19 Oct 2022

Burlington Gold Bond Building Products Employees Decisively Vote Out Steelworkers Union Bosses

Posted in News Releases

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.

17 Oct 2022

National Right to Work Foundation Submits Comments Opposing Biden Rule to Give Unions Control Over Taxpayer-Funded Contracts

Posted in News Releases

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.”

12 Oct 2022

Oil Refinery Employee Wins Back Illegally Seized Union Dues

Posted in News Releases

Case continues as employee challenges unlawful provision in United Steelworkers union contract

Anacortes, WA (October 12, 2022) – After filing federal charges against the United Steelworkers (USW) Local 12-591 union and his employer, HF Sinclair employee, Dustin Hoffman recovered illegally deducted union fees from his paycheck.

In March, Mr. Hoffman asked HF Sinclair to stop the union dues deduction from his paycheck. After HF Sinclair received Mr. Hoffman’s revocation, it complied with his request. On June 7, Mr. Hoffman exercised his legal right to resign his membership from the United Steelworkers union. Later that month, HF Sinclair resumed the deduction of dues from Mr. Hoffman’s paycheck without his consent—a blatant violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

Not only does the union contract between HF Sinclair and the United Steelworkers indicate only union members are required to pay dues, it also contains an unlawful provision restricting when employees can resign their membership.

Even though he has received back the money taken from him, Mr. Hoffman continues to challenge United Steelworkers union officials with the aid of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Because union officials refuse to admit wrongdoing, Mr. Hoffman is pushing for removal of the illegal provision restricting the right to resign membership in the union, and a notice to be posted to notify his coworkers that may not be aware of their rights.

“Although the dues were returned to me, union officials admitted no fault and offered no apology for their unethical behavior,” Mr. Hoffman remarked. “They should remove the illegal provision in the CBA [union contract] so this does not happen again to my fellow coworkers.”

Because Washington is not a Right to Work state, union-imposed contracts can include mandatory union dues or fees, with nonmember workers fired if they do not pay. However, it is unlawful to restrict when employees can resign union membership. Further, the USW contract at issue did not contain a valid forced-dues clause, only the illegal restriction on resigning from the union.

“We’re glad to see Mr. Hoffman has succeeded in challenging United Steelworkers and HF Sinclair for illegally seizing his dues,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As this situation shows, greedy union officials often illegally seize money from a worker’s pockets, despite what the law says.”

“Foundation staff attorneys will continue to aid Mr. Hoffman as he continues to help his coworkers make sure they know how to exercise their rights to cut off unwanted union dues,” Mix added.

7 Oct 2022

Lexington-Area Leggett & Platt Employees Officially Free from Unpopular IAM Union after Six-Year Legal Battle

Posted in News Releases

Employee submitted majority-backed petition seeking ouster of union in accordance with federal Labor Board standards, but IAM officials fought it for years

Lexington, KY (October 7, 2022) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Keith Purvis and his coworkers at furniture manufacturer Leggett & Platt have finally formally freed themselves from the control of unwanted International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials. Purvis and his coworkers have been fighting since 2016 to exercise their right to remove the union.

The victory comes after a DC Circuit Court decision reversed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and found that, under the Foundation-won Johnson Controls case, NLRB bureaucrats had arbitrarily allowed IAM union bosses to remain in power at the facility despite a petition showing a majority of workers wanted them gone. Following that DC Circuit decision, the NLRB finally confirmed that IAM union officials are no longer the bargaining “representatives” at Purvis’ workplace.

In the 2019 Johnson Controls decision, the NLRB established an employer’s power to cease recognition of a union in a workplace once the current monopoly bargaining agreement expires, provided employees have submitted a petition indicating the majority of them do not wish to be “represented” by the union. If union officials dispute their loss of majority support, the issue is resolved by a secret-ballot election among workers on whether the union should remain in power.

The Johnson Controls process is a marked improvement over the old standard, in which union officials could unilaterally invalidate a petition showing the majority of workers rejected the union by submitting “union cards” or other documentation purportedly showing the union had regained majority status. Before Johnson Controls, secret-ballot elections were generally not conducted to resolve these disputes, despite courts affirming that such elections are the best gauge of employee approval.

