Flight Attendant Files Lawsuit Against Transport Workers Union and Allegiant Air Challenging Illegal Forced Union Fees Provision
Complaint filed with National Right to Work Foundation legal aid says stripping flight attendant of input into work schedule violates plain language of federal labor law
Las Vegas, NV (March 11, 2020) – Flight attendant Ali Bahreman has filed a federal lawsuit against Allegiant Air and Transport Workers Union of America Local 577 (TWU) for illegally punishing him for choosing not to pay union dues or fees.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on Bahremans’s behalf on March 2nd. It alleges that because the Railway Labor Act (RLA) does not allow businesses and union officials to enforce “union security” agreements except by firing an employee, Allegiant and TWU violated the law by removing his “bidding” privileges, which allow him to determine his work schedule.
Bahreman chose not to become a member of TWU or pay forced union fees, and on September 3, 2019, Allegiant notified him that his bidding privileges were suspended because he had not paid any union fees. Bidding privileges allows flight attendants to pick their schedule in order to plan preferred trips, vacations and days off. Consequently, Bahreman is now unable to choose what hours he wants to work and has almost no control over his schedule.
The lawsuit charges that Allegiant and TWU unlawfully punished Bahreman by removing his bidding privileges, which violates the RLA’s requirement for what is a lawful forced dues clause. The lawsuit argues that under the RLA, firing workers is the only way that unions and employers are able to enforce “union security” agreements, thus the discipline against Bahreman is unlawful.
The monopoly bargaining agreement between TWU and Allegiant stipulates that any employee who does not pay union fees will “lose all of her/his bidding privileges.” But the RLA says that unions and employers are only allowed to make agreements “as a condition of continued employment.” Under the plain language of the RLA, other punishments are not allowed.
Foundation staff attorneys are asking the Court to restore Bahreman’s bidding privileges, declare that the monopoly bargaining agreement between Allegiant and TWU violates the RLA and prevent TWU and Allegiant from enforcing the unlawful “union security” agreement.
Although Bahreman lives in Nevada which has a Right to Work law protecting workers against being forced to fund a union, the RLA preempts state Right to Work laws. This means that even in states where union payments are strictly voluntary for all other workers, railway and airline employees covered by the RLA can still be forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment.
“Workers shouldn’t have to worry about losing essential privileges in their workplace or have to fear losing their job for simply choosing not to support union bosses with their hard-earned money,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That the Railway Labor Act prevents state Right to Work laws from protecting workers from forced union dues is a significant reason why a National Right to Work law is needed to ensure all workers have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to fund a labor union.”
“Perhaps Allegiant Airlines understood that forcing a worker to pay union fees or else be fired is just plain wrong, which is why they resisted union demands for a full forced dues clause and instead settled on this ultimately unlawful provision,” observed Mix. “Having apparently recognized that forced dues are unfair to workers, the airline should just abandon the illegal provision at the center of this lawsuit and not replace it with anything so every employee covered by the contract is fully free to decide whether or not to financially support the union.”
Mark Janus asks Supreme Court to hear case seeking return of unconstitutional forced union fees
Victory in this case could open the door to hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds for other government employees
Washington, DC (March 9, 2020) – Today, attorneys representing Mark Janus are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the continuation of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 31. Janus is asking the Court to require AFSCME to repay the thousands of dollars in fees the union took from his paycheck in violation of his First Amendment rights.
Mark Janus is a former child support specialist for Illinois state government who brought the original Janus v. AFSCME lawsuit with representation from Liberty Justice Center and National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that it is illegal to force public employees to subsidize a union. The Court recognized that compelling public workers to pay fees to a union violates their First Amendment rights.
As a result of Janus, more than five million public sector employees across the country are no longer required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. However, Janus’ case continues as he seeks the return of the fees that AFSCME seized from his paycheck without his permission from March 23, 2013 to June 27, 2018, representing the two-year statute of limitations from the date his case started in March 2015 through the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in his favor.
“The Supreme Court agreed that the union taking money from nonmembers was wrong but the union still has the money it illegally garnished from my paycheck,” said Mark Janus, plaintiff in Janus v. AFSCME. “It’s time for AFSCME to give me back the money they wrongfully took.”
