Workers Nationwide Urge Supreme Court to Take Cases Defending First Amendment Right to Refuse Union Support
Petitions from public servants challenge union boss-created “escape periods” that limit right to cut off dues deductions to just a few days each year
Washington, DC (October 25, 2021) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys today filed petitions asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear several cases from rank-and-file government employees across the country. The cases challenge union-created schemes that violate public workers’ First Amendment rights by stopping them from cutting off financial support to unions of which they disapprove.
A joint petition, which covers four cases brought by California and Oregon public servants, and another petition combining two cases brought by Alaska government employees, now join two already-pending Foundation-backed petitions in cases that attack similar arrangements in other states.
The petition for the four Oregon and California cases was filed by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in partnership with attorneys from the Freedom Foundation. The Freedom Foundation jointly represents workers in three of the four cases along with Foundation staff attorneys. The Alaska state employees’ petition was filed jointly by Foundation staff attorneys who represent Vocational Instructor Christopher Woods in his case against the Alaska State Employee Association (ASEA) union, and attorneys for the Liberty Justice Center and Alaska Policy Forum, who represent two Alaska workers in a separate case also against the ASEA.
The other pending National Right to Work Foundation cases are those of Chicago Public Schools educators Joanne Troesch and Ifeoma Nkemdi, and Monmouth County, New Jersey, educators Susan Fischer and Catherine Speck. Both the Chicago and New Jersey cases are slated to be considered during the High Court’s Friday, October 29 conference, with a decision on whether the cases will be taken up likely soon after.
The newly filed petitions seek to defend the First Amendment Janus rights of public servants following Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions which allow union officials to continue limiting those rights. In the 2018 Foundation-argued Janus v. AFSCME case, the High Court recognized that the First Amendment protects public sector workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees. The Justices further ruled that a public worker’s affirmative waiver of that right is needed before any union payments are deducted from his or her paycheck.
The Supreme Court reasoned that, because all public sector union activities involve redressing government, forcing any public worker into funding union activities against his or her will counts as forced political speech forbidden by the First Amendment.
Each of the cases brought before the court now challenges a union boss-created “escape period” scheme. “Escape periods” limit to just a few days every year the time in which public servants can exercise their Janus right to end union dues deductions. Often, public workers whom union officials never informed about Janus rights in the first place try to cut off support to an unwanted union, only to be told by state officials that, per the “escape period,” they must endure another year or more of union dues being siphoned from their paychecks.
The majority of these cases are class action lawsuits, and thus seek to reclaim for both petitioners and their coworkers money union bosses seized from their paychecks after they resigned union membership and tried to exercise Janus rights.
The elimination of unconstitutional “escape periods” already has the backing of 16 state attorneys general across the country. Led by Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor, attorneys general from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia filed an amicus brief in July backing the Chicago educators’ case. Separately Taylor is defending an Alaska Executive Order, currently enjoined in state court, that seeks to proactively defend government workers’ Janus rights by requiring annual confirmation of each employee’s consent to make union dues payments prior to the deduction of union dues from their paychecks.
“Many of these public servants disagree with the ever-increasing left-wing union positions, such as defunding the police or teaching critical race theory in elementary schools, or did not realize they had the option never to join in the first place,” commented Freedom Foundation Chief Litigation Counsel Eric Stahlfeld. “It is unconscionable for the unions to continue taking money to promote their objectionable speech and political objectives.”
“All over the country, American public workers are making it clear that they will not stand by while union bosses and their allies in government play deceptive games with their First Amendment Janus rights, just so they can fill union coffers with more money from dissenting workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This message should now be overwhelmingly evident to the Supreme Court, which now has an opportunity to rectify lower courts’ gross misinterpretations of Janus, and clarify that public workers’ First Amendment rights can’t be limited to arbitrary windows created by union bosses or their political allies designed to undermine workers’ rights as recognized in the Janus decision.”
Sixteen States Back Foundation’s Petition to High Court in Chicago Educator Case
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Amicus brief: Unions “refuse to stop collecting dues despite unequivocal employee demands”
“Janus has been ignored,” wrote sixteen attorneys general in their amicus brief supporting Ifeoma Nkemdi and Joanne Troesch’s petition pressing the Supreme Court to hear their case and declare “escape periods” a First Amendment violation.
