Settlements include reinstatement of two officers fired after publicly challenging unlawful “$5 per hour” forced union dues scheme

Westerly, RI (March 4, 2020) – Westerly, Rhode Island-based police officers Scott Ferrigno, Darrell Koza, Raymond Morrone, Anthony Falcone, and Thomas Cimalore have just won favorable settlements in their cases challenging a forced union dues scheme between police union bosses and Town of Westerly officials. The officers also won favorable settlements for retaliation claims they brought after publicly challenging the unlawful arrangement.

With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Rhode Island-based Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights, the five officers filed their federal lawsuit in July 2015 against the International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 503 (IBPO) union and the Town of Westerly for seizing their money under an illegal “$5 per hour” forced union fee scheme.

The Town of Westerly and IBPO subjected the officers to this scheme despite them not being IBPO members or in a monopoly bargaining unit under the IBPO’s power. The officers’ now-settled cases also asserted that Town officials unconstitutionally retaliated against the officers, after they publicly voiced opposition to the policy, by implementing a plan to restrict their hours, and even firing two of the officers, Koza and Ferrigno.

Under the settlements, IBPO and the Town of Westerly agreed to pay almost $65,000 in refunds of union dues seized from the officers as part of the illegal policy and compensation for the officers’ other claims. The Town of Westerly will also reinstate Officers Koza and Ferrigno as police officers and they will receive nearly $48,000 in back pay from the Town for the period after they were terminated.

Union and Town Officials Settle Claims that They Retaliated Against Reserve Officers for Defending State and Constitutional Rights

According to the lawsuits, IBPO bosses and the Town of Westerly began seizing $5 per hour from each of the five officers’ hourly pay without authorization in April 2014. IBPO and the Town perpetrated this scheme against the officers even though they were classified as “nonpermanent police officers” outside of the IBPO’s monopoly bargaining power.

Union officials didn’t even claim to “represent” the officers but still siphoned $5 per hour out of their paychecks without obtaining each officer’s written consent and authorization. The complaints also noted that the Town of Westerly and IBPO started seizing forced union fees from the officers even before executing the contract that formally established the unlawful deductions, and despite knowing that the officers were outside of the bargaining unit and had never authorized any payment of any money to the union.

Over the next six months, the officers repeatedly sought meetings with Town officials in an attempt to stop the flow of illegal dues, including the Town of Westerly’s payroll department, the Westerly Chief of Police, the Town Manager, and the Town Council, only to be rebuffed. Koza’s and Ferrigno’s lawsuits noted that Westerly’s Chief of Police had warned the officers “not to seek publicity for their cause” and that, if they were terminated, they could “easily be replaced with twenty other constables.” Court documents note that the IBPO informed the chief of police in an October 1, 2014 memo that the union would no longer allow reserve officers to work private duty detail assignments.

The Reserve Officers finally managed to present their objections to the Town Council, but the Town refused to stop the compulsory fees. On October 20, 2014, within a week of hearing that the reserve officers arranged a meeting with the Town Council to argue their objections to the forced fee scheme, the chief emailed the Town Manager informing her of his plan to terminate Koza and revise the system by which Westerly reserve officers could sign up to work traffic details. The chief revised the system and downgraded reserve officers’ priority level for taking on new traffic detail assignments, which, the five officers argued, limited the hours they could work and the pay they could earn.

Records disclosed during the litigation revealed that when the Town Council met with the Town Manager, chief of police, IBPO representatives, and other officials in November 2014, and discussed the reserve officers’ fight against the $5 per hour scheme and whether the Town might be in any legal jeopardy, one official opined, “It’s going to cost thousands and thousands of dollars … They’d have to take this money out of their pockets. I don’t think [their attorney] is going to represent them for free.” Another Town official at the time asserted, “If we say no, they’re probably going to back down.” When the officials considered whether the reserve officers would keep working for the Town, one council member commented, “They can always go to McDonald’s.”

In November 2014, the Westerly Sun published an article on the officers’ dispute with the Town and Union. The Town fired Koza the following month. Koza had never been disciplined by the Town before these events. But, according to Koza’s lawsuit, the Town attempted to justify his termination on the grounds that he had not immediately left his position directing traffic in a busy intersection to move his police cruiser for an officer attempting to drive through a restricted lane. The Town also cited Koza’s calling himself a “police officer” rather than a “reserve police officer” in his application for a handgun carry permit. Koza’s lawsuit points out that the Town’s charter then gave “nonpermanent police officers” like Koza the powers of regular police officers while on duty, and all of Koza’s references in his application called him a “reserve officer,” “reserve police officer,” and “reserve officer with the Westerly Police Department.”

