Charlotte, NC (January 31, 2006) – A local autoworker today filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Auto Workers (UAW) union and Daimler-Chrysler subsidiary Freightliner LLC after she suffered retaliation for questioning a pattern of special treatment given to union officials. The unfair labor practice charges come on the heels of a class-action federal racketeering complaint filed by employees in U.S. District Court last week seeking significant damages after Freightliner and UAW union officials had already been found to be in illegal collusion by federal labor board investigators. Kristi Jones, a Freightliner employee at the company’s Gastonia facility, sought free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to file today’s charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after she was suspended, demoted, and stripped of her leadership position. Union and company officials retaliated against Jones in response to an email she sent in December 2005 that simply questioned whether a new work rule applied to UAW union officials, as well as nonunion workers. The new work rule specified that workers on the facility floor must wear safety glasses with clear lenses. Jones sought a clarification of how the new rule would be enforced because of an ongoing pattern of special treatment for union officials – including the exemption of union stewards from 10-minute team “huddle meetings” and from a requirement that workers sign in when working overtime. Jones’ charges allege that the UAW union local and national affiliates and the company are maintaining a work environment where even implicit criticism of union officials is met with harsh and unlawful disciplinary action. Aside from violating the National Labor Relations Act, such actions also run contrary to the spirit of North Carolina’s highly popular Right to Work law, on the books since 1947, which prohibits the forcing of workers to join or pay dues to a union as a job condition. “Freightliner and UAW officials have cut an illegal sweetheart deal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” said Stefan Gleason, Foundation Vice President. “This illegal intimidation, retaliation, and harassment must end.” Jones filed her charges just days after she and four other autoworkers from three major facilities in North Carolina, including the Gastonia facility, filed a class-action federal racketeering lawsuit against the UAW union and Freightliner, also with help from the National Right to Work Foundation. That complaint outlines a secret quid pro quo arrangement between Freightliner and the UAW in which union officials agreed in advance to significant concessions at the expense of Freightliner’s workers at its non-union facilities in North Carolina in exchange for valuable company assistance in organizing those workers. The NLRB will now investigate Jones’ charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint and prosecute the company and union.

Erie, PA (January 17, 2006) – Ending an illegal union harassment scheme intended to stifle dissent, three employees at The Electric Materials Company (TEMCO) won a settlement against the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) union obligating union officials to honor as continuing one-time objections to compulsory union dues spent for politics and other non-bargaining activities. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) brokered the precedent-setting settlement agreement after National Right to Work Foundation attorneys persuaded the agency to issue one of its first unfair labor practice complaints challenging the common union practice of requiring union nonmembers to annually renew their objections in order to pay an amount less than full dues. The annual objection scheme has been adopted by unions across America to hamstring potential objectors. The settlement also orders UE union officials to stop charging nonmember objectors for any union expenses that are unrelated to collective bargaining, and the union brass must reimburse the employees and their similarly situated colleagues for all illegally seized dues, plus interest, and post notices in the workplace of the employees’ rights that the union had violated. “This settlement stalls the all-out offensive of UE union officials against independent-minded workers,” said Stefan Gleason, Foundation Vice President. “Workers should not have to jump over procedural obstacles in order to assert their right not to fuel the union’s political machine with their forced dues.” The workers employed by the copper products manufacturer had alleged in their unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB that union officials denied employees their right to not subsidize union politics, failed to provide them with a legally-mandated independent audit of union expenditures, and continued to seize full union dues from workers’ paychecks despite formal objections to paying full dues. Lynn Whelan, Gary Brown, and Miles Kidder obtaining free legal assistance from the Foundation. Beginning in October 2003, the employees informed union officials that they were exercising their right to refrain from paying full union dues. However, union officials not only forced the employees to pay more dues than could be compelled under federal law, but they also demanded that employees reconfirm their objections on an annual basis. The actions of UE union officials violated rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and their right to not pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.

