers throughout the United States and financing a members-only “Strike and Defense Fund.”
At UPS facilities in Louisville and Dayton, Teamsters Local 89 and Local 957 had been certified as the respective monopoly bargaining agents. With Teamsters officials in place as “exclusive representatives,” nonmember employees lose the right to negotiate with their employer on their own merits, and a compulsory unionism clause in the contract compels them to pay tribute to the union as a condition of employment.
In the Foundation-won Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), the Supreme Court allowed certain forced dues but established that objecting employees cannot be compelled to subsidize union activities unrelated to collective bargaining. One in a series of decisions in which the High Court ruled certain expenditures non-chargeable, Ellis v. Railway Clerks (1984) prohibits unions from charging and collecting fees from nonmembers for union organizing and member-only benefits.
Since March 2006, the union charged and collected from the nonmembers compulsory fees greater than 80 percent of the full dues and fees paid by union members. Union bosses failed to provide a required notice of Beck rights and disclosure detailing the basis of the fees until this year. The financial disclosure reveals that Teamsters’ compulsory fees include disallowed expenditures for the national union’s efforts to help organize nonunion employees in both the private and public sectors nationwide. The employees have also been forced to contribute to the “Strike and Defense Fund,” which bars benefits flowing to nonmembers.
Foundation attorneys are asking the U.S. District Courts for the Western District of Kentucky and the Southern District of Ohio to enforce the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ellis and Beck. The District Courts should prohibit the union from collecting fees used for these non-bargaining activities and award damages for the nonmember employees including all such illegal fees collected plus interest.
“It’s bad enough that employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership are forced to pay fees to a union they do not want,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “But Teamsters bosses are violating the law by compelling nonmembers to fund strikes and organizing activities which seek to corral even more workers into forced unionism.”
Nurses Attack Backroom Deal Between Tenet and CNA To Force Texas Nurses Into Union Ranks
Houston, Texas (August 12, 2008) – Two registered nurses at Houston-based Tenet Healthcare medical centers have filed federal charges against the California Nurses Association (CNA) union and Tenet, after union officials and Tenet entered into agreements designed to force nurses into CNA union ranks.
Esther Marissa Cuellar, a nurse at Tenet’s Cypress Fairbanks location, and Linda D. Bertrand, a nurse at Tenet’s Park Plaza Medical Center, filed the unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 16 in Fort Worth, Texas with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The charges focus on a so-called “Election Procedures Agreement” (EPA) between Tenet officials and CNA union bosses designed to assist the CNA in corralling nurses into the union. The agreement affects Tenet locations across Texas. So far CNA organizers have obtained union monopoly bargaining power at Cypress Fairbanks, and they have campaigns underway at other Houston-area hospitals, including Park Plaza.
The nurses’ charges list multiple violations of employee rights, all designed to make it more difficult for nurses to resist unionization by the power hungry California union officials. The charges detail how the agreement signed by Tenet and CNA officials subverts the NLRB’s role in supervising union certification elections and bypasses employee protections. While eliminating NLRB oversight of election conduct, the agreement calls for the NLRB to merely count ballots and “certify” the union.
The unfair labor practice charges also detail unlawful organizing assistance given by Tenet to CNA organizers in violation of federal statutes and a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Under the agreement, Tenet managers are gagged from responding to employee questions about unionization, and nurses who oppose the union have been forbidden from using any Tenet facilities to express their views. Yet pro-CNA nurses and non-employee union organizers are given broad access to Tenet facilities.
“California union militants, with the assistance of complicit Tenet officials, are attempting to sweep nurses across the state of Texas into union ranks, like it or not,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “What isn’t yet clear is exactly what Tenet received in exchange for helping union officials gain access to hundreds of thousands of dollars in union dues. If similar agreements elsewhere are any indication, CNA may have sold out the employees’ interests to become Tenet’s favored union.”
