Foundation Slams NLRB, ILA Union Officials in Brief to Fourth Circuit Court
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation defends union-free SC port workers who would lose their jobs under NLRB ruling
Foundation staff attorneys are fighting to ensure that Charleston’s state-of-the-art Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal doesn’t become a safe harbor for ILA union bosses’ anti-worker schemes.
CHARLESTON, SC – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have joined the fight against the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) union’s ongoing gambit to idle Charleston’s state-of-the-art Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal if the union can’t get control of all jobs at the facility.
Hostile Union Power Play Seeks to Put Non-Union Workers Out of Job
The Foundation recently filed a legal brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA) v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In the case, the SCPA is challenging the Biden NLRB’s ruling permitting ILA union bosses to file multi-million-dollar lawsuits against any cargo carrier that docks at Leatherman until the union gains control of all crane lift equipment jobs at the facility.
Since its opening in March 2021, some of the work at Leatherman Terminal has been performed by non-union state employees, some of whom have worked for the SCPA for years. The brief argues that if ILA union bosses’ power grab succeeds, it will “cause grievous harm to 270 State port workers and their families.”
The Foundation “submits this brief to provide a voice for the otherwise voiceless non-union State employees, and to give the Court a unique perspective on the stakes involved for those workers and their families,” the brief states. The brief highlights the dire consequences of the ILA maneuver for control of Leatherman’s 270 employees, who are otherwise protected by state law from monopoly union control.
According to the brief, South Carolina spent over $1 billion to develop the terminal, but due to the ILA’s power grab “the only way for South Carolina’s $1 billion Leatherman Terminal to be usable would be for the State to turn the facility over to a private employer with an ILA contract and discharge the 270 State employees.” The devastating effects for current employees and their families wouldn’t stop there if the ILA is victorious in the case. Even if the fired state workers were to seek new employment at Leatherman with a private contractor under the union’s control, the ILA union’s seniority provisions and hiring rules would likely bar them from being rehired.
ILA Union Officials Have History of Corruption
The attempt by ILA union officials to seek total control over workers at the Leatherman terminal is hardly the only underhanded tactic the ILA has been linked to. In 2022, the New York Daily News reported ILA chiefs negotiated “deals” where mob-linked longshoremen in New York and New Jersey could get paid for 27 hours of “work” per day.
“ILA union officials, with assistance from the NLRB, are directly working to destroy the livelihoods of these 270 South Carolinians,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The NLRB’s blatant disregard of the rights and wellbeing of workers and siding with union tyrants is outrageous.”
“The non-union port workers who have called Leatherman their workplace for over a decade must be protected,” added Semmens.
Foundation Fights For Starbucks Workers Seeking to Oust Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Majority of workers at flagship NYC Starbucks Roastery want decertification vote
NEW YORK, NY – Union bosses and their bought-and-paid-for political allies have been touting Starbucks as the latest and greatest frontier in union organizing. But, as soon as legally permitted after several high-profile Starbucks unionization efforts, workers are already seeking to vote out union officials.
Kevin Caesar, an employee of the high-end Starbucks Reserve Roastery location in Manhattan, sought out Foundation legal aid this May. He sought assistance in submitting a petition backed by a majority of his colleagues to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a vote to remove, or “decertify,” Starbucks Workers United (SBWU), and their puppet-masters at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), from the Roastery. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), workers must wait one year after a union is installed before seeking to remove it, meaning Caesar and his colleagues essentially filed their decertification petition as soon as allowed by the law.
“We have seen our workplace both with and without the union. We believe that the union is looking out for itself more than it is looking out for Starbucks partners, who do not want forced dues and who can advocate for ourselves,” stated Caesar about why he wants to be free of the union.
“That is why a majority of us have decided we would be better off without the union. The fact that the union officials have forced us to go through this decertification process despite the majority of workers stating they do not want to be represented by this union shows how little regard the union has for the will of the workers,” he added. “We call on union officials to respect our rights and not attempt to fight this vote.”
With the petition filed, the NLRB should now promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ power to impose a contract, including forced dues, on the workers. However, SBWU officials have already announced they will seek to block the vote, a matter Foundation attorneys quickly opposed in a brief to the NLRB.
Worker Dissatisfaction with Unions Growing Nationwide
The Starbucks workers are just the latest example of growing dissatisfaction with union officials’ so-called “representation.” Currently, worker requests for Foundation aid in decertifying an unwanted union are at an all-time high. NLRB statistics similarly show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021.
