Washington, DC (June 16, 2006) — With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of 15 United Airlines (UAL) employees filed a federal lawsuit against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) union today for discriminating against nonunion pilots. According to the complaint, the ALPA union hierarchy purposefully and illegally failed to inform nonunion employees of their right to sell future United stock shares issued during the airline’s bankruptcy reorganization plan.

The workers filed the class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for all nonmember United pilots – a number estimated to exceed 200.

The airline and ALPA union officials agreed that, prior to the issuance of the new United stock upon its emergence from bankruptcy, each pilot would have the option to sell their future right to receive the stock. Any pilot could exercise that option by authorizing ALPA union officials to sell his or her interest in the claim for the highest price achievable in the market.

As a result of this agreement, employees who participated in the auction profited from the new United stock at a substantially greater amount than what the shares could be sold for when subsequently distributed.

But ALPA union officials informed only union members – not nonmembers – of this option to participate in the auction. Information regarding the option to sell future stock, and the forms required to participate in the auction, were secluded to a remote “members only” portion of the union’s website accessible only with a password not given to nonmembers.

“The ALPA union hierarchy deliberately and unlawfully misled nonmembers in an attempt to retaliate against them for refusing formal union membership,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union officials wanted to send a message to all employees that they had better toe the union line.”

Employees who are not formal members of the ALPA union are still forced to accept the terms of the union’s monopoly bargaining contract and all of its provisions regarding salary, benefits, seniority, and pensions. Under the Railway Labor Act, it is unlawful for employees to negotiate their own, more-favorable contracts with their employer. The Act also stipulates that the ALPA union owes nonmembers in the bargaining unit a so-called “duty of fair representation,” which supposedly prevents union officials from acting against the interests of those refraining from formal union membership.

The United pilots’ lawsuit seeks an order declaring that the ALPA union breached its duty of fair representation, as well as damages for each employee equal to the share difference between the auction sales price for the claims and the actual trade price of the stock at the time it was issued, plus interest.

**Washington, DC (June 14, 2006)** — Responding to a 6-3 Washington State Supreme Court ruling striking down a state law requirement that union officials obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending mandatory union dues for politics, the National Right to Work Foundation filed an appeal yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.

Foundation attorneys – working jointly with Steven O’Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry of Seattle – originally filed the suit, *Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA)*, for more than 4,000 Washington teachers who are not union members, but nonetheless forced to pay union dues or fees. Thurston County Superior Court Judge Daniel Berschauer ruled that the teachers had an implied right of action under Initiative-134 to recover the fees the WEA had used – without their authorization – for political purposes. The trial court also certified the case as a class action for the thousands of nonmember teachers.

But a long-awaited ruling in Davenport by the State Supreme Court in mid-March upheld an appellate court’s decision to overturn the trial court – thereby striking down the last remaining union dues provisions in I-134, Washington’s troubled “paycheck protection” law.

The State Supreme Court’s ruling directly conflicts with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, noted Justice Richard B. Sanders’ three-member dissent. Justice Sanders said: “The majority turns the First Amendment on its head. . . . [T]he suggestion that a legislative choice to protect dissenting nonmembers by requiring affirmative authorization before using their agency shop fees to influence an election . . . violates the First Amendment . . . ‘borders on the frivolous.’”

Though the Foundation believes the decision is wrongheaded, the ruling brings into focus how difficult the paycheck protection regulatory approach is, and how ineffective it has been in protecting employees laboring under forced unionism. Even if the Supreme Court had reinstated the Thurston County court’s rulings, I-134 would still only result in individual refunds of $10 per year, on average. Substantially greater relief is available to teachers under a settlement of a First Amendment lawsuit brought earlier by Foundation attorneys. Under that settlement, nonmember teachers may annually object and reclaim more than $200 each. Ultimately, however, only the passage of a Right to Work law in Washington would ensure that union dues are not misused.

“The real solution is to attack forced unionism at its root, rather than try to regulate its ill effects,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The Foundation has no choice but to help mop up the damage to the First Amendment being caused by courts responding to these ‘paycheck protection’ laws.”

Regarding «Union wants ‘fair share’ on dues» (June 7): There is nothing fair about forcing any American to pay dues to a union just to get or keep a job.

If the American Federation of Teachers union hierarchy gets its way, school employees who already voted against formal union membership would be forced to fork over a total of $2 million each year in forced union dues.

Union officials spend vast sums of these forced dues on causes that many teachers find offensive. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, AFT union officials handed more than $15.7 million of its members’ dues to partisan political organizations in 2004.

While Supreme Court precedents won by the National Right to Work Foundation allow nonunion workers to withhold forced dues not spent on collective bargaining activities, union officials commonly abuse these rights.

