Teachers File FEC Complaint against NEA for Illegal PAC Money Laundering Scheme

Sworn testimony indicates union officials misled educators, diverted union treasury funds into political committee

Washington, DC (January 13, 2009) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced today it will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking it to investigate charges made by two Alabama educators who discovered a union scheme to divert their money into the National Education Association’s (NEA) political action committee (PAC).

Claire Waites, the chair of the science department, and Dr. Jeanne Fox, an assistant principal, both work at Daphne Middle School in Bay Minette, Alabama. Waites and Fox are both members of the Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA), Alabama Education Association (AEA), and NEA teacher unions.

In July 2008, Waites and Fox attended the NEA’s annual convention in Washington, DC, as delegates of the BCEA. By telephone, BCEA union president Saadia Hunter informed Waites and Fox that contributions to a “children’s fund” in their names were made from money included in their expense reimbursements for their trip to the convention.

Although Hunter told Waites that these contributions were not political in nature, they actually went to the NEA’s PAC, the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education.

Later, Hunter admitted that the money would be contributed to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Sworn statements by Waites and Fox indicate that the AEA union boss also admitted that the PAC contributions were paid with BCEA members’ dues. However, it is illegal for unions to contribute to political candidates using “dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization.”

Teacher union officials also violated federal law by encouraging and soliciting contributions under false pretenses and without informing Waites or Fox of their right to refuse to contribute without any reprisal. Federal law also forbids campaign contributions made in the name of another person.

“This union money laundering scheme makes a mockery of federal election law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which has joined Waites and Fox as a complainant. “We suspect this scheme was widely used by the NEA union hierarchy and could involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. We urge the FEC to take decisive action.”

Air Traffic Controller Union Officials Forced to Respect Rights of Nonunion Employees

Under federal settlement, union officials must inform nonmember employees of their right to retroactively object to forced union dues and obtain refunds

Harrisburg, PA (December 29, 2008) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four air traffic controllers have forced National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) union officials to halt their illegal forced union dues extraction methods.

The settlement is a result of unfair labor practice charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by Foundation attorneys for the four controllers in September 2008. The unfair labor practice charges challenged the union officials’ confiscatory scheme of forcing nonmember employees to support financially union activities unrelated to collective bargaining, as well as their refusal to provide a legally required independent financial audit of forced-dues union expenditures. The charges also challenged the union hierarchy’s policy that forced nonunion employees to object annually to full, forced-dues paying union membership.

Finalized today, the settlement requires union officials to post public notices informing affected controllers of their right to refrain from formal, full dues-paying membership. The notice also rescinds the union’s onerous annual objection policy – a policy that requires nonunion members annually to inform union officials of their decision not to pay for union activities unrelated to collective bargaining – and commits union officials to providing employees with an audited financial breakdown of all organizational expenditures. The union hierarchy has also agreed to allow nonunion workers to challenge retroactively dues payments unrelated to workplace representation.

Under the Foundation-won precedent established in the Supreme Court case Communications Workers v. Beck, all private sector employees are entitled to refrain from formal, full dues-paying union membership. The Foundation’s Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson Supreme Court victory also requires unions to provide employees with an independently-audited financial breakdown of all forced-dues union expenditures. The financial breakdown originally provided by NATCA officials was vague and did not include an independent audit.

“NATCA union officials kept the rank-and-file in the dark to keep the union’s forced dues gravy train going.” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Although we applaud the NLRB for reaching an equitable settlement, this type of abuse will remain all too common until Pennsylvania enacts a Right to Work law. Making union membership and dues payment completely voluntary is the only way to make union officials accountable.”

The NATCA union is an affiliate of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Airport sites where NATCA officials enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges over private sector air traffic controllers include Bridgeport, Connecticut; Alton, Illinois; Marion, Illinois; Barnes, Massachusetts; Hyannis, Massachusetts; Worchester, Massachusetts; Middle River, Maryland; Lebanon Tower, New Hampshire; Ithaca, New York; Stewart, New York; Latrobe, Pennsylvania; Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Mosinee, Wisconsin.

Washington State Appeals Court Upholds Teachers’ Right to Restitution for Dues Illegally Spent By WEA Union Officials

After securing U.S. Supreme Court victory, National Right to Work attorneys pick up the pieces of an otherwise impotent campaign finance regulation

Seattle, WA (December 17, 2008) — A recent decision by a Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 2, has ruled union officials can be held liable for illegally spending teachers’ forced union dues under a now-effectively defunct campaign finance regulation.

The ruling means that thousands of Washington State teachers may receive restitution for the amount Washington Education Association (WEA) union officials illegally docked their paychecks to pay for union political expenditures. The ineffective campaign finance law at issue had been adopted in 1992 and has since been voided by the Washington State Legislature.

