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.

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/.

Teamsters officials unsuccessfully challenged ballots of majority of workers

Louisville, KY (July 5, 2022) – After a months-long effort, Paul Garvin and his coworkers at DSI Tunneling in Louisville have successfully exercised their right to vote unpopular Teamsters union officials out of their workplace. Garvin, who led the effort and submitted the petition for a vote to decertify the Teamsters, received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 9 in Cincinnati certified the election result on June 28. The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a duty which includes administering votes to certify or decertify unions.

Garvin and his colleagues’ effort faced headwinds from Teamsters union officials, who challenged the ballots of several new DSI employees. The NLRB rejected the union’s contentions against the ballots in their entirety, and ordered the ballot count which was conducted on June 8 and included ballots from the entire work unit under the Teamsters union’s control.

NLRB Rejects Union Attempt to Disenfranchise Over Half of Unit

Garvin first submitted a petition for a vote on whether to remove the union on October 15, 2021, signed by the requisite number of his colleagues to trigger such an election. While the NLRB administered a mail-ballot election about a month later, union officials challenged more than half the ballots cast on the grounds that a group of new DSI employees are somehow “agents of the employer” and that they are temporary employees technically excluded from the unit.

NLRB regional officials in Cincinnati shot down Teamsters’ bosses arguments, stating that “There is no evidence that the employees had actual or apparent authority to act as agents of the Employer,” and that DSI management had provided “sufficient evidence that there was a mutual understanding of the employees that they hold permanent positions with the Employer.”

Regional NLRB officials then counted the ballots cast in the election, which revealed that 60% of the unit had voted to remove Teamsters officials from monopoly bargaining power at their facility.

NLRB in Washington Seeks to Hinder Workers Who Want to Oust Unwanted Unions

Garvin and his coworkers’ successful ouster of unwanted Teamsters officials comes as the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC, has announced that it will initiate rulemaking to overturn 2020 Foundation-backed reforms that strengthened the ability of rank-and-file workers to obtain elections to remove unwanted union representation. The reforms generally prevent often-unverified union boss allegations against employers from stopping workers from voting in union decertification elections.

“We are pleased that Mr. Garvin and his coworkers were finally able to oust unpopular Teamsters officials, and we were proud to support them in their endeavor,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Teamsters officials tried to use ultimately-rejected allegations to invalidate the voices of more than half of the DSI employees they claim to ‘represent,’ demonstrating that workers need more, not less, protection for their right to vote in secret on whether union officials should stay in power at their workplaces.”

Biden NLRB announces rulemaking to expand union boss power to block decertification votes and trap workers in union ranks opposed by rank-and-file

Washington, DC (June 24, 2022) – National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix today slammed the National Labor Relations Board’s announcement that it would be initiating rulemaking to overturn 2020 reforms that strengthened the ability of rank-and-file workers to hold votes to remove unwanted union representation:

“With this announcement, the Biden NLRB has signaled its abandonment of any pretense of protecting the free choice rights of workers opposed to union affiliation. While the Foundation-backed 2020 reforms provided much-needed protections of the right of workers to vote in secret on union ‘representation,’ the Biden-appointed majority is showing once again that its priority is protecting union boss power, even when it means undermining the clear, statutory rights of employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

“By seeking to destroy these modest checks on union boss control, the Biden NLRB will make it easier for workers to be trapped in union ranks, including forced dues payment, even when a majority of workers oppose union officials’ so-called ‘representation.’ This move may serve the interests of the Big Labor politicos who helped put Biden and his allies in Congress in office, but it is a blatant attack on the rights of the rank-and-file workers of America, who have overwhelmingly chosen not to affiliate with a labor union.”

Pro-Voting Reforms in Crosshairs of Union-Label NLRB

The 2020 reforms now targeted by the Biden NLRB changed how the agency deals with union “blocking charges,” which are filed by union officials to prevent rank-and-file employees from exercising their right to vote to remove (or “decertify”) a union.

Under old rules, union officials could block workers’ requested votes from taking place for months or even years by making any type of allegations against the employer. When applied properly, the 2020 changes prevent “blocking charges” from stopping an election in most cases, and permit unfair labor practice charges surrounding an election to be taken up usually only after a vote tally has been released.

