Blue Ridge Parkway Employee Challenges Federal Agency Decision Blocking Right to Vote Out AFGE Union
Employee request for vote to oust union was denied after Federal Labor Relations Authority merged two units without employee consent
Washington, DC (September 9, 2022) – National Park Service (NPS) employee Lauren Labrie has just filed a brief at the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), opposing an order blocking her and her coworkers’ right to vote American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union officials out of power.
Her brief, filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, challenges the FLRA’s dismissal of a “union decertification petition” seeking an election to remove the union. Labrie and her colleagues signed the petition after FLRA officials administratively merged their work unit with another without any vote by her and her fellow employees on the new arrangement. Union officials and the FLRA then cited the merger as a reason to block the decertificiation vote the workers requested.
The brief challenges the FLRA’s suspect position that, under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act, an employee-requested election to remove a union can be blocked after a union is installed by agency fiat through “unit consolidation.” The only “election bar” authorized by the statute is one for 12 months after employees have voted to install a union by secret ballot, the brief argues.
FLRA “Consolidated” Units at Union Behest, Then Stopped Workers from Voting on Union
Labrie’s brief explains that she and her fellow Blue Ridge Parkway NPS employees were under the control of two different AFGE union locals as of June 2021. AFGE union officials then petitioned to consolidate the two units, and a regional FLRA official approved the move in September 2021 – without giving employees any opportunity to vote on whether they wanted the merger.
In December 2021, the petition to decertify AFGE as the union with control over the workers was filed. The petition was signed by a number of her colleagues sufficient to trigger an FLRA-administered election whether to remove the union. A regional FLRA official dismissed the petition in March 2022, claiming it was blocked by a 12-month “election bar” stemming from the top-down, unilateral consolidation of the work units.
Park Employee’s Brief: Blocking Election Stifles Employees’ Free Choice Rights
Foundation attorneys argue in Labrie’s brief that applying “election bars” after agency-imposed unit consolidations violates federal employees’ free choice rights, which the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act was meant to protect.
“In passing the Statute, Congress’ intent was to promote secret ballot elections and employees’ freedom to choose their representative under the Statute,” the brief says. “Not allowing employees to exercise their free choice because the Authority administratively combined two bargaining units undermines Congress’ goal of promoting the right of employees to select their own agent.”
The brief asks that the FLRA reverse its decision blocking Labrie and her coworkers’ vote and immediately hold an election.
Labrie’s defense of her and her coworkers’ request to decertify the AFGE union comes as Foundation attorneys are aiding private sector workers across the country in defending their right to vote out union officials of whom they disapprove. Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for overseeing labor relations in the private sector, has just announced rulemaking to undo Foundation-backed 2020 reforms that make it harder for union officials to stop workers from exercising this right.
“Union officials in both the public and private sectors want to maintain their coercive grip on workplaces across the country, regardless of how many workers oppose their monopoly so-called ‘representation,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Thanks to the Foundation-won Janus Supreme Court precedent, Ms. Labrie and her fellow park employees at least have a First Amendment right to cut off any dues payments to AFGE union bosses they oppose.”
“But the fact that FLRA officials are letting union officials dodge employee-requested decertification votes simply by consolidating units shows the degree to which union power is not a function of rank-and-file support, but a result of the way government policy entrenches union bosses to the detriment of individual workers’ rights,” Mix added.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice for Minnesota Nurses Impacted by MNA Strike Threat
Strike would affect up to 15,000 nurses in the Twin Cities and Twin Ports, but healthcare workers have right to rebuff union boss strike demand
Twin Cities, MN (September 8, 2022) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for nurses potentially affected by a strike being threatened by Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union officials at 15 hospital locations in the Twin Cities, Duluth, and Superior Wisconsin. The strike is reportedly scheduled to start September 12, 2022.
Because of the MNA unions’ monopoly power, the strike scheduled by MNA will affect up to 15,000 nurses, impacting the care of countless patients. The Foundation’s legal notice informs nurses of the rights union officials often conceal, including that the nurses have the right not to abandon their patients but instead to continue providing medical care while also working to support 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.