Trenton, NJ (December 14, 2005) – With free legal help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a New Jersey state employee filed unfair labor practice charges today against the Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 1034 union and the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for vindictively reversing a promotion and pay raise he had earned. Gary Lipsius, a NJDEP employee, was told by the department in July he would receive a promotion, but CWA union officials immediately intervened and persuaded the agency to rescind the promotion in retaliation for a 2004 civil rights lawsuit Lipsius brought seeking to protect his constitutional rights and the rights of thousands of his colleagues. The union hierarchy had been unlawfully compelling employees to pay compulsory union dues for politics without due process. Lipsius petitioned the NJDEP for a promotion in 2003 because his ongoing duties more accurately reflected the elevated title and salary. When his promotion was denied in December 2003 by the New Jersey Division of Resources Management, Lipsius appealed to an independent classification reviewer who agreed that he was entitled to the promotion and pay raise based on his duties. Lipsius’ unfair labor practice charges filed at the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission seek back pay under the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, as well as reinstatement of his raise and promotion. According to records provided by the New Jersey Department of Personnel, approximately 440 promotion requests were considered between July 28, 2001 and June 25, 2005. In none of these cases, which were all initiated by the CWA union, the employee, or both, was an employee promotion denied. “CWA union officials want to make an example of Gary Lipsius to intimidate New Jersey public employees that refuse to toe the line,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Such strong-armed tactics show that union officials care more about stuffing their coffers than looking out for the interests of workers that they supposedly represent.” In a 2004 class-action lawsuit against the CWA union, Lipsius alleged that the union was illegally deducting compulsory dues from the paychecks of thousands of nonunion New Jersey employees. Also receiving free legal aid from Foundation attorneys, he and two of his colleagues charged the CWA union with collecting compulsory dues for activities such as politics without properly disclosing the union’s expenditures. Under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, before collecting any forced dues, union officials must first provide an audited disclosure of the union’s books. Such audits are intended to ensure that forced union dues seized from nonunion public employees do not fund union activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activities.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 8, 2005) – Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees suffering from compulsory unionism abuses, made the following statement in response to today’s so-called “International Human Rights Day” rally, organized by AFL-CIO officials: “When union officials use code phrases like ‘make it easier for workers to organize unions,’ they are talking about their campaign to make it easier for organizers to force workers into union ranks regardless of their wishes.” “Orchestrated to invoke the sympathy of the American people, this one-sided media-blitz ignores the widespread abuse of employees who choose to refrain from union affiliation. Big Labor is trying to build public support for the enactment of a new wave of coercive union ‘organizing’ privileges. “Since employees are increasingly voting unions down, union officials want to change the law to clear the few remaining roadblocks in the way of their ‘card check’ organizing scheme. Union officials want to wipe out the secret ballot election process, get gag orders to prevent employers from telling employees about possible downsides of unionization, and require employers to hand over workers’ home addresses and phone numbers without the employee’s knowledge or consent. Employees often receive menacing home visits from union operatives. “Responding to a wave of employee backlash, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has brought numerous legal cases to the attention of the federal labor board documenting illegal activities by union organizers under these so-called ‘card check’ organizing drives – including threats, bribes, and stalking rank-and-file workers. Other workers have repeatedly reported being lied to about the purpose of the ‘authorization’ cards, with some being told that they are merely health insurance enrollment forms, requests for an election, or even tax forms. “Workers across the country facing such abuses are standing up to what Big Labor considers to be the only ‘choice’ that workers ought to have when it comes to union membership: Either pay dues to a union – or forfeit their jobs.”

Richland, WA (November 17, 2005) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, a local home health agency nurse filed federal charges against the United Staff Nurses Union (USNU) after union officials illegally threatened to have her fired. The nurse had been asserting her right to remain free from formal union membership and her right to not pay for union political activities. Christy Landrum, a nurse employed by Tri-Cities Home Health, filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). A letter dated October 20, 2005 from USNU officials unlawfully threatened Landrum that the only way for her to avoid being fired was to complete and return a union membership form. Foundation attorneys allege that USNU officials deliberately misinformed Landrum of her right to refrain from formal union membership and thereby pay less than full union dues. They also failed to inform her of her right to object to paying for union political and other non-bargaining activities, failed to provide sufficient financial information (as required by U.S. Supreme Court rulings) regarding the union’s expenditures, and failed to apprise her of any internal union procedures for filing objections to the union’s calculations. “Union officials shamelessly threatened this nurse’s job to stifle dissent,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These heavy-handed tactics demonstrate how far union officials will go to keep a steady stream of forced union dues flowing into union coffers.” USNU officials’ threats violate worker rights precedents recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must specifically inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and pay only those proven costs directly related to collective bargaining. “No one should be forced to pay dues to an unwanted union just to get or keep their job,” stated Gleason. “This is especially true when union officials abuse that government-granted special privilege.”