In some Foundation cases, NLRB bureaucrats have blocked employee-requested elections based on “blocking charges” alleging employer misconduct unrelated to the workers’ desire to oust the union, or even based on supposed employer wrongdoing that took place outside of the employee unit seeking such a vote.

The NLRB in 2020 also substantially eliminated the so-called “voluntary recognition bar.” Union officials used this scheme to block workers from requesting a secret-ballot election after a union was installed as a monopoly bargaining agent through an abuse-prone “card check” drive.

“Card check” bypasses the NLRB secret-ballot process and lets union officials demand so-called “authorization cards” directly from workers – conduct that would be patently illegal in any secret-ballot setting.

The NLRB in 2020 instead reinstated a system secured by Foundation staff attorneys for workers in the 2007 Dana Corp. NLRB decision, which permitted workers to challenge the result of a “card check” drive by petitioning for a secret-ballot vote. Thousands of workers took advantage of the Dana process post-2007, but the Obama NLRB voided employees’ Dana rights in 2010.

Additionally, the NLRB in 2020 changed its rules to crack down on construction industry schemes through which employers and union bosses unilaterally install a union in a workplace without first providing proof of majority union support among the workers. Foundation staff attorneys represented a victim of such a scheme in a key case (Colorado Fire Sprinkler, Inc.) that ended when a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously reversed the Obama Board and ruled for the worker who had been unionized despite no evidence of majority employee support for the union.

Union officials still taking full dues from her paycheck months after she requested stop, union contract may also be ineffective

Murphysboro, IL (June 17, 2022) – Penn Aluminum International employee Mary Beck has filed a federal charge against International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 702 after union officials unlawfully seized money from her wages without her consent and without proving that a contract mandating such deductions is even in effect.

As detailed in the charge, the Murphysboro aluminum worker informed local union officials twice that they have no legal authority to deduct money from her paycheck, but union officials ignored her and instead illegally continue to seize full union dues, including dues for union political activity.

Beck’s charge was filed at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 14 in St. Louis with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Additionally, her case says union officials violated federal labor law by refusing to even respond to her requests to stop dues deductions.

As Beck’s unfair labor practice charge notes, she sent a letter to IBEW union chiefs and her employer in January 2022, exercising her right to resign her union membership and end any union dues deductions she was not required to pay in order to keep her job. Her letter also demanded a copy of any contract that gives IBEW officials the power to require dues payment as a condition of employment. When she received no response, she redelivered this letter by hand in March 2022.

IBEW Union Bosses Didn’t Show They Can Legally Take Dues from Worker, Take Money Anyway

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 monopoly bargaining contract in effect between the union and management in the workplace. Under longstanding law, union officials must also gain consent from a worker before they can directly deduct compulsory fees from his or her paycheck.

In contrast, in the 27 Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary and the free choice of each individual worker.

Additionally, nonmember workers governed by a union monopoly bargaining contract have a right under the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision to object to paying any union fees beyond what union officials claim goes toward core bargaining activities. This amount excludes money used for union political expenditures. Beck’s letter asked that all union deductions cease if IBEW bosses failed to provide a valid contract, and reduce her dues as per CWA v. Beck if they were able to provide such a contract.

To date, Beck’s charge says, the union has not responded to her written request, full union dues (including dues for politics) are still coming out of her paycheck, and she has not received a copy of a union contract.

Beck’s charge states that IBEW bosses are violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by “accepting fees from Charging Party’s paycheck without a consent or a collective bargaining agreement” and by “failing to respond in a timely manner to Charging Party’s January and March letters.” These actions violate Beck’s right under the NLRA to abstain from union activity, the charge says.

Illegal Forced-Dues-For-Politics Trickery Likely to Increase as Midterm Elections Near

Beck’s charge comes after union bosses spent near-record sums on politics during the 2020 election cycle. A report by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released in 2021 revealed that union officials’ own filings show about $2 billion in political spending during the 2020 cycle, money primarily from dues-stocked union general treasuries, including dues from workers in non-Right to Work states who would be fired if they refused to financially support union activities. Moreover, other estimates strongly suggest that actual union spending on political and lobbying activities actually topped $12 billion in 2019-2020.