Another favorable ruling in the case could have a massive impact, setting a federal precedent that would be controlling in dozens of other cases seeking refunds of dues taken unlawfully by public sector union bosses.
“Mark Janus is just one of many public employees whose money was illegally taken by government unions,” said Patrick Hughes, president and co-founder of the Liberty Justice Center. “Workers across the country are rightfully asking for their money back. It is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on this issue and finally hold unions accountable for their years of unconstitutional behavior.”
Attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center and the National Right to Work Foundation are currently litigating more than 30 Janus-related cases, including seven jointly, that collectively seek over $120 million in refunds for government workers.
Janus’ current petition comes after a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled in 2019 that AFSCME officials could keep the union fees seized from his paycheck.
“The Supreme Court has already sided with Mark Janus and ruled that forcing public employees to fund union activities violates the First Amendment, but almost two years later, he and countless public servants across the country are still awaiting the return of their hard-earned dollars that were taken from them in violation of their rights,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court should follow its clear logic from the original Janus decision and take this case again to ensure that public sector union bosses are not permitted to profit from their widespread violation of workers’ rights.”
Sacramento Employee Hits Union with Charge for Ignoring Janus Rights
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
More than a year after Court decision, union bosses still tell workers forced fees are legal
In the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, the Supreme Court recognized the right of all American public sector workers to refrain from subsidizing unions, but California IUOE bosses are acting as if those rights don’t exist.
SACRAMENTO, CA – Ethan Morris works for Sacramento County as a wastewater treatment employee. With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, he has hit the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Stationary Engineers union bosses at his workplace with charges that their misstatements of his requirement to pay union fees breach California law by disregarding workers’ First Amendment rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision.
California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), the agency in charge of determining whether unions like IUOE have violated California’s public sector labor laws, will now investigate Morris’ charge.
California Union Bosses Blatantly Lie About Legality of Forced Dues
Morris has never been a member of IUOE Stationary Engineers. He recounts in his charge that he received a notice from an IUOE financial secretary in July 2019 which claimed that “employees who do not join the Union must pay a . . . fee” to the union as a condition of employment, and that these mandatory fees are “legal and enforceable in California” through direct deductions from non-member employees’ paychecks.
Morris’ charge says the union’s fee demands ignore government employees’ First Amendment rights under the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, a majority of the Court recognized that union dues or fees cannot be mandatory for public employees and may only be deducted from government workers’ paychecks if they have given “affirmative and knowing” waivers of their First Amendment right not to subsidize a union.
Morris maintains that by ignoring Janus, IUOE Stationary Engineers bosses infringed his rights under California’s Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). That statute provides Golden State workers “the right to refuse to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations” and prohibits unions from “coerc[ing] or discriminat[ing] against” employees for exercising that right.
IUOE Officials Broke California Labor Law by Defying Janus
Morris demands that union officials rectify the situation by stopping the illegal fee demands and posting a PERB-approved notice informing his coworkers of their right to refrain from union activities and acknowledging that compulsory fee demands violate that right.
“Ethan Morris discovered his First Amendment Janus rights independently, and in doing so was able to catch IUOE Stationary Engineers bosses in a red-handed lie about the right of public sector workers in America to abstain from financially supporting a union,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “For every worker who rebuffs illegal union threats, there are almost certainly thousands of workers who unknowingly sign away their rights.
“State governments must step up and proactively protect employees’ Janus rights, including making sure that every worker knows those rights and not deducting any union dues or fees absent a worker’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his or her rights,” Mix added.
Taking the lead on protecting public workers’ Janus rights is Alaska, where last September Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued an executive order requiring all state agencies to stop the deduction of union dues from any worker who had not submitted a form affirmatively waiving his or her right under Janus not to fund any union activities.
