Worker Files Brief Defending Rights in Teamster Union Discrimination Federal Appeal

Despite multiple rulings, Teamster union bosses try to validate discrimination against worker

Denver, CO (November 23, 2011) – An Interstate Bakeries employee from Ponca City, Oklahoma has filed a brief in federal court asking the court to uphold repeated decisions in his favor against Teamster union workplace discrimination.

With continued free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Interstate Bakeries employee Kirk Rammage filed the brief Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Rammage was the single nonunion sales representative with Dolly Madison for over 15 years before his division was merged in 2005 with Wonder Bread/Hostess. Although the company initially wanted to retain Rammage and protect his seniority during the merger, Teamsters Local 523 union bosses demanded that union members receive preferential treatment, putting Rammage at the bottom of the seniority roster despite his workplace tenure. The company later caved into the union bosses' demand.

At Interstate Bakeries, seniority increases employees' chances of securing desirable sales routes. By insisting that Rammage lose his seniority, Teamster officials effectively signaled that union workers took priority over their nonunion colleagues. As a result, Rammage was forced to commute to a new work location more than 70 miles away.

Read the entire release here.

Army Wives Driver Wins over $55k in Lost Wages After Teamster Union Boss Blacklisting

Teamster union bosses’ ugly retaliation prevents employee from making a living

Washington, DC (March 17, 2011) – An ABC Studios movie/television driver has won over $55,000 in lost income after Teamster union officials refused to allow him to do his job for nearly a year.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys helped the driver win the case before a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge in Charleston, South Carolina.

Teamster Local 509 union officials currently enjoy exclusive bargaining privileges with ABC Studios in Charleston – and thus have a monopoly bargaining agreement with ABC that forces workers to go through Teamster Local 509’s hiring hall in order to obtain a job.

However, because Local 509 union members were working on other television and movie productions, Thomas Coghill – who was from Wilmington, North Carolina and a member of Teamster Local 391 – worked on the set of the Charleston-based Army Wives television series. Coghill worked during the show’s first two seasons beginning in 2008 as a makeup truck driver.

However, as more Local 509 union members became available to work on the production of Army Wives, a dispute over who should be eligible to work on the set of Army Wives erupted between various Teamster union officials and Coghill was removed from Local 509’s “Movie Referral List” because he was not a member of Local 509. Meanwhile, Local 509 union members continue to receive preferential treatment in job placement on the set of Army Wives.

Read the entire release here.

Michigan Worker Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Halt UAW Policy of Religious Discrimination

Right to Work attorneys challenge union officials’ violation of worker’s civil rights

Washington, DC (December 15, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a western Michigan auto worker is asking the U.S. Supreme Court today to review a United Auto Workers (UAW) union policy intended to stymie workers’ religious objections to the union bosses’ agenda.

Jeffrey Reed, a resident of Bridgman, Michigan, assembles vehicles for AM General. Because his workplace is unionized, he works under a monopoly bargaining agreement which forces him either to join the UAW or pay compulsory union fees to it in order to keep his job. However, Reed, a devout Catholic, believes financially supporting the UAW union violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals and abortion-on-demand.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the worker’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. The statute requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the worker – most often by redirecting the mandatory union fees to a mutually agreed upon charity – to avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral.

However, because Reed is refraining from full dues paying union membership based on his faith, UAW union bosses forced him to pay a $100 premium and continue to pay 22 percent more than the amount workers who object on non-religious grounds must pay. Both full UAW members and secular objectors are allowed to pay an amount less than full dues if they wish to cut off the use of their union dues for political activities.

(Read the full press release)

Labor union officials enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities created by legislatures and the courts, including the powers to shake down workers for forced dues payments and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against nonunion employees.

Sadly, union violence is protected by judicial decree under the federal Hobbs Act. Meanwhile, many states similarly restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults by union militants have gone unpunished.

A prime example today -- the Indianapolis Business Journal chronicled union violence directed at nonunion workers a Hilton construction site:

“Pickets…slashed 14 tires, cut a telephone line to a trailer and put glue in locks late last week…. The superintendent, Kim Lackey, also said the union-based picket line hurled racial and sexual slurs at the construction workers, many of whom were minorities and women.”

But despite this thuggery and property destruction, law enforcement was AWOL:

“...if violence occurred on the picket line, police should have made arrests.”

Union officials enjoy numerous exemptions and special privileges – and workers pay a high price which sometimes includes their lives. To read the full list of Big Labor’s Top Ten Special Privileges, click here.

Two individual nonunion groups of contractors are fighting compulsory unionism in Northern Ohio – that is, the right to even bid on a multi-million dollar construction contract at MetroHealth Hospital in Cleveland.

Crain's Cleveland Business (subscription required) reports:

The issue is important because the county in the next few years could let contracts for major construction projects including a $450 million convention center, a $140 million juvenile justice center, and a $200 million county administration building.

The fight is centered around a so-called "project labor agreement" (PLA) - a contract awarded by the government exclusively to unionized firms for public construction projects. Cuyahoga County officials and the MetroHealth System have used the PLA contract to exclude nonunion companies and employees from undertaking major construction projects within the county.

But when the two nonunion contractors groups filed a lawsuit asking the court for an injunction blocking the enforcement of the county’s PLA, the judge threw it out. The nonunion workers who want to work on the large hospital project have since filed an appeal, as the PLA requires contractors to grant union officials monopoly bargaining privileges over all workers, and likely requires employees to pay union dues or be fired.

When interviewed, a lawyer for the county made it clear that contractors will be subject to discrimination before being granted any public work in Cleveland. Crain’s Cleveland Business continues:

“Our position is it's up to the union and contractor to determine the terms," said David Lambert, an assistant prosecutor who heads the county prosecutor’s civil division.

Asked whether that stance forces nonunion contractors to become union shops, Mr. Lambert replied, “That’s life in the big city.”

This is just another reason why PLAs sacrifice employee free choice and forcibly impose unwanted union representation and compulsory dues on employees.