WASHINGTON, DC – In July, sixteen attorneys general threw the support of their states behind Chicago Public Schools educators Ifeoma Nkemdi and Joanne Troesch, who are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case defending their First Amendment right to cut off union financial support as recognized in the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision.
In an amicus brief encouraging the High Court to hear the case, attorneys general from Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia argue that “escape period” restrictions like the one that Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) bosses foisted on Troesch and Nkemdi are a widespread threat to public employees’ rights under the Janus Supreme Court decision.
In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that public employees’ First Amendment rights are violated when they are forced to fund a union as a condition of employment. The Court also held that union dues can only be taken from a public employee with an affirmative and knowing waiver of that employee’s First Amendment right not to pay.
Unions Are Seizing Money from ‘Tens of Thousands’ Unconstitutionally, Brief Says
The CTU-concocted “escape period” Nkemdi and Troesch are challenging blocks employees from exercising their First Amendment Janus right to end union financial support except during one month per year. The educators’ petition for writ of certiorari presses the High Court to hear their case to affirm that Janus does not permit union bosses to profit from schemes that constrict workers’ constitutional right to refrain from subsidizing a union.
The states’ amicus brief emphasizes how glaringly union officials have flouted Janus with restrictions, as well as how widespread the schemes are: “Janus has been ignored. Across the country public-sector unions have resisted Janus’s instructions and devised new ways to compel state employees to subsidize union speech. Unions place onerous terms on dues forms that prohibit state employees from opting out of paying dues except during narrow (and undisclosed) windows during the year.”
The brief continues: “Unions refuse to inform state employees that they have a First Amendment right not to pay union dues. And unions refuse to stop collecting dues despite unequivocal employee demands. The result is that tens of thousands of state employees across the country are having dues deducted to subsidize union speech without any evidence that they waived their First Amendment rights . . . .”
Nkemdi and Troesch’s case “implicates these precise concerns” and the Court must hear it, the brief maintains.
In addition to the states’ brief, policy groups Goldwater Institute, Cato Institute, Freedom Foundation, and Liberty Justice Center filed amicus briefs backing the case.
Justices May Already Be Showing Interest in Foundation-Backed Case
In late July, the Supreme Court ordered lawyers for CTU and the Chicago Board of Education to file a response brief to Troesch and Nkemdi’s petition, a signal that some Justices may be interested in taking up the case.
Also pending at the High Court is Foundation attorneys’ anti- “escape-period” case for Susan Fischer and Jeanette Speck, two New Jersey teachers. Both that case and Troesch and Nkemdi’s case are expected to be fully briefed in October, after which the Justices will decide whether to take them.
“As union bosses continue to use deceptive ‘escape period’ arrangements to keep worker money flowing unconstitutionally into their coffers, support continues to roll in from across the country for Troesch and Nkemdi, who are sticking up for independent-minded public servants who simply want to serve their communities without being forced to fund union activities,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The High Court must weigh in to affirm that public workers’ First Amendment rights cannot be confined to union officials’ arbitrary schedules.”
Los Angeles XPO Logistics Employees Free of Unwanted Teamsters Union After Requesting Vote for Removal
Workers were previously barred for one year from exercising right to vote out union due to union boss-friendly restrictions created by National Labor Relations Board
Los Angeles, CA (October 20, 2021) – Ozvaldo Gutierrez and his coworkers at XPO Logistics’ Fashion District-area facility in Los Angeles have successfully forced Teamsters Local 63 union officials out of their workplace. Following Gutierrez’s submission of a petition bearing enough employee signatures to prompt the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to administer a vote to remove the union at the facility (or “decertification vote”), Teamsters officials backed down rather than face a vote of employees and disclaimed interest in continuing their control over the workers.
Gutierrez and his coworkers received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys in their effort to remove the unwanted union. Teamsters Local 63 bosses’ departure from XPO comes amid a spurt of Foundation-backed employee legal actions opposing coercive behavior by Teamsters officials across Southern California.
Long Beach-area Savage Services employee Nelson Medina filed federal charges just weeks ago against Teamsters Local 848, maintaining that union bosses threatened to have him fired for refusing to join the union and pay various fees demanded by union officials. Medina is also leading an employee effort opposing Local 848’s presence in his facility, asserting union officials engaged in illegal ballot harvesting to gain power in the workplace.
