Right to Work Foundation Announces New Addition to Legal Team

Regent-trained attorney dedicated to the cause of individual liberty for America's workers

Washington, DC (January 30, 2012) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has hired Sarah Hartsfield of Austin, Texas, as an addition to its legal staff.

Hartsfield is a recently sworn in member of the Virginia State Bar and 2011 graduate of the Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

"Sarah brings to the Foundation a real commitment to defending and advancing individual liberty against the injustices of compulsory unionism," said Ray LaJeunesse, vice president and legal director of the National Right to Work Foundation.

"She will assist the Foundation's cutting-edge legal team in defending America's workers from Big Labor's growing influence in the public sector, enforcing individual employees' rights against compulsory unionism, and establishing new precedents to increase workplace freedom for America’s workers."

As the newest of the Foundation's 12 staff attorneys, Hartsfield will help build on the Foundation's litigation record for union-abused workers that includes 15 cases at the United States Supreme Court, seven of which were won in whole or in part, and one of which was argued earlier this month. Currently, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys represent thousands of workers in nearly 200 active cases nationwide.

Before joining the Foundation, Hartsfield served as an intern for the Singer Legal Group in Virginia Beach, Virginia and the Chesapeake Public Defender's Office in Chesapeake, Virginia. She was also an intern, and later an executive assistant, at the Ashcroft Group, L.L.C. in Washington, D.C.

While at Regent, Hartsfield participated in a variety of activities and clubs and was an Associate Member of Regent's Moot Court Board, competed in numerous moot court competitions, and was a member of the Student Ambassador program. She holds a bachelors degree in Government from the University of Texas, where she graduated in 2008.

Read more about the Foundation's legal team here.

Hotel Officials, Union Bosses Hit With Multiple Federal Labor Board Charges for Abusive Organizing Tactics

Union organizers verbally abuse Marriott employees and spy on workers in changing rooms after striking backroom deal with company officials

New York, NY (January 24, 2012) – A group of New York City Marriott (NYSE: MAR) employees – acting on behalf of their coworkers – have filed federal charges against the company and a local union for workplace intimidation and harassment.

The three SoHo Marriott employees filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.

New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council Local 6 union organizers entered into a backroom deal with company officials that allows union organizers unfettered access to the employees in order to install a union in the workplace.

Abusing this privilege, union organizers are attempting to browbeat the workers into supporting the union through a prolonged campaign of intimidation and harassment. Meanwhile, company officials deny workers' attempts to meet on company grounds.

Union officials have used video cameras in employee changing rooms, accessed employee lockers and handled employees' personal possessions, and have even resorted to verbal abuse. Union officials even took photographs of a female employee without her consent while she was changing her uniform in an employee changing room.

Moreover, company and union officials are retaliating against workers who dare to exercise their right to refrain from union affiliation. For example, at least three workers were illegally interrogated and disciplined by company officials at the behest of union bosses.

In response, the workers unanimously signed a petition showing that they do not support the union hierarchy's presence in the workplace.

"Union and company officials have colluded to force the union bosses' so-called 'representation' on these workers," said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. "Marriott workers are being subjected to a vicious campaign of intimidation – including sexual harassment – at the hands of forced-dues hungry union bosses and with the approval of weak-kneed company officials."

"New York desperately needs a Right to Work law to protect workers from forced unionism abuses like this in the future," added Mix.

Appeals Court OKs Worker’s Legal Challenge to Backroom Deal between Union, Casino

Court rules that union deal to receive valuable organizing assistance from a company may violate anti-bribery labor laws

Boca Raton, FL (January 19, 2012) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall has won the right to proceed with a case challenging a backroom organizing deal between the UNITE HERE Local 355 union and his employer. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal and remanded the case to Florida District Court for a decision on the merits.

In 2004, UNITE HERE Local 355 and Mardi Gras Gaming entered into an agreement in which union officials promised to spend over one hundred thousand dollars on a gambling ballot initiative and guaranteed not to picket, boycott, or strike against Mardi Gras facilities.

In return, Mardi Gras agreed to hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union operatives access to company facilities during a coercive ‘card check’ organizing campaign, and refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether its employees unionized.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, Mulhall sued UNITE HERE in 2008. Mulhall argues that the company’s concessions to the union are of substantial monetary value because they made the union organizing process easier and less expensive.