New York, NY (November 16, 2005) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, a Saks Fifth Avenue (Saks) employee filed federal charges today against the Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 1102 for illegally threatening to get 150 employees fired if they assert their right to refrain from formal union membership and refuse the automatic deduction of full union dues from their paychecks. Robert Jones, a cosmetics retail sales associate in Saks’ flagship store in Manhattan, filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after union officials illegally threatened to order the termination of roughly 150 Saks cosmetic department employees if they refuse to become formal members of the union, pay full union dues, and sign a dual-purpose membership and dues deduction “authorization” card. Foundation attorneys cite that union officials never informed Jones, or any other similarly situated employee, of his right to refrain from formal union membership and not be forced to pay for union politics and other non-bargaining activities. “In an effort to stuff their coffers, union officials are forcing unwanted union affiliation down the throats of intimidated employees,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These ‘pay up or be fired’ threats demonstrate how union officials take advantage of the special privileges they have obtained under federal and state law.” The threats of union officials violate workers’ rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must specifically inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and pay only those proven costs directly related to collective bargaining. Jones’ charges are the latest in a three-year legal battle between Saks employees and union officials. While union operatives won monopoly bargaining power over the department in 2002, Jones collected signatures from more than half of cosmetic department employees who would prefer to negotiate directly with their employer. Jones’ effort to decertify the union was halted under the NLRB’s “contract bar” doctrine, but he now has a deauthorization petition pending to remove the compulsory dues clause from the contract. “No one should be forced to pay dues to an unwanted union just to get or keep their job,” stated Gleason. “This is especially true when union officials go out of their way to threaten workers who exercise their rights.”

Los Angeles, California (October 7, 2005) - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed to prosecute Teamsters Union Local 952 for violating the rights of, and illegally imposing fines as high as $13,000 on, over 70 grocery workers who refused to abandon their jobs during a Teamsters union “sympathy strike.” The contentious union strike ordered by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and Teamsters union officials shut down grocery stores across California in 2003. In early 2004, three workers assisted by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed NLRB unfair labor practice charges against the union. Those charges were the basis for over 70 similar complaints from employees of Albertson’s and Ralphs Grocery locations in Irvine, Brea and La Habra, California. The NLRB combined all the complaints into one case and scheduled a January 2006 hearing on the charges. The 132-page consolidated complaint describes how Teamsters union officials failed to properly inform the employees of their rights to refrain from formal union membership, making each employee’s union membership involuntarily and coerced. This failure to inform workers of their rights means that the over $120,000 in retaliatory fines union officials levied against the workers were unlawful. Teamsters union officials initiated internal union “discipline” and fined over 70 workers anywhere from $200 to $13,000 dollars because the workers continued to do their jobs after Teamsters union officials ordered a sympathy strike on behalf of the UFCW union. The amounts of other fines were not disclosed. The original charges filed by the employees also alleged that the “sympathy strike” Teamsters officials ordered was unlawful because it was in violation of the union’s own “no-strike” contract. Ultimately, the NLRB complaint only deals with the fact that by misinforming workers that formal union membership was a condition of employment, the punitive fines imposed by the union hierarchy were illegitimate because the workers were not voluntarily union members. “Teamsters union officials engaged in an ugly and unlawful campaign of retaliation that trampled the rights of rank-and-file workers who refused to walk off the job and continued working to support their families,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the Foundation. Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Communications Workers v. Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials cannot require formal union membership or the payment of union dues unrelated to collective bargaining as a condition of employment. Employees are also entitled to notice of their right to refrain from union membership, an independent audit of union expenditures and notice of their right to object to paying for non-bargaining activity.

Atlanta, Ga. (September 21, 2005) - National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed charges on behalf of a telephone worker against his employer, BellSouth Telecommunications, and its union for forcing him to wear a union logo as a job condition. In doing so, company and union officials are directly defying a 2005 U.S. Court of Appeals decision which ruled that their policy is unlawful. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously overturned a controversial Clinton-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that approved the practice of forcing both union and non-union BellSouth employees to wear union insignia on their work uniforms or be fired from their jobs. After issuing its decision, the Court of Appeals took the rare step of ordering the NLRB to pay attorneys fees because their erroneous decision had not been substantially justified. In defiance of the appellate court’s ruling, Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials continue to insist, despite the objections of BellSouth employee Gary Mullis, that he wear their logo as a condition of employment. Mullis, who is not a member of the CWA union, was informed in May by BellSouth that he would not be allowed to refrain from wearing the union insignia. Mullis objects to wearing the logo because the union pursues political objectives that do not represent his views. His charges seek the prosecution of the company and union for unfair labor practices. “Workers should not be forced to be walking billboards for union officials who seek to trample their own freedoms,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The repeated abusive actions of the CWA hierarchy and BellSouth management raise serious questions about their integrity and respect for the law.” The appellate court’s 3-0 decision overturning the unlawful policy concurred with Foundation attorneys’ arguments that provisions of the National Labor Relations Act embodied a “right to refrain from wearing union insignia.” The court rejected union and company lawyers’ claims that the display of the union patch alongside the company logo on the uniform was so integral to the “public image” of BellSouth that the mandate superceded the individual rights of workers. The court noted that there was no evidence that the union patch projected a positive image to customers, and that it could, in fact, signal a negative image to customers who could conclude that strikes and service interruptions were more likely to occur. However, regardless of what image was projected to customers, the court explained that proper analysis should have been what the requirement signaled to employees – that the company and union expect employees to be union members. The court ruled that this restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of their right to refrain from union membership.