In Ventura last month, Teamsters Local 848 bosses were also forced to depart Airgas worker Angel Herrera’s workplace after he and his coworkers filed a petition for an NLRB-administered vote to remove the union from the workplace. Herrera’s colleagues had been involved in litigation against Local 848 officials since 2020, and filed at least two different majority-backed employee petitions seeking the end of Local 848’s monopoly bargaining power.
Gutierrez and his coworkers on August 20, 2021 filed with the NLRB their petition seeking an election to decertify Teamsters Local 63. While the petition demonstrated sufficient employee support to trigger such a vote, Teamsters officials claimed in an opposition that a March 2020 settlement meant to kick off bargaining talks between them and XPO Logistics management should have prevented any such election.
Teamsters officials were trying to manipulate the “settlement bar,” a non-statutory NLRB precedent that restrains workers’ right to vote out unpopular union officials for up to a year while an employer and union officials attempt to bargain as ordered by a settlement. Foundation attorneys representing Gutierrez argued that a year had already passed between the first bargaining session between management and union bosses and Gutierrez’s filing of the petition, and that the union was wrong in claiming that delays in bargaining talks should have extended the “settlement bar” past the one-year mark.
The Regional Director of NLRB Region 21 in Los Angeles issued a decision on October 6 ordering that Gutierrez’s requested vote go forward, declaring that “a reasonable period has elapsed and that the settlement does not bar the processing of the instant petition.” The vote was slated for October 21, but on October 18 Teamsters Local 63 officials tapped out and announced they were abandoning the facility. The NLRB revoked the union’s certification the next day.
“We are happy that Mr. Gutierrez and his coworkers are finally free from unwanted Teamsters ‘representation’ and that we were able to help him and his coworkers defend their rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, workers should not have to obtain legal aid and endure months or even years of litigation just to exercise their right to dispense with unpopular union bosses. The flurry of similar cases involving Teamsters officials around Southern California is a growing cause for concern.”
“Any employees in California or elsewhere seeking to oust unwanted Teamsters officials from their workplaces should not hesitate to contact the Foundation for free legal aid,” Mix added.
Lawsuits Challenging Union Dues Schemes for Illinois, New Jersey Teachers Fully Briefed at Supreme Court & Distributed for Conference
Two lawsuits ask Court to eliminate ‘escape period’ schemes that restrict when workers can cut off union dues as violative of Court’s Janus precedent
Washington, DC (October 14, 2021) – Two class action lawsuits challenging “escape period” schemes imposed by union officials on public sector employees are fully briefed at the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuits were brought by public school educators in Illinois and New Jersey with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Yesterday Foundation attorneys filed their final briefs, and both cases were scheduled for consideration at the Court’s October 29th conference.
Chicago Public Schools educators Joanne Troesch and Ifeoma Nkemdi sued the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and the Chicago Board of Education over a union boss-created “escape period” scheme that blocks workers from exercising their right to terminate union dues deductions from their paychecks outside the month of August. New Jersey teachers Susan Fischer and Jeanette Speck sued the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) union for restricting when teachers can stop dues deductions and challenged a New Jersey statute that restricts the exercise of employees’ Janus rights to just 10 days, less than 3% of the year.
The Supreme Court ruled in its 2018 Janus decision that employees of state and local governments cannot be forced to pay union dues or fees, and that government workers must affirmatively consent before union dues are taken from their paychecks.
In Nkemdi and Troesch’s lawsuit, the Chicago educators explain they “did not know they had a constitutional right not to financially support” the union hierarchy until the fall of 2019, when they discovered their Janus rights while looking for information on how to continue working during a strike that CTU bosses ordered that October. They sent letters the same month to CTU officials to exercise their Janus right to resign union membership and cut off all dues deductions.
Both educators received no response until November of that year, when CTU officials confirmed receipt of the letters but said that they would continue to seize dues from the teachers’ paychecks “until September 1, 2020,” as allowed by the union’s “escape period” scheme. Troesch and Nkemdi demanded in their lawsuit that CTU union officials and the Board of Education stop enforcing the “escape period,” notify all bargaining unit employees that they can end dues deductions any time, and permit bargaining unit employees to claim back dues that were seized without their consent. Troesch and Nkemdi’s petition for Supreme Court review received amicus support from 16 state Attorneys General and seven public policy groups.
