School Bus Drivers File Charges against AFSCME Union for Illegal Threats, Dues Collections

Lack of Right to Work law leads to ugly union abuse of workers

Indianapolis, IN (April 24, 2009) – With free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, three bus drivers have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against union bosses for an illegal scheme to bully nonmember employees into paying full union dues.

Barry Hickman, Connie Hickman, and Thomas Spencer II drive school buses for First Student, where they are forced to accept the “representation” of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3826. In March and April 2008, Barry and Connie Hickman sent two letters each to AFSCME Council 62, the regional body which handles the local’s objection policy, objecting to pay for non-bargaining costs they could not be required to financially support. Spencer sent a similar objection letter in May.

Because Indiana is not yet a Right to Work state, nonmembers may be fired from their jobs for refusal to pay compulsory fees to a union with which they want nothing to do. However, union officials may not lawfully compel nonmembers to pay for activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events.

AFSCME union bosses, however, did not acknowledge the objection letters and failed to provide the employees with a notification of their rights under the Foundation-won Beck v. Communication Workers of America. Under Beck, unions must also provide such employees with an audited breakdown of chargeable expenses.

In September, AFSCME union officials deducted full union dues from the paychecks of the Hickmans, Spencer, and other similarly situated employees, even though the employees never authorized dues deduction. Two months later, union bosses threatened that the employees would be fired by First Student if they did not join the union and sign dues deduction authorization cards.

In mid-January, AFSCME union brass finally provided the Hickmans with a notice of objection policy but informed them that they would need to send new objection letters by January 31, even though they had already each formally objected twice in the last year. Union officials never provided Spencer with such a notice at all.

In charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board, Foundation attorneys argue that AFSCME union chiefs violated their duty of fair representation under federal labor law by deducting full union dues without the employees’ consent, failing to provide Beck notices before deducting dues, and illegally threatening the employees for exercising their absolute right to refrain from formal union membership.

“Time and time again, union bosses trick, mislead, and threaten employees to pay union dues to fund their agenda,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Only a Right to Work law in Indiana will protect against these heavy-handed tactics.

10th Circuit Agrees With Right to Work Foundation: Utah Unions Have No Right to Payroll Deduction for Politics

But a more effective alternative would have been stopping government payroll deduction for all union dues

Salt Lake City, UT (April 22, 2009) – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit yesterday reversed itself and ruled to uphold a Utah statute prohibiting union officials from using payroll deduction to divert teachers’ and other government workers’ money into union electioneering.

“Utah has a legitimate interest in avoiding the reality or appearance of government entanglement with partisan politics” and Utah’s Voluntary Contributions Act “plainly serves the State’s interest in separating public employment from political activities,” the court held.

The National Right to Work Foundation joined in an amici brief with the Utah-based Sutherland Institute (and others) to defend the Utah statute which had previously been struck down. After initially siding with union attorneys who argued the law somehow violated the constitutional rights of the union, the Tenth Circuit put the case on hold pending the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving a similar Idaho statute.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys successfully argued in their briefs in Utah Education Association et al. v. Mark Shurtleff – just as they did at the U.S. Supreme Court in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association at al. – that unions have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct dues from workers’ paychecks.

“The recent Supreme Court's decision and now this Tenth Circuit ruling makes clear what should have been obvious: union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”

“But there was a much more effective way to address this problem. The Utah legislature should simply have banned all union payroll deductions, not just those for narrowly defined political activities,” continued Gleason. “Unfortunately, the definition of politics covered by such laws is so narrow that union bosses are essentially able to continue business as usual.”

Since Utah is a Right to Work state, employees have the right to refrain from union membership and cannot be lawfully compelled to pay any dues whatsoever to a union. Employees who wish to ensure none of their dues are spent to promote a union’s agenda can best do so by exercising their Right to Work.