Even After Two Petitions for Union’s Ouster, Union Bosses Tried to Force Themselves Back into Facility

In 2016, Purvis submitted to Leggett & Platt management the first of two “decertification petitions,” which demonstrated a majority of his coworkers wanted the union removed from the facility. In response, his employer announced that it would stop recognizing IAM union officials on March 1, 2017. However, IAM union bosses filed charges with the NLRB immediately after, alleging that Leggett & Platt management’s withdrawal of recognition at employees’ behest was unlawful. Undeterred, Purvis gathered signatures for and submitted a second decertification petition, this time seeking a secret-ballot election conducted by the NLRB.

While litigation over union officials’ charges was pending before the DC Circuit Court in 2019, the NLRB issued the Johnson Controls decision. The DC Circuit Court sent the case back to the NLRB, ostensibly because Johnson Controls meant Leggett & Platt had acted lawfully by anticipatorily withdrawing recognition from the union when presented with a majority of employee signatures seeking that outcome.

The NLRB refused to apply the Johnson Controls standard to the case, but, when the case came before the DC Circuit Court again on appeal, the DC Circuit ruled that the NLRB’s refusal to do so was “arbitrary and capricious.” Finally, as September 2022 ended, the NLRB issued a decision confirming the IAM was no longer the majority representative, and IAM officials could not use litigation to foist monopoly bargaining power over the facility.

American Workers Increasingly Giving Boot to Unpopular Unions

Purvis and his coworkers’ successful exercise of their right to boot the unpopular IAM bosses comes as private sector workers across the country are increasingly moving to get rid of union officials that don’t serve their interests. The NLRB’s own data show that, currently, a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as the average nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.

“No worker in America should be subjected to union control that they oppose, and the Foundation-won Johnson Controls NLRB decision safeguards a vital pathway for workers to exercise their free choice rights in that regard,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, as was the case with Mr. Purvis’ effort, union bosses and Big Labor allies at the NLRB continuously try to pare back this decision so union officials can maintain their grip on workplaces even when it’s obvious workers want them gone.”

“We’re glad Mr. Purvis and his coworkers are finally free of the union and we were proud to assist him,” Mix added.

2 Oct 2022

Slot Machine Technicians Appeal Outrageous Decision Denying Decertification Vote

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

NLRB Regional Director stacks deck against Las Vegas employees opposed to union affiliation

 

Despite massive opposition from rank-and-file casino workers including protests outside union headquarters, biased NLRB rulings keep workers trapped in union ranks.

LAS VEGAS, NV – Red Rock Casino slot machine technician Jereme Barrios has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to reverse an NLRB Region’s decision that blocks his and his coworkers’ right to vote out a union that a large majority of them have already expressed interest in removing. Barrios is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

In March, Barrios submitted a majority-backed petition to NLRB Region 28, asking the agency to conduct a union “decertification vote” amongst his fellow slot technicians on whether to kick out International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 501 officials.

Foundation Attorneys Excoriate Decision: ‘a Scattershot Mess’

However, the Region did not schedule the vote as Barrios and his coworkers had asked. NLRB Region 28 Director Cornele Overstreet instead ruled in April that largely unverified and unrelated allegations (also called “blocking charges”) union officials had made against the management of Station Casinos, Red Rock’s parent company, blocked the technicians from exercising their right to vote whether to remove the union.

Barrios’ Request for Review argues that the Region’s decision is unfounded, and requests that the NLRB in Washington, DC, reverse it and allow them to have an immediate decertification vote.

Barrios’ Request for Review begins by explaining that, even if any of the union’s “blocking charges” have merit, the NLRB Regional Director was ignoring Foundation-backed reforms in the rules regarding “blocking charges” that the NLRB formally adopted in 2020.

The reforms generally prevent union “blocking charges” from stalling an employee vote. Nevertheless, “The Regional Director ignored the current Election Rules and even refused to cite them,” Barrios’ Request for Review says.

But Barrios’ Foundation-provided attorneys go even deeper and show that many of the IUOE union officials’ allegations against casino management would not even be sufficient to block a vote under the old rules, primarily because they deal with workplace units other than Barrios’.

By that logic, “any employer’s unfair labor practice could block any decertification in any of its other units, no matter how remote,” Foundation staff attorneys argue.

The remaining union “blocking charges,” including an allegation that Red Rock management did not bargain over COVID-19 protections, either do not reveal actual violations of federal labor law by Red Rock management or have no causal connection to Barrios and his colleagues’ desire to remove the union.