Fischer and Speck, who both worked in Ocean Township, NJ, attempted to exercise their Janus rights in July 2018, just a month after the High Court handed down the Janus decision. But Township officials told the teachers they could only stop payments and withdraw their memberships during an annual 10-day window. Unbeknownst to them, union partisans in the New Jersey legislature had actually established that “escape period” by law in May 2018 in an apparent attempt to undermine the pending Janus decision.
Fischer and Speck’s suit argued that because the Janus ruling affirmed public employees’ First Amendment right not to financially support union activities, the New Jersey law is unconstitutional and must be nixed. In addition to eliminating the “escape period” scheme, they seek a refund of membership dues for themselves and all other public employees who were blocked by NJEA officials from stopping dues deductions following Janus.
“Union-created ‘escape periods’ are a deliberate attack on the First Amendment right of public employees to stop funding government union bosses’ speech which was recognized in the Supreme Court’s Janus decision,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Escape periods are one of the many ways union bosses try to keep workers paying dues without the trouble of attracting their voluntary support. The Supreme Court should take up this issue and end these widespread schemes to circumvent the Court’s Janus decision.”
Attorney for Oregon Cameraman Who Beat CWA Union Bosses in Dues Dispute Says Labor Board General Counsel Must Recuse
With union lawyers asking for reconsideration of NLRB decision, worker’s attorney points out conflict of interest created by GC Abruzzo’s work as CWA counsel
Washington, DC (October 13, 2021) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorney representing Portland, OR, cameraman Jeremy Brown just submitted a letter to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel (GC) Jennifer Abruzzo, demanding that she be recused from any involvement in his case. Brown’s case, which the NLRB decided in August, successfully challenged several illegal actions by National Association of Broadcast and Entertainment Technicians-Communications Workers of America (NABET-CWA) union operatives, including its attorney.
The letter points out that Abruzzo, immediately prior to her appointment by President Biden as NLRB GC, “served as CWA’s ‘special counsel for strategic initiatives’” and “acted as that union’s ‘point person on National Labor Relations Board issues at’” the CWA’s headquarters in Washington, DC. Because Brown’s case concerns CWA’s international policy forcing workers like Brown who abstain from formal union membership to write the national union if they want to exercise their right to not pay for the union’s political activities, Abruzzo’s involvement in the case would constitute a serious conflict of interest, the letter argues.
Under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, nonmember private sector workers who live in states like Oregon lacking Right to Work protections cannot be forced as a condition of employment to pay fees to a union in their workplace, except those that union officials claim subsidize core bargaining expenses. In states with Right to Work protections, all union financial support is strictly voluntary.
Brown’s requests to reduce his dues per Beck were ignored by the CWA union local, due to the CWA’s international policy of only honoring such requests if sent to the union’s DC headquarters. Brown in August won a decision from the NLRB fully vindicating his rights, with the Board ruling that CWA union officials had to stop failing to honor Brown’s Beck requests and return all money to Brown that they had already seized from his wages in violation of the Beck mandate. The NLRB also held that intimidating “evidence preservation” letters CWA’s attorney sent Brown during the litigation fell “outside the bounds of legitimate efforts to ensure evidence preservation,” by among other things demanding unrelated GPS and pedometer data.
“Although the Board has issued a clear and well-thought-out decision in this case…the Respondent Union has filed a Motion for Reconsideration,” the letter to Abruzzo reads. “However, the Board’s decision and the Motion for Reconsideration both involve the policies of your former and most recent employer, CWA International.”
“Because CWA International’s nationwide Beck objector policy is bound up with this case and the proper remedies to be issued, you should recuse yourself from any further involvement in this case,” the letter demands. The letter details another reason for Abruzzo to recuse herself: “The CWA International exercises nearly total control over its Districts and Locals…. Accordingly, your position of authority in the CWA International must be imputed to authority over local and district affiliates, justifying your recusal from CWA matters at all levels including this case.”