Federal Labor Judge to Hold Hearing on Steelworker Union’s Illegal Scheme to Seize Workers’ Dues

USW union affiliates used complex opt-out requirements to prevent nonunion workers from stopping dues payments unrelated to collective bargaining

Morgantown, WV and Goshen, IN (March 17, 2009) – In response to unfair labor practice charges filed by National Right to Work attorneys, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint that seeks nationwide remedies against steelworker union officials for violating employees’ rights.

Nonunion employees of Chemtura Corporation in Morgantown, West Virginia and Cequent Towing Products in Goshen, Indiana are currently forced by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW) officials to annually opt-out of paying dues unrelated to workplace bargaining. Because neither Indiana nor West Virginia has passed a Right to Work law making union dues fully voluntary, nonunion workers are forced to fund union workplace negotiations. However, under Supreme Court precedents secured by National Right to Work attorneys, workers cannot be forced to pay dues for union activities unrelated to bargaining.

After reviewing the union’s annual objector policy, the NLRB General Counsel agreed with Foundation attorneys’ arguments and issued a nationwide complaint to end the union’s onerous opt-out requirements. The case will now be heard by an administrative law judge.

Under federal labor law, union bosses cannot arbitrarily discriminate against nonunion employees as a condition of maintaining their government-granted monopoly bargaining privileges. At Chemtura and Cequent Towing, nonunion workers are forced to annually repeat their objection to union dues unrelated to workplace bargaining, whereas union members are not required to annually renew their union membership.

The NLRB General Counsel is now seeking a remedy that requires USW bosses to rescind any and all annual opt-out requirements and post public notices informing workers across the country of their right to permanently withdraw financial support from union activities unrelated to collective bargaining

“This Byzantine opt-out process is little more than a scheme to ensure more unwilling workers pay tribute to USW bosses,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union officials are only interested in making nonunion workers jump through bureaucratic hoops, particularly when forced-dues dollars are involved. Until workers in West Virginia and Indiana have the protection of a Right to Work law that makes union membership and dues payment truly voluntary, these illegal schemes will persist.”

Worker Advocate Urges Gov. Sonny Perdue to Enforce Georgia’s Longstanding Right to Work Law

Attorney General Thurbert Baker Ignores Georgians’ Pleas, Stands Idly by While Union Bosses Force Workers to Pay Union Dues

Atlanta, GA (March 12, 2009) – National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix called upon Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue to defend Georgia’s cherished Right to Work law that is in danger of becoming a dead letter as a result of a sloppy Georgia appellate court ruling and an Attorney General who has so far refused to defend the law.

“On behalf of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the union-abused Georgia employees it is assisting, I urge you to use the power granted to you by the laws of the State of Georgia to ensure that Georgia’s longstanding and popular Right to Work law is enforced,” Mix urged Governor Perdue.

“Moreover, in this time of economic crisis, the last thing workers in Georgia should have to worry about is being forced to pay money to self-interested union bosses as a condition of getting or keeping their jobs. And the last thing Georgia needs is for union bosses to flex their muscles and scare away new job opportunities,” continued Mix in the letter.

Attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation are providing free legal aid to eleven dockworkers at the port of Savannah who are forced to pay a significant portion of their paychecks to Longshoremen union bosses as a condition of obtaining employment. Longshoremen Local 1414 union bosses have demanded that the eleven nonmember employees pay so-called “fees” – as much as $1.33 per hour worked – just for obtaining jobs through a union-controlled hiring hall.

But Georgia’s longstanding and popular Right to Work law unambiguously states that “[n]o individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment to pay any fee, assessment, or other sum of money whatsoever to a labor organization.”

Nonetheless, in late January, the Georgia Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court ruling, took the surprising and arbitrary ruling that the Georgia Right to Work law does not apply to a hiring hall scenario, and federal labor law somehow does not permit states to prohibit unions from forcing workers to pay monies to an exclusive union hiring hall. Foundation attorneys have pointed out that the Peachtree State’s Right to Work law unambiguously prohibits any mandate on employees to pay a union for the privilege to work, and state Right to Work laws cannot be preempted by federal law in this regard.