Five Westerly, RI Reserve Officers Win Over $110,000 in Lawsuits Challenging Illegal Forced Union Dues Scheme and Retaliation
Settlements include reinstatement of two officers fired after publicly challenging unlawful “$5 per hour” forced union dues scheme
Westerly, RI (March 4, 2020) – Westerly, Rhode Island-based police officers Scott Ferrigno, Darrell Koza, Raymond Morrone, Anthony Falcone, and Thomas Cimalore have just won favorable settlements in their cases challenging a forced union dues scheme between police union bosses and Town of Westerly officials. The officers also won favorable settlements for retaliation claims they brought after publicly challenging the unlawful arrangement.
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Rhode Island-based Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights, the five officers filed their federal lawsuit in July 2015 against the International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 503 (IBPO) union and the Town of Westerly for seizing their money under an illegal “$5 per hour” forced union fee scheme.
The Town of Westerly and IBPO subjected the officers to this scheme despite them not being IBPO members or in a monopoly bargaining unit under the IBPO’s power. The officers’ now-settled cases also asserted that Town officials unconstitutionally retaliated against the officers, after they publicly voiced opposition to the policy, by implementing a plan to restrict their hours, and even firing two of the officers, Koza and Ferrigno.
Under the settlements, IBPO and the Town of Westerly agreed to pay almost $65,000 in refunds of union dues seized from the officers as part of the illegal policy and compensation for the officers’ other claims. The Town of Westerly will also reinstate Officers Koza and Ferrigno as police officers and they will receive nearly $48,000 in back pay from the Town for the period after they were terminated.
According to the lawsuits, IBPO bosses and the Town of Westerly began seizing $5 per hour from each of the five officers’ hourly pay without authorization in April 2014. IBPO and the Town perpetrated this scheme against the officers even though they were classified as “nonpermanent police officers” outside of the IBPO’s monopoly bargaining power.
Union officials didn’t even claim to “represent” the officers but still siphoned $5 per hour out of their paychecks without obtaining each officer’s written consent and authorization. The complaints also noted that the Town of Westerly and IBPO started seizing forced union fees from the officers even before executing the contract that formally established the unlawful deductions, and despite knowing that the officers were outside of the bargaining unit and had never authorized any payment of any money to the union.
Over the next six months, the officers repeatedly sought meetings with Town officials in an attempt to stop the flow of illegal dues, including the Town of Westerly’s payroll department, the Westerly Chief of Police, the Town Manager, and the Town Council, only to be rebuffed. Koza’s and Ferrigno’s lawsuits noted that Westerly’s Chief of Police had warned the officers “not to seek publicity for their cause” and that, if they were terminated, they could “easily be replaced with twenty other constables.” Court documents note that the IBPO informed the chief of police in an October 1, 2014 memo that the union would no longer allow reserve officers to work private duty detail assignments.
The Reserve Officers finally managed to present their objections to the Town Council, but the Town refused to stop the compulsory fees. On October 20, 2014, within a week of hearing that the reserve officers arranged a meeting with the Town Council to argue their objections to the forced fee scheme, the chief emailed the Town Manager informing her of his plan to terminate Koza and revise the system by which Westerly reserve officers could sign up to work traffic details. The chief revised the system and downgraded reserve officers’ priority level for taking on new traffic detail assignments, which, the five officers argued, limited the hours they could work and the pay they could earn.
Records disclosed during the litigation revealed that when the Town Council met with the Town Manager, chief of police, IBPO representatives, and other officials in November 2014, and discussed the reserve officers’ fight against the $5 per hour scheme and whether the Town might be in any legal jeopardy, one official opined, “It’s going to cost thousands and thousands of dollars … They’d have to take this money out of their pockets. I don’t think [their attorney] is going to represent them for free.” Another Town official at the time asserted, “If we say no, they’re probably going to back down.” When the officials considered whether the reserve officers would keep working for the Town, one council member commented, “They can always go to McDonald’s.”
In November 2014, the Westerly Sun published an article on the officers’ dispute with the Town and Union. The Town fired Koza the following month. Koza had never been disciplined by the Town before these events. But, according to Koza’s lawsuit, the Town attempted to justify his termination on the grounds that he had not immediately left his position directing traffic in a busy intersection to move his police cruiser for an officer attempting to drive through a restricted lane. The Town also cited Koza’s calling himself a “police officer” rather than a “reserve police officer” in his application for a handgun carry permit. Koza’s lawsuit points out that the Town’s charter then gave “nonpermanent police officers” like Koza the powers of regular police officers while on duty, and all of Koza’s references in his application called him a “reserve officer,” “reserve police officer,” and “reserve officer with the Westerly Police Department.”
