United Airlines Worker’s Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Forced Union Dues “Opt-Out” Scheme as Violation of First Amendment
Federal complaint: IAM union opt-out requirement to escape payment for union officials’ political activities violates Supreme Court’s Janus precedent
Austin, TX (May 23, 2019) – A United Airlines fleet service employee has filed a class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union challenging its requirement that he “opt-out” of paying for union officials’ political and ideological activities.
According to the complaint, which was filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the opt-out scheme violates workers’ rights under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and the First Amendment under the standard laid out in the landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision Janus v. AFSCME. The lawsuit contends that, under Janus as well as the 2012 Knox v. SEIU Supreme Court case – both of which were argued by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys – no union dues or fees can be charged beyond the maximum that can legally be required without a worker’s affirmative consent.
The employee, Arthur Baisley, is not a member of the IAM but is still forced to pay union fees. Despite being based in the Right to Work state of Texas, the Railway Labor Act pre-empts state Right to Work protections which make union membership and financial support strictly voluntary. However, under longstanding law even without Right to Work protections, nonmembers cannot be required to fund a union’s ideological activities such as lobbying and politics.
The lawsuit challenges the burdensome procedure IAM union officials created for workers seeking to exercise their right not to fund the “nonchargable” activities. The complaint lays out the convoluted union boss-created process that workers must jump through just to prevent dues from being taken in violation of their First Amendment rights.
Baisley’s experience with these requirements demonstrates how the opt-out procedure is used to violate workers’ rights by getting them to pay for union politics without their consent. Even though he sent a letter to IAM agents in November 2018 to object to funding all union political activities, the union officials only accepted his objection for 2019, and told Baisley he would be required to renew his objection to full dues and fees next year or else be charged for full union dues.
The complaint challenges this union-created policy on the grounds that it “require[s] employees to opt-out of paying union fees that they have no legal obligation to pay” and thus breaches workers’ First Amendment rights. The complaint also alleges that the IAM’s “opt-out requirement” violates the RLA, which governs labor in the air and rail industries and “protects the right of employees to ‘join, organize, or assist in organizing’ a union of their choice as well as the right to refrain from any of those activities.”
The class action lawsuit asks the court to strike down the op-out requirement not only as it is applied to Baisley, but also for his coworkers whose rights are similarly restricted by the IAM’s illegal policy. Union officials would then be required to get nonmember workers to give affirmative consent to paying for union boss activities beyond what nonmember workers can legally be required to subsidize under the RLA.
“For too long union bosses have enforced deliberately complicated opt-out requirements with the aim of trapping workers into paying for union boss politics despite the fact that, as nonmembers, they have already chosen not to affiliate with the union,” said National Right to Work President Mark Mix. “The case shows the far-reaching implications of the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME case, which ruled government unions must get public employees to affirmatively consent before funding a union because all speech directed at the government is inherently political.”
“This case simply seeks to apply the same legal standard to workers like Mr. Baisley who are subjected to mandatory union payments under the Railway Labor Act by requiring union officials to get workers to opt-in to the portion of dues that the union already admits is spent on ideological and political activities,” added Mix.
Stop and Shop Employee Files Second Charge Against UFCW After Union Officials Move to Impose Illegal Fines for Working During Strike
Union agents previously misinformed worker about his rights, and now seek to impose punitive strike fines in internal union kangaroo court
Northampton, Mass. (May 20, 2019) – Matthew Coffey, an employee of a Northampton, MA Stop & Shop, has filed a new unfair labor practice charge against the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) Local 1459. Coffey, one of thousands of Stop & Shop employees across New England who were ordered to strike by UFCW union officials in mid-April, added to his earlier charges against the union by alleging that UFCW officials have illegally moved to discipline him for exercising his right to continue to work during the strike.
The new charge points out Coffey had never been a voluntary union member and therefore cannot be subject to internal union discipline, a process in which union officials punish workers who defy their orders. In some instances, union officials have levied fines as high as tens of thousands of dollars against rank-and-file workers they claim to “represent.”