The Town fired Ferrigno in May 2016. According to Ferrigno’s lawsuit, the Town alleged that he left a bicycle race detail assignment early. But Ferrigno contended that he actually stayed five minutes later than he was instructed to by his supervisor while waiting for his replacement to arrive. As further evidence that his firing was unconstitutional retaliation, Ferrigno’s lawsuit also noted that the officer who arrived late to relieve him was a union official, who was never even disciplined for his lateness.

Reserve Officers File Lawsuits with Aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Win Refunds of Seized Dues, Reinstatement, and other Compensation

The five officers filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, arguing that IBPO and Town of Westerly officials had violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to financially support the union when they were not even covered by its monopoly bargaining contract. The officers’ lawsuit also alleged that Town officials seized union dues without their individual written authorization in violation of Rhode Island’s wage deduction laws.

The lawsuit contended that the Town’s retaliation infringed on the officers’ First Amendment right to engage in “constitutionally-protected speech,” namely their advocacy against the illegal dues deductions. Officers Koza and Ferrigno filed their own complaints in the same court, charging the Town with firing them for exercising their First Amendment rights. The lawsuits also sought punitive damages.

Ultimately, rather than face the officers and their attorneys at trial, Town and Union officials agreed to settle the cases. The settlements order union officials to compensate the officers almost $20,000 dollars and Town officials to pay $45,000 for dues that were seized illegally under the “$5 per hour” policy and for other damages and claims. The settlements in Koza’s and Ferrigno’s cases, on top of requiring the Town to reinstate the two officers and pay back wages, require that all references related to the discipline forming the basis of their lawsuits be removed from their personnel records.

On February 6, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island entered a consent judgment permanently enjoining IBPO Local 503 from “adopting or enforcing any compulsory union fee requirement upon any constable or reserve officer employed by or performing work for the Town of Westerly without first obtaining his or her voluntary and affirmative consent and authorization, and his or her knowing and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights.”

Officer Thomas Cimalore commented, “The Town and the IBPO could have avoided the years and expense of litigation if they had only listened in 2014 when we first tried to tell them that they cannot just take $5 per hour from our pay and give it to the Union without our permission. We did all we could to avoid bringing a lawsuit. We made repeated unsuccessful attempts to present these issues to the sitting Town Council.”

Officer Cimalore continued: “When we did finally get the opportunity to address these issues to the sitting Town Council and to their successors on the following council, we showed them that deducting the $5 per hour violates the U.S. Constitution and state law. We had attorneys send letters explaining our rights, hoping that would make progress. But all of those efforts were to no avail. After unsuccessfully trying more than a year to resolve the matter, we were forced to go to federal court. We are happy the Town and the union finally decided to do the right thing.”

“Officers Ferrigno, Koza, Morrone, Falcone, and Cimalore fought a years-long legal battle against union officials just so they could keep their community safe while maintaining their own rights,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation is proud to stand with them and all public servants who are targeted with intimidation, misinformation, threats of firing, and other illegal tactics simply to keep dues money flowing into the bank accounts of self-interested union officials.”

“Although the dues scheme at issue in these cases was always blatantly illegal, the fact is, while this case was being litigated the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision was issued, which now guarantees all public workers a First Amendment right not to subsidize union officials’ activities,” continued Mix. “Even with the added protection provided by the Janus decision, Rhode Island legislators should look to these and other examples of union boss malfeasance as examples of why all Ocean State workers – public or private – need Right to Work protections to ensure that union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.”

UFCW Local 455 officials rejected three requests by worker to exercise right to end union dues deductions, as protected by Texas Right to Work law

Houston, TX (February 28, 2020) – A Houston-based Kroger employee has just filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 455 union, contending that union bosses at his workplace misinformed him about his right to resign his union membership and cut off dues deductions, and illegally ignored multiple attempts by him to exercise those rights while continuing to seize dues money from his paycheck. The charges were filed at Region 16 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Alfredo Rodriguez Lopez, sent UFCW officials a letter in June 2019 declaring that he was exercising those rights. Rodriguez’s charges argue that union bosses ignored this letter, and ignored an identical one that he sent the following month. As this was going on, Kroger continued to seize a cut of Rodriguez’s paycheck every month at the behest of UFCW bosses.

