Hear Ye, Hear Ye: Medieval Times Performers Are Union-Free
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Performers banished union officials after they pushed unpopular, divisive strikes
Hail Queen Dean, Vanquisher of Unwanted Unions: Michelle Dean and her fellow Medieval Times performers ousted AGVA union officials, who had ordered employees on a lengthy and unproductive strike.
WASHINGTON, DC – Medieval Times, a nationwide chain of dinner theater “castles” in which a four-course meal is served while knights spar for Queen Doña Maria Isabella’s favor, provides guests a fun and captivating trip back in time.
But, at the castles in Buena Park, CA, and Lyndhurst, NJ, a more sinister plot was unfolding among the hardworking performers. Officials of the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA) union had ordered or were pressuring employees to go on strike, an unpopular move which caused division in the workplaces. At the California location, AGVA bosses issued an edict forcing many performers off the job for roughly nine months.
Majorities of Performers Backed AGVA Removal
Sensing that their fellow performers had had enough of AGVA’s attempts to control them, Artemisia Morley and Michelle Dean — who play the Queens at the New Jersey and California castles respectively — sought free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Both women filed petitions backed by their coworkers asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold votes at their workplaces on whether to banish AGVA union officials.
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. Majorities of performers at both castles backed the petitions — far exceeding the 30% threshold needed to trigger an election under NLRB rules.
Rather than face a secret ballot vote of the workers they claimed to “represent,” AGVA union chiefs filed “disclaimers of interest” and fled both castles before either election could take place — likely sensing that the majority-backed petitions signaled a defeat was coming.
Even after Morley had filed a decertification petition indicating the majority of her coworkers wanted a vote to decertify AGVA, union bosses tried to cling to power at the New Jersey castle. They attempted to block the vote by filing “blocking charges,” which are often-unrelated allegations against management meant to derail a vote.
The tide substantially turned against AGVA union officials in New Jersey after Morley’s Foundation attorneys successfully challenged a decision from an NLRB Regional Director that halted the decertification vote based on union officials’ “blocking charges.” Filings in Morley’s case indicated that the performers’ discontent with the union had nothing to do with Medieval Times management and was rather due to “secretive, self-interested, and divisive” behavior by union bosses and their insistence on a strike.
‘Secretive, Self-Interested’ Union Boss Behavior Led to Performers’ Revolt
Meanwhile, in California, AGVA union officials called off a roughly nine-month-long strike at the Buena Park Medieval Times just before Dean filed her decertification petition, likely aware of the tension the strike was causing and the growing number of performers who supported ejecting the union.
“AGVA union officials treated each Medieval Times castle as their own personal fiefdom, but their actions led to an uprising of the rank-and-file they purported to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “While the wishes of the Medieval Times performers have finally been obtained, it should be remembered that workers all over the country are subjected to union control they oppose, and they face fierce union and bureaucratic battles to secure secret ballot decertification votes.”.
Louisiana ADT Security Services Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Remove Communication Workers of America Union from Workplace
ADT employees across Pelican State vote nearly 2 to 1 in decertification election to boot CWA union officials
Baton Rouge, LA (June 17, 2024) – Employees at ADT Security Services across Louisiana have overwhelmingly voted to remove the Communication Workers of America (CWA) union from their workplace. ADT Security Services employee Jonathan Rentrop filed the decertification petition with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Rentrop filed the petition on May 7 with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Rentrop’s petition contained support from a majority of employees, more than enough to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
The election was held on Wednesday, June 12, and Thursday, June 13, at ADT Security Services locations in Shreveport, Lafayette, New Orleans (St. Rose), and Baton Rouge. According to the official NLRB vote tally, 30 employees voted for removal of the union, while just 17 votes in favor of keeping CWA union officials as their monopoly bargaining representative.
Because Louisiana is a Right to Work state, union officials can’t force employees like those at ADT Security Services to join the union or pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, non-Right to Work states let union officials push for terms that force workers to pay dues as a condition of employment.
However, even in Right to Work states, federal law grants union officials the power to impose their “representation” on all workers in a unit, even those who oppose the union or voted against its presence. A successful decertification election strips union officials of that monopoly power over all employees in the bargaining unit.