The letter to Abruzzo is not the only action by the Foundation to curb NLRB conflicts of interest created by recent Biden NLRB appointees’ having come from union payrolls. Just last week, Foundation President Mark Mix demanded that the NLRB Inspector General remove NLRB Members Dave Prouty and Gwynne Wilcox – who before joining the Board were lawyers for powerful Service Employees International Union affiliates – from involvement in an NLRB case in which SEIU is suing the Board and its Members individually.
“Jennifer Abruzzo, who Foundation FOIA requests show engineered President Biden’s precedent-shattering ouster of her pro-worker freedom predecessor Peter Robb, already has an ugly track record of seeking to undermine the rights of independent-minded workers opposed to union affiliation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Given her role in setting and influencing CWA policies that are implemented at every level of that union, Abruzzo has a clear conflict of interest that disqualifies her from any participation in Mr. Brown’s case or any other cases brought by workers against CWA affiliates.”
Boston Bertolino Foods Employees Free from Unwanted UFCW Union After Submitting Majority-Backed Petition
Over 75 percent of workers asked Bertolino management to withdraw recognition of union officials as monopoly bargaining ‘representative’
Boston, MA (October 12, 2021) – Bertolino Foods employee Jenifer Sedano and her coworkers have successfully booted unwanted United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1445 union officials from monopoly bargaining power at their workplace. With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Sedano and her coworkers submitted to Bertolino management a petition demonstrating nearly 80 percent support for removing the union. Bertolino’s attorney announced last week that based on the workers’ petition it was withdrawing recognition from UFCW Local 1445.
Sedano and her coworkers thus successfully exercised rights protected under National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) precedent, which permits employers to withdraw recognition from unions that a majority of their employees have expressed a desire to remove.
UFCW bosses attained monopoly bargaining status at the Bertolino Foods facility in September 2020. After contract talks between Bertolino management and union officials had dragged on for almost a year, Sedano and her coworkers sought out help from Foundation staff attorneys in exercising their right to remove UFCW officials. Sedano ended up gathering signatures in favor of removal from 31 of 42 bargaining unit members, and submitted this petition to Bertolino management toward the end of August.
The letter from Bertolino’s attorney to Local 1445 dated September 30 reads, “Since the Union no longer represents a majority of the bargaining unit employees, it would be unlawful for the Company to continue to recognize and/or bargain with the Union. Accordingly, effective immediately on September 30, 2021, the Company withdraws recognition of UFCW, Local 1445 as the collective bargaining representative for its employees.”
Sedano and her coworkers join several other Foundation-assisted employees who have dispatched unwanted union representation across the country. Workers at Airgas in Ventura, CA, Rush University in Chicago, IL, and Desert Springs Hospital Center in Las Vegas, NV, have all successfully voted out or forced out by other legal means unpopular union officials just in the past few months.
“Ms. Sedano and an overwhelming majority of her coworkers clearly expressed that they no longer wanted to be under the power of UFCW officials, and their decision must be respected,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Foundation attorneys are prepared to fight to protect Sedano and her coworkers’ right to free themselves from the unwanted union, even if union bosses and the NLRB attempt to re-impose union control despite the workers’ overwhelming opposition to the union’s so-called ‘representation.’”
Ohio Worker Defeats Unconstitutional ‘Administration Fee’ Imposed by IUOE Bosses
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union officials tried to rename forced fees outlawed by Janus Supreme Court victory
Above are just a few of the other Buckeye State public servants whom Foundation staff attorneys have aided in safeguarding their First Amendment Janus rights since that case was decided in 2018 by the Supreme Court.
CINCINNATI, OH – City of Hamilton (OH) employee Timothy Crane has successfully defended his First Amendment right to refrain from funding the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 20 hierarchy in his workplace.
Crane, who is not a union member, filed a lawsuit in December 2020 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation that challenged so-called “agreement administration fees” that IUOE officials forced him to pay as a condition of keeping his job. IUOE bosses have now backed down by eliminating the forced-fees scheme and have refunded to Crane all fees that they seized from him under that arrangement.
Crane’s lawsuit maintained that the “agreement administration fee” requirement violated his rights under the Foundation-argued 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the High Court ruled that no public worker can be coerced into paying union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job, and that union dues and fees can only be deducted from public servants’ paychecks with their affirmative and knowing consent.
