With Foundation Aid, Mayo Clinic Nurses Defeat Forced Union Dues Requirement
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Nurses’ ultimate goal is to end Steelworkers union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’ completely
Austin, MN, Mayo nurse Erin Krulish and her coworkers hope to soon join Mankato, MN, Mayo nurses (above) in removing unwanted union “representation” from their facility.
AUSTIN, MN – Nurses at the Mayo Clinic Health System in Austin, Minnesota, recently voted overwhelmingly in a deauthorization election to end the power of United Steelworkers (USW) union officials to require nurses to pay up or be fired. The workers filed the deauthorization petition with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 18 with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
“We are so happy with the way the election turned out,” Mayo Clinic Austin nurse Erin Krulish commented. “I think it really shows that all of us came together to show the union that we don’t want to keep paying them when they are doing nothing for us.”
Krulish filed the deauthorization petition for her coworkers seeking to end the so-called “union security clause” that authorizes USW union bosses to have nurses fired for refusing to financially support union activities. The request seeking the vote to end United Steelworkers union officials’ forced-dues powers at Mayo Clinic Austin was signed by 49 of the 66 workers, well over the number required to trigger the NLRB-supervised election.
Ending Forced Dues Comes as Nurses Wait for Vote to Formally Remove Union
Minnesota is not a Right to Work state, meaning all workers in a unionized workplace can be required to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, federal law does allow workers to hold deauthorization votes to end union officials’ legal authority to force workers to “pay up or be fired,” although winning such a vote can often be an uphill battle as independent workers have to take on professional forced-dues-funded union organizers.
The overwhelming 49-17 vote against mandatory union payments came as the nurses wait for the opportunity to end USW officials’ so-called “representation” at the facility completely, a process known as decertification. “We plan to decertify come next December when our contract is up and we are ready for another fight!” Krulish said following the deauthorization victory.
Currently, the non-statutory NLRB-invented “contract bar” doctrine blocks workers from holding a decertification vote to remove a union’s monopoly representation powers for up to three years when a union boss-imposed contract is in effect. Consequently, a deauthorization vote, which isn’t limited by the contract bar, was the nurses’ only option. If the nurses at the Austin Mayo Clinic do decertify as they plan, they will join Minnesota nurses at Mayo Clinic Mankato and Mayo Clinic St. James who voted to oust union officials from their hospitals in the last six months.
“No worker anywhere should be forced under so-called union ‘representation’ they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “So while we’re pleased Ms. Krulish and her coworkers were victorious against the Steelworkers union, this case also shows why it is past time to end the NLRB-sanctioned ‘contract bar’ which traps workers in union ranks they oppose for years at a time.”
“Ultimately, Minnesota needs a state Right to Work law to ensure that every individual worker has the freedom to decide whether or not to financially support a union, even those who can’t overcome the hurdles required to successfully navigate the complicated deauthorization process,” added Mix.
San Francisco Security Officer Battles Illegal SEIU Union Boss Discrimination
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Case builds on Foundation wins for workers with religious objections to union affiliation
Last year was a banner year for workers of faith who sought free Foundation legal aid. Charlene Carter (left) and Dorothy Frame (right) both prevailed after facing discrimination for opposing union politics on religious grounds.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – States like California that lack Right to Work laws grant immense powers to union bosses within their borders: They can legally have any employee fired under their monopoly control who refuses to pay dues to the union hierarchy.
However, thanks to the continuing successes of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys’ cutting-edge legal actions, employees with sincere religious objections to union affiliation are entitled to a religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that permits them to stop funding a union. That applies even when other workers who do not have religious conflicts can be forced to pay up or be fired.
But Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses in San Francisco apparently can’t be bothered with obeying the law.
SEIU Chiefs Ignored Legal Requirement to Accommodate Employee
Thomas Ross, a San Francisco-area security officer employed by Allied Universal Security Services, is receiving free legal representation from Foundation attorneys in his case charging the SEIU and his employer with forcing him to join and financially support the union — after he told both parties his religious beliefs forbid union support.
Ross is a Christian and opposes union affiliation on religious grounds. Under U.S. civil rights law, unions and employers are required to accommodate religious objections to union payments. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits unions and employers from forcing employees to join a union.