Because Rodriguez works in Texas, a state with Right to Work protections for its public and private employees, he cannot legally be compelled to pay union dues in order to keep his job.

Rodriguez later asked a union steward about the status of his request to end dues deductions. According to the charge, the union steward claimed that he had to submit his dues checkoff revocation letter on the “anniversary date” (the annual anniversary of the date he originally signed his dues checkoff authorization).

The charge reports that UFCW bosses sent Rodriguez a copy of his dues checkoff authorization card at least a month after his third request to stop union dues deductions. The card read that his dues checkoff was irrevocable except for a 15-day “escape window” “prior to the end of any subsequent yearly period or bargaining agreement termination date.” It also contained a provision which stated that the authorization would remain effective “if my employment with any Employer is terminated and I am later re-employed by the same Employer or any other Employer under contract with Local 455.”

In January 2020, union bosses sent Rodriguez a letter which finally acknowledged receipt of his membership resignation and dues checkoff revocation, but rejected his dues checkoff revocation as “untimely.”

Rodriguez’s charge argues that UFCW bosses’ continued obstruction of Rodriguez’s checkoff revocation and ongoing siphoning of dues from his paycheck violates his rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees workers “the right to refrain from any or all” union activities. Rodriguez is also challenging UFCW bosses’ checkoff language, which fails to mention that workers can cut off dues deductions during a contract hiatus or when they switch employers.

Just Latest in Myriad of Cases Charging UFCW Bosses with Violating Workers’ RightsLast year, Foundation staff attorneys provided free legal aid to two Massachusetts-based employees of Stop & Shop grocery stores during the heavily publicized April 2019 strike on the chain ordered by UFCW officials. The workers, who resigned their union memberships after the strike was called so they could continue to work, faced illegal threats and bullying from union agents but eventually won settlements afterward forcing UFCW bosses to provide remedies for all the statutory violations they committed.

Foundation staff attorneys also won an appeal last October for an Illinois-based ConAgra Foods employee, who had petitioned the NLRB to conduct a vote to kick out a UFCW union from his plant. UFCW bosses had filed unrelated charges against ConAgra in an attempt to stop the vote and an NLRB Regional Director initially blocked it, but the full NLRB in Washington sided with the worker and ordered the Region to let the vote proceed.

Multiple employees in the New York City area who are under the bargaining power of UFCW bosses are also currently receiving aid from Foundation staff attorneys, including two Plattdeutsche Home Society retirement home employees in Franklin Square, NY. They filed unfair labor practice charges last May against UFCW Local 2013 because union agents failed to provide a legally-required financial breakdown of the reduced fees that they must pay as nonmembers. Foundation staff attorneys also won a settlement for a New Hyde Park Stop & Shop worker last September who was illegally misinformed by UFCW bosses that union membership was mandatory.

“Once again UFCW union bosses have been caught waging months-long campaigns of misinformation and compulsion simply to maintain their coercive influence over rank-and-file workers and to keep illegal dues flowing into their bank accounts,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Just as they did during the UFCW boss-ordered strike on Stop & Shop, and at many other times last year, Foundation staff attorneys will continue to fight to ensure that independent-minded workers can exercise their rights freely in the workplace.”

Settlement: Union bosses must notify workers of their rights as required by Beck US Supreme Court decision, and also refund money illegally collected from employee

Anaheim, CA (February 26, 2020) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a Disneyland stage technician has just won a settlement requiring International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) Local 504 union bosses to return fees they illegally collected from him, and inform employees who refrain from formal union membership of their right to pay a reduced amount of dues.

Stage technician Mark Stacy, who is not a member of the IATSE union, asserted his rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision. That decision requires unions to reduce the compulsory fees charged to workers who refrain from union membership so they are not forced to fund activities such as lobbying and political activism. The Beck decision additionally calls for union officials to provide nonmember workers an independently verified audit justifying the amount of the mandatory union fees.

Because California private-sector employees lack the protection of a Right to Work law, they can be fired for refusing to pay fees to a union. However, union officials can charge as a condition of employment only the part of dues Beck permits and must follow Beck procedures before seizing such forced union fees from workers who are not union members.

Stacy hit IATSE bosses with federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last July, asserting that they had illegally collected union dues from him and had not complied with Beck’s procedural requirements, including providing him with a valid and complete audit.