“While a strike vote does not mean a strike is imminent, the situation raises serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “If a strike occurs, employees have the right under federal labor law to rebuff union officials’ strike demands, but it is important for you to get informed before you do so.”
The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights workers’ rights to resign union membership and to revoke their union dues check-offs. In just the past few months National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have assisted hundreds of Minnesota nurses, many in decertification votes to remove unwanted union “representation.”
Recently, Foundation staff attorneys assisted hundreds of nurses at the Mayo Clinic in Mankato, Minnesota. There, nurses voted to remove Minnesota Nurses Association union officials. Union officials attempted to overturn the vote, but failed after Foundation staff attorneys defended the outcome for the nurses before the National Labor Relations Board.
Currently, staff attorneys represent nurses at Mayo Clinic Lake City in Minnesota who seek a vote to free themselves from MNA. Additionally, Foundation staff attorneys are also assisting nurses at four Cuyuna Regional Medical Center locations in exercising their right to obtain a vote to free themselves of unwanted union so-called “representation.”
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 for the nurses can be found at https://www.nrtw.org/mnastrike2022/
“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. “Nurses 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, for nurses who choose not to abandon their patients, there are important steps they should take to protect themselves from vindictive union retaliation,” added Mix.
Southern California Lifeguards Petition Supreme Court in Battle Against Scheme Trapping Employees in Union Membership
Scheme prevents lifeguards from ending union membership for four years; Supreme Court petition also filed for CA in-home caregivers suffering similar restriction
Washington, DC (September 7, 2022) – Orange County, CA, lifeguard Jonathan Savas and 20 of his Southern California colleagues have just submitted a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, asking the Justices to hear their case challenging California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials’ so-called “maintenance of membership” restriction. The lifeguards are also suing State of California officials for their role in enforcing the restriction.
Savas and his colleagues argue the union-created scheme violates their rights under the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared that public sector workers cannot be forced to bankroll a union without voluntarily waiving their First Amendment right to abstain from union payments. Janus was won by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who also represent Savas and his fellow lifeguards for free in the present case, along with the Freedom Foundation and Mariah Gondeiro of Tyler Bursh, LLP.
Under the “maintenance of membership” requirement, CSLEA union bosses and the State of California force the lifeguards to both remain formal union members and supply full union dues payments to the CSLEA union against their will. Savas and the other plaintiffs sent messages resigning their union memberships and ending dues authorizations back in September 2019, but union officials denied their requests, alleging they must remain full members until 2023 or be fired. Despite Janus, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this requirement does not violate the First Amendment.
Foundation staff attorneys have also just filed a petition for writ of certiorari for Dolores Polk and several other California in-home caregivers, who are challenging a union “escape period” scheme limiting their Janus right to cut off union dues to just a handful of days per year. Although Polk and her fellow in-home caregivers are not public employees, they are still forced by California law to work under the so-called “representation” of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials.
Lifeguards’ Attorneys: ‘Maintenance of Membership’ Requirements Have Been Unconstitutional for Decades
Savas and his fellow lifeguards’ Foundation-provided attorneys argue that the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to strike down “maintenance of membership” requirements does not only contradict Janus’ ban on all forced dues in the public sector, but even goes against the Supreme Court’s now-overturned 1977 decision in Abood. Abood let union officials force dissenting public sector employees to pay a portion of union dues as a condition of employment.
“If anything, maintenance of membership requirements are more injurious to First Amendment rights because they also compel employees to remain union members over their objection—which infringes on associational rights—and [forces workers] to subsidize union speech” with full dues payments, reads the petition. That exceeds the boundaries set in Abood and includes subsidization of union political activity.
Savas’ petition also slams the Ninth Circuit’s failure to apply the Supreme Court’s “waiver” test to CSLEA’s “maintenance of membership” restriction. Janus dictated that union dues can only be deducted from a public employee’s paycheck if that employee gives a “clear and compelling” waiver of Janus rights. Foundation attorneys point out that the CSLEA union’s dues deductions forms contained only a “vague reference” to the “maintenance of membership” restriction. The Ninth Circuit erroneously believed that was enough to satisfy Janus requirements.
