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.
Lucas County Employees Win Back Unconstitutionally Seized Money from AFSCME Union
Employees exercised constitutional right to stop funding union activities, but union-imposed restriction blocked exercise of right for over 90 percent of year
Toledo, OH (April 4, 2023) – Three Lucas County Job and Family Services (JFS) employees have emerged victorious in their federal civil rights lawsuit against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Ohio Council 8 union. The employees, Penny Wilson, Theresa Fannin, and Kozait Elkhatib, charged AFSCME union bosses in December 2022 with seizing money from their paychecks in violation of the First Amendment.
Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib received free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Buckeye Institute. They asserted their constitutional rights recognized in the landmark 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared it a First Amendment violation to force public sector workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. The Court also ruled that union officials can only deduct money from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Now, as part of a settlement, AFSCME Ohio Council 8 must return illegally seized money to each woman, and the union bosses are forbidden from having Lucas County deduct union dues from any of their paychecks going forward. The settlement fully vindicates the employees’ First Amendment Janus rights.
Lucas County Employees Weren’t Informed of First Amendment Right to Abstain from Union Dues
Officials from AFSCME Council 8 and Lucas County JFS enforced a policy against the women which permitted the taking of union dues directly from their wages. According to the policy, employees who wish to stop subsidizing the union have only a handful of days per year in which to do so – an “escape period” that effectively forbids the exercise of their First Amendment Janus rights for more than 90 percent of the year.
AFSCME union officials never informed Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib of this restriction. Union officials also never told the women that they had a First Amendment right under Janus to abstain from dues deductions, or that union dues could only be taken from them if they waived that right.
The employees discovered their Janus rights independently. Each attempted to exercise those rights twice by sending letters to AFSCME union officials stating that they were ending their union memberships and terminating dues deductions. AFSCME union officials denied all three women’s requests, stating that union dues deductions would continue because the letters missed the narrow “escape period” the union imposed.
“Plaintiffs did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waive their First Amendment rights…The restrictions on stopping government dues deductions…are unenforceable as against public policy because the restriction significantly impinges on employees’ First Amendment rights,” read the federal complaint.
Employees Often Must Seek Return of Dues Seized Without Consent
Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib’s win is the latest in a chain of successful Foundation-backed lawsuits defending Ohio public servants’ Janus rights. In 2020, for example, Foundation attorneys challenged a so-called “maintenance of membership” requirement that AFSCME Ohio Council 11 used to lock public employees out of their Janus rights for three years at a time. Rather than face off against Foundation attorneys, Council 11’s union officials backed down and settled the case. As a result, Foundation attorneys freed almost 30,000 Ohio public employees from the onerous arrangement.
“Once again Foundation-backed Ohio public employees have successfully defended their Janus rights against the schemes of AFSCME union officials, who were more concerned with accumulating dues money than respecting the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “America’s public workers should not have to file federal lawsuits to defend their Janus rights. Instead, before taking dues, union officials should inform workers about their Janus rights and honor those rights.”
“It’s heartening that the union has agreed to resolve this dispute by honoring their former members’ wishes; it’s disappointing that a lawsuit was required to reach that common-sense result,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute.
Seneca Foods Employees Send Teamsters Union Officials Packing
Wisconsin food processing workers oust Teamsters Local 695 after a majority of employees vote to remove the union
Oakfield, WI (April 3, 2023) – Seneca Foods employees in Oakfield, Wisconsin, have overwhelmingly voted to free themselves from the unwanted so-called “representation” of Teamsters Local 695. Andrew Collien, a warehouse employee at Seneca Foods, kick-started the decertification process that led to the workers’ vote to remove the union. Collien received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Collien and his coworkers filed the petition for a decertification vote with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in late February. In the petition, Seneca Foods workers formally requested a vote to determine whether or not the union should be removed.
On March 30, the NLRB regional office conducted a secret ballot election at the plant, resulting in a 17-10 vote to remove the union. Union officials have seven days to file objections to seek to overturn the workers’ vote. Otherwise, the results will become final.