Unfortunately, the NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to union boss-created roadblocks, which can impact the Starbucks workers if union officials plot to stay in power regardless of workers’ wishes. Foundation-backed NLRB reforms from 2020, collectively known as the “Election Protection Rule,” have made it somewhat easier for workers to escape unwanted union “representation,” by eliminating the most egregious “blocking charge” tactics used by union bosses to delay or stop decertification elections entirely. “Blocking charges” are unverified union boss allegations of employer misconduct, often unrelated to workers’ desire to decertify.
Currently, the Biden-appointed NLRB majority is conducting rulemaking to roll back these protections and make it much harder for workers to decertify a union.
Foundation Provides Legal Notice to Starbucks Employees
After being in contact with multiple Starbucks workers interested in how to resist union control, the Foundation issued a legal notice informing employees of the coffee chain of their right to petition for a vote to oust an unpopular union.
“No worker anywhere should be forced under so-called union ‘representation’ they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Starbucks workers around the nation that fall victim to union tyranny should know they can turn to Foundation staff attorneys for assistance.”
“Foundation staff attorneys are now fighting to ensure that these workers are not denied the vote that they are entitled to under federal law to remove union control they oppose,” continued Mix. “Union bosses should not be allowed to keep their grip on power simply by disenfranchising those they claim to ‘represent.’”
Greenville, SC Starbucks Employees Latest to Demand Vote to Remove SBWU Union from Workplace
One year after highly publicized unionization efforts, workers from at least five different states have begun efforts to remove SBWU
Greenville, SC (August 14, 2023) – An employee of a Starbucks Coffee location near Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport has submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asking the federal agency to hold a vote among her colleagues to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from the workplace. The employee, Kacie Bory, is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Bory’s petition contains signatures from the requisite number of her coworkers to trigger a union decertification election under the NLRB’s rules. While South Carolina is a Right to Work state, meaning SBWU bosses can compel neither Bory nor her coworkers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of staying employed, SBWU is still empowered by federal law to impose a union contract on employees at the store who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote would strip union officials of that power.
“My coworkers and I are very disappointed with the performance of SBWU union officials. They’ve done a lousy job of communicating with me and my colleagues and also haven’t stood up for our interests in the workplace,” commented Bory. “I am confident that the majority of my colleagues will vote to send SBWU officials packing and we hope that the union will not try any legal maneuvers to derail this election.”
Greenville Starbucks Workers Join Burgeoning Worker Movement Against SBWU
Bory and her coworkers’ effort is the latest in a chain of SBWU decertification pushes across the country. In just the past few months, Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY, Buffalo, NY, Pittsburgh, PA, Bloomington, MN, and Salt Lake City, UT, have all sought free Foundation legal aid in pursuing their decertification petitions at the NLRB.
The flurry of decertification attempts is occurring roughly one year after SBWU union agents engaged in an aggressive unionization campaign against the coffee chain’s employees. Federal labor law forbids workers from decertifying a union for a year after a union’s installation, meaning many workers are seizing on the earliest possible opportunity to rid themselves of the SBWU union’s “representation.”
A potential motivating factor for many of the Starbucks workers currently seeking to oust the SBWU lies in the fact that the union’s campaign on Starbucks included the hiring of “salts.” “Salts” are covert union agents that obtain jobs at non-union workplaces solely for the purpose of agitating in favor of union control. The New York Post reported in July that, according to a Labor Union News report, SBWU spent nearly $2.5 million on seeding Starbucks locations with “salts” and other activists.
Outside of Starbucks, union decertification efforts are becoming much more common. Currently, the NLRB’s data shows a unionized private sector worker is far more likely to be involved in a decertification effort as their nonunion counterpart is to be involved in a unionization campaign. NLRB statistics also show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021.
However, union officials have many ways to manipulate federal labor law to prevent workers from voting them out, including by filing unrelated or unverified charges against management. SBWU officials at the Greenville Starbucks have already filed a motion seeking the dismissal of Bory and her coworkers’ petition, which Foundation attorneys are opposing.
