Southern California Lifeguards Petition Supreme Court in Battle Against Scheme Trapping Employees in Union Membership
Scheme prevents lifeguards from ending union membership for four years; Supreme Court petition also filed for CA in-home caregivers suffering similar restriction
Washington, DC (September 7, 2022) – Orange County, CA, lifeguard Jonathan Savas and 20 of his Southern California colleagues have just submitted a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, asking the Justices to hear their case challenging California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials’ so-called “maintenance of membership” restriction. The lifeguards are also suing State of California officials for their role in enforcing the restriction.
Savas and his colleagues argue the union-created scheme violates their rights under the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared that public sector workers cannot be forced to bankroll a union without voluntarily waiving their First Amendment right to abstain from union payments. Janus was won by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who also represent Savas and his fellow lifeguards for free in the present case, along with the Freedom Foundation and Mariah Gondeiro of Tyler Bursh, LLP.
Under the “maintenance of membership” requirement, CSLEA union bosses and the State of California force the lifeguards to both remain formal union members and supply full union dues payments to the CSLEA union against their will. Savas and the other plaintiffs sent messages resigning their union memberships and ending dues authorizations back in September 2019, but union officials denied their requests, alleging they must remain full members until 2023 or be fired. Despite Janus, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this requirement does not violate the First Amendment.
Foundation staff attorneys have also just filed a petition for writ of certiorari for Dolores Polk and several other California in-home caregivers, who are challenging a union “escape period” scheme limiting their Janus right to cut off union dues to just a handful of days per year. Although Polk and her fellow in-home caregivers are not public employees, they are still forced by California law to work under the so-called “representation” of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials.
Lifeguards’ Attorneys: ‘Maintenance of Membership’ Requirements Have Been Unconstitutional for Decades
Savas and his fellow lifeguards’ Foundation-provided attorneys argue that the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to strike down “maintenance of membership” requirements does not only contradict Janus’ ban on all forced dues in the public sector, but even goes against the Supreme Court’s now-overturned 1977 decision in Abood. Abood let union officials force dissenting public sector employees to pay a portion of union dues as a condition of employment.
“If anything, maintenance of membership requirements are more injurious to First Amendment rights because they also compel employees to remain union members over their objection—which infringes on associational rights—and [forces workers] to subsidize union speech” with full dues payments, reads the petition. That exceeds the boundaries set in Abood and includes subsidization of union political activity.
Savas’ petition also slams the Ninth Circuit’s failure to apply the Supreme Court’s “waiver” test to CSLEA’s “maintenance of membership” restriction. Janus dictated that union dues can only be deducted from a public employee’s paycheck if that employee gives a “clear and compelling” waiver of Janus rights. Foundation attorneys point out that the CSLEA union’s dues deductions forms contained only a “vague reference” to the “maintenance of membership” restriction. The Ninth Circuit erroneously believed that was enough to satisfy Janus requirements.
“A vague reference to unspecified limitations in ‘the Unit 7 contract and State law’ does not establish the Lifeguards contractually consented” to become and remain union members for four years, the petition says.
Supreme Court Must Intervene to Stop Spread of Unconstitutional Restrictions
The petition for Savas and his fellow lifeguards emphasizes how crucial it is for the Supreme Court to overturn cumbersome “maintenance of membership” restrictions, pointing out that California unions and legislators will continue to force public employees to remain formal union members and pay full dues as a condition of employment. “Other states likely will follow suit, such as Pennsylvania, whose laws also authorize maintenance of membership requirements,” the brief states.
In Polk’s petition, Foundation attorneys also emphasize the importance of striking down similarly anti-Janus “escape periods.” If the Court does not act, reads the petition, “There are few impediments to states and unions including oppressive restrictions in [dues deduction] forms, such as a requirement that individuals cannot stop state dues deductions except during annual ten-day periods,” allowing union officials an effective workaround of the First Amendment rights of the workers they claim to represent.
“The Ninth Circuit’s giving a pass to so-called ‘maintenance of membership’ restrictions effectively gives union officials complete control over when public employees can exercise their rights to end union membership and cut off union dues deductions,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That erases not only the protections against all forced dues payments provided by Janus, but even older rulings that forbade union officials from forcing full union membership and payment for union political activities on public workers.”