The case, Perry v. International Longshoremen Association 1414, is currently on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys asked Attorney General Thurbert Baker to intervene to defend the Right to Work law before the Georgia Supreme Court and to criminally enforce the Right to Work law at the port of Savannah (violations of the Right to Work law are misdemeanor offenses under Georgia law). Thousands of Georgians have also written to the attorney general, but he has taken no action to defend the law.

The download the full text of the letter, click here.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees With Right to Work Foundation: Unions Have No Right to Payroll Deduction

More effective alternative would have been stopping government payroll deduction for all union dues

Washington, DC (February 24, 2009) – The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association that states may prohibit union officials from using payroll deduction to divert government workers’ money into union coffers.

In overturning a Ninth Circuit appeals court decision and upholding an Idaho law banning payroll deduction for union political dues from state and local government employees, the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The lower court had blocked the state from requiring local government bodies to comply with the state law.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys – joining with the Sutherland Institute, Utah Taxpayers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business – successfully argued in their amicus brief (pdf) that unions, in fact, have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct dues from workers’ paychecks.

“The Supreme Court's decision makes clear what should be obvious, that union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”

“But there was a much more effective way to address this problem. The Idaho legislature should simply have banned all union payroll deductions, not just those for narrowly defined political activities,” continued Gleason. “Unfortunately, the definition of politics covered by such laws is so narrow that union bosses are essentially able to continue business as usual.”

The majority opinion also relied on the unanimous Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Davenport v. WEA victory. In Davenport, Foundation attorneys represented a group of nonunion Washington State teachers.

The three dissenting Justices in Ysursa were troubled by the appearance that the Idaho law targeted only union political speech rather than having a broader objective. Legal experts agree that laws which ban payroll deduction across the board – rather than just monies for certain political speech – would therefore be less vulnerable to legal attack and would better serve the public policy purposes underpinning such laws.

Public Employee Union Officials Sued for Forcing Employees to Stay in Union Ranks

Union bosses’ illegal scheme violates employees’ constitutional rights

Harrisburg, PA (February 9, 2009) – Three Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) employees filed a federal suit challenging two Pennsylvania laws that unconstitutionally prohibit workers from leaving union ranks.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, providing CATA employees Brenda Hall, Karen Ilgen, and Martha Hoy with free legal aid, filed the suit today in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Union officials rebuffed the employees’ repeated requests to resign from formal union membership in the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) local affiliate 1203B and District Council 83 unions.

Local 1203B and District Council 83 union officials are using the Pennsylvania Public Employee Forced Unionism Law and the Public Employee Relations Act as justification to compel the employees into continuing formal union membership and require the CATA illegally to extract full union dues from the employees.

As well as challenging the state law, the employees are suing for their right to retroactively object to formal union membership and obtain refunds. The employees are backed by decades of case law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

As a result of the National Right to Work Foundation’s precedent-setting case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public employees can be forced to pay some union dues, but cannot be compelled to pay for politics and other union dues beyond the cost of collective bargaining. Abood thus also established that full union membership cannot constitutionally be required as a condition of employment. The Foundation’s Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson Supreme Court victory requires union officials to provide employees with an independently-audited financial breakdown of all forced-dues union expenditures. Local 1203B or District 83 union officials did not provide such a breakdown.

“These union bosses know full well what the law requires of them, but they have deliberately kept rank-and-file workers in the dark to keep the forced-dues gravy train going,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“Pennsylvania needs a Right to Work law making union membership and dues payment completely voluntary,” added Gleason.

Teamsters Union Bosses Renege on Legal Settlement, Illegally Force Nonunion Employee to Pay Excessive Dues

Union bosses threaten firing of nonunion worker objecting to paying for union ideological activities

Butte, MT (February 5, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed a new round of unfair labor practice charges for Michael Weller, a union-abused employee of Hanson Trucking and Resin Haulers, Inc.

