Philly-Area Dometic Workers Win Case Against UAW for Illegal Threats During Union-Boss Ordered Strike
UAW officials unlawfully threatened to fire workers that didn’t go on strike, must now attend mandatory training on workers’ rights
Philadelphia, PA (October 16, 2024) – Seven employees of auto accessory manufacturer Dometic’s Philadelphia-area plant have triumphed over United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials in a federal case against the union for threatening illegal discipline on workers during a strike.
The favorable settlement for the Dometic workers forces UAW union officials to provide remedies not only for the illegal threats, but also for blocking workers from exercising their right to resign their memberships in the union and unlawfully demanding full union dues. The employees, Eric Angell, Robert Haldeman, Mario Coccie, Nancy Powelson, Joseph Buchak, Md Rasidul Islam, and James Nold received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The seven employees originally filed federal Unfair Labor Practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the union following a September 2023 strike order issued by UAW officials at their workplace. The order was accompanied by statements, text messages, and even social media posts from union officials stating that employees would be disciplined or even fired if they continued to do their jobs.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that governs private sector labor relations in the United States. Under the NLRA, American private sector workers have a right to refrain from union activity, and the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in General Motors v. NLRB the right of employees to resign union membership during a strike and continue working.
The Foundation-won settlement fully vindicates Dometic workers’ rights. It requires notices to be posted both at union offices and at Dometic’s Royersford, PA, plant detailing employees’ rights, including their right to refrain from joining a union or participating in union activities. Such information must also be shared with employees by text message. The settlement additionally requires UAW bosses to delete a Facebook post threatening workers who continued to work during the strike with being fired. Finally, the settlement orders mandatory training for union officials on a number of topics, including “a union’s right to impose internal discipline.”
Illegal Strike Threats Just Tip of Iceberg for Union Malfeasance at Dometic
All seven workers reported in their original federal charges, against the UAW, that they were informed during a September 8, 2023, union meeting that a strike would begin the following week, and any employee who refused to participate would be subject to internal union charges, fined, and ultimately terminated. The next month, each worker resigned their membership, and UAW union officials notified them that the union had started internal proceedings against them. Under federal law, union officials have no right to impose discipline on those who aren’t union members.
The charges also recounted that union officials failed to follow processes laid out by the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. Under Beck, workers under union monopoly bargaining control who have abstained from formal membership can only be required to pay the amount of dues that the union claims goes towards bargaining, and are also entitled to receive financial information on how the union calculates the compulsory fee they charge to nonmembers as a condition of employment.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, union officials can impose contracts that force workers who have refrained from formal union membership to pay fees to the union or lose their jobs. However, as per Beck, this fee must exclude any money that funds a union’s political or lobbying activities, and can only include bargaining-related expenses. Beck also requires union officials to provide financial disclosures to workers who send a Beck notice.
UAW Bosses Again Caught Red-Handed Violating Employee Rights
“The UAW hierarchy, which is still under federal monitoring following a massive embezzlement probe that already resulted in a dozen union bosses’ convictions, has given workers plenty of reasons to doubt whether union officials truly have their best interests in mind,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That was on display again at the Pennsylvania Dometic plant, where UAW officials resorted to patently illegal methods to force workers out on strike.”
“We’re proud to have helped these employees vindicate their rights, however, blatantly illegal threats like this are unfortunately common during union boss-instigated strikes,” added Mix. “That’s worth remembering as the UAW’s radical top boss Shawn Fain continues his fevered 2028 dreams of a Marxist-inspired May Day General Strike which, if it actually were to happen, would almost certainly be backed up with similar illegal threats against rank-and-file workers.”
Professors Launch Landmark SCOTUS Bid to End Forced Union Association
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
NY law unconstitutionally forces professors under “representation” of anti-Semitic union
Together, (from left) Foundation Legal Director William Messenger, Fairness Center General Counsel Nathan McGrath, and CUNY Professors Mitchell Langbert and Avraham Goldstein seek to establish new protections against forced union association.