“The well-funded and highly politicized campaign to install union power at Starbucks is fast unravelling, as more and more workers are discovering that their interests deviate from those of union organizers, many of whom left soon after installing the union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While SBWU officials nationwide are using every trick in the book to try to block the workers they claim to ‘represent’ from voting on whether the union deserves to stay, Foundation staff attorneys will continue to fight for the exercise of this essential free choice right.”
Southwest Airlines Faces Second Round of Sanctions in Litigation Over Flight Attendant’s Discriminatory Firing at Union Behest
Company already faced sanctions for not making witness available for deposition, now faces discipline for misleading employees about judge’s order
Dallas, TX (August 14, 2023) – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas last week issued a second round of sanctions against lawyers from Southwest Airlines, stemming from a federal discrimination case in which flight attendant Charlene Carter sued both the airline and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 556 for firing her over voicing religious objections to the union’s political stances. Carter, who is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, received a $5.1 million jury verdict in her case last June and a favorable court ruling last December.
District Court Judge Brantley Starr’s current order results from a motion for sanctions Carter’s attorneys filed in December 2022. Carter’s motion contended that Southwest management, in the wake of the December ruling against the airline, had failed to follow the District Court’s instructions to inform flight attendants that the airline “may not discriminate” against flight attendants on the basis of religion, and had instead issued a “Recent Court Decision” notice to flight attendants stating the airline “does not discriminate” on the basis of religion. Carter’s December motion argued that Southwest further breached the Court’s instructions by subsequently issuing an “Inflight Information On the Go” memo to flight attendants, conveying the airline would scrutinize their union-related and religious speech in the same way it did with Carter.
Judge Starr’s order from last week granted Carter’s motion for sanctions and castigated Southwest’s lawyers for blatantly ignoring the court’s instructions.
“…Southwest’s notice communicated that there’s nothing to see here—aside from the Court’s bequeathing Southwest a badge of honor for not discriminating (which the Court did not do). Not content with merely inverting the Court’s notice, Southwest also sent a memo to its flight attendants the same day, stating that its employees must abide by the types of policies over which Southwest fired Carter and that it believed its firing of Carter was justified because of those policies,” Judge Starr’s order reads. “It’s hard to see how Southwest could have violated the notice requirement more.”
“…Southwest devoted diligence and energy only to circumventing the Court’s order—not to complying with it,” reads the order, rejecting a substantial compliance defense proffered by Southwest’s lawyers. “The…documents with privileged information indicate that decision was willful—not accidental.”
Southwest Already Faced Sanctions for Not Making Witness Available
Judge Starr’s order this week, which Southwest says they will appeal, is not the first time Southwest has faced discipline for its conduct during this litigation. In November, the District Court slammed the airline with sanctions after it failed to make flight attendant Brett Nevarez available for a deposition in the case.
According to the November order granting sanctions against Southwest, the airline’s management did not modify Nevarez’s flight schedule so he could actually attend the deposition. “[T]he Court didn’t order Defendants to sternly exhort Nevarez. It ordered Defendants to ‘ma[k]e [him] available . . . for deposition.’ Defendants didn’t rearrange Nevarez’s flight schedule or otherwise take any action to ensure his availability,” the order said.
“Thus, the Court concludes that Defendants violated its discovery order to make Nevarez available for his deposition,” read the order.
“Southwest’s repeated recalcitrance toward following court orders is shameful but not particularly surprising,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The airline’s management already cooperated with TWU union bosses in the discriminatory and illegal firing of Charlene Carter, so it was obvious long before the sanctions that the company is willing to flout the law and undermine the rights of its employees.”
“Hopefully the court’s most recent order provides hope to other independent-minded workers that their right to express their religious dissent against union and company political agendas cannot so easily be waved away,” Mix added.
New Flyer Employee Slams CWA Union with Federal Charges, Claims Union Lied to Employees to Attain “Majority Status”
Following suspect ‘card check,’ union bosses seek to invalidate worker-backed petition for secret ballot vote to oust union
Shepherdsville, KY (August 9, 2023) – An employee of bus manufacturer New Flyer has filed federal charges against his employer and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union, maintaining that CWA officials illegally imposed union control over him and his coworkers despite the union lacking a demonstrated majority support among the workers. The employee, Gregory Mabrey, filed his charges at National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 9 in Cincinnati with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Mabrey’s charges explain that CWA union officials gained power in his workplace through a process called “card check,” which bypasses the NLRB’s standard secret ballot election process for installing a union. Under card check, employees are denied the right to vote in private on whether they want the union in the workplace, and union officials can instead claim majority status by demanding union authorization cards directly from workers.