As the charge notes, Coffey had been misled by union officials into believing that Stop & Shop is a “closed shop” since the beginning of his employment in December 2017. He was thus coerced into joining the UFCW thinking that union membership was required to keep his job. It wasn’t until the April strike that he discovered that “closed shops” are illegal under federal law and that he had the right to refrain from formal union membership. Because of this he was never actually a voluntary member of the UFCW, a condition necessary for union discipline to be legally imposed.
Armed with this new knowledge, he filed his first charge against UFCW Local 1459 on April 17 with help from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation. That charge detailed the union misinformation regarding his legal right to refrain from union membership and resign before the strike. It also detailed harassment he received, including personal slurs, because he continued to work during the strike.
According to Coffey’s new charge, also filed with free legal aid from the Foundation, UFCW Local 1459 officials sent him a letter on April 30 which “inform[ed] him that he would be disciplined” for continuing to perform his job during the strike. The letter demanded that Coffey appear before a union tribunal on May 14 to defend himself from the disciplinary charges.
Because Coffey had never been informed of his right to refrain from union activities, his charge alleges that the proposed disciplinary action is a further breach of his rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
“This case shows that strikes ordered by Big Labor bosses often include violations of workers’ individual rights,” said National Right to Work President Mark Mix. “Matthew Coffey chose to exercise his right to work and support his family, and rather than respect that decision, UFCW bosses are doubling down on their illegal bullying.”
National Right to Work Foundation Publishes Special Legal Notice for Workers at St. Vincent Hospital
In response to inquiries from impacted employees, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has published a special legal notice for nurses and support staff ordered by United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials to go on strike at St. Vincent Hospital in Toledo, Ohio.
Workers interested in returning to work should read the notice before doing so to learn their their rights and protect themselves against attempts by union officials to levy punitive fines against workers who return to work.
St. Vincent’s nurses and support personnel should know they have the following rights:
1) You have the right to resign your membership in the union. If you don’t support this union, you can send the union a letter resigning your membership. A sample letter can be found HERE.
2) You have the right to go to work even if the union bosses order a strike. Union officials can (and often do) levy onerous monetary fines against union members who work during a strike. So, you should seriously consider resigning your union membership BEFORE you return to work during a strike, which is the only way to avoid these ruinous union fines and discipline. See Union Discipline and Employee Rights.
Your resignation letter must be postmarked THE DAY BEFORE you return to work, or hand delivered BEFORE you actually return to work. A sample letter is HERE.
3) You have the right to revoke your dues checkoff and stop paying dues during the period when there is no collective bargaining agreement in effect. You must send a letter to St. Vincents and the UAW to accomplish this. A sample letter is HERE.
4) You have the right to sign and circulate decertification petitions to change your bargaining representative. Information on this option can be found here.
5) If the UAW union officials ever sign a new contract with St. Vincent, you have the right to become a “Beck objector” and pay only reduced financial core fees instead of full membership dues. If you become a Beck objector, you will not be forced to pay for the UAW unions’ far left political and social agenda. Information about this option is found here.
According to the latest disclosure, the UAW admits that approximately 25% of its dues are spent on often controversial politics that you cannot legally be forced to pay.
Read the complete legal notice for St. Vincent Hospital nurses and support staff here.
The notice is note the only special legal notice recently issued in response workers needing to protect themselves from UAW officials’ actions.
The Foundation also recently published a special legal notice for autoworkers at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant informing them about their legal rights as UAW officials attempt to impose monopoly unionism on workers there. The special legal notice to Volkswagen employees, available in full here, summarizes these rights and notes that “workers not only have a right to learn information about the downsides of union affiliation, but also to share that information with their fellow team members”:
For example, UAW officials won’t want workers to learn about the many times UAW officials violated workers’ rights while enriching themselves, including in an ongoing federal corruption case that has already resulted in multiple top union officials going to jail. In fact, it the last ten years there have been 82 criminal enforcement actions against UAW officials by the U.S. Department of Labor and the Department of Justice for conspiracy to defraud, embezzlement, theft, knowledge of a conspiracy, and/or receiving prohibited payments.