WASHINGTON, DC – Avraham Goldstein, a mathematics professor at the City University of New York (CUNY), wrote in a 2022 Wall Street Journal op-ed about the predicament that he and many of his Jewish colleagues face because New York law forces them under the “representation” of an anti-Israel union: “I had paid thousands of dollars in union dues for workplace representation, not for political statements or attacks on my beliefs and identity. I decided to resign my union membership and naively thought I could leave the union and its politics behind for good . . . I was wrong.”
It was this situation that led Avraham Goldstein, along with fellow professors Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, to file a federal lawsuit against the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union, CUNY, and State of New York officials in 2022. That lawsuit challenged New York State’s “Taylor Law,” which grants union bosses monopoly bargaining power in the public sector. Such power permits union bosses to speak and contract for public workers — including those that want nothing to do with the union.
Professors’ Petition: First Amendment Protects Union Dissenters
Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation and The Fairness Center have litigated the professors’ case up through the federal court system. Now they’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take their case and clarify that the First Amendment forbids union officials from foisting their voice and values on public sector workers who oppose the union.
“The core issue in this case is straightforward: can the government force Jewish professors to accept the representation of an advocacy group they rightly consider to be anti-Semitic? The answer plainly should be ‘no,’” the petition begins.
The High Court has recognized for decades how public sector monopoly bargaining burdens workers’ First Amendment freedom of association rights. In 1944, the Supreme Court’s decision in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. recognized how rail union bosses were manipulating their powers over the workplace to discriminate against African-American railway workers. The Supreme Court restated its concerns most recently in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, with the majority calling monopoly bargaining “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.”
Original Complaint Detailed Union Bosses’ Discrimination
The professors’ original complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a host of discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents — including a June 2021 union resolution that the professors viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel.”
The complaint said Prof. Michael Goldstein “experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family.” Goldstein has needed a guard to accompany him on campus, the complaint noted.
Prof. Lax, the complaint explained, already received in a separate case a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “that CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” As their petition at the Supreme Court notes, these conflicts have significantly increased since the events of October 7.
Professors Could Create Groundbreaking Precedent
The petition asks the Supreme Court to take up the case and stop CUNY and the State of New York from letting PSC union bosses impose their “representation” on the professors.
“New York’s legal scheme forces these CUNY professors to associate with union officials who insult their identity and create a work environment rife with bullying and harassment. It’s hard to think of a more obvious violation of the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s high time that the Justices finally acknowledge the First Amendment protects government employees from being forced to accept political ‘representation’ they adamantly oppose.”
New York Farmworkers Defend Effort to Vote UFW Union Out of Power in Case at NY State Labor Relations Board
UFW union officials gained power through “card check” and denied workers secret ballot vote, now stonewalling employee request for union removal
Marlboro, NY (October 8, 2024) – Employees of Porpiglia Farms, an apple grower located in Upstate New York, are taking legal action to defend their effort to remove the United Farm Workers (UFW) union from power. Porpiglia employee Ricardo Bell, who is leading the worker effort to oust the union, just filed a brief at the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) refuting several arguments UFW lawyers put forth for why the employees’ union decertification petition should be dismissed. Bell is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The workers’ petition to kick the union out comes after UFW union agents foisted a hasty “card check” unionization drive on the farm employees. New York labor law mandates card check, and prohibits employers from insisting on secret ballot union elections.
Under the card check process, union officials bypass a traditional secret ballot union election and instead solicit union authorization cards directly from workers, which are later counted as “votes” for the union. Due to the lack of privacy in this method, workers are frequently subjected to pressure tactics, intimidation, or even threats by union agents.
After the UFW union gained power in the workplace using card check, Bell and his coworkers filed a union decertification petition with PERB challenging the union’s claims of majority status. PERB is New York’s agency in charge of enforcing state labor law for both the public and agricultural sectors, which includes managing representation proceedings to install and remove unions.
Union officials tried to block Bell’s petition by filing a motion to dismiss the case completely. UFW union officials claim they are entitled to an “insulated period” after the card check drive during which employees are barred from trying to remove the union. Bell’s latest filing in the case defends the union decertification petition and refutes all the arguments in the union’s motion to dismiss.