The teachers are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. In 2007, Foundation attorneys successfully brought the Davenport v. WEA case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned an earlier Washington State Supreme Court decision using the campaign finance law to undermine the First Amendment. The state appeals court ruled Friday on a number of issues, including upholding the teachers’ tort claim for restitution and approving the certification of thousands of employees as a class.

Before it was gutted by amendment in 2007, the Washington law had required union officials to obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending their mandatory union dues on a small fraction of what the union actually spends on politics. According to an amicus brief filed by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the amount of political expenditures actually covered by the law was “miniscule… less than one quarter of one percent of the WEA’s total expenditures.” However, in striking down the law, the state Supreme Court had erroneously found a constitutional “right” for union officials to spend the money of non-union employees who are compelled to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

“Ineffective ‘paycheck protection’ campaign finance laws such as this have unfortunately opened a Pandora’s Box, creating an opportunity for activist courts to award new privileges to union officials and even to jeopardize state Right to Work laws,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While the underlying law was deeply flawed, the National Right to Work Foundation had a duty to limit the broader collateral damage done to employees’ rights by the state court’s response and to fight for the return of dues illegally seized under the now totally ineffective law.”

“Ultimately, Right to Work laws are the only way to protect workers from the misuse of their funds. By making membership and the payment of dues entirely voluntary, Right to Work laws allow employees to prevent the theft in the first place,” stated Gleason.

Worker Advocate: How Dare You Threaten National Right to Work and Its Supporters on National TV, Mr. Gettelfinger!

Angry auto union boss blames voluntary unionism group for the auto industry's problems, wants a list of the group's financial backers

Washington, DC (December 12, 2008) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement today in response to United Auto Workers (UAW) union president Ron Gettelfinger's angry lashing out on national television at the legal foundation's efforts to defend workers from forced unionism abuse:

"How dare you blame the current debacle in the automotive business on efforts to give workers the right to join or not join a union. These problems have been caused by the forced unionism stranglehold you currently enjoy.

"Make no mistake; you will never get your hands on the list of the National Right to Work Foundation's contributors. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of generous Americans have helped our organization provide free legal aid to the employee victims of your forced unionism hierarchy. We will NEVER allow these folks to be put into harm's way by making their identities known to your goons."

Ron Gettelfinger held a press conference aired today on various television networks in which he implied the union hierarchy's problems result from external factors, rather than forced unionism that has brought the Big Three to its knees. "We've [sic] also up against National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation who we don't even know who they are, because we can't find out who their contributors are," he announced.

Gettelfinger was referencing a 13-year legal battle by the UAW and 12 other international unions intended to force the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to reveal the names and addresses of its contributors. During the litigation, union lawyers finally admitted they wanted to send the contributor list to local union chiefs all over the country. They wanted to make “discreet inquiries” about the contributors in their areas.

Ultimately this largest multi-union lawsuit in history ended in a loss for union lawyers, but not after lower courts had nearly thrown then-Foundation president Reed Larson in jail twice for defiance of court orders demanding release of the contributor list.

The Foundation’s support comes from all kinds of people -- union members, nonunion employees, small business owners, charitable foundations and others. Many of them would be subjected to vicious retaliation if the union bosses could just learn their identities. Blacklisting, beatings, bombings, and arson are just a few of the tactics union “enforcers” use against those who oppose them.

United Steelworkers Face Unfair Labor Practice Charges for Illegal Dues Objection Procedure

USW’s rule forces nonmembers to renew objection to forced dues each year

Morgantown, WV (November 17, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Steelworkers national union for two Morgantown workers for its illegal scheme to coerce them to pay full union dues.

Chemtura Corporation employs approximately 80 workers at its Morgantown factory who are “represented” by the USW. Because West Virginia is not a Right to Work state, nonmembers are forced to pay certain compulsory fees to the union, but only for activities which union bosses can prove are related to collective bargaining. Previous Foundation-won litigation has established that workers have the right to refuse formal union membership and that union officials may not charge nonmembers for activities like political activism, organizing, and member-only events.

The USW forces David Yost, Ronald Echegary, and other similarly situated Chemtura employees to renew their objections to payment of full union dues in a 30-day window period each year. Nonmembers who do not annually renew their previous objections are suddenly assumed to be “non-objectors” and against their will and without their consent are compelled to pay full union dues or lose their jobs.

In contrast, union officials do not need to get new consents each year from union members, re-establishing that they want to remain members and continue to pay dues through payroll deduction. As the charges explain, the USW’s policy is discriminatory and “solely designed to burden objecting nonmembers.”

With its arbitrary “Nonmember Objection Procedure,” the USW has violated its duty to represent fairly nonmembers in good faith. Moreover, federal labor law does not grant certified unions the authority to convert nonmembers into “non-objectors” without their consent.