To prevent backroom deals that undermine employee rights, Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) prohibits employers from giving “any money or other thing of value” to unions. Although a Florida District Court dismissed Mulhall’s case on the grounds that the company’s organizing assistance was not a thing of value, the Court of Appeals reversed that decision, noting that the company’s support could be of substantial value to a union.

So-called “neutrality agreements” like the one agreed to by UNITE HERE and Mardi Gras Gaming give union organizers license to browbeat and intimidate workers into acceding to unionization. Armed with employees’ home addresses and access to company facilities, union officials frequently harass and cajole workers on and off the job until they sign cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization.

“We’re pleased that Martin Mulhall’s efforts to challenge this corrupt bargain – a clear violation of Section 302 of the LMRA – are moving forward,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Federal law is supposed to protect employees from exactly this type of backroom deal, in which union officials sell out worker interests for an agreement that pushes more employees into the union’s dues-paying ranks.”

Worker Advocate Blasts Obama Labor Board Rule Change

New rule would allow union bosses to ambush workers into forced-dues-paying union ranks

Washington, DC (December 22, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced new guidelines that give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees in representation elections which will be implemented on April 30, 2012.

The new rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted are designed to dramatically shorten the time individual workers have to share information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization. The new rules were rushed out before former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer and Obama recess appointee Craig Becker's NLRB term expires, at which point the NLRB will drop to two members and no longer have a quorum necessary to take any action.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation – the nation's leading advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – released the following statement in the wake of the NLRB's announcement:

"Christmas came early for Big Labor as the Obama Labor Board has once again given union bosses increased power to ambush workers into dues-paying union ranks.

"The NLRB's new ambush union organizing election rules make union organizing campaigns even more one-sided and stifle the rights of employees who may oppose unionization in their workplace.

"Although a secret ballot election can’t prevent the fundamental violation of individual rights that occurs under union boss monopoly bargaining, at the very least an election period is needed that gives workers enough time to educate their coworkers about the potential impact of unionization after months or even years of union organizing and propaganda.

"This power grab reminds us once again that the Big Labor-dominated NLRB and in fact federal labor law is not written and enforced to help workers but to empower union officials with unique and damaging privileges designed to bolster their power and revenue."

In August, the Foundation filed comments opposing the new rules because they expand union bosses' compulsory unionism powers. Foundation staff attorneys are already combing through the details of the 205 page rules and considering possible legal challenges.

Illinois Care Providers ask Supreme Court to Rule Unionization Scheme Unconstitutional

Home-based personal care providers can now be pushed into union ranks against their will

Washington, DC (November 29, 2011) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, several Illinois personal care providers are asking the Supreme Court to invalidate a scheme enacted by Governor Pat Quinn and his predecessor, Rod Blagojevich, aimed at forcing them into union ranks.

Pam Harris and seven other Illinois care providers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari today, challenging the Governors’ forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the Constitution’s guarantees of free expression and association, effectively forcing providers to subsidize union officials’ lobbying efforts.

The petition stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by the providers after Quinn signed an executive order designating 4,500 individuals who offer in-home care to disabled persons as “public employees,” thus rendering them eligible for unwanted union organizing.

As a result of Quinn’s order, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses have been competing to acquire monopoly bargaining control over this newly-created class of public employees.

Quinn’s executive order mirrored one issued by disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich, which designated over 20,000 personal care providers as state workers for the purpose of forcing them into union ranks. Quinn’s executive order expanded Blagojevich’s directive to cover an additional 4,500 providers who were not included in the original order.

In a 2010 mail-in vote, homecare providers emphatically rejected unionization by a two-to-one margin. But because of Quinn’s executive order, they’ll continue to face unionization drives until they capitulate. The personal care providers covered by Blagojevich’s executive order have already been forced to pay union fees to the SEIU.

“My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son,” said Harris, who provides personal care for her adult son and is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with.”

“This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Governor Quinn’s campaign was enthusiastically supported by the SEIU, and now he’s returning the favor by helping force home-based care providers into union ranks. We hope the Supreme Court takes the case and eventually invalidates this blatant union power grab.”

Worker Advocate Files Motion in Federal Labor Board Posting Notice Case

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys fight Labor Board’s decision to promote monopoly unionism in virtually every workplace in America

Washington, DC (October 26, 2011) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment in their federal lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) new union posting rules released recently.