Because the SEIU union’s and Allied Universal’s demands violate both statutes, Ross filed two sets of federal charges with Foundation aid. The charges will be investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
According to his EEOC discrimination charges, Ross informed both the SEIU union and Allied Universal when he was hired in 2020 that his religious beliefs forbid union membership. He also asked for a religious accommodation.
Union Bosses Issued Blatantly Illegal Compulsory Membership Demand
Not only did both SEIU and Allied Universal ignore Ross’ request, but in July 2022, “Allied Universal . . . demanded that [he] sign a payroll deduction, join the union, and pay union dues.”
On August 31, 2022, Ross reminded Allied Universal of his religious objection to paying union dues, but on September 15, 2022, Ross’ “employer stated that union membership was compulsory and deducted union fees” from his paycheck without his consent. That is a clear violation of longstanding law, even for workers not seeking a religious accommodation.
Workers nationwide frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid when union chiefs snub their requests for religious accommodations or otherwise discriminate against them based on their religious beliefs. Last year, Foundation attorneys scored extraordinary victories for workers who faced union malfeasance after they resisted union affiliation on religious grounds.
Foundation Attorneys Notched Big Wins for Religious Freedom in 2022
In July 2022, Foundation staff attorneys won a multi-million-dollar jury verdict for Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter, who had been ridiculed and later fired for voicing her religious opposition to the Transport Workers Union’s (TWU) political positions. Foundation attorneys also later won a federal court judgment for Carter, in which the judge ordered that Carter be reinstated and given the maximum amount of compensatory and punitive damages permitted by federal law.
“Bags fly free with Southwest,” began the decision. “But free speech didn’t fly at all with Southwest in this case.”
In March 2022, also with Foundation aid, Fort Campbell custodial worker Dorothy Frame won a settlement gaining a religious accommodation after Laborers International Union (LIUNA) officials unlawfully questioned her religious belief that she could not support the union’s political activities.
“The Foundation is proud to help working men and women who courageously stand up for their beliefs even in the midst of union coercion,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “However, it’s important to recognize that, regardless of whether an employee’s objection to union affiliation is religious or not, no American worker should ever be forced to subsidize union activities they oppose.”
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice to Rutgers Professors Impacted by Union Officials’ Strike Order
Rutgers employees can legally attend work regardless of union boss demands to strike
New Brunswick, NJ (April 13, 2023) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has issued a special legal notice to professors and other employees of Rutgers University. The notice was issued to inform Rutgers employees of their individual rights during the union official-ordered strike currently taking place.
The legal notice is available at the Foundation’s website: https://www.nrtw.org/legal-notice/legal-notice-rutgers04122023/.
On the morning of Monday, April 10, union officials from three Rutgers unions ordered a strike against the university. The officials were from the Rutgers Adjunct Faculty Union (RAFU); Rutgers American Association of University Professors, American Federation of Teachers (AAUP-AFT); and Rutgers American Association of University Professors, Biomedical and Health Sciences of New Jersey (AAUP-BHSNJ).
The legal notice explains that, despite the lack of Right to Work protections in the state of New Jersey, non-union public sector workers still have rights under the First Amendment to abstain from union financial support. These rights are bolstered by the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court ruling.
“The United States Supreme Court has held that nonmembers of a public-sector union have a First Amendment right not to pay any union fees or dues, unless they have freely waived their First Amendment rights,” the notice reads. “A union has the burden of proving employees waived their First Amendment rights by ‘clear and compelling’ evidence.”
In regards to union members, the Foundation’s notice informs workers that they maintain the right to resign from union membership at any time. The notice also suggests, if employees wish to continue working during the strike and avoid union discipline such as fines, that current union members resign their union membership at least one full day before returning to work.
“It is Foundation attorneys’ best legal opinion that public sector employees have the right to resign their membership in a union at any time. At least two federal district courts have reached that conclusion,” mentions the notice. “If you are now a union member and want to work during the strike, you should seriously consider resigning your union membership at least one day, if not more, BEFORE you return to work during the strike.”