The charges, which will now be investigated by NLRB officials, also state that the EPA scheme amounts to illegal pre-recognition bargaining, with union officials negotiating substantive terms of employment for nurses before they have the legal authority to represent a single employee.
—
Case Documents:
Worker Files Civil Damages Lawsuit for Massive Union Harassment Campaign
Hartford, Connecticut (July 24, 2008) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are filing a state court lawsuit on behalf of a Connecticut resident who suffered from an ugly campaign of retaliation at the hands of area union officials. The suit alleges that union militants conspired to commit fraud and identity theft in order to bombard Patricia Pelletier with hundreds of mail-order magazines, violating her rights and sticking her with thousands of dollars in subscription and mail order fees.
Because Connecticut lacks a Right to Work law, Pelletier was forced to pay dues to the Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 1103, as well as accept the union’s workplace representation as a condition of employment. After becoming dissatisfied with the union’s presence, Pelletier initiated a decertification petition to eject the CWA from the workplace. In retaliation, CWA officials apparently conspired to forge Pelletier’s signature on numerous magazine subscriptions. Union militants are also accused of committing identity theft by illegally soliciting business information cards and signing up for advertiser information packages under Pelletier’s name.
These actions resulted in a flood of unwanted magazines and advertisements arriving daily at Pelletier’s doorstep. Not only was Pelletier forced to spend several hours each day canceling individual subscriptions, she was also billed for thousands of dollars by unwitting magazine companies, jeopardizing her credit rating. Pelletier still receives excess mail from a variety of journals and magazines, and her name continues to be circulated through advertiser mailing lists across the country.
In the 31-count suit to be filed today in Hartford Superior Court, Foundation staff attorneys allege that union officials committed identity theft, conspired to forge Pelletier’s signature, inflicted undue emotional distress on Pelletier and her family, and violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practice Act by unlawfully retaliating against Pelletier for attempting to remove the union from her workplace. Foundation attorneys are now seeking damages in excess of $15,000 to compensate Pelletier for CWA union militants’ campaign of retaliation against her.
“Mrs. Pelletier’s plight demonstrates the vicious things union officials will do to punish workers who would rather do without a union,’” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Mrs. Pelletier is guilty of nothing more than helping her coworkers give an unwanted union the boot. And the union bosses’ vicious campaign of harassment and intimidation revealed their true nature.”
Employee Rights Group Seeks Federal Criminal Investigation into SEIU Union’s Political Fundraising
Washington, DC (July 17, 2008) – The National Right to Work Foundation has formally requested that the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Justice open investigations into a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its recent convention.
After reviewing a new amendment to the SEIU constitution, Foundation staff attorneys have concluded that the union and its officers may be violating federal labor law and the Federal Election Campaign Act by imposing financial penalties on local affiliates who fail to meet Political Action Committee (PAC) fundraising targets.
“SEIU bosses are making a mockery of federal law. It’s vital the Department of Justice and Department of Labor take action now before the damage is done,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Elections are a cornerstone of our democratic republic, and we need to do everything possible to ensure the results aren’t tainted by unlawful union activism that violates the rights of rank-and-file workers.”
Article XV, Section 18 of the union’s constitution now authorizes the SEIU’s national brass to fine local unions for failure to meet its annual SEIU COPE fundraising obligations. SEIU COPE is the union’s federal PAC, and the FEC lists it as the top labor union PAC with over $23 million in receipts for 2005-2006.
However, federal labor law forbids unions from political fundraising through the imposition of mandatory financial penalties and it prohibits the conversion of union dues to “hard money.” In addition to asking for a Department of Labor investigation, the coercive nature of the amendment’s punitive mechanism violates core provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and warrants a Department of Justice criminal prosecution.
The new amendment also appears to allow local affiliates to use nonmember employees’ mandatory dues payments to cover PAC contributions and the SEIU’s fines. While imposition of financial penalties for failure to make political contributions is illegal regardless of how those fines are spent, the use of funds derived from nonmembers’ fees for political purposes also violates those employees’ constitutional rights.