The Town fired Ferrigno in May 2016. According to Ferrigno’s lawsuit, the Town alleged that he left a bicycle race detail assignment early. But Ferrigno contended that he actually stayed five minutes later than he was instructed to by his supervisor while waiting for his replacement to arrive. As further evidence that his firing was unconstitutional retaliation, Ferrigno’s lawsuit also noted that the officer who arrived late to relieve him was a union official, who was never even disciplined for his lateness.
The five officers filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, arguing that IBPO and Town of Westerly officials had violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to financially support the union when they were not even covered by its monopoly bargaining contract. The officers’ lawsuit also alleged that Town officials seized union dues without their individual written authorization in violation of Rhode Island’s wage deduction laws.
The lawsuit contended that the Town’s retaliation infringed on the officers’ First Amendment right to engage in “constitutionally-protected speech,” namely their advocacy against the illegal dues deductions. Officers Koza and Ferrigno filed their own complaints in the same court, charging the Town with firing them for exercising their First Amendment rights. The lawsuits also sought punitive damages.
Ultimately, rather than face the officers and their attorneys at trial, Town and Union officials agreed to settle the cases. The settlements order union officials to compensate the officers almost $20,000 dollars and Town officials to pay $45,000 for dues that were seized illegally under the “$5 per hour” policy and for other damages and claims. The settlements in Koza’s and Ferrigno’s cases, on top of requiring the Town to reinstate the two officers and pay back wages, require that all references related to the discipline forming the basis of their lawsuits be removed from their personnel records.
On February 6, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island entered a consent judgment permanently enjoining IBPO Local 503 from “adopting or enforcing any compulsory union fee requirement upon any constable or reserve officer employed by or performing work for the Town of Westerly without first obtaining his or her voluntary and affirmative consent and authorization, and his or her knowing and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights.”
Officer Thomas Cimalore commented, “The Town and the IBPO could have avoided the years and expense of litigation if they had only listened in 2014 when we first tried to tell them that they cannot just take $5 per hour from our pay and give it to the Union without our permission. We did all we could to avoid bringing a lawsuit. We made repeated unsuccessful attempts to present these issues to the sitting Town Council.”
Officer Cimalore continued: “When we did finally get the opportunity to address these issues to the sitting Town Council and to their successors on the following council, we showed them that deducting the $5 per hour violates the U.S. Constitution and state law. We had attorneys send letters explaining our rights, hoping that would make progress. But all of those efforts were to no avail. After unsuccessfully trying more than a year to resolve the matter, we were forced to go to federal court. We are happy the Town and the union finally decided to do the right thing.”
“Officers Ferrigno, Koza, Morrone, Falcone, and Cimalore fought a years-long legal battle against union officials just so they could keep their community safe while maintaining their own rights,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation is proud to stand with them and all public servants who are targeted with intimidation, misinformation, threats of firing, and other illegal tactics simply to keep dues money flowing into the bank accounts of self-interested union officials.”
“Although the dues scheme at issue in these cases was always blatantly illegal, the fact is, while this case was being litigated the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision was issued, which now guarantees all public workers a First Amendment right not to subsidize union officials’ activities,” continued Mix. “Even with the added protection provided by the Janus decision, Rhode Island legislators should look to these and other examples of union boss malfeasance as examples of why all Ocean State workers – public or private – need Right to Work protections to ensure that union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.”
Milwaukee Worker Files Federal Charges Against Teamsters Union for Violating His Rights under State and Federal Law
NLRB Charge: Despite Right to Work law, union bosses coerced worker into becoming a union member and then blocked attempts to cut off dues payments
Milwaukee, WI (March 3, 2020) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, an employee at a Milwaukee factory has filed federal charges against Teamsters “General” Local Union No. 200 for violating his rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and Wisconsin’s Right to Work law.