Worker Attacks Specious Union Arguments Against Letting Workers Vote to Oust Union
Bell’s brief notably attacks UFW union lawyers’ theory that once a union is certified as the monopoly union “representative” of all employees in a work unit, there can be no option at all to remove an unwanted union. “[New York labor law] does not indicate that employees have a single chance at self-organization, and once they make a choice, they are no longer permitted to make any other choice regarding self-organization,” the brief says. “If that were the case, the very action of choosing a representative under Section 703 would deprive employees of the ability to exercise Section 703 in perpetuity….”
The response brief also refutes union officials’ tyrannical contention that foisting a card check union campaign on the workplace should grant them a period of immunity from employees submitting another representation petition (including one to remove an incumbent union). “In fact, PERB’s FLFLPA regulations say the opposite…not only do the FLFLPA regulations not include an insulated period, PERB explicitly denied a request to add one via regulation,” the brief says.
In California, Foundation attorneys are aiding farmworkers from Wonderful Nurseries, the largest grapevine nursery in the U.S., in a similar situation. In unfair labor practice charges filed with the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), Wonderful Nurseries workers state that UFW union officials lied about the true purpose of cards that they collected from workers during a card check campaign that they used to sweep to power, and even presented English union authorization cards to Spanish-speaking employees whom they knew wouldn’t understand. They now report that UFW union officials are harassing and threatening employees who support an effort to vote the UFW out.
“The aggressive and often demeaning tactics that UFW union officials use to seize power over agricultural workers show clearly why ‘card check’ is a bad idea in the agricultural sector, the public sector, and in any sector,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Forcing any workers under union representation they oppose is fundamentally wrong and anti-worker, and it is especially egregious when union organizers are authorized to do so through the unreliable and abuse-prone ‘card check’ scheme.”
Dartmouth Ph.D. Student Hits Graduate Student Union With Federal Charges for Illegal Religious Discrimination
Student opposes union’s anti-Israel activities; charges that union officials refused to provide religious accommodation
Hanover, NH (September 30, 2024) – Benjamin Logsdon, a Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth College, has slammed the Graduate Organized Laborers of Dartmouth (GOLD-UE) union with federal anti-discrimination charges for failing to accommodate him and his religious beliefs. Logsdon filed the charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Logsdon is a Christian whose sincere religious beliefs put him at odds with GOLD union officials and the radical activity and ideological positions they are promoting. Logsdon’s charges state that he is opposed not only to being forced to pay union dues, but also to GOLD-UE union officials’ monopoly representation powers that affect him as part of the graduate student body.
A series of rulings by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) during the Obama and Biden Administrations gave union officials the ability to seize monopoly bargaining power over graduate students, and at private institutions like Dartmouth, unionized graduate students are subject to federal private sector labor law. Such law allows union officials to force those under their power to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment in a state like New Hampshire (where Dartmouth is located) that lacks Right to Work protections.
However, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires union officials to provide religious objectors like Logsdon religious accommodations. While such accommodations vary from case to case, they often free the objector from any further obligation to provide financial support to the union.
Logsdon seeks an accommodation in his case that will free him both from any forced union payments and from being forced to accept the GOLD union’s “representation.”
GOLD Union Officials Fail to Provide Reasonable Accommodation to Religious Objector
According to Logsdon’s charges, shortly after the GOLD union finalized its first monopoly bargaining contract with the Dartmouth administration, he sent a letter to United Electrical (UE, GOLD’s parent union) General Secretary-Treasurer Andrew Dinkelaker explaining that he objected to being affiliated with GOLD on religious grounds and needed an accommodation. “I sought to be removed from the UE and GOLD-UE bargaining unit as a reasonable accommodation,” Logsdon’s charges say.
Dinkelaker denied his requested accommodation in an August 30, 2024 message, refusing to offer Logsdon an accommodation that satisfies his sincere religious beliefs. Logsdon’s charges state that the union’s proposal “does not satisfy my religious conscience or beliefs,” and the refusal to accommodate him violates his rights under Title VII.
Foundation Attorneys Recently Scored Victory for Jewish MIT Students in Similar Case
Foundation staff attorneys recently prevailed in a similar batch of cases for five Jewish graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who objected to the anti-Israel activity of the MIT Graduate Student Union on campus (GSU, also an affiliate of UE). Notably, UE General Secretary-Treasurer Andrew Dinkelaker similarly refused to provide accommodations to each of those students when asked, telling the students that “no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union.” However, UE officials quickly backed down after Foundation legal involvement.