“By initiating a strike that affects thousands of Rutgers employees, these union bosses are not only threatening the education of students, but are also potentially upending the livelihoods of countless families,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Rutgers professors should know that they have the right to reject union boss strike orders and can continue working.”
“Unfortunately union misinformation and intimidation tactics are all too common during union boss-ordered strikes, which is why rank-and-file Rutgers employees must be on alert and should immediately contact the Foundation for free legal aid if they believe union officials may be violating their legal rights,” added Mix.
Special Legal Notice for Employees Affected by Rutgers Strike Order
Media reports show that union officials with three unions – Rutgers Adjunct Faculty Union (RAFU); Rutgers American Association of University Professors, American Federation of Teachers (AAUP-AFT); and Rutgers American Association of University Professors, Biomedical and Health Sciences of New Jersey (AAUP-BHSNJ) – have initiated a strike this week at Rutgers University.
This situation raises serious concerns for professors and other university employees who believe they have much to lose from a union boss-ordered strike and want to continue working to not abandon their students, and to support themselves and their families.
All employees have the legal right to rebuff union officials’ strike demands, but it is important for them to be informed before they do so.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WORK DURING A STRIKE, READ ALL OF THIS SPECIAL NOTICE BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK – IT MIGHT SAVE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS!
The Foundation wants you to learn about your legal rights from independent sources. You should not rely on what self-interested union officials tell you. For more than five decades, Foundation attorneys have worked in the courts and labor agencies to protect and expand the rights of individual employees in situations such as strikes. It is the nation’s premier organization exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employee victims of forced unionism abuse.
Rutgers Employees under AAUP-AFT, AAUP-BHSNJ, or RAFU monopoly representation should know they have the following rights:
1) A union has no disciplinary power over nonmembers and cannot discipline them for crossing a picket line and working during a strike. If you are currently not a member of an AAUP-AFT, AAUP-BHSNJ, RAFU, or any affiliated union, you have the right to go to work even when the union bosses have ordered a strike.
2) If you are currently a union member, you have the right to resign your union membership. Union officials can (and often do) levy large fines against union members who work during a strike. If you are now a union member and want to work during the strike, you should seriously consider resigning your union membership at least one day, if not more, BEFORE you return to work during the strike. That is the only way to avoid possible ruinous union fines and other discipline. To have the best legal defense possible against fines the union may try to impose anyway, you should give the union notice of your resignation a day or two BEFORE you cross the picket line so that when you return to work during the strike you are not a member of the union.
The decisions whether to resign your union membership and/or cross the picket line are wholly yours. The Foundation is simply providing this information so that your decisions are informed. If you are a member and decide to resign your union membership, please follow this link, https://myjanusrights.org/, for a sample letter resigning your membership in the union and revoking any authorization for the union and employer to collect any fees or dues from your pay. While you have the right to revoke any dues authorization at any time, state law may affect the date the revocation becomes effective. If you encounter any difficulties in exercising your right to resign union membership and revoke union dues deductions, you can contact the Foundation to request free legal aid at www.nrtw.org/free-legal-aid/.
NOTE: Although not legally required, the best practice to send your union resignation and dues revocation letters to the union and employer by certified mail, return receipt requested, and save copies of your letters and return receipts to prove delivery. If you hand deliver a letter, make sure that you have a reliable witness to the date and means of delivery. In our experience, angry and dishonest union officials often pretend they did not actually receive resignations and initiate discipline against non-striking workers anyway. If you encounter any difficulties in exercising your right to work during a strike, you can contact the Foundation to request free legal aid at www.nrtw.org/free-legal-aid/.
3) It is Foundation attorneys’ best legal opinion that public sector employees have the right to resign their membership in a union at any time. At least two federal district courts have reached that conclusion. See McCahon v. Pa. Turnpike Comm’n, 491 F. Supp. 2d 522 (M.D. Pa. 2007); Debont v. City of Poway, No. 98CV0502-K, 1998 WL 415844 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 1998). If you encounter any difficulties in resigning your union membership, you can contact the Foundation to request free legal aid at www.nrtw.org/free-legal-aid/.