Partially as a result of those violations, over the last 10 years the UAW’s reported total liabilities have increased to $115,925,262 as of 2018. Such financial desperation has led the UAW to violate federal labor law and Michigan’s Right to Work law, such as when it was caught red-handed forcing represented employees in Michigan, a Right to Work state like Tennessee, to pay dues against their will.
…
Get the facts before you sign your name on any UAW petition or decide to vote for the UAW officials in an election. Union officials cannot legally infringe on your rights to hear and disseminate information critical of the union and union officials.
You have the legal right to refrain from signing a union authorization card or voting for the UAW. You also have the legal right to rescind a union authorization card after it has been signed. Whether you wish to sign a union authorization card or vote for the UAW is completely up to you. It is unlawful for an employer or a union to threaten or coerce any employee in the exercise of these rights.
Workers can learn about their specific legal rights during a strike based on their industry by visiting the Foundation’s webpage: “What if I want to continue working during a strike?”
Call the National Right to Work Foundation at 800-336-3600 if you want to discuss your legal rights, or to request legal assistance. You can also use our free legal request form: https://www.nrtw.org/free-legal-aid
MA Supreme Court Hears Educators’ Challenge to Teacher Union’s Coercive Power
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union scheme violates teachers’ rights by blocking non-members’ voice and vote in workplace conditions
Veteran Foundation attorney Bruce N. Cameron argued at the Massachusetts Supreme Court on behalf of four educators challenging coercion from union bosses to join and support a union.
BOSTON, MA – Union officials offered four Massachusetts educators a “choice”: support union partisan politics or lose any voice and vote in their workplace conditions.
Instead of waiving their First Amendment right to refrain from supporting the union, the educators sought free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation to challenge union bosses’ coercion in court.
Earlier this year, veteran Foundation staff attorney Bruce N. Cameron delivered arguments at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, challenging as unconstitutional the state law that grants union officials the power of monopoly bargaining privileges which the union uses to compel support for partisan politics.
Forced Unionism: ‘Not What America Is About’
The four plaintiffs have exercised their right to refrain from union membership. Plaintiff Dr. Ben Branch is a finance professor. His colleague and fellow plaintiff, Dr. Curtiss Conner, is a chemistry professor, both at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Plaintiff Dr. Andre Melcuk is Director of Departmental Information Technology at the Silvio O. Conte National Center for Polymer Research at the University. Melcuk was born in the Soviet Union and opposes the union based on his dislike of collectivist organizations.
Melcuk compared his experience with the union with growing up in the Soviet Union, and noted that the expectation to “pick up the sign and march in step” with the union’s representation and political ideology was eerily similar.
“That’s creepy,” he said. “That is not what America is about.”
Plaintiff Deborah Curran is a long-term teacher in the Hanover Public Schools. The union officials who claim to “represent” her attempted to invalidate her promotion to a position mentoring new teachers and pushed to have her investigated and suspended. She ultimately spent nearly $35,000 of her own money battling union officials just to protect her job.
The educators argue that Massachusetts state law violates their First Amendment rights by granting union officials monopoly bargaining privileges, which are then used to gag non-members from having a voice and a vote in their working conditions.
Educators Ask Court to Declare Union’s Coercive Power Unconstitutional
In the June 2018 Janus victory, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that forcing any public sector employee to pay union dues or fees violates the First Amendment. The educators’ case points out that denying workers a voice in their workplace, unless they are union members, is another form of compulsion to support a union, and should be ruled a violation of the First Amendment.
“I would like everybody’s First Amendment rights to be protected against what I view as this intrusion on their right to free speech,” said Branch. “They’re trying to speak for me and they’re not speaking for me.”