Now, as a result of the settlement, IATSE bosses will refund the money they collected from him. The settlement also orders union officials to “inform objecting nonmembers of the complete basis for [the] calculation of the percentage reduction in dues and fees” and not to “accept and retain dues which have been deducted” from Stacy “without his prior written authorization.” The settlement provides remedies for all of the rights violations Stacy had asserted in his original charge.

Foundation staff attorneys are also providing free legal aid to a Disney actress, 12-year-old Aundrea Smith, following her assertions that American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) union bosses’ are threatening to impose union “discipline” on her for acting in a nonunion commercial before she was even a member of SAG-AFTRA. Smith, who resigned her union membership last August, currently acts in “Diary of a Future President,” a series on Disney’s streaming service.

“Mr. Stacy dedicates his working life to making children’s dreams come true, and it’s outrageous that IATSE union bosses believed they could violate the most basic protections on his workplace rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While his victory is certainly good news, this case shows why California workers need the protections of a Right to Work law to ensure that union membership and financial support are voluntary, not coerced.”

Union officials kept electrician in the dark about right to resign union membership, then demanded thousands in fines after he and wife rebuffed union contract demands

Detroit, MI (February 19, 2020) – A Michigan electrician is hitting International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 58 union bosses with federal charges for not telling him about his right to resign his union membership, and subsequently illegally fining him. The charges were filed with free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Charles Lanning had worked as an electrician for several different employers since early 2008, before joining his wife’s business in 2018. His charge reports that, though he was on IBEW membership rolls during that time period, IBEW agents had never informed him of his right to resign his union membership, or his right prior to the passage of Michigan’s Right to Work law to pay only the portion of union dues directly related to monopoly bargaining under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.

Since March 2013, Michigan has had Right to Work protections for workers, which outlaw arrangements where union bosses can require workers to pay them a portion of their paychecks as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

Mr. Lanning’s charge recounts that he left a job with a contractor in March 2018 so he could work for his wife’s business, Homestead Enterprises of Michigan. After doing so, he called the IBEW Local 58 office to find out if he would still be required to pay any kind of fees to the union despite the fact that he “would not be seeking work through the union hiring hall for the foreseeable future.” IBEW officials told him that they would continue to demand quarterly dues from him, and again failed to apprise him that he had the right to resign his union membership completely and exercise his right under Michigan’s Right to Work law to stop all union payments. Because of this misinformation, Mr. Lanning continued to pay quarterly dues.

In September 2019, according to the charge, IBEW union bosses told Mr. Lanning in a text message that they needed to update him on the “contract changes making it possible for members to be contractors.” Mr. and Mrs. Lanning later sat for a meeting with IBEW bosses to discuss these supposed changes, during which the union bosses pressured Lanning’s wife to sign a contract which would force her to bargain with the IBEW union simply for hiring her husband.

Mrs. Lanning did not sign, and IBEW bosses subsequently informed Mr. Lanning that the IBEW had brought union disciplinary charges against him and that “we may forgive them if you decided to become signatory” to the contract. At the proceeding before a union tribunal to determine whether Mr. Lanning had violated the union’s constitution and bylaws, Mr. Lanning was told that “guys lose their retirement for doing this kind of thing” and that IBEW agents would “salt” his wife’s business. “Salting” is a deceptive union practice in which union organizers apply for jobs at nonunion companies with the intention of organizing the workers into monopoly union ranks or instigating costly and often frivolous legal action.

In addition to the threats against his retirement and his wife’s business, IBEW Local 58’s internal trial board convicted Mr. Lanning of violating union rules and demanded that he pay $10,000 in fines. Mr. Lanning’s charge argues that he was never a consensual member of the IBEW because he had never been told that membership was optional. Because his membership was never valid, the charge explains, all of the union-created disciplinary measures are flagrant violations of his rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects workers’ “right to refrain from” union activity.

“Michigan union bosses are shamelessly attacking a man for choosing to work alongside his wife all to expand their coercive power over individual workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This brazen behavior, combined with IBEW bosses’ long-running misinformation campaign against Mr. Lanning concerning his rights, are just one example of the continuing widespread corruption among Michigan union bosses that Foundation attorneys will continue to fight.”

Since Michigan’s Right to Work law became effective in March 2013, Foundation staff attorneys have brought over 120 cases for Michigan workers subjected to coercive union boss tactics.