In June, Yost sent a letter to USW union bosses asserting his procedural rights under Communication Workers of America v. Beck and related cases. The Supreme Court has held that unions must provide nonmembers a statement breaking down the union’s expenditures, verified by an independent auditor, and the opportunity to challenge the basis of the fee. In his letter, Yost declared his intent to file unfair labor practice charges if the union did not consider his objection permanent and continuing. Echegary sent a similar letter in August, before his objection was to expire. In both instances, a USW lawyer replied that the employee would need to re-object each year.

“It is unbelievable that United Steelworkers union bosses expect nonmembers to follow these arbitrary and illegal union procedures,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

SEIU Union Hit with FEC Complaint for Illegal Political Fundraising Scheme

National union imposes PAC fundraising quota on union affiliates and workers, fines those that do not comply

Washington, DC (October 23, 2008) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission asking it to investigate a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its convention this summer.

The union and its officers appear to 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. On June 3, delegates to the SEIU convention approved Constitutional Amendment #317 in time to take effect for this year’s federal elections.

The policy imposes on each SEIU local an “annual SEIU COPE fundraising obligation.” SEIU COPE is the SEIU’s federal PAC. If a local fails to meet this requirement, the SEIU imposes heavy fines. However, federal election law forbids unions from “utilizing money…secured by…financial reprisals… or the threat of … financial reprisal” to fund a PAC.

Union officials have injected enormous sums of money this election season into electing favored candidates. The FEC lists SEIU COPE as the top labor union PAC with over $23 million in receipts for 2005-2006, and SEIU union bosses expect the new requirement to funnel at least $9 million into SEIU COPE.

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.

Last year, the FEC levied record fines – though still quite minimal compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars at issue in the case – against Americans Coming Together, an SEIU-backed “527” group following a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Foundation.

“The SEIU cannot be trusted with its government-backed forced-dues privilege, and its scheme will corrupt the election process,” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason. “The FEC must act quickly.”

The Foundation joined with Karen Glass, a school district employee in Wisconsin who is forced to pay dues to SEIU Local 150 and its national affiliate, and Regent University School of Law student Michael Casaretto, who has extensively researched the SEIU scheme.

Teamsters Local Hit with Unfair Labor Practice Charges for Illegal Forced Dues Demands

Union Officials Reneged on Settlement Agreement, Forced Nonunion Employees to Object Annually to Paying Union Dues

Salisbury, Maryland (October 16, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have filed unfair labor practice charges against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters/Graphic Communications Conference District Council 9 union for compelling nonmember employees to annually object to the payment of union dues unrelated to collective bargaining.

Four days after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the union agreed to a settlement that eliminated the Teamsters’ annual objector policy, Teamsters officials issued a letter to nonunion Standard Register employees in Salisbury, Maryland indicating they would still have to annually opt-out of and object to paying certain union fees each year.

District Council 9/Graphic Communications Conference union officials are the monopoly bargaining agents for companies across the Mid-Atlantic region. The Foundation’s unfair labor practice charges were filed on behalf of ten workers in Maryland and seven in Pennsylvania, many of whom fear that the union will reverse or ignore its earlier promise to end the annual objection policy.

Nonunion employees can be forced to pay union dues for workplace representation as a condition of employment, but under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck they cannot be legally required to pay for union activities unrelated to collective bargaining. As a result of previous Foundation unfair labor practice charges, the NLRB’s settlement eliminated a requirement forcing nonmember employees to annually renew their objections to excessive union dues. Despite this settlement agreement, Salisbury-area union officials maintained an annual objection policy designed to make it difficult for employees to exercise their Beck rights.

Although the NLRB issued its decision as a result of an unfair labor practice charge in Philadelphia, the settlement applied to the entire local. In that settlement, union officials agreed to remove their annual objector policy, as well as refund several nonmember employees for payments unrelated to collective bargaining.

“This is a scoff law union that has developed a disturbing reputation for pushing nonunion workers around,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The incident demonstrates the fundamental injustice of forced unionism. If union bosses were stripped of their special powers to force employees into unions and their forced dues ranks, this type of abuse couldn’t happen.”

Federal Government to Prosecute UNITE HERE! Local for Illegal Union Dues Seizures

Hotel union officials violated federal labor law by failing to disclose union expenditures and forcing nonunion workers to pay for activities unrelated to collective bargaining

Honolulu, Hawaii (October 6, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has decided to prosecute the UNITE HERE! Local 5 union in response to charges filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for two hotel industry workers.

Brenda Lee Orr, a nonunion employee of Turtle Bay Resort, alleges that union officials compelled her to pay dues for national organizing activities and a strike expense fund as a condition of employment. Grant Suzuki, a nonunion employee of Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resort and Spa, also alleges that UNITE HERE! Local 5 forced him to pay dues for national organizing and that union officials refused to provide him with a financial breakdown of union expenditures mandated by federal law. Government prosecutors determined that the union’s conduct violated employees’ rights, and will try the case before an administrative law judge.