“This vote is the latest example of workers across the country exercising their right to remove unwanted unions, with the NLRB’s own statistics showing more decertification elections held last year than in any year since 2017,” said Foundation President Mark Mix. “Louisiana’s popular Right to Work law provides fundamental protections for employees in the Pelican State against being forced to fund a union they oppose, but, right now, that law does not override federal law that forces workers under a union’s so-called ‘representation’ against their will.”
“While we are proud to assist workers in exercising their right to vote out unwanted unions in decertification elections, ultimately the choice of whether or not to be ‘represented’ by union officials should rest with each individual employee,” added Mix.
Foundation Fires Back Against Biden NLRB ‘Card Check’ Mandate
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief challenges Labor Board’s attempt to expand coercive, anti-employee organizing scheme
New ‘card check’-friendly Biden NLRB rules could lock workers at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga, TN, production plant under union power without even a secret ballot vote, Mark Mix warned on Chattanooga’s local NBC station in February.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Union-label bureaucrats at the Biden National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have pulled out all the stops in their attempt to foist union monopoly control on more workers. But perhaps no move from the Biden Labor Board has been as radical as its October 2023 ruling in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific.
In response, Foundation staff attorneys recently filed a brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, exposing the NLRB’s sweeping power grab as a ploy to erode workers’ right to vote in secret on union representation. The Foundation is urging the Court of Appeals to overturn the NLRB’s controversial Cemex ruling.
In the August 2023 Cemex decision, the Biden-appointed NLRB majority gave union officials massive new powers to bypass a secret ballot vote among workers when trying to install union control at a workplace. The new standard effectively requires employers to accept a union’s claim to represent workers based on the coercive “card check” process.
Seattle Mariners Employee’s Case Reveals Unreliability of Card Check
Card check is a process that uses “authorization cards” solicited and collected by union organizers as a substitute for workers’ votes in a secret ballot election. The card check process lacks the security of a secret ballot vote and exposes workers to pressure tactics and intimidation from union officials who seek to secure enough authorization cards. Under the Biden Board’s new policy, employers’ options to insist on a secret ballot vote are limited and can be blocked by a union-requested ruling against the employer.
The Foundation’s brief discusses the struggle of Tami Kecherson, a Seattle Mariners retail employee who received free Foundation legal aid during her fight to remove a union in 2023, as a glaring example of card check’s unreliability in gauging workers’ true desires. Kecherson works in one of two retail shops that were under the control of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union up until last year. UFCW union officials gained power over her work unit through a card check, but were then voted out by an overwhelming 50-9 margin once a secret ballot election Kecherson requested was held.
Kecherson was able to request a vote to challenge UFCW’s card check scheme under the auspices of the Election Protection Rule (EPR), a set of Foundation-supported reforms adopted in 2020. The EPR gives workers a 45-day opportunity to request a secret ballot vote to challenge a union’s card check-based claims of majority.
Secret Ballot Vote Leads to Union Ouster 50-9
The Foundation’s legal brief points out that Cemex will create more outrageous situations like Kecherson’s, where union bosses seize power over workers who would reject them if they had a chance to vote: “[UFCW’s] claim to majority support, based on authorization cards the union collected, was totally refuted when tested in the crucible of a secret ballot election.
“Yet under Cemex, the NLRB will routinely impose compulsory union representation on employees based on card checks and without a secret-ballot election,” the brief argues.
Foundation Warns Workers They Could Be in Crosshairs of Cemex
Union bosses may soon use the Cemex standard to overturn elections in which workers reject unionization, or deny workers opportunities to vote in secret entirely. United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials, who are waging a number of aggressive card check-based unionization campaigns at auto factories primarily in the South, already seem to be laying the groundwork for capturing these workplaces using Cemex.
For example, UAW union officials are trying for the third time in a decade to unionize Volkswagen’s (VW) large production plant in Chattanooga, TN. They’ve already filed four unfair labor practice charges against VW management that the NLRB could use as rationales for tossing an employee vote if the election doesn’t go the union’s way. The UAW’s aggressive campaign appears to be employing similar tactics at other non-union facilities, including some run by Tesla and Mercedes-Benz.