“These are dedicated educators who are being forced to choose between losing their voice in the workplace or paying tribute to union bosses who clearly do not have their best interests in mind,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Although the Foundation-won Janus decision upheld public sector workers’ First Amendment right to choose whether or not to pay union fees, union officials still seek to twist workers’ arms into funding Big Labor’s coffers. A clear ruling is needed to uphold these educators’ right to refrain from union membership without fear of retaliation or coercion.”
Teamsters, Company Hit with Federal Charges for Illegally Having Minnesota Worker Fired for Refusing to Join Union
Case highlights need for Right to Work protections for Minnesota workers, to ensure union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary
Minneapolis, Minn. (May 16, 2019) – An ex-employee of CRH Companies Midwest Region, a building materials supplier, has filed unfair labor practice charges against the Teamsters Local 120 union and his former employer with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after being illegally fired. According to the charges, the worker was told – falsely – by both a Teamsters official and a company representative that he was required to join the union as a condition of employment.
James Connolly was first misinformed by union officials on April 2, when he inquired in an email to a Teamsters Local 120 Agent whether or not he would be compelled into joining the union as part of the job. The union’s reply came the same day, with an official wrongly telling Connolly, “Sorry James but yes you do have to join.” Later, on May 1, a representative of CRH Companies reiterated the same false information to Connolly. Connolly responded to the company in a May 9 email in which he expressed his desire not to join the Teamsters.
The next day, Connolly was fired in an email from his employer, specifically because he did not join the union. He then obtained free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, whose staff attorneys helped him file the NLRB unfair labor practice charges.
Minnesota is not a Right to Work state and thus allows unions to force nonmembers to pay some union fees as a condition of employment. However, all workers have a right not to formally join a union, and termination based on union non-membership is a clear violation of federal law.
Connolly’s charge also requests that the NLRB go to federal court and seek a “Section 10(j)” injunction against both the company and the Teamsters remedying the illegal termination.
“James Connolly is fighting for his rights against union boss bullies who have violated longstanding federal law,” said National Right to Work President Mark Mix. “While this termination is blatantly illegal, it also underscores the need for Minnesota workers to have the protection of a Right to Work law, which would ensure that union membership and financial support are completely voluntary, and at the sole discretion of each individual employee.”
California Labor Board Moves to Prosecute Operating Engineers Union Officials for Intimidation Tactics Against Dissenting Workers
Union boss demanded personal emails of Sacramento-Yolo District workers seeking information about holding a vote to remove the union from their workplace
Sacramento, Calif. (May 15, 2019) – The California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has found merit to unfair labor practice charges brought by three Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito & Vector Control District employees. Accordingly, PERB issued unfair labor practice complaints for all three employees against the Operating Engineers Local Union 3 (IOUE). According to the complaint, union officials illegally tried to obtain private correspondence of the employees concerning their right to remove the union from their workplace.
The employees, Brett Day, Ryan Wagner, and Mark Pipkin, were targeted by union officials after they discussed how to exercise their rights as workers under California’s Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), which guarantees public workers “the right to refuse to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations” and “the right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with the public agency.” Union agents requested from their employer all emails the three had sent containing the words or phrases “decertification,” “PERB,” “union,” “decertify,” “how to get rid of union,” “Public Employee Relations Board,” and “Meyers Milias Brown Act.”
The request came as IOUE officials sought to block a push for a decertification election, in which workers would vote in secret to determine whether a majority want to end the union’s monopoly representation. Under the National Right to Work Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME, the dissenting workers finally have the legal right to stop financial support of the union, but California law still forces the union on them as their monopoly bargaining agent.
Day, Wagner, and Pipkin defended themselves by obtaining free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys and filing charges with PERB. The workers’ charges argue that the union’s demand for employee emails contravenes the workers’ rights under MMBA and calls for the union to end all its illegal activities, acknowledge the violation of employee rights, and post notices to remind workers of their freedom to refrain from union activities.
Now the PERB has found merit in the employees’ charges that the union, by requesting emails, “interfered with employee rights guaranteed by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act in violation of section 3506 and thus committed an unfair labor practice.” Absent settlement, the PERB will move to prosecute the union for violating the workers’ legal rights.