“The Supreme Court must intervene in Mr. Savas’ case and Ms. Polk’s case to protect public sector workers’ First Amendment rights and prevent union bosses and their political allies from replicating across the country these patently unconstitutional restrictions,” Mix added.
“Public sector employees have been leaving their government employee unions in droves when they learn they have the right to do so,” explained Freedom Foundation attorney Rebekah Millard. “These California unions are employing tactics to entrap people in the union, forcing them to keep paying dues against their will. It is time for the Supreme Court to step in and affirm the First Amendment rights laid out in Janus.”
Workplace Advocacy Groups Urge Americans to Oppose Anti-Worker Freedom Agenda on Labor Day
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2022:
Today, we should remember that Labor Day is about celebrating the determination and ingenuity of America’s workers and the importance of protecting workers’ individual rights. Vital among these is every American worker’s Right to Work: the freedom to decide to join or financially support a union, or refrain from doing so.
Unfortunately, union officials will attempt to steal the spotlight on Labor Day to drum up support for their coercive political ideas, almost all of which involve blatant infringements of the Right to Work. Big Labor and its political allies like Joe Biden claim that workers favor unions and that union officials should be granted nearly unlimited power to sweep workers under union control.
This fiction is false and incredibly damaging to workers’ freedom. The truth is, the average unionized worker is more likely to be involved in an effort to vote out an unpopular union than a non-union worker is to be involved in a campaign to install one. Even so, union officials are making a full-court press both in Congress and at executive agencies to eliminate state Right to Work protections and force millions more workers across the country to pay union bosses just to stay employed, and to make it even harder for workers to vote out a union they don’t want.
Defending worker freedom is a better way for American workers, and the evidence for this is abundant. The last decade saw the number of states that protect Right to Work grow to a majority, and employees have been flocking to Right to Work states to take advantage of the economic opportunity and prosperity supported by Right to Work laws. As of last year, a majority of American workers live in states where the Right to Work is safeguarded.
Right to Work finds support with the vast majority of Americans year after year because it is a common-sense moral principle with clear benefits to workers and their families. In the midst of continued economic uncertainty and unprecedented union power grabs, we have a duty to make sure that workers’ fundamental rights are protected. Let’s remember that this Labor Day and continue to fight for worker freedom.
Southern IL Aluminum Worker Slams IBEW Union with New Federal Charges After Illegal Termination Threat
IBEW union officials threatened to fire worker for failure to pay union fees, even though union contract is invalid
Murphysboro, IL (August 26, 2022) – Penn Aluminum International employee Mary Beck has filed new federal charges against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 702 union, stating that union officials threatened to get her fired for failure to pay union fees demanded under a defective contract.
Beck, who is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, has amended charges she hit the union with in June. The original charges stated IBEW union officials unlawfully seized money from her wages without her consent and without proving that a contract mandating such deductions is in effect.
Because Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, union officials can legally force workers in facilities under union control to pay some union fees just to stay employed. However, union bosses lose this legal privilege if there is no valid monopoly bargaining contract in effect. Under longstanding law, union officials must also gain consent from a worker before they can demand that an employer deduct compulsory fees from a worker’s paycheck.
Beck’s original unfair labor practice charge noted that she sent a letter to IBEW union chiefs and her employer in January 2022 exercising her right to resign her union membership and to stop any union dues deductions from her paychecks that are not required to maintain employment. Her letter also demanded a copy of any contract that gives IBEW officials the power to require dues payments as a condition of employment.
When she received no response, she redelivered this letter by hand in March 2022. In this letter Beck also requested that, if IBEW union officials could produce a valid contract, her dues payments be reduced as per the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. In CWA v. Beck the Court ruled that union officials in non-Right to Work states cannot force nonmembers to pay fees for political and other union activities outside the union’s bargaining functions. Union dues were still deducted from her paycheck after this letter.
