Union Bosses Forced to Drop Threats against Employee Exercising Right to Resign from Union Membership
Federal court suit forces Alaska union officials to drop demands that state employee be fired
Anchorage, Alaska (June 20, 2008) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, an Alaska state employee has reached a favorable settlement with union officials and state administrators who threatened his termination after he asserted his right to resign from union membership. When Robert Hunsick informed officials from Alaska State Employees Association, Local 52 (ASEA) of his decision to resign from the union, union brass improperly demanded that he continue to pay full union dues or be fired.
Hunsick filed suit in United States District Court on May 19, causing ASEA lawyers to scramble to avoid a costly and embarrassing court battle with Foundation attorneys. ASEA union officials were unlawfully seizing and spending a portion of his forced dues for political and ideological purposes.
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. Hunsick resigned his formal union membership and asked ASEA officials to provide him a statement breaking down the union’s expenditures, verified by an independent auditor. Hudson also requires that union officials provide the employee who chooses to refrain from union membership an opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee.
But ASEA union boss Jim Duncan told Hunsick that he could only resign his formal union membership in a union-designated 30-day window every June. Eventually, ASEA officials accepted Hunsick’s resignation, but union officials then still failed to provide him with a proper breakdown of union dues to prove that the amount they demanded was not paying for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union politics, lobbying or member-only activities.
When Hunsick insisted on such a breakdown, as guaranteed under Hudson, union officials persisted in demanding that he pay up or be fired, a demand they only dropped as part of the settlement. Under the other terms of the settlement, the ASEA agreed to refund Hunsick all fees deducted from his wages, plus interest, from his initial resignation in December and waived its claim for any such fees not paid.
Alaska is one of 28 states without Right to Work protections that ensure employees are not forced to pay any union dues as a condition of employment. Hunsick’s struggle against ASEA demonstrates the chasm between Alaska’s compulsory unionism laws and its tradition of rugged individualism.
“This settlement is a small victory for employee freedom,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “But as long as state laws compel workers like Robert Hunsick to support unions against their will, true freedom remains lost in the wilderness.”
Comments
Jim Duncan AFSCME Local 52- and RACKETS
Here is a response to a letter I wrote to Mimi Dixon in April 2006. Since then I realized that Mr. Duncan was under a stipulation where he would ot enforce a grievance, follow a statute or represent his members. It is good to see some activity of your organization in Alaska, but are you doing enough? I think this is criminal Racketeering.
April 4, 2006
Dear Mr. Priestley:
This letter is in response to the e-mail you sent us regarding your "labor dispute that involve[s] illegal hiring policies, hostile work environment, and a union that will not file a timely and accurate Grievance." You suggest that we initiate "some sort of 'clean-up' procedure to dispose of the problem." Before I address your request, I want to tell you something about our organization and the types of cases it litigates.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation was established for the sole purpose of providing free legal aid to employees suffering violations of their human and civil rights because of injustices arising from the abuses of compulsory union membership. We operate under a very narrow charter which places a limit on the types of case in which we can become involved.
An attorney has reviewed the e-mail you sent to us. It is his judgment that the help you seek does not fall within our narrowly drawn charter (i.e., deal strictly with either compulsory union membership and/or payment of union fees.) Further, the legal assistance you seek falls outside our area of expertise.
We regret that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is unable to offer you any assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Mimi Dixon,Legal Assistant
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
**************************************************
Here is Jim Duncan's conflict of interest Stipulation. I think this constitutes EXTORTION, and BRIBERY and CONSPIRACY if not just ethical lapses.
4 pages of Duncan's agreement to neutralize the union and fowl the grievance procedures:
Duncan_Stipulation_1.doc
Duncan_Stip_2.doc
/Duncan_Stipulation_3.doc
Duncan_Stip_4_0.doc
And then there is this "Good Faith Covenant" that was being signed as violations and fraudulent omissions were taking place. Sounds like they could have chosen the name "Covenant of Fraud and Fraudulent Ommissions."
It sounds a little too much like La Cosa Nostra or as translated "This Thing of Ours," rather than any good faith effort to enforce contracts and statutes.
It is worth note that this is signed by David Stewart, who I believe is one and the same David Stewart who was a NRTW Defendant in the State of Washington. Yes, they spill over the borders with their fraudulent schemes and efforts to extort money from workers.
This illegal action was brough to the attention of Union Executives, was complained about, but no action was taken to prevent the illegal hire. I could not even apply for the position (filled by sexual quid-pro-quo) and at the time I was expecting layoff. My Union Business agent and SE Alaska Democratic party chair's comment on the violation she could have prevented was "Rules Don't Matter." Talk about a TRUE hypocrit! Click the link to see this 'ethical' person standing up for ethics.