“Operating Engineers union bosses are apparently so determined to stop workers from even holding a vote regarding union representation that they resorted to illegal intimidation tactics against the very workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As this case shows, even after the Janus decision recognized public workers’ legal right to stop subsidizing union activities, there remains much work to do to fully protect government employees from coercive union tactics.”
Labor Board Ruling: Michigan Teacher Union Officials Violated Employee’s Rights under Right to Work Law
In case brought by DeWitt school employee, MEA union ordered to stop illegal “window” policy blocking employees from ending dues payments
DeWitt, Michigan (May 10, 2019) – The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) has ruled in favor of a DeWitt public school employee and ordered the Michigan Education Association (MEA) teacher union and its local affiliate the DeWitt Educational Support Personnel Association (DESPA) to stop enforcing an illegal policy blocking workers from exercising their rights under Michigan’s Right to Work law.
The ruling is a victory for DeWitt Public Schools employee Kimberly Stepanski, who filed the case with free legal representation by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys after MEA and DESPA rejected her attempts to cut off union dues, using a union-created “window period” policy.
According to the ruling, the union-created “window period” scheme – which is designed to limit workers from stopping dues payments except for a brief, union-selected time period – violates Michigan’s Right to Work law. The ruling also requires MEA union officials to refund to Stepanski any dues money collected since her initial resignation and requires the union to notify other employees that the “window” policy is illegal.
Stepanski first learned of the union scheme after attempting to resign and cut off dues payments in November 2013, only to be told that she was forced to pay dues because she missed the union’s designated “window period.” Stepanski, who says she had never been informed of the union’s policy, later sent a series of emails to the union officials reaffirming her intent to exercise her right not be a union member and to not fund any union activities, as protected by Michigan’s Right to Work law for public employees.
The law, which doesn’t stop workers from voluntarily joining or paying dues to a union, forbids compelling “any public employee to…become or remain a member of a labor organization…or otherwise affiliate with or financially support a labor organization.” Despite that, MEA union officials rebuffed Stepanski’s requests, demanding that she continue paying dues because she had not submitted her resignation request during the “opt-out window.”
Stepanski, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, then filed a charge at MERC in 2014 challenging the coercive scheme. In the ruling issued last week, MERC determined that MEA and DESPA had illegally “reject[ed] [Stepanski’s] revocation of her financial obligation and restrict[ed] her right to resign her membership at will.” It ordered the unions to end the “window period” scheme, stop collecting dues or fees from any employee after he or she has resigned union membership, and refund to Stepanski any dues that they had illegally taken since her November 2013 resignation.
The order is another recognition of the ruling in Saginaw, a 2015 Foundation-won case where MERC first found “window period” schemes to violate Michigan’s Right to Work law. That case and others brought by Foundation staff attorneys have resulted in numerous refunds for money taken under the illegal “window period” scheme.
“Even after National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have filed more than 100 cases against unions for forced unionism abuses since Michigan passed its Right to Work law, union bosses continue to systematically violate the rights of the very workers they claim to represent,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Hopefully, rather than continue to fight to trap the rank-and-file into forced dues payments, Michigan union officials will finally accept that Right to Work is the law, and refocus their efforts on actually convincing Wolverine State workers to voluntarily choose union activities.”
Janus Victory Opens Door for Lawsuits Seeking Millions in Forced-Dues Refunds
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2018 edition.
Foundation staff attorneys assist public-sector employees in halting ‘opt-out’ schemes across the country
The Foundation’s Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME opened the door for several Foundation-litigated lawsuits seeking the return of union fees unconstitutionally seized from public sector workers.
WASHINGTON, DC – For years, union officials have been denying employee’s rights by using “opt-out” schemes, in which employees must take steps simply to refrain from paying for union activity they cannot legally be required to fund.
However, in the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision that freed public sector workers from compulsory dues, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that charging union fees is a violation of the First Amendment “unless employees clearly and affirmatively consent before any money is taken from them.”
