High Court Urged to Disallow Expansion of Union Monopoly Power to Undercut Workers’ Rights

National Right to Work Foundation files amicus brief in pending Supreme Court case that examines whether union bosses may waive employees’ statutory 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.

Employees Toss Out Unwanted Teamsters Union Bosses After Coercive Union Card-Check Campaign

Employees vote overwhelmingly against Teamster “representation,” utilizing newly-won National Right to Work Foundation legal precedent

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.”

Worker Advocate Praises Today’s Supreme Court Decision Overturning California Law Facilitating Coercive Union Organizing

U.S. Supreme Court agrees with National Right to Work Foundation’s arguments

Washington, DC (June 19, 2008) – Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement in response to today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Chamber v. Brown case in which the Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the ultimate outcome.

“In its Chamber v. Brown decision, the Supreme Court correctly reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold a California law which increases pressure on employees to join unwanted unions.

“The law was nothing more than an underhanded attempt by union officials to use public funds to corral California workers into their forced dues-paying ranks, and the High Court was correct to find that the law is pre-empted by federal labor law.

“Had the Ninth Circuit’s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members. Moreover, union organizers would have insisted that the state law entitles them to sweeping access to company facilities, employees’ private personal information, and the power to sidestep the less-abusive secret ballot election process for determining whether employees actually want a union.

“California officials were wrong to use the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies are having trouble persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to coercive tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues.”

An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit had reversed two of its earlier appellate rulings by a vote of 8-3, upholding a state law that would have effectively forced coercive union organizing upon employees of private companies who receive state funds.

### 

The decision can be downloaded here.

Bush Labor Board Authorizes Congressmen to Issue Union “Certifications” Intended to Deceive Employees

Labor Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ) conducted televised sham union “certification” at union hall just days before the real vote

Atlantic City, NJ (June 3, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a controversial and ground-breaking ruling that gives Congressmen and other public officials the green light to stage fake “certification” ceremonies that give the misimpression of official government recognition of a union during “card check” organizing drives.

The case dismissed objections to the conduct of Congressman Robert Andrews (D-NJ) and other government officials who participated in a televised sham union “certification” ceremony and public announcement that workers had selected a union immediately prior to a NLRB certification election last summer at the Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City.

The NLRB’s ruling raised the burden of proof requirements for arguing that conduct tainted a certification election. Earlier Board law did not require challengers to present incontrovertible evidence that many employees were actually aware of the objectionable conduct – only that it was likely that many were.

In addition to filing a brief supporting Trump Plaza’s request that the Board set aside the election, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed unfair labor practice charges and a House Ethics Committee complaint.

The Foundation’s unfair labor practice charge, which has been held in abeyance pending the appeal regarding certification, points out that Congressman Andrews led an extraordinary public event (which was televised and disseminated by other media) and aided UAW union officials in interfering with the free exercise of employee rights in choosing whether to unionize. “Acting under the false imprimatur of NLRB authority,” Andrews counted union authorization cards that were not necessarily intended by employees to be considered formal votes, and he signed and announced a “Certification of Majority Status” for unionization.

Andrews’s participation, given his position as Chairman of House of Representative’s subcommittee that oversees labor issues, made the union’s televised public announcement of its “certification” particularly problematic. Given his prominent role in the creation of federal labor policy, employees could think that the union had already been formally installed, or that the union’s election was a forgone conclusion. As the Foundation’s brief in the case pointed out, Andrew’s actions likely had the effects of suppressing turnout for the election, and inducing employees to vote for a “pre-certified” union, thus disenfranchising employees and destroying the “laboratory conditions” under which NLRB elections are required to take place.

“The Bush Labor Board has just opened the floodgates. Workers will be faced with union officials’ aggressive use of Members of Congress during coercive union organizing campaigns,” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason.

###

A copy of the NLRB's decision can be downloaded here.

The Foundation's amicus brief to the board can be downloaded here.