“Mr. Logsdon is just one of many university students and staff across the country that are appalled by the divisive and inflammatory activity that union bosses have been engaging in, and have called on the Foundation for help in defending their freedom from these union hierarchies,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials shouldn’t be able to manipulate their forced-dues and forced-representation powers to make graduate students choose between keeping their academic positions and honoring their sincere religious beliefs.
“As the political and ideological temperature skyrockets at college campuses, the frequency of these stories is unfortunately likely to continue growing across the country. We encourage those on college campuses who seek to protect their religious freedom from union boss coercion to contact the Foundation for free legal aid,” Mix added.
Puerto Rico Police Bureau Employees Win at District Court; Beat Union Scheme That Swiped Health Benefit from Dissenting Employees
Employees successfully defend right under Janus v. AFSCME to refrain from supporting unwanted union
Para leer este articulo en Espanol, haga clic aqui.
San Juan, PR (September 26, 2024) – Eleven civilian employees of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau (PRPB) have won a favorable decision in their federal class action lawsuit against their employer and the Union of Organized Civilian Employees. The lawsuit charged both entities with illegally discriminating against employees by stripping them of an employer-provided health benefit because they refused to join the union. The employees, who argued that this union gambit violated their and other PRPB employees’ First Amendment right to abstain from unwanted union affiliation, received free legal aid in their case from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The plaintiffs, Vanessa Carbonell, Roberto Whatts Osorio, Elba Colon Nery, Billy Nieves Hernandez, Nelida Alvarez Febus, Linda Dumont Guzman, Sandra Quinones Pinto, Yomarys Ortiz Gonzalez, Janet Cruz Berrios, Carmen Berlingeri Pabon, and Merab Ortiz Rivera, filed their lawsuit at the U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico in 2022. They invoked their rights under the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, in which the Justices held that compelling public employees to join or fund a union violates the First Amendment. Janus also established that union officials can only take union dues from a public employee who has waived his or her First Amendment right not to pay.
The District Court agreed with the plaintiffs in a September 19 decision. It found that the PRPB had indeed taken away a health benefit from the employees after they exercised their Janus right not to join or pay dues to the Union of Organized Civilian Employees, a union they didn’t want and never asked for. “This is either retaliation for exercise of non-union members’ post-Janus non-associational rights under the First Amendment under the Constitution or simply discrimination,” said the Court.
“The [PRPB] may neither retaliate for disassociation or non-support of the public sector union, nor can it adopt — or as here interpret — a [union contract] in a manner that permits discrimination against non-union members,” the Court continued.
Police Bureau Limited Access to Healthcare Based on Employee Dissent from Union
According to the plaintiff’s original lawsuit, they all exercised their Janus right to opt out of the union at various points after the 2018 Janus decision. They each began noticing that as dues ceased coming out of their paychecks, 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 said.
“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,” read the complaint. “But for the above-described discriminatory policy, they would purchase better quality health insurance.”
District Court Decision Orders Union and Employer to Stop Discriminatory Scheme
The District Court’s decision, in addition to declaring that the gambit by PRPB and the Union of Organized Civilian Employees is unconstitutional, orders an injunction to stop PRPB officials from continuing to withhold the benefit from Carbonell and the other employees.
“Janus enshrined a very simple principle: That union officials need to convince public employees to support their organization and activities voluntarily, and using government power to force such support is an obvious infringement of First Amendment free association principles,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Diminishing Ms. Carbonell and her coworkers’ access to healthcare just because they disagreed with the union’s agenda is a heinous violation of that principle, and Foundation attorneys were happy to assist them in their victory over that scheme.”
SFO Marriott Employees Request Labor Board Vote to Remove Unwanted UNITE-HERE Union Officials
Workers nationwide seeking votes to remove union before new NLRB rules make it easier for union officials to trap employees in unions they oppose
San Francisco, CA (September 23, 2024) – Employees of the San Francisco Airport Marriott Waterfront Hotel have requested an election to remove UNITE-HERE Local 2 union officials from their workplace. Hotel employee Erika Chavez just submitted a petition seeking such a vote to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 20 in San Francisco with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Chavez’s petition contains around 75 signatures, well over the 30% required to trigger such a vote under NLRB rules.