That affirmation of workers’ rights has opened the door for thousands of employees to hold union officials’ accountable for coercive “opt-out” schemes, in which officials had required employees to take steps simply to protect their First Amendment rights.
The Foundation is providing free legal representation to government employees across the country in numerous cases seeking the return of fees seized without consent by union officials.
A group of Illinois home care providers is seeking the return of $32 million in union fees seized in a coercive scheme by SEIU officials. With free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, the providers took their case, Riffey v. Rauner, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Riffey v. Rauner is a continuation of the 2014 Foundation-won Supreme Court Harris v. Quinn case. In Harris, the Court ruled that a forced-dues scheme imposed by the state of Illinois, in which over 80,000 individual home care providers in Illinois were unionized and required to pay union fees, violated the First Amendment.
After the Supreme Court decision, the case was re-designated as Riffey v. Rauner and remanded to the District Court to settle remaining issues, including whether or not tens of thousands of providers who had never joined the union would receive refunds of the money SEIU officials seized without consent.
However, in June 2016, the District Court ruled that the SEIU did not have to repay the funds, despite the Supreme Court ruling declaring the scheme unconstitutional. Foundation staff attorneys appealed the case to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court’s ruling that, even though the workers never consented to their money being taken, they did not suffer First Amendment injury.
Earlier this year, Foundation staff attorneys asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear the case to clarify that taking fees from nonmembers without consent violates the First Amendment.
The day after Janus, the Court granted certiorari in Riffey, vacated the lower court’s ruling, and remanded the case to be reconsidered in light of the new protections against “opt-out” schemes.
“With the Supreme Court remanding Riffey, we are one step closer toward indicating the rights of the tens of thousands of victims, many of whom are family members
caring for disabled children in their own homes,” said Foundation President Mark Mix.
“Now, with the new protections for workers afforded by our landmark Janus v. AFSCME victory, it is critical to confirm that unions cannot require individuals to ‘opt out’ of union dues that they cannot be required to pay in the first place,” continued Mix. “Union officials are still using such ‘opt-out’ schemes nationwide to limit workers’ constitutional protections despite Janus’ clear ruling that those schemes are impermissible. Ultimately, the clear ruling by the Supreme Court on this issue must be enforced in the lower courts to ensure that individuals who never joined a union cannot be required to take affirmative steps simply to protect their First Amendment rights.”
Foundation attorneys are also seeking to halt an “opt-out” scheme in which SEIU officials seized millions of dollars in forced dues from thousands of California state employees.
The workers are challenging SEIU Local 1000 officials’ “opt-out” policy that required workers to affirmatively opt out of the portion of union fees that workers cannot be legally required to fund.
In 2015, a federal judge certified Foundation staff attorney W. James Young as the attorney for the entire class of more than 30,000 nonmembers who had been coerced since June 2013 into funding SEIU union officials through the scheme.
The case is pending in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of the claim. Hours after the Janus ruling declared that workers must provide affirmative consent to be charged union fees, Young notified the Court of Appeals of the decision’s relevance to Hamidi.
Unions have been on notice of the dubious legal grounds of its “opt-out” policy since the Foundation-won Knox v. SEIU Supreme Court decision in 2012, when the Court ruled in favor of a similar class of workers forced to pay union dues.
Because SEIU Local 1000 did not adjust its policy of forcing workers to opt-out of non-chargeable fees after Knox, the Janus decision means the union could be required to refund all fees seized since June 2013 from the more than 30,000 class members, an amount estimated to be well over $100 million.
“For years union bosses have violated the rights of public employees and seized billions of dollars in unconstitutional forced fees,” said Mix, “Now, armed with the Janus precedent, Foundation staff attorneys are seeking to force union officials to return those ill-gotten gains to the workers whose rights they violated.”
Original Janus Plaintiff Moves to Stop Union Lawsuit to Discriminate Against Non-Members
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2018 edition.