Teamsters Local 695, which also controls the company’s truck drivers, maintenance, processing, and janitorial employees, originally had a five-year union contract with Seneca Foods, running until May 2025. With the results of the workers’ decertification election, however, the Teamsters’ contract was terminated two years early, sparing workers from the remainder of the agreement.
The Seneca Foods employees were fortunate to cast their votes just more than one month after filing their petition. However, this is not always the case for many workers around the nation who seek to remove unions they oppose.
A major issue workers face in decertifying unpopular unions is how prone the NLRB’s decertification process is to union boss-created roadblocks. These roadblocks can include often-baseless “blocking charges” brought by union officials against employers with the intention of delaying or even blocking employee-led decertification elections entirely.
Right to Work Foundation-backed “Election Protection Rule” reforms the NLRB issued in 2020 have helped make it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials by limiting some of the ways union lawyers manipulate blocking charges. However, the Biden NLRB is currently engaged in rulemaking to roll back these protections and make it much more difficult for workers to decertify an unpopular union. If the Biden-appointed NLRB is successful, it could take months or even years for workers to hold a decertification election.
Seneca Foods employees are just one example of workers looking to remove unions exercising excess control over them. Worker interest in removing controlling unions is growing nationwide. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys are fielding numerous requests for free legal assistance in decertification cases, such as Collien and his coworkers’ case against Teamsters Local 695.
In fact, the NLRB’s own data shows that a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.
“We congratulate Mr. Collien and his coworkers in successfully exercising their right to vote to free themselves of unwanted union so-called ‘representation,’” observed Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These workers knew the union well and decided, rather than having two more years of the union-imposed contract, they would be better off without the union.”
“Seneca Foods workers sent Teamsters Local 695 union officials a clear message, and union officials should respect that decision and not seek to disenfranchise these workers by asking the NLRB to overturn their vote,” Mix added.
Connecticut Bus Driver Slams Teamsters Union with Federal Charges for Violating Beck Rights
Teamsters union officials illegally force school bus driver to pay for union political activities
New Milford, CT (March 30, 2023) – Connecticut school bus driver Mary Boland has filed federal charges against Teamsters Local 671 union after union officials violated her rights, as established under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Beck decision, by illegally charging her union dues in excess of what she must pay in order to keep her job. These charges were filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Boland is being represented for free by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
On October 20, 2022, Mary Boland submitted a letter to Teamsters Local 671 exercising her rights to opt out of union membership and pay a reduced union fee. This forced union fee must be verified by an independent audit of union expenditures. Individuals who opt out of formal union membership cannot be fired from their job by refusing to pay for “non-chargeable” union expenditures, like member-only activities or union political and lobbying spending.
Due to Connecticut lacking Right to Work protections, workers who oppose union boss agendas can still be forced to pay union fees as a condition of their continued employment. However, under the Foundation-won 1988 Beck decision, union officials can never require non-members to fund activities not directly related to union monopoly bargaining. Beck has been interpreted by the lower courts, and the NLRB, to require that union officials provide certain union financial disclosures to justify the amount they claim a worker can be required to pay.
However, in a letter to Boland dated November 2, 2022, the union acknowledged she invoked her rights under Beck, but failed to actually reduce those fees or provide the required audit. Union officials have charged Boland full union dues as of the filing of the NLRB charge on March 17, 2023, and have never provided the required audit to justify any dues deductions.
“In their apparent greed to extract as much money as possible from unwilling workers, Teamsters bosses are blatantly disregarding longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” commented Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case shows why Connecticut workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to make all union financial support strictly voluntary.”
“Had Right to Work protections been in place, Mary Boland and other Connecticut workers would have had the freedom to simply cut off all union dues,” Mix added. “Without these Right to Work Protections, however, workers find themselves having to tangle with union lawyers over what portion of union dues they can be legally fired for not paying.”