Union officials can force nonmember employees to fund certain activities, but the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that union officials may not charge nonunion workers for activities unrelated to collective bargaining. The Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson also requires union officials to provide nonmember employees with an audited financial breakdown of union expenditures.

Although both employees refused formal union membership, UNITE HERE! bosses compelled Orr and Suzuki to fund organizing activities far removed from their places of employment. Union officials also forced Orr to pay into a general strike fund intended to support strikes across the country.

When Suzuki requested a financial breakdown of union expenditures to determine what mandatory fees he owed, union officials violated federal labor law by refusing to comply.

“Workers shouldn’t have to navigate a complex web of union rules and federal regulations to opt out of funding union activities,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The ultimate solution is for Hawaii to adopt a Right to Work law ensuring union membership and dues payment are completely voluntary.”

Supreme Court Case May Provide More Employee Protections Against Forced Union Dues

High Court will determine whether union officials may charge nonmembers for lawsuits unrelated to bargaining unit

Washington, DC (October 3, 2008) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court case Locke v. Karass scheduled for argument on Monday, October 6.

“In previous cases argued by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, the Supreme Court has thus far ruled that union officials may force employees to pay union dues or be fired from their jobs. But they may not legally charge nonmembers for any activities beyond what union bosses can prove is spent on collective bargaining and contract administration.

“In their unquenchable thirst for more forced union dues, union bosses have developed a number of creative ways to stick nonmembers with the bill for union activism.

“The Supreme Court in Locke will directly address the question of whether non-union employees can be forced to pay for costly union lawsuits that do not concern their own place of employment. The answer should be ‘no’ based on existing Supreme Court precedent. Litigation is expressive activity, and forcing unwilling individuals to fund it violates their First Amendment rights. And lawsuits are often used to grease the rails for union organizing and ultimately more forced dues.

“Millions of workers laboring under forced unionism in America may be affected by the Court’s decision. While we are optimistic the Court will rule in our favor, the real remedy for the misuse of compulsory union dues is the elimination of Big Labor’s government-enabled special privileges that cause the problem in the first place. No worker should be forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union.”

Foundation attorneys filed the Locke case for Daniel Locke and 19 other Maine State employees in 2005 after the state legislature and governor repaid campaign debts by imposing a forced union dues requirement on the state government workforce. The employees’ lawsuit successfully forced Maine State Employee Association union officials to abandon their efforts to force nonmembers to subsidize their nationwide organizing efforts and reduce their forced dues demands of nonmembers, but the employees lost on the litigation funding question at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Federal Court Halts Scheme by Teamsters Union Bosses to Illegally Collect Forced Dues

Union officials failed to provide Pennsylvania Turnpike employees an adequate breakdown of expenditures

Pittsburgh, PA (September 26, 2008) – The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of seven Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) employees against the Teamsters union and PTC for seizing forced union dues in violation of the employees’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

With free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, the seven Turnpike workers filed a federal lawsuit last year against Teamsters Local 250, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and the PTC. Local 250 is the certified monopoly bargaining agent of Turnpike employees – every employee, like it or not, is forced to accept union representation and is required to pay dues or fees to the union to keep his or her job.

In the Foundation-won Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously established due process safeguards to ensure that employees are not compelled to subsidize union activities beyond what union officials can prove is spent on collective bargaining. Union expenditures such as organizing and political activism cannot be legally charged to workers who exercise their right to refrain from union membership. Before collecting an “agency fee” from a nonmember employee, a union must provide an adequate explanation for the basis of the fee, verified by an independent auditor, and an opportunity for the worker to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial third party.

In its decision released on Thursday, the District Court found that Local 250 failed to provide an adequate basis for the forced union fee seized from the seven workers, from whom the PTC seized more than 92 percent of the dues formal union members paid. The court found that the local’s “procedures for chargeability audits are faulty and incomplete.” Specifically, Local 250 failed to break down the portion of the fees which went to the local’s national affiliates.

Particularly troubling are the court’s findings that the “independent auditor” relied solely on a personal conversation with a Local 250 union boss, “word of mouth” from IBT chiefs, and a quick look at the local’s year end balance sheets to verify the chargeability of the union’s expenses. Local union officials also failed to even obtain an audit of its expenses one year.

The court awarded nominal damages, restitution of the nonchargeable portions of the agency fees seized after the employees resigned in writing (plus interest), and attorneys’ fees. It will hold an evidentiary to determine the amount of the restitution. At the hearing, the court will also consider whether six of the employees may be entitled to restitution for an earlier period because union bosses failed to provide them adequate Hudson notices after they orally expressed their desire to resign from the union.

“Unfortunately, Pennsylvania does not have a Right to Work law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In the absence of such a protection, union bosses will continue to try to extract as much dues money as possible from dissenting workers.”