Cemex Is a Disgrace to Worker Freedom
The Foundation issued a legal notice to Chattanooga VW workers in February, warning them that UAW bosses can manipulate Cemex to nullify their vote, and that employees have the right to revoke any union cards they might have signed during the card check drive.
“The NLRB’s ruling in Cemex is an insult to American workers, all of whom should have the unfettered right to vote in secret on whether union bosses deserve to have control over them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “It’s clear from Ms. Kecherson’s situation and many other Foundation cases that the ‘card check’ process pushed by Cemex is merely a tool to expand union ranks.”
California Transportation Worker Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of National Labor Relations Board
Lawsuit joins challenges by three other employees against NLRB on grounds that structure of agency violates Article II of the Constitution
Los Angeles, CA (June 14, 2024) – On Tuesday, Victor Avila, an employee of Savage Services Corporation in California, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Avila is receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Avila filed Unfair Labor Practice charges with the NLRB against the Teamsters Local 848 union in August 2023. On February 9, NLRB Region 21 in Los Angeles issued a complaint against Teamsters Local 848 on the grounds that the union violated Avila’s rights when the Teamsters, through an agent, had “threatened unit employees with physical violence for not supporting the Union.”
This week a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge began hearing that case. Soon after that hearing began, Avila’s federal lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where the NLRB is based. The lawsuit raises fundamental constitutional concerns regarding the removal power vested in the President under Article II of the Constitution. Avila contends that the NLRB, composed of five members with limited removal authority, infringes upon the President’s constitutional prerogative to oversee and remove executive officials who wield substantial executive power. The complaint states that “Avila is entitled to have a constitutionally structured Board, properly accountable to the President, adjudicate his case and rule on his unfair labor practice charge.”
Avila’s lawsuit points to recent Supreme Court rulings, including Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen, which underscored the necessity for presidential control over executive officials exercising significant authority. Avila argues that the NLRB’s structure, as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), places impermissible limitations on the President’s removal power, thereby violating the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.
Starbucks Employees Also Challenging Federal Labor Board Structure in Two Federal Lawsuits
Avila’s case is not the only federal lawsuit filed by employees challenging the structure of the NLRB as unconstitutional with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Three Starbucks employees, each of whom has had their attempt to hold decertification votes to remove unwanted Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace blocked by NLRB officials, have made similar arguments in federal lawsuits.
Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two Starbucks employees from New York, recently filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their lawsuit. They are appealing a District Court judge’s ruling that they lacked standing to bring their challenge. The ruling didn’t address the core constitutional arguments their lawsuit raised. Another Starbucks employee, Reed Busler, filed another similar lawsuit that is currently pending in the Northern District Court in Texas.
“Labor law cannot and should not be immune from the requirements of the U.S. Constitution and Mr. Avila is entitled to have his case adjudicated by a constitutionally accountable body,” said Foundation President Mark Mix. “Too often the Biden NLRB has operated like a taxpayer-funded arm of the AFL-CIO, and this case is just one of many where employees are seeking to defend their rights against a biased agency that acts as if it’s power has no limits.”
Detroit School Bus Driver Slams Teamsters Union With Federal Charges for Seizing Full Dues Illegally From Paycheck
Teamsters officials ignored First Student driver’s request to opt-out of funding union politics, similar cases increase after MI Right to Work repeal
Detroit, MI (June 14, 2024) – Frances Dennis, a Troy-based school bus driver for First Student, Inc., has just filed federal charges against Teamsters Local 299 union officials for seizing full union dues payments from her wages even though she resigned her membership in the union. Dennis filed the charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 7 in Detroit with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.
Dennis is seeking to defend her rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which forbids union officials from forcing employees who have abstained from union membership into paying dues or fees for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions. Union political expenditures, which often make up part of full membership dues, are among those expenses that Beck prevents union officials from forcing nonmember workers into funding. Nonmember workers who exercise their Beck rights are also entitled to an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials spend forced contributions.
In non-Right to Work states, including Michigan where Right to Work was repealed earlier this year, union officials’ privilege to force workers to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment is limited by the Beck ruling. Under federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedents like General Motors v. NLRB, union officials also can’t compel workers to maintain formal union membership as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
In Right to Work states, in contrast, both union membership and all union financial support are strictly the choice of each individual worker.