“A vague reference to unspecified limitations in ‘the Unit 7 contract and State law’ does not establish the Lifeguards contractually consented” to become and remain union members for four years, the petition says.
Supreme Court Must Intervene to Stop Spread of Unconstitutional Restrictions
The petition for Savas and his fellow lifeguards emphasizes how crucial it is for the Supreme Court to overturn cumbersome “maintenance of membership” restrictions, pointing out that California unions and legislators will continue to force public employees to remain formal union members and pay full dues as a condition of employment. “Other states likely will follow suit, such as Pennsylvania, whose laws also authorize maintenance of membership requirements,” the brief states.
In Polk’s petition, Foundation attorneys also emphasize the importance of striking down similarly anti-Janus “escape periods.” If the Court does not act, reads the petition, “There are few impediments to states and unions including oppressive restrictions in [dues deduction] forms, such as a requirement that individuals cannot stop state dues deductions except during annual ten-day periods,” allowing union officials an effective workaround of the First Amendment rights of the workers they claim to represent.
“The Ninth Circuit’s giving a pass to so-called ‘maintenance of membership’ restrictions effectively gives union officials complete control over when public employees can exercise their rights to end union membership and cut off union dues deductions,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That erases not only the protections against all forced dues payments provided by Janus, but even older rulings that forbade union officials from forcing full union membership and payment for union political activities on public workers.”
“The Supreme Court must intervene in Mr. Savas’ case and Ms. Polk’s case to protect public sector workers’ First Amendment rights and prevent union bosses and their political allies from replicating across the country these patently unconstitutional restrictions,” Mix added.
“Public sector employees have been leaving their government employee unions in droves when they learn they have the right to do so,” explained Freedom Foundation attorney Rebekah Millard. “These California unions are employing tactics to entrap people in the union, forcing them to keep paying dues against their will. It is time for the Supreme Court to step in and affirm the First Amendment rights laid out in Janus.”
Workplace Advocacy Groups Urge Americans to Oppose Anti-Worker Freedom Agenda on Labor Day
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2022:
Today, we should remember that Labor Day is about celebrating the determination and ingenuity of America’s workers and the importance of protecting workers’ individual rights. Vital among these is every American worker’s Right to Work: the freedom to decide to join or financially support a union, or refrain from doing so.
Unfortunately, union officials will attempt to steal the spotlight on Labor Day to drum up support for their coercive political ideas, almost all of which involve blatant infringements of the Right to Work. Big Labor and its political allies like Joe Biden claim that workers favor unions and that union officials should be granted nearly unlimited power to sweep workers under union control.
This fiction is false and incredibly damaging to workers’ freedom. The truth is, the average unionized worker is more likely to be involved in an effort to vote out an unpopular union than a non-union worker is to be involved in a campaign to install one. Even so, union officials are making a full-court press both in Congress and at executive agencies to eliminate state Right to Work protections and force millions more workers across the country to pay union bosses just to stay employed, and to make it even harder for workers to vote out a union they don’t want.
Defending worker freedom is a better way for American workers, and the evidence for this is abundant. The last decade saw the number of states that protect Right to Work grow to a majority, and employees have been flocking to Right to Work states to take advantage of the economic opportunity and prosperity supported by Right to Work laws. As of last year, a majority of American workers live in states where the Right to Work is safeguarded.
Right to Work finds support with the vast majority of Americans year after year because it is a common-sense moral principle with clear benefits to workers and their families. In the midst of continued economic uncertainty and unprecedented union power grabs, we have a duty to make sure that workers’ fundamental rights are protected. Let’s remember that this Labor Day and continue to fight for worker freedom.
General Motors Worker Forces UAW Bosses to Stop Seizing Dues for Politics
Illegal seizures came after multi-billion-dollar Big Labor political spending
A massive UAW embezzlement scandal didn’t stop UAW officials from ignoring at least two attempts by Roger Clemons to exercise his right to stop subsidizing union political activity.