IBEW Union Bosses Blew Off Worker Requests for Months, Then Threatened Her Termination
Beck’s amended charge states that IBEW union officials didn’t acknowledge her requests until July, when they finally sent a copy of the union contract and ended dues deductions, but still demanded she pay an unspecified amount of union fees to keep her job. The amended charge points out that the contract produced does not contain language that lets IBEW bosses take advantage of their legal privilege to force all employees to pay dues as a condition of employment.
According to the amended charge, the contract also does not “contain the grace period required by Section 8(a)(3)” of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). That section of the NLRA requires new employees to be given at least 30 days before being compelled to pay union fees in a workplace under a forced-fees union contract.
Union officials in an August 9 letter threatened to terminate Beck by August 15 if she didn’t pay union fees. “The letter failed to provide Charging Party with the exact amount the Union claims she owes or a reasonable opportunity for her to pay those alleged fees,” Beck’s amended charge says. Both are required by longstanding precedents.
Beck’s new charge argues that the union’s continued deduction of dues after her March letter and demands for union fees without a valid contract in place violate her rights under the NLRA.
“IBEW bosses threatening to upend Ms. Beck’s career for failure to pay fees to which the union’s sloppily-written contract doesn’t even entitle them is terrible malfeasance to be sure, but a correctly written contract certainly wouldn’t solve the problem,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The real injustice is that millions of workers across the country, Ms. Beck included, can be forced to pay anything to a union hierarchy just to keep their jobs.”
“Ultimately, every worker in America deserves the protection of a Right to Work law, not only so workers are shielded from having to choose between their jobs and funding a union they oppose, but also because when dues are fully voluntary union officials must prove their worth to workers before earning their financial support,” Mix added.
National Employee Freedom Week: Time to Build on Janus by Ending Injustice of Forced Union Monopoly ‘Representation’
Foundation’s 2018 Supreme Court victory protects public workers’ right not to fund union they oppose, but union officials can still ‘speak for’ dissident workers
Washington, DC (August 19, 2022) – National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement in recognition of National Employee Freedom Week:
“On this week, we remind all independent-minded American educators and public sector workers that the First Amendment forbids union officials from getting employees fired merely for refusal to join or fund a union that pushes divisive politics, negotiates lousy contracts, or simply acts against worker interests.
“However, while the Foundation’s 2018 Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME protects public workers’ ability to stop subsidizing union activities they oppose, much more needs to be done to fully defend these employees’ free association rights. Public sector union officials in the vast majority of states still wield government-granted monopoly ‘representation’ power over workers who don’t want and never asked for a union, and the Foundation is currently fighting alongside workers who oppose their voices being stifled by this coercive, unconstitutional privilege.”
National Employee Freedom Week is dedicated to educating American public teachers and other public sector employees that they have a right to refuse to fund or join unions in their workplace that do not serve their interests. Public employees are also advised this week that, although union bosses don’t want them to know it, many non-union voluntary options exist to provide liability insurance and other benefits that union officials tout as a reason to join a union, even though union membership means paying for union political activities that many workers oppose. In fact, many non-union options for liability insurance, especially for teachers, provide better coverage than union options at far less cost to teachers.
In the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys, the Justices ruled that public employees have a First Amendment right to cut off dues to an unwanted union, and also recognized that union dues could only be deducted from a public sector employee’s paycheck with their explicit consent. Even today, many union officials refuse to abide by this limit on their coercive power, resulting in numerous ongoing lawsuits by Foundation staff attorneys seeking to enforce workers’ Janus rights.
In the Janus decision, Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the majority, additionally explained that union monopoly “representation” power in the public sector is “a significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts,” perhaps indicating an interest from the High Court in striking down this coercive privilege in the future.
NLRB Certifies Mankato Mayo Clinic Nurses’ Vote to Oust MNA Union Officials, Rejects Union Boss Attempt to Overturn Vote
Nurses now free of both unwanted union monopoly ‘representation’ and forced union fee demands
Mankato, MN (August 18, 2022) – Mayo Clinic nurses’ vote to oust unwanted Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union officials from their workplace has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), in a decision that also rejected two union objections to the election. The nurses voted 213-181 in July to remove the MNA as their monopoly “representative.” Union officials attempted to not only overturn the result, but to prohibit the workers from even holding another decertificiation vote.