Tyler Lewis, employed by Snap-on Logistics Company, filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after union officials told him that he must become a union member and pay membership dues as a condition of employment in violation of longstanding federal law.
Teamsters union officials further refused to allow Lewis to stop union dues from being seized from his paycheck even after he learned of his rights and resigned his union membership in September 2019. Moreover, union officials continue to deduct dues from his paycheck and refuse to refund Lewis any of the dues unlawfully seized from him.
Forcing workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment is prohibited under Wisconsin’s Right to Work law, which went into effect in March 2015. However, union officials continued to accept and retain union dues seized from Lewis because they claimed he could only cut off union dues deductions during a narrow union-created “window period.” Even as they made that claim, they failed to provide Lewis with specific dates when his request would be accepted under their rules.
As his charge details, the union monopoly bargaining agreement in Lewis’ workplace, which was signed after the state Right to Work law went into effect, contained language prohibited by the Right to Work law that workers must pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Moreover, even if the agreement was actually in place prior to the law’s effective date, Lewis’ Foundation-provided attorneys state in the filing that the passage of the Right to Work law invalidated the union’s claim that Lewis’ right to stop dues payments was limited to a brief union window period.
“Once again, Teamsters union bosses are using coercive tactics to force workers they claim to ‘represent’ to pay union dues and fees against their wishes,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Wisconsin’s Right to Work law should mean union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary, but rather than respect workers’ rights and work to win their uncoerced support, union bosses are again attempting to trap workers in forced dues in violation of federal law.”
Houston Kroger Employee Slams UFCW Union Bosses with Charges for Union Dues Seizures, Deception on Rights
UFCW Local 455 officials rejected three requests by worker to exercise right to end union dues deductions, as protected by Texas Right to Work law
Houston, TX (February 28, 2020) – A Houston-based Kroger employee has just filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 455 union, contending that union bosses at his workplace misinformed him about his right to resign his union membership and cut off dues deductions, and illegally ignored multiple attempts by him to exercise those rights while continuing to seize dues money from his paycheck. The charges were filed at Region 16 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Alfredo Rodriguez Lopez, sent UFCW officials a letter in June 2019 declaring that he was exercising those rights. Rodriguez’s charges argue that union bosses ignored this letter, and ignored an identical one that he sent the following month. As this was going on, Kroger continued to seize a cut of Rodriguez’s paycheck every month at the behest of UFCW bosses.
Because Rodriguez works in Texas, a state with Right to Work protections for its public and private employees, he cannot legally be compelled to pay union dues in order to keep his job.
Rodriguez later asked a union steward about the status of his request to end dues deductions. According to the charge, the union steward claimed that he had to submit his dues checkoff revocation letter on the “anniversary date” (the annual anniversary of the date he originally signed his dues checkoff authorization).
The charge reports that UFCW bosses sent Rodriguez a copy of his dues checkoff authorization card at least a month after his third request to stop union dues deductions. The card read that his dues checkoff was irrevocable except for a 15-day “escape window” “prior to the end of any subsequent yearly period or bargaining agreement termination date.” It also contained a provision which stated that the authorization would remain effective “if my employment with any Employer is terminated and I am later re-employed by the same Employer or any other Employer under contract with Local 455.”
In January 2020, union bosses sent Rodriguez a letter which finally acknowledged receipt of his membership resignation and dues checkoff revocation, but rejected his dues checkoff revocation as “untimely.”
Rodriguez’s charge argues that UFCW bosses’ continued obstruction of Rodriguez’s checkoff revocation and ongoing siphoning of dues from his paycheck violates his rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees workers “the right to refrain from any or all” union activities. Rodriguez is also challenging UFCW bosses’ checkoff language, which fails to mention that workers can cut off dues deductions during a contract hiatus or when they switch employers.
Foundation staff attorneys also won an appeal last October for an Illinois-based ConAgra Foods employee, who had petitioned the NLRB to conduct a vote to kick out a UFCW union from his plant. UFCW bosses had filed unrelated charges against ConAgra in an attempt to stop the vote and an NLRB Regional Director initially blocked it, but the full NLRB in Washington sided with the worker and ordered the Region to let the vote proceed.