ROCHESTER, NY – Even after a sweeping federal corruption probe that has resulted in jail sentences for at least 12 union executives, it seems some United Auto Workers (UAW) officials haven’t learned their lesson regarding misuse of worker funds.
Rochester General Motors employee Roger Clemons this January won a settlement forcing UAW officials at his plant to stop illegally funneling money from his paycheck into union politics. Clemons filed federal charges in September 2021 against UAW Local 1097 and the UAW’s international branch, after union agents ignored his requests to opt-out of funding the union’s political agenda. He received free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
A Foundation-won settlement required UAW international and local officials to give back to Clemons all money that was deducted from his paycheck in violation of the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. Beck forbids union officials from forcing workers under their control to fund union politics.
Because New York State lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can legally force workers to pay a reduced amount of union dues under threat of termination. In Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
UAW Chiefs Repeatedly Violated Worker’s Beck Rights
Clemons stated in his September 2021 charge against UAW Local 1097 officials that UAW officials had a history of flouting his Beck rights, failing to reduce his union dues even after he ended his union membership and became a “Beck objector” in October 2019. “Only after Mr. Clemons filed an [earlier] unfair labor practice charge . . . did the union comply with the requirements of the law,” the charge noted, detailing that union officials finally sent him rebate checks in June and July 2020 for excess dues they took from his paycheck.
However, UAW officials continued to create obstacles for Mr. Clemons’ Beck rights. The September 2021 charge asserted that despite Clemons renewing his Beck objection in October 2020, he then did not receive “a single rebate check or a reduction in the dues deducted from his wages” for almost a year.
Clemons also charged General Motors for its role in enforcing the illegal dues deductions.
The settlement now forbids UAW officials from “accept[ing] dues or fees which have been deducted from the paycheck of Roger Clemons, or any other Beck objector, which are in excess of the amount we can lawfully charge to Beck objectors.” UAW officials also have returned dues that they seized from Clemons above the reduced Beck amount.
Union officials devote enormous sums to political activity. A report the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released in 2021 revealed that union officials’ own Department of Labor filings show over $2 billion in political spending during the 2020 election cycle, primarily from dues-stocked union general treasuries. Another study found that actual union spending on political and lobbying activities likely topped $12 billion during the 2020 cycle.
Union Bosses Likely to Splash Cash on 2022 Midterm Elections and Beyond
“Rank-and-file workers should know they have a right to refuse to fund union politics, especially with union political spending in 2020 having approached record numbers and midterm elections coming up,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “Workers under UAW control, like Mr. Clemons, have special reason to be on guard, given the UAW’s perennial interest in politics, and because several UAW officials now find themselves behind bars for embezzlement and corruption.”
Atlantic Aviation Employees Win Freedom from Unwanted Union
Incompetent Machinists union bosses fly away to avoid worker vote
IAM union officials loafed around at Tiffany Lipyanic’s workplace for years, all the while siphoning dues from her and her coworkers. She’s thankful to the Foundation for aid in navigating the complex process to vote them out.
PHILADEPHIA, PA – Atlantic Aviation PNE, Inc. employees have freed themselves from unwanted union monopoly “representation” after filing a decertification election request with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Tiffany Lipyanic, a line service technician, filed the petition to end the union’s monopoly bargaining powers for all workers at the Atlantic Aviation facility at Philadelphia Northeast Airport. International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials then abandoned their “representation” rather than face an overwhelming vote against the union.
‘We Were Paying Union Officials and Got Nothing in Return’
Lipyanic and her colleagues received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in filing their petition for a vote to oust union officials. The petition, filed on February 15 by tire service and customer service representatives, was signed by more than twice the number needed to trigger an NLRB-supervised “decertification” secret-ballot election, after which union officials lose monopoly bargaining power if a majority of workers vote to remove them.
Rather than proceed to a vote, IAM District Lodge 142 and Local Lodge 1776 officials filed documents with the NLRB disclaiming their monopoly bargaining powers on February 28.