Nurse Brittany Burgess filed a petition in June with Region 18 of the NLRB for more than 200 of her coworkers requesting the election. She did so with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Minnesota is not a Right to Work state, meaning Burgess and the nurses voting in the election at Mayo Clinic had been forced to pay fees to MNA union bosses they opposed just to keep their jobs. Now that the NLRB has certified the “decertification election” results, the nurses are free of both union officials’ forced-fee demands and the union’s control over their terms and conditions of employment.
NLRB Ruling Rejects Union Boss Objections to Election Entirely
NLRB Region 18’s decision and order certifying the vote rejected both arguments from MNA union officials that the vote should be overturned. Union officials claimed a sample ballot circulated by workers opposed to the union didn’t contain legally-required disclaimers about the neutrality of the NLRB. The officials also made vague allegations that other conduct somehow improperly swayed the employees’ choice.
The NLRB election certification order explains that a reviewed photo of the sample ballot “clearly contains the disclaimer language.” The order also declares that the union’s objection to other conduct is not only too “nonspecific” to be meet the NLRB’s standards, but further states that the conduct it alludes to would not rise to the level of invalidating an employee vote anyway.
Though MNA union officials’ attempt to upend the Mayo Clinic vote was particularly vacuous, Burgess and her coworkers were guarded from even more arbitrary union delays thanks to Foundation-advocated reforms to union decertification rules adopted by the NLRB in 2020. Before the reforms, union officials could file “blocking charges” to stop a vote to oust a union from even commencing. Such charges often contained allegations of employer conduct that were both unproven and unrelated to the employees’ desire to get rid of the union.
Unfortunately, the Biden NLRB announced in June it was initiating rulemaking to overturn those reforms and make it easier for union officials to block decertification votes, no matter how many rank-and-file workers request a vote.
Foundation Assisting Nurses at Other MN Medical Facilities to Exercise Right to Vote Out Unions
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have recently assisted other workers in numerous successful decertification efforts. Just this month, Foundation-backed workers at Mayo Clinic’s location in St. James, MN, removed American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 65 from their hospital.
Foundation staff attorneys are also assisting nurses at four Cuyuna Regional Medical Center locations with obtaining a vote to remove Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses from their facilities. Because the NLRB has made the decertification process unnecessarily complicated, workers often need to turn to Foundation attorneys for free legal aid in navigating the process.
“These nurses worked hard to exercise their right to remove a union they didn’t feel represented their interests, and Foundation staff attorneys were happy to help them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “MNA union officials’ arbitrary attempt to block the certification of the nurses’ will demonstrates the ridiculous charades union officials often pull just to keep siphoning money from workers who don’t want them anymore.”
“The situation also puts into stark relief the risk the Biden NLRB is putting independent-minded workers in by attempting to reverse the recent Election Protection reforms. Eliminating the reforms will make it easier for union bosses to trap workers in forced-dues union ranks, even when a majority of workers oppose the union’s so-called ‘representation,’” Mix added.
Flight Attendant’s Legal Victory Over Illegal Union-Instigated Firing Exposes Union Boss Targeting of Dissenting Employees
Trial documents show union activist advocating ‘targeted assassinations’ of union critics, Southwest senior management referring to nonmember as ‘cancer’
Dallas, TX (August 3, 2022) – During former Southwest Airlines flight attendant Charlene Carter’s recently-concluded federal trial over her illegal firing at the hands of Southwest and Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), disturbing details emerged about the union’s treatment of employees who object to the union’s agenda. The trial ended in a unanimous jury verdict in favor of Carter which awarded her more than $5 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages.
Carter’s Foundation staff attorneys filed a lawsuit for her in 2017 against the union and Southwest for illegally firing her for speaking out about her religious beliefs and against the union’s political activities. In January 2017, Carter learned that Audrey Stone, then union president, and other TWU Local 556 officials used union dues to attend the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.” That event was sponsored by political groups Carter opposed, including Planned Parenthood.