As detailed in the charges, Teamsters union officials hindered Weller from opting out of payments for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, failed to provide him with a federally-mandated disclosure of union expenditures, and threatened to get him fired for failing to pay the union’s onerous fees.

Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonunion employees cannot be forced to pay for union activities unrelated to workplace negotiation. Foundation attorneys originally filed charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Michael Weller after International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 2 union officials threatened him with termination for failing to pay union dues unrelated to collective bargaining. The NLRB announced it would prosecute, but Weller withdrew his unfair labor practice charges after Teamsters officials agreed to stop threatening him and to refund all illegally-seized forced dues.

Unfortunately, Teamsters officials promptly reneged on their agreement, failing to provide adequate disclosure of union financial expenditures and imposing an onerous annual opt-out requirement on any worker who attempts to withhold payments for activities unrelated to workplace negotiations. The union bosses’ extensive and often-contradictory opt-out processes – as well as their failure to provide an adequate breakdown of what workers’ dues are actually paying for – made it nearly impossible for Weller to refrain from paying for union activities outside the workplace, as is his right.

Moreover, Teamsters bosses again threatened Weller with termination if he refused to comply with their excessive financial demands. Under protest, Weller paid the contested fees to Local 2 to keep his job.

“Teamsters bosses are frequently repeat offenders, and this incident demonstrates a profound disrespect for the rule of law and employee rights,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to protect Montana’s workers is to ensure union membership and dues payments are completely voluntary through passage of a Right to Work law. Anything less leaves the door open to continued abuse of Montana’s employees.”

State Court Refuses to Enforce Georgia’s Popular Right to Work Law

Nonmember employees forced to pay fees to Longshoreman union bosses vow appeal to state supreme court

Atlanta, GA (February 4, 2009) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys announced they will appeal last week’s stunning ruling by the Court of Appeals of Georgia that despite Georgia’s longstanding and popular Right to Work law, a local union may force nonmembers to pay for the privilege to work.

Georgia is one of 22 states with Right to Work protections which ensure that no worker can be forced to join or pay dues to a union in order to get or keep a job. The state law unambiguously states that “[n]o individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment to pay any fee, assessment, or other sum of money whatsoever to a labor organization.”

Nonetheless, the Georgia Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court ruling, held that the International Longshoreman Association Local 1414 union may legally force nonmembers to pay a referral fee to the union on jobs obtained at a union hiring hall between June 2005 and September 2006. The controversial contract between the union and the Georgia Stevedores Association requires that all employees be hired through the union hiring hall. The union forces all nonmembers to pay referral fees as a condition of employment.

Attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation are providing free legal aid to eleven nonmember employees who perform longshoremen work at the port of Savannah. Local 1414 union bosses have demanded the employees turn over approximately $1.33 each per hour worked.

The ruling took a position that the Georgia Right to Work law does not apply to a hiring hall scenario, and federal labor law does not permit states to prohibit unions from forcing workers to pay monies to an exclusive union hiring hall. However, Foundation attorneys argue that the Right to Work law unambiguously prohibits any mandate on employees to pay a union for the privilege to work, and state Right to Work laws cannot be preempted by federal law in this regard.

“Despite the clarity of Georgia’s popular Right to Work law, this court has concluded that the Right to Work law does not mean what it says,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We are confident this ruling will be overturned.”

“This case shows you that even in Right to Work states, union tyrants will trick, lie, and steal their way into workers’ wallets,” continued Gleason.

Foundation attorneys are preparing a petition for certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court.

Blacklisting Rule: Obama Makes First Major Payback to Big Labor

Labor Secretary handed sweeping new power to blacklist union targets, while workers remain in the dark about right to refrain from union membership

Washington, DC (January 30, 2009) – President Barack Obama issued two decrees today intended to corral millions more American workers into forced unionism while blacklisting non-union employees from working on taxpayer funded projects.