Teamsters Continue to Take Money for Politics Unlawfully From School Bus Driver
According to the charges, in December 2023 Dennis sent a letter to Teamsters union officials exercising both her right to resign union membership and her right to cut off union dues deductions from her paycheck. At the time, Michigan’s Right to Work law was still on the books, meaning Teamsters union officials should have honored both of Dennis’ requests. However, her charges state that Teamsters agents “did not respond to this letter and continued to deduct dues from her wages.”
Knowing that the Michigan Legislature had set the Right to Work repeal for February 2024, Dennis sent another letter in January 2024 “objecting to the demand of any dues or fees without the protections guaranteed by Communications Workers of America v. Beck.” She also objected to union officials taking dues from her paycheck. Even where forced-dues arrangements are legal, federal law prohibits union bosses from requiring the payment of such dues through direct payroll deduction.
Dennis’ charges report that Teamsters union bosses have not responded to her letter, have not provided her with any of her Beck rights, and continue to seize full union dues out of her wages. Even worse, a union recording secretary told Dennis via text that “she was required…to complete and submit a dues checkoff form” authorizing direct dues deduction as a condition of keeping her job.
After MI Right to Work Repeal, Cases Challenging Forced Dues Pile Up
Dennis’ case is just the latest in a string filed by Foundation attorneys for Michigan workers seeking to challenge union bosses’ forced-dues arrangements in the wake of Michigan’s Right to Work repeal. Earlier this month, Sault Ste. Marie Meijer employee Joseph Arnold hit his employer with federal charges for compelling him to sign a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union membership form. In Milford, Kroger employee Roger Cornett levied federal charges against both a UFCW local and the store for jointly enforcing a scheme that forces employees to contribute to the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC) to stay employed. James Reamsma, a Grand Rapids-area security guard, is defending a “deauthorization vote” by security guards across Western Michigan to end the forced-dues power of a United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union.
“The Michigan Legislature’s cynical and partisan repeal of Right to Work was a blatant power grab for union bosses across the state at the expense of workers’ right to freely decide whether union bosses have earned their financial support,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As Ms. Dennis’ case and an increasing number of cases from around the state show, union bosses often seek to circumvent or flat out ignore workers’ free association rights, which is why those freedoms deserve stronger and not weaker protections.”
“Perhaps more unsettling is the fact that some of these cases involve union officials illegally funneling worker money into union politics – the same political machine that led to the demise of these workers’ free choice under Right to Work,” Mix added.
Michigan Meijer Employee Hits Supermarket with Federal Charges for Forcing Him to Join UFCW Union or Be Fired
Charges come as more workers challenge union bosses’ forced-dues power in wake of Michigan Right to Work repeal
Sault Ste. Marie, MI (June 11, 2024) – Joseph Arnold, an employee at the 3 Mile Road branch of Meijer in Sault Ste. Marie, has just slammed the supermarket’s management with federal charges for threatening to fire him if he didn’t complete a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union membership form. Arnold filed the charges at Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law in the private sector. Under federal law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like General Motors v. NLRB, neither union officials nor employers can compel workers to maintain formal union membership as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
This applies even in non-Right to Work states like Michigan, where union bosses have legal privileges to enforce contracts that require workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Employees in non-Right to Work states who choose to abstain from formal union membership also have the right under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision to object to paying union fees for anything unrelated to the union’s bargaining functions, such as political activities.
In contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Indiana and Wisconsin, all union financial support is strictly voluntary.
With the demand that Arnold sign a UFCW membership form or else be fired, Meijer officials appear to be imposing both full union membership and full union dues payments on him. Other workers have reported receiving similar demands to join or be fired.
Workers Across Michigan Challenge Forced-Dues Schemes
“Even though Michigan isn’t a Right to Work state anymore, that doesn’t give my employer agency to dictate my options,” commented Arnold. “Through ignorance or intent, Meijer threatening my job because I don’t want to associate with the union is unacceptable. If Meijer truly respects our rights they would present us with all options, as it is the job of the union to advocate my interests with my employer, not the job of my employer to advocate the interests of the union with me.”