The Court reasoned that, because all public sector union boss activities are directed at the government, forcing a public sector employee to pay anything to union officials counts as forced political speech and for that reason violates the First Amendment.
IUOE Officials Seized Deceptive Fee after Worker Exercised Janus Rights
“This case was about protecting my right to not pay for a political agenda that I oppose,” Crane told the Hamilton Journal-News this May. “I’m in favor of fair wages and a safe working environment. What I’m not in favor of is a union using my hard earned money to support a political party that I disagree with and that is dividing the country.”
According to Crane’s lawsuit, he sent letters to IUOE union officials in both August and September of last year attempting to exercise his First Amendment Janus right to end dues deductions from his paycheck. After sending these two letters, he discovered that instead of dues an “agreement administration fee” was being taken from his pay by municipal officials at the behest of IUOE union bosses.
His suit contended that this fee was indistinguishable from a so-called “agency fee” — a forced union payment charged to employees who refrain from formal union membership that was definitively outlawed by the Janus decision — and therefore unconstitutional despite masquerading under a different name.
Five Similar Illegal Dues Schemes Now Bucked by Buckeye State Employees
With this victory, Crane’s suit is now the fifth resolved favorably by Foundation staff attorneys for Buckeye State employees whose First Amendment Janus rights were being restricted by Ohio government union bosses.
This includes the July 2020 victory in the Allen v. AFSCME case, in which nearly 30,000 Ohio public employees were freed from an “escape period” scheme imposed by Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA) union chiefs. That scheme limited to just a handful of days every few years the time when a public employee could exercise Janus rights.
“Once again, a Foundation-backed Ohio public employee has prevailed over a duplicitous attempt by union officials to keep worker money flowing illegally into union coffers while trampling workers’ First Amendment rights,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “The fact that Ohio union bosses have backed off enforcing these schemes several times now shows that they know the arrangements cannot stand up to serious legal scrutiny. With that in mind, Ohio public servants should not hesitate to reach out to the Foundation to defend their Janus rights.”
Foundation Freedom of Information Act Request Exposes NLRB Bias against Workers
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Emails show NLRB insiders cheered Biden’s unprecedented attack on agency’s ‘independence’
After Foundation attorneys’ FOIA request revealed pro-Biden bias pervading the “independent” NLRB, Foundation staffers secured coverage for the findings in some of the nation’s top outlets.
WASHINGTON, DC – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have uncovered, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) staff emails that expose the partisan response to unprecedented power grabs launched by the Biden Administration at the behest of Organized Labor.
Biden Power Grab Prompts Records Request
The FOIA request was filed to provide further details surrounding Biden’s unprecedented and legally dubious removal of Trump-appointed NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, who had sided with Foundation-represented workers in several cases in which they sought to resist union boss coercion. The emails show widespread partisan bias throughout the agency, which is charged with neutrally enforcing federal labor law.
Under long-standing federal law, the NLRB General Counsel has unreviewable authority to prosecute unfair labor practice charges, including those brought by workers against union officials. To protect that authority from blatant political interference, Congress gave the General Counsel a four-year term. Once appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, no General Counsel in the history of the NLRB had ever been fired. That changed when, just minutes after Biden took office on January 20, 2021, his administration moved to fire Robb despite 11 months remaining on his term.
NLRB Officials Celebrated Biden Attack on Labor Board’s Top Prosecutor
Following Biden’s election with the backing of Big Labor officials who wanted to shield themselves from accountability at the NLRB, Biden was encouraged by union bosses to remove General Counsel Robb and replace him with a union partisan. Five days after the removal of Robb, Biden fully obliged, selecting career NLRB bureaucrat Peter Sung Ohr as Acting General Counsel. The FOIA-requested emails show that although some NLRB officials were surprised by Biden’s actions — with one career NLRB attorney noting the move was “not expected” — some current and former NLRB officials voiced their approval of the unprecedented actions that fly in the face of the prosecutorial independence that Congress sought to protect when the General Counsel’s office was established. Los Angeles-based NLRB Region 31 Director Mori Rubin sent an email to her colleagues reacting to the news that Alice Stock, then the number-two attorney at the agency, had been fired along with Robb. Rubin derided Stock as a “clone” of Robb. She said “there is talk that Peter Ohr may be appointed acting GC, which would be wonderful!” Respondents to the thread, whose names are redacted, proclaimed: “Go Biden!!”, “That would be terrific!” and “Hope this comes true!”