The Missouri Legislature is considering a Right to Work bill that would outlaw forced unionism altogether. Until this law is enacted, union officials’ bullying of teachers and other employees will continue virtually unabated.

Patrick Ashby | Springfield, Va.

Spokesman, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

This Letter to the Editor originally appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

**Olympia, WA (June 6, 2006)** – After union officials realized that they had no choice but to cease their illegal activity, a group of ten Washington State employees agreed today to settle a statewide federal class-action civil rights lawsuit challenging employee firings and union dues seizures in violation of due process protections.

The workers’ lawsuit embarrassed Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union officials into asking the state to rehire the employees terminated at union officials’ behest, and the union hierarchy agreed to remedy their other violations of workers’ First Amendment rights. Because the union agreed to end all illegal behavior listed in the employees’ complaint, the employees, represented by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, have agreed to settle the case with the WFSE.

“These workers have won the battle, but not the war,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While an important victory, the fact that the law of the Ninth Circuit does not go the further step of forcing union officials to return the $10 million seized under their admittedly unlawful threats further underscores how vulnerable employees are without the protection of a state Right to Work law. A Right to Work law would make union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary.”

In May 2005, WFSE union officials sent a mailing to state employees informing them that they would be fired if they refused to pay union dues. But this notice failed to provide certain constitutionally-required safeguards of employees’ rights to ensure they are not forced to pay for more than the cost of collective bargaining. These safeguards include a verification or audit of union expenditures, as well as an explanation for the basis of the portions of the workers’ fees claimed to be chargeable. WFSE union officials also unlawfully required employees who wish to object to funding political and other non-collective bargaining activities to sign automatic payroll deduction forms.

The state workers charged that the seizure of forced dues by WFSE union officials without due process is a violation of their constitutional rights articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won *Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson* decision. Hudson requires union officials to provide an independently-audited disclosure of their books and justify their expenditures before seizing any forced union dues from employees.

“These public servants never should have had to file a lawsuit in the first place in order for WFSE officials not to trample their basic constitutional rights,” concluded Gleason.

**Los Angeles, CA (June 5, 2006)** – Responding to federal charges filed by over 60 employees of Albertsons and Ralphs grocery chains who faced retaliatory fines for refusal to engage in “sympathy strike” activities during the California grocery strike in 2003, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ordered the Teamsters union to allow the workers to rescind and void the unlawful fines.

Agreeing with arguments presented by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, an NLRB administrative law judge in Los Angeles handed down the ruling late last week that also mandated union officials must allow several hundreds – perhaps even thousands – of workers in eight different bargaining units to retroactively revoke their formal union membership and receive certain back-dues rebates.

In the wake of the grocery strike, Teamsters Local 952 union officials socked employees with confiscatory fines – ranging up to $7,400 per employee – simply for observing the union’s own “no strike” contract with their employers. The targeted employees had continued to report to work during the crippling statewide grocery strike ordered against Albertsons, Vons, and Ralphs by United Food and Commercial Workers union officials.

With free legal assistance from the Foundation, Juan Saldana and dozens of other Albertsons and Ralphs distribution center employees filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB after Teamsters officials issued the illegal retaliatory fines.

The judge ruled that Teamsters Local 952 officials illegally failed to inform workers of their rights to refrain from formal union membership and to object to paying for the union’s nonrepresentational activities, such as politics. Because the employees thus cannot be considered voluntary members, the judge ruled that internal union disciplinary measures could not be taken against them. The ruling also overturned Teamsters officials’ illegal policy of forcing workers to annually renew their objections to financially supporting the union’s political activities. The judge also struck down a restrictive union policy that required objections to be filed individually.

“Although a significant victory for these workers, this case underscores that state law should not force any worker to pay dues to an unwanted union in the first place,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Without a Right to Work law to mandate that union membership is strictly voluntary, such abuses will inevitably continue to plague California workers.”

The actions of Teamsters union officials violated worker protections recognized in the U.S. Supreme Court, including rights affirmed in *Communications Workers v. Beck*, a case argued and won by Foundation attorneys. Under the Beck ruling, workers may not be compelled to pay dues beyond a union’s proven collective bargaining costs, and they are entitled to an independent audit of union expenditures.

**Washington, DC (June 2, 2006**) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, two Schreiber Foods employees from Green Bay, Wisconsin, have asked a federal appellate court to order the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to decide a long-delayed case the workers initiated in 1989. Having refrained from formal union membership, the workers are challenging union officials’ use of their forced union dues for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union organizing.

The case – originally filed by David and Sherry Pirlott more than 17 years ago against Teamsters Local 75 in Wisconsin – is the oldest of scores of cases in which Foundation-assisted employees are trying to reclaim their forced union dues used for non-bargaining activity.

