IFPTE union bosses continued deducting dues from drivers in violation of Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME precedent

Camden, NJ (October 26, 2022) – Camden-area South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) driver Tyron Foxworth and six of his colleagues have prevailed in their federal lawsuit charging the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 196 (IFPTE) union with violating their First Amendment rights.

With free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Foxworth and his coworkers filed a complaint in May stating that IFPTE union officials had illegally seized dues money from their paychecks after their resignations from the union were supposed to take effect.

A settlement has now required IFPTE union officials to return to Foxworth and several other drivers all dues money taken from their paychecks unconstitutionally, plus interest. The settlement also bars the IFPTE union from demanding or seizing any dues from the drivers going forward.

The drivers argued that IFPTE officials violated their First Amendment rights recognized in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME 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. It 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.

The federal civil rights lawsuit explains the drivers signed cards that said employees could request a stop to dues deductions effective either the January or July following the request. The drivers reported that they all resigned and demanded dues cease a few months prior to January 2022, but, in contradiction to the cards, dues money kept flowing from their paychecks after January 1, 2022, passed.

IFPTE Officials Subjected Drivers to Restrictions They Never Knew About, Seized Their Money After Drivers Requested Stop

According to Foxworth and his colleagues, IFPTE union officials maintained a more restrictive dues deduction scheme. The union’s monopoly bargaining contract with SJTA recognizes dues opt-outs only in July, not in January and July as provided by the cards the workers signed. The drivers never consented to this greater restriction.

Foundation attorneys argued that IFPTE union officials, by taking union dues after January 1, 2022, without the workers’ consent, “violate[d] Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free speech and association.”

This is the latest of numerous Foundation-won settlements to vindicate American public workers’ First Amendment Janus rights. In the past few years, class-action lawsuits brought by Foundation staff attorneys have led to settlements freeing tens of thousands of Ohio public employees from American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union schemes illegally restricting the exercise of their Janus rights.

Foundation attorneys have also just filed a petition to the Supreme Court for several Southern California lifeguards. They seek to knock down a so-called “maintenance of membership” scheme that California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials are using to trap the lifeguards in full dues payments and membership years after they resigned, in clear violation of Janus.

“IFPTE union officials acted like the First Amendment Janus rights of Mr. Foxworth and his colleagues did not even exist. They ignored the drivers’ clear requests to cut off financial support of union activities, all under the guise of a dues policy to which union officials had never gotten workers’ consent,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re proud to have helped Mr. Foxworth and his fellow drivers defend their rights, but we’re also acutely aware that union officials across the country are still concocting ways to circumvent the rights protections of Janus.”

“Public employees who are dealing with union officials who ignore or limit the exercise of their Janus rights should not hesitate to contact the Foundation for free legal assistance,” Mix added.

Federal law protects workers’ legal right to rebuff union boss strike demand and continue working to support their families

Boston, MA (October 19, 2022) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for Sysco Foods employees potentially affected by strikes being threatened by Teamsters union officials at Sysco Foods facilities across the nation. Media reports indicate that the strike began in Syracuse, New York, and while the strike at the Syracuse location reportedly ended, Teamsters boss-ordered strikes continue at other locations with potentially more occurring.

Because of Teamsters’ union monopoly power, these strikes will affect thousands of employees, impacting the lives of workers and their families across the nation. The Foundation’s legal notice informs workers of the rights union officials often conceal, including that workers have the right to continue working in order to support themselves and their families.

Importantly, the notice gives workers who want to exercise their right to work information on how to avoid fines and punishment that would likely be imposed by union officials.

“Teamster union officials have a decades-long history of abusing workers’ rights and disciplining and firing workers who do not kowtow to their dictates,” the legal notice reads. “Sysco workers may want to contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and other vicious union discipline for continuing to report to work to support themselves and their families.”

The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights workers’ rights to resign union membership and to revoke their union dues check-offs. With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, numerous workers have won cases challenging illegal Teamster union official actions.

In just the past few years, Foundation staff attorneys have assisted other Sysco Foods workers. With Foundation free legal aid, Alabama Sysco Foods worker Sulane Lowery filed charges against the Teamsters Local 612 challenging unlawful intimidation tactics after Lowery and others attempted to oust the Teamsters from their workplace. In another case filed with Foundation legal aid, a group of Sysco Oklahoma workers signed petitions seeking to remove the Teamsters eventually leading to their being free of unwanted so-called “representation” that they opposed.

The National Right to Work Foundation is the nation’s premier organization exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employee victims of forced unionism abuse. The full special notice can be found at https://www.nrtw.org/sysco-foods/

“For decades, the Foundation has provided free legal aid to workers to protect them from Big Labor’s coercive tactics, which are especially common during union boss-instigated strikes,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “Workers always have the right to continue to work during a strike, despite what union officials may tell them or try to pressure them into doing, however there are important steps workers should take to protect themselves from vindictive union boss retaliation.”

Vote to remove union comes as Pennsylvania employees fight legal battle against Steelworkers officials who trapped them under union power and disregarded votes

Burlington, NJ (October 18, 2022) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Michael Cobourn and his coworkers at Gold Bond Building Products in Burlington, NJ, have successfully exercised their right to vote unwanted Steelworkers (USW) union officials out of their facility. The vote, held by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), was decisive, with nearly 70 percent of those participating in the election casting ballots to oust the union.