Because California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, Unite Here union officials have the legal privilege to force Chavez and her coworkers to pay dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
According to the petition, Chavez’s work unit consists of nearly 200 “Regular Employees and Pool Employees,” which includes housekeeping staff, front desk workers, and more. If the NLRB administers Chavez and her colleagues’ requested election and a majority vote against keeping the union, the Marriott workers will be free of Unite Here officials’ power to speak and contract for all workers in the facility (even those who oppose the union), and the obligation to pay dues or be fired.
“Unite Here union officials have made our lives harder at this hotel,” commented Chavez. “We would be better off without their rules and dues demands, and we hope the NLRB will let us exercise our right to vote them out.”
Workers Across Country Seek Foundation Aid in Removing Unite Here Union
San Francisco isn’t the only place where workers have recently sought to vote out Unite Here union officials with Foundation legal aid. In May, employees at Sofitel Washington DC Lafayette Square hotel successfully petitioned for a decertification vote against Unite Here Local 25 union officials after they bypassed the standard secret-ballot union election process and instead swept to power through the suspect “card check” process. Mwandu Chibwe, who submitted that petition, and a majority of her coworkers voted against the union’s continued presence, but Foundation attorneys are currently battling an attempt by Unite Here lawyers to overturn that result.
Since 2023, Foundation attorneys have also helped two sets of workers at Philadelphia International Airport obtain votes to oust Unite Here Local 274 union officials.
Biden-Harris Administration Restraining Workers Who Want to Oust Unions
The new efforts come as decertification petition filings have gone up over 40% since 2020 (according to NLRB data) and workers are voluntarily affiliating with unions at record-low rates. Despite workers’ desire to get away from unions that don’t serve their interests, the Biden-Harris NLRB has just issued a final rule which will make it much harder for rank-and-file workers to exercise their right to vote out union officials they oppose. One part of the new rule lets union officials prevent decertification votes from going forward by filing unverified “blocking charges” alleging employer interference.
“Union officials, who often seek ways to keep dues money flowing even from workers who oppose them, frequently challenge employees when they seek to exercise their right to vote out unwanted union ‘representation,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation attorneys have seen this in the past with other workers who have sought to oust Unite Here union bosses, and it doesn’t help that the Biden-Harris NLRB has been pushing policy after policy designed to aid union bosses in trapping workers under union ‘representation.’
“Foundation attorneys are proud to help Ms. Chavez and her coworkers fight any roadblocks in their effort. But their rights and the rights of workers across the country to free themselves from unwanted union officials shouldn’t hinge on the Biden-Harris Administration’s union boss power giveaways,” Mix added.
Full Foundation Action July/August 2024 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the May/June 2024 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- California Farmworkers Fight Back Against Lie-Ridden Union ‘Card Check’
- Dependable Highway Express Workers Successfully Oust Teamsters Union Officials
- Foundation-Backed Workers Push Back Against UAW Bosses’ Coercive Tactics
- Security Guard Wins Groundbreaking ‘Janus’ Religious Accommodation
- MI, OH Kroger Employees Challenge UFCW Forced-Dues-For-Politics Schemes
- MIT Grad Student Charges ‘Marxist’ Union with Illegal Forced Dues for Politics
MIT Grad Student Charges ‘Marxist’ Union with Illegal Forced Dues for Politics
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Five other MIT students also filed religious discrimination charges against radical UE
More clouds are gathering over at MIT as yet another graduate student targets the university with federal charges. She maintains the GSU union and MIT administration are illegally funneling student money into union politics.
BOSTON, MA – Following five Jewish students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) filing federal religious discrimination charges against the same union, the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU-UE, an affiliate of the United Electrical Workers union) is now facing new federal unfair labor practice charges from civil engineering graduate student Katerina Boukin.
Under a series of controversial National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings, graduate students at private universities like MIT are treated as “employees” of the university who can be subjected to forced union “representation.” Boukin’s charges, filed at the NLRB with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, maintain that union officials are unlawfully seizing money from her research compensation to support union political activities she abhors.