“After trying to work with union officials for years, it became apparent our pleas fell on deaf ears. We were paying union officials and got nothing in return, so we’re glad to finally be free of them,” Lipyanic commented. “Having the National Right to Work Foundation’s assistance gave us confidence in our journey to finally free ourselves from union bureaucrats that took our money and disregarded us at every turn.”
Foundation-Backed Rules Aid Workers in Removing Unpopular Union Bosses
This is the latest in a series of successful worker efforts to oust unwanted union officials aided by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Just since the beginning of 2021, Foundation attorneys provided legal assistance in well over 50 NLRB decertification efforts, which together sought to end union boss control of over 7,000 workers.
Recent Foundation efforts to break down union boss-created legal barriers to unseating unwanted union officials have allowed more workers to free themselves from unwanted union ranks. In 2020, following detailed formal comments submitted by Foundation attorneys, the NLRB adopted rules eviscerating union bosses’ ability to stop a decertification effort with “blocking charges,” i.e., accusations made against an employer that are often unverified and have no connection to workers’ desire to kick out unwanted union officials.
“Under the protection of a Right to Work law each individual worker can decide whether or not to join or financially support a labor union. Unfortunately, current law empowers union bosses in many states to use their monopoly bargaining status to force workers to pay up or be fired,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse.
“The Foundation is glad to have helped the workers at Atlantic Aviation exercise their right to free themselves of a union they oppose. But to better protect all workers’ freedom of association, Right to Work laws should be on the books in all states,” LaJeunesse added.
Indiana US Brick Employees Target ‘Successor Bar’ for Demolition
Over 70 percent of workers want Teamsters gone, but non-statutory policy prevents vote
Though Kerry Atkins and roughly 70 percent of his coworkers want to kick Teamsters bosses from their facility, the “successor bar” and other non-statutory “bars” could block a vote for years.
INDIANAPOLIS, IN – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have made big strides in recent years for independent-minded workers who want to exercise their right to vote unpopular unions out of their workplaces.
The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) adoption in 2020 of Foundation-backed reforms to the decertification process have made it significantly less difficult for workers to exercise their rights. But, there’s much more work to be done to eliminate contrived, union boss-friendly NLRB policies that stifle worker rights just so unwanted unions can stay entrenched.
Enter Kerry Atkins and his coworkers at US Brick in Mooresville, Indiana. With free Foundation legal aid they are fighting an NLRB policy called the “successor bar” that arbitrarily blocks employees’ right to vote out an unwanted union when management changes hands in a workplace.
Atkins filed a petition signed by his colleagues in December 2021, asking the NLRB to hold a vote on whether to decertify Teamsters Local 135 union officials. NLRB Regional Director Patricia Nachand ruled on February 9 that US Brick’s recent acquisition of the plant triggered the so-called “successor bar” and rendered the employee petition invalid.
NLRB-Invented Policy Traps Workers in Union They Strongly Oppose
Nachand blocked the vote even though, according to her own order, plant management has in its possession a parallel petition expressing disaffection with the Teamsters, which bears the signatures of about 70 percent of the employees.
The “successor bar” is a non-statutory policy invented by NLRB appointees that immunizes union officials from being voted out by employees for up to a year after management changes as a result of a sale, merger, or acquisition.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is charged with enforcing, explicitly states that employees have a right to remove union monopoly “representation” they oppose. The “successor bar,” however, is found nowhere in the NLRA’s text.
The only “bar” to employees requesting a decertification election that is mentioned in the NLRA is a one-year restriction after employees certify a union in a secret-ballot vote. That the “successor bar” — which isn’t even in the NLRA — can stave off attempts to vote out a union for up to four years when combined with a “contract bar” makes it especially offensive to workers’ rights.
To make matters even worse, two different federal agencies — the NLRB and the Department of Justice — effectively worked together to impose the “successor bar” on Atkins and his coworkers. The Department of Justice in an antitrust complaint forced the former owner of the Mooresville brick facility to sell it to US Brick. The NLRB now says that event should be grounds for blocking the employees from ejecting a union they overwhelmingly oppose.