The motion was filed this afternoon in conjunction with National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Foundation's case challenges the new rules requiring virtually every employer in the country to post biased information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they've never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices.

Meanwhile, the new rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers' rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues.

Until the rule changes, employers were required to post notices of workers' rights only if a violation of labor law occurred.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys argue that the NLRB has exceeded its authority granted by Congress and violated free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. No other federal agency has ever made it unlawful to fail to post a notice that wasn't required by Congress, which has prompted House Republicans to hold Congressional hearings on the matter.

After Foundation attorneys filed for a preliminary injunction and argued against the rule changes in court, the NLRB delayed the effective date of the Notice Posting Rule until January 31, 2012.

"Under these new rules, employers are essentially weaponized against workers," said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. "Mom and Pop shops, small businesses, larger companies – even some religiously-affiliated organizations – are now under the Obama Labor Board's microscope and will feel the pressure to hand over their employees to forced unionism or face legal consequences."

"This 'divide and conquer' strategy should erase all doubt that the biased and ideologically-charged Obama Labor Board has turned into an organizing tool for Big Labor set to do one thing: force more workers who may want nothing to do with a union into paying union dues to keep their jobs."

Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Overreach in Federal Court

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys fight Labor Board’s decision to promote monopoly unionism in virtually every workplace in America

Washington, DC (September 16, 2011) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a federal lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.

The new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they've never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. However, these rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers' rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Until the rule changes, which were implemented in late August, employers were required to post notices of workers' rights only if a violation of labor law occurred.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys believe the NLRB has exceeded its authority granted by Congress and violated free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Attorneys from the National Federation of Independent Business are challenging the new rule in the same complaint on behalf of two member businesses, Southeast Sealing, Inc. and Lehigh Valley Racquet and 24/7 Fitness Clubs.

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the NLRB administers union certification and decertification elections and adjudicates cases when workers, employers, or union officials file unfair labor practice charges against either unions or companies. However, the NLRB is now forcing its way into as many as six million private-sector workplaces by inventing out of whole cloth a new unfair labor practice without Congressional approval. And anyone can file the unfair labor practice charge – not just the company’s employees.

No other federal agency has ever made it unlawful to fail to post a notice that wasn't required by Congress. Any job provider that fails to post the biased notice could find itself forced into a lengthy and costly legal battle. And as a result, Mom and Pop shops, small businesses, larger companies – even some religiously-affiliated organizations – are now under the Obama Labor Board’s microscope and will feel the pressure to hand over their employees to forced unionism.

"Under these new rules, employers are essentially weaponized against workers," said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. "This 'divide and conquer' strategy should erase all doubt that the biased and ideologically-charged Obama Labor Board has turned into an organizing tool for Big Labor set to do one thing: force more workers into paying union dues to keep their jobs."

"The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is uniquely qualified to demonstrate that this one-sided rule is nothing more than yet another attempt by the Obama NLRB to force more workers into union ranks and stifle the rights of employees who want nothing to do with a union."

Obama Labor Board Kills Important Secret Ballot Precedent

Worker advocate denounces NLRB’s ruling to take away protection workers have against card check forced unionism

Washington, DC (August 30, 2011) – Today, Barack Obama's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned its Dana Corp. decision, in which National Right to Work Foundation attorneys secured for employees the right to challenge union card check organizing campaigns with a secret ballot vote.

Under the Foundation-won Dana decision, workers may collect signatures to request a secret ballot election during a 45-day window period following notice that their employer has recognized a union based on a card check organizing drive. The ruling is intended to counteract coercive practices frequently associated with card check, which allow organizers to bully or mislead employees into signing cards that count as "votes" toward unionization.

The NLRB overturned Dana just as President Obama-appointed NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman's term expired. Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Board Member Craig Becker, who co-authored a union brief in the original Dana case, refused to recuse himself from the case. Becker, a recess nominee, faces bi-partisan opposition to his confirmation in the U.S. Senate. One Board Member, Bryan Hayes, vigorously dissented and called the ruling a blatant roll back of employee freedom.