Employee Rights Group Opposes Federal Bureaucracy’s Devious Proposal to Legitimize Abusive Union Organizing Campaigns

Proposed NLRB rules contradict current statutes and would effectively “rent out” the federal agency to rubber stamp coercive unionization drives

Washington, DC (March 28, 2008) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed its opposition to a package of sweeping rule changes proposed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bureaucracy that would further undermine the right of American workers to choose freely whether to form a union. The Foundation filed its comments on behalf of itself and three employees victimized by coercive “card check” unionization drives in California, Ohio, and South Carolina, respectively.

Under the proposed rules, colluding union officials and company officials could trigger a quick-snap union certification election even when no employees have expressed any interest in unionization. The proposed changes would toss aside traditional NLRB certification safeguards while effectively barring employees from challenging any misconduct or unfair labor practices.

Additionally, an NLRB rubberstamp could be obtained despite strategic gerrymandering of bargaining units and even where no advance notice of the election is provided to employees.

The proposed NLRB rules also appear to contradict the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally shortening the statute of limitations for filing unfair labor practice charges from six months to seven days. The proposed rules would also unlawfully leave employee allegations of misconduct to the unappealable discretion of NLRB Regional Directors, cutting the Board and appellate courts out of the process.

“The NLRB’s devious proposal would ‘rent out’ federal oversight of representation elections to union officials and certain employers who have caved in to extortionate pressure campaigns intended to induce them to hand over their employees to forced unionism,” stated Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB should not further erode employees’ freedom to resist unwanted unionization, nor should it so crassly provide a veneer of legitimacy to coercive and often illegal union organizing tactics.”

The Foundation’s comments cite that the proposed changes would rapidly accelerate a trend of coercive “top down” union organizing drives. Such drives often include “corporate campaigns” where a non-union company is targeted with ugly PR onslaughts, trumped up lawsuits, and political pressure.

“In short, the proposed rules must be viewed in the context of union efforts to destroy both the full and open debate inherent in… the NLRA-established secret ballot election process, and replace them with “neutrality agreements,” forced employer silence, non-existent election campaigns, employees’ inability to object or organize a movement to oppose unionization, and union selection via either “card check” or rapid-fire consent elections,” wrote Foundation staff attorneys Glenn Taubman and Bill Messenger.

Worker Advocate Praises U.S. Supreme Court Review of Ninth Circuit Ruling Endorsing Coercive Union Organizing

**Springfield, VA (November 20, 2007)** – Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement in response to today’s granting of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-supported Chamber v. Brown appeal.

An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit had reversed two of its earlier appellate rulings by a vote of 8-3, upholding a state law that will effectively force coercive union organizing upon employees of private companies who receive state funds. Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court” brief) urging U.S. Supreme Court review.

“In a controversial decision with national implications, the activist Ninth Circuit in Chamber v. Brown upheld a California law which increases pressure on employees to join potentially unwanted unions.

“This special-interest state statute is pre-empted by federal labor law, which is supposed to protect employees from pressure to unionize by union officials and other entities. We’re thankful the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

“The practical effect is that employees of private employers wishing to accept funds from the state are denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Their employers could ultimately be blackballed from government contracts unless they clear the path for union organizers to recruit new forced-dues-paying union members. Moreover, union organizers will insist that the state law entitles them to sweeping access to company facilities, employees’ private personal information, and the power to sidestep the less-abusive secret ballot election process for determining whether employees actually want a union.

“California officials are using the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies seem to be having difficulties persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to coercive tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues.

“The National Right to Work Foundation denounces this rogue appellate ruling and applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to review it.”

Transit Union Slapped With Federal Labor Charges for Muscling Back into a Facility After Employees’ Revolt Forced it Out

**Batavia, IL (November 2, 2007)** – The bus company First Group, Inc. and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1028 have been hit with federal labor board charges for illegally bargaining over employees who the union does not even represent. First Group employee Russell Haasch filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) earlier this week with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys.

As Haasch details in his charges, ATU union officials have been negotiating a contract with First Group, despite the fact that Haasch and his coworkers had successfully ousted the union earlier this year. According to First Group’s website, on October 1 the UK-based transit company completed the purchase of Haasch’s employer, Laidlaw Transit.