The card check scheme’s lack of privacy exposes workers to a variety of coercive behaviors from union officials who are seeking to collect cards from a majority of employees in a work unit. Workers often report being told signing the card only requests “more information” about the union or serves some other purpose, even though the card will be equivalent to a “vote” in favor of union representation. Workers have also experienced threats and unwanted home visits during card check campaigns.
Cards Union Bosses Used to Support “Majority Status” Claims Had Multiple Problems
Mabrey’s unfair labor practice charges report that his employer, New Flyer, recognized the CWA union despite multiple flaws with the union’s card check claim of majority status. The charges state that union officials “misrepresent[ed] to employees that the cards were for a single, restricted purpose other than to designate the Union as their representative,” and that “the Employer and CWA relied on authorization cards that employees revoked or cancelled prior to the date of recognition.”
To make matters even worse, the charges also point out that “the card check was based on a unit of employees that was smaller than the Employer-recognized bargaining unit.” This means that, even if CWA bosses hadn’t made misrepresentations or relied on cards that workers had actually revoked, the number of cards they submitted to support their claim of majority status may have been too small, even under the coercive card check regime.
Mabrey’s charges seek an NLRB prosecution of the union and employer for their respective roles in illegally granting CWA union officials monopoly bargaining powers over his coworkers.
NLRB Blocks Workers’ Attempt to Vote Out the Union, Even Amid Deception
Mabrey’s charges come as another New Flyer employee, Megan Sowder, is pressing for the NLRB to accept an employee-backed petition she submitted to the NLRB in June that asks for a secret ballot vote to remove the CWA union. Sowder sought to take advantage of a Foundation-backed reform the NLRB adopted in 2020, which gives workers a 45-day window to file for a secret ballot election after an employer notifies employees that it has recognized a union pursuant to a card check.
Filing for a secret ballot vote in this way counters the NLRB’s so-called “voluntary recognition bar,” which normally locks workers under union power for up to a year or more after a card check recognition.
However, as the Request for Review filed by Sowder’s Foundation staff attorneys points out, NLRB Region 9 wrongly dismissed Sowder’s petition. Although Sowder submitted the requisite number of signatures twice to support her petition for a decertification election (30% or more is required to trigger a vote), NLRB Region 9 dubiously claims that Sowder collected the signatures “too early” and that an arbitration meeting that modifies the unit also nullifies the petition. NLRB Region 9 even claims that it never received all the signatures, despite Sowder’s evidence of faxing them directly to NLRB Region 9.
“The Region’s error has caused severe prejudice to Sowder and the bargaining unit employees’ rights under [the National Labor Relations Act], and review should be granted to correct that error,” Sowder’s Request for Review to the full National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., states.
Biden NLRB Plans to Eliminate Workers’ Ability to Challenge “Card Check” Drives
The New Flyer employees’ cases come as the Biden NLRB is poised to issue a final rule as soon as this month to overturn the 2020 Foundation-backed reforms that allow workers to challenge the imposition of union monopoly bargaining power via card check with a secret ballot election. Foundation attorneys filed comments opposing the Biden NLRB’s proposed rule to nix these provisions.
“This situation demonstrates exactly how rank-and-file workers’ rights will be further trampled if the Biden NLRB moves forward with its attempt to expand union bosses’ card check power and simultaneously restrict workers’ statutory right to hold decertificiation votes to remove unwanted unions,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Even absent the misrepresentations CWA union bosses made to foist union so-called ‘representation’ on workers, such card check drives are inherently prone to union pressure tactics that would be grounds for invalidating an NLRB-supervised vote.”
“Meanwhile, despite a lack of evidence of true majority support, the NLRB has improperly denied two submissions of valid employee signatures from workers simply asking for a vote to challenge the invalid card check recognition,” added Mix. “It is not too late for the Biden Board to stop its rulemaking to eliminate the Election Protection Rule, and give rank-and-file workers some hope that their statutory right to decertify a union they oppose will not be steamrolled by the NLRB’s desire to protect incumbent union power.”