“After spending more than a billion dollars in forced union dues to get Obama elected, the union bosses have received their first major payoff – two executive orders intended to grease the rails for coercive union organizing, give the Secretary of Labor the power to blacklist union-targeted employers and employees, and keep workers in the dark about their rights to refrain from union membership,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Obama’s two executive orders serve one basic goal: to seize more forced dues revenue to fund Big Labor’s political agenda.”

Obama repealed Executive Order 13201 signed by President George W. Bush which had helped ensure that employees of federal contractors were informed of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck (1988). Won by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, Beck held that private-sector employees may be compelled to pay certain union dues, but may not be compelled to pay any dues or fees earmarked for union politics, lobbying, and other non-bargaining activities.

President Obama included the revocation of Beck rights notices in an executive order advertising, and essentially endorsing, the formation of unions under a theory (long discredited by academic research) that forcing employees into union collectives will somehow prevent “substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce.”

The executive order also purports to give the Secretary of Labor the authority to determine what will be required by the notice, the authority to investigate violations, to hold hearings, and the power to punish violators of all federal labor laws mentioned in the notice. In effect, the Secretary of Labor would become an additional judge, jury, and executioner of federal labor laws with respect to federal contractors. Most importantly, the Secretary would determine whether a contractor would be fired by the federal government (apparently where the contractor has not even been found to have violated any laws by the law enforcement body of jurisdiction). Even President Bill Clinton stopped short of attempting to give the Secretary of Labor a "blacklisting" power, which is almost certainly unlawful.

Another new order effectively bars federal contractors from communicating truthful information about unionization to their employees.

“It’s disgusting to see this blatant payoff to Big Labor only two weeks into Obama’s term,” continued Mix. “Today, President Obama has sent an ominous message to the 93 percent of private sector workers in America who, for whatever reasons, have chosen not to unionize: You’re not welcome here.”

--

The executive orders can be read here and here. 

U.S. Supreme Court Misses Opportunity to Expand Protections for Employees Forced to Pay Union Dues

Today’s ruling highlights the need for Right to Work laws, which end forced unionism

Washington, DC (January 21, 2009) -- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Maine state employees can be compelled under penalty of losing their jobs to pay into an international union’s litigation slush fund – even where all the litigation expenditures are made outside of their own bargaining unit.

In doing so, the High Court affirmed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirming a loose standard of protection under the U.S. Constitution for employees forced to pay dues as a condition of employment.

“America’s workers were not well served by this ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court missed an obvious opportunity to apply explicitly the same ‘strict scrutiny’ standard that applies under the First Amendment to other content-based government restrictions on free speech,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which provided free legal aid to the employees asserting their rights.

“Forced unionism is an outrageous situation. It results from actions by politicians to pay back the union bosses who got them elected by handing them the forced union dues of millions of employees in America.”

The employee petitioners in Daniel Locke et al. v. Edward Karass et al., asked the U.S. Supreme Court to provide much-needed clarity to the criteria it had established previously that determine what union activities employees can be lawfully forced to fund.

Unions spend billions of dollars each year on activities such as politics, organizing, litigation, lobbying, and a wide range of other ideological and non-bargaining activities. Yet union officials often claim that non-union members must foot the bill for these activities or be fired from their jobs.

The High Court’s ruling dealt with a special situation where, according to lower courts, employees who pay into a national litigation pooling arrangement could theoretically at some time benefit from litigation expenditures for their own bargaining unit.

“Because of the narrowness of the issue involved, we are optimistic that collateral damage to employee rights will be minimized,” continued Mix. “More fundamentally, however, this decision also highlights the need for state Right to Work laws which prevent union officials from extracting any compulsory dues from individual employees as a condition of employment.”

Locke is the 14th case brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.