In Spring 2007, Haasch collected signatures from an overwhelming majority of his co-workers and in June presented the petition to their employer Laidlaw Transit, which legally and properly ended its recognition of the ATU union as the monopoly bargaining agent for the approximately 160 employees. Only recently did Haasch and his co-workers realize that their new employer, First Group, was negotiating a contract with ATU officials, despite the fact that the employees had successfully shown that the union did not have their support.

According to the National Labor Relations Act, by bargaining over the contracts of employees that the union does not legally represent, the union and First Group are engaging in illegal “pre-recognition” bargaining. As part of their negotiations, the union is once again seeking a forced-dues clause in the contract that makes payment of union dues a job requirement. Indeed, union officials have been given access to First Group facilities and are now demanding that employees pay union dues or be fired.

“Union officials and First Group management are illegally attempting to force this unpopular union down employees’ throats,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “With the lack of respect these union officials have for the employees, it is not surprising that workers rejected the union last June.”

The unfair labor practice charges ask the NLRB to seek an injunction to immediately stop First Group from continuing to negotiate a contract with the rogue ATU union and to cease all demands for union dues. The NLRB Regional Director will now investigate the charges and decide whether to prosecute the charges and seek injunctive relief.

National Right to Work Secures New Rights for Employees to Protect Against Abusive Union “Card Check” Organizing

**Washington, D.C. (October 2, 2007)** – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted 3-2 to overturn its policy of denying employees any access to a secret ballot vote over unionization after a union is recognized pursuant to the controversial “card check” organizing process.

The long-awaited ruling came in two high-profile cases brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys for employees at two automotive suppliers (Dana and Metaldyne) who found themselves organized by the United Auto Workers (UAW) union. In the future, the federal agency will give employees notice that they have 45 days after the recognition to file a decertification petition to obtain an election to vote out the unwanted union.

However, in a bizarre move that punishes the very employees who brought these cases, the NLRB majority decreed that its ruling would only apply prospectively. As a result, the forcibly unionized Dana and Metaldyne employees – as well as employees of other employers who had similarly filed decertification petitions after card-check campaigns – will not be allowed to toss out the unions imposed upon them.

The NLRB’s decision prospectively impacts the effect of so-called “neutrality” agreements, contracts between a union and an employer under which the employer agrees not to oppose unionization of its workers. Under these coercive agreements, employers typically also grant union operatives sweeping access to their workplaces, home addresses, and employees' other personal information. These pacts also strip workers of the opportunity to a secret ballot election and often allow union officials to hold mandatory “captive audience” meetings to browbeat the employees to sign union cards that are counted as “votes” for unionization.

The NLRB majority pointed out, “card checks are less reliable because they lack secrecy and procedural safeguards… union card-solicitation campaigns have been accompanied by misinformation… workers sometimes sign union authorization cards…to get the person off their back.”

The NLRB ruling comes in the consolidated cases of employees at Dana Corporation in Upper Sandusky, Ohio, and Metaldyne in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, who filed decertification petitions (with 35 percent and more than 50 percent of employees signing, respectively) seeking elections to decide whether officials of the nation’s largest auto workers union truly enjoyed the support of a majority of employees and could lawfully act as their “exclusive representatives.” The employees filed these petitions after their employers had announced that they would recognize the union on the basis of signed cards. The NLRB Regional Directors dismissed the election petitions, and the employees appealed to the NLRB in Washington, D.C., in 2004.

“This is an encouraging step forward for employee freedom, but the Bush NLRB has been sitting on many other important employee rights cases for several years,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Meanwhile, there is no moral or legal justification for penalizing the very employees who brought these cases by barring them from throwing out these illegally imposed unions.”

Download the NLRB Decision

Court Permission Sought to Alert More Than 12,000 Workers that Union Organizers Illegally Obtained Personal DMV Records

**Philadelphia, Pa. (September 19, 2007)** – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today filed a motion in federal court seeking to inform more than an estimated 12,000 individuals that union organizers have surreptitiously violated their privacy rights under federal law.