The NLRB, which has long been plagued by what critics have called political in-fighting and institutional pro-union bias, faced similar appellate court scrutiny in the *Pirlott* case in 1998. But rather than decide the case that had long been pending for many years on the docket in Washington, DC, the Board sent the case back to an administrative law judge for further fact finding. The case returned to Washington, DC, in 2001 where it has since collected dust awaiting a decision.

The Pirlott’s writ of *mandamus* petition, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, points out the Board’s egregious and unjustifiable delay in issuing a decision that could be subject to judicial review. The employees are simply asking the NLRB to follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings that uphold workers’ rights to not pay for recruiting more dues paying workers into organized labor’s ideological movement.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” said [Stefan Gleason](mailto:shg@nrtw.org), vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “By failing to do its job, the NLRB is, in effect, helping union officials fill their coffers with forced-dues seized from the paychecks of countless Americans.”

Under the Supreme Court’s rulings in *Communications Workers v. Beck* and *Ellis v. Railway Clerks*, cases brought by employees represented by Foundation attorneys, workers may not be lawfully forced to pay for any union activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract negotiation, or grievance adjustment such as union organizing, politics, extra-unit litigation, and member-only programs.

**Detroit, MI (June 2, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a local health care worker filed federal charges against the American Federation of State and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union after AFSCME officials illegally demanded her termination for refusing to pay union dues.

Yvette Smith, a rehabilitation specialist employed by Detroit East, Inc., filed the federal unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) today. A letter dated May 26, 2006, from AFSCME officials to Smith’s employer unlawfully demanded her termination despite the fact that union officials never informed employees at the facility of their right to refrain from formal union membership and pay a reduced fee, nor did they inform Smith of the amount of forced union dues she supposedly owes.

AFSCME officials’ unlawful demands come on the heels of a petition she and her coworkers filed in September 2005 seeking an election to rid their workplace of the unwanted union. The employees recently appealed a local NLRB official’s decision to block the election using unrelated unfair labor practice charges filed by union officials against the company. The full NLRB in Washington, DC, will evaluate that appeal and decide whether to hold an election.

Foundation attorneys cite that AFSCME officials failed to inform employees at the Detroit East Community Mental Health Center of their 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 them of any procedures for filing objections to the union’s calculations.

“The top brass of the self-described ‘union . . . that cares’ seems to care little about employees who oppose the union,” said [Stefan Gleason](mailto:shg@nrtw.org), 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.”

AFSCME officials’ demands 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 withhold forced dues unrelated to collective bargaining

**Cincinnati, Ohio (May 16, 2006)** – In a dramatic development in a protracted legal battle by a group of nonunion firefighters against International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) union officials, U.S. District Court Judge Walter Herbert Rice has issued a renewed temporary restraining order against the union and city officials to block the seizure of forced union dues from their paychecks.

The ruling stems from a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio by five local members of the Cincinnati African-American Firefighters Association. The firefighters have had ongoing disputes with the union hierarchy, including charges of discrimination that allege racist treatment of minority firefighters by union officials. The decision, handed down this week, notes that the nonunion firefighters – receiving free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys – are likely to win their case on the merits, and that the court will likely protect the constitutional rights of all of the approximately 100 nonunion firefighters in Cincinnati.

The firefighters alleged that IAFF Local 48 union officials acted in concert with the City of Cincinnati and seized compulsory union dues from nonmembers without first providing an adequate independent audit of the union’s expenditures and subjected workers challenging the fee to unlawful appeal procedures. The complaint, filed in summer 2004, also named then-Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken, among other top City officials, for signing the agreement with the union and enforcing the unconstitutional fee seizures.

The firefighters’ suit points out that IAFF Local 48 union officials intentionally seized the forced union dues without first providing the financial disclosure and procedures required by the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson ruling. Under Hudson, before collecting any forced dues, union officials must provide an audited disclosure of the union’s expenses. Such audits are intended to ensure that forced union dues seized from nonunion public employees do not fund union activities unrelated to collective bargaining.

After City and union officials renewed their contract again authorizing the unlawful forced union dues seizures without providing adequate notice and procedures, Foundation attorneys filed a renewed request for a temporary restraining order, prompting the Court to grant a restraining order in November 2005. And in the latest ruling, Judge Rice concluded that the new contract still lacks adequate procedures to protect nonmembers’ rights.

“IAFF union officials continue to trample the basic constitutional rights of the very firefighters whose interests they claim to represent,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “So long as Ohio’s workers labor under a system of forced unionism, such abuses will inevitably continue.»

Following a two-month media circus at the University of Miami that included strikes, high-profile visits from national politicians and activists, and even a hunger strike, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials are now claiming victory.

What’s the victory» Workers will have less freedom to choose whether to unionize, of course!