Any decertification votes that have been cast but not counted by the NLRB will now be discounted, thereby invalidating the voice of thousands of workers nationwide.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide. The Foundation is providing free legal aid in both the original Dana case and in the newly-decided Lamons Gasket case in which the Board overturned the Dana protections. Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation made the following statement regarding the ruling:

"The Obama Labor Board's ruling to kill the Dana Corp. precedent that allows workers a secret ballot vote to kick out a union that gained control of the workplace in an abusive 'card check' campaign adds to an already exhaustive list of paybacks from the Obama Administration to Big Labor.

"Big Labor and its allies have launched a full-scale assault on worker freedom and the Obama Administration is working tirelessly to appease them through bureaucratic means after they failed in Congress. The American people and their elected representatives in Congress oppose the Card Check Forced Unionism bill, but the Obama Labor Board seems determined to impose card check on American workers in every way it can.

"Taken with the NLRB's other recent actions, the Obama Administration has made it easier for union operatives to steamroll over workers while making it next to impossible for independent-minded workers to stand up for their rights or decertify the union hierarchy.

"While the secret ballot provides at least a limited protection to ensure that union recognition enjoys the uncoerced support of a majority of employees, no worker should ever be compelled to join or pay dues to a union, or accept the union's so-called representation, to get or keep a job."

Worker Advocate Denounces NLRB Rule Designed to Push Workers into Compulsory Unionism

National Right to Work Foundation President criticizes Labor Board’s decision to selectively publicize workers’ rights

Washington, DC (August 25, 2011) – Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) implemented new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.

Until these changes, employers were required to post notices of workers' rights only if a violation of labor law occurred. However, the new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they've never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. Meanwhile, union officials are not required to issue information about workers' rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation – a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide – made the following statement regarding the new rules:

"The NLRB's new rules are just the latest example of the Obama Labor Board’s biased approach to administering labor law.

"Just as the Obama administration promises to lessen the job-destroying weight of federal regulations, Obama's NLRB comes out with a new 'posting rule' to saddle every business – from ‘mom and pop' stores to IBM – with new mandatory posting requirements designed solely to grease the skids for more forced unionism.

"This unprecedented rule change fundamentally changes (and expands) the NLRB from a remedial role to an agency that is involved with every workplace in the country even if no allegations of violations have occurred.

"And as the long list of Big Labor paybacks on behalf of the Obama administration grows, workers are becoming increasingly susceptible to the whims of a biased and ideologically-charged Labor Board and its union boss beneficiaries.

"If the NLRB was really interested in protecting workers, they would inform workers of the dangers of coercive 'card check' drives and publicize their rights, under law, to remove an unwanted union instead of burdening job providers and independent-minded employees with new rules that undermine workplace freedom."

Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Pro-Union Boss Election Rule Change

New rule would allow union bosses ambush workers into forced-dues-paying union ranks

Washington, DC (August 18, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation – the nation’s premier advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – filed formal comments today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing the Board’s proposed new guidelines which will help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees.

In late June, the NLRB proposed new rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted. The new rules dramatically shorten the time frame individual workers have to share truthful information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization.

Moreover, the rules require job providers to disclose the personal information of workers (including their home address, phone number, email address, and shift information), thus opening up dissenting or undecided employees to intimidation, harassment, or worse.

The new rules also create a loophole which allows union organizers to claim they have support of 30 percent of employees in the workplace, the minimum number required to initiate an election, despite a dispute regarding the size of the bargaining unit in question. Then, union organizers who fear that they do not have enough support to win an election could withdraw their request for an election and use the newly-gotten personal information in later attempts to unionize the employees.

Foundation staff attorneys argue in the formal comments that ambush union organizing elections encourage forced unionization of workers who might otherwise be opposed to unionization, and that the rule requiring job providers to hand over the employees' personal information to union bosses is a violation of workers' privacy.

"The forced unionism bias is clear: The Obama NLRB is determined to make union organizing campaigns as one-sided as possible and to stifle the rights of employees who may oppose bringing a union into their workplace" said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. "Although a secret ballot election can’t prevent the fundamental violation of individual rights that occurs under union boss monopoly bargaining, at the very least one is needed that gives workers enough time to educate their coworkers on the downsides of unionization after months or even years of union organizing and propaganda."

"Rather than adopting this proposal, the NLRB should encourage the rights of independent-minded employees to thoughtfully determine their own fates in the workplace without being placed in greater danger of harassment or intimidation at the hands of aggressive union organizers," added Mix.