Union officials have devoted enormous sums of money to influence the upcoming fall elections. Because the SEIU’s political contributions are so significant, Foundation attorneys believe that this amendment has the potential to irreparably compromise the integrity of the electoral process. By coercing local affiliates and nonmember employees into contributing to the SEIU’s massive general election fund, union officials threaten to disenfranchise voters with a firestorm of illegally funded political activism.
In the letter to Attorney General Mukasey, Mix writes for the Foundation: “Not only are large numbers of employees (forced to fill SEIU coffers) harmed by this crime, but, given the close vote in recent national elections, the illegal SEIU activity effectively disenfranchises voters who follow the law… To protect the rights of workers forced to pay compulsory dues and fees, and the integrity of the November elections, I trust you will act upon this information…”
###
High Court Urged to Disallow Expansion of Union Monopoly Power to Undercut Workers’ Rights
Washington, DC (July 15, 2008) – Today the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed arguments with the United States Supreme Court seeking a reaffirmation of a lower court ruling that disallowed deals between union officials and employers to undercut employees’ statutory rights.
This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 14 Penn Plaza LLC and Temco Service Industries, Inc. v. Steven Pyett, Thomas O’Connell, and Michael Phillips, a case which could have far-reaching implications for employees laboring under union monopoly bargaining contracts.
Pyett, O’Connell, and Phillips sued in federal District Court alleging that their employer had illegally discriminated against them on the basis of age, in violation of federal, New York state, and New York City civil rights statutes. The defendants argued unsuccessfully that the employees, as union members, had waived their right to a judicial forum for their statutory discrimination claims and sought to compel them into arbitration as provided in the collective bargaining agreement. Citing a line of case law dating back to 1974, the District Court ruled that union-negotiated waivers of statutory rights in collective bargaining agreements are unenforceable, and thus the employees retained the right to a judicial forum. The Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision on appeal.
In its brief, the Foundation explains that the regime of union monopoly bargaining – under which a union is installed as the exclusive representative of all employees in negotiations with their employer, even those who don’t want the union’s “representation” – cannot be construed to even further trump individual rights. For an individual’s right to a judicial forum to be waived in an employment contract, it must be done voluntarily. In a collective bargaining agreement, however, workers do not necessarily consent to waive their judicial forum rights, even if the contract claims that they do. For example, union officials may negotiate the arbitration clause with the employer, but they are not required to put the contract to a vote or disclose all its terms.
Even if the union membership votes to approve the contract and arbitration clause, members who chose not to vote or voted against ratification cannot be said to have voluntarily waived their rights. Furthermore, employees who started working for the employer after the contract was ratified never voted for it. Most important, employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership almost never are allowed to vote on labor contracts.
“We hope the Court will not permit further expansion of monopoly bargaining privileges given to union officials,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case also concerns Big Labor’s national organizing strategy. Union officials want the ability to offer employers immunity from litigation over employees’ statutory rights if an employer will just recognize the union.”
###
The Foundation’s amicus brief can be downloaded here.
Union Officials Forced to Agree to New Decertification Election after Workers Complained of Union Intimidation
Banning, California (July 11, 2008) – In response to objections filed by workers represented by the National Right to Work Foundation alleging union misconduct during a recent decertification election at Coastline Manufacturing, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local 636 union officials decided to save face rather than go through an embarrassing National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hearing. Instead, they agreed to a new election to determine whether the union will retain its monopoly bargaining privileges.
After union officials unlawfully tampered with employees’ efforts to prove a majority didn’t want union representation, workers contacted the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal assistance. Employees at the glass manufacturing company then sought a union decertification election supervised by the NLRB to formally toss the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades local out of their workplace.
On May 19, a majority of workers voted to retain union representation, but the results were marred by union threats, intimidation, and other irregularities. Foundation staff attorneys filed official objections with the NLRB’s Regional Director, citing five union violations of federal labor election guidelines and asking for a new decertification election so that employees could freely express their preferences.