Instead of accommodating employee’s sincerely-held religious beliefs as federal law requires, LIUNA union officials attempted to interrogate her about her religious beliefs

Clarksville, TN (February 4, 2020) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, an employee of J & J Worldwide Service filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on the grounds that Laborers Local Union 576 (LIUNA) officials illegally discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs.

According to Dorothy Frame’s charge, she sought a religious accommodation so she would not have to fund the union in violation of her religious beliefs, only to have the union deny her request and illegally demand she “provide a theological defense.” Frame, who is Catholic, objects to having union fees deducted from her paycheck because she opposes the union’s stance on abortion. The charge will now be investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Frame works at Fort Campbell, a military installation on the Kentucky-Tennessee border. According to her charge, she sent LIUNA union officials a letter in July 2019 requesting a “religious accommodation of her objection to joining or financially supporting the union.” Frame’s charge notes that she believes abortion is “the unjustified destruction of a human life,” a belief that is rooted in “her understanding of Catholic teaching, scripture, and God’s will.” Because of those sincere beliefs and her knowledge that the union “funds and supports abortion,” her charge states that for her “it would be sinful to join or financially support the union.”

Frame had been a LIUNA member for four years before requesting an accommodation. According to the charge, she converted to Catholicism in 2017 and discovered the conflict between her religious beliefs and union officials’ position on abortion “shortly before she wrote her accommodation request.”

Although Kentucky and Tennessee both have Right to Work laws which ensure that union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary, Fort Campbell’s status as an “exclusive federal enclave” overrides those state laws. The monopoly bargaining contract between J & J Worldwide Service and the LIUNA union requires Frame to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. If she received the religious accommodation federal law requires, the portion of her paycheck that would normally go toward dues would be redirected to a charity that Frame and union officials both find acceptable.

Instead, LIUNA bosses rebuffed Frame’s request in August 2019, sending her a letter in which a union lawyer told Frame she would need to “provide a theological defense” of her beliefs to meet LIUNA union officials’ supposed standard for a “legitimate justification” for her accommodation request. Frame then provided a letter from her parish priest supporting her religious opposition to abortion, but, according to her charge, “the Union lawyer rejected this evidence based on his supposedly superior religious views.”

Frame’s Foundation-provided attorney also provided evidence to LIUNA officials that abortion violates the teachings of the Catholic Church, but her charge notes that union officials never responded to this additional evidence and continue to take money from her paycheck in violation of her sincere religious beliefs. Her charge alleges this violates her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discriminating against an individual based on his or her religious beliefs. If the EEOC finds merit in her charges, Frame could be given a “right to sue” letter, which authorizes her to file a federal lawsuit against LIUNA officials to vindicate her rights.

Foundation staff attorneys regularly aid workers that have been the subject of religious discrimination by union bosses. In November, Boston College electrician Ardeshir Ansari, a Muslim, filed an EEOC Title VII lawsuit with free Foundation legal assistance after Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU) bosses continued to deduct fees from his paycheck despite his request for a religious accommodation.

“It is outrageous that LIUNA bosses are forcing Ms. Frame to choose between keeping her job and violating her sincere religious beliefs,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While such religious discrimination is a blatant violation of federal law, union boss demands in this case serve as a reminder why no worker in America should be forced to subsidize union activities they oppose, whether their opposition is religious-based or for other reasons.”

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President issues statement in recognition of National School Choice Week

Washington, DC (January 30, 2020) – Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, issued the following statement in recognition of National School Choice Week 2020:

This week, as we encourage parents to explore and choose the education that will best serve the needs of their children, we must also recognize that teacher union officials are constantly posing threats to this freedom. For decades, they have engaged in sustained political campaigns to undermine school choice, often specifically targeting charter schools and charter school teachers. But despite that opposition, charter schools have enjoyed steady growth and popularity.

So union officials have taken the fight into charter schools themselves. Coast-to-coast, teacher union bosses have employed coercive tactics to foist their so-called ‘representation’ onto charter school educators. This puts charter school students and teachers at risk: Many of them were attracted to charter schools precisely because they reject the one-size-fits-all approach promoted by national teacher union bosses.

Take, for example, Gompers Preparatory Academy in San Diego, California. The school made an impressive transition in 2005 from a traditional public school to a charter school after a campaign by parents, teachers, and administrators who believed that school district and union bureaucracies were not serving the students’ interests, especially by failing to combat the gang violence and teacher attrition at the school.