Since the state’s Right to Work law was repealed earlier this year, Foundation attorneys have handled a flurry of cases for Michigan workers seeking to end coercive union influence in their workplaces. One such case involves illegal UFCW practices at a Kroger in Milford, Michigan, where employee Roger Cornett has levied federal charges against both the union and the store for jointly enforcing a scheme that forces employees to contribute to the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC) to stay employed.
Elsewhere in Michigan, Grand Rapids-area security guard James Reamsma is currently defending his and his coworkers’ recent “deauthorization vote” to nullify the forced-dues power of a United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union. The UGSOA currently holds monopoly bargaining power over security guards posted at government buildings across Western Michigan, including in Sault Ste. Marie. Even though more of Reamsma’s colleagues voted for the deauthorization of the UGSOA than against it, litigation continues over the results. Reamsma’s case is one of many where Michigan workers are seeking to end union bosses’ power to compel payment of union dues or fees, and return to voluntary dues payments, as was protected under Michigan’s popular Right to Work law.
“Based on the cases that Foundation attorneys have already fielded in the short time that Michigan’s Right to Work law has been repealed, it’s clear that Michigan workers need more protection from coercive union power, not less,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials and complicit employers will often push the boundaries of what’s legal in an attempt to extend union power over workers regardless of whether they want or asked for the union.”
Starbucks Employee Takes Case Challenging Federal Labor Board Structure as Unconstitutional to Court of Appeals
NY Starbucks workers are challenging NLRB that refuses to let them hold decertification votes to remove unwanted SBWU union
Washington D.C. (June 10, 2024) – Ariana Cortes and fellow plaintiff Logan Karam, two Starbucks employees from New York, are taking their groundbreaking lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit, initially filed by Cortes, and later joined by Karam, follows NLRB officials’ refusal to process their respective petitions requesting a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace.
The lawsuit, filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, argues that the NLRA violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the President. The appeal challenges the District Court decision that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack legal standing. That decision did not address the underlying claim regarding whether the Labor Board’s structure complies with the requirements of the Constitution.
Multiple Starbucks Employees Are Suing the NLRB
On April 28, 2023, Cortes submitted a petition, supported by a majority of her colleagues, asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election at her workplace to remove SBWU union officials’ bargaining powers over workers at the store. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against Starbucks. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification request.
Similarly, Karam filed a decertification petition seeking a vote to remove the union at his Buffalo-area Starbucks store. Like Cortes’s petition, NLRB officials refuse to allow the vote to take place, citing claims made by SBWU officials. As a result the workers remain trapped under union “representation” they oppose.
Their lawsuit is not the only instance where Starbucks employees are challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB with free legal representation by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Reed Busler, an employee at the “Military Highway” Starbucks in Shavano Park, TX, brought a similar federal lawsuit against the NLRB in January, contending that the agency’s structure violates the separation of powers. Busler’s petition seeking a vote to remove the SBWU remains pending before the NLRB.
“Workers should never be trapped in union ranks they oppose, and they certainly shouldn’t be trapped on the whims of powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Despite the wishes of Big Labor and the NLRB who appear intent on squashing free speech and exercising unfettered power, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law of the land.”
Workers at Americold Logistics Win Campaign to Remove Teamsters Union from Workplace
Facing imminent workers’ vote in a decertification election, Teamsters Local 695 officials end forced “representation”
Darien, WI (June 6, 2024) – Employees at Americold Logistics in Darien, Wisconsin have won their freedom from Teamsters Local 695. Americold Logistics employee, Leo Garcia, originally filed a petition on behalf of a majority of workers at the facility seeking a vote to remove the Teamsters from their workplace. The decertification petition was filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Garcia filed the petition on May 16 with the NLRB, the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Garcia’s petition contained support from a majority of employees, which is more than is required to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules.
When it became clear that the election would be scheduled, Teamsters Local 695 disclaimed recognition on May 23, 2024, stating in an email to the employer that the union “unequivocally disclaims its interest in representing and collectively bargaining for the unit at Americold in Darien, Wisconsin…that this will end processing of the Petition.” On May 24, NLRB Region 18 acknowledged the union disclaiming recognition, meaning no election would be needed since the workers’ desired result – the removal of the union – had already been accomplished.