Multiple employees in the New York City area who are under the bargaining power of UFCW bosses are also currently receiving aid from Foundation staff attorneys, including two Plattdeutsche Home Society retirement home employees in Franklin Square, NY. They filed unfair labor practice charges last May against UFCW Local 2013 because union agents failed to provide a legally-required financial breakdown of the reduced fees that they must pay as nonmembers. Foundation staff attorneys also won a settlement for a New Hyde Park Stop & Shop worker last September who was illegally misinformed by UFCW bosses that union membership was mandatory.
“Once again UFCW union bosses have been caught waging months-long campaigns of misinformation and compulsion simply to maintain their coercive influence over rank-and-file workers and to keep illegal dues flowing into their bank accounts,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Just as they did during the UFCW boss-ordered strike on Stop & Shop, and at many other times last year, Foundation staff attorneys will continue to fight to ensure that independent-minded workers can exercise their rights freely in the workplace.”
Disneyland Stage Technician Wins Settlement in Case Against IATSE Union Bosses for Illegal Dues Collection and Other Workers’ Rights Violations
Settlement: Union bosses must notify workers of their rights as required by Beck US Supreme Court decision, and also refund money illegally collected from employee
Anaheim, CA (February 26, 2020) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a Disneyland stage technician has just won a settlement requiring International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) Local 504 union bosses to return fees they illegally collected from him, and inform employees who refrain from formal union membership of their right to pay a reduced amount of dues.
Stage technician Mark Stacy, who is not a member of the IATSE union, asserted his rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision. That decision requires unions to reduce the compulsory fees charged to workers who refrain from union membership so they are not forced to fund activities such as lobbying and political activism. The Beck decision additionally calls for union officials to provide nonmember workers an independently verified audit justifying the amount of the mandatory union fees.
Because California private-sector employees lack the protection of a Right to Work law, they can be fired for refusing to pay fees to a union. However, union officials can charge as a condition of employment only the part of dues Beck permits and must follow Beck procedures before seizing such forced union fees from workers who are not union members.
Stacy hit IATSE bosses with federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last July, asserting that they had illegally collected union dues from him and had not complied with Beck’s procedural requirements, including providing him with a valid and complete audit.
Now, as a result of the settlement, IATSE bosses will refund the money they collected from him. The settlement also orders union officials to “inform objecting nonmembers of the complete basis for [the] calculation of the percentage reduction in dues and fees” and not to “accept and retain dues which have been deducted” from Stacy “without his prior written authorization.” The settlement provides remedies for all of the rights violations Stacy had asserted in his original charge.
Foundation staff attorneys are also providing free legal aid to a Disney actress, 12-year-old Aundrea Smith, following her assertions that American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) union bosses’ are threatening to impose union “discipline” on her for acting in a nonunion commercial before she was even a member of SAG-AFTRA. Smith, who resigned her union membership last August, currently acts in “Diary of a Future President,” a series on Disney’s streaming service.
“Mr. Stacy dedicates his working life to making children’s dreams come true, and it’s outrageous that IATSE union bosses believed they could violate the most basic protections on his workplace rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While his victory is certainly good news, this case shows why California workers need the protections of a Right to Work law to ensure that union membership and financial support are voluntary, not coerced.”