Union officials are attempting to counter Janus by expanding monopoly bargaining powers
Illinois state employee Brian Trygg seeks to intervene in a union official’s case to expand union boss power to discriminate against workers who exercise their Janus rights.
CHICAGO, IL – An Illinois civil servant has filed a motion to intervene in a union official’s
lawsuit seeking to circumvent the Janus ruling.
Brian Trygg is no stranger to union officials’ legal tactics. Trygg, an engineer at the Illinois Department of Transportation, spent seven long years in court fighting for his right to honor his religious conviction to remain unassociated with a union.
Trygg was an original plaintiff with Mark Janus in Janus v. AFSCME, but was removed from the case because he had secured religious accommodation as relief from forced union fees. Now, Trygg again seeks to hold union officials accountable in court for their misdeeds against non-members.
In anticipation of Janus, International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) lawyers filed a lawsuit seeking to expand union officials’ ability to use their government-granted monopoly bargaining powers to discriminate against workers who exercise their right to refrain from union membership and not pay union dues or fees.
Trygg came to Foundation staff attorneys for free legal assistance in filing his motion to intervene to protect his rights and the rights of all public employees under the Janus ruling.
The IUOE official’s lawsuit attempts to take advantage of IUOE’s legislative privilege to force its “representation” on all employees, even union non-members, in their bargaining unit while claiming it should also be free of longstanding legal doctrine prohibiting union officials from using their monopoly representation to discriminate against non-members and not represent non-members in union-controlled grievances.
Trygg seeks to intervene to urge dismissal of the IUOE case, or alternatively, to file an amicus curiae brief to support the state defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Acting on his beliefs, Trygg has exercised his right to refrain from union membership. If IUOE’s suit is successful, Trygg would continue to be unable to negotiate with his employer due to the union’s monopoly bargaining status, yet union officials would have the power to discriminate against him and ignore the legal doctrine known as “duty of fair representation.”
Trygg argues that Defendant Attorney General Lisa Madigan has failed to protect his interests, with legal representation “inadequate and bordering on malpractice.” Madigan also has opposed and criticized the Janus ruling and has taken action to limit its application to Illinois public employees.
IUOE officials appear to be calling for the overturn of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Steele precedent, a 1944 case that challenged union officials’ attempt to use their monopoly bargaining privileges to discriminate against black workers. The decision suggested that monopoly bargaining would be unconstitutional absent a legal limitation on union officials using their power to discriminate against the workers they choose to “represent.”
Trygg’s filings argue that, even if the union’s claims were valid, the solution would be eliminating union monopoly bargaining powers over non-members, not giving union officials wider berth to discriminate against those who exercise their First Amendment rights protected by the Janus decision.
“The root of Big Labor’s coercion has always been its government-granted power to impose its so-called ‘representation’ on workers who don’t want it and never asked for it,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ultimately, if union bosses find their obligation not to discriminate against non-members under their ‘representation’ so burdensome, they can simply relinquish their government-granted monopoly bargaining powers over nonmembers like Brian Trygg.”
After More Than Twenty-Eight Years of Litigation, Independent-Minded Workers Prevail
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2018 edition.
Foundation-assisted couple forces union to settle case over illegally seized dues
Photo By: University of Minnesota Institute of Advanced Studies
Sherry and David Pirlott filed charges against union officials on November 8, 1989 — the day before the Berlin Wall began to be demolished — but enforcing their rights would take longer than tearing down one of the most visible symbols of the Cold War.
GREEN BAY, WI – The day before the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989, Sherry and David Pirlott filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Teamsters Local 75 union hierarchy for keeping them in the dark about their rights and how union officials were spending their forced union dues
Following nearly three decades of litigation between National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys and union lawyers at both the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Pirlotts’ rights were finally vindicated.
Before the legal battle began, Sherry Pirlott was a Teamsters local 75 union steward at the Schreiber Foods cheese company
“It was very clear from the beginning that the other union stewards did things for the betterment of the union, not for the betterment of the workers,” she later recounted. “I just did what I thought was right, and the other stewards didn’t like that one bit.”