The illegal firing occurred after President Stone reported Carter to Southwest for sending Stone online messages challenging Stone’s leadership and the political agenda the union hierarchy was pursuing. Carter’s opposition to union political activities included the TWU officials’ advocacy against a National Right to Work law which, if passed, would have allowed Carter to completely cut off financial support to the union.
Emails Show Union Militants Ridiculed Employees Who Didn’t Want to Fund Union Politics, Pushed ‘Targeted Assassinations’ for Union Dissidents
At the trial Carter’s attorneys introduced emails obtained in discovery that showed TWU higher-ups’ contempt for workers opposed to the union’s control. A 2014 email communication to Southwest’s then-Senior Director in Inflight Services, Sonya Lacore, from TWU union activist Brian Talburt had the latter advocating for “targeted assassinations” of union dissidents via social media. Lacore referred to Talburt as her “frequent pen pal” during her deposition prior to trial.
In the same email, Talburt labeled Corliss King, who later became a Local 556 executive board member, as “incredibly dangerous” because “She will play VERY well to the heavy inner city, minority crowd.” Talburt suggested there would be an “opportunity” for an assassination of King given what he described as her “dreadful work history.”
Also in the email, a union nonmember and frequent critic, Mike Casper, was referred to as a “cancer” that must be “eradicated.” Talburt also appears to call union critics “sheeple” and “cancer,” and says dissent against the union is “a dangerous thing and must b [sic] eradicated when ever [sic] possible or it spreads… I highly encourage targeting people.”
Talburt later forwarded the email to TWU president Stone highlighting what he claimed was “off the record” promotion to Lacore of “targeted assassination” of union critics. President Stone would then later target Carter with the complaint to company management that led to Carter’s illegal termination by Southwest.
President Stone also testified at trial to reporting other union opponents to Southwest, including the leader of the recall effort whom Stone reported for criticizing her on social media for reporting Carter. Throughout 2017, Talburt repeatedly emailed Southwest management, asking that they discipline the recall leader and other union opponents for their protected activities.
Emails unearthed by Foundation attorneys and introduced at trial also showed the contempt that Southwest and TWU officials had for Carter specifically because she opposed union political activities. After Carter sent an email to TWU Local 556 Treasurer John Parrot demanding that the union stop deductions from her paycheck for the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC), Parrot forwarded Carter’s request to several union agents, saying “Ha! She has been supporting the thing she despises this entire time…”
One respondent to Parrot’s forward was Todd Gage, a TWU Local 556 Vice President, who wrote: “I wish I could give her a list of all the campaigns she has donated to in the last 17 years! Her head would explode.” Local 556 Second Vice President, Brett Nevarez, said “so typical bat****/dip**** cannot read her paycheck!”
Foundation Attorneys Will Continue to Defend Carter
Despite the unanimous jury verdict for Carter, Southwest and TWU union officials have announced that they will appeal. Foundation staff attorneys will continue to defend Carter.
“Ms. Carter demonstrated that, even in an overwhelmingly toxic environment, independent-minded workers can stand up, push back against union boss attacks on individual rights and free speech, and win,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The evidence presented at Carter’s trial reveals an ingrained union culture of intimidation and prejudice against dissident workers. While we will keep fighting to defend Ms. Carter’s victory for her rights, flight attendants or other employees who have experienced similar hostility should not hesitate to contact the National Right to Work Foundation for help in defending their rights.”
“Federal law governing labor relations in the air and rail industries allows union officials to demand workers fund their activities as a condition of employment,” Mix added. “TWU union officials’ attacks on employees who disagree with the union’s agenda are the unsurprising result of a system in which workers do not have even the simple power to withhold dues when union officials violate their rights – an accountability mechanism Right to Work protects.”
Minneapolis Metalworkers Win After Year-And-a-Half-Long Effort to Vote Out Unpopular CWA Union Bosses
Union ousted in employee-requested election despite its efforts to manipulate allegations against employer to stop vote
Minneapolis, MN (July 29, 2022) – After a year-and-a-half-long legal battle, Minneapolis metalworker Roger Downing and his coworkers at Minneapolis Washer and Stamping have successfully voted unpopular Communications Workers of America (IUE-CWA) Local 1140 union officials out of their facility. Downing received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified the election result in Downing’s workplace on July 20. Downing and his coworkers’ effort faced headwinds in 2021 after IUE-CWA union bosses filed election “blocking charges.” Those are often-unsubstantiated charges against employers that union officials frequently use to shut down employee-led efforts to vote unions out.
