Washington, DC (July 1, 2010) – Prompted by a letter from Rep. Darrell Issa (R, CA.) and other members of the House Oversight Committee, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Inspector General has announced he will investigate NLRB recess appointee Craig Becker’s involvement in St. Barnabas v. SEIU Local 1957. The investigation bolsters several motions for recusal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, who contend that Becker’s evident conflicts of interest should have disqualified him from ruling on their cases.

Right to Work attorneys filed 13 recusal motions against Becker, who served as associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO before he was appointed to the Board during a Congressional recess. As the SEIU’s general counsel, Becker litigated against Right to Work Foundation attorneys and developed legal strategies for SEIU affiliates across the country. His published writings also indicate a strong level of hostility to the Foundation’s employee-oriented legal aid program.

Foundation attorneys asked Becker to step aside from any case involving Foundation-assisted workers or the SEIU and its state and local affiliates. Despite these apparent conflicts of interest, Becker has rejected the recusal motions in all but one case pending before the NLRB.

In one notable case, Becker refused to recuse himself from union lawyers’ attempt to overturn the NLRB’s landmark Dana decision, which created a 45 day window period for employees to vote out union officials if they acquired their monopoly bargaining privileges through a card check organizing drive. Becker denies having pre-judged the case despite a career of advocating for card check union organizing.

After Rep. Issa raised the issue in a recent letter, the NLRB’s Inspector General announced he will investigate Becker’s involvement in the pending St. Barnabas case. Becker claims that he has abided by all relevant provisions of the federal code and a signed ethics pledge he submitted to the Obama Administration. That pledge states he will not participate in any cases involving his former employer for two years following his appointment to the NLRB.

“We’ve provided free legal aid to thousands of workers who have clashed with the Service Employees International Union, Craig Becker’s former employer,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Becker’s evident conflicts of interest – not to mention his avowed hostility toward the Foundation’s legal aid program – should be reason enough for recusal in several NLRB cases.”

“That the Inspector General of this decidedly pro-forced unionism Administration is launching an inquiry demonstrates the extent of Becker’s ethical problems,” continued Mix. “Throughout his career, Becker has revealed himself as an avid supporter of Big Labor’s special privileges. The IG should expand the scope of the investigation to the numerous other cases in which Becker’s background as an SEIU lawyer makes him unable to judge objectively.”

Minneapolis, MN (July 1, 2010) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a charitable organization that assists employees nationwide, is renewing its offer of free legal assistance to any Minneapolis nurses who do not wish to participate in another union-instigated strike.

The Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union has again decided to strike against 14 hospitals in the Twin Cities area on July 6. However, recent media reports suggest that many nurses do not wish to participate in the impending strike.

Ray LaJeunesse, Vice President and Legal Director of the National Right to Work Foundation, responded to the union’s strike threat by issuing the following statement:

“Many Minneapolis nurses may wish to work during the strike to ensure that their patients receive medical attention. Nurses who want to continue working must be made aware of their workplace rights, including the right to resign from union membership and the right to refrain from participating in a union-instigated strike. A more detailed description of every nurse’s legal rights can be found on the Foundation’s website at https://www.nrtw.org/a/a_7_p.htm

“Foundation attorneys are prepared to advise Twin Cities nurses about their workplace rights. We are also prepared to provide free legal assistance to any nurses who are subjected to union harassment or retaliation for working during this or any subsequent strike initiated by MNA officials. You can call the Foundation toll free at 800-336-3600 or request free legal assistance via email at [email protected].

“The National Right to Work Foundation is committed to helping nurses who wish to continue working rather than participate in a union-instigated strike,” continued LaJeunesse. “Nurses must assert their legal rights to ensure they aren’t subjected to draconian internal union discipline for choosing to remain on the job, and Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to assist them.”

Under Supreme Court precedent and federal law:

• Workers have the right to resign from union membership at any time.

• Workers have the right to go to work even if the union is on strike. If a worker chooses to work during a strike, he or she must first resign from union membership to avoid union disciplinary action such as fines.