After union goons threatened her with bodily harm for refusing to toe the line, Sherry decided to stop financially supporting the union hierarchy. Teamsters Local 75 union officials then sued her in small-claims court to force her to pay for union activities. Unable to find a local attorney in Green Bay willing to take on union lawyers, she was forced to defend herself. The judge refused to hear her arguments and quickly awarded judgment to the Teamsters.
That’s when Sherry discovered the National Right to Work Foundation’s free legal aid program — and learned about her rights under a United States Supreme Court decision Foundation staff attorneys had just won.
In the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1988 that workers have the right to refrain from joining a union and subsidizing union activities unrelated to monopoly bargaining and contract administration, such as politics and member-only events.
Teamsters Local 75 union officials never informed the Pirlotts or their coworkers of their rights under Beck. Once they learned of these rights, Sherry and David Pirlott, also an employee at Schreiber Foods, resigned from formal union membership and objected to paying for nonchargeable union expenses. Providing only sketchy financial disclosure of the union’s expenses, Teamster union officials told the Pirlotts that only 1.1 percent of the union’s expenditures were for non-bargaining activities.
On November 8, 1989, with free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, the Pirlotts filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB. Nearly two years later, the NLRB General Counsel found merit to the charges and issued a complaint against the union for failing to inform workers of their Beck rights, providing inadequate financial disclosure, and charging objecting workers for expenditures incurred beyond their own bargaining unit.
In 1992, an administrative law judge issued a mixed ruling, and both the Pirlotts and the union appealed to the full NLRB. That’s when the outrageous delays began.
After more than six years of inaction by Bill Clinton’s NLRB, Foundation staff attorneys filed a rare mandamus petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to order the Board to issue a decision. Under mounting pressure form this legal action, the Clinton Labor Board finally acted on the case in September 1999. However, they simply sent the case back to an administrative law judge to determine whether the union could force the Pirlotts to pay for union organizing at other workplaces.
In the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Ellis v. Railway Clerks, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such expenses are not chargeable to non-members under the Railway Labor Act. Unfortunately, even though in Beck the Court ruled that the Railway Labor Act and the National Labor Relations Act are “statutory equivalents,” the judge in December 2001 ruled that Teamster union bosses could charge the Pirlotts to subsidize union organizing campaigns anywhere in the private sector.
The Pirlotts again appealed to the full NLRB. With no decision for four and a half years, Foundation staff attorneys filed a second mandamus petition and successfully convinced the D.C. Circuit to order the NLRB to respond in 2006. Unable to meet the November 30 deadline, the NLRB asked the D.C. Circuit for more time. When the NLRB finally issued a decision two months later, it failed to hold all union organizing expenditures nonchargeable under Ellis and Beck. Moreover, the Board overlooked the inadequacy of the union’s financial disclosure, so the Pirlotts appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit.
On April 18, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling. It declined to address the argument that objecting non-members can never be charged for organizing activities and remanded the case back to the NLRB to consider the adequacy of the union’s financial disclosure. The NLRB then sat on the case for the next seven years with little action.
The NLRB in March 2017 finally held that the Teamsters Local 75 union officials provided insufficient financial disclosure. Following this victory for the Pirlotts, settlement negotiations dragged on for nearly another year. Eventually, after Wisconsin’s Right to Work Law became operative at Schreiber Foods in January 2018, the union agreed to reimburse the Pirlotts with interest and post notices informing workers of their rights under Beck. Further, because of Wisconsin’s Right to Work Law, David Pirlott, who still works at Schreiber Foods, is finally free from any payments to the union bosses that fought to violate his rights for decades.
“With the help of NLRB bureaucrats, Teamster union bosses fought tooth and nail for nearly three decades to try to keep every last cent of the Pirlotts’ forced fees,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Pirlotts’ lengthy legal battle to enforce their rights despite the NLRB’s repeated delays demonstrates that Right to Work laws are the only way to truly protect independent-minded workers.”