Because Wisconsin is a state with Right to Work protections, union officials can’t force employees like those at Americold Logistics to join the union or pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, non-Right to Work states like neighboring Illinois and Minnesota let union officials push for terms with employers that compel workers to pay dues as a condition of employment.
But even in Right to Work states, federal law grants union officials the power to impose their “representation” on all workers in a unit, even those who oppose the union or voted against its presence. However, workers can choose to exercise their right to decertify a union they disapprove of.
Until the union disclaimed representation, the workers’ were subjected to a one-size-fits-all union monopoly contract. Under the NLRB-created “contract bar” policy, workers cannot get a decertification vote for up to three years as long as a union monopoly bargaining agreement is in place. However, at Americold, the union contract was five years long and had already been in effect for over three years.
“Having already been subjected to Teamsters’ bosses so-called ‘representation’ and monopoly contract for years, these workers had more than enough information to decide they would be better off without the union, and apparently Teamsters officials knew it too since as soon as the vote became inevitable they left rather than contest it,” said Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we are pleased these employees have succeeded in their effort to remove an unwanted union, cases like this show why the NLRB’s non-statutory contract bar policy should be eliminated entirely.”
“Workers shouldn’t be trapped under a union contract they oppose for three years until they can avail themselves of their clear right under federal law to petition for a vote to end union affiliation they oppose,” added Mix.
DHS Security Guard’s Federal Lawsuit Forces IGUA Union Bosses to Stop Illegal Forced Union Dues Demands
After union officials did not provide legally required financial disclosures, guard wins reduction in mandatory union fees
Washington, DC (June 6, 2024) – Rosa Crawley, a security guard at the Department of Homeland Security’s Nebraska Avenue Complex, has triumphed after filing a federal lawsuit charging the International Guards Union of America (IGUA) with unlawfully demanding and seizing union dues from her paycheck. Crawley, who is employed by Master Security, forced the union to back off its illegal dues demands with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Crawley is not a member of the IGUA union, but is still subject to IGUA’s monopoly bargaining power over the security guards at the DHS Nebraska Avenue Complex. As part of the settlement, IGUA union bosses must reduce the compulsory fee that they seize from Crawley as a condition of keeping her job. Before she filed suit, union bosses demanded the equivalent of full membership dues from her.
In her federal lawsuit, which she filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Crawley sought to defend her rights under the 1988 Right to Work Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
While union officials can force private sector workers in non-Right to Work jurisdictions like the District of Columbia to pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs, the Beck decision prevents union bosses from forcing employees who have abstained from union membership to pay for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions, such as union bosses’ political activities. Full membership dues often contain charges for these unrelated items.
Beck also requires union bosses to furnish nonmembers who invoke their rights under the decision with an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials spend forced contributions.
Beck protections aren’t necessary in Right to Work states like neighboring Virginia, where union membership and all union financial support are fully voluntary.
IGUA Union Bosses Took Full Dues from Guard, Provided No Financial Disclosures
According to the suit, Crawley sent a letter to union officials resigning her union membership back in July 2023. Instead of immediately providing her with her Beck rights, union officials informed her that she would be charged a so-called “agency fee” which “is the same exact cost as what the union members pay.”
“So there will be absolutely no change in a financial sense,” the union’s reply letter stated.
Not satisfied with that explanation, Crawley in September 2023 formally invoked her Beck rights and asked union officials to reduce her dues payments in accordance with the decision. She also asked them to “provide [her] with an accounting, by an independent certified public accountant, that justifies Local 160’s calculation of its agency [forced] fee,” according to her lawsuit.
In an October 2023 reply to her Beck request, union officials used a confusing percentage averaging calculation to determine a fee amount that contradicted what they told Crawley when she resigned her membership. An independent audit of the union’s finances was nowhere to be found. Despite that, Crawley’s lawsuit reported that IGUA bosses continued to collect full union dues from her paycheck, and tried to impose extra steps that would need to be completed if she wanted to see the union’s financial info.