More Workers Battle Unpopular Unions and Biased NLRB with Foundation Help

The slot techs’ effort comes as Red Rock hospitality and foodservice staff, led by Foundation-backed employee Raynell Teske, are battling an order from a federal district court judge that forces them under the “representation” of Culinary Union bosses. That order was issued despite the fact that a majority of the hospitality and foodservice employees voted in a secret-ballot election to reject Culinary Union officials’ effort to install themselves at the casino.

Foundation-represented Palms Casino engineering worker Thomas Stallings is also in a situation similar to Barrios’. Stallings and his coworkers are fighting another decision from NLRB Regional Director Overstreet that traps them under the monopoly control of unpopular IUOE and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) officials, merely on the basis of “blocking charges” having little if anything to do with Stallings’ work unit.

Independent-Minded Workers Showing Courage in Face of Coercion

“Las Vegas is now where regional NLRB officials have, in multiple instances, reflexively sided with union boss requests to remain in power at workplaces in which a clear majority of workers want the union gone,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “Las Vegas is indeed ‘Sin City,’ if the sin is disrespecting workers’ fundamental right to choose freely whether or not union bosses should speak for them.”

“Foundation attorneys are proud to stand by these courageous workers, who are fighting not only union coercion but an NLRB Regional Director seemingly determined to undermine the rights of workers opposed to union affiliation,” LaJeunesse added.

1 Oct 2022
30 Sep 2022

South Jersey Bus Drivers Challenge Dues Trap Scheme in New Janus Lawsuit

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Union officials concocted policy to stop drivers from ending union dues deductions

Tyron Foxworth

Tyron Foxworth followed union instructions to the letter when he tried to cut off IFPTE union dues late last year — but union bosses continued taking a cut of his pay.

CAMDEN, NJ – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys continue to defend the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision, helping workers across the country in fighting union boss schemes that restrict when public employees can exercise their right to cut off dues to a union they oppose.

Foundation attorneys are now aiding a group of drivers for the South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) who are facing a particularly egregious example of union bosses’ resistance to the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling. According to the suit filed in May, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) union bosses are refusing to stop dues seizures — overtly violating the provisions of the union cards workers signed when they initially authorized the dues.

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 recognized that union officials can only deduct dues from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.

In their federal civil rights lawsuit, SJTA drivers Tyron Foxworth, Doris Hamilton, Karen Burdett, Karen Hairston, Ted Lively, Arlene Gibson, and Stanley Burke assert that IFPTE union officials violated their Janus rights by seizing dues from their paychecks after their dues deduction revocations should have been effective.

The drivers’ lawsuit says they signed forms indicating they could ask that dues deductions stop, but that such requests would not be effective until either the January or July following the request. The suit notes that currently union officials are ignoring those terms of the dues deduction cards and continue to deduct money despite the drivers’ objections.

IFPTE Union Siphoned Dues in Contradiction to Signed Documents

All of the plaintiffs submitted letters to SJTA officials between October and November 2021 requesting that IFPTE dues deductions cease. They expected the deductions to stop in January 2022, as the cards they signed provided. But, the lawsuit notes, “each Plaintiff had union dues seized from their wages after January 1, 2022 despite providing a notice of withdrawal prior to that date.”

The IFPTE’s monopoly bargaining contract with SJTA restricts workers’ dues revocation requests to only July, clearly at odds with the cards the drivers signed. Union officials never informed the drivers of this restriction or asked for their consent to it.

“These South Jersey Transportation Authority drivers are just the latest in a long line of Foundation-backed public workers who have discovered, after trying to dissociate from an unwanted union, that union officials brazenly locked them in restrictive dues schemes without even a whiff of consent,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix told Politico after the suit’s filing.

Foundation attorneys argue in Foxworth and his colleagues’ lawsuit that IFPTE union officials, by taking union dues after January 1, 2022, without the workers’ consent, “violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free speech and association.” The drivers seek a judgment making union officials permanently stop deducting dues from their wages, and return all dues already taken from their paychecks illegally.

Drivers Demand Return of Dues Union Seized Unconstitutionally

“IFPTE officials clearly value union dues revenue more than the rights of the workers they claim to ‘represent.’ Not only are those officials rebuffing clear notice from workers that they no longer want to support the union’s activities, but they’re enforcing a restrictive dues policy about which workers had absolutely no knowledge,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.

“Janus was unambiguous: A worker’s affirmative consent is required for any kind of dues deductions to occur, and that standard was clearly not met here.”