The NLRB adopted Foundation-backed reforms in 2020 that generally prevent such charges from stopping a decertification election. The reforms also provide that employees at least be allowed to cast ballots before allegations of misconduct surrounding the election are resolved.
Metalworkers Persist after IUE-CWA Union Boss Attempts to Stifle Vote
Downing first submitted a petition asking the NLRB to conduct a decertification vote in March 2021. IUE-CWA union lawyers quickly filed “blocking charges” alleging misdeeds by Minneapolis Washer and Stamping officials that were not even related to the employees’ desire for an election. NLRB Region 18 in Minneapolis, apparently ignoring the 2020 election rules curbing these oft-used union tactics, decided to block the election at the union officials’ behest.
Foundation attorneys representing Downing filed a Request for Review at the NLRB in Washington, DC, arguing that NLRB Region 18 had wrongfully disregarded the 2020 reforms to NLRB election rules. The Request for Review also pointed out that Region 18 blocked the election without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was any causal connection between IUE-CWA union officials’ claims and the employees’ desire to boot the union – a breach of NLRB precedent predating the 2020 rules.
Once union officials’ ability to block the election expired, Downing submitted a second decertification petition for his colleagues. The election result demonstrated that IUE-CWA union officials no longer have majority employee support, and consequently, that union officials can no longer impose their monopoly bargaining powers over the entire work unit. Downing and his fellow metalworkers are now free of the union.
Workers Across Minnesota Standing Up to Unwanted Unions
Downing and his coworkers’ successful ouster of the IUE-CWA union comes as other rank-and-file workers in the Gopher State are seeking Foundation aid in obtaining “decertification elections” to eliminate union representation that no longer serves their interests. Recently, hundreds of nurses at Mayo Clinic locations in Mankato and St. James voted by wide margins to eject Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union officials and American Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials respectively.
Also, earlier this month, employees of Cuyuna Regional Medical Center facilities in the Brainerd Lakes region of Minnesota filed multiple petitions for elections to remove Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Minnesota from power.
Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees. Thus, union officials can force even workers who reject formal union membership to pay some union dues or fees as a condition of staying employed. In contrast, all the states that border Minnesota and 23 others have Right to Work protections that ensure union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
“In Mr. Downing and his colleagues’ workplace we see yet another example of union officials unabashedly stifling the will of the workers they claim to ‘represent.’ Foundation attorneys were honored to aid Mr. Downing and his coworkers as they persisted for well over a year through litigation meant to stop them from kicking out an unpopular union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“Union association should never be forced, and Minnesota legislators should pass a Right to Work law to protect workers’ right to freely choose whether to join or fund a union,” Mix added.
Maine Medical Center Nurses Secure Vote to Remove Unwanted Maine State Nurses Association Union Officials’ ‘Representation’
More than 500 workers petitioned for union “decertification election” seeking a vote as soon as allowed following imposition of unwanted union
Portland, ME (July 21, 2022) – Maine Medical Center nurses will soon vote in an election that could send Maine State Nurses Association (MSNA-NNU, an affiliate of National Nurses United) union officials packing from the hospital. This follows Nurse Davin Brooks’ submission of a petition containing signatures of more than 500 of his colleagues.
Brooks and his fellow nurses are receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The petition comes as Foundation staff attorneys are increasingly assisting healthcare workers in obtaining votes to remove unwanted unions, including in Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Massachusetts.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal private-sector labor law, a duty which includes conducting votes to both certify and decertify unions. Foundation staff attorneys recommended reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 that significantly eased processes by which workers can request a vote to remove an unwanted union. Those reforms included limiting union officials’ ability to manipulate often-unverified allegations of employer wrongdoing to stop an employee-requested union decertification vote.