It’s Official: Oregon Masami Foods Workers’ Vote to Oust UFCW Union Officials is Certified
Despite union legal tactics delaying the certification of an NLRB decertification election, Masami Foods workers are free of unwanted union
Klamath Falls, OR (August 3, 2023) – A vote by workers at Masami Foods in Klamath Falls to remove United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 555 union officials’ forced representation powers has been certified. A petition filed by employee Scott Child with the National Labor Relations Board Region 19 (NLRB) led to this successful vote. Child received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Child and his coworkers at Masami Foods filed for a decertification vote on March 2, 2023. Under federal labor law, workers can trigger such a decertification vote with the support of at least 30% of workers in a unionized workplace. The NLRB then scheduled a vote for May 11, 2023.
On May 11, Masami employees made their position on the union clear, voting 54-25 to remove the union from their workplace. However, UFCW union officials had previously filed a number of “blocking charges,” presumably to delay the NLRB’s certification of the results. As a result of these blocking charges, the vote certification was delayed until August 1, 2023, when the NLRB Regional Director certified the election results.
The case is an example of how the NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to union boss-created roadblocks. Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials. However, the Biden NLRB is attempting to roll back these protections and make it much harder to decertify a union.
For example, the 2020 reforms blocked union officials from resubmitting overlapping charges, which often contain unverified and unrelated allegations of employer actions and delay the process further. Had these reforms not been in place, the three-month delay for these workers could have been extended much longer, possibly effectively indefinitely.
The Masami Foods decertification is another example of a growing movement among workers to remove incumbent unions from their workplace. Currently, the NLRB’s data shows a unionized private sector worker is far more likely to be involved in a decertification effort as their nonunion counterpart is to be involved in a unionization campaign. NLRB statistics also show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021.
“We are honored to have been able to help the Masami Foods workers exercise their rights under federal law to remove a union they clearly, overwhelmingly, oppose,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “While the outcome is favorable, the union-instigated delays in certifying the results of the decertification vote highlight the lengths UFCW officials are willing to go to in order to maintain control over workers, even those who clearly want nothing to do with them.”
“The blocking charge tactics used by UFCW union officials in this case demonstrate how wrong it would be if and when the Biden NLRB reverses the Election Protection Rules that cut back on such ‘blocking charge’ abuses,” continued Mix. “Without those modest 2020 reforms, these workers would almost certainly still be trapped in union ranks they oppose with no end in sight.”
Full Foundation Action May/June 2023 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the May/June issue issue of Foundation Action are now on the website.
In this issue:
- Foundation Blasts Biden NLRB’s Proposed Rule to Trap Workers in Unions
- Disney Worker Hits UNITE HERE Union with Federal Charge for Illegal Dues Seizures
- Teen Supermarket Cashier Fired for Refusing to Join and Fund UFCW Union
- Foundation Slams Biden Labor Board’s Biased Ruling in Federal Appeals Court
- Busted: Kroger Worker’s Card Illegally Altered to ‘Authorize’ Forced Dues
- Foundation: Texas Taxpayers Shouldn’t Be Forced to Fund Union Activities
- Fight for Worker Freedom with an IRA Gift
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
Foundation: Texas Taxpayers Shouldn’t Be Forced to Fund Union Activities
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief says Janus explains why Texas Supreme Court must invalidate ‘official time’ scam
Don’t Mess with Taxes: The Foundation urged the Texas Supreme Court (above) in recent legal briefs to quash the City of Austin’s scheme funneling taxpayer money to union ideological activities.
AUSTIN, TX – Union officials spend billions of dollars to influence the political system every election cycle. This is why they are so desperate for forced-dues power — it gives them a guaranteed stream of revenue to sustain their agendas, regardless of whether workers support the union hierarchy’s aims.
But workers are increasingly taking advantage of their rights under Right to Work laws and the landmark National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision to refrain from financially supporting union bosses of whom they do not approve.
Union bosses in Austin, TX, have apparently worked around this dilemma by shifting the burden for funding the union agenda to taxpayers. Through a so-called “official time” scheme, City of Austin employees who are union officials receive compensation from the public purse for conducting union business on the clock.
‘Official Time’ Boosts Inherently Political Government Union Agenda
Foundation attorneys recently filed a brief in the Texas Supreme Court case Roger Borgelt v. City of Austin, arguing that the Foundation-won Janus decision definitively shows why Austin’s scheme violates the Texas Constitution’s prohibitions against payouts of public funds to serve private interests (known as the “Gift Clauses”). The High Court ruled in Janus that forcing public sector workers to fund any union activities as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment, and that union dues can only be deducted from a public sector worker’s paycheck with his or her freely given consent.