 

29 Sep 2022

Foundation Client Wins $5.1 Million Verdict After Union Boss-Instigated Firing

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here

Trial exposed emails advocating ‘targeted assassinations’ of union critics

Southwest Airlines Flight Attendant Charlene Carter

Charlene Carter on her Foundation-won trial victory: “I am so humbled and thankful for today’s decision and for everyone who’s supported me these past five years.”

DALLAS, TX – Ex-Southwest Airlines flight attendant Charlene Carter prevailed in a federal jury trial in her lawsuit against the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556 union and Southwest. She charged both the company and union with illegally firing her for opposing the political activities of the union hierarchy, and with discriminating against her religious beliefs. Carter received free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas awarded Carter $5.1 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages against TWU and Southwest for their respective roles in her unlawful termination.

“Today is a victory for freedom of speech and religious beliefs. Flight attendants should have a voice and nobody should be able to retaliate against any employee for engaging in protected speech against her union,” said Carter reacting to the victory.

Flight Attendant Called Out Union Officials for Their Political Activities

Carter resigned from union membership in 2013 but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. The Railway Labor Act (RLA), the federal law that governs labor relations in the air and rail industries, permits the firing of employees for refusal to pay dues and preempts the protections that state Right to Work laws provide.

However, the RLA does protect employees’ rights to remain non-members of the union, to speak out against the union and its “leadership,” and to advocate for changing the union’s current “leadership.”

In January 2017, Carter, a pro-life Christian, learned that then-TWU Local 556 President Audrey Stone and other Local 556 officials used union dues to attend a political rally in Washington, D.C., which was sponsored by activist groups she deeply opposed, including Planned Parenthood.

Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, sent private Facebook messages to Stone challenging the union’s support for political positions that were contrary to Carter’s beliefs, and expressing support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message emphasizing her commitment to a National Right to Work law after the union had sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.

After a meeting at which Southwest officials confronted Carter about her posts protesting union officials’ positions, the company fired Carter. In 2017 Carter filed her federal lawsuit, challenging the firing as a clear violation of her rights under two federal laws. She maintained that she lost her job because of her religious beliefs, standing up to TWU Local 556 officials, and criticizing the union’s political activities and how it spent employees’ dues and fees.

Ultimately, concluding an 8-day July trial, the federal jury agreed with Carter and her Foundation staff attorneys. In its verdict, the jury found in favor of Carter on all counts of the lawsuit, while awarding Carter $950,000 in damages against the TWU union local and more than $4 million in damages against Southwest.

Union Zealot Advocated ‘Targeted Assassinations” of Union Dissidents

In email communications unearthed and introduced at trial by Foundation staff attorneys, TWU union militants advocated for “targeted assassinations” of union dissidents and mocked Carter for being unable to stop her money from going toward union-backed causes she opposed.

Carter’s Foundation-backed lawsuit also revealed ugly examples of the hostility TWU officials and activists had for workers like Carter who spoke out against the incumbent union hierarchy. Foundation staff attorneys are preparing to counter already-announced appeals by both Southwest and TWU.

“This long-awaited verdict vindicates Ms. Carter’s fundamental right to dissent from the causes and ideas that TWU union officials support while forcing workers to bankroll that agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Verdicts like this show not only that one brave worker standing up to union bullies can make a difference, but also send a message to union bosses that their unlawful tactics will not go unpunished or unchallenged.”

28 Sep 2022

Flight Attendant Battling Religious Discrimination Beats Union Attempt to End Case

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2022 edition. Read here about how flight attendant Charlene Carter eventually won a jury verdict for $5.1 million. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Judge rules flight attendant’s case against union & airline should proceed to trial

Case Cleared for Takeoff: Charlene Carter’s lawsuit against TWU union bosses for firing her over her religious beliefs and support for Right to Work is now going to trial.

DALLAS, TX – On May 5, a federal judge ruled that former Southwest Airlines flight attendant Charlene Carter’s case charging Transportation Workers Union (TWU) officials and Southwest management with firing her illegally because of her exercise of her religious beliefs will continue at the U.S. District Court in Dallas. In doing so, the judge rejected requests from TWU and Southwest that they be granted an early victory in the case.

The judge tossed arguments from Southwest Airlines lawyers that Carter lacks a “private right of action” to enforce her rights under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and its arguments that her case concerned only a “minor” dispute over interpretation of the union contract, which is outside the District Court’s jurisdiction.

He also rejected TWU’s and Southwest’s contentions that an arbitrator’s findings in a grievance under their monopoly bargaining agreement should control the claims in this case.