Union Installed Through Dubious Mail-Ballot Process, Employees Soon Wanted Ouster
MSNA union officials were originally installed at Maine Medical Center in Portland in May 2021, after the NLRB conducted a mail-ballot union certification vote among the hospital employees. Mail-ballot NLRB elections, which before COVID were very rare and only held where in-person votes were not feasible, have lower turnout rates than standard in-person elections. Studies show mail-ballot elections benefit union organizers in part due to that lower turnout. Conducting such votes through the mail also has resulted in post office errors that disenfranchise workers, and ballot harvesting by union organizers that undermines the privacy of workers’ votes.
Since the union was installed last year, MSNA union officials and Maine Medical Center management have been unable to finalize a contract. Brooks filed the decertification petition signed by his coworkers in June, the soonest allowed by the NLRB’s “election bar” which prevents more than one such election within a year. The election is scheduled for August 17 and 18, and will be held in person at multiple Maine Medical Center locations.
“Maine Medical Center employees are more than reasonable in their desire to oust MSNA union officials, who came to power at the facility through a questionable mail-ballot vote and have failed to produce a contract in over a year,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No healthcare worker should be subject to the monopoly control of a union that they don’t believe serves their interests. We are proud to aid Mr. Brooks and his coworkers in exercising their right to free themselves of union officials that clearly made promises to nurses on which the union could not actually deliver.”
Flight Attendant Triumphs Over TWU Union and Southwest in Suit About Illegal Firing; Jury Awards $5.1 Million in Damages
TWU union and Southwest retaliated against employee for speaking out against political stances and activities of union leadership that violated her religious beliefs
Dallas, TX (July 14, 2022) – Southwest Airlines flight attendant Charlene Carter has just prevailed in her federal lawsuit in which she charged the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556 union and Southwest for illegally firing her for her religious opposition to abortion. She received free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Today a federal district court jury returned a verdict that found in Carter’s favor in all counts of the lawsuit. The jury awarded Carter $5.1 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages against TWU and Southwest for their respective role in her unlawful termination.
Following the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas’ announcement of a verdict in the case, National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement about Carter’s victory:
“This long overdue verdict vindicates Ms. Carter’s fundamental right to dissent from the causes and ideas that TWU union officials – who claim to ‘represent’ Southwest flight attendants – support while forcing workers to bankroll their activities. No American worker should have to fear termination, intimidation, or any other reprisal merely for speaking out against having their own money spent, purportedly in their name, to promote an agenda they find abhorrent.
“Even with this basic right under the Railway Labor Act successfully defended, however, TWU union officials still enjoy the enormous government-granted privilege of being able to force airline workers to financially subsidize their activities as a condition of employment. While we’re proud to stand with Ms. Carter and are pleased by the verdict, there ultimately should be no place in American labor law for compelling workers to fund a private organization that violates their core beliefs.”
Flight Attendant Called Out Union Officials for Their Political Activities
As a Southwest employee, Carter joined TWU Local 556 in September 1996. A pro-life Christian, she resigned her membership in September 2013 after learning that her union dues were being used to promote causes that violate her conscience, such as abortion.
Carter resigned from union membership but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. State Right to Work laws do not protect her from forced union fees because airline and railway employees are covered by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA). The RLA allows union officials to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. But it does protect the rights of employees to remain nonmembers of the union, to criticize the union and its leadership, and advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.
In January 2017, Carter learned that Audrey Stone, the union president, and other TWU Local 556 officials used union dues to attend the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.,” which was sponsored by political groups she opposed, including Planned Parenthood.
Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, took to social media to challenge Stone’s leadership and to express support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message affirming her commitment to both the recall effort and a National Right to Work law after the union had sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.
After sending Stone that email, Southwest managers notified Carter that they needed to have a mandatory meeting as soon as possible about “Facebook posts they had seen.” During this meeting, Southwest presented Carter screenshots of her pro-life posts and messages and questioned why she made them.
Carter explained her religious beliefs and opposition to the union’s political activities. Carter said that, by participating in the Women’s March, President Stone and TWU Local 556 members purported to represent all Southwest flight attendants. Southwest authorities told Carter that President Stone claimed to be harassed by Carter’s messages. A week after this meeting, Southwest fired Carter.