Within days Ohr rescinded almost a dozen guidance memos issued by Robb, including one ensuring workers could avoid funding union political and lobbying activities, another allowing workers to intervene in legal actions that are used to block efforts to secure decertification votes, and yet another strengthening unions’ obligations to workers subject to union boss monopoly bargaining. In all these instances Ohr took the position advocated by union officials who had backed Biden’s election campaign, and against those of Foundation-backed employees.
Ohr earned praise for his aggressive implementation of the Biden agenda. Among the emails unearthed in the FOIA request was a message to Ohr from longtime NLRB attorney Emily Hunt describing her reaction on the day of Biden’s inauguration when she learned that Robb had been removed: “I exclaimed to myself, ‘This day just keeps getting better and better!’” Hunt, whose career with the NLRB spanned over 30 years, commended Ohr for rescinding Robb’s memos.
Foundation Spreads the Word About Activism within NLRB
The NLRB emails received coverage from multiple outlets including Fox Business, The Epoch Times, and Reuters. The coverage exposed the favoritism of many inside the NLRB towards union officials despite the Board’s directive to apolitically enforce federal labor law.
“By celebrating Joe Biden’s unprecedented attack on the Board’s independence so openly, the NLRB officials in these emails make it clear that those inside their agency do not want the Board to be an independent enforcer of the law as Congress intended,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Instead, these partisans want the Board to be an activist agency with a mission of advancing union boss power at the expense of the rights of rank-and-file workers.”
BUSTED: AFSCME Union Bosses Caught Illegally Seizing Money for Union PAC from Nonmember Maryland School Custodian
AFSCME officials ignored worker’s two requests to stop sending her money to PAC but finally backed down & issued refunds after attorneys’ cease-and-desist letter
Harford County, MD (October 7, 2021) – A Harford County school custodian has forced AFSCME union bosses at her workplace to stop seizing money illegally from her paycheck, including cash taken for the “AFSCME PEOPLE” fund, a Political Action Committee (PAC) that under federal law can only be legally funded through voluntary contributions. The victory comes after she obtained free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, who sent a cease-and-desist letter for her to the AFSCME PAC.
Linda Puto’s efforts have also made AFSCME officials cease all union dues deductions from her wages, as the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision requires. In Janus, the Court held that forcing public sector workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs violates their First Amendment rights. The Court also ruled that no union monies can be taken from a public employee’s paycheck without a knowing and affirmative waiver of that worker’s First Amendment right not to pay.
Prior to Janus, in states like Maryland that lack Right to Work laws, union bosses could legally extract a portion of union dues even from public workers who choose to refrain from union membership. However, the High Court ruled in Janus that state arrangements permitting union officials to do so force public employees to subsidize the union’s political speech and thus violate the First Amendment.
Federal election law enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) also forbids forced contributions to political committees that support or oppose candidates for federal office. Those who run PACs like AFSCME PEOPLE cannot coerce payments into the fund.
Prior to the cease-and-desist letter, Puto sent two letters to the local AFSCME affiliate to exercise her rights to resign union membership and end all union deductions from her paycheck, one in November 2020 and a second in March 2021. AFSCME union officials ignored both letters and kept illegally seizing both dues money and contributions for the AFSCME PAC.
Finally, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys mailed a cease-and-desist letter to the AFSCME PEOPLE treasurer in Washington, DC, for Puto in June. It noted that the letter responded to “AFSCME’s and AFSCME PEOPLE’s refusal to honor her First Amendment, federal law, and contractual rights to revoke her PEOPLE contribution deduction at any time.”
The letter demanded, “[t]o avoid litigation over this issue,” that AFSCME officials cease deducting money from Puto’s paycheck for the PEOPLE fund. Additionally, the letter demanded that any money seized for that fund after her original November 2020 letter be immediately paid back to her.
AFSCME and AFSCME PEOPLE officials have now backed down and stopped taking both dues and PAC contributions from Puto, and have also refunded all amounts of both that have been taken from her paycheck since her November demand.