Workers Must Be On Guard for Illegal Union Uses of Worker Funds as Election Nears
After the filing of her lawsuit, Crawley expressed concern that her money was flowing toward union politics while IGUA bosses dragged their feet on honoring her Beck rights. “I shouldn’t have to pay for the IGUA union’s political activity just so I can continue to do my job,” commented Crawley. “Union officials have a legal obligation to stop charging me for politics and provide me with an accounting of how they are using my money, and so far they have done neither. This isn’t how they should treat the workers they say they ‘represent.’”
“We’re pleased that Ms. Crawley was able to terminate IGUA union officials’ outrageous seizure of full union dues from her paycheck,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, IGUA union officials’ inability to follow even the modest limitations that Beck places on their ability to impose mandatory dues on workers is ridiculous, and no worker should have to file a federal lawsuit to force union bosses into recognizing those rights.
“Workers’ right to prevent their money from going toward unwanted union activities, particularly politics, is especially important as union bosses try to push forward their agendas in advance of the 2024 election,” Mix added. “So workers should be vigilant of Beck violations, and remember they can contact Foundation attorneys for free legal aid in exercising their rights under that decision.”
Foundation: Under Janus, Union Boss “Release Time” Violates AZ Constitution
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
So-called “official time” scheme puts tax dollars toward union politics, says Foundation brief
Foundation attorneys argue before the Arizona Supreme Court (above) and Texas Supreme Court that Janus’ ban on forcing public workers to fund union activities shows why state constitutions forbid the same coercion applied to taxpayers.
PHOENIX, AZ – The National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision provided massive new protections for American public employees’ free association rights. In 2018, the Court recognized for the first time that forcing a public employee to pay union dues just to keep his or her job is a First Amendment violation.
The Janus decision, buoyed by National Right to Work Foundation follow-up enforcement actions, means today well over half a million public employees are free of mandatory union payments. Yet, the implications of Janus go even beyond the billions of dollars in previously mandatory dues payments that union bosses can no longer force workers to pay.
Underpinning the Janus ruling was Foundation attorneys’ core argument that all public sector union activities involve influencing the government, and are therefore inherently political speech. Because of this, Foundation staff attorneys now argue that applying Janus to the practice known as union “official time” or “release time” — where government union officials are paid tax money to conduct union business instead of government work — shows how the scheme violates multiple state constitutions.
Foundation Attorneys Bring Janus Expertise to Public Employee Lawsuit
In Arizona for example, Phoenix city employees Mark Gilmore and Mark Harder sued Phoenix mayor Kate Gallego in 2023 for engaging in a scheme that redirects taxpayer funds intended for public employees’ compensation toward political advocacy conducted by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Field II agents.
That case, Gilmore v. Gallego, is now before the Arizona Supreme Court, where Foundation attorneys filed a legal brief arguing that this so-called “release time” scheme violates Arizona’s Gift Clause, which forbids the government from paying out benefits to private parties that serve no public purpose.
The brief points out that, in Janus, the Supreme Court found that all government union bargaining is a form of lobbying designed to influence public policy for the benefit of the union. That means taxpayer subsidies of such union activities inherently violate the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause.
Phoenix’s Arrangement Pays Union Bosses to Lobby City
Phoenix’s “release time” scheme funnels taxpayer money into four full-time positions for union officials for the purpose of conducting union business, creates a bank of over 3,000 paid hours to be used by other union official employees for union purposes, and provides multiple other perks for union agents.
The policies unions lobby for “often are matters of substantial public concern, such as how much money the government expends on wages and benefits,” the Foundation’s brief reads. With its release time policy, the City is effectively paying individuals to lobby the City for a private advocacy organization and its members. The notion that this political advocacy serves a public purpose is untenable.”
Foundation attorneys are backing a similar lawsuit at the Texas Supreme Court. In Roger Borgelt v. City of Austin, Texas taxpayers are fighting a scheme that City of Austin officials are using to direct taxpayer dollars to Austin Firefighters Association union officials to conduct union business.
“Union bosses, who will often screech about ‘corporate welfare,’ are more than happy to arrange so-called ‘release time’ schemes in which taxpayer dollars are funneled toward supporting their massive lobbying efforts,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Janus made it plain and simple that compelling public sector employees to fund union activities constitutes forced political speech, and courts everywhere have an obligation to declare such compulsion illegal when foisted on taxpayers.”