4) The United States Supreme Court has held that nonmembers of a public-sector union have a First Amendment right not to pay any union fees or dues, unless they have freely waived their First Amendment rights. See Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018). A union has the burden of proving employees waived their First Amendment rights by “clear and compelling” evidence. Some unions have claimed that employees who authorized their employer to deduct union dues and fees in the past have waived their First Amendment rights. Whether a dues deduction authorization is an effective waiver depends on when it was signed and how it was worded. New Jersey law may also affect the date the dues deduction revocation becomes effective. You can contact the Foundation to request free legal aid at www.nrtw.org/free-legal-aid/ if you encounter any difficulties in getting the union and employer to stop collecting union fees or dues from you.
5) If you wish to eject an unwanted union hierarchy from your workplace, you may have the right to petition for a secret ballot decertification election to do so. More information about New Jersey laws on decertification is available here: https://www.state.nj.us/perc/documents/NJ_PERC_Representation_Petition_Form.pdf. If you have questions about how to proceed with decertification, need assistance getting through the NJ PERB process, or encounter legal difficulties interfering with your efforts, you can contact the Foundation to request free legal aid at www.nrtw.org/free-legal-aid/.
Virginia, Kentucky Workers Slam Union Officials with Charges for Illegal Dues Deductions
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union bosses seized full dues over employees’ clear objections, despite state Right to Work laws
“[I]t is time union officials accept that ‘no means no,’” said Buitoni employee Steven Ricketts, who is fighting to stop all dues as provided by Virginia’s Right to Work law.
DANVILLE, VA – For workers under the protection of Right to Work laws, union membership and financial support are supposed to be strictly voluntary. However, as recent cases brought with Foundation legal aid for workers in Kentucky and Virginia demonstrate, even in the 27 states that currently have Right to Work laws, union bosses will often attempt to illegally seize dues over workers’ objections.
“Living in Right to Work Virginia, it is outrageous that we need to take legal action just to stop union dues from being seized against our will,” commented Steven Ricketts, one of two employees at Buitoni Food Company who recently filed charges against United Steelworkers (USW) Local 9555. “I don’t want my money supporting the United Steelworkers union, and it is time union officials accept that ‘no means no’ when a worker resigns from the union and revokes their dues authorization.”
Ricketts and fellow employee Donald Hale each hand-delivered letters to both USW union officials and to their employer, formally resigning their union memberships and revoking their dues check-off authorizations.
Steelworkers Bosses Ignore 75-Year-Old Virginia Right to Work Law
After the workers’ letters were delivered, dues deductions briefly stopped only to quickly resume. In the case of Ricketts, Buitoni Food Company not only restarted union dues deductions but also deducted double the dues amount in a subsequent paycheck. Deductions from Mr. Hale’s paycheck also resumed without his authorization after a short period.
Mr. Ricketts sent an email to the company’s human resources department after the dues seizures restarted and was told to contact union officials about it. Each employee sent another letter to the United Steelworkers union, specifically requesting copies of their dues check-off authorizations. However, money continues to be deducted without their consent and without the union officials producing copies of the authorizations that are legally required before any such deductions can occur.
Eventually the workers filed unfair labor practice charges against both the USW and their employer for their respective roles in the unauthorized union dues deductions.
Regarding the Foundationbacked charges, Hale noted: “I’m grateful for the National Right to Work Foundation assistance in enforcing my legal rights, but it really shouldn’t take a federal case to cease the collection of union dues.”
Meanwhile in neighboring Kentucky, Shiphrah Green, who works at Ford’s Louisville Assembly Plant, filed similar charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Automobile Workers (UAW) Local 862 union, as well as the UAW international union and Ford, for illegal union dues deductions.
Kentucky Autoworker Hits UAW Union with Federal Charges
Green notified both Ford and UAW union officials in April 2022 that she was resigning her union membership and cutting off all union dues deductions from her wages, as is her right under Kentucky’s Right to Work law. Instead of honoring her request, Green instead received an email from UAW Local 862’s president notifying her that Green needed to be shown the allegedly “correct” method to leave the union.