Flight Attendant Called Out Union Officials for Their Political Activities

As a Southwest employee, Carter joined TWU Local 556 in September 1996. A pro-life Christian, she resigned from union membership in September 2013 after learning that her union dues were being used to promote causes that violate her sincerely held religious beliefs.

Although Carter resigned from union membership, she was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. State Right to Work laws do not protect her from forced union fees because airline and railway employees are covered by the RLA.

The RLA allows union officials to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. But it also protects employees’ rights to remain non-members of the union, to criticize the union and its leadership, and advocate for changing the union’s current leadership or removing the union altogether.

Carter sent TWU Local 556 President Audrey Stone Facebook messages sharply criticizing the union and its officials upon learning that they had used union dues to support political causes and events she opposed. The Court’s ruling noted that forced fees from objecting workers like Carter were used to fund such activities.

Carter took to social media to challenge Stone’s leadership and to express support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter sent Stone messages affirming her commitment to both the recall effort and her support for a National Right to Work law after the union had emailed employees urging them to oppose Right to Work.

Carter was notified by Southwest managers that they needed to have a mandatory meeting as soon as possible about her personal “Facebook posts they had seen.” During this meeting, Southwest interrogated Carter about her posts and messages, as well as her Facebook messages to Stone opposing the union’s activities.

Carter explained her religious beliefs and opposition to the union’s political activities — opposition protected by the RLA. However, a week after this meeting, Southwest fired Carter.

In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit with help from Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the firing as an abuse of her rights. Her suit asserts she lost her job because of her religious beliefs, her opposition to TWU Local 556 officials, and criticism of the union’s political activities and spending of employees’ dues and fees.

Federal Judge Rebuffs Union and Airline Attempts to End Case Early

“[H]aving determined that Carter has a private right of action under [the RLA] and that this case concerns a major dispute,” the federal judge assigned to the case ruled that genuine disputes of material fact exist and the case must proceed to trial.

“This decision is an important step towards long overdue justice for Charlene. The ruling rejects several attempts by Southwest and union officials to deny Ms. Carter’s right to bring this case in federal court to enforce her federally protected speech and association rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse.

23 Sep 2022

Sacramento-area Pine Creek Care Center Nurses Overwhelmingly Vote to Oust Unwanted Teamsters Union

Posted in News Releases

Federal labor board data show that workers across the country are increasingly likely to be involved in efforts to remove unions from workplaces

Sacramento, CA (September 23, 2022) – Seron Chand and her fellow nurses at Pine Creek Care Center, a Roseville nursing and rehabilitation facility, successfully exercised their right to vote unwanted Teamsters Local 150 union bosses out of their workplace. Chand obtained free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who aided her in filing a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to conduct a vote to remove the union (also known as a “decertification vote”).

The NLRB’s election certification showed more than 70% of the nurses voted to scrap the union. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law, which includes holding employee votes to either remove or install a union in a workplace.

Chand and her colleagues benefitted from Foundation-backed reforms adopted by the NLRB in 2020, which make it easier for workers to exercise their right to boot unwanted union officials. Before the reforms, union officials could stop workers who had requested a decertification vote from casting a single ballot 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 California lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, Chand and her fellow nurses were forced not only to accept the so-called “representation” of the clearly unpopular Teamsters union, but were required to subsidize union activities financially just to keep their jobs. In Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.

Pine Creek Nurses Join Nurses Across the Country Who Have Cut Ties with Unpopular Unions

Just a month before Chand and her colleagues’ successful decertification vote, Foundation attorneys aided nurses at Mayo Clinic in Mankato, Minnesota, in their successful effort to throw out the unpopular Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union from their workplace. About the same time, nurses from the St. James, Minnesota, branch of Mayo Clinic voted to decertify American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 65 union officials by a nearly 9-to-1 margin, also with Foundation legal assistance.

In California, Foundation-backed nurses at Monterey’s Cypress Ridge Care Center voted to remove Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015 officials a few months ago.

The increase in efforts by workers to free themselves from unions they do not want is not limited to nurses. The NLRB’s own data show that, currently, a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as the average nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.

“Big Labor is claiming that worker support for unions is soaring – a narrative that they will use ahead of midterm elections to convince their political allies to grant them even more coercive legal powers over rank-and-file workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, the NLRB’s own stats concerning unionization, as well as a spike in workers seeking Foundation aid in kicking out unwanted union officials, show that the real story is that workers are rejecting the increasingly politicized and coercive ‘representation’ today’s union officials are offering.”