In 2019, after being unionized with a controversial ‘card check’ drive that bypassed the more reliable method of holding a secret ballot vote, Gompers teachers began circulating a petition for a vote to remove the union. Despite the teachers having more than enough signatures to trigger a vote, union officials are already trying to block the decertification election from taking place.

Charter school employees are entitled to certain constitutional and statutory rights, but unfortunately union officials frequently attempt to keep employees in the dark about those rights. That is why National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have provided direct, free legal aid to over 10,000 teachers since its founding, including the teachers at Gompers, and why the Foundation has its Charter School Initiative. Foundation-won legal precedents have also expanded the workplace rights of millions of teachers across the country.

Led by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, the National Right to Work Foundation’s Charter School Initiative aims to enlighten charter school employees about their rights so that they can make decisions about union representation in an atmosphere free of union boss threats, harassment, coercion, or misrepresentation. To that end, Foundation attorneys have developed free educational materials for charter school teachers and other employees. Furthermore, Foundation staff attorneys are prepared to defend charter school employees from the injustices of forced unionism.

Charter school teachers and other employees: You have rights. For more information about your rights and the Foundation’s Charter School Initiative, check out our website at https://www.nrtw.org/charterschools.”

Already facing multiple federal charges brought by SMC employees concerning illegal dues deductions, SEIU 1199NW officials now demand workers abandon their patients

Seattle, WA (January 23, 2020) – Staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have issued a special legal notice to the almost 8,000 Swedish Medical Center employees who will be affected by the strike planned by Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU) 1199NW officials to begin on January 28. The strike announcement comes after Swedish Medical Center and union officials failed to ratify a new monopoly bargaining contract, according to January 17 news reports.

The legal notice informs rank-and-file Swedish Medical Center workers of the rights SEIU bosses won’t tell them about, including that they have the right to refuse to abandon their patients and to keep working to support their families despite the union-ordered strike. The notice discusses why workers across the country frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in such situations.

“This strike raises serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the notice reads. “Employees have the legal right to rebuff union officials’ strike demands, but it is important for them to be fully informed before they do so.”

The full notice is available at www.nrtw.org/SMC-Strike.

The notice clearly outlines the process that Swedish Medical Center nurses and other employees should follow if they want to exercise their right to return to work during the strike and avoid punishment from union bosses, complete with sample union membership resignation letters. It also reminds them of their right to cut off all union dues payments in the absence of a monopoly bargaining contract between the hospital and the SEIU, and their right to pay only the portion of dues directly germane to bargaining once the strike is over, under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. 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.

SEIU 1199NW bosses are currently facing federal charges from Swedish Medical Center workers, who assert that the bosses violated their Beck rights and illegally rejected requests to cut off dues deductions while there was no monopoly bargaining contract in effect. And, in October 2019, SEIU 775NW officials were forced to settle a federal case and refund well over $3 million to home-based healthcare providers in the state who asserted in the lawsuit that the SEIU had diverted a percentage of Medicaid payments from them to the union in violation of their statutory and constitutional rights.

“Given Washington State SEIU bosses’ repeated flouting of even the most basic employee rights protections, it is understandable that Swedish Medical Center employees may question whether the upcoming union-ordered strike is really what is best for themselves, their families, and their patients,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Swedish Medical Center employees should know they unequivocally have the right to resign their union memberships and avoid all union fee demands and strike orders in the absence of a contract.”

“Should SEIU bosses again refuse to comply with Swedish Medical Center employees’ legal rights, we encourage rank-and-file workers to immediately contact the Foundation for free legal aid,” added Mix.

Union bosses continued to seize dues without a monopoly bargaining contract, rebuffing multiple valid attempts from employee to end dues deductions from paycheck

Hopkinsville, KY (January 22, 2020) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Hopkinsville, KY-based UPS employee William Anderson is appealing his case against Teamsters Local 215 union bosses to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel in Washington, DC. Anderson has charged Teamsters officials with illegally rejecting requests he made to stop dues deductions from his paycheck while there was no contract in place between the Teamsters union and UPS, and continuing to seize dues from his paycheck after receiving those requests. Under Kentucky’s Right to Work law, Anderson cannot be required to pay dues to keep his job.

Anderson’s appeal recounts that he sent a letter to Teamsters bosses on March 25, 2019, resigning his union membership and cutting off dues deductions. Teamsters officials responded the next week by acknowledging his resignation, but claiming that his dues checkoff revocation was not timely submitted. Anderson tried to cease dues deductions again with a letter on April 8, 2019, but union agents rebuffed this one too, claiming that his revocation had to be submitted during a 15-day “window period” in February to be valid.