During a subsequent meeting with union officials at the UAW union hall, UAW officials subjected Green to interrogation about why she wanted to leave the union, and also demanded she sign a letter listing “benefits” Green would supposedly forgo if she went through with exiting the union. Longstanding NLRB precedent makes such restrictions on resignation illegal, as was the UAW Local 862 president’s coercive statement to Green that “if it were up to me, you’d lose your job for leaving the union.”
Despite Green’s resignation and requests to cut off union dues, UAW and Ford did not stop dues deductions. While Green continued trying to get Ford management to end the dues deductions, her efforts proved futile, as Ford officials gave her several confusing responses and even told her that she could only cease dues deductions in February 2023, even though the previously authorized dues deduction document could be revoked at will.
Finally, after getting the runaround from both Ford and the UAW, Green filed charges with the NLRB in October using free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. As this issue went to print, Labor Board regional officials were conducting an investigation to see if Ford and the union should be prosecuted for illegal dues seizures.
Foundation Attorneys Play Essential Role in Limiting Union Boss Power
“As thousands of Foundation cases have demonstrated — whether in Right to Work states or forceddues jurisdictions, or whether litigated for government employees or private sector workers — limits on union bosses’ power to seize money from workers mean little if they aren’t enforced,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“Virginia has had a Right to Work law on the books for over 75 years, while Kentucky’s Right to Work law is barely over five years old, but in both commonwealths, union bosses are illegally seizing union dues,” added Semmens. “These cases show why defending and enforcing workers’ Right to Work protections has been and will remain a top priority of the Foundation.”
Full Foundation Action January/February 2023 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the January/February issue of Foundation Action are now on the website.
In this issue:
- Another Janus Victory: South Jersey Bus Drivers Win Back Illegally Seized Dues
- Foundation to High Court: Time to End Union Boss Vandalism Exemptions
- Blockbuster Foundation Case Successfully Ends Discriminatory Film Union Scheme
- Workers Nationwide Continue Efforts to Oust Steelworkers Officials
- Virginia, Kentucky Workers Slam Union Officials with Charges for Illegal Dues Deductions
- It’s a New Year: Make An Estate Plan Today
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.
Worker Advocate: NLRB Erred in Decision That Will Put 270 Nonunion Charleston Port Employees Out of Work
Amicus brief in Fourth Circuit case opposes ILA union bosses’ hostile bid to gain control over all jobs at Leatherman Terminal in South Carolina
Charleston, SC (April 11, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief opposing the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) union’s gambit to gain control over all jobs at Charleston’s Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal. 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 case involved is South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA) v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In the case, the SCPA is challenging the Biden NLRB’s recent ruling permitting ILA union bosses to file lawsuits against any cargo carrier that docks at Leatherman until the union gains control of crane lift equipment jobs at the facility. That work is currently performed by state employees free from the union’s control, and those state employees have performed this work for the SCPA for many decades.
The Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that provides free legal aid to workers facing compulsory unionism abuses, notes in the brief that it has “a strong interest in this case because 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 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 says.
Union’s Aggressive Pursuit of Monopoly Power Will Lead to Hundreds Losing Their Jobs
The brief spells out the dire 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 argues. The brief points 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.
ILA Union Has History of Malfeasance and Exploitation
The brief finishes by noting that South Carolina public employees likely want to avoid associating at all costs with the ILA because of the union’s “storied history of exploitation, resulting in a litany of federal prosecutions and civil litigation.” 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 merely allow both unionized and union-free workers to work side-by-side.
“ILA union officials, aided and abetted by the Biden NLRB, are directly attacking the rights and livelihoods of hundreds of Charleston port employees simply because they work free of union monopoly control,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must reverse the Biden NLRB’s erroneous ruling letting this union gambit move forward, bearing in mind that the real victims here are the nonunion port workers that ILA officials are seeking to have terminated.”
Las Vegas Plumbing Designer Wins Case Against Union Over Illegal Retaliatory Fines by UA Union Bosses
In apparent retaliation for participating as an observer in a Labor Board election, union officials attempted to fine Universal Plumbing and Heating employee $4,999
Las Vegas, NV (April 7, 2023) – David Webb, an employee at Universal Plumbing and Heating Inc. has won his legal battle against United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry (UA) Local 525, after UA union officials illegally attempted to fine him.