‘Successor Bar’ Disregards Desires and Experiences of Workers, Brief Says
Atkins’ Foundation attorneys have filed a Request for Review of Nachand’s order with the NLRB in Washington, D.C. It contends that the “successor bar” serves no purpose other than to block the will of rank-and-file employees, entrenching union bosses who ought to be accountable to the employees.
“The successor bar undermines the NLRA’s core purpose of employee free choice by disregarding employees’ actual desires and past experiences with their union representative,” the Request for Review argues.
Restriction Shows How NLRB-Invented Policies Stifle Individual Rights
“The NLRB-invented ‘successor bar’ is just one example of how the Board neglects its mandate to protect the rights of individual workers, including those opposed to forced union affiliation, just to protect union boss power,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The ‘successor bar’ not only overrides the statutory right of workers to vote out unions they oppose, but does so at the very moment when workers are most likely to reevaluate their union status: the turnover of the old management that perhaps was the reason for unionization in the first place.”
Southern IL Aluminum Worker Slams IBEW Union with New Federal Charges After Illegal Termination Threat
IBEW union officials threatened to fire worker for failure to pay union fees, even though union contract is invalid
Murphysboro, IL (August 26, 2022) – Penn Aluminum International employee Mary Beck has filed new federal charges against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 702 union, stating that union officials threatened to get her fired for failure to pay union fees demanded under a defective contract.
Beck, who is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, has amended charges she hit the union with in June. The original charges stated IBEW union officials unlawfully seized money from her wages without her consent and without proving that a contract mandating such deductions is in effect.
Because Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, union officials can legally force workers in facilities under union control to pay some union fees just to stay employed. However, union bosses lose this legal privilege if there is no valid monopoly bargaining contract in effect. Under longstanding law, union officials must also gain consent from a worker before they can demand that an employer deduct compulsory fees from a worker’s paycheck.
Beck’s original unfair labor practice charge noted that she sent a letter to IBEW union chiefs and her employer in January 2022 exercising her right to resign her union membership and to stop any union dues deductions from her paychecks that are not required to maintain employment. Her letter also demanded a copy of any contract that gives IBEW officials the power to require dues payments as a condition of employment.
When she received no response, she redelivered this letter by hand in March 2022. In this letter Beck also requested that, if IBEW union officials could produce a valid contract, her dues payments be reduced as per the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. In CWA v. Beck the Court ruled that union officials in non-Right to Work states cannot force nonmembers to pay fees for political and other union activities outside the union’s bargaining functions. Union dues were still deducted from her paycheck after this letter.
IBEW Union Bosses Blew Off Worker Requests for Months, Then Threatened Her Termination
Beck’s amended charge states that IBEW union officials didn’t acknowledge her requests until July, when they finally sent a copy of the union contract and ended dues deductions, but still demanded she pay an unspecified amount of union fees to keep her job. The amended charge points out that the contract produced does not contain language that lets IBEW bosses take advantage of their legal privilege to force all employees to pay dues as a condition of employment.
According to the amended charge, the contract also does not “contain the grace period required by Section 8(a)(3)” of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). That section of the NLRA requires new employees to be given at least 30 days before being compelled to pay union fees in a workplace under a forced-fees union contract.
Union officials in an August 9 letter threatened to terminate Beck by August 15 if she didn’t pay union fees. “The letter failed to provide Charging Party with the exact amount the Union claims she owes or a reasonable opportunity for her to pay those alleged fees,” Beck’s amended charge says. Both are required by longstanding precedents.
Beck’s new charge argues that the union’s continued deduction of dues after her March letter and demands for union fees without a valid contract in place violate her rights under the NLRA.
“IBEW bosses threatening to upend Ms. Beck’s career for failure to pay fees to which the union’s sloppily-written contract doesn’t even entitle them is terrible malfeasance to be sure, but a correctly written contract certainly wouldn’t solve the problem,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The real injustice is that millions of workers across the country, Ms. Beck included, can be forced to pay anything to a union hierarchy just to keep their jobs.”
“Ultimately, every worker in America deserves the protection of a Right to Work law, not only so workers are shielded from having to choose between their jobs and funding a union they oppose, but also because when dues are fully voluntary union officials must prove their worth to workers before earning their financial support,” Mix added.