Michigan Electrician Hits IBEW Union Bosses with Federal Charges for Illegal Retaliation for Working for His Wife’s Business
Union officials kept electrician in the dark about right to resign union membership, then demanded thousands in fines after he and wife rebuffed union contract demands
Detroit, MI (February 19, 2020) – A Michigan electrician is hitting International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 58 union bosses with federal charges for not telling him about his right to resign his union membership, and subsequently illegally fining him. The charges were filed with free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Charles Lanning had worked as an electrician for several different employers since early 2008, before joining his wife’s business in 2018. His charge reports that, though he was on IBEW membership rolls during that time period, IBEW agents had never informed him of his right to resign his union membership, or his right prior to the passage of Michigan’s Right to Work law to pay only the portion of union dues directly related to monopoly bargaining under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
Since March 2013, Michigan has had Right to Work protections for workers, which outlaw arrangements where union bosses can require workers to pay them a portion of their paychecks as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
Mr. Lanning’s charge recounts that he left a job with a contractor in March 2018 so he could work for his wife’s business, Homestead Enterprises of Michigan. After doing so, he called the IBEW Local 58 office to find out if he would still be required to pay any kind of fees to the union despite the fact that he “would not be seeking work through the union hiring hall for the foreseeable future.” IBEW officials told him that they would continue to demand quarterly dues from him, and again failed to apprise him that he had the right to resign his union membership completely and exercise his right under Michigan’s Right to Work law to stop all union payments. Because of this misinformation, Mr. Lanning continued to pay quarterly dues.
In September 2019, according to the charge, IBEW union bosses told Mr. Lanning in a text message that they needed to update him on the “contract changes making it possible for members to be contractors.” Mr. and Mrs. Lanning later sat for a meeting with IBEW bosses to discuss these supposed changes, during which the union bosses pressured Lanning’s wife to sign a contract which would force her to bargain with the IBEW union simply for hiring her husband.
Mrs. Lanning did not sign, and IBEW bosses subsequently informed Mr. Lanning that the IBEW had brought union disciplinary charges against him and that “we may forgive them if you decided to become signatory” to the contract. At the proceeding before a union tribunal to determine whether Mr. Lanning had violated the union’s constitution and bylaws, Mr. Lanning was told that “guys lose their retirement for doing this kind of thing” and that IBEW agents would “salt” his wife’s business. “Salting” is a deceptive union practice in which union organizers apply for jobs at nonunion companies with the intention of organizing the workers into monopoly union ranks or instigating costly and often frivolous legal action.
In addition to the threats against his retirement and his wife’s business, IBEW Local 58’s internal trial board convicted Mr. Lanning of violating union rules and demanded that he pay $10,000 in fines. Mr. Lanning’s charge argues that he was never a consensual member of the IBEW because he had never been told that membership was optional. Because his membership was never valid, the charge explains, all of the union-created disciplinary measures are flagrant violations of his rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects workers’ “right to refrain from” union activity.
“Michigan union bosses are shamelessly attacking a man for choosing to work alongside his wife all to expand their coercive power over individual workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This brazen behavior, combined with IBEW bosses’ long-running misinformation campaign against Mr. Lanning concerning his rights, are just one example of the continuing widespread corruption among Michigan union bosses that Foundation attorneys will continue to fight.”
Since Michigan’s Right to Work law became effective in March 2013, Foundation staff attorneys have brought over 120 cases for Michigan workers subjected to coercive union boss tactics.
West Virginia Supreme Court Hears Right to Work Case
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2020 edition. The West Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments in this case on January 15 and a decision is expected in the coming months. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation continues to defend all Right to Work laws against Big Labor attack
Forced-dues-hungry union bosses have been waging a legal battle to overturn West Virginia’s Right to Work Law since it was enacted in 2016. Foundation staff attorneys have been fighting back by filing amicus briefs in court.
CHARLESTON, WV – The West Virginia Supreme Court will hear arguments on January 15 in union bosses’ long-running case seeking to dismantle West Virginia’s Right to Work Law and restore their forced-dues powers over workers across the Mountain State. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have already filed multiple legal briefs in this case for West Virginia workers in defense of West Virginia’s Right to Work Law.
After Passage, Union Bosses Immediately Target West Virginia Right to Work Law
Last year, union lawyers relied on discredited legal arguments to convince Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge Jennifer Bailey to declare West Virginia’s entire Right to Work Law invalid. Union lawyers dubiously claim that West Virginia union bosses have a “right” to forced dues. Judge Bailey issued a similar ruling blocking the Right to Work law after the legislation was signed into law in 2016. The West Virginia Supreme Court overturned that decision, citing arguments made in briefs by Foundation staff attorneys. “Of course, union partisans never willingly accept the loss of forced dues,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “So now the issue is back at the state’s highest court.” If Big Labor’s lawsuit to overturn
West Virginia’s Right to Work Law succeeds, union bosses could have thousands of independent-minded workers across the state fired solely for refusing to subsidize union activities.