An “official time” scheme, which instead forces taxpayers into funding those same union activities, “conflicts with the Supreme Court’s reasons for holding in Janus that it violates the First Amendment to require public employees to subsidize union activities,” says the Foundation’s brief.
The Foundation points out in its brief the Court’s Janus holding that all public sector union undertakings “constitute speech and petitioning on matters of political…concern,” and that by funneling taxpayer money into such speech “the City is effectively paying individuals to lobby the City for a private advocacy organization and its members.”
“The notion that this political advocacy predominantly serves a public purpose, as opposed to predominantly benefiting the private organization, is untenable,” the brief reads.
The brief also refutes an assertion from a lower Texas court that “official time” payments made by the city are actually part of union officials’ compensation for their normal job duties. This defies Janus’ reasoning that public employees who are also union officials “do not act as government agents pursuing their official job duties when they act as union officials.”
“For example, in granting paid leave to employee Bob Nicks to act as the Union’s president, the City is not paying Mr. Nicks for his services as a firefighter or as a public servant,” the brief explains. “The City is paying Mr. Nicks for his services as an agent of a private organization.”
The brief also reveals the disturbing implications of the union-backed argument that taxpayer subsidies for “official time” are needed to maintain harmonious relations between the city and the union: “If respondents contend that Union officials would disrupt City services if they did not receive [‘official time’], that would make the benefit akin to the City paying protection money” to union officials, reads the brief.
Union Bosses Should Not Get Public Funds to Pursue Union Interests
“The Texas Supreme Court should recognize that union officials are not entitled to a slice of taxpayer funds to ‘bargain’ against public interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “Texas’ Gift Clauses forbid the payout of public funds for activities that don’t have a tangible public benefit, and it’s hard to think of an arrangement that violates the Clauses more plainly than letting union bosses pursue private union business on the taxpayer dime.”
“Although Janus now protects public employees around the country from being forced to fund union activities and speech against their will, unfortunately many states and municipalities across the country permit union bosses to subsidize those same inherently political activities using direct payment of tax dollars,” LaJeunesse added.
“If union bosses cannot convince rank-and-file workers to voluntarily fund such activities as Janus requires, they should re-examine their priorities, not seek to force taxpayers to pay for what public employees will not.”
Busted: Kroger Worker’s Card Illegally Altered to ‘Authorize’ Forced Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Employee’s UFCW union card indicating objection to financial support changed without her knowledge
Jessica Haefner clearly exercised her rights under Texas’ Right to Work law. Foundation attorneys will get to the bottom of who faked her consent to dues deductions and restore her rights.
HOUSTON, TX – Supermarket clerk Jessica Haefner began her job at a suburban Houston Kroger store in August 2022. She attended a mandatory meeting for new employees run by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) local union agents. Despite the union’s hard-sell at the meeting, she knew her rights under Texas’ Right to Work law: Union bosses couldn’t force her to pay any dues or fees to the union to keep her job.
During the meeting, Haefner followed a union representative’s instructions to indicate on a union form that she did not want to be a part of the union or pay dues or fees. But she was shocked to discover just weeks later not only that union dues were coming out of her paycheck, but also that the union form she was required to sign had been altered to indicate she consented to those deductions.
Haefner, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, slammed UFCW officials and Kroger with federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The charges state that UFCW bosses’ and Kroger’s actions violate her rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees American private sector workers’ right to abstain from any and all union activities.
“I was lied to . . . and my rights were not only violated as an employee but as an American citizen,” said Haefner.
Employee’s Dues Form Was Altered, Forced Dues Deductions Began
According to Haefner’s charges, a UFCW agent passed out a union membership application and a dues checkoff on a single form that he claimed was mandatory for meeting attendees to complete. Another piece of onboarding literature stated that Kroger management had the “opinion that you should participate and be active in the Union.”
When Haefner asked how she could exercise her right to refrain from joining the union or paying union dues, the union agent instructed Haefner to write “$0” in the field marked “union dues” on the form.
Haefner followed these instructions. But after discovering later that union dues were indeed coming out of her paycheck, Haefner quickly obtained a copy of the form on which Kroger and UFCW officials based their dues deductions. She saw that someone had changed the dues deduction amount in the field she marked “$0” to a dollar amount to induce dues deductions from her paycheck.