Religious Discrimination Suit Already Weathered Early Attack from Southwest and Union
In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit with help from Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the firing as an abuse of her rights, alleging she lost her job because of her religious beliefs, standing up to TWU Local 556 officials, and criticizing the union’s political activities and how it spent employees’ dues and fees.
Before the District Court’s decision, a federal judge blocked attempts to shut down the case early by Southwest and TWU. Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment, with Southwest claiming that Carter lacked a “private right of action” to enforce her rights under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and that her case concerned only a “minor” dispute over interpretation of the union contract that is outside the jurisdiction of the District Court. District Court Judge Brantley Starr rejected all those motions, ruling that “genuine disputes of material fact” precluded summary judgment and that a jury should decide those disputes.
IAM Union Quickly Folds in Boeing Technician’s Lawsuit over Unlawful Dues Deductions, Union Must Return Dues
Union bosses used other union locals’ financial data to ‘calculate’ higher forced dues amount than longstanding law allows
Seattle, WA (July 14, 2022) – A technician at Boeing’s Auburn, WA, facility has won a settlement requiring International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials to return dues money seized from his wages in violation of his rights under Supreme Court precedent. He received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
In May, Boeing technician Don Zueger filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the IAM union, maintaining the union breached his rights guaranteed by the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Beck, the Court ruled that union officials cannot lawfully demand full union dues from objecting private sector workers who abstain from formal union membership.
Under Beck, union officials can only charge union nonmembers “fees” which exclude expenses for things like union political activities. Washington State’s lack of Right to Work protections for its private sector workers means that union officials can compel workers to pay certain fees as a condition of keeping their jobs.
In contrast, in the 27 states that have Right to Work laws on the books, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary. This eliminates the opportunity for union officials to “cook the books” when determining the amount that nonmembers can be required to pay under threat of termination.
IAM Dues Scheme Used Audits from Other Union Locals to Impose Illegal Dues Rate on Worker
According to Zueger’s lawsuit, in February he resigned his union membership and asked IAM union officials to decrease his dues payments as the Supreme Court’s Beck precedent requires.
IAM officials responded by claiming that, under the union’s nationwide policy, nonmember forced fee amounts come from averages of selected audits that in each case include nine other local and district IAM affiliates. This means that IAM officials did not calculate Zueger’s compulsory union fee rate using the actual percentages determined in the audits of the local and district IAM affiliates that Zueger must subsidize as a condition of employment.
Unsurprisingly, this policy resulted in Zueger’s forced dues amount being higher than it would have been had union officials followed Beck and only used the audits for the district and local affiliates Zueger is forced to fund.
Zueger’s lawsuit sought to force IAM union bosses to return all money taken in violation of Beck and to properly reduce his future union payments in accordance with Beck.
Settlement Requires IAM Union to Return Illegally Seized Dues
Rather than attempt to defend their scheme which increased Zueger’s forced fee amount, IAM union chiefs quickly backed down and settled the case. IAM union officials have now, as the settlement mandates, returned to Zueger the difference between the required forced fees amount and the illegal amount the union imposed on him.
Going forward, the settlement forbids IAM union officials from demanding from Zueger any money in excess of the actual reduced Beck portion. The settlement vindicates Zueger’s Beck rights, though these are limited compared to the full protections of a Right to Work law.
“Mr. Zueger’s quick victory in this case likely indicates IAM union bosses had no confidence that their ‘averaging’ dues scheme would survive any serious judicial inspection,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s shameful that union officials continue to search for ways to violate the decades-old Beck Supreme Court precedent and overcharge workers who clearly want nothing to do with the union and its agenda – a big concern as union politicking heats up in advance of midterm elections.”
“This scheme to artificially manipulate forced fees calculations is part of the IAM’s nationwide policy, so almost certainly other workers in Seattle and across the country are also being subjected to the same illegal calculations,” added Mix. “The Foundation has helped workers exercise and defend their Beck rights for years, and workers should reach out to us for free legal aid if they encounter illegal dues demands.”
Workers can request free legal aid from the Foundation by calling 800-336-3600 or through the Foundation’s website at https://www.nrtw.org/free-legal-aid/.