Foundation Files 10 Briefs to Protect Rights of West Virginia Workers
Foundation staff attorneys have filed 10 legal briefs in the multi-year case. The Foundation’s latest amicus brief was filed for West Virginia nursing home employee Donna Harper. Harper, like many other workers in West Virginia, chose not to pay dues or fees to union bosses, which is her legal right in a Right to Work state.
“Union bosses in West Virginia are intent on reclaiming their forced-dues power,” Mix said. “Big Labor is waging this protracted legal battle to return the Mountain State to a time when millions and millions of dollars in workers’ money were seized by union bosses to fill Big Labor’s coffers with forced dues.”
This case is the latest legal battle in the Foundation’s long history of effectively defending Right to Work laws in state and federal court from spurious attacks by Big Labor. Although federal law specifically authorizes states to pass Right to Work laws to protect workers from union boss coercion, union lawyers have repeatedly challenged these laws in an attempt to keep siphoning union dues and fees from workers’ paychecks.
Foundation Has Successfully Defended State Right to Work Laws Nationwide
In addition to West Virginia, Foundation staff attorneys have successfully pursued legal action in recent years to defend and enforce new Right to Work laws in Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Kentucky, all of which have passed Right to Work protections for employees in just the last seven years. In Michigan alone, Foundation staff attorneys have assisted employees in over 100 cases since Right to Work went into effect in early 2013.
Electrician Files Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Forced Union Fees
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Boston College and SEIU officials ignored reasonable request to accommodate religious beliefs
Boston College officials seized union fees from electrician Ardeshir Ansari’s paycheck at the behest of SEIU bosses, even after he had informed them that such fees violate his religious beliefs.
BOSTON, MA – In November, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a federal Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit for a Boston College electrician whose rights were violated by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in illegally demanding union fees. The lawsuit also names his employer, Boston College, for its role in the discrimination.
Ardeshir Ansari objects to supporting the union based on deeply held religious beliefs. Under the local SEIU’s monopoly bargaining agreement at Boston College, however, he was told that he must join or financially support the SEIU or be fired. To avoid being fired, Ansari unwillingly paid fees to the union in violation of his sincere religious beliefs.
On October 1, 2018, Ansari sent a letter to Boston College and the SEIU, informing them his religious beliefs conflict with joining or financially supporting the union. He asked that his union fees be diverted to charity instead of being sent to the union, an established remedy for such a conflict.
Instead of responding, the college continued to take a cut of his paycheck and send it to SEIU officials in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs.
In response, Ansari filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against college and union officials. The EEOC then determined that both Boston College and the SEIU had violated Title VII.
Last September, the EEOC gave Ansari a right-to-sue letter, which authorized him to file a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That federal law prohibits employers and unions from discriminating against an individual based on his or her religious beliefs.
In November, Foundation staff attorneys filed a lawsuit for Ansari against Boston College and the SEIU for illegally discriminating against him by failing to reasonably accommodate his religious beliefs, violating his rights under Title VII.
The lawsuit demands that college and SEIU local officials pay all fees deducted from Ansari’s paycheck to a charity mutually agreed upon and seeks damages for the emotional distress he suffered while his rights were violated for more than a year.
EEOC Found Religious Discrimination by SEIU
Moreover, the Title VII lawsuit asks the court to prevent the college from continuing to discriminate against his religious beliefs and that the union be required to inform workers that those with religious objections to the payment of union fees are entitled by law to pay those fees to a charity instead.
“Workers with sincere religious objections to joining or funding a union are legally protected from being forced to violate their conscience,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse. “No one should ever be forced to choose between keeping a job to provide for their family and violating their deeply held religious beliefs by supporting a union.”
“Right to Work laws protect workers like Mr. Ansari from this kind of discrimination. Under those laws, workers can stop paying union fees and resign union membership for any reason and thus avoid illegal religious discrimination,” added LaJeunesse.