Webb exercised his right to participate as an election observer during a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)-sanctioned election at his workplace, only to be subjected to the fine attempt by UA officials. In response, Webb, with the assistance of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, filed federal unfair labor practice charges at National Labor Relations Board Region 28 against the UA for violating his rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
Unions cannot lawfully discipline nonmembers. Since 2017, Webb has not been a union member and has not paid any dues. Universal Plumbing and Heating Inc. is also not a unionized company. Despite this, UA union officials initiated internal union disciplinary charges against him, attempting to levy a fine of $4,999 for exercising his right to participate in an NLRB-conducted election, including as an official election observer. Union officials apparently initiated the illegal fine attempt after Webb’s coworkers voted against bringing the union into their workplace while Webb served as an election observer.
The charges National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed against the UA union for Webb explained that, because Webb was a non-member since 2017, he could not legally be subject to discipline by the union. Further, the charges noted that the fine was illegal retaliation for his protected NLRA activity in serving as an election observer.
Just 10 days after Foundation attorneys filed Webb’s unfair labor practice charges against the UA, the union capitulated, sending Webb a letter acknowledging they lacked the legal basis for the fine because he was not a union member, and that therefore he was not subject to the fine or any other sanction from the UA Local or national affiliate.
Although union bosses often initiate internal union discipline against voluntary union members, longstanding precedent protects workers who are not union members from being subjected to such retaliatory fines. Further, workers cannot legally be fined by union officials for exercising their protected rights under federal labor law, including participating in an NLRB-supervised election to decide whether or not union officials become the monopoly bargaining “representative” of workers in a given workplace.
Nevada is a Right to Work state, meaning workers cannot legally be required to join or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials who have obtained monopoly bargaining control in a workplace are granted the power to impose one-size-fits-all union contracts on all workers, including those who opt out of union membership and would prefer to negotiate their own terms of employment. In the election that triggered the illegal retaliatory fine against Webb, workers voted against granting UA union bosses such monopoly bargaining powers.
“This case was open and shut: Union officials know workers can exercise their rights to participate in an NLRB-sanctioned election and they were caught red-handed violating Webb’s rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Although the fine has officially been dropped, Foundation attorneys remain ready to protect all workers’ right to refrain from union activities.”
“Other workers in Nevada and nationwide facing similar backlash from union officials should know they can reach out to Foundation staff attorneys for free legal assistance in challenging union officials who violate their rights,” added Mix.
Foundation Brief to Court of Appeals: Lower Court’s Decision Conflicts with SCOTUS’ Janus Ruling
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in Littler v. OAPSE with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Cincinnati, Ohio (April 6, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 5. The brief was filed in Littler v. OAPSE, brought by plaintiff Christina Littler. She attempted exercise her right to withdraw union membership and financial support, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, only to be denied by union officials.
In the Foundation-won and argued Janus case, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment protects government employees, like Littler, from being forced to fund union activities, and further that dues may only be deducted with the affirmative consent of an employee.
Littler is a school bus driver who, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Janus, notified the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) that she resigned her union membership and revoked her dues deduction authorization. Rather than honor Littler’s timely request to stop paying union dues, union officials had her government employer continue to seize full dues from her paycheck. This prompted Littler to file a lawsuit to recover the dues OAPSE seized from her in violation of her First Amendment rights.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, however, ruled the union was not liable for violating Littler’s constitutional rights. According to the court, the First Amendment did not apply to the union because the union supposedly did not engage in a state action when it caused a government employer to seize union dues from Littler’s wages.
The Foundation’s brief specifically counters this holding. The brief states “the lower court’s decision that a union does not violate the First Amendment when it has a government employer seize payments for union speech from a nonmember without her consent, because that union supposedly is not a state actor, conflicts with Janus and imperils employees’ right to not subsidize union speech that they oppose.”
The brief goes on to say that the “lower court has effectively given unions a free pass to infringe on employees’ speech rights under Janus without fear of liability” and that “it is important that the [Sixth Circuit] reverse the lower court’s erroneous state-action holding because it frees unions from constitutional constraints when they collaborate with government employers take union payments from employees.”