“IBEW union officials in Illinois, a non-Right to Work state, already have the legal power to demand that dissenting workers like Ms. Beck subsidize some union activities against their will. The fact they are taking money from her well in excess of the legal limit – months after she requested a stop – demonstrates they value power and influence far above workers’ individual rights,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As midterm elections near and union officials seek to defend their government-granted power to force workers to pay up or else be fired, workers should not hesitate to contact the Foundation to challenge forced-dues-for-politics situations like the one that Ms. Beck is facing.”

Union officials had police bureau rescind benefit after employees exercised their First Amendment right to abstain from formal union membership & dues

Para leer este artículo en español, haga clic aquí.

San Juan, PR (June 3, 2022) – Eight civilian employees of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau (PRPB) are suing the Union of Organized Civilian Employees and their employer for illegally retaliating against them for the exercise of their constitutional rights. Their suit says bureau and union officials are depriving them of a monthly health benefit because they are not union members. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are representing the workers for free and filed their class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

The plaintiffs, Vanessa Carbonell, Roberto Whatts Osorio, Elba Colon Nery, Billy Nieves Hernandez, Nelida Alvarez Febus, Linda Dumont Guzman, Sandra Quinones Pinto, and Yomarys Ortiz Gonzalez are defending their First Amendment rights recognized in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In Janus, the High Court ruled that forcing public sector employees to join or fund a union as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. The Justices also declared that union dues can only be taken from public sector workers who have voluntarily waived their right not to pay.

Under the laws of Puerto Rico and many states, union officials are empowered to impose their “representation” on every employee in a workplace, even those who reject formal union membership or vote against installing a union. Workers subjected to this monopoly power cannot negotiate their own terms of employment. Instead they are forced by the law under the union’s one-size-fits-all monopoly contract, even though such contracts often undermine the interests of many covered workers.

Although courts have recognized that such government-imposed union “representation” infringes on workers’ First Amendment right to freedom of association, they have thus far allowed forced union representation so long as union officials do not use it to engage in explicit discrimination, including on the basis of formal union membership, as is happening to the PRPB employees.

The legal doctrine that makes such discriminatory contract terms illegal was first adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case in which union officials were wielding their monopoly bargaining power to discriminate against workers on the basis of race.

Discriminatory Policy Shuts Union Nonmembers Out of Better Health Insurance

According to the lawsuit, the employee plaintiffs are nonmembers who have exercised their right under Janus to end union membership and cut off union dues deductions. When they exercised that right at various points after the 2018 Janus decision, each noticed that as soon as dues ceased coming out of their paycheck they also stopped receiving a $25-a-month employer-paid benefit intended to help employees pay for health insurance.

“[T]he Union, through its president, Jorge Méndez Cotto, asked PRPB to stop awarding the $25 monthly additional employer contribution to any bargaining unit member who objected to [forced] membership…,” the complaint says.

“Plaintiffs are ready, willing, and able to purchase additional and higher quality health insurance benefits with the additional employer contribution that is being denied to them,” the complaint points out. “But for the above-described discriminatory policy, they would purchase better quality health insurance.”

The employees contend in the lawsuit that the rescission of the health benefit is a gambit to restrict their First Amendment Janus rights. “The policy and practice…of withholding the additional employer contribution from nonunion bargaining unit members, violates the employees’ constitutional rights by coercing them to join the Union,” the lawsuit says.

Suit Demands Union and the Bureau Disburse Inappropriately Withheld Money to All Targeted by Scheme

The eight employees seek a judgment requiring the union and PRPB to stop holding back the health benefit from their paychecks, and also to pay to them all money that has been unlawfully withheld under the scheme, plus interest. The plaintiffs also demand the same relief for all their colleagues who also refrained from union membership and have been denied the health benefit as a result.

Last year, Foundation attorneys scored a victory in a similar situation for University of Puerto Rico (UPR) employees Jose Ramos and Orlando Mendez, who reported being denied permanent health insurance cards because they refused to retroactively “authorize” dues seizures UPR Workers Union officials had already made from the workers’ paychecks in violation of the First Amendment. After Foundation attorneys filed a motion for injunction against the union, Mendez and Ramos received their permanent health insurance cards.

“Diminishing employees’ access to healthcare because they are not union members is a serious violation of the workers’ right to freely abstain from union membership Janus recognized,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Carbonell and her coworkers should not be forced to join or fund a union they oppose just so they can work alongside Puerto Rico’s law enforcement officers, and we’re proud to help them defend that freedom.”