As Anderson was trying to stop the dues flow from his paycheck, his appeal notes, Teamsters officials and UPS had not yet ratified a new monopoly bargaining contract. Although Teamsters bosses had failed to inform him of his right to revoke his dues checkoff at will while no contract was in effect, Anderson discovered his rights independently and sent union agents letters on April 17 and May 8, 2019, asking for a copy of the new monopoly bargaining contract. Anderson “believed this new contract was not ratified at the time he sent his revocation letters” and thus thought his two attempts to stop dues should have been honored.

In response, Anderson’s appeal notes, Teamsters bosses sent him on May 21, 2019, a copy of an “extension agreement dated June 21, 2018 that indefinitely extended the prior contract” past its expiration date, ostensibly in an attempt to show Anderson that there was never a contract hiatus in which he could have stopped dues deductions. Anderson’s appeal argues that, because federal law forbids dues checkoffs which are “irrevocable…beyond the termination date of the applicable” monopoly bargaining contract, Teamsters officials violated his rights by rejecting his attempts to cut off dues.

With free legal aid from the Foundation, Anderson filed federal charges at NLRB Region 10 against Teamsters bosses in September 2019, asserting that they had violated his rights by not informing him of the times he could revoke his dues checkoff, limiting to an illegal “window period” the time in which he could stop dues deductions, and “rejecting his revocation during a contract hiatus.” Region 10 rejected Anderson’s contention that Teamsters bosses had denied his revocation while there was no contract in effect, prompting his appeal to the NLRB General Counsel in Washington, DC.

“Teamsters bosses, in this case and many others, have given the very workers they claim to represent misinformation about their right to cut off union dues deductions and imposed arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of that right simply to keep dues money flowing into their coffers,” observed National Right to Work President Mark Mix. “We urge the General Counsel to quickly prosecute Teamsters officials for illegally blocking Mr. Anderson’s attempt to exercise his right to stop funding union activites.”

SEIU 1199NW union officials facing second round of federal charges from Swedish Medical Center employees as union bosses threaten strike

Seattle, WA (January 10, 2020) – Swedish Medical Center employee Daniel Dalison is charging Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU) 1199NW bosses and his employer with illegally seizing union dues from his paycheck when there is no contract in effect between the union and employer, and additionally with unlawfully ignoring two attempts he made to exercise his rights to resign union membership and pay reduced dues. His charges were filed at Region 19 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Dalison’s charges come as news reports indicate that SEIU 1199NW bosses could potentially order Swedish Medical Center employees to strike if a new contract is not approved by January 10. The Foundation’s website provides information on the legal rights of workers in the absence of a contract, including the process by which one can resign his or her union membership and rebuff both union fee demands and any strike orders.

According to his charges, Dalison sent two letters to SEIU bosses in December 2019 ending his union membership and asserting his right under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision to pay only the amount of union dues directly germane to bargaining. Because Washington State lacks Right to Work protections for workers, private sector workers like Dalison who refrain from formal union membership can be legally required to pay a portion of dues in order to keep their jobs.

Dalison’s charges also note that his membership revocation letter should have been effective in stopping all dues deductions from his paycheck because the monopoly bargaining contract between Swedish Medical Center and the SEIU union had expired, leaving him with no active legal obligation to pay any fees to the SEIU hierarchy. Nevertheless, his charges state, neither Swedish Medical Center nor SEIU officials have responded to his requests, and Swedish Medical Center continues to deduct full membership dues from Dalison’s paycheck at the behest of SEIU officials.

Dalison’s charges also allege that SEIU has never given him or his coworkers “adequate notice of their rights” under Beck. Those rights include the rights to be a nonmember and as such object and not pay full union dues, and the right to be provided “disclosure of the reduced fee amount employees will have to pay if they choose Beck objector status” and an independent audit of the union’s expenditures. The charge explains that SEIU bosses’ actions and omissions violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and are attempts by the SEIU union to “trick or force nonmembers into funding its political and ideological agenda.”

Dalison’s charges come just months after another Swedish Medical Center employee, NancyEllen Elster, filed federal charges with Foundation aid similarly alleging that SEIU bosses never furnished employees a proper Beck rights notice, and had denied her request to pay the Beck reduced fee rather than full dues. Region 19 found merit in Elster’s charges and imposed an October 2019 settlement intended to rectify the union’s violations. Because SEIU officials have apparently flouted the requirements of that settlement, Dalison’s charges urge Region 19 resume prosecution of the SEIU for the violations in Elster’s case.