The union will now be allowed to use its weapon of choice—the notoriously abusive procedure called “card check” to sweep university janitors into union ranks. Under this scheme, rather than allowing employees to choose whether to unionize through the less-abusive election process run by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), union officials will now only have to collect the signatures of an agreed-upon number of employees before UNICCO, the employer, will recognize the union.

Having been armed with employee’s home addresses by UNICCO—a standard concession in such card-check arrangements—union organizers know it will be easy to coerce the signing of “authorization cards” from harassed and browbeaten employees.

Under card check, workers frequently report that union organizers lie to them about the cards’ true purpose. Some are told that they are health-insurance enrollment forms, requests for a unionization election, or even tax forms. These lies, along with outright threats, bribes, and stalkings suffered by others have triggered a legal backlash by workers with help from the National Right to Work Foundation.

Even the AFL-CIO knows that signed cards are not a true indicator of an employee’s wishes. In fact, its own handbook for union organizers has noted that workers will often sign such cards just “to get the union off their backs.” And in a legal brief to the NLRB, AFL-CIO lawyers argued that end-running the traditional procedure creates an environment where employees are unfairly susceptible to “group pressure.”

Furthermore, even though union organizers work for months to pressure employees to sign cards, revoking a previously signed card can be next to impossible. In 2000, an NLRB official told an employee who asked how to get back a card he had signed under false pretenses that union officials were not required to return it or rectify union organizers’ misrepresentations.

Not surprisingly, employees themselves oppose the card-check process. In a 2004 Zogby International poll, over three quarters of union members opposed the idea of mandating card check as the only legal unionization method, as Big Labor’s allies in Congress have proposed.

Yet for most union officials, this abusive and unpopular unionization procedure is their preferred method of bolstering their forced-dues revenue streams. In 2004, fully 80 percent of workers were unionized outside the traditional NLRB process. Summing up the SEIU union’s new *modus operandi*, one SEIU local chief recently quipped to the Wall Street Journal that “we don’t do elections”—a statement proved in Miami.

After all, if the employees had actually wanted the representation of union officials, they could have petitioned the NLRB—but they didn’t. So the union brass put on their charade—parading a steady stream of union professionals, Washington-based activists, and Hollywood stars through their makeshift “Freedom Village” to pressure the University to put the screws on UNICCO to grant card check.

The university officials wanted the circus to end before a flood of parents arrived for graduation, so they pressured UNICCO to cave to the union bosses’ demands. In exchange, union officials dropped their PR campaign and trumped-up legal complaints.

This shakedown of employers to agree to card check is the wave of the future because union officials know that workers won’t vote for unions like they used to.

SEIU chief Andrew Stern pulled the SEIU out of the AFL-CIO because he believed that the union conglomerate was not doing enough to pursue these tactics. And even before his “victory” at the University of Miami, dozens of other card-check pushes were targeting workers around the country.

Hopefully, the next time union officials and employee freedoms face off, workers will actually come out on top.

*This article originally appeared in the National Review Online.*

**Seattle, WA (May 4, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Safeway employee filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union for maintaining a discriminatory policy intended to deter workers in King and Kitsat counties from exercising their religious freedoms.

Daniel Gautschi, manager in a Safeway meat department, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington after union officials set forth conditions that force him to affiliate with – and pay additional money to – a union he finds morally offensive if he should ever have an employment grievance.

UFCW Local 81 union officials allowed the forwarding of Gautschi’s forced union dues (paid as a condition of employment) to a charity – an accommodation previously won by Foundation attorneys under federal law. However, they continue to maintain an illegal scheme intended to deter employees from exercising their right to assert religious objections in the first place. The scheme forces only employees who file religious objections to pay the union all costs associated with use of grievance procedures under the bargaining agreement – even though union officials tightly control the process and employees are totally barred from filing grievances on their own.

As a devout Christian, Gautschi believes that supporting the UFCW union violates his sincerely held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals.

On October 17, 2005, Gautschi filed charges (also with free legal aid from Foundation attorneys) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC issued a letter to Gautschi dated March 8 advising him he has the right to institute a civil action in federal court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

“Union officials want employees of faith to shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Employees should not be forced to choose between honoring their faith and exercising their workplace rights.”

Under Title VII, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs. To avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral, the law requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the employee – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to accept the funds.

Gautschi’s lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction barring the UFCW union from discriminating against him on the basis of religion, as well as an order that the union inform all employees under the monopoly bargaining agreement that those with religious objections need not additionally reimburse the union for any costs associated with grievance processing. Union officials demanded and received total monopoly control over the grievance process. Nevertheless, they seek to force religious objectors – but not others covered by the monopoly bargaining agreement – to pay large sums of money to the union if they have a grievance in the workplace.