Workers reported that the union illegally tainted the election by installing a union official as a supposedly “neutral” election observer, threatening employees with financial penalties and employer confiscation of pension funds in the event of decertification, menacing workers with suggestions of lay-offs if the union were to be ejected, and threatening employees with disclosure of family members’ immigration status.
The NLRB Regional Director granted a hearing to resolve employees’ objections, but union officials apparently recognized the likelihood of an embarrassing loss and, at the 11th hour, decided to withdraw from the proceedings and instead agree to another federally-supervised decertification election.
“Union officials’ willingness to intimidate the very employees they are supposed to represent irreparably compromised the integrity of the decertification election,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union’s decision not to contest the workers’ charges clearly demonstrates the process was fatally flawed. We can only hope that this next election will fairly reflect employees’ preferences.”
Construction Workers File Charges against Union after Hit with $16,000 Fines for Nonunion Work
Sedro-Woolley, Washington (July 10, 2008) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, two construction workers have filed unfair labor practice charges against the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302 union for exorbitant and illegal $16,000 fines levied against them in an internal union kangaroo court – even though the workers were allegedly never voluntary union members.
Shane Davis and Chad Aldridge filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against IUOE Local 302 after union bosses declared them “guilty” of refusing to give up employment at TriMaxx Construction, a contractor whose employees had voted against unionization. Late last year, union bosses learned that Davis and Aldridge were earning paychecks from the nonunion firm and demanded that they quit their jobs. In February, after Davis and Aldridge refused to put themselves in the unemployment line and resigned from the union, the union hierarchy held its “trial” and levied the confiscatory fines of $16,728.40 each.
In NLRB v. General Motors (1963) and Communications Workers v. Beck (1988), the United States Supreme Court ruled that unions may force workers to pay certain fees as a condition of employment, but workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership. Employees who exercise the right to refrain from union membership cannot be subjected to internal union discipline. Unions have an obligation to tell workers about their General Motors and Beck rights, which Local 302 never did.
Davis and Aldridge claim that as involuntary members, they cannot be lawfully subjected to internal union discipline. They also claim that union officials would not have imposed such severe fines had they not resigned from union “membership.” It is illegal for unions to fine workers as retaliation for resigning.
“Criminals convicted of misdemeanors in the state of Washington can be socked with $5,000 fines,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It is unconscionable that Local 302 union bosses would slam Shane Davis and Chad Aldridge with fines greater than three times that amount just for trying to earn an honest living.”
The NLRB Regional Office in Seattle will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint and prosecute the union before an administrative law judge.
Employees Toss Out Unwanted Teamsters Union Bosses After Coercive Union Card-Check Campaign
Sacramento, California (July 3, 2008) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, employees at the USF Reddaway trucking company recently voted to eject the Chauffeur Teamsters and Helpers Local 150 union from their workplace. The Teamsters pushed their way into the facility in December of 2007, when USF Reddaway voluntarily recognized the union without a secret ballot election.
Under the card-check organizing scheme union agents use to demonstrate supposed employee support, employees are denied access to a secret ballot election and are instead forced to publicly declare their support or opposition to unionization during face-to-face confrontations with professional union organizers. Employees report that, during card-check union organizers often harass, mislead, or outright lie to employees to acquire their signatures.
Recognizing the coercive nature of card-check organizing, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled in the Foundation’s Dana/Metaldyne case that employees may initiate a union decertification petition immediately following recognition if a union acquires its monopoly bargaining privileges through card-check. The National Law Journal has described Dana/Metaldyne as one of the “most significant decisions” of the Board in the last four years.
Dissatisfied with the results of the coercive card-check drive, several employees at USF Reddaway took advantage of the Dana decision and immediately circulated a union decertification petition. After a majority of workers signed the petition, Teamsters officials filed so-called “blocking charges” to short-circuit employees’ wishes.