“AFSCME officials brazenly violated Ms. Puto’s legal rights for months on end, ignoring not only her First Amendment rights under Janus, but longstanding law that all PAC contributions – which are used to fund political candidates’ campaigns – be completely voluntary,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Although we are happy that she has secured the return of her money, workers should not have to obtain legal representation just to stop funding Big Labor political activities and contributions to union-label candidates.”
Case Closed: Nurse Prevails in 11 Year Legal Fight, 100 Rhode Island Hospital Employees Win Refund of Illegally-Seized Union Dues
Legal precedent affirmed by First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals protects workers in forced dues states from being required to fund union boss lobbying efforts
Warwick, RI (October 5, 2021) – Nurse Jeanette Geary finally achieved a total victory in her 11-year legal battle against union bosses that established important National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and federal court precedents. She and 99 other current and former nurses at Kent Hospital in Rhode Island received refunds of forced union dues that were illegally used to support union political lobbying in state legislatures. Geary received free legal representation throughout her fight from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Geary lost faith in the United Nurses and Allied Professionals (UNAP) union bosses in her workplace after a series of broken promises. “Over time,” Geary said, “I realized what the union was doing. The union leadership had no interest in nurses or our professional work. Their only interest was collection of dues and fees.”
Geary resigned her union membership, but still had union dues extracted from her paycheck because Rhode Island is a forced unionism state that lacks Right to Work protections. However, thanks to the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, nonmember workers can only be forced to pay fees for union activities directly “germane” to union monopoly bargaining. They cannot be forced to pay the portion of regular dues that funds activities like union political lobbying.
Geary demanded a breakdown of the union’s expenditures, but union bosses refused to provide her with a legally-required independent audit verifying how it calculated nonmembers’ reduced forced fees. Like many who speak up against union bosses, Geary became a target for union harassment. “They laughed at me. They had their workplace reps ridicule me on the job and tell me I could file grievances that would be thrown away and said so with a big smile,” Geary said.
In 2009, Geary filed federal charges against union officials. The trial revealed UNAP officials were charging nonmember nurses for lobbying in state legislatures. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear mandate in Beck that nonmembers’ money could not be used to fund political causes, union lawyers argued the lobbying was “germane” to the union’s monopoly bargaining.
In 2012, the NLRB, stacked with President Obama’s appointees, sided with union officials under a rationale that would have made almost any union lobbying chargeable to nonmembers if it could somehow be explained as related to union bargaining. That decision was later vacated because Obama’s recess appointments to the Board were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so the NLRB lacked a valid quorum.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning rendered invalid the Obama Board’s decision in Geary’s case, the case lingered at the NLRB for years. After seven more years of delay, Foundation attorneys filed a mandamus petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit demanding an NLRB decision, prompting the Board to finally issue a valid decision in Geary’s case.
In March of 2019, President Trump’s NLRB ruled 3-1 that union officials cannot charge nonmembers for lobbying of any kind. It also ruled that union officials must provide independent verification that the union expenses they charge to nonmembers have been audited.
However, union officials refused to abandon their argument that nonmembers could be forced to pay for union lobbying as a condition of employment. Union lawyers appealed the NLRB’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Foundation attorneys successfully defended Geary’s case before a three-judge panel that included retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter. The panel ruled unanimously in Geary’s favor, saying “we see no convincing argument that legislative lobbying is not a ‘political’ activity,” affirming that under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent of Communications Workers v. Beck, nonmember workers could never be charged for such union activities.
Union officials made a last ditch attempt to overturn the decision, requesting an en banc hearing by the entire Court of Appeals, but that request was denied. Last week, union bosses finally paid back, with interest, nearly $8,000 taken from Geary and 99 other current and former Kent Hospital nurses who were not union members but were charged for the union’s lobbying, bringing the decade-long case to a close.
“Jeanette Geary shows the difference one brave employee can make standing up to Big Labor coercion. The National Right to Work Foundation is proud to have assisted her through her 11 year fight to defend her legal rights and those of her colleagues,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “After years of enduring workplace harassment and neglect from union partisans, Ms. Geary moved to North Carolina, a Right to Work state that doesn’t force her to give any portion of her paycheck to union bosses. Thanks to her bravery, workers in the 23 non-Right to Work states have additional legal protections against being forced to fund union boss political activities.”