The Foundation filed the motion to intervene in *Pichler v. UNITE* in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after the court ordered the union to pay damages because union organizers unlawfully used the license plate numbers of over 1,500 Cintas Corporation employees to access their personal information in official Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records. Union operatives conducted an additional 12,100 searches on individuals who may be employees of other non-union companies targeted by the union. Those individuals are unaware of this illegal invasion of their privacy.

The *Pichler* lawsuit, currently on appeal by union lawyers at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, revealed that UNITE union organizers violated employee rights under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) of 1994. That federal law bars anyone from using motor vehicle records to obtain individuals’ personal information with limited exceptions. The union must potentially pay $2,500 per violation if the District Court’s decision is affirmed.

Union organizers illegally obtained the home addresses of Cintas employees for the purpose of conducting “home visits” to pressure and browbeat those workers into signing union authorization cards. The union intended to use these cards to bypass the secret-ballot election process for determining whether the employees wanted to unionize.

The U.S. District Court determined that union operatives conducted surveillance of numerous parking lots used by workers, collected license plate numbers, and conducted more than 13,700 searches of driving records. Cintas employees were alarmed to learn of this invasion of their privacy and filed their successful class-action lawsuit against the notoriously abusive union.

The Foundation’s motion seeks to modify a protective order in the case, which paradoxically prevents any of these other 12,100 Americans from being notified about the violation of their rights. The Foundation is seeking the right to do a one-time mailing under court supervision to each citizen the union operatives targeted. Ultimately, those 12,100 victims could be entitled to over $30 million in liquidated damages from the UNITE union.

“Thousands of employees deserve to know that UNITE union organizers may have violated their privacy by rifling through their DMV records,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Citizens should not be prevented from learning that union operatives are secretly using their private personal information.”

Download the motion

Island View Casino Employees Seek Federal Injunction to Block Coercive “Card Check” Unionization Drive

**Gulfport, MS (August 14, 2007)** – Three employees of the Island View Casino have filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop union organizers from obtaining confidential information about Island View employees and from demanding other organizing assistance from Island View management in violation of federal labor law.

In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi with the help of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, the three employees, detail how Teamsters, International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) and UNITE-HERE union officials are attempting to violate the Labor Management Relations Act by demanding that Island View hand over “things of value” to union organizers. Among these, Teamsters, IUOE, and UNITE union organizers have demanded confidential records containing personal information about employees, sweeping physical access to Gulfside’s properties for organizing, and control over all communications Gulfside has with its employees concerning the unions.

The federal law provisions at issue are meant to prevent sweetheart deals between employers and unions which induce union officials to sell out the interests of the employees they are supposed to represent.

The unions’ demands are part of a “Memorandum of Agreement” that union officials signed with the management of the Grand Casino Gulfport. The remaining assets of the now-defunct Grand Casino were purchased by the Gulfside Casino Partnership in December 2005 after the Grand Casino was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

So-called “neutrality and card check” agreements give union organizers sweeping power to browbeat rank-and-file workers into union ranks. Armed with confidential personnel information, union organizers often make “house calls” where they can intimidate or harass employees into signing cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization. “Card checks” also deny employees the privacy and limited protections afforded workers during a National Labor Relations Board-run secret ballot election over whether to unionize.

In past National Right to Work Foundation-assisted cases, employees have reported being misled about the cards’ true purpose, and some employees have even had to threaten police action to get union organizers off their property. The Island View employees and their co-workers are particularly concerned about the prospect of home visits from union organizers, after hearing stories of intimidation during organizing drives at other area casinos.

“Union bosses are determined to force unionization on Island View employees from the top down, like it or not,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These employees believe that the union bosses are more concerned with bolstering union ranks than with representing rank-and-file employees.”

Mississippi is one of 22 Right to Work states in which union membership and dues payment is strictly voluntary. However, if union officials are granted monopoly bargaining power over Island View employees, the workers will no longer be free to negotiate individually over their own wages and working conditions.

Download the Federal Lawsuit