Extremist Union Politics Foisted on Graduate Students
“GSU union officials are going above and beyond what is legal and are forcing me to pay for their political activities, including their opposition to Israel and promotion of Leninist-Marxist global revolution, that I find deeply offensive,” commented Boukin. “The GSU’s political agenda has nothing to do with my research as a graduate student at MIT, or the relationships I have with my professors and the university administration, yet outrageously they demand I fund their radical ideology.”
Boukin’s charges seek to enforce her rights under the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. This landmark ruling established that even in states like Massachusetts that lack Right to Work protections, union officials cannot legally compel individuals to pay for union expenses unrelated to bargaining activities, like union boss political activities.
According to Boukin’s charge, GSU union officials are violating the law by claiming she cannot exercise her rights under Beck because she missed a union-created annual “window period.” However, her charge asserts this restriction is blatantly illegal.
In fact, the GSU union was already forced to settle a prior Beck case, agreeing there to properly process students’ attempts to exercise their Beck rights. Boukin’s charges against the union argue that the union may be violating not only her rights but also the settlement it made with the NLRB.
GSU Union Bosses Also Charged for Illegal Religious Discrimination
MIT graduate student Will Sussman, along with fellow students Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky, and Adina Bechhofer, have also filed religious discrimination charges against the GSU union with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). They’ve also obtained free Foundation legal help.
The students, who are Jewish, oppose the union’s advocacy for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) anti-Israel movement. Despite asking union officials for legally-required religious exemptions from union dues payment, GSU officials denied their requests and even attempted to explain in letters how the students didn’t truly understand their faith.
As of this article, those EEOC charges remain pending against the GSU, with a federal lawsuit likely the next step if the union refuses to stop its illegal discrimination.
“Freedom of association is apparently a foreign concept to GSU union officials, who are flouting layers upon layers of federal law to compel students to fund their radical political agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “However, both this case and Foundation attorneys’ cases for the five Jewish MIT graduate students show on a deeper level that the choice to provide support to a union should rest solely with workers, who may have sincere religious, political, or other objections to funding any or all of a union’s activities.”
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice to Boeing Employees Impacted by IAM Union Boss Strike Order
Foundation notifies employees that those wishing to continue working during a strike should resign their memberships before returning to work
Seattle, WA (September 16, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a special legal notice to the roughly 30,000 Boeing employees reportedly affected by the strike order issued by International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials last week.
The Foundation’s legal notice informs Boeing employees of their rights, including their right to rebuff the strike order and to keep working to support their families as the strike is ongoing. The notice discusses why workers across the country frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in such situations.
“The situation presents serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the notice reads. “That is why workers confronted with strike demands frequently contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and other harsh union discipline for continuing to report to work to support themselves and their families.”
The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/BoeingStrike/.
The notice outlines the process that Boeing employees should follow if they want to exercise their right to return to work during the strike and avoid punishment by union bosses, complete with sample union membership resignation letters. The notice reminds workers that IAM union officials have no disciplinary power over workers who are not union members, and advises employees who wish to work during a strike to resign their memberships before returning to work.
“Union officials can (and often do) fine actual union members who work during a strike,” the notice says. “So, you should seriously consider resigning at least one day BEFORE you return to work during a strike, which is the best way to avoid these union fines and discipline.
“If possible, use certified mail, return receipt requested, and save copies of your letters and the return receipt to prove delivery,” the notice continues, adding that workers who choose to submit their union resignations to union officials in person should have a reliable witness present to combat potential false claims from union officials that they did not actually receive a worker’s resignation.
Further, the notice reminds employees of their rights to cut off all union dues payments in the absence of a monopoly bargaining contract between IAM union officials and Boeing management. The notice encourages employees to seek free legal aid from the Foundation if they experience union resistance as they attempt to exercise any of these rights.
“IAM union officials have a history of seeking to increase their own power instead of doing what’s right for rank-and-file workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation attorneys recently helped a Seattle Boeing worker take legal action against IAM officials for seizing his money illegally.
“On the eve of a strike order that may last months, many Boeing workers may decide that going on strike is not the best course of action for them, and Foundation attorneys stand ready to aid these workers in defending their right to continue working and providing for their families,” added Mix.