• After a union’s monopoly bargaining agreement with their employer expires, workers have the right to sign a decertification petition for a secret ballot election to eject union officials from their workplace.

Washington, DC (June 28, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted an amicus curiae brief urging the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to oppose two petitions that could force Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees into union ranks. If granted, the petitions would allow monopoly bargaining privileges for union officials seeking to organize TSA employees.

In late May, a FLRA Regional Director ruled that American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and National Treasury Employees (NTE) union operatives could not organize TSA workers, but union lawyers appealed the decision to the FLRA proper. According to Foundation attorneys, the unions’ arguments would leave workers vulnerable to aggressive union organizers and possibly compromise national security.

The Foundation’s brief argues that the FLRA has no authority to dictate the TSA’s labor relations, noting that the Administrator of the TSA has jurisdiction over TSA employees and previously refused to grant union organizers monopoly bargaining privileges.

Foundation attorneys also argue that subjecting TSA workers to union monopoly bargaining could compromise national security by risking union-instigated strikes and undermining security procedures with time-consuming union work rules. The TSA’s ability to tailor its response to rapidly-emerging threats could suffer if administrative flexibility is hamstrung by bloated union bureaucracies.

Moreover, the Foundation’s brief notes that extending monopoly bargaining privileges to union organizers constitutes a serious breach of TSA employees’ rights. Under monopoly bargaining, if union organizers acquire or coerce support from a bare majority of TSA employees, they can then dictate terms and conditions of employment to all workers in a given bargaining unit, including those who oppose unionization.

“Despite obvious risks to both national security and workers’ rights, Big Labor is intent on forcibly organizing TSA employees,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at the National Right to Work Foundation. “We hope the FLRA will have the sense to reject this attempt to further extend Big Labor’s monopoly bargaining privileges.”

‘Card Check-lite’ proposal would undermine the integrity of workplace elections and push more employees into Big Labor’s forced dues-paying ranks

Washington, DC (June 23, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted comments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing any attempt to implement “electronic voting” in union organizing drives. The Foundation’s comments detail how electronic voting poses major risks to the integrity of unionization elections and threatens to reproduce the problems of coercive “card check” organizing drives.

In early June, the National Labor Relations Board requested information on the feasibility of electronic voting during unionization drives. Drawing on National Right to Work attorneys’ experience representing thousands of employees, Foundation Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse, Jr., responded by citing numerous concerns about the reliability of electronic ballots and the potential for intimidation or harassment of employees who submit ballots remotely . . .

Click here to read more. 

Washington, DC (June 23, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted comments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing any attempt to implement “electronic voting” in union organizing drives. The Foundation’s comments detail how electronic voting poses major risks to the integrity of unionization elections and threatens to reproduce the problems of coercive “card check” organizing drives.

In early June, the National Labor Relations Board requested information on the feasibility of electronic voting during unionization drives. Drawing on National Right to Work attorneys’ experience representing thousands of employees, Foundation Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse, Jr., responded by citing numerous concerns about the reliability of electronic ballots and the potential for intimidation or harassment of employees who submit ballots remotely.

The Foundation’s comments note that under an electronic voting scheme, it would be even easier for workers to be threatened, coerced or bribed by aggressive union organizers with access to portable electronic devices like laptops or cell phones. Compared to an NLRB-supervised unionization election, the potential for abuse during a union organizing drive conducted via electronic voting is clearly higher.

The Foundation’s comments also note that remote voting would make it difficult to verify the identity of workers submitting electronic ballots, opening the door to voter fraud and abuse. Moreover, electronically-submitted votes could be monitored or altered by hackers or system administrators, leaving workers vulnerable to retaliation and vote-stealing after they’ve submitted their ballots.

“Although their efforts to bypass the secret ballot through coercive card check legislation have stalled, Big Labor could be handed another tool to undermine workplace elections if the NLRB moves to adopt electronic voting,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Much like card check organizing, electronic voting leaves the door open to coercion and identity theft, and will be used by aggressive union organizers to impose forced unionism on more workers.”