The case is one of many where union officials have sought to justify seizing dues from employees against their will. For example, in the Foundation-backed Savas case currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, Jonathan Savas and other California lifeguards are suing the California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency union for enforcing a “maintenance of membership” requirement that compel dissenting lifeguards to remain union members and to pay union dues for the four-year duration of the contract.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently scheduled the Savas petition for certiorari to be conferenced on April 21.
“While the Foundation is proud to assist workers in enforcing their constitutionally protected Janus rights, the increasing number of cases similar to Savas and Littler just highlight the lengths union bosses will go to in order to extract dues payments from workers against their will,” commented Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “These cases show why it has become unfortunately necessary for the Supreme Court to again weigh in on this issue to disabuse union officials and lower courts of the notion that public employees’ First Amendment rights can be so callously ignored and restricted.”
Phoenix CenturyLink Employee Wins Federal Case Charging CWA Union with Illegal Dues Seizures
CWA officials illegally refused worker’s membership resignation and request to stop dues deductions
Phoenix, AZ (April 6, 2023) – CenturyLink Communications employee Adrianna Delatorre has forced Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 7019 union officials to back down in her federal case, in which she charged them with seizing dues money illegally from her wages. Delatorre, who filed charges against both the CWA union and her employer at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in May 2022, received free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Delatorre asserted in her charges that CWA union bosses violated her rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by rejecting her clear notice that she was resigning union membership and ending union dues deductions from her paycheck. The NLRA guarantees American private sector employees the right to “refrain from any or all” union activities, with some restrictions not applicable to Delatorre.
Delatorre’s right to cut off financial support to the CWA union she opposes is fully protected by Arizona’s Right to Work law, which prohibits union bosses from mandating union membership or any dues payment as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in non-Right to Work states like Colorado or New Mexico, union officials have the power to force workers to pay union fees just to stay employed.
A Foundation-won settlement now requires CWA union officials to pay back to Delatorre all illegally-taken dues, and to refrain in the future from illegally rejecting employees’ requests to stop dues deductions.
CWA Union Blatantly Ignored Worker Request
Delatorre submitted letters to CWA union officials and CenturyLink management in March 2022, informing both that she was terminating her union membership and revoking any dues deduction authorization document. Both union and company officials denied this request and CenturyLink management continued to seize money from Delatorre’s pay at the union’s behest. Delatorre hit her employer and the union with federal unfair labor practice charges in May 2022.
Notably, the dues deduction authorization document (or “checkoff’) that Delatorre revoked did not specify any time limits on when employees could cut off dues, nor did it provide that dues deductions were handled separately from union membership. Delatorre’s Foundation-provided attorneys argued that, on those grounds, Delatorre’s demand to stop union financial support should have been effective as soon as she submitted her letter ending her membership.
CWA union officials have now backed down and settled the case. In addition to paying back to Delatorre all money unlawfully taken from her paycheck since the date she resigned her membership, CWA union officials must also post a notice in Delatorre’s CenturyLink Tower workplace stating that they will not “cause or attempt to cause an employer to deduct union dues from an employee’s paycheck without having a valid dues deduction authorization signed by the employee.” As part of the settlement, CenturyLink must also not “render unlawful assistance and support to the Union.”
Employee Defended Rights Under AZ Right to Work Law, but Union-Label DC Politicians Plan to Eliminate Right to Work Nationwide
“Foundation staff attorneys are proud to have helped Ms. Delatorre successfully defend her right under federal law and Arizona’s Right to Work law to refrain from sacrificing part of her hard-earned pay to CWA union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, it’s important to remember that there are forces within the NLRB – including General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, previously a top CWA lawyer – and at other levels of the current Administration pushing for full implementation of the so-called ‘PRO’ Act’s provisions. The ‘PRO-Act’ would ultimately eliminate workers’ Right to Work protections by federal fiat, giving union officials the power to extort millions of additional workers for dues money under threat of termination.”
“Right to Work laws let workers like Ms. Delatorre withhold money from union hierarchies, which often pursue agendas completely out of touch with the rank-and-file the union bosses claim to ‘represent.’ This gives individual employees a way to hold union officials accountable for how they wield government-granted monopoly power over workers,” Mix added.