Foundation attorneys responded by filing unfair labor practice charges on behalf of several USF Reddaway employees. The charges cited the suspicious circumstances surrounding the union’s original card-check drive, alleging that the union did not enjoy the majority support of employees. To resolve this legal impasse, both sides agreed to withdraw their charges in favor of an NLRB-supervised election to determine whether workers supported unionization. On June 16 and 17, over 60 percent of USF Reddaway employees voted against union representation, finally expelling the unwanted Teamsters from the workplace.
“While we applaud the employees’ resolve in obtaining their decertification election, this incident highlights the controversial nature of card-check organizing,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Allowing union activists to pressure workers into signing authorization cards is an inherently unfair process that not only subjects vulnerable employees to bullying and harassment, but it also imposes a union on them that they often do not want.”
SEIU Union Officials Face Federal Prosecution for Illegal Threats against Non-Striking Nurses
Los Angeles, California (July 3, 2008) – Federal labor board officials in Los Angeles will prosecute the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 121RN for illegally threatening nurses at the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center with financial penalties and arrest for refusing to abandon their patients during a union-ordered strike.
Last October, SEIU officials ordered a general strike after the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the hospital expired, but many nurses refused to abandon their patients. To continue treating patients during the union-ordered strike without union retaliation, the nurses resigned from formal union membership. However, union bosses – citing an unenforceable California state law deterring “strikebreakers” (i.e. dutiful employees) – told the nurses that they could face stiff fines and even up to 90 days in jail if they did not join the strike. With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, nurse Carole Jean Badertscher filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
When the NLRB Regional Director originally declined to prosecute the law-breaking SEIU bosses, Foundation attorneys filed an appeal with the NLRB’s General Counsel. The General Counsel determined that the Regional Director improperly dropped the case and ordered issuance of an unfair labor practice complaint against the abusive union hierarchy.
According to the complaint, union bosses illegally threatened nurses with arrest and jail under the invalid California law that is preempted by federal labor law. Additionally, the complaint alleges that union officials misled nurses by suggesting that non-member employees would continue to owe compulsory union dues even though no contract containing a valid forced-dues clause was in effect.
“Rather than being properly commended for refusing to turn their backs on their patients, these brave nurses faced ugly threats of fines and imprisonment from union bosses,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It is reprehensible that union bosses are illegally threatening nurses in an effort to get them to walk out on their patients.”
Federal Government to Prosecute Hollywood Union Bosses for Unfair Labor Practices
Los Angeles, California (July 2, 2008) – Federal labor prosecutors in Los Angeles have issued a class-action complaint against union officials for failing to provide Paramount Classics film crew members with proper financial disclosure of their forced union dues.
In July 2006, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Mary Jasionowski filed an unfair labor practice charge on behalf of similarly situated employees with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Script Supervisors/Continuity & Allied Production Specialists Guild, Local 871. The NLRB Regional Director has agreed with Jasionowski’s charges and will prosecute the case before an administrative law judge in Los Angeles.
Though not a union member, Jasionowski is forced to pay union fees as a condition of her employment. However, she exercised her limited right to object to the collection of forced dues spent for any purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance administration. In the Foundation-won Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988) decision, the United States Supreme Court held that private-sector employees may be compelled to pay certain union dues, but may withhold the portion of union fees which funds activities like union politics, lobbying, and member-only events.
Under legal precedents won by Foundation attorneys, all non-union members must be provided with a statement breaking down the union’s expenditures, verified by an independent auditor. Additionally, a nonmember may challenge the amount of the fee imposed by union officials.
In late May 2006, Jasionowski notified Local 871 – an affiliate of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IASTE) – that she objected to the payment of forced fees for non-bargaining activities. Union officials, however, failed to provide an adequate breakdown of the union’s expenditures, particularly payments to IASTE and other union affiliates that are also involved in political and other non-bargaining activity.
“Perhaps more than in any other profession, union officials in the entertainment business seem to think they are above the law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Mary Jasionowski – or any other employee – should not be forced to support the political agenda of a union she never wanted to ‘represent’ her in the first place.”