Freight Company Worker Wins More Than $10,500 for Being Illegally Fired for Not Joining Teamsters Union
Back pay award ends case against employer, federal charge against union for instigating illegal termination still under NLRB investigation
Jackson, MN (August 25, 2022) – Jannie Potgieter, who was a freight employee at industrial park USF Holland in Jackson, Minnesota, filed federal charges against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 120 union and his employer in May for illegally terminating him for exercising his right not be a union member. Now Mr. Potgieter has received approximately $10,512 in back pay from USF Holland in exchange for dropping the charge against the company. The charge against the union for union officials’ role in the illegal termination is still pending.
Mr. Potgieter’s charges were filed on May 27, 2022, at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 18 with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Fountain staff attorneys. The charges stated that on May 18, 2022, a USF Holland manager fired Mr. Potgieter because he exercised his rights under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1988) U.S. Supreme Court precedent not to join the union.
In the non-NLRB settlement with USF Holland, Mr. Potgieter agreed to withdraw his unfair labor charge in exchange for the back pay plus employer-provided training for management about workers’ Beck rights and a prohibition on firing workers who refuse to join a union. The NLRB Regional Director approved the settlement, but continues to investigate the charge against Teamsters Local 120.
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for private sector employees, unions can force them to pay union fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, under Beck, a U.S. Supreme Court decision won by Foundation staff attorneys, formal union membership cannot be required, nor can payment of the part of dues used for non-bargaining expenditures like union political activities. In contrast, in the 27 states with Right to Work protections, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
“Mr. Potgieter’s illegal firing for exercising his basic rights shows why Minnesota workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to ensure all union membership and financial support is strictly voluntary,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re glad USF Holland has belatedly taken responsibility for its role, union bullies must also be held accountable for instigating this blatantly illegal firing.”
“With Labor Day right around the corner, this case serves as a reminder that being pro-worker must mean rejecting compulsion and allowing each and every working American the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to spend their hard-earned paycheck on union dues,” added Mix.
National Employee Freedom Week: Time to Build on Janus by Ending Injustice of Forced Union Monopoly ‘Representation’
Foundation’s 2018 Supreme Court victory protects public workers’ right not to fund union they oppose, but union officials can still ‘speak for’ dissident workers
Washington, DC (August 19, 2022) – National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement in recognition of National Employee Freedom Week:
“On this week, we remind all independent-minded American educators and public sector workers that the First Amendment forbids union officials from getting employees fired merely for refusal to join or fund a union that pushes divisive politics, negotiates lousy contracts, or simply acts against worker interests.
“However, while the Foundation’s 2018 Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME protects public workers’ ability to stop subsidizing union activities they oppose, much more needs to be done to fully defend these employees’ free association rights. Public sector union officials in the vast majority of states still wield government-granted monopoly ‘representation’ power over workers who don’t want and never asked for a union, and the Foundation is currently fighting alongside workers who oppose their voices being stifled by this coercive, unconstitutional privilege.”
National Employee Freedom Week is dedicated to educating American public teachers and other public sector employees that they have a right to refuse to fund or join unions in their workplace that do not serve their interests. Public employees are also advised this week that, although union bosses don’t want them to know it, many non-union voluntary options exist to provide liability insurance and other benefits that union officials tout as a reason to join a union, even though union membership means paying for union political activities that many workers oppose. In fact, many non-union options for liability insurance, especially for teachers, provide better coverage than union options at far less cost to teachers.
In the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys, the Justices ruled that public employees have a First Amendment right to cut off dues to an unwanted union, and also recognized that union dues could only be deducted from a public sector employee’s paycheck with their explicit consent. Even today, many union officials refuse to abide by this limit on their coercive power, resulting in numerous ongoing lawsuits by Foundation staff attorneys seeking to enforce workers’ Janus rights.
In the Janus decision, Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the majority, additionally explained that union monopoly “representation” power in the public sector is “a significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts,” perhaps indicating an interest from the High Court in striking down this coercive privilege in the future.
