National Right to Work Foundation Submits Comments Opposing Biden Rule to Give Unions Control Over Taxpayer-Funded Contracts
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.”
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
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.”
Worker Advocate: U.S. Supreme Court Should Hear Challenge to Government-Imposed Forced-Dues Union Contracts for CA Farmworkers
Amicus brief argues California law deprives farmworkers of their Constitutional rights by imposing union contract against their will
Washington, D.C. (May 16, 2018) – Today the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is filing an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court for the Foundation and several employees of Gerawan Farming, urging the court to grant certiorari in Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB). The brief asks the Court to hear the challenge to California’s law that authorizes the state labor board to impose a union contract on a company and its workers against their will.
Although many states have separate labor laws that specifically cover agricultural workers, California’s law is unique in that it authorizes the state to impose union monopoly bargaining contracts, including so-called “union security” requirements that obligate farm workers to make payments to union officials or else be fired. In the Gerawan case pending before the Supreme Court, a state-appointed mediator imposed a forced dues requirement—that workers overwhelmingly opposed—for the benefit of union officials who hadn’t been heard from in nearly two decades.
As the brief explains, United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials abandoned any attempt to negotiate a union contract in 1995, after which workers successfully worked to determine the terms of their employment without the union for 17 years. Then, in 2012, UFW union officials returned and immediately invoked an amendment to California law authorizing an ALRB-appointed mediator to impose a contract if the union and company cannot reach an agreement.
After UFW officials announced their return, Gerawan workers moved to decertify the union. However, that effort was stifled when the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) refused to count the ballots cast in the decertification vote, leaving the union in power despite what workers believe was overwhelming opposition to union “representation.”
The Foundation’s brief argues that California’s agricultural labor law violates the workers’ constitutional rights by forcing upon them union monopoly representation of a union they oppose – something central to many labor statutes – and by imposing the union monopoly contract that includes forced union dues.
In a related case, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are also providing free legal representation to Uber and Lyft drivers challenging a Seattle ordinance designed to unionize the independent drivers. Like the California law at issue in Gerawan, the Seattle scheme authorizes a government official to impose a forced dues contract over the objections of the company and individual for-hire drivers who are compelled to accept union monopoly representation.
“The injustices Gerawan workers face every day – as a government-imposed contract forces them to pay dues to a union they overwhelmingly oppose– is evidence that the more power government grants to union bosses, the greater the infringement on the rights of individual employees,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We hope the Supreme Court will take this case to establish legal limits to the coercive power that government can grant union officials over private employers and employees.”
Oil Refinery Employee Wins Back Illegally Seized Union Dues
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.
Lexington-Area Leggett & Platt Employees Officially Free from Unpopular IAM Union after Six-Year Legal Battle
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.
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.
Sacramento-area Pine Creek Care Center Nurses Overwhelmingly Vote to Oust Unwanted Teamsters Union
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.”
Healthcare Workers at Cuyuna Hospital Successfully Petition for Votes to Remove Union
NLRB reverses itself after wrongly undercounting number of technical employees seeking vote to remove union
Minneapolis, MN (September 21, 2022) – A vote to remove union representation at Cuyuna Regional Medical Center (CRMC) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, will move forward after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 18 reversed itself and admitted to undercounting workers’ signatures in support of removing the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) from their workplace. National Right to Work staff attorneys filed a Request for Review on August 24, 2022, pointing out that the Region clearly miscounted the number of valid signatures on a union decertification petition. Now that the NLRB has acknowledged its mistake, a new pre-election hearing date is scheduled for later this month.
Employee Laurie Murphy filed the decertification petition for CRMC Unit II technical employees, which includes employees in the laboratory, respiratory therapy, physical therapy and radiology departments, plus licensed practical nurses, engineers, certified occupational therapy assistants, pharmacy technicians, and accredited records technicians.
“CRMC employees would like to work for an organization that doesn’t have to run everything through the union. CRMC is a great company to work for and they care about all of their employees,” Ms. Murphy said in a statement explaining the widespread support among her Cuyuna Regional Medical Center colleagues for removing the SEIU.
“In my opinion, all they are is a middleman that we pay to ‘negotiate’ on our behalf with our employer. Frankly, I feel who better to negotiate on my behalf than myself,” added Murphy. “I don’t see any benefit in having a union at CRMC.”
Under federal law, when the required number of workers in a bargaining unit sign a petition seeking the removal of union officials’ monopoly bargaining powers, an NLRB-conducted secret ballot vote whether to remove the union is triggered. If a majority of workers casting ballots against vote for the union, the union is stripped of its government-granted monopoly “representation” powers.
Those powers let union officials impose contracts on all workers in the workplace, even workers who are not union members and oppose the union. Further, because Minnesota 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.
Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal statute the NLRB implements, workers possess an specified statutory right to remove an unwanted union through a decertification election. Yet the NLRB has invented out of whole cloth a “contract bar” that blocks workers’ right to hold a decertification election for up to three years after union officials and a company finalize a monopoly bargaining contract.
After miscounting the signatures, the NLRB Regional Director cited the “contract bar” as a reason for dismissing the petition. Had the Region not ultimately reversed itself, that erroneous decision could have blocked a decertification vote for three more years because of the contract bar.
In response, Murphy’s Foundation staff attorneys filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., asking them to not only review the dismissal of the petition, citing the undercounting of workers’ signatures, but also to reconsider the “contract bar” given its role in stifling workers’ statutory right to a decertification vote. Before the NLRB could rule the Region, finally admitting its miscount, reversed the earlier ruling not to move forward with the vote the workers had requested.
“We’re glad to see Ms. Murphy and her coworkers able to move forward with their decertification election, clear mistakes by the NLRB all of which, perhaps not coincidentally, served the interests of SEIU union bosses who don’t want to face a vote of rank-and-file workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The fact that a worker needs our legal support and expertise just to get the Labor Board to do really simple math is just the latest example of how the NLRB is biased against workers who oppose coercive unionization.”
Union Seeking to Destroy Ballots of Cuyuna Regional Medical Center Clerical Workers Who Want to Remove SEIU
The technical employees covered by Murphy’s petition are not the only group of workers at Cuyuna Regional Medical Center seeking to free themselves of unwanted SEIU so-called “representation.” Also with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, CRMC employee Terri Larson filed a separate decertification petition for clerical employees working in the business office or medical records department.
The clerical employees’ petition was promptly processed by the NLRB and a mail-ballot decertification election has already taken place. However, before the votes could be counted, the SEIU sought to block the election by filing “blocking charge” allegations. Now, not only are the votes impounded, the NLRB has announced it intends to decide whether or not to destroy the ballots at the request of SEIU lawyers.
“As this situation shows, winning the right to hold a decertification vote is often just the beginning for workers seeking to free themselves from union wanted union ‘representation,’” added Mix. “Biased NLRB-invented procedures give union officials the ability to block the tallying of votes against the union, often indefinitely, leaving workers trapped in union ranks they overwhelmingly oppose.”
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://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.”