UFCW Chiefs Illegally Seizing Dues from Grocery Workers Across Country
UFCW’s violation of Haefner’s rights is not an isolated incident. In Pennsylvania, Foundation staff attorneys are also representing Giant Eagle supermarket cashier Josiah Leonatti, who charges UFCW Local 1776KS union officials with refusing to accommodate his religious objections to union membership (see page 3). King Soopers grocery employees from Colorado are also receiving free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys in opposing illegal UFCW strike fines, some of which are as high as about $4,000 per worker.
“Jessica Haefner knew her rights under Texas’ popular Right to Work law and actively asserted them, yet UFCW union officials still brazenly took her money against her will,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“As cases brought for workers with free Foundation legal aid show, UFCW bosses have a long and documented history of violating workers’ rights, whether through thousands of dollars in illegal strike fines, illegal religious discrimination, threatening teenagers’ jobs, and now by altering a worker’s dues authorization,” Mix added.
Employee Advocate Blasts Fourth Circuit Decision Giving ILA Union Power to Force Out Nonunion Workers at Charleston’s Leatherman Terminal
National Right to Work Foundation offers free legal aid to union-free workers whose jobs are threatened as the result of Biden NLRB ruling
Washington, DC (July 28, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation today blasted the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 decision in South Carolina Ports Authority v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The decision upheld an NLRB reversal of an Administrative Law Judge’s ruling that the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) union’s actions violated federal law.
By embracing the Biden NLRB’s nearly limitless definition of “work preservation,” the Court of Appeals decision has greenlighted the ILA union’s scheme to sue any carrier that attempts to utilize Charleston, SC’s Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal until the union gains control of every job at the port.
Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement criticizing the ruling:
“By accepting the NLRB’s contorted definition of ‘work preservation’ to allow ILA union officials to gain control over port jobs that have never been under union control, the 2-1 Fourth Circuit decision has put the jobs of hundreds of union-free South Carolina state employees at Charleston’s Leatherman Terminal on the chopping block. It is outrageous that these jobs, created with the investment of over $1 billion in South Carolina taxpayer dollars, will now be handed over to ILA union bosses to protect their monopoly on port jobs that stretches from Texas to Maine.
“The South Carolina state port workers at Leatherman Terminal, whose jobs are under attack because of this decision, should reach out to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid so they can explore their full legal options to defend their jobs and work opportunities.”
Union’s Aggressive Pursuit of Monopoly Power Will Lead to Hundreds Losing Their Jobs
In South Carolina Ports Authority v. NLRB, the Port Authority is challenging the Biden NLRB’s ruling (now affirmed by the Fourth Circuit’s split decision) that approved the ILA’s gambit to gain control of the Leatherman Terminal’s crane lift equipment jobs. That work is currently performed by state employees free from the union’s control, and those state employees have performed this work for the Port Authority for many years.
The Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that provides free legal aid to employees facing compulsory unionism abuses, submitted a legal brief in the case in April, noting that “the inevitable result of the National Labor Relations Board’s erroneous 2-1 decision will be devastating to Charleston, South Carolina port workers who have chosen to work as non-union employees for the State of South Carolina or its Port Authority.”
The brief spelled out the consequences of the ILA union’s maneuver for Leatherman’s 270 state employees, who are protected by state law from monopoly union control. It explains that South Carolina spent over $1 billion to develop the terminal, but because of the ILA’s aggressive attempts to enforce its alleged monopoly at the port, “the only way for South Carolina’s $1 billion Leatherman Terminal to be usable would be for the State to turn the facility over to a private employer with an ILA contract and discharge the 270 State employees.”
The devastating effects for current employees wouldn’t stop there if the ILA is victorious in the case, the brief argued. The brief pointed out that, even if fired state workers were to seek new employment at Leatherman with a private contractor under the union’s control, the ILA would prioritize those workers far below existing union members because of union seniority provisions and hiring hall referral rules.
As the brief noted, the ILA union has an extensive history of exploitation. The New York Daily News reported in 2022 that ILA chiefs negotiated deals by which mob-linked longshoremen in the New York/New Jersey area could get paid for 27 hours of “work” per day. The ILA hierarchy organized such arrangements while trying to shut down ports like Leatherman which allow both unionized and union-free workers to work side-by-side.