Those charges were not the only time Washington State SEIU bosses were recently caught violating workers’ legal rights. In October 2019, SEIU 775NW officials were forced to settle a federal case and refund well over $3 million to home-based healthcare providers in the state who asserted in the lawsuit that the SEIU had diverted a percentage of Medicaid payments from them to the union in violation of their statutory and constitutional rights.

“Given Washington State SEIU bosses’ repeated flouting of even the most basic employee rights protections, it is understandable that Swedish Medical Center employees may begin questioning whether the threatened strike is really what is best for themselves, their families, and their patients,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Swedish Medical Center employees should know they unequivocally have the right to resign their union memberships and avoid all union fee demands and strike orders in the absence of a contract.”

“If SEIU bosses further refuse to comply with Swedish Medical Center employees’ legal rights, other rank-and-file workers there should immediately contact the Foundation for free legal aid,” added Mix.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) initiating rulemaking to modify rules used to block workers’ right to escape union ranks

Washington, DC (January 9, 2020) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has just submitted comments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), urging it to issue a final rule to nix three arbitrary policies that union officials frequently manipulate to trap workers in union ranks despite a majority’s desire to oust the union from the workplace. The three policies are not statutory, but were created by past Board precedents. The comments, submitted by Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse, support all three changes the NLRB is currently considering in rulemaking. However, the comments advocate an important modification to the Board’s proposed change in how it deals with so-called “blocking charges.”

The NLRB’s “blocking charge” policy currently lets union bosses file unfair labor practice (ULP) charges against an employer to halt employee votes to decertify unions, even if the allegations against the employer have no connection to the decertification effort. The agency plans to eliminate that policy and replace it with one that lets decertification elections proceed while such charges are pending, but requires the results of the vote to be withheld until those charges are resolved.

The Foundation’s comments explain that the Board’s proposed “vote and impound” procedure does not fully address the blocking charge problem, because even after workers vote union officials could continue to trap them in unwanted representation by dragging out the ULP process to maintain monopoly bargaining powers for months or years before the vote can be announced. The comments point out that this will unfairly “frustrate and confuse employees who may have to wait years to see the election’s results.” Instead, the Foundation urges the Board to release vote tallies first to “decrease litigation and give parties greater information on whether to settle” unfair labor practice charge allegations unlikely to impact the election’s outcome.

Foundation staff attorneys have provided legal assistance to scores of workers faced with “blocking charges,” most recently a group of Alaskan bus drivers who were freed in December 2019 from an unpopular Teamsters union after three years of attempts to remove it. One employee in that situation commented to the NLRB that Teamsters officials’ continued blocking of an election was “the most unfair and anti-democratic event” with which he had ever been involved.

The Foundation’s comments support the NLRB’s move to reinstate a process that allows employees and rival unions to file for secret-ballot elections after a union has been installed in a workplace through abuse-prone “card check” drives that bypass the NLRB-supervised election process. That critical modification to the so-called “voluntary recognition bar” policy would reinstate a system secured by Foundation staff attorneys for workers in the 2007 Dana Corp NLRB decision. Despite thousands of workers using the process to secure secret ballot votes after being unionized through card checks, the Obama NLRB overturned Dana in 2010.

The Foundation’s comments also support the agency’s proposed rule to crack down on schemes in the construction industry where employers and union bosses are allowed to 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 case (Colorado Fire Sprinkler, Inc.) that ended when a DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously ruled for the worker, who had been unionized despite no evidence of majority employee support for the union.

The Foundation has long called for the NLRB to abandon all barriers to employee decertification of unions which the National Labor Relations Act, the federal law that the agency is charged with enforcing, does not mandate or even mention. In addition to the “blocking charge” policy and “voluntary recognition bar” that are subjects of the current rulemaking, the Foundation also opposes other arbitrary and non-statutory barriers to workers exercising their right to a decertification election.

“For too long the statutory right of employees under the National Labor Relations Act to vote out a union they oppose has been trampled by arbitrary NLRB policies that allow union bosses to maintain power despite the overwhelming opposition of rank-and-file workers,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Delays in the rulemaking process this Board has used to address these coercive policies means workers across the country continue to be trapped in unions they oppose every day, which is why the NLRB should now swiftly finalize these rules as the Foundation’s comments advocate.”