Phoenix, Arizona (September 19, 2005) – With the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, five Arizona employees of Dex Media, the official publisher of the yellow page and white page phone books, have filed a racketeering lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union Local 1269, Qwest Communications subsidiary Dex Media, and two Dex employees who are union officials.

The lawsuit, filed today in U.S. District Court alleges an elaborate scheme in which the employer, the IBEW union Local 1269, and IBEW Local union agents working for Dex, engaged in systematic violations of company policy and collective bargaining agreements in order to give preferential treatment to union officials at the expense of Dex’s advertising sales force.

Because of a complex performance-based pay system used for workers selling advertising in its publications, union agents have not only used their power to create labor strife for their own personal profit, but they have also cheated other workers out of earnings.

In effect, the ill-gotten commissions the union agents improperly received raised the bar against which the other workers’ compensation packages were determined. By knowingly aiding the union agents as they repeatedly broke company rules to increase their performance-based pay, Dex allegedly bribed the union agents to act against the workers’ interests.

Some of the methods used to increase the union agents’ compensation include reassigning to the union officials accounts that should have gone to other workers, giving the union agents “double commissions” for sales made by other workers, and allowing the union officials to regularly sell “group ads” allowing their customers to have better ad placement than would normally be warranted, all practices explicitly forbidden by Dex written policy.

Because of the pattern of illegal activity by Dex, the Local 1269 IBEW union, and the union’s agents, the suit lists five counts for violating the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and two counts for violating the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The RICO statutes are best known for having been used to prosecute criminals for Mob and gang activities.

“Union officials appear to be stealing from the very workers they claim to represent,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “As long as workers are forced against their will to be represented by unions in monopoly bargaining with employers, the power wielded by union brass will continue to allow greedy union officials to sell out workers.”

The workers ask the court for injunctions to stop Dex from continuing to bribe union officials with undue compensation, and ask for financial compensation for the workers whose money was effectively stolen from them by the IBEW Local 1269 union agents’ corrupt actions.

Mount Clemens, MI (April 22, 2005) – In order to avoid federal prosecution by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a local union was forced to back down from its unlawful threats to fine a group of nonunion nurses up to $4,000 each for refusing to abandon their patients during a recent strike. National Right to Work Foundation attorneys persuaded NLRB prosecutors to issue a formal complaint in January 2005, after helping four Mount Clemens General Hospital nurses who had been targeted for union retaliation file unfair labor practice charges last November. In August of 2004, Deborah Mounger, Cherie Jones, Kimberly Grifka, and Jennifer Pacyga followed proper procedure by sending letters to Local 40 of the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) formally revoking their union memberships. By resigning from formal union membership, employees cannot be subjected to union rules and internal union discipline. After having officially resigned from formal membership in OPEIU Local 40, the four women continued going to their jobs during a union-ordered strike. In October, each woman received a letter stating union officials were filing internal charges against them. They were each threatened with fines of $500 per charge, for totals of up to $4,000 per person simply for loyally serving their patients. In an attempt to cut their losses and settle the complaint filed by the NLRB, OPEIU Local 40 officials have given up their attempt to collect these fines. The four women have been notified that all possibility of a monetary fine for continuing to work during the strike has been rescinded, and union officials must post a notice at the hospital informing other employees of the settlement. “The vicious lack of compassion displayed by union officials for the sick and feeble is stunning,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It’s outrageous to retaliate against health care professionals simply because they refused to abandon their patients.” The action of the union hierarchy violated NLRB v. Textile Workers, a Supreme Court decision that it is an unfair labor practice for a union to fine employees who had been union members in good standing but who resigned during a lawful strike and then returned to work. According to another Supreme Court decision, Patternmakers v. NLRB, workers may resign from union membership at any time, including during a strike. “This union hierarchy’s disdain for the nurses’ freedom and economic security – to say nothing of their lack of concern for public health – shows they do not have employees’ best interests at heart.”