The vote follows Cobourn’s submission of a “decertification petition” signed by enough of his coworkers to prompt the NLRB to hold a vote on whether to remove the union. Although the NLRB’s decertification process is still prone to union boss-created roadblocks, Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 have made the decertification process somewhat easier.

Before the reforms, union officials could stop workers who had requested a decertification vote from casting ballots by filing so-called “blocking charges,” which often contain unverified and unrelated allegations of employer misconduct. The rule changes improved the process so employees can at least have a chance to vote before any allegations surrounding the election are handled.

Because New Jersey lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, USW union officials had the power to force Cobourn and his colleagues to pay dues or fees to the union hierarchy just to stay employed. In contrast, in Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are the choice of each individual worker and can’t be required as a condition of employment.

“My coworkers and I were paying money to the Steelworkers union constantly, yet the union didn’t seem to be doing anything for us,” commented Mr. Cobourn. “I’m very grateful to the National Right to Work Foundation for helping us through the union decertification process, and we look forward to being free of the union’s control and influence.”

USW Union Officials in Pennsylvania Fight to Quash Similar Foundation-Backed Employee Effort

Cobourn’s victory comes as USW union officials are battling another employee-led decertification effort in Franklin, PA. There, the USW bosses claim at the NLRB that their rushed and unilateral approval of an unpopular union contract must block Latrobe Specialty Steel/Carpenter Technology employees’ right to vote the union out. In that case, USW officials hastily “ratified” the unpopular contract after getting wind that employees were seeking to remove the union. This was an apparent attempt to deploy the “contract bar,” a non-statutory restriction that blocks workers from voting out unions they oppose for up to three years after union officials sign a contract with management.

USW bosses, by their own admission, held a phony employee “vote” on the contract after it had already been covertly signed by them, tricking workers into thinking their votes would determine the fate of the contract. In sworn testimony, one union boss admitted that USW agents are free to execute contracts despite employees voting them down, and that union officials misled the Latrobe workers and ignored their votes against the contract “to protect the integrity of the union.”

The employee effort to oust the union is being led by Latrobe Specialty Steel employee Kerry Hunsberger, who obtained free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. Foundation attorneys argue for her and her coworkers that the USW bosses’ ploy is “nothing more than a smokescreen, concocted by a desperate and unpopular Union to entrench itself and bar employee free choice” under federal law.

“USW officials openly admit that their modus operandi is to subordinate employee rights and interests to maintain union power, so we’re glad that that Mr. Cobourn and his coworkers were able to exercise their right to kick such union officials out of their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Still, as the situation in Franklin, PA, demonstrates, more work needs to be done to safeguard employees’ right to decertify unions that they oppose.”

“The Foundation will continue to defend Ms. Hunsberger, her coworkers, and any other American employee who faces union-created roadblocks to exercising their right to eject the USW or any other union officials from their workplace,” added Mix.

Comments argue against rule that would increase costs in order to discriminate against vast majority of American construction workers who are non-union

Washington, DC (October 17, 2022) – Today, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed comments opposing a Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council proposed rule to block non-union workers from working on federal contracts. The rule, which implements President Biden’s Executive Order 14063, requires federal agencies to impose PLAs (Project Labor Agreements) on contractors and employees who work on federal construction projects that will cost $35 million or more.

PLAs mandate that, to work on a construction project, contractors’ workers must be under union monopoly control. Given that around 80 percent of construction workers and contractors have opted against unionization, this union-only requirement discriminates against the vast majority of America’s construction workers. This also drives up the costs to taxpayers due to inefficient union work rules that union officials insist on.

Foundation attorneys note in the comments that “[t]here is no legitimate legal or policy basis for forcing employees and contractors to abide by union-only PLAs to work on major federal construction projects,” and that the executive order “is simply naked political payback by the current administration to its union supporters.”

The comments explain six ways in which the proposed rule violates federal law, particularly noting that the PLA requirement “will serve only to harm construction workers who reject union representation,” arguing they will be “subjected to unwanted union representation; forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment in non-Right to Work states…and will have large portions of their compensation diverted to union pension plans from which they will receive no benefits,” among other things.

Comments: Discriminating Against Majority of Construction Workers Violates Federal Law

The Foundation’s comments also point out that the proposed rule violates the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), a federal law intended to improve costs by increasing competition for federal contracts. The comments state that shrinking the pool of contractors to only those that are willing to give into union boss demands “will inevitably lead to increased contracting costs for the federal government,” making the executive order and the rule it promulgates inconsistent with CICA.

In fact, as the comments explain, the proposed rule itself acknowledges that “between 2009 and 2021, federal contracting officers—who are trained to award contract to bidders that provide the best value to the government —required the use of PLAs in only 12 out of the approximately 2,000 instances where a Federal construction project cost $25 million or more.” This statistic underscores the inefficiency of PLAs.

The Foundation’s comments also argue that the proposed rule violates the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because it doesn’t analyze how small non-union contractors unwilling to submit to PLAs will be affected by the rule. The rule is also “arbitrary and capricious,” according to the comments, because of the rule’s failure to consider its cost impacts.

“So-called ‘Project Labor Agreements’ simultaneously discriminate against the over 8 in 10 American construction workers who exercise their right not to associate with a labor union, while forcing taxpayers to shoulder the extra cost of wasteful union work rules,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Once again the Biden Administration shows its willingness to throw rank-and-file workers under the bus, just to enrich their special interest allies in Big Labor.”